Content uploaded by Ella Hafermalz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ella Hafermalz on Mar 22, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Australasian Conference on Information Systems Seymour & Hafermalz
2016, Wollongong Conceptualising Presence in Human-Computer Engagement
1
Hello Computer: Towards a Research Agenda for
Conceptualising “Presence” in Human-Computer
Engagement
Michael Seymour
Business Information Systems
University of Sydney
Sydney, Australia
Email: mike.seymour@sydney.edu.au
Ella Hafermalz
Business Information Systems
University of Sydney
Sydney, Australia
Email: ella.hafermalz@sydney.edu.au
Abstract
Technological developments are bringing interactive computer agents, such as Apple’s Siri, into our
everyday lives and routines. These interactive agents are designed to be the focus of our interactions –
we can feel “present” with them. Yet current theories of “presence” in IS do not account for the question
of what it means to be present with technology in an experiential sense. In response we draw on
existential philosophy in order to generate a research agenda for conceptualising presence in the context
of what we term human-computer engagement. We suggest that research from this new perspective
requires focusing on the situated interaction rather than an a-priori assessment of the entities involved.
We conclude by considering the ethical questions that emerge when technology is experienced as being
an independent agent with which one can be present.
Keywords presence, co-presence, existentialist philosophy, IS theory, interactive agents,
conversational avatars
Australasian Conference on Information Systems Seymour & Hafermalz
2016, Wollongong Conceptualising Presence in Human-Computer Engagement
2
1 Introduction
Information Systems (IS) scholars have demonstrated an interest in the concept of “presence”
(Altschuller & Benbunan-Fich, 2013; Riemer, Klein, & Frößler, 2007; Schultze, 2010). Usually, IS
research on presence investigates how people who are not physically co-located can use technology to
replicate the experience of being present with another person. To this end, the emphasis tends to be on
how technology can facilitate natural communication between two parties who are geographically
distant from one another. Terms associated with such research in IS and related literature include co-
presence (Subramaniam, Nandhakumar, and Baptista John 2013), social presence (Sallnäs 2005), and
telepresence (Li 2015). Presence in such contexts is often theorised as occurring when an “illusion” is
created, by technology, in which the brain is tricked into thinking it is somewhere where the body is not
( Lee 2004; Lombard and Ditton 1997; Schultze, 2010).
While this literature on presence has played an important role in investigating the experience of
historically novel IS phenomena such as virtual work, there is increasingly a need to consider the
complexity of how we relate to others in technologically mediated ways. Specifically, in this paper we
identify a need to develop IS theories of presence in such a way that we can account for the emergence
of technologies such as interactive computer agents (e.g. Apple’s Siri), where technology is not only a
means for becoming present with another person, but in some circumstances becomes the focus of our
“presencing” efforts (Hafermalz and Riemer, 2016).
By this we mean that there are technological developments, specifically in the Human Computer
Interaction (HCI) domain, where a virtual agent is designed to be a person’s interactant. That is, some
new technologies are expected to instil in the human the sense that a conversational agent is present
with them. Inspired by such emergent phenomena, in this paper we outline an agenda that begins to
recognise as a research issue not only presence that is achieved by humans using technology (human-
(technology)-human interaction), but also the issue of being-with technology in the sense that one feels
present with a technological agent. The research agenda we develop in this paper creates a clearing and
conceptual ground from which we can begin to ask the intriguing research question: what does it mean
to be present with technology?
We don't provide answers to this question, rather we show why it is important. In building to a
conceptual basis that will support the pursuit of the question of human-computer engagement, we first
offer a theoretical and empirical grounding of existing investigations into the notion of presence in IS
and HCI literature. We categorise these investigations and show how borrowing from other domains,
specifically existential philosophy, can enrich the current discussion and provide a basis from which to
begin researching the phenomenon of being present with technology.
In putting forward a research agenda for the emergent phenomenon of interactive computer agents, we
suggest drawing on alternative philosophical and methodological ground, which requires that the
researcher does not begin by fixing a-priori what the entities involved in interaction are. We propose
instead, by drawing on interdisciplinary literature, that starting with the interaction between computer
and human we are able to focus on a qualitative understanding of presence in emerging research
contexts. We argue that by starting with the interaction as the phenomenon of interest, we can then in
a sense work backwards and start to understand inductively how this interaction shapes the actors
involved. In this sense, we are suggesting a rethinking of conceptual approaches to HCI phenomena.
The paper is structured as follows. We look at the context of presence in IS research and the conventional
theories in this area. We explore the issues of human and computer interaction through the lens of two
modalities, exchange and engagement. In the exchange mode, we show that it is often assumed that the
relationship between two interactants involves a sequential exchange supported by technology. In the
engagement mode, we emphasise an involved sense of mutual transformation, where the interaction is
primary to the constitution of both parties. We argue that in traditional cognitivist views of presence,
technology stands apart from its use. Recognising that there is a contemporary blurring of the lines
between human and computer interaction, we argue that there is a need to reexamine our assumptions
of the computer as standing apart from interaction. We offer two examples Artificial Intelligence (AI) in
email interactions and advanced Augmented Reality (AR) conversational agents or Avatars. We discuss
the resulting research agenda and the implications of this reconfigured approach for future research.
