The following report outlines the findings from the Loops for Stagnation research conducted across three days – 28th during the Student Sustainability Research Conference, 29th and 30th March 2023 at the Pyramid Theatre in Leeds University Union during the Climate Week.
The document is divided into six sections:
- Research Context
- Design Process and Technology
- Methodology
- Results
- Discussion
- Contributions, Limitations and Future Research
Research Context
Mainstream media and journalism in a broader sense, play important role of providing information to wide audiences through one-to-many communication model (van Dijk, 2006). However, this monitorial role (Gunster, 2017) of information provision tied together with the underlying linear pathway of communicative engagement – “from information provision to understand to concern to action” (Gunster, 2017, p.50) has failed to recognise numerous factors which prevent people from meaningfully engaging with climate change.
These include psychological, cultural, structural and institutional factors which shape the way people engage with climate change (Stoknes, 2015) as well as the barriers to action which often do not lay in the lack of information, but are rather attributed to factors such as framing of the problem, wider political contexts and other personal limitations (Owens, 2000).
Furthermore, the dominant narratives prevalent in the media rely on fear-driven, emergency frames of climate change which have been shown to disengage people and rather drive fatalism and doomism amongst audiences (Framing Climate Justice Guide, 2021). This is due to the journalistic norm of ‘dramatisation’, explaining why news stories in the mainstream media often focus on current spectacular stories which drive away from chronic, persistent and multi-dimensional public issues (Wilkins and Patterson, 1987) which climate change can be classified as.
In the light of increasing scientific understanding of climate change with its implications and the simultaneous lack of sufficient concern for the issue and appropriate action, the “conventional climate communication strategies have failed to resolve this climate paradox” (Stoknes, 2014, p.161).
To combat these barriers to engagement and harmful framing of the issue, I have turned to search for alternative medium to communicate climate change. This poses an opportunity for the emergent digital technologies to go beyond conventions and deliver climate information in new, perhaps more visceral ways.
Loops for Stagnation, as an interactive digital installation achieves three purposes:
It raises awareness and understanding of how our climate system operates and educates the audience about climate science phenomena: climate feedback loops, tipping points, climate forcings and equilibrium state.
Answers the question: How does the digital interactive art may make us understand climate change differently?
Bridges the gap between science and art by employing a multidisciplinary approach to the project.
The development of interactive art transformed the notion of a creator and a consumer, where the divisions between these two started to blur (Edmonds and Candy, 2011). Previously passive viewer now plays an active role in the final outcome of the art piece (Luyten et al. 2017), and through that interaction the meaning is being formed (Dourish, 2001). The so-called embodied interaction ” is the creation, manipulation, and sharing of meaning through engaged interaction with artifacts.” (Dourish, 2001,p.126).
Through the engagement where the viewer becomes an active participant, we can use that embodied interaction to drive engagement with some key critical issues such as climate change.
In order to understand users’ engagement with the artwork and the effectiveness of it in driving engagement with climate change, I reach to audiences and actively interact with them to better understand the level of nuance “that sits beneath the meeting of art and audience” (Martynski, 2021, p.59).
The conducted research answers two research questions:
- How does the pre-existent level of understanding and knowledge of climate change/ sustainability shape the way people respond to the installation?
- Is it in people’s view an effective way to communicate climate change?
Design Process and Technology
Loops for Stagnation visualises how our climate system operates and draws attention to particular climate science phenomena which support our climate: the equilibrium state, climate forcings, feedback loops and tipping points.
To design the installation, I have followed the four-stage installation development model (Anon., 2014) which employs different design principles. I have described the exploration and the design phase in the pitch document, therefore I will now discuss the two subsequent phases: the construction and the exhibition phase.
In the construction phase I have built multiple versions of the loop and have conducted user tests on each of them. Through a reitereative process, the original concept of the Loop has undergone changes which reflected the best user-experience practices and made the functionalities on the installation as clear as possible.
On 21st March I have organised a final user-testing session where I have received valuable feedback on my work. At this final stage of construction phase, I have changed the sound as many participants expressed that the previous sound feels ominous to them. I have also added one extra affordance to extend the interaction time.
