(PDF) Imagining Emerging Technologies for Promoting Intercultural Meaningful Social Interactions: A Participatory Futures Approa

Imagining Emerging Technologies for Promoting Intercultural Meaningful Social Interactions: A Participatory Futures Approach María Laura Ramírez Galleguillos Aya Eloiriachi Koç University DesignLab, Koç University Sociology Department, Koç University İstanbul, Türkiye İstanbul, Türkiye

Büşra Serdar Aykut Coşkun Atölye Media and Visual Arts Department, Koç University İstanbul, Türkiye İstanbul, Türkiye

ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION Intercultural Meaningful Social Interactions (IMSI) are positive and Social interactions contribute to developing emotional, psychologi- impactful interactions held between intercultural strangers. Previ- cal, and physical personal advantages and to shaping social bonds ously, studies have explored these interactions characterizing them, with those around us [15, 19]. As a result, they have a significant identifying factors that influence them, and tactics and strategies influence on human well-being. Besides, social contacts help the to promote them. Still, what kind of technologies could encourage growth of healthy social fabrics. Interacting with new individuals, IMSI is underexplored. Hence, we took a participatory futures ap- for example, can establish a sense of trust and community with proach to understand participants’ imaginaries and perceptions of others, facilitating the integration of diverse groups as part of the potential technologies to promote IMSI. We conducted participa- same social system [17, 68]. Furthermore, genuinely engaging with tory futures workshops with locals and migrants living in Istanbul, someone from a different race, social background, or age group an exemplary multicultural city between the east and west, who through Intercultural Meaningful Social Interactions (IMSI) could envisioned and discussed 15 concepts of emerging technologies increase people’s confidence in people as a whole, which supports that would enable IMSI in Istanbul of 2050. By analyzing this work, collaboration among different communities [25]. However, IMSI our contribution is first to present six visions of alternative futures present additional barriers than regular interactions, such as lan- of IMSI and, second, to introduce the tools and implications of the guage barriers, potential biases, and lack of motivation [3, 4]. methodology followed to enable participants’ futures thinking of Even though technologies are sometimes judged as detrimental IMSI in an intercultural context. to human-to-human interactions, they have also been explored because of their quality of supporting social interactions [26, 48]. CCS CONCEPTS For instance, the HCI field has studied different collocated interac- tions such as serendipitous interactions, which are not planned but • Human-centered computing; • Interaction design; Interac- positive in result [16]; playful interactions, which are pleasurable tion design process and methods; Participatory design.; and joyful experiences [38]; opportunistic interactions, which are daily-unplanned social interactions in public places [45]; and emer- KEYWORDS gent interactions, which are imminently initiated interactions [46]. Participatory futures, Intercultural Contact, Tools, Futures Thinking All these social interactions have been investigated from a design perspective to propose different technologies that could promote ACM Reference Format: them in public places, such as public installations, mobile apps, and María Laura Ramírez Galleguillos, Aya Eloiriachi, Büşra Serdar, and Aykut platforms for collective action [37, 50, 74]. Still, we have not found Coşkun. 2022. Imagining Emerging Technologies for Promoting Intercul- explorations of technologies to promote IMSI, thus, there is still a tural Meaningful Social Interactions: A Participatory Futures Approach. In lack of knowledge on how emerging technologies could contribute 25th International Academic Mindtrek conference (Academic Mindtrek 2022), to promoting these interactions. November 16–18, 2022, Tampere, Finland. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 15 pages. Addressing this gap, we created a structure for participatory fu- https://doi.org/10.1145/3569219.3569269 tures workshops [9, 22] in which participants co-speculated future technologies to enable IMSI in Istanbul of 2050, and then discussed the implications of these ideas for intercultural contact. We took this approach as it allowed us to explore perceptions and imaginar- ies of such technologies and futures from a participant’s point of This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike International 4.0 License. view, who are, in the end, the ones engaged in IMSI. Therefore, we could extract relevant insights according to their previous experi- Academic Mindtrek 2022, November 16–18, 2022, Tampere, Finland ences being part of intercultural interactions and identify more or © 2022 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). less desired futures. ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-9955-5/22/11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3569219.3569269 102 Academic Mindtrek 2022, November 16–18, 2022, Tampere, Finland María Laura Ramirez Galleguillos et al. In this study, we present the results of eight sessions of par- around us. Thus, promoting social contact between people is an ticipatory futures workshops developed for strangers to envision issue that can be addressed in the design and HCI fields. In fact, emerging technologies to promote IMSI by using different tools. during the past ten years, different ways of promoting collocated The participants co-speculated 15 concepts of emerging technolo- interactions have been explored. gies in dyads or triads of inter and intracultural participants. In Collocated interactions are the encounters developed between each session, they first created their