Australasian Conference on Information Systems Seymour & Hafermalz
2016, Wollongong Conceptualising Presence in Human-Computer Engagement
3
2 Context: Presence in Information Systems Research
In much of the research currently published in Information Systems and related fields, such as
Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW) studies, “presence” that involves technology is
implicitly or explicitly compared with presence that is co-located and unmediated (Al-Ani, Horspool, &
Bligh, 2011; Ishii & Watanabe, 2009; Karis, Wildman, & Mané, 2016; Li, 2015; Sallnäs, 2005). We locate
in prominent literature in this field an assumption that face-to-face interaction between physically co-
located people is the ideal, which technologies are trying to in some way imitate or replicate (e.g. Karis
et al., 2016). In such literature, the word “illusion” is frequently used (see definitions in Schultze, 2010)
to express how technology can act as a “disembedding mechanism” that is capable of removing the user
from time and space, enabling their perceptual transportation into another realm (Majchrzak and
Malhotra 2013), where it is possible to interact with other persons.
In the following we argue that such a conceptualisation of presence in IS research comes from a well-
founded interest in phenomena such as virtual work. Likely inspired by the coining of the term
telepresence by Minsky in 1980 (Lee 2004), IS and CSCW theorising has focused on how technology can
support the sense in which two people can feel as though they are present virtually with one another,
even when they are physically not present together (Devine & Filos, 2001; Karis et al., 2016). We
acknowledge this lineage while also drawing attention to the way in which this theorising carries certain
assumptions about what it means to be present together and how technology fits into human-computer
interactions. We later consider how these assumptions may get in the way of theorising emergent
phenomena in IS and in HCI more specifically. We apply this analysis in the context of the phenomenon
of being present with a virtual avatar through interaction.
2.1 Conventional presence phenomena and theorising
Conventional theorising around presence in virtual work literature often conceptualises presence as
being the result of a perceptual trick created by technology. This conceptualisation is well illustrated in
the following quote from Lombard and Ditton (1997), who defined presence as:
The perceptual illusion of non-mediation [where] the individual can indicate
correctly that s/he is using the technology, but at “some level” and to “some degree,”
her/his perceptions overlook that knowledge and objects, events, entities, and
environments are perceived as if the technology was not involved in the experience.
Underlying this illustrative definition of virtual presence is the assumption that technology supports
presence best when it is backgrounded; when it becomes invisible to the user while supporting an
illusion of non-mediated interaction.
There are two ways in which technology can show up in this understanding of presence in technologically
mediated environments. Either the technology can be imperfect in its rendering of the “illusion” that
one is there with another person, or it can intrude into the experience (through breakdowns, for
example) and thereby spoil the sense of presence that had been achieved through a successful illusory
experience. A tension emerges in this conceptualization that relates to Ihde’s (1990) observation that
humans often desire what technology can enable, but at the same time wish that this achievement were
possible without technology.
In this view of presence, which we broadly label as cognitivist (Dreyfus, 2006; Hauskeller, 2012) -
because of its emphasis on an illusory split between mind and body - presence is seen as an exchange-
based event that occurs through technological intervention between fixed entities. This view does not
tend to give weight to differences in how presence is experienced, or how the humans involved in the
interaction may contribute to how presence is constructed in practice (for an exception see Riemer,
Frößler, and Klein 2007). There is an established research focus here on bringing a person into a room
virtually, but less focus on how the human already in the room enables presence. We contend that this
view is not well equipped to consider the variations in how presence is enacted in a variety of contexts,
and, as we will now argue, this view potentially restricts our capacity to recognize and begin to theorise
what is important about emergent technological phenomena, where technology becomes the focus of
our interaction rather than the medium through which interactions are conducted.
2.2 Emergent phenomena and new horizons in theorising presence
New technology potentially allows, and perhaps even requires, questioning core assumptions that
underpin current approaches to theorising presence in IS. Consider the recent Artificial Intelligent (AI)
advances for email. The research area of email is perhaps seen in HCI as mature and a less compelling
Australasian Conference on Information Systems Seymour & Hafermalz
2016, Wollongong Conceptualising Presence in Human-Computer Engagement
4
area of research, however there are current technological developments in this area that open up new
worlds of meaning that might be explored in terms of presence. These include new technologies such as
AI agents driving the interaction of emails. In such systems, a non-mediated computer agent is invited
into an email discussion to facilitate, in a conversational manner, arranging a meeting.
This development of computer agents that act as virtual assistants offers an example of how there may
be a new, qualitatively different development on the horizon that might warrant extending the
boundaries of HCI theorising. For example, Amy Ingram from X.ai is a conversational agent that
prompts a reconsideration of how humans and computers interact and how presence is understood.
