Roles: Project Coordination Lead, Design Researcher, Interviewer, Engagement strategist & Implementation
Collaboration with: Jonas Voigt and Daye Hwang
Human Instinks is a transdisciplinary, design-led research practice where I served as a project coordination lead and design researcher. My role focused on investigating our relationship to sensory and physical environments, exploring how we might reconnect in an era of increasing virtual presence.
My Key Contributions
1.) Led project coordination and design research efforts
2.) Designed and implemented engagement strategies
3.) Conducted in-depth interviews to explore human-environment interactions
4.) Developed research methodologies to analyze sensory experience and connection
Research Focus
I supported critical qualitative research efforts aimed at understanding how professional team meetings could be reimagined to foster deeper human connection. My work involved designing comprehensive research approaches, facilitating stakeholder engagement, and synthesizing complex insights about interpersonal and spatial dynamics.
I supported critical qualitative research efforts aimed at understanding how professional team meetings could be reimagined to foster deeper human connection. My work involved designing comprehensive research approaches, facilitating stakeholder engagement, and synthesizing complex insights about interpersonal and spatial dynamics.
Methodological Approach
My research required meticulous attention to detail, strong cross-cultural communication skills, and the ability to translate nuanced observational data into strategic recommendations. By leveraging design research techniques, I helped our team develop innovative frameworks for understanding human interaction in both physical and virtual spaces.The project sought to address fundamental questions about human connection, sensory experience, and environmental interaction at multiple scales, with a particular emphasis on transforming professional collaboration practices.
My research required meticulous attention to detail, strong cross-cultural communication skills, and the ability to translate nuanced observational data into strategic recommendations. By leveraging design research techniques, I helped our team develop innovative frameworks for understanding human interaction in both physical and virtual spaces.The project sought to address fundamental questions about human connection, sensory experience, and environmental interaction at multiple scales, with a particular emphasis on transforming professional collaboration practices.
“If we want to change our thinking, we have to change our tools.”
Meeting (current state) vs. Meeting (preferred state)
Engagements
Previous investigations have been in contexts of work, specifically in in-person meetings with an Art, Media, and Technology team and in an organization-wide online meetings of a virtual work-team environment at an international remote company.
In-Person Meeting (Phase 1)
Art, Media & Technology Team
Art, Media & Technology Team
Online Meeting (Phase 2)
International Remote Company
International Remote Company
Theory of the Non-Conscious
by N. Katherine Hayes, Duke University
Non-conscious (apposed to "unconscious") cognition happens seconds before consciousness. It's inaccessible to consciousness, but performs essential activities.
It is critical to keep consciousness from being overwhelmed. Consciousness would not be able to cope with the information flooding the brain without non-consciousness cognitive processes.
It makes results accessible to consciousness or suppresses them - reverberating circuits. It can forward its results to consciousness.
The Non-conscious as explained by N. Katherine Hayles, Duke University
The theory that informed our design interventions
Sensory Methods of Group Connection: Two Case Studies
Our research methods are non-traditional, innovative, and oriented towards the human work meeting experience. Leveraging the non-conscious by tweaking the team’s sensory environment in ways that foster connection. The aim is to better understand how to better utilize the unique sensory abilities of human individuals and groups to improve overall connection.
Phase 1: In-Person Meetings
"Match the vibe of the thinking to the vibe of the space?"
During an internal meeting, we experienced a feeling of process-paralysis. Leaving the small dark room to think outside helped us to explore how unconscious, emotional and non-verbal influences allowed us to think differently.
How might elements of your sensorial experience influence our behaviors, emotions and attention? How does media (or tools) impact our ability to sense broader connection? Is there a loss of human instinct through a notion of disconnectedness between cognition and behavior?
Initial interviews
Our collaboration with the Art, Media Technology team began with discussions about their meetings, which were described as un-engaging, time-consuming, and unproductive. Initial interviews confirmed these perceptions, highlighting a general sense of mundanity and routine.
Research Process diagram
Meeting 1
To minimize observer bias, we conducted unobtrusive video and audio observations of the meeting. Two cameras and a microphone were discreetly placed in the room an hour before the start, and participants gave consent.
