Content uploaded by Bayor Andrew
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bayor Andrew on Dec 20, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
“TechShops”: Engaging Young Adults
with Intellectual Disability in
Exploratory Design Research
Andrew A. Bayor
Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia
a.bayor@qut.edu.au
Laurianne Sitbon
Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia
l.sitbon@qut.edu.au
Bernd Ploderer
Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia
b.ploderer@qut.edu.au
Filip Bircanin
Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia
f.bircanin@qut.edu.au
Margot Brereton
Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia
m.brereton@qut.edu.au
ABSTRACT
This case study presents “TechShops”, a collaborative workshop-based approach to learning about
technologies with Young Adults with Intellectual Disability (YAID) in exploratory design research .
The “TechShops” approach emerged because we found it difficult to engage YAID in traditional
contextual interviews. Hence, we offered a series of “TechShops”, which we found useful in: enabling
engagement with participants, their families and support staff; fostering relationships; and gaining
research access. We explain the context of “TechShops”, and reflect upon the opportunities and
challenges that the approach offers for both researchers and YAID in exploratory design research.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee
provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the
full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact
the owner/author(s).
CHI’19 Extended Abstracts, May 4-9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
© 2019 Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-5971-9/19/05. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607. 3299056
CHI 2019 Case Study
CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
CS31, Page 1
CCS CONCEPTS
• Human-centered computing → HCI design and evaluation methods
KEYWORDS
“TechShops”; contextual interviews; intellectual disability; engagement; co-design workshops
ACM Reference format:
Andrew A. Bayor, Laurianne Sitbon, Bernd Ploderer, Filip Bircanin, Margot Brereton. 2019. “TechShops”:
Engaging Young Adults with Intellectual Disability in Exploratory Design Research. In CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts (CHI’19 Extended Abstracts), May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow,
Scotland, UK. ACM, New York, NY, USA. 8 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607. 3299056
1 INTRODUCTION
Young Adults with Intellectual Disability (YAID) are often keen users of social media (Figure 1), but
there is little understanding of how they participate on these platforms. Thirteen months ago, we
embarked on research to understand social media use by YAID and to investigate how to support
their social media participation through co-design. We sought to understand and identify
participants’ social media use activities, competencies and support requirements, and to co-design
participation support that reflect their abilities [15].
As a method of investigation, at first, we adopted contextual inquiry [1]. This approach involved
directly observing the social media use of participants and engaging each of them in a contextual
interview to understand how they use social media. However, we found this to be impractical and
challenging principally for three reasons: 1) contextual observation of participants as they used social
media seemed to invade their privacy, especially as we did not know them well; 2) individual
contextual interviews with participants while they were logged onto social media platforms felt
intimidating to them, as if they were being tested; and 3) there were direct research access and
engagement challenges with participants due to the nature of activities in the support organization
through which we accessed our participants. These methodological challenges made data collection
through contextual inquiry difficult, requiring us to develop a different approach.
This case study presents how we created technology use workshops which participants
subsequently referred to as “TechShops” to engage, and contextualize our research with YAID. First,
we give further motivation for this work, and a synthesis of methods used for research with people
with Intellectual Disability (ID). We then describe our research context and participants. Next, we
discuss two cycles of our research method, and findings; concluding with a discussion of the
opportunities and challenges of “TechShops” approach.
2 BACKGROUND
Technology offers a lot of possibilities and opportunities for people with ID [4]. As such, equity in
access, inclusion and participation in the use of the internet and technologies such as social media
is important for YAID.
Figure 1: Young Adults with
Intellectual Disability (YAID) use
social media especially graphical and
visual social media applications such
as YouTube, Facebook, Snapchat and
Instagram.
CHI 2019 Case Study
CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
CS31, Page 2
2.1 Research Methods Employed with People with ID
In conducting research to understand the technology use practices of people with ID, researchers
have adopted a number of well-established methods such as surveys (e.g. [7]); participant logging
and tracking (e.g. [5]) ; and contextual interviews (e.g. [11]). Other exploratory and participatory
approaches such as exploratory prototyping, probes and co-design have also been employed to
directly engage people with ID in design research [3, 6, 12].