Amy can be thought of as being somewhat like an Apple Siri agent for email scheduling. ‘She’ is CC’d on
emails and then independently manages appointment scheduling, all through independent natural
language emails. This interaction discusses times, availability, scheduling, even suggesting cafes or
restaurants to meet at. Using a conversational style, the agent manages a person’s appointments by
emailing and answering questions to all parties, as a human assistant would. Amy uses new deep
learning AI Scala programming approaches to language understanding. Amy is experienced as if ‘she’ is
a subject rather than an object – it is as if technology was not involved in the experience (Syman 2016).
Amy is a presence in the exchange but not as a stand in for ‘real’ person, she presents as a new identity.
By independently emailing and scheduling meetings, offering suggested meeting places and answering
questions, Amy appears to many users to be ‘real’, even when they know her to be a construct. People
have reportedly sent Amy thank you emails and expressed appreciation, providing considerations that
one would rationally assume are of little value to a conversational agent (O’Reilly 2015). As an
interactive agent, Amy requires no special codes, sign in, passwords or user interface, she is simply CC’d
on an email to take over organising the meeting. Such conversational agents do not have physical
presence; they are present only in and through their interaction, as there is no other additional
embodiment of the agent other than their involvement in the email exchanges. Yet we could assume that
for some people, especially those who express their gratitude to her, Amy is experienced as being present
in their interaction with her.
This is a somewhat different phenomenon from interacting with a robot, such as Kismet, where the
interactive agent’s presence can be understood in terms of physicality. Independence, self-motivated
movement, the ability to perform complex tasks (along with other aspects), all figure in a common
understanding of a physical robot. However, if a user wears a Virtual Reality (VR) style gear set, which
is actually Augmenting Reality (AR)1 then they can witness a humanoid robot-like character, in the
room. Is this avatar present? The avatar can be locked (tracked) to the room, appearing to remain seated
opposite the observer. It can be independent in motion, self-motivated in movement and action and
could be performing complex tasks such as answering verbal questions. In almost all respects the avatar
has presence in the room, just as a robot might, but without any physical mass. As an exemplar,
Microsoft Hololens or Magic Leap technology is being explored to provide such functionality.
These emerging technological phenomena prompt us to question the boundaries of terms we have taken
for granted. The presence of an AR avatar or conversational agent is ambiguous when presence is taken
to be a stand-in for what is physical, objective, ‘real’. These agents may however instead be understood
as being more or less present in terms of their engagement with the person they are interacting with.
Here, we propose that rather than focus on physical presence, it is a sense of engagement with an
interactant that produces the sensation or experience of the avatar being present. It is this phenomenon
that we argue is in need of further research attention, and in the following we aim to carve out conceptual
space that can support such research in the future.
3 Towards a Research Agenda: Conceptualising Presence
In Figure 1 below we articulate four phenomena that we propose are relevant to HCI research. We start
by placing our categorisation in the context of two key attributes: Types of Interaction and Focal
Entities. We explain how it is possible to examine, based on the assumed nature of the interaction
between focal entities, either interaction as Exchange or Engagement. We show that an interaction
phenomenon can be considered to occur between humans (mediated or not) or between a human and
computer. In the following we explain the kind of phenomena that we envision as relating to each of the
four quadrants. We discuss how these phenomena are linked to different conceptualisations of presence,
and we show how the 4th quadrant opens up new opportunities for research.
1 When involving a head set AR is sometimes referred to as MR or Mixed Reality
Australasian Conference on Information Systems Seymour & Hafermalz
2016, Wollongong Conceptualising Presence in Human-Computer Engagement
5
3.1 Human-Human Exchange: Presence in IS and CSCW Theorising
Quadrant 1 is characterised by research on the phenomenon of human to human interaction through
technology. We argue that this is the phenomenon that much of the IS and CSCW research on presence
is concerned with. An example is a research interest in how two people can be present with one another
while working together in a virtual team. In such a phenomenon, the focal entities involved in the
interaction are human. Technology is meant to support this interaction, in such a way that the
technology itself recedes from view. When technology is supporting such an interaction, it should be
backgrounded (Ihde 1990). In quadrant 1 phenomena, if you remove the other person there is no
presence, and to get it back you have to mimic ‘actual’ presence as much as possible. This
conceptualisation assumes that the most or ideal presence would be physical co-location in a room.
In research relating to quadrant 1, technology is usually treated as a tool with which the “illusion” of co-
presence is created (Schultze 2010). The emphasis then is on the way in which technology, for example
email, Skype, or more recently video “portals” between two offices, can create presence between people
(Karis, Wildman, and Mané 2016). In this somewhat technologically determinist assessment, it is the
refinement of technological aspects of the interaction that supposedly leads to an improved sense of
presence. For example, presence is seen to be improved through refinement of technical functionality
(Dennis, Fuller, & Valacich, 2008) or through the appropriate selection of the medium of
communication according to the task at hand (e.g. Daft and Lengel 1986). In such a conceptualisation,
presence is seen as something that can be achieved when two separate entities are made to experience
an illusion of sharing a common space through a technically supported exchange (Schultze, 2010).