The first camera, positioned overhead, captured overall group dynamics, while the second, near an existing webcam, focused on facial expressions. Afterward, we analyzed the recordings, noting individual behaviors like laughter, water usage, technology interactions, and speaking frequency.
Our findings
1.) A lack of active engagement beyond the manager, who dominated the physical space and frequently surveyed the room
2.) Team members exhibited non-verbal cues, limited interaction, and unconscious fidgeting.
Animation of manager's gaze (represented by the blue line) and when participants touched technology (circles)
To enhance understanding, we animated the recordings to track technology usage and the manager's gaze. These observations provided valuable insights into the meeting's dynamics, facilitating data visualization and further discussion.
What we found:
● Lack of active engagement (besides the boss)
● Boss is the only one gesturing
● Boss is constantly surveying while others look at their screens
● Boss is the only one gesturing
● Boss is constantly surveying while others look at their screens
What we observed:
● non-verbal
● interpersonal
● unconscious
● behaviors
● interpersonal
● unconscious
● behaviors
Follow-up Interviews
To validate our assumptions and gain deeper insights, we conducted semi-structured interviews with each participant. We focused on the meeting's purpose, barriers, strengths, and ideal state. Participants were also asked to map their relationships within the group.
By analyzing these interviews, we visualized underlying group dynamics, confirming some initial assumptions. The resulting relationship graph, based on employment duration and roles, revealed varying levels of connection among team members.
interview sketches of group dynamics in the team
Sketches from interviews about connections amongst the people on the team
Semi-Structured Individual Interviews
We interviewed each member of the team individually, asking them to sketch and talk about the team's strongest connections. Then we asked about their experience and about their ideal state if they were to improve the meeting. Then we mapped their responses and compared their sketches.
Interview questions
● What is the purpose of the meeting?
● What are the barriers preventing the achievement of the purpose?
● Positives - What’s working?
● What is the ideal state, if you were to have a meeting your way?
● What are the barriers preventing the achievement of the purpose?
● Positives - What’s working?
● What is the ideal state, if you were to have a meeting your way?
Mapping of the interview responses by each question
Our analysis of the semi-structured interviews focused on the four key areas: purpose, barriers, positives, and ideal state.
Initial findings highlighted 'sharing' as a primary meeting purpose, with 'participation' as an ideal state but rarely mentioned as a barrier. Identified barriers included structure, technology, individual focus, and fear of asking questions.
Further analysis revealed additional barriers: unequal speech time, lack of connection, and limited technology use. These findings suggested that while participation and sharing are valued, underlying barriers may be hindering their realization.
Efficiency, mentioned only twice, was not a shared purpose, contrary to our initial assumption. Group connection and sharing emerged as the primary goals.
Our final analysis revealed a disconnect between 'group' and 'professional' elements, with negative associations. Conversely, 'human wisdom' and 'non-tool skills' were seen as ideal and purposeful. Personal, intimate, and individual interactions were less emphasized but were later observed to foster positive group dynamics through laughter.
The first meeting's key insight was the discrepancy between the ideal of participation and its lack of identification as a barrier. Unequal participation was evident.
mapping research & analyzing insights
“Most people don’t want to know they’re interconnected. Acknowledging interconnectedness is too much of a burden. It requires that we take responsibility for noticing how we affect other people, that we realize how our behaviors and choices impact others, even at a distance.”
Sarah Shulman: “Gentrification Of The Mind”
New Lines of Inquiry:
What are the unconscious, ambient ways in which design supports this distance/dishonesty/lack of presence?
What are the invisible rules that govern this meeting?
How might we adjust the senses to unconsciously adjust the way we relate to each other?
How might we introduce an auto-ethnographic tool to allow self-reflection and participation to explore a shared personal experience and connect it to the wider context of cultural, political, and social meanings and understandings?
Proposed Intervention: Tie the participants' hands together
Hypothesis: This will increase the feeling of "connectedness" of the team & improve engagement
Metrics Meeting 1
1.) Laughter: 15 times
2.) Someone touched a Water Bottle: 12 times
3.) Someone touched a Laptop/Notebook: 34 times
4.) Contributions & Comments: 81 times
5.) Moments of collective joy: 2 times
Metrics Meeting 2
1.) Increase of laughter: 42 times
2.) More verbal exchanges and personal stories: 35 times
3.) Moments of collective joy: 5 times
Meeting 2: With Intervention
Could something that physically connects also emotionally connect the participants of the meeting?