2.2 Matching Methods to Context
While these methods can be used effectively, successful adoption often depends upon the context at
hand and their suitability with participants. For example, surveys and interviews require that
participants are verbal, can read and write, and are able to engage with researchers for a considerable
amount of time. Therefore, in adopting a method of enquiry, one must consider participants’
abilities, values, feelings and the research context and objectives [14]. In situations, where the
context makes applying a method challenging, innovative and adaptive approaches are required.
2.3 Research Context
The research was conducted in Learning and Life centers (L&L) of a Disability Service Organization
(DSO) that was our research partners. Participants attended the L&L centers daily where they
received structured support services such as identifying and developing their goals of daily living,
social skills and literacy. A core focus of the research was to identify participants’ competencies,
abilities and support requirements in social media; and to co-design participation support. We
wanted the research data collection approach to be principally focused on participants’ perspectives,
even though some topics of our discussion, such as safety and privacy on social media, were to be
triangulated with their support staff and parents. Thus, a situated, practical and contextual
observation of participants on the social media sites that they used was needed in order to evoke
their concrete reflections and opinions. The ethics approval that governed the research allowed for
observation of public posts and activities of participants on social media.
2.4 Research Participants
Participants in the research were young adults with an ID – a condition defined as “characterized
by significant limitations in both intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior, which covers many
everyday social and practical skills originating before the age of 18” [9]. Participants comprised 27
YAID (14 males and 13 females aged 18-31 years) receiving services at the DSO. Participants self-
identified or were identified by support staff as having some interest or ability in using
tablets/computers. Most participants had minimal reading and writing literacy, and had familiarity
with applications such as YouTube, Google, and other social media platforms. Some participants
were minimally verbal, and speaking was quite challenging for them. Thus, employing methods such
as surveys and written diaries was not a suitable approach for all participants. A number of support
staff and parents were also spoken to as a form of data triangulation, but were not key participants
of the research.
CHI 2019 Case Study
CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
CS31, Page 3
3 METHODOLOGY
An action research approach [10] was employed involving two cycles of inquiry: 1) contextual
interviews, and 2) a workshop-based approach referred to as “TechShops”.
3.1 Cycle I: Contextual Interviews
Due to the power of contextual interviews in blending observations and open-ended questioning in
the context of use, giving scope to the participant to lead the discussion within a familiar
environment, we initially thought this would be the best approach. We imagined that contextual
observations would support engagement with minimally verbal participants, and elicit further
understanding from across a range of participants. However, contextual inquiry proved challenging
with our participants for a number of reasons.
First, it was challenging to engage in contextual observation of participants while they used social
media at the DSO center. It felt like an invasion of privacy to be looking out for when participants
were on social media in order to observe what they were doing and engage them in a discussion.
Therefore, we preferred a planned approach in which we asked participants to sit with us and show
typical ways in which they used social media, drawing upon examples. However, this led to a second
concern that most participants seemed to feel intimidated at being asked to discuss their use of
social media platforms in this way. The contextual interviews included participants demonstrating
everyday typical use, and competency in daily use activities such as how to make posts or enable
privacy and safety settings. These activities felt like an examination to most participants leading to
a loss of their interest and cooperation during the contextual interview sessions. Thirdly, there was
a general sense of a lack of familiarization and engagement with participants. The daily support
service plans designed for participants by the DSO were structured to cover the entire day. As a
result, it became difficult to engage participants in research outside of lunch breaks. We could only
observe participants in the structured activities that they were engaged in. Our role of observer and
contextual interviewer did not foster familiarization, bonding and engagement with participants.
3.2 Cycle II: “TechShops” Approach
While constrained by these methodological challenges in exploring the research, we discussed with
participants and their proxies (support staff and parents of participants) the idea of offering
technology use workshops to participants. We were keen to offer our support in using technology as
well as to do research. “TechShops”, as the workshops were subsequently referred to by participants,
is a collaborative workshop-based approach for engaging young adults with ID, in design research.