concepts and then presented people who are physically together or nearby and who are not nec- and discussed them. By analyzing their proposed ideas and the essarily acquainted with each other. For example, they can be held discussions ignited, we identified relevant visions of the futures of with nearby strangers [49, 50] (i.e., close-located unknown others) IMSI. Therefore, our contribution is two-fold: first, to present six or familiar strangers [44, 53] (i.e., people regularly encountered visions of futures of IMSI in Istanbul of 2050, and second, to intro- that can be identified but still ignored and remain unknown to each duce the tools and methodology followed to enable participants’ other). futures thinking in an intercultural context. Collocated interactions address the matter of how physically close people are, thus, enabling different kinds of encounters. One 2 RELATED WORK example of the latter is serendipitous interactions; these are un- expected but fortunate discoveries driven by uncontrolled actions 2.1 Intercultural Interactions [47, 64]. The feeling of serendipity is elicited by actions previously By 2020, 281 million people had a migrant status, according to the determined by an artifact’s mediation in the interaction context. So- International Migration Organization [33], representing the most cial serendipity can be enhanced through social facilitation, mutual significant migration movements in history. These movements are interests, goals, shared benefits [37], and the environmental layout ingrained in our reality and will increasingly be so in the future or differences between individuals [16]. Thus, eliciting serendipity [70]. Nonetheless, effective migration and integration management can also be understood as a technique to promote collocated inter- requires some degree of anticipation of the magnitude and nature actions. Another kind of encounter is playful interactions which of future flows to promote a positive impact [66]. are more pleasurable and joyful experiences [38] with acquainted Moving or having to immigrate to a new country is the first of or unacquainted others. In this area, there have been explorations many difficulties when it comes to migration. Upon arriving in the for motivating people to act together by making eye contact [7]; new context, an integration process is yet to start, which might and using playfulness to promote interactions through urban [51] include positive and negative experiences. Indeed, while migrants and cultural [34] games. Besides, frameworks have been developed can experience discrimination, isolation, and even violence, they to define the design values for playful social interactions [10] and can, on the other hand, come across welcoming individuals and the design space around these interactions [49]. Opportunistic ex- opportunities to build their own support system. This process can periences, which are daily-unplanned social interactions in public similarly involve challenges for locals, who could perceive threats places, have also been explored and promoted through multimedia to their culture and occupations inspired by fear and prejudices. technologies that find the opportunities for these unplanned in- Hence, migration brings about a collection of mixed experiences teractions by using ubiquitous technologies [45], which can allow which are personal and subjective, which can only be captured by participants to connect with low effort with people around [74]. getting in touch with the relevant individuals who have experienced Finally, emergent interactions are related to the imminent charac- those events. teristic of initiating an interaction. In this area, studies have also With the increase in migration rates, there has also been a rise used playfulness to create interactions, for example, studying the in radicalization expressed by discrimination and social exclusion emergence of interactions between geo-catchers [40] and spatial ar- of migrants triggered by prejudices and stereotyped perceptions rangements of the participants within the moments before starting of others and their cultures [1, 21, 52, 54]. For instance, in Turkey, an imminent encounter[46]. one of the countries that hold the highest number of refugees glob- Studying the characteristics that these kinds of interactions high- ally, most of whom come from Syria [43], there has been a rise light, we observe they focus on exploring how interactions are in negative sentiments specifically towards individuals with Arab started rather than providing knowledge on how interactions could origins [32], although Turkey has been historically known for its be meaningful. Additionally, these explorations do not include an multiculturality and relation to multiple empires. All of this influ- analysis of how people from different cultures could get in contact. ences the exclusion, not only of refugees but also of other migrants and individuals that are perceived as different. In fact, intercultural 2.2.1 Intercultural Meaningful Social Interactions. Meaningful In- interactions (i.e., interactions held between people from different tercultural interactions refer to encounters held between individu- cultures and nationalities) are easier to avoid and even more chal- als from different cultures, ages, faiths, genders, or socioeconomic lenging to promote as they present additional challenges to tackle statuses, which are memorable and positive, and generate some as lack of motivation, physical exclusion, and biases[4]. However, kind of impact on the individuals engaged in the interaction [28]. positive and meaningful intercultural interactions can help promote Previous work concerning IMSI has explored how the elements of social cohesion diversity in society [73]. a participatory art project enabled and disabled meaningful inter- action between young people with African and British heritage [4]. 