We reappraise the idea of colliding with robots, moving from a position that tries to avoid or mitigate collisions to one that considers them an important facet of human interaction. We report on a soma design workshop that explored how our bodies could collide with telepresence robots, mobility aids and a quadruped robot. Based on our findings, we employed soma trajectories to analyse collisions as extended experiences that negotiate key transitions of consent, preparation, launch, contact, ripple, sting, untangle, debris and reflect. We then employed these ideas to analyse two collision experiences, an accidental collision between a person and a drone and the deliberate design of a robot to play with cats, revealing how real-world collisions involve the complex and ongoing entanglement of soma trajectories. We discuss how viewing collisions as entangled trajectories, or ‘tangles’, can be used analytically, as a design approach, and as a lens to broach ethical complexity.

We invite technology practitioners to join us in the collaborative exploration of discomfort associated with technology in the age of surveillance capitalism. With the help of body-based exercises inspired by choreography we will articulate the discomforts of living and designing with extractivist technology. Our studio is aimed at technology practitioners of a broad range of expertise who have experienced discomfort in relation to data-driven extractivist systems. In the first part of the studio participants will share their experiences of resisting such systems both as users and creators of technology. In the second part, participants will engage in an ideation session to propose forms of countering existing technologies. Embodied methods and choreographic approaches will be used for making digital discomfort tangible and for guiding the exploration of the topics at stake. As an outcome, participants will collectively design a toolbox to conceptualise discomfort in a tangible, embodied way, and form a network to continue discuss these matters post-studio in an online community discussion group.

We report on the lessons we learned on programming human-drone interactions during a three-day challenge where five teams of drone novices each programmed a nanodrone to be piloted through an obstacle course using bodily movement. Center to the participants' learning process was the eventual shift from the deceptively simple idea of seamless human-drone interactions, to the reality of drones as non-predictable systems prone to crashes. This happened as participants had to first realize, then to deal with the limitations of the drone's resource-constrained hardware. Coping with these limitations was crucially complicated by the lack of appropriate programming abstractions, which led participants to focus on plenty of low-level, sometimes immaterial details, while losing focus on the ultimate objectives. We find concrete evidence of these observations in how participants handled the visibility problem in debugging drone behaviors, applied different defensive coding techniques, and altered their piloting practice. Our insights may inform further research efforts in drone programming, especially in the vastly uncharted territory of human-drone interactions.

In a long-term commitment to designing for the aesthetics of human–drone interactions, we have been troubled by the lack of tools for shaping and interactively feeling drone behaviours. By observing participants in a three-day drone challenge, we isolated components of drones that, if made transparent, could have helped participants better explore their aesthetic potential. Through a bricolage approach to analysing interviews, field notes, video recordings, and inspection of each team’s code, we describe how teams 1) shifted their efforts from aiming for seamless human–drone interaction, to seeing drones as fragile, wilful, and prone to crashes; 2) engaged with intimate, bodily interactions to more precisely probe, understand and define their drone’s capabilities; 3) adopted different workaround strategies, emphasising either training the drone or the pilot. We contribute an empirical account of constraints in shaping the potential aesthetics of drone behaviour, and discuss how programming environments could better support somaesthetic perception–action loops for design and programming purposes.

This paper reports on a body-based exploration of felt ethics through a workshop with interaction designers. Contributing to developments of hands-on methods to approach ethics, we engaged with ethics through the experience of discomfort from interpersonal interaction. Our workshop methodology is grounded in soma design approach, while the theoretical roots of our work are in the ethics of care. In this paper, we analyse the workshop results based on video-recordings and post-workshop interviews with participants. Using a qualitative inductive approach, we consider (1) what constitutes discomfort in the interaction between workshop participants, and (2) how participants make this discomfort shared. Through that, we identify the ways in which bodies feel and display discomfort, and how it extends our understanding of ethics. We reflect over the potential, limitations, and risks of body-based workshops to explore design ethics, i.e. the norms and values of design practice, as a felt phenomenon.