It involves learning the use of mainstream technologies (tablet, iPads, social media, search and other
apps of interest to participants); first as a way of technology use skills learning support, but also as
a strategic methodological approach for research exploration and engagement with YAID.
3.3 “TechShops” Activities
The first implementation activity of the “TechShops” approach involved collaborative planning. Here,
the technology, activities of interests and needed resources for “TechShops” were discussed
CHI 2019 Case Study
CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
CS31, Page 4
and agreed upon by collaborators (researchers, proxies, and YAID) as indicated in Figure 2. The
activities included showing use steps, scenarios and completing practical assignments, with an
interactive screen or projector enabling participants to see and engage. Participants followed the
activities individually using tablets or iPads as shown in Figure 3 (b) and (c).
With YouTube, activities included using voice search as an alternative search mechanism to
typing, creating a playlist in the participant’s name and populating it with favorite content, and
enabling privacy settings among other activities. Participants found the voice search feature, a novel
method of looking up information, very exciting, as many of them could not spell their search queries
easily. More importantly, they experienced YouTube as a repository where they could not only watch
their favorite music videos, but also learn about new skills e.g. making pizza or onion rings.
For Facebook, participants named the shared page we created “Onion Rings”, because it is a type
of food they all liked. Key Facebook activities included how to post pictures; how to view content
from the wall of friends; search and add friends; netiquette; and enabling privacy settings. Netiquette
was a key activity proxies recommended “TechShops” to address. We used YouTube videos about
safe use of Facebook, in our discussions on netiquette. Participants who were already users of
YouTube and Facebook demonstrated the activities they engage in when using these platforms, and
provided support as peer-teachers in some of the “TechShops” (Figure 3 (a)).
4 FINDINGS
4.1 Gaining Research Access and Fostering Relationships
Due to the value that “TechShops” contributed to participants and proxies in realizing their interests,
we were allocated a time slot by the DSO to directly engage and access participants each week.
Support staff found the sessions valuable to participants and re-structured their schedule to
accommodate “TechShops” in their timetable. We also developed a closer relationship with YAID,
proxies and families. For example, because some participants told their parents about “TechShops”,
parents made time to have discussions with us about things they would like their adult children to
learn through “TechShops” (mostly on netiquette). Support staff also began involving us and seeking
our support for some of the other technology-related programs, run by the DSO center.
4.2 Enabling Engagement and Familiarization
At first, though the DSO allowed us to make observations, we could only observe participants in
their structured activities. However, “TechShops” allowed us to directly engage with participants.
This facilitated familiarization with participants, building trust and an enabling environment for our
research. Participants who used to ignore us before we begun “TechShops” opened up to us and
freely discussed their technology use experiences with us.
4.3 Mutual Learning between YAID & Researchers
“TechShops” provided a mutual learning experience for both researchers and participants. We
(researchers) learned about their use competencies (e.g. usage characteristics of typing and voice
interfaces), skills support needs (e.g. voice interface technique training or voice interface redesign
CHI 2019 Case Study
CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
CS31, Page 5
needs), and participants values in relation to technology use (e.g. avoiding YouTube rather than
putting up with ads) to inform co-design. We learned how to engage YAID on their terms, e.g. YAID
value establishing personal relationships and familiarization before engaging in research. For YAID,
“TechShops” provided an avenue for developing social media skills, a way to enhance their
participation in social media, and a means for participants to interact with and support each other.
4.4 Challenges of “TechShops” Approach
We found that the number of participants in “TechShops” and the varying interests and skill sets of
participants made the sessions challenging to manage. When there are more than eight participants,
keeping order and providing the needed support becomes challenging. Some participants lost
interest when we did not start with their preferred technology (e.g. Snapchat instead of YouTube
and Facebook). Due to the varying skill sets of participants, even with peer teaching, some
participants who were already conversant with a skill grew bored and restless.