2.2 Social Interactions in HCI In this study, the authors used Prat’s concept of contact zones [55], The social is a design material [21] because social interactions are referring to social spaces where diverse cultural groups meet and influenced by the affordances of the environment and the tools interact, sometimes in conflict. Still, the authors posit that contact 103 Imagining Emerging Technologies for Promoting Intercultural Meaningful Social Interactions: A Participatory Futures Approach Academic Mindtrek 2022, November 16–18, 2022, Tampere, Finland zones have been missing from the projects aiming to promote social and dreams through these inquiries to collaboratively build visions inclusion. Also, [72] explored place attachment in Kuala Lumpur, of what futures participants want [65]. finding that the development of meaningful spaces could influence Therefore, by exploring participatory futures, we expected to it, but the study does not explicitly characterize these spaces. More- gather imaginaries of future emerging technologies while creating a over, [67] investigated the meaning people attach to intercultural space for participants to discuss and reflect on those potential tech- contact and how different places influence this contact. They iden- nologies, thus generating a collaborative process of imagining and tified three learning processes during intercultural communication: discussing futures [27]. Additionally, to guide this process, design qualification, socialization, and subjectification. tools help promote a shared understanding of relevant concepts and Additionally, previous work has aimed to propose design guide- link cognition and action to achieve a design outcome. For instance, lines to create design concepts that promote IMSI. For instance, cards are portrayed as a source of inspiration while ideating, and [60] proposed four stages of IMSI: start, the meaningful moment, personas and journey maps are often characterized as tools that closure, and an after-interaction self-reflection stage. Besides, this contain relevant synthesized information that is key to the design study suggested elements that characterize different configurations process [2, 11, 39]. However, we have not found previous examples of IMSI: group size, duration, mobility level, kind of communi- of how to apply this approach in intercultural settings. cation, and proximity. Additionally, [59] proposed eight design strategies to promote IMSI. The strategies are: Facilitating Empathy, 2.3.1 Aim. With all the above, we have found a lack of exploration Syncing feelings, Supporting understanding, Boosting confidence, on how emerging technologies could facilitate IMSI. Consequently, Nudging positive perspectives, Experiencing together, Encouraging the potential of tech to enable IMSI is currently underexplored. Cross-learning, and Identifying similarities. Finally, [57] identified Thus, we set ourselves to explore potential emerging technolo- five impacts that IMSI provokes on individuals: developing self- gies to enable IMSI with a participatory futures approach where knowledge, creating ties between intercultural strangers, building participants, who are the people involved in such interactions, co- trust, spreading joy, and encouraging kindness. The authors also speculated ideas and explained how their concepts could promote explain that different factors influence IMSI, for instance, previous IMSI in Istanbul in 2050. As we did not find previous examples experiences, individual traits and preferences, the need to keep bal- of participatory futures workshops with intercultural participants, ance and personal space, language barriers, known and unknown we created and iterated a set of tools and structure to ignite par- biases, and unspoken social rules. ticipants’ futures thinking and discussion. In the next section, we Most of these works expressed that people cannot be forced to introduce the process of structuring and conducting the workshops interact, and there should be a broad spectrum of opportunities to with local and international participants living in Istanbul. promote meaningful encounters as broadly understood [4, 28, 60]. As a result, they urge that local governments, as well as the general 3 METHODOLOGY public, recognize their importance and seek to facilitate, encourage, 3.1 Workshops procedure and promote meaningful relationships in all their forms. Hence, We conducted participatory futures workshops for participants to seeking ways to make meaningful interaction in cities easier is nec- co-speculate ideas about possible technological interventions that essary as they emphasize that fostering contact is about facilitating could be useful to promote IMSI in public places in Istanbul of 2050. interactions and connecting them to other everyday activities. For this purpose, we created a workshop structure that could guide participants to ideate and present their ideas and a set of tools to 2.3 Participatory futures enable their creative thinking and promote a shared understanding of IMSI. We conducted the workshops online using Zoom and Miro Participatory futures aim to directly engage individuals involved in as, at the moment of this research, Istanbul was still facing social a potential future scenario in imagining, envisioning, and dreaming contact restrictions due to COVID-19. of alternative futures [20, 22, 65, 71]. In a way, it does not aim to predict one single future nor state how it should be but to provoke 3.1.1 Structure and materials. Once participants joined the Zoom and debate around participants’ dreams and imaginaries of futures. meeting, each participant and facilitator introduced themselves to This approach has shown to be helpful in including relevant par- the group. Then, we explained the workshop’s aims and structure, ticipants in co-speculating futures of human rights [5], engaging followed by a definition of IMSI characteristics [4, 25, 60, 61]. We individuals in future experiences around data and privacy [65], and randomly created the teams, which