There seems to be an emerging or increasing search for ‘the next big thing’ within the field of Human-Computer Interaction. For example Microsoft has just released their ‘Being Human‘ report, where a very impressive group of researchers from business and academia have met and explored the next frontier of technology/interaction development. It is very interesting and a good overview of the current state of affairs in HCI and the challenges we can see. Erik Stolterman has a good post on the report and a critique of parts of it. I agree on most of it. Especially on the part that the report is a little disappoint when it comes to setting the stakes very high and propose the next big issues. There is not much new under the sun, but this can hardly be expected when a (almost) monopoly corporation gathers a wide spectrum of researchers to agree on the next frontier. Such a setup is very unlikely to produce an idea that is far beyond what anyone has thought before. The researchers have to agree and the result has to be within what the Microsoft can vouch for. This makes me think of all-time hero Jaron Lanier’s remark on collectivism.
This search for the next frontier issues is also symptomatic for HCI in a wider sense. As a scientific field, HCI has entered into a steady normal science sphere. We find problems, we solve them, they lead to new similar but a little different problems, which we then consequently solve too. This is great.
Except for the fact that science is also about making a name for yourself and become the most referenced author within a certain sub-field, which explains all the frameworks and foundations for this-and-that with a little twist. Most researchers know that the best way to rise above your peers and become an important node in the web-of-references, is to grasp the new and most important issue first and best. I do it too whenever I can.
So we all look for this next big thing. Which is great because it continually pushes the edge of the scientific field for the greater good.
But the thing with paradigmatic shifts is that one cannot really see the next paradigm from within the current. One’s normal-science thinking has to shatter somewhat, for you to be able to see the next. Otherwise we will only see incremental upgrades of our existing problems into new and a little more complex ones.
So the question is, I guess, whether we actually need a paradigmatic shift, or we still have quite enough work to do within the current state of affairs.
I am all for looking for the next big thing. Or actually I have already found it. And next week I will post what I think would be the most interesting next big issue to research. The working title for my next research center is IPCIAG.
Stay tuned.