The focus in this research is on how technology creates presence by effectively supporting exchanges
between humans. What is often not explored in this way of thinking about and investigating presence is
the complex ways in which human relationships form and are expressed and experienced over time.
There is for instance little discussion of how presence may be qualitatively different based on who is
involved in the interaction. We characterise research that is prototypical of quadrant 1 as emphasising
human-human exchange. There is an assumption here that a Skype interaction between two strangers
would result in the same kind of presence as between two friends who are using the same technologies,
because the interaction is conceptualised as an exchange that is context independent. We suggest
therefore that a limitation of a quadrant 1 research focus is a perspective which does not fully account
for the relational, emotional, and contingent dimensions of human-human interaction and the way in
which such dimensions relate to enactments of presence.
In this first quadrant, the assumption has been that presence occurs between two people. Someone is
‘in the room’ and we need to focus research attention on the technology, in order to make a second
person who is not in the room ‘more present’. But in this sense we are only looking at the second person,
not at the contribution or behaviour of the person who is the room. It is as if the amount of presence the
technology can foster is independent of who is taking part. There is an assumption from the outset that
presence is the problem and that it is the role of technological design to create presence.
Figure 1: Differentiating Conceptualisations of Presence in HCI Phenomena
Australasian Conference on Information Systems Seymour & Hafermalz
2016, Wollongong Conceptualising Presence in Human-Computer Engagement
6
3.2 Human-Human Engagement: Presence in Existentialist Philosophy
Standing in direct contrast to the notion of presence being a simple matter of sharing space is the
existentialist notion of presence as a transformative experience of involvement between two people. An
existentialist understanding of presence draws on the work of Gabriel Marcel (1951, 1965), who has been
influential in philosophical conceptualisations of presence, in particular as it relates to holistic nursing
theory (Doona et al., 1997).
Important to such an existential understanding is the phenomenological observation that experiencing
presence is not the same as sharing space or even communicating with another person. Marcel (1965)
explains that one can sit opposite someone and feel far away not only from the other person but also
from oneself, and yet one can feel very close to a friend who is geographically far away. Marcel (1951)
infers that human interaction as presence is comprised of more than physical co-location, and that
presence, while hard to define, relates to a kind of involvement or engagement that is mutually
constituted. Presence is in existential philosophy understood as something that is felt between two
people in a way that is transformative for those involved (Doona et al., 1997).
Inversely, co-located interactions between people can occur without presence, and these interactions
are a kind of mere exchange that can result in a feeling of alienation:
If another person is not ‘present’ to us, something essential is lacking.
Communication without communion means that ‘the other’ understands what I say
to him, but he does not understand me. This stranger interposes himself between me
and myself; I am not really myself while I am with him (Marcel, 1951 pp. 205–6).
This experience of communicating with someone while feeling that they or oneself are not really present
in the interaction is likely familiar to the reader. Yet dominant theorising of presence in IS does not
account for this sense in which interaction as mere exchange is not the same as an involved interaction
that is characterised by engagement. For this reason, we suggest that quadrant 2 theorising, which
recognises the existential aspects of presence and explores the richness of the phenomenon of human-
human interaction offers a useful complement to current dominant approaches to conceptualising
presence in IS and HCI.
While we recognize the important contributions that quadrant 2 research has to offer to a more nuanced
understanding of the relational aspects of presence, we also recognize that the technological aspects of
how human-human interaction is carried out and experienced today are at this time largely absent from
this body of research. For example, quadrant 2 work on conceptualizing presence is mainly found in
literature on nursing, where presence is seen as a form of care between nurse and patient (Doona et al.,
1997). This literature is however currently focused almost entirely on non-mediated human interaction
(for an exception see Tuxbury 2013 for a pilot study on experiences of presence in telenursing). We see
potential for further interdisciplinary work in this quadrant, and also believe that this quadrant has
much to offer researchers grappling with questions that we suggest are provoked by quadrant 4
phenomena.
The focus of quadrant 2 research is presence as a form of engagement between people. In contrast, in
the following two quadrants we explore interactions between a person and technology, not in the sense
of an avatar or symbol of a human operator, rather in the sense that it is the technology itself with which
the exchange and engagement occurs. We characterize the following two quadrants as being concerned
with what it means to be present with technology.
3.3 Human-Computer Exchange: Presence in HCI Theorising
In this third quadrant, we recognise research that has been concerned with human-computer
interaction, where the human and computer are from the outset cast as two unique entities that interact
through the exchange of information in a sequential way. Research in this quadrant has focused on what
it takes for a computer and human to essentially ‘read’ one another in a way that is predictable and again,
as in quadrant 1, not dependent on contextual or relational factors.
In this third quadrant, the common thinking is still that of the computer and the human standing apart.