The installation has been designed for emergent interactions which “happen when a user takes unexpected or unintended action in a context using the mechanics and agency given to them, building upon a pre-defined structure.” (Madsen and Vistisen, 2019, p.1809). These emergent interactions are “users’ creative interpretation and negotiated meaning of an interactive context, whether it is going with or against the intended use.” (Madsen and Vistisen, 2019, p.1809).
The pre-defined structure has been described in the following table, outlining how each motion influences the Loop.
As an open-ended installation in a high-agency environment (Swartjes, 2010), Loops for Stagnation offered an opportunity for ‘free play’ and ‘hacking’ the artwork for various meanings to emerge from the interaction. The emergent findings will be discussed in the later part of the report.
The installation is built in node – based visual programming language – Touchdesigner. The real time signal is sent from the Kinect camera to the software where it is connected to the visual. The Loop is then modified by the constantly changing signal coming from the sensor. Additionally, Touchdesigner has been connected to AbletonLive where both programmes communicate using UDP (User Datagram Protocol).
The Loop has been programmed to respond to one person’s movement at a time. However, when two people enter the space, the Kinect sensor switches between identifying one person’s movement and another. This makes it less obvious to users on how the loop actually works, making them interact with it for longer, which has been an intentional element of the design.
Methodology
As a practice-led research centred around user experience, the employed methodology both accommodates the study of human interaction with the artwork as well as the perception of it.
Mixed research methods have been employed in this study – post-interaction surveys and informal interviews. The survey consisted of 3 open-end questions with one closed-end question asking participants to self-report their level of knowledge of sustainability/ climate change.
Thematic analysis has been used to evaluate survey responses (n=30) and has been the primary source of qualitative data for this study. An inductive approach has been used to analyse the results, meaning that the data determined the emergent themes and patterns in participants’ responses.
As a researcher, I positioned myself amongst the participants and during the research I came to actively engage with them. I talked to everyone who came to see the artwork and therefore, it allowed me to get a better insight into what people think about the artwork, what their thoughts are on climate change, climate communication and their own experiences with it. In the notion of intuitive inquiry methodology, I take these findings as a source of valuable data and I acknowledge my position towards the participants in this process.
Results
Out of all participants who responded to the survey (n=30), 2 participants self-reported a low level of understanding of climate change/ climate science or sustainability. 5 participants self-reported as having a good level of understanding and 23 participants self-reported as having a great level of understanding of climate change/ climate science or sustainability.
Is it in people’s view an effective way to communicate climate crisis?
86% of participants (n=26) expressed that in their view the installation is an effective way to communicate climate change. Respondents most frequently highlighted that the installation made them reflect on the impact they have on the wider climate system. It made them reflect on the consequences of their actions and noticed how these actions were mirrored by the Loop. Some participants reported that the effectiveness of the installation lies in the fact that you get to learn about climate change without being bombarded with a lot of information, but you are rather encouraged to grasp it through interactive experience.
14% of participants (n=4) expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the experience as a way to communicate climate change. Two of these participants reported little understanding of climate change. By interacting with the artwork, they understood that they can impact the climate and that their actions have influence and considered it to be an interesting way to talk about climate change, but felt like they needed more time to understand it. The other two participants reported that they felt like the link between the artwork and climate change is not intuitive and that the accompanying information is necessary to make that link.
How does the pre-existent level of understanding and knowledge of climate change/ sustainability shape the way people respond to the installation?
Little understanding of climate change
Respondents who self-reported as having little understanding of climate change/sustainability or climate science emphasised that the artwork is interesting and that they enjoyed the concept of it, but felt like they needed more time to understand it. For some it appeared more as an art installation rather than a climate change educational piece.
Good understanding of climate change
Respondents who self-reported as having good undesrtanding of climate change/sustainability or climate science highlighted that the artwork made them reflect on the impact that their actions have on a wider climate system. In their responses they highlighted the enjoyability and innovativity of the experience. One respondent stated that it has helped them ‘reconsider things about climate change in a fun and inviting way than the usual overload of information on the issue’. Another respondent reported that the experience felt like a reset or reconsideration: “It lacks some of the polarising and binary arguments that proliferate the topic of climate change, and instead offers non judgmental thought and reflection. This somewhat removes some of the pre-conceived notions, fears etc and instead allows for a more singular experience.”