5 DISCUSSION
5.1 Reciprocity, Collaboration & Research Access
Whereas the key motivation of researchers is to understand and develop skills of YAID through
designs that support them, the primarily aim of DSOs is to provide high quality services for their
clients. These differences in motivations and expectations make it challenging to establish and
maintain relationships, interest, and support between researchers and proxies [13]. The DSO was
initially wary of researchers because of a suspicion that their activities would interfere with its
programs. However, in “TechShops”, we found a needed and valuable service for both participants
and proxies. “TechShops” served as a form of research reciprocity [2], offering something of
immediate value, improving our relationship with parents and DSO staff, eliminating feelings of
being used in research, and instead engendering a feeling of collaboration between the researchers,
staff and guardians of participants. We thus found reciprocity to be a key element in negotiating
access and reframing engagement in settings where participation had previously been problematic.
Reciprocity must be based on, and serve a real need of the intended beneficiaries, in this case YAID
and their proxies. The “TechShops” also received a strong endorsement by the participants and DSO
staff because they were collaboratively involved in the entire process. The value of “TechShops” was
further confirmed when a staff of the DSO who sat in on the sessions began to duplicate the sessions,
re-teaching them to other YAID on days when we were not there. The value of “TechShops” was
further expressed by the remarks of a support staff who sat in a YouTube “TechShop” session: “I
learned something new personally, I did not know that my playlist is public and anyone could see what
I was listening to if they searched me. These sessions are really very educative and valuable”.
5.2 Researcher-Participant Engagement & Familiarization
As practice moves away from solely using the views of proxies, to directly seeking the views of the
person with disability, engaging persons with ID in design research becomes essential [8]. However,
trust, familiarization and bonding are essential preconditions for effective engagement with persons
CHI 2019 Case Study
CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
CS31, Page 6
with disability. “TechShops” enabled us to engage, build trust, bond and familiarize with
participants. In our first visits, most participants were evasive towards us. It was difficult to engage
them as we did not understand their behaviors and favored ways of interaction. We were also
unfamiliar to them. For example, some participants needed to be asked to take deep breaths to calm
down. In the first “TechShop”, participants ignored our instructions, responding only to the DSO
support staff. However after a few “TechShops” sessions, participants started approaching us and
welcoming us by name anytime we arrived at the center. They began inviting us to have contextual
discussions on the social media platforms they used, with some participants willingly telling us about
their daily experiences on Facebook. One participant we thought was non-verbal because she never
responded to anything we asked, suddenly opened up to us. Some participants invited us to their
birthday parties and to come and cheer them on during Special Olympics events. Participants thus
grew to know and trust us and began to engage willingly in further contextual discussions outside
of “TechShops” about their social media use.
5.3 Competencies and Values Mapping
Given that our fundamental research interest is to design competency-based technologies in support
of social media participation, and inclusion, the “TechShops” served as effective strategy for
identifying the technology use competencies of participants. For example, “TechShops” helped us
establish that only a few participants had challenges launching an app. For these participants, the
nature of their tapping on the app would lead to advanced options that resulted in deleting or moving
the app, rather than opening it. We were able to identify basic skills, strengths and abilities across
participants. “TechShops” also aided us in identifying participants’ values related to technology use.
For example, most of our participants wanted an immediate effect once they initiated or enabled an
action, and thus we observed that internet latency diminished their effective use of YouTube. Some
participants did not like “ads” on YouTube and did not watch YouTube videos because of the
disruption caused by ads. We also identified the value of having multimodal interaction and learning
techniques that suit the spectrum of interaction requirements for participants. The biggest
competency of our participants is the ability to learn new things which in turn inspire participants
to keep learning.
5.4 Navigating the Challenges of “TechShops”
Challenges of “TechShops” relating to supporting a larger number of participants— while
maintaining order and interest— were resolved by asking participants who had mastered aspects of
“TechShops” activities to support others who were learning. However differences in participants’
interests about which technologies to learn remain challenging and we are continuing to look at
strategies for peer mentoring, organization, and using content available on social media to resolve
these issues. Lastly, since “TechShops” were conducted entirely in a formal DSO environment, we
do not yet know if they can be conducted in other settings or address different skill areas besides
learning about technologies.