The conventional model of computer and user interface for example separates the machine from the
user. Both are seen as separate objects. In HCI models such as that shown in Figure 2, it is stated that
there is a user and a machine each with a private and public aspect. The machine has a user model u(m)
and the user a mental model m(m). The shared space of each is given or told to the other. In this view
there are two separate objects with internal and public aspects, and even the notion of a programmer is
included with their model and assumptions of the stereotype (their internal model). In this model the
Australasian Conference on Information Systems Seymour & Hafermalz
2016, Wollongong Conceptualising Presence in Human-Computer Engagement
7
shared can be known, but while the machine is knowable in theory, in practice either the code is so
complex as to make it almost unknowable or the machine model encompasses modern AI approaches
of deep learning and complex decision forests which are learnt and self-constructed, and ultimately
unknowable. On the user side, the private is not knowable as a user may not be knowable to themselves.
Figure 2: Human Computer Exchange (adapted from Suchman, 1989)
It is unclear what role presence plays in these cases, where the user and the machine are seen as having
states which are observed and given. One is seen as reacting to the other, based on their internal models.
The interaction is implied at the divide between user and machine. Even the labels, as (Suchman 2007)
later points out, assume predefined and constant roles: the term ‘user’ sets up a particular role and
relationship to the machine. This can be characterised as interaction displayed in terms of a model of a
cooperative system interacting with a user (Kay 1994). The machine aims to interpret the private user
intent with the shared user-given information. The interaction is seen as being defined as a response to
what is observed. In such an exchange based conceptualization of interaction, there is little room for the
transformative aspects of presence that were highlighted as being central to quadrant 2.
The exchange based human-computer model is the basis of a body of recent HCI theorising, even in
areas that involve emotion such as Affective Computing (Picard 1997). In this framework, the
assumption is made that the user has an emotional state and that this is revealed by shared means and
observed by the computer which then may change state based on the observation and its internal u(m).
An emotion is also able to be told by the computer to the user who may then change their emotional
state based on what was told. Again, we point out that the notion of mutual transformation or even
mutual constitution, implied in an existential understanding of presence, is lacking in these
conceptualisations and that therefore there is opportunity to reconsider how we might approach human-
computer interaction phenomena.
The limitation of the conceptualisation of presence illustrated in quadrant 3 is that the interaction is
assumed to be reactive and state based between two entities that are knowable outside of their relation
to one another. Even with the emotional nature of Affective Computing, emotion is assumed to be the
property of either the current user state or the current computer state. The interaction itself is not seen
to be emotional. The interaction is not joyful, happy or annoying. Rather the user is assumed to be
happy or joyful. In this model, the interaction is seen as the medium through which both sides
communicate. A view expressed by (Bødker 1987) is that the UI becomes the connective medium, and
people work “through the interface”. The focus here is on understanding the intent of objects, which are
viewed as interacting through an interface. There is however not a focus on making sense of the
interaction itself.
3.4 Human-Computer Engagement: Towards an Existential Understanding of H-C Presence
In order to begin to more sensitively account for the emergent interactive phenomena discussed at the
outset of the paper, we bring together two ideas to inform a research agenda characterised in quadrant
4. First, we consider the phenomenon of interaction where the focus of the interaction is not another
human, but the computer itself. Ihde (1990, p. 97) defines this type of interaction with technology as
“alterity relations”. The important point in alterity relations is that technology becomes the focal point
of interaction, not as a list of properties or object characteristics, but rather as a complete “other”. To
account for such an interaction, according to Ihde (1990, p. 98), we need to conduct “an analysis of the
Australasian Conference on Information Systems Seymour & Hafermalz
2016, Wollongong Conceptualising Presence in Human-Computer Engagement
8
positive or presentational senses in which humans relate to or with technologies, to technology-as-
other”.
Once we accept that technologies such as interactive computer agents are increasingly emerging as “focal
entities that may receive the multiple attentions humans give the different forms of the other” (Ihde,
1990, p. 107), it then becomes possible to consider what an existential understanding of presence brings
to a conceptualisation of such interactions. The second idea that we here bring to bear on quadrant 4 is
thus a consideration of how presence is conceptualised. We borrow from existentialist philosophy an
understanding of presence as involvement or engagement, in order to prompt a consideration in future
research of what this understanding offers to a conceptualisation of presence between human and
computer-as-other.
We contrast a quadrant 4 conceptualisation of human-computer engagement to traditional accounts of
human-technology interaction, in which technology only becomes visible or noticeable when it breaks
down (Ihde, 1990). The complexity comes when trying to embrace how the interaction itself changes the
relationship between, and even the nature of, interactants. The Media Equation (Reeves and Nass 1996)
showed how people can favour their devices as a result of interaction. In a study by Nass and Yen (Nass
and Yen 2010), subjects scored a routine software evaluation more favourably when reviewed on their
own laptop then when they reviewed on a third party’s computer. The reason is related to
anthropomorphising their own devices. In this phenomenon the u(m) has no emotional design or intent
from the programmer, it is not trying to be emotionally engaging, but through the interaction the user
changes their attitudes to the computer. Over time, by interacting, a person can develop a relationship
with a technological device.
