The cards are open to be used in a variety of ways. Here are some use cases of how other researcehrs have used the cards to give you some inspiration how you might work visually with the cards. Examples include both the virtual cards (used online on a Miro board) and the printed paper cards.
Mapping the Field
In this use case, a group of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) researchers used two axes to map how the field of HCI is responding to the question. This was done with the virtual cards on a Miro board.
In a first step, they selected a subset of questions they felt particularly relevant and important to them. Then, they discussed each question in turn, documenting the discussion with sticky notes they added to each card. Finally, they placed along the two axes. The horizontal axis indicates how well HCI is acting on this question (from “HCI sucks at it” to “HCI does it well”. The vertical axis indicates how visible the topic is in the community (from “HCI doesn’t talk about it” to “HCI talks about it a lot”).
This group felt that HCI is acting well in response to and talking much about questions co-governance and participation, cultural and artistic practices, and social justice. Topics of ease of use, emissions, mutual learning, energy and materials, adaptability and repurposing, and regenerative business practices are talked about (in descending order) but HCI is only acting upon it in a mediocre way. Finally, robustness, climate impact, and appropriateness of technologies are neither talked about nor acted upon well enough.
In this use case, a group of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) researchers used a circular space explore connections between different sustainability aspects. This was done with the virtual cards on a Miro board.
In a first step, they placed the cards that they deemed relevant and important. They then discussed the cards, moved them around, drew connection lines and added sticky notes with comments, further questions, or criticism.
This group contrasted HCI’s economic, technological, and political impact on policies and regulations, long-term use, freedom of expression, and transparent governance with cultural questions of diversity and belonging and respect for traditions and positive visions of potential futures. The group particularly explored the notion of “belonging” and its relation to kinship and nationalism and the limits of sustainable change under capitalism. Further connections and contrasts were drawn between solidarity and difference. For this group, the social justice card was at the core of sustainability, which is connected to mutual learning, purpose and meaning, mental and physical health, gender, generations, safety, and social benefit.
Expanding the Question
In this use case, a group of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) researchers selected a single card from the deck to unpack it further. This was done virtually on a Miro board.
The group selected the “How does our research promote social justice?” card as being central to sustainability and HCI. The then unpacked the words “our” and “research” in this question and put sticky notes for each sub-question next to the card.
For this group, “our” (or “we”) can include supervisors, their research groups, universities, research communities, funders, and industry partners (righthand side on the screenshot) . And “research” includes their ontologies, epistemologies, methods, data practices, research questions, citation practices, publication formats, review practices, norms and traditions, networks, word choices, research and development (and intellectual property) development, impact measures, and collaborations.
This use case shows that the term “our research”, which features on all cards can be understood in variety of ways and it might be beneficial groups using the cards to clarify what they mean by this expression before attempting to answer the question.