Novel forms of “magical” human-computer interaction within the cyber-physical smart workplace: Implications for usability and user experience

Abstract

The growing use of advanced AI, ambient intelligence, augmented reality (AR), and virtual reality (VR) technologies of the sort found within the emerging cyber-physical smart workplace has been described as enabling new forms of human-computer interaction (HCI) that are “magical” in nature. This study shows that from an anthropological perspective, such a workplace environment can indeed be understood as “magical”; however, that “magicality” is a double-edged sword that can potentially both enhance and damage user experience (UX) for workers and other occupants of such environments. First, by analyzing existing social anthropological and philosophical anthropological accounts of magic, typical elements of magical practice are identified. Using Nielsen’s empirical analysis of HCI usability heuristics as a basis, a prospective heuristic evaluation is then carried out for the usability of a generic “magical” environment, in order to identify elements of magical practice that might be expected to enhance or impair user experience when they are required for interaction with the environment. A more specific heuristic usability evaluation is then performed for the “magical” aspects of HCI created by two kinds of constituent technologies that are typical for a cyber-physical smart workplace: those of (a) ambient intelligence and IoT-enabled systems and (b) AR and VR systems. It is shown that the magical aspects of HCI within the emerging cyber-physical smart workplace differ significantly in their potential UX impacts from the magicality involved with earlier forms of computing, and the implications of this fact for the management of future workplaces are identified and discussed.

Full text

International Journal of Research Studies in Management
2019 Volume 8 Number 1, 25-48
© The Author(s) / Attribution CC BY
Novel forms of “magical” human-computer interaction
within the cyber-physical smart workplace: Implications for
usability and user experience
Gladden, Matthew E.
Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland (matthew.e.gladden@gmail.com)
Received: 8 January 2019 Revised: 23 April 2019 Accepted: 8 May 2019
Available Online: 3 July 2019 DOI: 10.5861/ijrsm.2019.4001
ISSN: 2243-7770
Online ISSN: 2243-7789
OPEN ACCESS
Abstract
The growing use of advanced AI, ambient intelligence, augmented reality (AR), and virtual
reality (VR) technologies of the sort found within the emerging cyber-physical smart
workplace has been described as enabling new forms of human-computer interaction (HCI)
that are “magical” in nature. This study shows that from an anthropological perspective, such
a workplace environment can indeed be understood as “magical”; however, that “magicality”
is a double-edged sword that can potentially both enhance and damage user experience (UX)
for workers and other occupants of such environments. First, by analyzing existing social
anthropological and philosophical anthropological accounts of magic, typical elements of
magical practice are identified. Using Nielsen’s empirical analysis of HCI usability heuristics
as a basis, a prospective heuristic evaluation is then carried out for the usability of a generic
“magical” environment, in order to identify elements of magical practice that might be
expected to enhance or impair user experience when they are required for interaction with the
environment. A more specific heuristic usability evaluation is then performed for the
“magical” aspects of HCI created by two kinds of constituent technologies that are typical for
a cyber-physical smart workplace: those of (a) ambient intelligence and IoT-enabled systems
and (b) AR and VR systems. It is shown that the magical aspects of HCI within the emerging
cyber-physical smart workplace differ significantly in their potential UX impacts from the
magicality involved with earlier forms of computing, and the implications of this fact for the
management of future workplaces are identified and discussed.
Keywords: human-computer interaction; cyber-physical systems; smart workplaces; user
experience; ambient intelligence; virtual reality; technological posthumanization; magical
practice; ritual

Gladden, M. E.
26 Consortia Academia Publishing
Novel forms of “magical” human-computer interaction within the cyber-physical smart
workplace: Implications for usability and user experience
1. Introduction
1.1 The context: New forms of HCI within the emerging cyber-physical smart workplace
Ongoing rapid advances in the power and sophistication of distributed cyber-physical systems, ambient
intelligence and ubiquitous computing, the Internet of Things (IoT), social and emotional robotics, and
human-computer interfaces are enabling the creation of new “smart” workplace environments that almost appear
to behave like sentient, living entities, insofar as they are able to detect and physically respond in real time not
only to human workers’ explicitly expressed task-related instructions but also to workers’ more subtly manifested
emotions, desires, questions, or concerns.
Within such specially designed cyber-physical smart environments, workers need not manipulate production
systems or processes by spending lengthy periods of time sitting at a keyboard to manually operate complex
software programs or write vast quantities of code; instead, they can interact with and control their environment
in simpler and more intuitive (though simultaneously less precise) ways, through speech, gestures, or engaging
with digital-physical objects in virtual or augmented reality.
A number of scholars (Renevier & Nagy, 2001; Poupyrev, Nashida, Maruyama, Rekimoto, & Yamaji, 2004;
Sengers, Boehner, Mateas, & Gay, 2008; Do, 2013; Rose, 2014; Fragoso & Reis, 2016; Javornik, Rogers,
Moutinho, & Freeman, 2016; Coeckelbergh, 2018) have noted that environments incorporating such
technologies appear “magical” in nature: within them, workers are able to move or reshape objects without
touching them, to conjure new (digital) objects into existence out of thin air, and to transform the atmosphere or
behavior of the environment simply by uttering certain words or waving their arms in a certain way. In the case
of smart environments utilizing advanced brain-computer interfaces, workers might even be able to manipulate
their surroundings through their thoughts alone. It is thus true that the functioning of such smart environments
might appear “magical” in a loose, metaphorical sense of the word – especially to non-expert users or bystanders
who are unfamiliar with the behind-the-scenes mechanics of how such smart environments work and for whom
the environments represent a sort of “black-box” technology (Hynes, 2018).
1.2 Previous analyses of the “magicality” of advanced technologies
Such descriptions of advanced technologies as “magical” are nothing new. The relationship between
advanced technologies and magic has long been explored in fictional contexts, dating back as far as Mark
Twain’s novel A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (1889), in which a professional engineer from the
1880s is transported back in time to medieval Britain, where he constructs electrical and mechanical devices
whose spectacular effects are interpreted by the local population as a powerful form of magic. The conceptual
link between magic and technology depicted in such tales was later summarized by Arthur C. Clarke (1973) in
his famous postulate that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
More formal academic study of the relationship between emerging electronic computing technologies and
anthropological concepts of magic dates back at least to the 1970s. In a 1973 conference text on “Computer
Magic,” David Freedman (1973) drew on Bronisław Malinowski’s social anthropological accounts of magical
practice to analyze the “magical manipulations” that computer programmers sometimes chance upon as an
elaborate, arcane, or counterintuitive means of getting a software program to perform some task in a way that
cannot easily be accomplished through simpler, more straightforward, and more obvious means; if successful,

Novel forms of “magical” human-computer interaction within the cyber-physical smart workplace
International Journal of Research Studies in Management 27
such manipulations may “become ritualized and are passed on from one programming generation to the next.”
More recent texts (Gell, 1992; S. Collins, 2004; Friedman, 2009; Howard, 2014; Ouellet, Romero, & Sawchuk,
2017; McCarthy & Wright, 2018; Pataranutaporn & Lyle, 2018) have considered further aspects of the
relationship between computer programming and magic within diverse contexts.
1.3 The need to develop a clearer understanding of the “magicality” of magical HCI
Many recent studies tend to focus on the positive aspects of “magical” human-computer interaction (HCI),
as though “magical” HCI were synonymous with an amazing, enjoyable, effortless, sublimely productive user
experience. In this study, however, it is argued that scholarly analyses that describe such emerging technologies
with uncritical approval as a form of “contemporary magic” – as though any “magical” characteristics found
within a given environment were necessarily associated with improved usability, enhanced user experience (UX),
and positive technological progress – are grounded in an understanding of “magic” that diverges significantly
from established academic approaches to the definition and analysis of magical practice that have been
developed over many decades within fields like social and philosophical anthropology. It is not the aim of this
study to suggest that scholars in the field of human-computer interaction should not develop their own unique
understanding of the concept of “magic” as it relates to HCI. (And, indeed, scholars in fields like theology
maintain their own definitions of “magic” that differ significantly from those found in anthropology, while in the
fields of neuroscience and psychology the concept of “magical thinking” has yet another definition (Keinan,
1994; Zusne & Jones, 2014).) It is, however, argued here that attempts within the field of HCI to define, describe,
or analyze the emerging cyber-physical smart workplace as a “magical” environment would be strengthened and
improved if they were informed by a systematic understanding of concepts of magic drawn from anthropology –
especially insofar as that field offers rich and nuanced accounts of magical practice that suggest that any
technological environment that is maximally “magical” would necessarily involve some elements of HCI that are
highly desirable (i.e., from the perspective of UX), while simultaneously involving other forms of HCI that are
highly undesirable.
1.4 Research objectives and outcomes
It is hoped that this study can serve as a meaningful elaboration of, complement to, or alternative to existing
discussions of the magicality of cyber-physical smart workplaces in at least three ways:
 This work shows that from the perspectives of social and philosophical anthropology, HCI in
cyber-physical smart workplaces is not simply “magical” in an informal or metaphorical sense; rather,
it can be analyzed as a form of true magical practice that is arguably just as “magical” as other
historical cultural practices studied within those fields. This can facilitate the incorporation of existing
insights from anthropology directly into HCI design for cyber-physical smart workplaces.
 This study demonstrates that “magicality” in HCI is not a quality that should be unreservedly pursued
when designing a cyber-physical smart workplace: magicality cannot be identified simply or directly
with the creation of a “user-friendly” or “user-unfriendly” environment; rather, magicality is a
double-edged sword that encompasses a complex mix of characteristics that are partially advantageous
and partially disadvantageous from the perspective of usability and HCI user experience.
 This study identifies and analyzes ways in which the magicality of “classical” forms of computer
programming and software use (i.e., those that became widespread beginning in the 1970s) differs
significantly from the magicality of HCI present within the emerging cyber-physical smart workplace.
This provides a meaningful update to Freedman’s research from the 1970s and offers novel empirical
insights into the way in which the “magical” qualities of HCI have evolved over recent decades.
These findings can provide developers of cyber-physical smart workplaces with new conceptual approaches
that they can draw on when designing new work environments, analyzing the functioning of existing workplaces,