Attending to emotion can shed light on why recognizing an ethical issue and taking responsibility for it can be so demanding. To examine emotions related to taking or not taking responsibility for ethical action, we conducted a semi-structured interview study with 23 individuals working in interaction design and developing AI systems in Scandinavian countries. Through a thematic analysis of how participants attribute ethical responsibility, we identify three ethical stances, that is, discursive approaches to answering the question 'who should act': an individualised I-stance (“the responsibility is mine”), a collective we-stance (“the responsibility is ours”), and a distanced they-stance (“the responsibility is someone else's”). Further, we introduce the concepts of distancing and vulnerability to analyze the emotion work that these three ethical stances place on technology practitioners in situations of low- and high-scale technology development, where they have more or less control over the outcomes of their work. We show how the we- and they-stances let technology practitioners distance themselves from the results of their activity, while the I-stance makes them more vulnerable to emotional and material risks. By illustrating the emotional dimensions involved in recognizing ethical issues and embracing responsibility, our study contributes to the field of Ethics in Practice. We argue that emotions play a pivotal role in technology practitioners' decision-making process, influencing their choices to either take action or refrain from doing so.

Building on feminist HCI, care ethics and soma design, we invite design practitioners to collectively explore otherwise hidden and isolating experience of discomfort. By discomfort we understand a range of first-person experiences: from physical pain to a slight sense of unease related to social interaction. The purpose of the workshop is to explore uncomfortable feelings and sensations, which are present in our bodies but whose existence is rarely acknowledged and shared. We will engage in the exploration through a one day workshop combining bodily exercises with collaborative design activities. The first goal of the workshop is to materialise corporeal discomfort and experiment with different ways of articulating experience. The second goal is to explore and change the process of designing together through. We will pay attention to the uncomfortable in order to develop the ways of working together that are based on our shared vulnerabilities rather than privileges and shed light on how collective immersion of bodily discomfort could spark a caring and generative design process.

We theoretically develop the ethical positions implicit in somaesthetic interaction design and, using the case study of a water faucet, illustrate our conceptual understanding of ethical sensibilities in design. We apply four lenses – the felt self, intercorporeal self, socio-cultural and political self, and entangled self – to show how our selves and ethical sensibilities are fundamentally constituted by a socially, materially, and technologically entwined world. Further, we show how ethical sensibilities are cultivated in the practice of somaesthetic interaction design. We contribute felt ethics as an approach to cultivating ethical sensibilities in design practice. The felt ethics approach is comprised of (i) a processual cultivation of ethical sensibility through analytical, pragmatic, and practical engagement, (ii) an ongoing critical attentiveness to the limits of our own bodies and lived experiences, and (iii) the rendering visible of our ethical practices as a matter of care.

The article addresses the production of reproducibility as a topic that has become acutely relevant in the recent discussions on the replication crisis in science. It brings the ethnomethodological stance on reproducibility into the discussions, claiming that reproducibility is necessarily produced locally, on the shop floor, with methodological guidelines serving as references to already established practices rather than their origins. The article refers to this argument empirically, analyzing how a group of novice neuroscientists performs a series of measurements in a transcranial magnetic stimulation experiment. Based on ethnography and video analysis, the article traces a history of the local measurement procedure invented by the researchers in order to overcome the experimental uncertainty. The article aims to demonstrate (1) how reproducibility of the local procedure is achieved in the shop floor work of the practitioners and (2) how the procedure becomes normalized and questioned as incorrect in the course of experimental practice. It concludes that the difference between guidelines and practical actions is not problematic per se; what may be problematic is that researchers can be engaged in different working projects described by the same instruction.

We articulate vulnerability as an ethical stance in soma design processes and discuss the conditions of its emergence. We argue that purposeful vulnerability - an act of taking risk, exposing oneself, and resigning part of one's autonomy - is a necessary although often neglected part of design, and specifically soma design, which builds on felt experience and stimulates designers to engage with the non-habitual by challenging norms, habitual movements, and social interactions. With the help of ethnography, video analysis, and micro-phenomenological interviews, we document an early design exploration around drones, describing how vulnerability is accomplished in collaboration between members of the design team and the design materials. We (1) define vulnerability as an active ethical stance; (2) make vulnerability visible as a necessary but often neglected part of an exploratory design process; and (3) discuss the conditions of its emergence, demonstrating the importance of deliberating ethics within the design process.