Great understanding of climate change
Some of the most commonly identified themes amongst the responses from the group of people who self-reported as having a great level of understanding of climate change/ sustainability or climate science were the impact and influence of their actions that the installation allowed them to reflect on. They reported that they felt a connection with the Loop and highlighted a reflective character of the artwork. Two participants reported that the Loop made them feel relaxed, whereas for one participant it made them feel uneasy. Some participants pointed out that not enough factual information has been given about the similarities between the Loop and climate change and that they would have liked to see more prompts around the space to make that link easier. Respondents frequently found the experience to be engaging and stimulating.
Discussion
This interactive experience has been shown to be an effective means of climate communication. However, different groups of participants perceived the effectiveness of the installation differently. For instance, the respondents who self-reported low level of understanding of climate change did not consider it to be effective way to communicate the issue. As the sample size here is too small to generalise the findings, I therefore propose a hypothesis which could be further tested in future research: An open-ended interactive artworks used as means of climate communication may not suffice to provide a good understanding of climate change. This might be because in order to understand climate science and different phenomena within it, you need a basic understanding which is easier to deliver through factual modes of communication rather than abstract forms. As Kahan et al. stress, the cognitive engagement with these facts depends on social norms and cultural values which form the context in which the information can be accessed (2011), therefore it is important to consider these factors when constructing climate education programmes for groups of people with low understanding of the issue.
The group of respondents who appeared to be the most excited about this interactive experience was of those who self-reported as having a good understanding of climate change. They highlighted how it made them reconsider the impact of their actions on the wider issue. This is a group of people who have good grounds to further deepen their understanding of the issue and the interactive experience allowed them to translate their existent knowledge into experience. It is equally important to highlight that the sample size (n=5) is relatively small, therefore the findings are not ideal for generalisation.
The group of respondents who self-reported great understanding of climate change felt excited about the experience and highlighted that they understood the influence their actions have on the overall system. They consider it an innovative, engaging and novel way of communicating climate, but felt like they needed more information (or better displayed) to properly understand it. The experience might have offered them another perspective on the issue that they have grasped intellectually, hence the respondents often used words such as ‘thought-provoking’ and ‘reflect’ to talk about the experience. Perhaps, some participants from this group wanted to have more information provided about climate science to link the experience to what they already know. Interactive installations like these offer this group of respondents alternative way of ‘knowing’, but it might be hard for some respondents to forget about their preconceptions and enter the space with open mind to this new way of knowing. Despite that, majority of respondents from this group felt excited about this climate communication method.
The installation has been shown to effectively communicate some of the challenging dimensions of climate change. The invisible causes and delayed gratification (Moser, 2010) have been overcome by embedding the immediate response of participants’ actions into design of the Loop. As a result, participants from all groups most frequently reported that the experience made them reflect on the impact of their actions.
Interacting with the participants allowed me to get a better insight into what they think about climate change and what their reflections are on the experience. It has additionally created space for dialogue where participants shared their thoughts with me. A lot of participants were keen to learn from me and were happy for me to tell them a bit more about climate science. This brings critical questions of what it means for the researcher to share and co-create the space with participants and how this impacts their experience of the artwork.
Participants had different associations that the Loop has triggered for them – some reported that it reminds them of Ouroboros snake, some interpreted the re-organisation of the Loop as a portrayal of the overpopulation issue. From participant observations, I have noticed that many participants would first interact with the Loop to later sit in the space and observe the Loop as it is. A lot of people tried to ‘hack’ the Loop by moving in unconventional ways – dancing, jumping, running, lifting one another, hugging etc. Some found it very relaxing and spend a while observing the Loop.
Contributions, Limitations and Future Research
Despite the increasing number of interactive installations in the recent years, research on user experiences with interactive installations has been scarce (Luyten et al. 2017). Hence, Loops for Stagnation contributes to this area of research while simultaneously feeding into growing academic area of creative climate communication methods.