CHI 2019 Case Study
CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
CS31, Page 7
6 CONCLUSIONS
In this case study, we have discussed how we developed technology use workshops, referred to as
“TechShops”, first as a form of reciprocity, and subsequently as an approach to exploring research
with YAID. Although there are a number of ways to engage people with ID in research, few are
suitable for exploring competencies and interests in-depth, which is a necessary foundation for
ability-based design [15]. “TechShops”, besides supporting skills learning, provided opportunities for
reciprocity, engagement, inquiry and co-designing with participants. “TechShops” approach
supports exploration of interests, skills learning and design to support interests and abilities, rather
than focusing on deficits. We plan to collaboratively explore and develop “TechShops” further, as a
methodological approach for exploring co-design with people with ID, identifying techniques,
strategies and conditions that support and limit this approach.
REFERENCES
[1] Beyer, H. and Holtzblatt, K. 1997. Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. Elsevier.
[2] Brereton, M., Roe, P., Schroeter, R. and Lee Hong, A. 2014. Beyond ethnography: engagement and reciprocity as
foundations for design research out here. (2014), 1183–1186.
[3] Brereton, M., Sitbon, L., Abdullah, M.H.L., Vanderberg, M. and Koplick, S. 2015. Design after design to bridge between
people living with cognitive or sensory impairments, their friends and proxies. CoDesign. 11, 1 (Jan. 2015), 4–20.
[4] Caton, S. and Chapman, M. 2016. The use of social media and people with intellectual disability: A systematic review
and thematic analysis. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability. 41, 2 (Apr. 2016), 125–139.
[5] Eraslan, S., Yaneva, V., Yesilada, Y. and Harper, S. 2017. Do Web Users with Autism Experience Barriers When
Searching for Information Within Web Pages? Proceedings of the 14th Web for All Conference on The Future of
Accessible Work - W4A ’17 (Perth, Western Australia, Australia, 2017), 1–4.
[6] Eriksson, E., Torgersson, O. and Melin, A. 2018. Plan&Do: A Technology Probe Supporting Children with Intellectual
Disabilities in Leisure Activities. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children (New York,
NY, USA, 2018), 663–668.
[7] Feng, J., Lazar, J., Kumin, L. and Ozok, A. 2010. Computer Usage by Children with Down Syndrome: Challenges and
Future Research. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing. 2, 3 (Mar. 2010), 1–44.
[8] Frauenberger, C., Good, J. and Alcorn, A. 2012. Challenges, Opportunities and Future Perspectives in Including
Children with Disabilities in the Design of Interactive Technology. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on
Interaction Design and Children (New York, NY, USA, 2012), 367–370.
[9] Intellectual Disability: https://aaidd.org/intellectual-disability#.WrtYl2puapp. Accessed: 2018-03-28.
[10] Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R. and Nixon, R. 2013. The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research.
Springer Science & Business Media.
[11] Lazar, J., Kumin, L. and Feng, J.H. 2011. Understanding the computer skills of adult expert users with down syndrome:
an exploratory study. The proc. of the 13th Inter. ACM SIGACCESS conf. on Computers and accessibility (2011), 51–58.
[12] O’Connor, C., Fitzpatrick, G., Buchannan-Dick, M. and McKeown, J. 2006. Exploratory Prototypes for Video:
Interpreting PD for a Complexly Disabled Participant. Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-computer
Interaction: Changing Roles (New York, NY, USA, 2006), 232–241.
[13] Rajapakse, R., Brereton, M., Sitbon, L. and Roe, P. 2015. A Collaborative Approach to Design Individualized
Technologies with People with a Disability. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group
for Computer Human Interaction (New York, NY, USA, 2015), 29–33.
[14] Visser, F.S., Stappers, P.J., Van der Lugt, R. and Sanders, E.B. 2005. Contextmapping: experiences from practice.
CoDesign. 1, 2 (2005), 119–149.
[15] Wobbrock, J.O., Gajos, K.Z., Kane, S.K. and Vanderheiden, G.C. 2018. Ability-based design. Communications of the
ACM. 61, 6 (May 2018), 62–71.
CHI 2019 Case Study
CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
CS31, Page 8