Research Challenge

The overarching goal of the research challenge is to foster reflection about research methods in Human-Computer Interaction.

You’ll address this in teams of 4 to 5 members.

The specific challenge is to design the research work package for a Hypothetical Research Project (HRP).  The overall aim of the HRP is to devise and evaluate a radically new ICT-based approach for empowering and motivating people in need of guidance and care due to age-related conditions, in cooperation with their carers where relevant, and to help them improve and maintain their independence, functional capacity, health status as well as preserving their physical, cognitive, mental and social well-being.

During the week each team will:

  • [Day 1] Define a scenario depicting your vision of what this ICT-based approach could be
  • [Day 2] Draft a first version of the RWP supporting the design and evaluation of such ICT based approach using quantitative methods
  • [Day 3] Draft another version of the RWP using qualitative methods
  • [Day 4] Put together a final version of the RWP using a mixed-methods approach
  • [Day 5] Present and defend the final version of the RWP

Each team will work on one of two topics:

  • [A] A system that promotes social participation
  • [B] A system that caters for physical well-being

The overall challenge of these tasks is to come up with the optimal research agenda that would satisfy criteria of research duration (3-4 years), size (2-5 researchers working on that full-time), minimal risks (no results, false conclusions) and ethical considerations.

Interim results are freeform. Final presentation and report to be made available in your group’s folder on Google Drive, preferably using Google Slides and Google Documents.

Initial resources:

  • Selinger, E., & Whyte, K. (2011). Is there a right way to nudge? The practice and ethics of choice architecture. Sociology Compass, 5(10), 923-935.
  • Blumenthal-Barby, J. S., & Burroughs, H. (2012). Seeking better health care outcomes: the ethics of using the “nudge”. The American Journal of Bioethics, 12(2), 1-10.