Gladden, M. E.
28 Consortia Academia Publishing
and discussing the desired or actual performance characteristics of cyber-physical smart workplaces with
non-expert clients and other stakeholders.
2. Methodology
2.1 Research approach
According to the classification frameworks for research methodologies presented by Wilson (2010), this
study employs an inductive approach, qualitative methodology, and phenomenologically based research
philosophy. Its understanding of the relationship between human beings and their environment and of the nature
of causal interaction is informed especially by the systems-theoretical philosophical anthropology developed by
the Polish phenomenologist Roman Ingarden (1960, 1961, 1970, 1974), which offers conceptual tools that are
useful for analyzing human interaction with emerging posthumanizing technologies like those relating to the
cyber-physical smart workplace (Gladden, 2018a, 2018b).
The study has relied on the collection, analysis, and synthesis of secondary data in the form of published
scholarly texts; data-collection utilized a cross-sectional time horizon and non-probability sampling methods.
Purposive sampling was employed by performing keyword searches in online scholarly databases to identify
articles addressing relevant aspects of human-computer interaction, cyber-physical systems, and magic, with
priority given to particularly influential (e.g., frequently cited) texts and recent scholarship. When identifying
and analyzing texts that proposed or investigated theories of magic, priority was given to works employing
social anthropological or philosophical anthropological perspectives. Eliminated from the pool of secondary data
were texts in which the term “magic” or “magical” was used in non-relevant senses (e.g., referring to
prestidigitation and “magic tricks” performed as stage entertainment). As a form of snowball sampling, the
bibliographies of gathered works were then used to identify additional potentially relevant works. In total, more
than 130 scholarly texts were identified as targets for analysis; particular works within that collection of
secondary data whose analysis yielded relevant information and insights are cited in the Results and Discussion
sections below.
2.2 Structure of the study
Execution of the study involved several steps, which are reflected in the structure of the text. First, by
analyzing and synthesizing existing literature relating to social anthropological and philosophical
anthropological accounts of magical practice, typical elements of magical practice were identified. Those
elements were then grouped according to their relevance to particular spheres of HCI, employing the
categorization scheme contained in the “activity checklist” for HCI evaluation developed by Kaptelinin, Nardi,
and Macaulay (1999). Using the empirical analysis of HCI usability heuristics conducted by Nielsen (1994) as a
basis, a prospective heuristic evaluation was then carried out for the usability of a generic “magical”
environment, in order to identify particular elements of magical practice that can be expected to enhance or
impair UX, if they are required for interaction with that environment. Finally, typical characteristics of the
emerging cyber-physical smart workplace were identified, and a more specific prospective heuristic usability
evaluation was performed for “magical” aspects of HCI involving two kinds of constituent technologies typical
for such a workplace: (a) ambiently intelligent and IoT-enabled systems and (b) augmented and virtual reality
systems. As is explained in more detail in Sections 3.4 and 3.5, such heuristic usability evaluations are carried
out for a given system by conceptually breaking down the system’s structures and behaviors into constituent
components and then assessing whether the descriptions of those structures and behaviors include elements that
exemplify (i.e., are consistent with) or violate (i.e., are inconsistent with) a given set of heuristic principles that
have been found to enhance usability and user experience when manifested by a technological system. (Thus, a
software program that instantly shuts itself down – and erases all of the work that was in progress – if a user
accidentally presses a certain combination of keys on the keyboard violates the heuristic principle that “A user

Novel forms of “magical” human-computer interaction within the cyber-physical smart workplace
International Journal of Research Studies in Management 29
should be asked for confirmation before a system undertakes any action that irrevocably destroys the user’s work
in progress” (Holcomb & Tharp, 1991; Apple Computer, 1992; Nielsen, 1994; Nasoz, Bryce, Palmer, & Rugg,
2011).)
3. Results
3.1 Identification of typical elements of magical practice: An anthropological perspective
Well-known social anthropological, philosophical anthropological, and sociological approaches to defining
magic include the “Law of Similarity” and “Law of Contagion” found in Frazer’s influential (though
increasingly outdated) historical and evolutionary account of sympathetic magic (Frazer, 2009); the functional
and sociological approaches of Hubert and Mauss (1902) and Durkheim (1995), according to which magic is an
anti-social practice conducted by the individual in secret to achieve some personal ends; and the functionalist
and social anthropological approach of Malinowski (1966, 2005), according to which every human being uses
both “scientific” and “magical” ways of thinking, in different circumstances – with both magic and science
constituting efforts to organize our knowledge of the natural world with the goal of better understanding,
predicting, and influencing its workings.
In Malinowski’s formulation, science emerges from our experience with technical skills (like gardening or
architecture), while magic emerges from our emotional need to grasp and explain those frustrating and
disappointing cases in which our technical skills do not yield the desired results. For Malinowski, particular
types of symbolic and spoken language are critical to magical practice: ritual magical language is not a language
for everyday use; rather it possesses a high “coefficient of weirdness” (Malinowski, 1966) that facilitates in its
practitioners the belief that the magic might somehow inexplicably achieve their desired ends. More recently,
Tambiah (1973, 1990) has developed further social anthropological accounts of the nature of magical language
and incantations and of the distinct types of “rationality” found in magical, scientific, and religious practice.
Other recent systematic analyses of magical practice include Sørensen’s (2007) cognitive approach and
Greenwood’s (2009) anthropological approach.
By analyzing and synthesizing such studies of the phenomenon of magic, it was possible to identify 14
elements that are common to magical practice and “magical” means of attempting to interact with and
manipulate one’s environment, as they have existed in diverse times, places, and cultures throughout human
history. A given body of cultural practice need not incorporate all (or even most) of the 14 elements in order to
be considered “magical” in nature; however, a practice recognized as magical will generally involve a significant
number of these elements, and the more elements are present, the more “magical” the practice will appear. These
typical elements of magical practice are described below.
Reliance on invisible copy-original links - Magical practice frequently relies on mimesis and supposed
invisible causal links that exist between an original object and its copy or representation; such dynamics provide
the rationale for sympathetic magic that is believed by its practitioners to be capable of operating at a distance
(Frazer, 2009; Sørensen, 2007; Nuño, 2014; Bubandt & Willerslev, 2015; Rhodes & Pitsis, 2008).
Harnessing of invisible agents or forces - Magical practitioners frequently attempt to manipulate their
environment by (a) channeling or controlling invisible forces that are capable of generating some desired effects
within the world or (b) summoning and commanding invisible supernatural agents that are believed to be capable
of performing within the world certain types of actions that the human practitioners cannot directly or easily
perform themselves (Sørensen, 2007; D. Collins, 2003; Sperber, 2004; Philsooph, 1971; Adams, Olsen, & M.A.
Smith, 2013; Brottman, 2009; Manning, 2014; Stein & Stein, 2017).
Manipulation of complex, non-intuitive dynamics of “occult” causality - Magical practice supposes
practitioners’ ability to understand and manipulate causal mechanisms that are “hidden” or “occult” (from the