We further draw attention to situations where technology is the intended focus of interaction. Interactive
computer agents such as Amy or Siri are for example entirely computer operated and do not appear in
physical embodied form, however they are in many ways designed to interact with humans as subjects
rather than objects. In this final quadrant we make space for addressing this phenomenon. We
specifically wish to raise as an area for future research the critical consideration of whether and how one
experiences a sense of presence with technology in such interactions. True presence, in the existential
sense, is a form of involvement where both parties are available to one another and open to a kind of
transformation that occurs in being present together. Where presence fails, the self is experienced as an
object, because it is treated as an object by the other (Marcel, 1965). This existentialist understanding of
presence resonates with Ihde’s (1990) notion of alterity relations, in that this understanding takes
seriously how interaction is more than a quantifiable or predictable exchange and instead involves a
situated engagement that is constitutive of an interaction, and, to an extent, serves to shape the
identities of those involved. What this looks like between a human and computer is the phenomenon
that we argue needs further attention.
In order to conduct an investigation in the spirit of quadrant 4, we suggest treating the interaction
between human and computer as the significant starting point, rather than a focus on state machines of
a user or machine model. The research possibilities become clear when we consider investigating
deliberately emotionally engaging H-C interactions such as those introduced between a user and the
interactive email agent, Amy.2 Interfaces such as photo real conversational agents may be able to be
more richly explored if observations of presence are not approached from the dualist state-machine
model perspective and instead from an existentialist perspective, where we take the interaction as
primary. With the advent of much more complex and nuanced interactions between computers and
humans, a more open stance that explores the experiential and qualitative aspects of interaction, in
terms of presence, opens up new territory for HCI research. By starting with the interaction as our focus,
we can explore how this characterises the computer and human involved in the interaction.
4 Discussion
There is a broad spectrum of ways in which people interact with computers. In IS and other fields, a
significant body of research has sought to better understand how humans interact in terms of presence,
both with and without technology. However, there has been, to our knowledge, little consideration of
what it means to be present with a technological agent that is not being steered by a human operator.
Yet as service industries in particular become increasingly automated, HCI where technology is the focus
of the interaction is becoming a more prevalent feature of everyday life. This technological development
2 We further raise the question of whether the term ‘user’ is appropriate to such an interaction.
Australasian Conference on Information Systems Seymour & Hafermalz
2016, Wollongong Conceptualising Presence in Human-Computer Engagement
9
calls for a consideration of how we can advance theorising in IS and HCI more specifically by adapting
and developing theories of presence to better account for the experience of being with technology in a
way that goes past a mere exchange model and towards accounting for the experience of involvement or
engagement between humans and technological interactive agents.
While HCI research has typically focused on the entities of ‘human’ and ‘technology’, the emergent
phenomena we have described may benefit from a different approach to the investigation of interaction.
Rather than focus just on technology as an object that stands apart from interaction, studies of presence
in human-computer interaction may benefit from a primary focus on the interaction itself. The
qualitative, active, contextual, experiential, and relational aspects of interaction may have a formative
influence on the identities of those involved in the interaction. In this sense we are suggesting a
consideration of what the term HCI calls for. The HCI emphasis has often been Human, Computer and
Interaction - each term existing separately. This conceptualisation has conventionally placed the
interaction last in order of research emphasis. Interestingly, anecdotally various academic communities
moved from using the older acronym CHI to HCI in an effort to place the emphasis on the Human first
and the Computer second. While we are not suggesting changing the acronym to IHC, we are suggesting
a possible rethinking of the approach surrounding this ontology that could disclose new worlds (Spinosa,
Flores, & Dreyfus, 1999) for future research.
If we start with the interaction in terms of presence, and see how that renders the machine and the
human, what could this tell us about each? Would we see a more symmetrical relationship? The
relationship in HCI is currently often understood in terms us and them, humans and the object things.
In taking a more post-human approach (Haraway, 1991; Ramiller, 2015; Suchman, 2007), we suggest
starting with the interaction, thereby leaving open the opportunity to theorise what the computer
becomes through different experiences of being-with technology. For example, is a particular human-
computer involvement akin to companionship? Is the dynamic master/servant? Following on from such
questions, these emergent human-computer interactions typical of quadrant 4 phenomena may warrant
a consideration of how ethical boundaries change. Is there any real or perceived moral obligation to a
virtual assistant? What constitutes ethical treatment or violation of agents such as Amy? When we begin
to consider the existential aspects of being-with technology, such considerations become meaningful.
Quadrant 4 research is thus charged both with opportunity and a certain responsibility. We argue these
are timely and relevant to both the research and practice of HCI.