However, it not only studies the medium, being interactive digital art, but it adds another level of research area – climate communication. To our greatest knowledge, this is the first study of the role of interactive digital kinetic installations in climate communication.
In relation to project’s aims and objectives, Loops for Stagnation effectively employed a multidisciplinary approach by harnessing knowledge from across disciplines of interaction design, user experience, psychology, digital media, climate communication and putting them into practice. It bridges the gap between climate science and art by delivering interactive experience which visualises how our climate system operates and highlights important climate science concepts. 86% of the participants expressed that in their view it is an effective way to communicate climate change and they found it to be and engaging way to learn about climate science.
It further examines audience’s responses to the artwork by gathering verbal feedback from post-exposure surveys and informal interviews to answer the question: How does digital interactive art may make us understand climate change differently? The findings from the conducted research show that participants found it to be an innovative way to talk about climate change as it made them aware of the impacts of their actions, evoked an emotional response and allowed for deeper reflection, and the responses varied depending on participants prior knowledge of climate change and associated issues.
It is important to recognise some limitations of this project which may have impacted the findings of this research. The sample size of the research is relatively small, especially considering the number of participants who reported little level of understanding of climate change and related issues. Based on two responses it is impossible to determine a generalisable conclusion, therefore a hypothesis has been identified which can be tested in future research.
Future research on the role of digital interactive art as a means of climate communication should explore how to harness the meaning from the embodied interaction and translate the engagement with the artwork into engagement with climate change. This could take form of follow-up workshops on climate action, which would provide enabling structures for taking further action. This could be particularly beneficial for the group of people who reported a good understanding of the issue and can deepen their knowledge.
Furthermore, future research should explore how dimensions such as age, race, gender, socio-economic background impact the perception of the artwork, and how personal barriers to climate engagement may have an influence on how people respond to the experience.
Follow up interviews with those who expressed doubt about the effectiveness of this climate communicate channel are suggested as another dimension of the study to be explored. What strategies, communication channels, structures, changes would help them to gain a better understanding of the issue?
References
Anon. 2014. Designing Software-Based Interactive Installations In: Situated Design Methods. MIT Press.
Dourish, P. 2001. ‘Being-in-the-World’: Embodied Interaction In: Where the Action Is. United States: The MIT Press.
Edmonds, E. and Candy, L. 2011. Interacting: Art, Research and the Creative Practitioner. Libri Publishing: Faringdon.
Framing Climate Justice. 2021. Climate Justice: A Messaging Guide. [Online].[Accessed 22 February 2023]. Available from: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NHQupc1RHP7HePhAa_MpIAxiN0m_sOA_Ic4IKQ- T32k/edit#heading=h.981drap81bq9
Gunster, S. 2017. Engaging climate communication: Audiences, frames, values and norms 1 In: Journalism and Climate Crisis. Routledge, pp.49–76.
Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. and Braman, D. 2011. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of risk research. 14(2), pp.147–174.
Luyten, T., Braun, S., van Hooren, S. and de Witte, Luc. 2017. Participant responses to physical, open-minded interactive digital artworks: a systematic review. Arts and Technology, 10(2).
Madsen, K.M. and Vistisen, P. 2019. Designing for emergent interactions. Strategies for encouraging emergent user behaviour & serendipitous research findings. The Design journal. 22(S1), pp.1807–1820.
Martynski, C.L. 2021. Navigating the Anthropocene: A study of audience experiences with three creative interventions.
Moser, S.C. 2010. Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Climate change. 1(1), pp.31–53.
Owens, S. 2000. ‘Engaging the public’: information and deliberation in environmental policy. Environment and planning. A. 32(7), pp.1141–1148.
Stoknes, P.E. 2015. What We Think about When We Try Not to Think about Global Warm- ing: Toward a New Psychology of Communication, White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Swartjes, I.M.. 2010. Whose Story Is It Anyway? How Improv Informs Agency and Authorship of Emergent Narrative. Univesity of Twente.
Van Dijk, J. 2006. The network society Third edition. London: SAGE.
Wilkins, L. and Patterson, P. 1987. Risk analysis and the construction of news. Journal of Communication. 37(3), pp.80– 92.