Gladden, M. E.
30 Consortia Academia Publishing
Latin “occulere,” meaning “to conceal”). Such forms of causality differ from the laws of nature as generally
understood and are unknown to most people (Frazer, 2009; Tambiah, 1973; D. Collins, 2003; Eleta, 1997; Hagen,
2017; Stein & Stein, 2017).
Use of specially prepared ritual implements - Magical practice employs specially prepared ritual
instruments that are supposed to be capable of generating some magical effect that exceeds what the items can
produce through their naturally inherent physical properties (Hagen, 2017; Greenwood, 2009; Dieleman, 2011;
J.Z. Smith, 1995).
Use of specially prepared ritual clothing - Magical practitioners wear specially prepared ritual clothing that
is supposed to be capable of generating some unusual effect and that serves a role other than that of simple
protection, modesty, or adornment (Schwarz, 1979; Morgan, 2018; Randles, 2013; Mohan, 2017).
Reliance on powers that function only within ritual contexts - Magical practice involves attempts to
cultivate and exercise powers that only function within particular ritual contexts: for example, magical speech or
gestures are expected by practitioners to generate some desired effect if used within an appropriate ritual setting
but are devoid of any effect if used outside of that context (Sørensen, 2007; Greenwood, 2009; D. Collins, 2003;
Mirelman, 2018).
Arcane and asocial symbolic languages - Specialized types of symbolic language are critical to magical
practice (Malinowski, 1966; Tambiah, 1968, 1973; Sørensen, 2007; Dąbrowska, 2010; Hagen, 2017). Such ritual
magical language is not a language for everyday use but instead possesses a high coefficient of weirdness
(Malinowski, 1966). Such magical language employs an arcane grammar, vocabulary, and body of literary forms
that are only understood by a small group of initiated practitioners.
Arcane and asocial gestures - Magical practice similarly involves the use of physical movements and
gestures possessing a high coefficient of weirdness; such exotic and unnatural movements are not part of
practitioners’ everyday behavior and their meaning is not obvious to the uninitiated (Malinowski, 1966; Hagen,
2017; Morris & Peatfield, 2002).
Use of lengthy, complex incantations - Magical practice frequently involves the use of lengthy, complex
ritual scripts that require arranging strings of spoken words or sounds or written text or symbols in a pattern
governed by esoteric laws; even a slight error in the creation or execution of the script may be believed to render
the entire incantation ineffective (Malinowski, 1966; Tambiah, 1968, 1973; Senft, 1997; Klaniczay, 2013; Hagen,
2017; Sørensen, 2007).
Use of magic words - Magical practice may involve the use of individual “magic words” or “power words,”
which are, in a sense, the opposite of lengthy and complex incantations: a magic word is a single syllable, word,
or brief phrase that is believed to immediately generate some unusual effect within the world, when uttered; it
does not need to be incorporated into a long and elaborate ritual script (Stoller, 1984; Wallis, 2002).
Emotion-driven techniques for interaction - Magical practice is driven largely by emotional dynamics
rather than logical and reasonable intentions or methodologies (Malinowski, 2005; Nadel, 2013; Sørensen, 2007;
Subbotsky, 2011). For example, contemporary scientifically grounded medical approaches to treating illnesses
and saving lives are generally applied dispassionately by professionals as a practical technical skill and with a
rational expectation of success; magical approaches, on the other hand, are driven largely by the emotional needs
of practitioners and their communities and openly manifest such emotional characteristics.
Required mastery of an esoteric body of knowledge - Magical practice requires practitioners to learn (often
by heart) a vast body of esoteric knowledge and techniques with which members of the general public are
unfamiliar (Sørensen, 2007; Hagen, 2017; Hanegraaff, 2003; Eleta, 1997). Acquiring mastery of such knowledge
may require years of study and practice.

Novel forms of “magical” human-computer interaction within the cyber-physical smart workplace
International Journal of Research Studies in Management 31
Rules developed and policed by an initiated elite - Magical practice is often performed according to a
complex set of rules and conventions that are formulated and policed by a small group of elite practitioners.
Membership in the initiated magical elite is not open to the general public; current initiates often exercise
exclusive responsibility for selecting and training their successors (Sørensen, 2007; Hagen, 2017; Eleta, 1997).
Accessing of non-natural worlds - Magical practice is believed by its practitioners to grant access to
parallel or supernatural spheres of reality that are not visible to, accessible to, or manipulable by ordinary
inhabitants of the everyday natural world (Sørensen, 2007; Davila, 2002; Enzheng, 2002; Dąbrowska, 2010;
Stein & Stein, 2017).
3.2 Correlating elements of magical practice with different spheres of HCI
For purposes of this study, it was desirable to arrange the 14 elements of magical practice described above
into a number of coherent categories that are relevant from the perspective of human-computer interaction. This
was accomplished by employing the “activity checklist” tool developed by Kaptelinin et al. (1999) for use in the
design and evaluation of HCI within a particular environmental context. Their tool categorizes
interaction-relevant phenomena into the four spheres of: (1) “Means/ends,” which encompasses goal orientation
and the hierarchical ways in which activities performed at one scale causally impact higher-order or lower-order
activities; (2) “Environment,” which includes particular objects, devices, and technologies and users’ orientation
toward such tools; (3) “Learning/cognition/articulation,” which encompasses the ways in which users recognize,
learn, and internalize the dynamics at work within the environment and, in turn, express and externalize their
desired outcomes by manipulating the environment in a way meant to generate particular desired outcomes; and
(4) “Development,” which encompasses ways in which a user’s environment undergoes structural transformation
as a result of the user’s activities within and interaction with it.
In the case of a cyber-physical smart workplace that offers its occupants “magical” ways of interacting with
it, it is possible to understand each magical element of that interaction as falling within one of the four spheres
described by Kaptelinin et al. (1999). For example, the element of “Use of specially prepared ritual implements”
relates to the HCI sphere of the “Environment,” insofar as it involves particular types of physical objects. The
“Manipulation of complex, non-intuitive dynamics of ‘occult’ causality” performed by users of magical
environments relates to the HCI sphere of “Means/ends,” insofar as it involves the causal mechanisms by which
users hope to bring about certain desired ends within their environment. Meanwhile, the magical environment’s
ability to enable the “Accessing of non-natural worlds” can be understood as relating to the HCI sphere of
“Development,” insofar as it functionally or virtually transports users out of their everyday world and into a new
interactive cyber-physical world with its own unique structures and dynamics. Figure 1 presents the elements of
magical practice that may be active in a generic magical environment, as categorized according to the four
spheres of HCI identified by Kaptelinin et al. (1999).
As Figure 1 indicates, the magicality of a given environment has the potential to manifest itself in all four
spheres that define the ways in which users interact with that environment; the greatest number of potentially
magical aspects is found in the sphere of “Learning/cognition/articulation” and the least in that of
“Development.”
3.3 Developing a basis for the prospective heuristic evaluation of the usability of “magical” cyber-physical
smart workplaces
One of the more widely-cited and influential (Rogers, 2004; Quiñones & Rusu, 2017; Da Silva de Queiroz
Pierre, 2015) approaches to creating a systematic inventory of elements that contribute to the creation of
successful HCI is that of the usability heuristics developed by Nielsen and Molich (Molich & Nielsen, 1990;
Nielsen & Molich, 1990) and later elaborated and tested by Nielsen (1994) as part of a comparison with other
suggested approaches. From among 101 usability heuristics previously proposed by various scholars, Nielsen’s

Gladden, M. E.
32 Consortia Academia Publishing
empirical study identified 16 heuristics that played the greatest role in explaining either (a) the most serious
usability problems or (b) all of the usability problems recorded in a database of usability problems gathered from
earlier projects (Nielsen, 1994). In general, systems for human-computer interaction that operate in accordance
with those 16 heuristics will possess few (and few serious) usability problems, while those systems for HCI that
violate all of those heuristics will typically possess many (and severe) usability problems.
Figure 1. Characteristics of magical practice within a generic magical environment, as categorized according to
their proposed relationship with the four spheres of HCI identified by Kaptelinin et al. (Source: author’s own
design.)
Some – but not all – of those usability heuristics are relevant to magical practice, insofar as certain elements

Novel forms of “magical” human-computer interaction within the cyber-physical smart workplace
International Journal of Research Studies in Management 33
of magical practice inherently conflict with or embody such heuristics. By performing a conceptual analysis of
the most impactful heuristics identified by Nielsen and comparing the heuristics with the 14 typical elements of
magical practice, it was possible to select 11 heuristics for the creation of successful HCI that may be either
exemplified or violated by one or more of the elements of magical practice. These 11 heuristics (in alphabetical
order) were:
 “Aesthetic integrity, keep design simple”: a system’s graphical interface should be simple but should
avoid using overly simplistic, arbitrary images whose meaning is not clear to a novice user (Nielsen,
1994; Apple Computer, 1992).
 “Consistency: same thing looks the same”: the same (digital) object should always manifest itself in
the same visible form (Nielsen, 1994; Apple Computer, 1992).
 “Easy to discriminate action alternatives”: a user should be able to easily distinguish all available
actions and their effects (Nielsen, 1994; Polson & Lewis, 1990).
 “Familiar user’s conceptual model”: the system should employ analogies to familiar concrete objects
(Nielsen, 1994; D.C. Smith, Irby, Kimball, Verplank, & Harslem, 1982).
 “Feedback timely and accurate”: a user should not need to wait to learn whether input has been
accepted and what its result will be (Nielsen, 1994; Rohn, 1993).
 “Modeless interaction”: the results generated by a given action should always be the same, rather than
depending on which hidden state or mode the system is currently operating in (Nielsen, 1994; D.C.
Smith et al., 1982).
 “Real-world conventions”: a system should follow existing conventions in widespread use in the real
world, rather than replacing them with its own idiosyncratic practices (Nielsen, 1994; Rohn, 1993).
 “Salient repertoire of available actions”: all possible relevant actions (and only relevant actions)
should be displayed to the user (Nielsen, 1994; Polson & Lewis, 1990).
 “Seeing/pointing vs. remembering/typing”: actions should be performed by manipulating
already-visible objects (Nielsen, 1994; D.C. Smith et al., 1982).
 “Shortcuts and accelerators”: the system should offer shortcuts to expert users while simultaneously
accepting less efficient but more intuitive forms of input from novice users (Nielsen, 1994; Molich &
Nielsen, 1990; Nielsen & Molich, 1990).
 “Speak the user’s language”: the system should use only words and concepts that are already familiar
to a novice user, without employing technical jargon (Nielsen, 1994; Molich & Nielsen, 1990; Nielsen
& Molich, 1990).
3.4 Heuristic evaluation of the usability of a generic “magical” environment
By correlating these 11 selected usability heuristics with the typical elements of an environment that
employs “magical” forms of HCI, it was possible to identify ways in which a generic magical environment may,
by definition, be expected to eliminate or create usability problems for its operators. This analysis is presented in
Figure 2. Some “magical” aspects of a magical environment (indicated in red) might be expected to primarily
and significantly damage usability by violating multiple important usability heuristics; others (in green) might be
expected to primarily and significantly enhance usability; yet others (not shaded in red or green) might be
expected to have little impact or a mixed impact, enhancing usability in some ways while simultaneously
impairing it in others.