Conventional approaches to researching human-computer relations start from the assumption that
there is this computer object we are building with certain properties and similarly there is a person with
certain properties, and that these need to be made to interact through some form of exchange. We
suggest that in researching quadrant 4 phenomena, we should openly study the experience of human-
computer interaction and explore what the situation itself reveals about the relationship between
humans and machines. We may find that perhaps the relationship changes, or that it may have a
different quality from what is expected.
Central to this re-imagining of HCI is a questioning of the assumption that physicality is the gold-
standard of presence. The boundary between physical and non-physical is imprecise and even more so
in the digital world. To quote Haraway (1991, p. 149), contrast the TV sets of the 1950s or the news
cameras of the 1970s with the smart phones of today: “Our best machines are made of sunshine” she
stated; “they are nothing but signals, electromagnetic waves, a section of a spectrum, and these machines
are eminently portable, mobile” and ubiquitous. Even without physical embodiment, people are grateful
to their assistant Amy for successfully arranging a meeting for them. Digital projections of similar
interactive agents are soon likely to furnish our social worlds while their physicality remains ambiguous.
In this paper we argue that an understanding of presence that is based on engagement rather than
physical existence, co-location, or exchange, is needed before we can begin to grasp the particularities
of what it means to be-present-with such technologies.
5 Conclusion
Most people can recall a conversation in which they felt engaged and inversely could describe a time in
which they felt that their conversational partner was not present. While technology has traditionally
been seen as either facilitating or getting in the way of the experience of presence, we are increasingly
seeing the emergence of technological agents that are designed to be the focus of such interaction.
Technology is here the ‘other’ with which we become present. Inspired by this emergent phenomenon,
we propose bringing together two worlds – those of HCI and existentialist philosophy – in coming to an
Australasian Conference on Information Systems Seymour & Hafermalz
2016, Wollongong Conceptualising Presence in Human-Computer Engagement
10
interdisciplinary basis for researching the emerging technological phenomenon of what we have termed
human-computer engagement.
In this paper, we have argued that in developing a research agenda that can account for emergent
phenomena, it is worthwhile to look beyond exchange based understandings of human computer
interaction and towards the more nuanced, experientially based work on presence that is inspired by
existentialist philosophy. This shift of emphasis is important because it acknowledges that presence is
not a uniform experience that can be created in a unilateral sense, either by humans or by technology.
We suggest that research into human-computer engagement should begin with a focus on interaction,
and specifically how such interactions are enacted and experienced, in terms of presence. This is an
alternative approach to the dominant method of deciding a-priori that interaction is an exchange
between pre-defined entities. The aim of this research agenda and approach to theorising presence is to
open up new areas of inquiry, including a more holistic understanding of the emotional dimensions of
human-computer interaction and a consideration of new ways of relating to technology. We also
acknowledge that this approach brings with it a consideration of the ethics of being-with interactive
computer agents. Such investigations are likely to reflect on wider philosophical questions of what it
means to be human and computer, and the nature of the relationships that are possible between the two.
6 References
Al-Ani, B., A. Horspool, & M. C. Bligh. (2011). Collaborating with 'virtual strangers': Towards developing
a framework for leadership in distributed teams. Leadership, 7 (3), 219-249.
doi:10.1177/1742715011407382
Altschuller, S., & R. Benbunan-Fich. (2013). The pursuit of trust in Ad hoc virtual teams: How much
electronic portrayal is too much? European Journal of Information Systems, 22 (6), 619-636.
doi:10.1057/ejis.2012.39
Bødker, Susanne. 1987. Through the Interface - a Human Activity Approach to User Interface Design.
DAIMI Report Series; No 224 (1987): doi:10.7146/dpb.v16i224.7586.
http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/daimipb/article/view/7586/6431.
Daft, Richard L., and Robert H. Lengel. 1986. Organizational Information Requirements, Media
Richness and Structural Design. Management Science 32 (5): 554–571. doi:10.2307/2631846.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2631846\n
Dennis, A. R., R. M. Fuller, & J. S. Valacich. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes: A
theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32 (3), 575-600.
Devine, M., & E. Filos. (2001) Virtual teams and the organisational grapevine. Vol. 56. IFIP Advances
in Information and Communication Technology (pp. 413-424)
Doona, M. E., L. A. Haggerty, & S. K. Chase. (1997). "Nursing presence: An existential exploration of the
concept." Research and Theory for Nursing Practice, 11 (1), 3-16. Dreyfus, H. L. (2006).
"Overcoming the myth of the mental." Topoi, 25 (1-2), 43-49.
Dreyfus, H. L. (2006). Overcoming the myth of the mental. Topoi, 25 (1-2), 43-49.
Hafermalz E and Riemer K 2016 Forthcoming 'Negotiating Distance: “Presencing Work” in a Case of
Remote Telenursing', Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems ICIS
2016 - "Digital Innovation at the Crossroads", Dublin, Ireland, 14th December 2016
Haraway, Donna. 1991. A Cyborg Manifesto. Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature:
312. doi:10.3917/mouv.060.0163. (pp. 149-182).