Inspired by Alan Wexler's quote, we explored a literal connection by connecting soft rubber bands, knotting them together and connecting the wrists of each participant to the larger string. Each participant could feel the gentle actions of the others.
The result was an increase in gestures of each individual, more eye contact, more general arousal and laughter. Laughter was louder and in comparison to the first meeting, the manager didn’t make large gestures, what could be called a “leveling” effect.
Meeting 2 with design intervention: hands are tied together around the table, laptops are closed
Phase 2: Virtual Meeting Space
Research Process Diagram
Our research process involved a multi-step nonlinear Agile progression, including:
1.) Participant observations of an All Team Call (ATC)
2.) Semi-structured interviews with leadership
3.) Facilitated drawing exercise to understand current and ideal connective states in a second ATC plus a photographic artifact share
4.) Paired interviews with all team members
5.) Data analysis
6.) Insight development
7.) Proposed experiments (both to leadership and all team members)
Initial Observations
We noted a few initial understandings about the ATC situation:
1.) Silence was labeled as "unproductive" and there was an effort to fill the silence each time during the ATC.
2.) People were muted most of the ATC which made the leadership nervous not receiving immediate feedback.
3.) The meeting was highly structured, allowing little space for emergence of unplanned conversations.
Every year the team has an in-person retreat where people are able to connect, but beyond this, there is no place to feel connected to others on the team. This is because each team works in isolation and seems mostly external facing.
The team was energized in the meeting most around the issue of the upcoming retreat and it was the moment with the most participation.
While teams seem to be comfortable in their own small teams and the virtual doesn’t seem to be a problem, it becomes a barrier in larger groups where most people haven’t had a chance to connect 1:1.
There was a need for structure to allow people to feel safe enough to know when to contribute and to feel that they are moving towards the goal of being more efficient as a team.
Second Observation
In a second ATC observation, we had a different approach. We had the team sketch what the feeling of the current ATC was and how they might depict the ideal ATC feeling.
Images from the drawing exercise
Semi Structured Interviews
Our semi-structured interviews with the paired team members evolved as we conducted them and reflected on how they might be more effective in getting at the perceptions of the members about the overall connectivity of the organization, on a personal and productive level.
We were also aware very early on that our presence was part of an intervention already - our simply being there would affect how the members viewed and reacted to their situation and perhaps have an overall effect on the team dynamics.
Leadership's previous efforts
A "Water Cooler" structure where they had a designated online hangout place, but it wasn’t utilized by the team.
A buddy system (which was more successful) that was framed as something useful to team dynamics and work culture.
Insights
1.) Video is preferred for connection and is used more often, but more intense for energy.
2.) There is a clear attention to time when the team is online. No time to just not do anything and chat without being conscious of “productivity”.
3.) They said there is more exertion on larger calls and a different kind of awareness.
4.) Each member had different ideas about what work style they prefer during the call, one prefers listening and the other prefers to push forward and be efficient with time.
5.) Several people mentioned tendency to automatically visualize faces/spaces of speakers during ATCs.
6.) A particularly descriptive quote from one of the participants was: “Sometimes I leave feeling like an Android pretending to be human saying all the things that a human is supposed to say”
7.) Everything said during ATCs is thoughtful and planned.
Design questions
How can we design environments that shift our senses, to shift our feelings, to shift our attention in order to better connect with others?
How might we engage the body to allow for a more connected experience virtually?
How might we connect with others from the inside out?
Design Proposals
Proposed Strategies for Improved Feelings of Connection in Virtual Teams
Shared tools — grounding abstract thoughts through tangible tools
Shared emotions — grounding abstract connection through emotional sharing
Shared sensory space — sharing non-conscious spatial, auditory, sensory elements of connection
Importance to greater work culture
Beyond the significance of our research to two teams that we worked with, we see that Human Instinkz shifts the focus of team meetings to ones that consider new ways of thinking about the sensory possibilities which might aid in connection and engagement.
We believe that the larger implications of our research would challenge “normal” notions of team meetings to ones that consider each member’s sensory experience not as a trivial detail, but as an affordance for more humanness to the workplace and greater connections among the people that work there.