Gladden, M. E.
34 Consortia Academia Publishing
Figure 2. Ways in which the magicality of a generic magical environment may be expected to eliminate or create
usability problems for its users, insofar as it embodies or violates the most important usability heuristics for HCI
identified by Nielsen; only one element (in green) exemplifies five or more heuristics, while five magical
elements (in red) violate five or more heuristics. (Source: author’s own design.)

Novel forms of “magical” human-computer interaction within the cyber-physical smart workplace
International Journal of Research Studies in Management 35
For example, interaction with a magical environment that requires users to learn and employ “Arcane and
asocial symbolic languages” in order to manipulate it thereby reduces usability by violating several usability
heuristics. To begin with, the environmental system fails to “Speak the user’s language,” insofar as it forces users
to learn a new language. It violates the heuristic of “Seeing/pointing vs. remembering/typing,” insofar as users
must memorize the meaning of large quantities of arbitrary symbols of non-obvious significance, rather than
being able to recognize and select desired actions from a menu of choices whose meaning is clear without
previous study. It similarly violates the heuristic of “Aesthetic integrity, keep design simple,” which bars the use
of arbitrary images or symbols whose meaning is not obvious to a user. The fact that the language to be learned
is arcane and asocial means that, by definition, it is not the sort of natural human language that is useful for
conventional linguistic purposes, and the linguistic “Real-world conventions” familiar to users will not apply to
it. Finally, the fact that the language is artificial, esoteric, and not grounded in references to ordinary everyday
objects means that a user cannot rely on the “Familiar user’s conceptual model” when attempting to remember or
interpret the language’s structure or contents.
On the other hand, by its nature, the element of magical practice that involves “Emotion-driven techniques
for interaction” tends to facilitate the implementation of the most important HCI usability heuristics identified by
Nielsen. A “magical” environment that is able to directly detect, interpret, and respond to users’ moods, emotions,
and desires in real time offers its users the opportunity to manipulate that environment in ways that are
spontaneous, instantaneous, and natural and that do not require specialized training or the use of elaborate scripts.
For example, a cyber-physical smart workplace that instantly and automatically pauses or “undoes” some action
that was underway because it recognized that a user was unhappy with the action (as manifested in the user’s
unconscious facial expressions) thereby “Speaks the user’s language” in an especially direct and intimate way
and offers novel forms of “Shortcuts and accelerators” that do not even require a user to type on a keyboard,
manipulate a mouse, or speak some instruction aloud.
Meanwhile, an environment that allows interaction through the “Use of magic words” – by which a user can
trigger some desired effect by uttering a single predetermined word that has been arbitrarily selected by the
system – thereby creates a mix of usability advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, for example, it
exemplifies the heuristic of employing “Shortcuts and accelerators”; on the other hand, it violates the principle of
continuously displaying the “Salient repertoire of available actions” by forcing a user to accurately retain
knowledge of all available magic words and their effects and to instantly recall the appropriate magic word,
when desired.
For the 14 elements of magical practice, the number of usability heuristics that can be expected to be
exemplified by a particular element ranges from 0 to 6 and the number of usability heuristics that can be
expected to be violated ranges from 1 to 7. Five of the magical elements (“Manipulation of complex,
non-intuitive dynamics of ‘occult’ causality,” “Arcane and asocial symbolic languages,” “Use of lengthy,
complex incantations,” “Required mastery of an esoteric body of knowledge,” and “Accessing of non-natural
worlds”) are conceptually linked with the violation of five or more HCI usability heuristics; in Figure 2, those
magical elements are highlighted in red. Only one magical element (“Emotion-driven techniques for interaction”)
is associated with the exemplification of five or more usability heuristics; that element is highlighted in green.
3.5 Heuristic evaluation of the usability of two constituent technologies of “magical” cyber-physical smart
workplaces
The cyber-physical smart workplace is a key feature of the emerging “cyber-physical organization”
(Gladden, 2017), which typically comprises an array of “cyber-physical systems” (Gill, 2008; Wang, Vuran, &
Goddard, 2008), including “cyber-physical-social systems” that incorporate human beings and social robots (Liu,
Yang, Wen, Zhang, & Mao, 2011; Smirnov, Kashevnik, & Ponomarev, 2015). As depicted in Figure 3, the
cyber-physical organization and its cyber-physical smart workplace are characterized by the roboticization of
organizational agency and action (Samani, Valino Koh, Saadatian, & Polydorou, 2012; Ford, 2015; Sachs,

Gladden, M. E.
36 Consortia Academia Publishing
Benzell, & LaGarda, 2015; Gladden, 2017), deepened human-computer integration within the organizational
workforce (Clark, 2004; McGee, 2008; Koops & Leenes, 2012; Gladden, 2017), and the ubiquitization and
non-localization of computational processes (Greenfield, 2006; Gladden, 2016, 2017; Coeckelbergh, 2011). A
robustly cyber-physical organization constitutes a type of entity within which processes of posthumanization
(Gladden, 2018c; Herbrechter, 2013) have exercised significant transformative influence; more specifically, its
cyber-physical smart workplace can be understood as “technologically posthumanized,” insofar as its
incorporation of particular advanced technologies has expanded the workplace to includes members other than
“natural” biological human beings who contribute to its structure, activity, and meaning by serving within it as
decision-makers and intelligent social actors (Gladden, 2018c).
Figure 3. Key characteristics of the cyber-physical smart workplace, which incorporates a characteristic range of
technologies and enables new forms of HCI. (Source: author’s own design.)

Novel forms of “magical” human-computer interaction within the cyber-physical smart workplace
International Journal of Research Studies in Management 37
Analysis of Figure 2 suggests that – far from automatically offering a positively enhanced user experience –
any such cyber-physical smart workplace that incorporates forms of HCI that can properly be described as
“magical” (from an anthropological perspective) may be at least as likely to lessen its usability and create a
poorer user experience. To explore how that dynamic manifests itself in practice, this study considered in more
detail the “magicality” of two particular types of technologies associated with the emerging cyber-physical smart
workplace: those relating to (a) ambiently intelligent and IoT-enabled systems and (b) AR and VR systems.
The magicality of ambiently intelligent and IoT-enabled smart environments - By analyzing, comparing,
and synthesizing texts that investigate the use of ambient intelligence, ubiquitous computing, cyber-physical
systems, and IoT-enabled systems to create interactive smart workplace environments (Remagnino, Hagras,
Monekosso, & Velastin, 2005; Bohn, Coroamă, Langheinrich, Mattern, & Rohs, 2005; Cook, Augusto, &
Jakkula, 2009; De Saulles, 2017; Kranz, 2017; Raj & Raman, 2017; Liu et al., 2011; Gill, 2008; Wang et al.,
2008; Poslad, 2011), it was possible to identify ways in which a cyber-physical smart workplace incorporating
such technologies would offer its users a “magical” form of HCI. Figure 4 identifies particular aspects of
ambiently intelligent and IoT-enabled systems that can be understood as creating a type of “magical” HCI;
associates them with the relevant anthropological aspect of magical practice and sphere of HCI; and (through the
shading of cells) indicates whether particular aspects of such ambiently intelligent and IoT-enabled systems are
associated with magical practices that may generally be expected to have a beneficial, detrimental, or neutral or
mixed impact on usability and user experience.
For example, such environments offer a new means of harnessing invisible, intelligent non-human entities or
forces to produce some desired physical effect. According to the medieval Christian account of magic
(developed by thinkers like St. Thomas Aquinas (1948)), many forms of magic implicitly or explicitly involved
efforts to control disembodied demons that could manipulate physical objects. In a sense, within a contemporary
workplace environment “enlivened” by cyber-physical systems, ambient intelligence, and the Internet of Things,
embedded AI linked to ubiquitous sensors and actuators takes the place of demons: the human user of such a
space might relocate heavy objects, adjust the lighting and temperature, open or close windows or doors, play
particular audiovisual media, establish live audiovisual communication links with distant individuals, schedule
future events, request particular pieces of information, or activate or deactivate devices simply by uttering a
particular phrase or performing a certain type of gesture.
The magicality of augmented and virtual reality systems - Similarly, by analyzing literature that explores
the emerging use of AR and VR systems in workplace settings (Kadavasal, Dhara, Wu, & Krishnaswamy, 2007;
Craig, 2013; Jerald, 2016; Aukstakalnis, 2017; Ewalt, 2018; Farshid, Paschen, Eriksson, & Kietzmann, 2018), it
was possible to offer a similar account of the impact of such technologies’ “magicality” on HCI within the
context of a cyber-physical smart workplace. That analysis is also presented in Figure 4.
For example, many types of VR systems incorporate new types of “ritual clothing” in the form of haptic
feedback gloves and VR goggles that are not employed in traditional HCI and which allow their users to access a
sort of “parallel world” whose contents are imperceptible to gathered bystanders who are not using such VR
gear.
Moreover, VR systems that employ motion-detection technologies may require their users to master a
collection of “arcane gestures” that produce no effects in the external physical world (other than amusing or
perplexing any nearby observers) or when users are standing outside of the VR system’s sensory boundaries but
which may generate spectacular effects within the virtual world experienced by the users when they are
performing such gestures within the “ritual context” of an activated VR system’s zone of motion detection.
Such virtual worlds may also display “laws of nature” and forms of causality (Novak, 1991) that differ
radically from those of the everyday physical world (Ingarden, 1974, 1970): for example, within a virtual world,
a user may be able to levitate above the ground, move instantaneously across great distances, or “reverse time”
and replay some recent sensory experience. Users who gradually come to master the intricacies of such HCI are,

