Group - Felix, Amber, Nancy and Tanvi
According to the last feedback, we started exploring in-depth the structure of trust. We posed this research question, “Where do you set the threshold of trust?”
For figuring out how to measure the threshold of trust in a cultural aspect, we came up with a method of experimenting. We decided to design one activity to pan across 4 different countries.
Before the actual activity, we decided to study the structure of trust. George Simmel, explains trust in three aspects — Interpretation, suspension, and expectation. Trust involves belief as much rational thought. We explored this idea of reciprocity and inequality aversion in aspects of social preference and self-interest.
The trust game of the 'Prisoner’s dilemma' informed us about the activities to be conducted cross cultures and in between our families. Trying to make things 'designerly' as Nigel Cross says, we thought experiments would be a perfect way to start.
To design the experiments we took different aspects of trust which were- transparency, reliability, respect, caste/ religion, control. Tenison (2020) talks about the heirarchy of the aspects of trust which we referred to.
Analyzing the result of these activities, we figured out the aspects of trust which are more relevant in different cultures. We figured out that trust is an inherent mix of all of these but the hierarchy makes it unique.
From this point on, we started researching about Surveillance and religion. We looked at the chilling effect which is the idea that laws, regulations, or state surveillance can deter people from exercising their freedoms or engaging in legal activities. We studied how surveillance practice in religious group ties with law.
I looked at a case study in India, which shows the relation between surveillance and religion. I also studied the aftermath.
We started looking at the Hoffman's trust aware system framework as well, and how we could create a trust supporting system with the help of antecedents.
Feedback
John and Alistair really liked the presentation format and thought we had dug deep into the subject and researched quite well. John told us to look more into interpersonal trust and look at it at a micro-level. He mentioned that a micro-level was from a cell to 2 neighboring houses.
In the tutorials, I thought that we were just looking at tracking and surveillance from a system point of view, but we could look at it from an individualistic point of view.
Takeaway
Looking at micro-level can be harder than looking at larger things. The details are really important while choosing a topic. I learnt how to design and analyze experiments and get a design outcome from it.
Relation to the reading
This week’s reading was Tim Ingold's, The sighted watchmaker. He talks about design in a way that there are unfinished parts, coming together to design a thing. He talks about designing breakfast for which the spoon, the bowl, the cereal have to be just right.
Similarly, in our project of track and trust, there are various aspects of trust. But all of them have to come together for a person to trust the system sufficiently. We built on this concept a lot while studying the cultural aspect of trust.
References
Building trust in how you handle data: a hierarchy, 2020, Jeni Tenison
Cross, N., 1982. Designerly ways of knowing.Design studies,3(4), pp.221-227.
Frederiksen, M. (2012) ‘Dimensions of trust: An empirical revisit to Simmel’s formal sociology of intersubjective trust’, Current Sociology, 60(6), pp. 733–750. doi: 10.1177/0011392112461800.
Hoffmann, H. and Söllner, M., 2012. Incorporating behavioral trust theory into system
development for ubiquitous applications. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(1), pp.117-128.
Ingold, T., 2013.Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Routledge.
Lyon, David. 2001.
Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Penney, J.W. (2017). Internet surveillance, regulation, and chilling effects online: a comparative case study. Internet Policy Review,[online] 6(2). Available at: https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/internet-surveillance-regulation-and-chilling-effects-online-comparative-case [Accessed: 27 Apr. 2020].
Stoddart, E. and Yngvesson, S.W., 2018. Surveillance and religion. Surveillance & Society.
Comments