Roles
Project coordination lead, design researcher, interviewer, engagement strategy & implementation
In collaboration with
Jonas Voigt and Daye Hwang
Synopsis
Human Instinks is a transdisciplinary, design-led research practice which asks "how we might investigate our relationship to the sensory, physical environments, spaces, bodies at various scales and how knowledge gained could be used to regain a sense of connection in a time of virtual presence?" We investigate this question in order to improve professional team meetings.
Meeting (current state) vs. Meeting (preferred state)
“If we want to change our thinking, we have to change our tools.”
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
Art, Media & Technology Team
Art, Media & Technology Team
Online Meeting
International Remote Company
International Remote Company
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 nonconscious 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.
The Nonconscious as explained by N. Katherine Hayles, Duke University
"Match the vibe of the thinking to the vibe of the space?"
Phase 1: In-Person Meeting
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.
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
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”
Our new line of inquiry asked: 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?
Meeting 2: With Intervention
Could something that physically connects also emotionally connect the participants of the meeting? We decided to keep this simple, exploring 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.
A quantitative analysis revealed:
Increase of laughter 42 times
35 times more verbal exchanges and personal stories
Moments of collective joy raised to 5 times
Meeting 2 with design intervention: hands are tied together around the table, laptops are closed
What we found:
● Lack of active engagement
(besides boss)
● Boss is the only one gesturing
● Boss is constantly surveying
while others look on their
screens
(besides boss)
● Boss is the only one gesturing
● Boss is constantly surveying
while others look on their
screens
What we observed:
● non-verbal
● interpersonal
● unconscious
● behaviors
● interpersonal
● unconscious
● behaviors
Metrics Meeting 1
Laughter 15 times
Someone touched a Water Bottle 12 times
Someone touched a Laptop/Notebook 34 times
Contributions & Comments 81 times
Someone touched a Water Bottle 12 times
Someone touched a Laptop/Notebook 34 times
Contributions & Comments 81 times
General Excitement 2 times
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.
Mapping of the interview responses by question
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?
Sketches from interviews about connections amongst the people on the team