Gladden, M. E.
38 Consortia Academia Publishing
in effect, becoming initiated into a particular type of (digital-physical) magical practice.
3.6 Divergent ways in which the magicality of classical computing and the cyber-physical smart workplace
impact HCI UX
For comparative purposes, Figure 4 also builds on Freedman (1973) to offer an analysis of the magicality of
“classical” forms of HCI grounded in conventional computer programming and software use of the sort that
became common beginning in the 1970s. For example, a block of source code written in a programming
language like C++ displays a high “coefficient of weirdness”: while it possesses a unique grammar and syntax,
such code is incomprehensible to non-programmers, and it is not the sort of language that can be used for
everyday conversations in the home or workplace. Moreover, snippets of code written in such a language
produce no notable effects when simply pasted into a document in a word processor; only when the same lines of
code are inserted into a file within the “ritual context” of a programmer’s integrated development environment
(IDE) or source code editor can they produce dramatic and unexpected effects – for example, by causing a bird
to soar above a forest on the computer screen or elaborate fractals to appear when the compiled executable
program is run. Similarly, conventional programmers may learn obscure keyboard shortcuts or prepare macros
that allow them to perform some arcane “gesture” upon the keyboard that will generate what to the uninitiated
appear to be startling and inexplicable effects.
A comparison of the columns presented in Figure 4 makes it possible to formulate the following
observations:
 The incorporation of ambiently intelligent and IoT-enabled systems and AR/VR systems creates the
potential for the cyber-physical smart workplace to eliminate some “magical” aspects of classical
computer programming and software use (i.e., their reliance on “Arcane and asocial symbolic
languages” and the “Use of lengthy, complex incantations”) that are conceptually linked with
numerous usability heuristic violations. In this way, the new forms of intuitive, physical, social HCI
made possible by the cyber-physical smart workplace open the door to offering improved user
experiences.
 The cyber-physical smart workplace’s use of ambiently intelligent and IoT-enabled systems and
AR/VR systems also has the potential to enhance usability and UX by incorporating a new element of
magical practice (“Emotion-driven techniques for interaction”) that is absent in classical computer
programming and software use but which is conceptually linked with the successful exemplification of
a significant number of important usability heuristics.
 At the same time, though, the cyber-physical smart workplace’s use of ambiently intelligent and
IoT-enabled systems and AR/VR systems promises to preserve some of the “magical” elements of
classical computing that are conceptually linked with significant usability heuristic violations (i.e.,
“Manipulation of complex, non-intuitive dynamics of ‘occult’ causality,” “Required mastery of an
esoteric body of knowledge,” and “Accessing of non-natural worlds”). However, the specific form that
these magical elements take within the cyber-physical smart workplace differs from those found in
classical computing.
4. Discussion
Reflection on the study’s findings makes it possible to discern a number of managerial implications for
scholars and industry. These are discussed below, along with limitations of the study and potential directions for
future research.

Novel forms of “magical” human-computer interaction within the cyber-physical smart workplace
International Journal of Research Studies in Management 39
Figure 4. The “magicality” of the cyber-physical smart workplace has the potential to eliminate some of the
violations of HCI usability heuristics (indicated in red) found in classical computing and add new violations of
its own (also in red), while at the same time beneficially exemplifying other usability heuristics (in green) that
are not embodied by classical computing and HCI. (Source: author’s own design.)

Gladden, M. E.
40 Consortia Academia Publishing
4.1 Managerial implications for scholars
By demonstrating how new, technologically posthumanizing workplace technologies can be analyzed using
conceptual frameworks that have been previously applied to study historical forms of “magical practice,” the
study makes it easier for anthropologists and other social scientists to investigate the emerging cyber-physical
smart workplace as a venue in which human beings interact with other human agents, nonhuman agents and
tools, and their broader environment in qualitatively novel ways. Conversely, for scholars in the field of
management who are striving (a) to understand how human workers instinctively interact with new
cyber-physical smart workplaces or (b) to identify best practices for how human workers can most effectively
interact with such cyber-physical smart workplaces, this study’s findings provide a blueprint for adapting
established methodologies from social and philosophical anthropology and applying them in a new context. The
study thus provides a transdisciplinary “bridge” that allows insights from the field of anthropology to inform
ongoing research in the fields of technology management and HCI – and vice versa. This makes it possible for
scholars to draw creatively on findings from other disciplines in a way that respects each field’s autonomy while
avoiding needless reduplication of effort. Moreover, for philosophers of technology, the study provides an
in-depth analysis of a particular type of technological posthumanization and its impacts that can serve as raw
material for further reflection.
4.2 Managerial implications for industries that design and produce “magical” workplace technologies
For companies that design and produce technologies that contribute to cyber-physical smart workplace
environments (including voice-activated smart assistants, building automation systems, industrial AR/VR
systems, interactive holographic surfaces, and ambiently intelligent spaces), the study provides a meaningful
new conceptual framework for UX analysis and the planning of human-computer interaction. It reminds us that
“magical” workplace technologies tap into longstanding and deeply rooted patterns of cognition and social
behavior according to which human beings frequently come to view complex, unpredictable, and uncontrollable
surroundings as “magical” (to a greater or lesser degree) and seek to understand and manipulate those
environments through magical practices that are emotionally appealing but of little or no practical effectiveness.
Such dynamics create both opportunities and dangers for the producers of cyber-physical smart workplace
technologies: the study identifies one element of magical practice (i.e., “Emotion-driven techniques for
interaction”) that designers of cyber-physical smart workplaces can incorporate into HCI within their
environments that will likely enhance usability and improve UX, along with five other elements of magical
practice (discussed in Section 3.4) that should generally be avoided when designing HCI for cyber-physical
smart workplaces, insofar as they are likely to damage usability and UX.
Moreover, the study’s findings suggest that (a) various cyber-physical smart workplace technologies (e.g.,
ambiently intelligent and IoT-enabled systems and AR/VR systems) may possess similar dynamics of beneficial
and detrimental magicality, while (b) the dynamics of beneficial and detrimental magicality found collectively in
cyber-physical smart workplace technologies differ significantly from those found in older forms of conventional
computer programming and HCI. This indicates that (a) despite the superficial differences of their technologies,
producers of diverse cyber-physical smart workplace systems may be able to draw meaningful insights from one
another regarding best practices for HCI, and (b) any producers of workplace technologies that are still relying
on analyses of the “magicality” of technology grounded in studies of conventional computer programming and
HCI should reevaluate the appropriateness of their dependence on such (increasingly outdated) research.
4.3 Managerial implications for industries that utilize “magical” workplace technologies
For organizations that utilize cyber-physical smart workplaces, the magicality of such environments has
implications for the hiring and training of workers, the ease with which such environments can be utilized and
repaired, and the scope of the organizations’ strategic competition.