Hauskeller, M. (2012). My brain, my mind, and I: some philosophical assumptions of mind-uploading.
International Journal of Machine Consciousness, 4 (01), 187-200.
Ihde, Don. 1990. Technology and the Lifeworld. The Indiana Series in the Philosophie of Technologie.
Vol. 1. doi:10.1049/et:20060114.
Ishii, Y., & T. Watanabe. (2009) Development of a virtual presence sharing system using a telework
chair. Vol. 44 CCIS. Communications in Computer and Information Science (pp. 173-178).
Karis, D., D. Wildman, & A. Mané. (2016). Improving remote collaboration with video conferencing &
video portals. Human-Computer Interaction, 31 (1),1-58. doi:10.1080/07370024.2014.921506
Kay, Judy. 1994. The Um Toolkit for Cooperative User Modelling. User Modeling and User-Adapted
Interaction 4 (3): 149–196. doi:10.1007/BF01100243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01100243.
Australasian Conference on Information Systems Seymour & Hafermalz
2016, Wollongong Conceptualising Presence in Human-Computer Engagement
11
Lee, Kwan Min. 2004. Presence, Explicated. Communication Theory 14 (1) :27–50.
doi:10.1093/ct/14.1.27. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-
2885.2004.tb00302.x/epdf.
Li, Jamy. 2015. The Benefit of Being Physically Present: A Survey of Experimental Works Comparing
Copresent Robots, Telepresent Robots and Virtual Agents. International Journal of Human
Computer Studies 77: 23–27. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.01.001.
Lombard, Matthew, and Theresa Ditton. 1997. At the Heart of It All. The Concept of Presence. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication 3 (September): 20. doi:10.1093/cid/cir583.
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue2/lombard.html.
Majchrzak, A., and A. Malhotra. 2013. Towards an Information Systems Perspective and Research
Agenda on Crowdsourcing for Innovation. Journal of Strategic Information Systems.
doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2013.07.004.
Marcel, G. (1951). The mystery of being (G. S. Fraser, Trans. Vol. 2): Harvill Press London.
Marcel, G. (1965). Being and having. London: Collins.
Nass, Clifford, and Corina Yen. 2010. The Man Who Lied to His Laptop: What We Can Learn About
Ourselves from Our Machines. Penguin Group US. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
http://books.google.com/books?id=w4TIN88bSCIC&pgis=1.
O’Reilly, Lara. 2015. Meet the Robot Personal Assistant so Human-like Some People Have Even Sent
Her Flowers. Business Insider Australia. http://www.businessinsider.com.au/amy-ingram-
personal-assistant-2015-7.
Picard, Rosalind W. 1997. Affective Computing. MIT Press. www.media.mit.edu/~picard/.
Ramiller, N. (2015). New Technology and the Post-human Self: Rethinking Appropriation and
Resistance. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems(forthcoming).
Reeves, Byron, and Clifford Nass. 1996. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers,
Television, and New Media. Center for the Study of Language and Information; Cambridge.
doi:10.1109/MSPEC.1997.576013.
http://www.speakeasydesigns.com/SDSU/student/640/reeves\\_nass.pdf.
Riemer, Kai, Frank Frößler, and Stefan Klein. 2007. Real Time Communication - Modes of Use in
Distributed Teams. 15th European Conference on Information Systems, St. Gallen (CH), 07- 09
June, 286–297. doi:10.1007/BF00357884.
Sallnäs, Eva-Lotta. 2005. Effects of Communication Mode on Social Presence, Virtual Presence, and
Performance in Collaborative Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments 14 (4): 434–449. doi:10.1162/105474605774785253.
Schultze, Ulrike. 2010. Embodiment and Presence in Virtual Worlds: A Review. Journal of
Information Technology 25 (4): 434–449. doi:10.1057/jit.2010.25.
Spinosa, C., F. Flores, & H. L. Dreyfus. (1999). Disclosing new worlds: Entrepreneurship, democratic
action, and the cultivation of solidarity. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Subramaniam, Niran, Joe Nandhakumar, and Jo??o Baptista John. 2013. Exploring Social Network
Interactions in Enterprise Systems: The Role of Virtual Co-Presence. Information Systems
Journal 23 (6): 475–499. doi:10.1111/isj.12019.
Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations : plans and situated actions (2nd ed.).
Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Syman, Stefanie. 2016. Using Scala to Build an AI Powered Personal Assistant. X.ai.
https://x.ai/using-scala-to-build-an-ai-powered-personal-assistant-x-ai-engineers-tell-all/.
Tuxbury, Janis S. 2013. The Experience of Presence among Telehealth Nurses. The Journal of Nursing
Research 21 (3): 155. doi:10.1097/jnr.0b013e3182a0b028.
Copyright: © 2016 Seymour & Hafermlz. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Australia License, which permits non-
commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and ACIS
are credited.