Novel forms of “magical” human-computer interaction within the cyber-physical smart workplace
International Journal of Research Studies in Management 41
New emphases for hiring and training: From engineering to the arts - If – thanks to its sophisticated
embedded AI – a cyber-physical smart workplace becomes directly sensitive and immediately responsive to the
wishes and behaviors of everyday occupants in the manner described above, then there is no longer such a great
need for an organization to employ expert programmers and specialized technicians to operate that environment:
even an ordinary user can elicit desired responses from an AI-enabled smart environment without needing to
have mastered obscure programming languages or software design principles. One might interpret such a
development as a reduction in the magicality of the environment, whose functioning becomes “democratized”
and less dependent on a small, initiated elite of computer programmers who possess the esoteric knowledge
needed to control it. Alternatively, one might argue that within such a smart environment, even ordinary users
will gain extraordinary and unusual new powers for manipulation and control – thereby enhancing the seeming
“enchantment” of the workplace.
In either case, there will always be an important role for those workers who better understand the
environment’s governing AI – who know the tricks for “taming,” “coaxing,” or otherwise manipulating it and
who understand how to more ingeniously exploit its potential, even if they do so by employing a certain tone of
voice or finesse in their physical gestures, rather than by dictating the environment’s behavior through the use of
a programming language. Investigation of such possibilities can draw beneficially on the research of computer
scientist and philosopher Alan N. Shapiro (2014), whose work explores ways in which future forms of HCI may
enable computer programs to be brought into existence (or computerized devices to be manipulated) as a
“self-expressive act of creativity” that is more akin to the creation of art or poetry than a purely logical,
mathematical exercise.
From the perspective of HCI, the most relevant distinction in such a situation may no longer be between
“ordinary users” and “expert programmers” but between the “ordinary occupants” of a cyber-physical smart
workplace and those “adepts” who are skilled at manipulating it through new magical forms of speech, gesture,
and other social behaviors. Indeed, a concept explored in numerous works of fiction is that of near-future
“cyberadepts” (Hume, 1995), “virtual adepts” (Bridges, Brucato, Campbell, Gaudreau, McCoy, et al., 1998),
“technomancers” (Bridges et al., 1998), or “technoshamans” (Hume, 1995) who are so attuned to the nature of
the surrounding environment as a computerized system that they can essentially “reprogram” the world around
them through a sheer act of will. To date, the limited real-world manifestations of self-conscious
“technoshamanism” (e.g., by figures like Michael Allison (2015)) are primarily either artistic experiment, parody,
provocation, or wishful thinking rather than serious, sincere “magical practice” – because the types of
technology that could support such practice are only now beginning to emerge. However, the development of
cyber-physical organizations and their technologically posthumanized workplaces are a further step toward
facilitating such new forms of HCI. If the successful manipulation of cyber-physical smart workplaces is indeed
based not primarily on computer programming skills but on physical and emotional talents of the sort commonly
employed in dance, theatrical performance, rhetoric, and coaching, then organizations utilizing cyber-physical
smart environments may need to reprioritize the skills that they seek to identify or inculcate when recruiting or
training employees; for a growing number of jobs located in such workplaces, training in the arts and humanities
may become more desirable than a knowledge of science, mathematics, and engineering.
Easier to use, harder to repair: The cyber-physical smart workplace as a “black box” for workers - It is
arguably not the obvious superficial aspects – like the use of VR goggles and haptic feedback gloves – that most
differentiate the “new” types of magical practice introduced into the cyber-physical smart workplace from the
“old” types of magical practice mastered by traditional computer programmers. Rather, it is the new experience
of environmental agency enjoyed by the designers, operators, and ordinary users of such workplaces that may
represent the greatest qualitative change to HCI. This change results from two interrelated ways in which
real-time semi-autonomous analysis and decision-making by sophisticated forms of AI (and not human
programmers or sysadmins) shape how such an environment responds to human input. On the one hand, AI
becomes the new mediator that determines exactly when and how input provided by human workers (e.g.,
through their speech or gestures) will be transformed into particular types of sensory stimuli or behaviors by

Gladden, M. E.
42 Consortia Academia Publishing
physical objects; at the same time, though, such AI conceals from the human workers the precise mechanisms by
which it works and hides its involvement in the process.
For example, in earlier workplaces, causing a robotic arm to rotate in a certain way might have required a
programmer to spend hours writing detailed source code or an expert user to meticulously train the robot using a
specialized “teach pendant”; such employees were intimately aware (and continuously reminded) of all the
individual technological mechanisms and detailed procedural steps that were involved with controlling the
robot’s actions. However, within emerging types of cyber-physical smart workplaces of the sort discussed here,
an ordinary employee might – without any elaborate training – be able to walk into a smart environment, say
aloud to a robotic system, “Do as I do,” and then watch as the robot’s manipulator arm imitates the real-time
motions of the employee’s own arm.
Such a workplace becomes a sort of “black box” (Hynes, 2018) in which employees need not understand the
precise technological mechanisms that underlie its behavior; they need only learn what types of input will
generate which types of real-time responses within the physical or virtual environment. Human workers who
become immersed in such an environment’s cybernetic feedback loops might over time even “forget” the fact
that a computerized AI system is orchestrating the environment’s behavior, behind the scenes; it might instead
appear as though the whole environment itself is a kind of quasi-organism or ecosystem that is directly sensitive
and “magically responsive” to the worker’s actions. As long as all of its constituent technologies continue to
function flawlessly, such an environment may be easier for workers (even new and untrained ones) to manipulate
than previous IT-heavy environments; however, when unexpected problems eventually occur with the
environment (e.g., due to random hardware failures), they might be more difficult for ordinary workers to
resolve, as the workers will possess very limited understanding of the environment’s underlying technologies. In
effect, such cyber-physical smart workplaces may become easier for an organization’s personnel to use but
harder for them to repair; this makes it more important for organizations to design such systems to display high
reliability and a long mean time between failures (MTBF).
The cyber-physical smart workplace: A new “magical” strategic battleground for organizations -
Historically, organizational workplaces have been limited in size: a given company’s employees might be housed
within a single factory or office building or within a collection of numerous such buildings found in particular
geographical locations. However, the creation of VR-enabled online virtual worlds allows employees, (potential)
customers, and other stakeholders who are scattered physically around the entire planet to “inhabit” and interact
within a single shared virtual space. Similarly, by accessing the globalized Internet of Things, an organization
can extend its workplace into public spaces or the homes of employees or (potential) customers by sensing what
is happening and acting physically in those environments through a diverse array of networked devices.
This can, in effect, expand the “enchanted” cyber-physical smart workplace to potentially encompass much
of the world’s cyber-physical and digital-physical ecosystem, within which one organization’s workplace would
overlap with those of many other organizations. Such magical realms are not simply an “internal” workplace or
another profit-generating service offered to consumers; they constitute a new (virtual) strategic sphere within
which organizations can compete against one another for information, influence, power, financial resources, and
customer loyalty.
Given the importance of magical elements of HCI of the sort described in this study to the creation,
operation, and effective use of such digital-physical realms by organizational “technomancers,” the question
arises of whether the functioning of such environments can be fully and adequately documented, analyzed, and
explained solely by using established concepts found in traditional management disciplines like marketing,
logistics, finance, enterprise architecture, and HR management – or whether it can be more robustly described
and meaningfully interpreted by incorporating taxonomies, typologies, and other concepts from the social
anthropological or philosophical anthropological study of magical practice. Organizations that maintain such
globalized cyber-physical smart workplaces may thus increasingly need to expand their workforces to

Novel forms of “magical” human-computer interaction within the cyber-physical smart workplace
International Journal of Research Studies in Management 43
incorporate new expertise from the social sciences.
4.4 Limitations of this study
A notable limitation of this study is the fact that it has only offered a prospective usability evaluation of the
magical elements of two types of technologies found within the emerging cyber-physical smart workplace,
which yielded similar profiles for the ways in which their magicality might be expected to enhance or impair
usability and user experience. As indicated in Figure 3, though, such workplaces encompass diverse other
technologies relating, for example, to machine learning, swarm intelligence, mobile and wearable devices, and
neuroprostheses. It is possible that a prospective usability evaluation of the magical elements of such additional
technologies might suggest that the impact of their magicality on usability and UX will differ significantly from
those of the ambiently intelligent and IoT-enabled systems and AR/VR systems investigated here. Moreover, the
ongoing emergence of new technologies and the rapid and accelerating pace of technological change within
organizations means that any such analyses must be revisited regularly in order to take into account new
workplace technologies and the novel forms of HCI that they facilitate.
4.5 Directions for future research
In addition to carrying out additional prospective usability evaluations for specific technologies of the sort
just described, it will become increasingly feasible to carry out qualitative empirical studies of workers’ lived
experiences of magicality within cyber-physical smart workplaces and quantitative studies of the impacts of such
workplaces’ magicality on their efficiency and effectiveness, as such workplaces become more widely and
robustly implemented within growing numbers of organizations.
5. Conclusion
This study has shown that HCI within emerging cyber-physical smart workplaces is not simply “magical” in
a metaphorical sense; from an anthropological perspective, it can be understood as involving true magical
practices. However, as demonstrated above, the “magicality” of such environments is not an entirely positive
trait; rather, magicality is a complex phenomenon that has the potential to both improve and damage usability
and user experience in diverse ways. Moreover, the usability and UX impacts of magicality in emerging
technologies for the cyber-physical smart workplace have been shown to differ substantially from the effects of
magicality in classical computing. This suggests that the magicality of computing technologies and its impacts
on users have already evolved significantly in recent decades and may continue to evolve further in the future. It
is thus difficult to offer a definitive study of the magicality of computing technologies in any one work. However,
it is hoped that by employing approaches like the one formulated and applied in this text to aid in the
understanding, design, and execution of HCI within cyber-physical smart workplaces, the “magical” aspects of
such environments can be managed in ways that generate the best possible user experience for the employees,
customers, and other stakeholders who may occupy or interact with them.
6. References
Adams, T., Olsen, K., & Smith, M.A. (2013). Thinking about magic in medieval and early modern Europe.
Parergon, 30(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1353/pgn.2013.0086
Allison, M. (2015). Ecstatic computation: Virtual reality ritual and performance. Retrieved from
http://michaelallison.lol/projects/ecstaticcomputation
Apple Computer. (1992). Macintosh human interface guidelines. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Aquinas, T. (1948). Summa theologica 2.2.96. New York: Benzinger Bros.
Aukstakalnis, S. (2017). Practical augmented reality: A guide to the technologies, applications, and human
factors for AR and VR. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Bohn, J., Coroamă, V., Langheinrich, M., Mattern, F., & Rohs, M. (2005). Social, economic, and ethical

Gladden, M. E.
44 Consortia Academia Publishing
implications of ambient intelligence and ubiquitous computing. In W. Weber, J. M. Rabaey, & E. Aarts
(Eds.), Ambient intelligence (pp. 5-29). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27139-2_2
Bridges, B., Brucato, P., Campbell, B., Gaudreau, R., McCoy, A.L., McLaughlin, J., & Robey, J.R. (1998).
Technomancer’s toybox. Clarkston, GA: White Wolf Game Studio.
Brottman, M. (2009). Psychoanalysis and magic: Then and now. American Imago, 66(4), 471-489.
https://doi.org/10.1353/aim.0.0067
Bubandt, N., & Willerslev, R. (2015). The dark side of empathy: Mimesis, deception, and the magic of alterity.
Comparative Studies in Society and History, 57(1), 5-34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417514000589
Clark, A. (2004). Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Clarke, A.C. (1973). Hazards of prophecy: The failure of imagination. In Profiles of the future (pp. 12-21).
London: Pan.
Coeckelbergh, M. (2018). Scientific suspects, romantic witnesses? Magic technologies, alienation, and
self-destruction in the Anthropocene. Glimpse, 19, 39-45. https://doi.org/10.5840/glimpse2018194
Coeckelbergh, M. (2011). From killer machines to doctrines and swarms, or why ethics of military robotics is
not (necessarily) about robots. Philosophy & Technology, 24(3), 269-78.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-011-0019-6
Collins, D. (2003). Nature, cause, and agency in Greek magic. Transactions of the American Philological
Association, 133, 17-49. https://doi.org/10.1353/apa.2003.0003
Collins, S. (2004). Technology and magick. SCAN Journal of Media Arts Culture, 1(2).
Cook, D. J., Augusto, J. C., & Jakkula, V. R. (2009). Ambient intelligence: Technologies, applications, and
opportunities. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 5(4), 277-298.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmcj.2009.04.001
Craig, A. B. (2013). Understanding augmented reality: Concepts and applications. Waltham, MA: Morgan
Kaufmann. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-240-82408-6.00002-3
Da Silva de Queiroz Pierre, R. (2015). Heuristics in design: A literature review. Procedia Manufacturing, 3,
6571-6578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.961
Dąbrowska, K. M. (2010). Secret language in oral and graphic form: Religious-magic discourse in Aztec
speeches and manuscripts. Oral Tradition, 25(2). https://doi.org/10.1353/ort.2010.0026
Davila, J. R. (2002). Shamanic initiatory death and resurrection in the Hekhalot literature. In P. Mirecki & M.
Meyer (Eds.), Magic and ritual in the ancient world (pp. 283-302). Leiden: Brill.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047400400_016
De Saulles, M. (2017). The internet of things and business. New York: Routledge.
Dieleman, J. (2011). Scribal practices in the production of magic handbooks in Egypt. In Continuity and
innovation in the magical tradition (pp. 85-118). Leiden: Brill.
https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004203518.i-390.24
Do, E. Y. L. (2013). Designing interactive computing for happy healthy life. In Intelligent interactive
technologies and multimedia (pp. 1-13). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37463-0_1
Durkheim, É. (1995). Elementary forms of religious life. Fields, K. E., translator. New York: The Free Press.
Eleta, P. (1997). The conquest of magic over public space: Discovering the face of popular magic in
contemporary society. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 12(1), 51-67.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13537909708580789
Enzheng, T. (2002). Magicians, magic, and shamanism in ancient China. Journal of East Asian Archaeology,
4(1), 27-73. https://doi.org/10.1163/156852302322454495
Ewalt, D. (2018). Defying reality: The inside story of the virtual reality revolution. New York: Blue Rider Press.
Farshid, M., Paschen, J., Eriksson, T., & Kietzmann, J. (2018). Go boldly! Explore augmented reality (AR),
virtual reality (VR), and mixed reality (MR) for business. Business Horizons, 61(5), 657-663.
Ford, M. (2015). Rise of the robots: Technology and the threat of a jobless future. New York: Basic Books.

Novel forms of “magical” human-computer interaction within the cyber-physical smart workplace
International Journal of Research Studies in Management 45
Fragoso, S., & Reis, B. M. S. (2016). Ludic re-enchantment and the power of locative games: A case study of the
game Ingress. In International conference on culture, technology, and communication (pp. 131-148).
Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50109-3_9
Frazer, J. G. (2009). The golden bough: A study in magic and religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139207676
Freedman, D. (1973). Computer Magic. In SIGCPR '73 Proceedings of the 11
th
annual SIGCPS computer
personnel research conference (pp. 1-9). New York: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
https://doi.org/10.1145/800120.803914
Friedman, T. (2009). The politics of magic: Fantasy media, technology, and nature in the 21st century. Scope: An
Online Journal of Film and Television Studies, 14.
Gell, A. (1992). The technology of enchantment and the enchantment of technology. In Anthropology, art and
aesthetics (pp. 40-63). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gill, H. (2008). From vision to reality: Cyber-physical systems. In HCSS national workshop on new research
directions for high confidence transportation CPS: automotive, aviation, and rail.
Gladden, M. E. (2018a). Ingardenowska „fenomenologia systemowa” jako podstawa posthumanizowanej
praktyki architektury / An Ingardenian “systems phenomenology” as the basis for posthumanized
architectural practice. Teka Komisji Urbanistyki i Architektury, 46, 127-138.
Gladden, M. E. (2018b). A phenomenological analysis of the posthumanized future workplace. Kwartalnik Nauk
o Przedsiębiorstwie, 48, 31-39. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0012.7776
Gladden, M. E. (2018c). Sapient circuits and digitalized flesh: The organization as locus of technological
posthumanization (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Defragmenter Media.
Gladden, M. E. (2017). Strategic management instruments for cyber-physical organizations: Technological
posthumanization as a driver of strategic innovation. International Journal of Contemporary
Management, 16(3), 139-155. https://doi.org/10.4467/24498939IJCM.17.026.7546
Gladden, M. E. (2016). The diffuse intelligent other: An ontology of nonlocalizable robots as moral and legal
actors. In M. Nørskov (Ed.), Social robots: Boundaries, potential, challenges (pp. 177-198). Farnham:
Ashgate. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315563084-10
Greenfield, A. (2006). Everyware: The dawning age of ubiquitous computing. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
Greenwood, S. (2009). The anthropology of magic. Oxford: Berg.
Hagen, A. L. (2017). Sketching with knives: Architects & the confidence theory of magic. Anthropology Today,
33(2), 24-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8322.12338
Hanegraaff, W. J. (2003). How magic survived the disenchantment of the world. Religion, 33(4), 357-380.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-721X(03)00053-8
Herbrechter, S. (2013). Posthumanism: A critical analysis. London: Bloomsbury.
Holcomb, R., & Tharp, A. L. (1991). What users say about software usability. International Journal of Human
Computer Interaction, 3(1), 49-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447319109525996
Howard, J. (2014). Game magic: A designer's guide to magic systems in theory and practice. Boca Raton: CRC
Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b16848
Hubert, H., & Mauss, M. (1902). Esquisse d'une théorie générale de la magie. L’Année sociologique
(1896/1897-1924/1925), 7, 1-146.
Hume, P. R. (1995). Virtual realities 2.0: A Shadowrun sourcebook. Chicago: FASA.
Hynes, M. (2018). Shining a brighter light into the digital ‘blackbox’: A call for stronger sociological
(re)engagement with digital technology design, development and adoption debates. Irish Journal of
Sociology, 26(1), 94-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0791603517741605
Ingarden, R. (1974). Über die kausale Struktur der realen Welt: Der Streit um die Existenz der Welt III. Tübingen:
Max Niemeyer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110916201
Ingarden, R. (1970). Über die Verantwortung: Ihre ontischen Fundamente. Stuttgart: Reclam.
Ingarden, R. (1960). Spór o istnienie świata (Vol. 1). Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Ingarden, R. (1961). Spór o istnienie świata (Vol. 2). Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Javornik, A., Rogers, Y., Moutinho, A. M., & Freeman, R. (2016). Revealing the shopper experience of using a

Gladden, M. E.
46 Consortia Academia Publishing
“magic mirror” augmented reality make-up application. In Conference on designing interactive systems
(pp. 871-882). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901881
Jerald, J. (2016). The VR book: Human-centered design for virtual reality. New York: ACM.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2792790
Kadavasal, M. S., Dhara, K. K., Wu, X., & Krishnaswamy, V. (2007). Mixed reality for enhancing business
communications using virtual worlds. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM symposium on virtual reality
software and technology (pp. 233-234). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1315184.1315236
Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B. A., & Macaulay, C. (1999). The activity checklist: A tool for representing the ‘space’ of
context. Interactions, 6(4), 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1145/306412.306431
Keinan, G. (1994). Effects of stress and tolerance of ambiguity on magical thinking. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 67(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.1.48
Klaniczay, G. (2013). The power of words in miracles, visions, incantations and bewitchments. In J. Kapalo, É,
Pócs, & W. Ryan (Eds.), The power of words: Studies on charms and charming in Europe (pp. 281-304).
Budapest: Central European University Press.
Koops, B.-J., & Leenes, R. (2012). Cheating with implants: Implications of the hidden information advantage of
bionic ears and eyes. In M. N. Gasson, E. Kosta, & D. M. Bowman (Eds.), Human ICT implants:
Technical, legal and ethical considerations (pp. 113-34). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-870-5_10
Kranz, M. (2017). Building the Internet of Things: Implement new business models, disrupt competitors,
transform your industry. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Liu, Z., Yang, D., Wen, D., Zhang, W., & Mao, W. (2011). Cyber-physical-social systems for command and
control. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 26(4), 92-96. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2011.69
Malinowski, B. (2005). Magic, science and religion. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing.
Malinowski, B. (1966). Coral gardens and their magic (Vol. 2). London: Allen & Unwin.
Manning, M. C. (2014). Magic, religion, and ritual in historical archaeology. Historical Archaeology, 48(3), 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03376934
McCarthy, J., & Wright, P. (2018). The enchantments of technology. In Funology 2 (pp. 359-373). Cham:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68213-6_23
McGee, E. M. (2008). Bioelectronics and implanted devices. In B. Gordijn & R. Chadwick (Eds.), Medical
enhancement and posthumanity (pp. 207-24). Netherlands: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8852-0_13
Mirelman, S. (2018). Mesopotamian magic in text and performance. In Mesopotamian medicine and magic (pp.
343-378). Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368088_018
Mohan, U. (2017). Clothing as a technology of enchantment: Gaze and glaze in Hindu garments. Magic, Ritual,
and Witchcraft, 12(2), 225-244. https://doi.org/10.1353/mrw.2017.0022
Molich, R., & Nielsen, J. (1990). Improving a human-computer dialogue. Communications of the ACM, 33(3),
338-348. https://doi.org/10.1145/77481.77486
Morgan, F. P. (2018). Cultural values in clothing: Apotropaic practices. In Dress and personal appearance in late
antiquity (pp. 38-64). Leiden: Brill.
Morris, C., & Peatfield, A. (2002). Feeling through the body. In Thinking through the body (pp. 105-120). Boston,
MA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0693-5_6
Nadel, S. F. (2013). Malinowski on magic and religion. In Man and Culture (pp. 199-218). London: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315014470
Nasoz, F., Bryce, R. C., Palmer, C. J., & Rugg, D. J. (2011). A user-centric metadata creation tool for preserving
the nation’s ecological data. In M. J. Smith & G. Salvendy (Eds.), Human interface and the
management of information: Interacting with information (pp. 122-131). Berlin and Heidelberg:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21793-7_15
Nielsen, J. (1994). Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 152-158). New York: ACM.
https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191729

Novel forms of “magical” human-computer interaction within the cyber-physical smart workplace
International Journal of Research Studies in Management 47
Nielsen, J., & Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 249-256). New York: ACM.
https://doi.org/10.1145/97243.97281
Novak, M. (1991). Liquid architectures in cyberspace. In M. Benedikt (Ed.), Cyberspace: First steps (pp.
225-54). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Nuño, A. A. (2014). Sympathetic magic and magic-religious mentality from antiquity to the modern world: A
longstanding mental structure? Dialogues d’histoire ancienne, 40(1), 147-162.
https://doi.org/10.3917/dha.401.0147
Ouellet, H., Romero, M., & Sawchuk, K. (2017). Promoting intergenerational participation through game
creation activities. In Game-based learning across the lifespan. Cham: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41797-4
Pataranutaporn, P., & Lyle, K. (2018). Toward human-magic interaction: Interfacing biological, tangible, and
cultural technology. In International conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 213-221). Cham:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92285-0_30
Philsooph, H. (1971). Primitive magic and mana. Man, 6(2), 182-203. https://doi.org/10.2307/2798261
Polson, P. G., & Lewis, C. H. (1990). Theory-based design for easily learned interfaces. Human-Computer
Interaction, 5(2), 191-220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0502&3_3
Poslad, S. (2011). Ubiquitous computing: Smart devices, environments and interactions. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Poupyrev, I., Nashida, T., Maruyama, S., Rekimoto, J., & Yamaji, Y. (2004). Lumen: Interactive visual and shape
display for calm computing. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2004 Emerging technologies (p. 17). New York: ACM.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1186155.1186173
Quiñones, D., & Rusu, C. (2017). How to develop usability heuristics: A systematic literature review. Computer
Standards & Interfaces, 53, 89-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2017.03.009
Raj, P., & Raman, A. C. (2017). The Internet of Things: Enabling technologies, platforms, and use cases. Boca
Raton: CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315270395
Randles, S. (2013). Material magic: The deliberate concealment of footwear and other clothing. Parergon, 30(2),
109-128. https://doi.org/10.1353/pgn.2013.0117
Remagnino, P., Hagras, H., Monekosso, N., & Velastin, S. (2005). Ambient intelligence. In P. Remagnino, G. L.
Foresti, & T. Ellis (Eds.), Ambient intelligence (pp. 1-14). New York: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/b100343
Renevier, P., & Nigay, L. (2001). Mobile collaborative augmented reality: The augmented stroll. In Engineering
for human-computer interaction (pp. 299-316). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45348-2_25
Rhodes, C., & Pitsis, A. (2008). Organization and mimetic excess: Magic, critique, and style. International
Studies of Management & Organization, 38(1), 71-91. https://doi.org/10.2753/IMO0020-8825380104
Rogers, Y. (2004). New theoretical approaches for human computer interaction. Annual Review of Information
Science and Technology, 38(1), 87-143. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440380103
Rohn, J. A. (1993). Usability engineering: Improving customer satisfaction while lowering development costs.
Mountain View, CA: SunSoft, Inc.
Rose, D. (2014). Enchanted objects: Innovation, design, and the future of technology. Simon and Schuster.
Sachs, J. D., Benzell, S. G., & LaGarda, G. (2015). Robots: Curse or Blessing? A Basic Framework. NBER
Working Papers Series, Working Paper 21091. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic
Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w21091
Samani, H. A., Valino Koh, J. T. K., Saadatian, E., & Polydorou, D. (2012). Towards robotics leadership: An
analysis of leadership characteristics and the roles robots will inherit in future human society. In J.-S.
Pan, S.-M. Chen, & N. T. Nguyen (Eds.), Intelligent information and database systems (pp. 158-165).
Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28490-8_17
Schwarz, R. A. (1979). Uncovering the secret vice: Toward an anthropology of clothing and adornment. In J.M.
Cordwell & R.A. Schwarz (Eds.), The fabrics of culture: The anthropology of clothing and adornment

Gladden, M. E.
48 Consortia Academia Publishing
(pp. 23-45). The Hague: Mouton Publishers.
Senft, G. (1997). Magical conversation on the Trobriand Islands. Anthropos, 369-391.
Sengers, P., Boehner, K., Mateas, M., & Gay, G. (2008). The disenchantment of affect. Personal and Ubiquitous
Computing, 12(5), 347-358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-007-0161-4
Shapiro, A. N. (2014). Software Code as Expanded Narration. Retrieved from
http://www.alan-shapiro.com/software-code-as-expanded-narration-by-alan-n-shapiro
Smirnov, A., Kashevnik, A., & Ponomarev, A. (2015). Multi-level self-organization in cyber-physical-social
systems: Smart home cleaning scenario. Procedia CIRP, 30, 329-34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.089
Smith, D. C., Irby, C., Kimball, R., Verplank, B., & Harslem, E. (1982). Designing the Star user interface. Byte, 7,
242-282. https://doi.org/10.1145/1500774.1500840
Smith, J. Z. (1995). Trading places. In M. Meyer & P. Mirecki (Eds.), Ancient magic and ritual power (pp.
13-28). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Sørensen, J. (2007). A cognitive theory of magic. Lanham: Rowman Altamira.
Sperber, D. (2004). Agency, religion, and magic. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(6), 750-751.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04430179
Stein, R. L., & Stein, P. L. (2017). The anthropology of religion, magic, and witchcraft. New York: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315532172
Stoller, P. (1984). Sound in Songhay cultural experience. American Ethnologist, 11(3), 559-570.
https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1984.11.3.02a00090
Subbotsky, E. (2011). The ghost in the machine: Why and how the belief in magic survives in the rational mind.
Human Development, 54(3), 126-143. https://doi.org/10.1159/000329129
Tambiah, S. J. (1990). Magic, science and religion and the scope of rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tambiah, S. J. (1973). Form and meaning of magical acts: A point of view. In R. Horton & R. Finnegan (Eds.),
Modes of thought: Essays on thinking in Western and non-Western societies. London: Faber & Faber.
Tambiah, S. J. (1968). The magical power of words. Man, 3(2), 175-208. https://doi.org/10.2307/2798500
Twain, M. [S. L. Clemens] (1889). A Yankee at the court of King Arthur. London: Chatto & Windus.
Wallis, R. J. (2002). The bwili or ‘flying tricksters’ of Malakula: A critical discussion of recent debates on rock
art, ethnography and shamanisms. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 8(4), 735-760.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.00131
Wang, Y., Vuran, M. C., Goddard, S. (2008). Cyber-physical systems in industrial process control. ACM Sigbed
Review, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1145/1366283.1366295
Wilson, J. (2010). Essentials of business research: A guide to doing your research project. London: SAGE
Publications.
Zusne, L., & Jones, W. H. (2014). Anomalistic psychology: A study of magical thinking (2nd ed.). New York:
Psychology Press.