were dyads or triads of intracul- collaboratively exploring urban technologies [9]. tural (i.e., just Turkish participants) and intercultural (i.e., migrants Methodologically, participatory futures use scenarios and fic- and Turkish participants) attendees. Each group was then directed tions portraying alternative worlds [18, 19, 35, 62] to enable partic- to breakout rooms to proceed with the workshop and create their ipants’ creativity. Further, these worlds open up reflections about ideas. participants’ experiences, influencing a discussion for building and The activity had two stages: The first stage was future-oriented transforming meanings of reality and potential futures [6, 41, 63]. [31]. In this section, participants worked in teams to ideate emerg- Speculations also allow discussing what kind of emerging technolo- ing technologies that could promote IMSI in the future of Istanbul gies could be part of potential futures and how it would be to live in the year 2050. For the latter, we presented participants with in such a world [8]. Moreover, by reflecting on these aspects, it different tools. would also be possible to compare realities and potential futures We presented them with a scenario of an alternative future [18] in [36] hence approaching individuals’ values, beliefs, perceptions, which they were part of a team of designers creating technologies 104 Academic Mindtrek 2022, November 16–18, 2022, Tampere, Finland María Laura Ramirez Galleguillos et al. for people to meaningfully meet in public places of Istanbul in 3.3 Participation 2050, after people revolted against a dictatorial rule of the world We conducted eight workshop sessions during the summer of 2021. that had led to increased division and prejudice over the years. Thirty-five participants attended; their ages ranged from 19 to 55. We introduced them to the global situation of that era and their The participants’ occupations varied from university students, pro- mission: designing solutions to facilitate meaningful interactions fessionals looking for a job, municipality and NGO workers, and in public places and new ways of interacting while considering one retired person. All of them have had a previous intercultural people’s differences and reluctance to interact (Figure1). experience (i.e., interaction with someone from a different country Participants created their design challenge by selecting a place or culture). All participants joined voluntarily and could leave the in Istanbul where they would situate their story of intercultural activity at any moment. Some participants left the workshop during meaningful contact; second, participants used cards (Figure1). to the first ten minutes due to language barriers or misunderstanding define the characteristics of IMSI they would want to promote. The of the topic. In this study, we report only on the engagement of cards introduced the concepts of meaningful social interactions and participants who completed all the workshop activities. The demo- their relevant aspects to make participants understand and inter- graphics of the participants are presented in Table1. In these tables nalize these concepts. We created the cards according to previous we grouped participants according to the teams they worked in, work, which defined the impact of IMSI [28, 58, 67], the strategies whether on intercultural or intra-cultural composition. to promote them [3, 59], and the elements of interactions [24, 60]. The participants created diversity personas that represented char- 3.4 Analysis methodology acters they would be ideating for. The tool aimed to facilitate par- We collected 40 hours of audio recordings and transcribed them ticipants’ target focus on a person with specific characteristics and using Panopto1 . Then we revised the transcriptions to corroborate experiences who will become their user. Besides, it helped with their accuracy. We only used the discussion section’s audio record- the empathy and creative process of ideating for different people ings as data (i.e., the section of the workshop in which participants (Figure2). We asked that at least one of these personas represented presented their emerging technologies ideas and discussed them). a migrant in the context of Istanbul in 2050. We created the tem- Thus, we were already familiar with the data as we conducted the plates for these personas by taking a regular persona template and workshops and revised the transcriptions before coding. then adding and highlighting diversity aspects such as languages We applied a reflexive thematic analysis [14, 15] which focuses spoken, migration status, values, beliefs, and personality character- on analyzing qualitative data to understand participants’ experi- istics [56]. Additionally, we added a section describing a meaningful ences, perceptions, and representations in relation to a specific interaction story that that persona experienced. Each participant topic. In this case, we focused on understanding the potential fu- created one diversity persona. tures participants envisioned and the technologies possible in that Participants conducted a collaborative ideation session which context of Istanbul of 2050, as well as their perceptions of being was finalized by using an IMSI journey map (Figure2) to define their part of the workshop. Consequently, we first created a list of codes emerging technology further. This journey map highlighted critical according to the themes we explored in the back-casting section moments of intercultural meaningful interactions according to [60], while being open enough to include or edit the themes and codes which were: start, meaningful moment, closure, and reflection. as we analyzed. Initial themes included Kind of technology, Tech- Finally, they created a cover story briefly summarizing their idea nology Feature and Feedback. Then we added subcodes according and how the interaction developed. We created this template in the to smaller data units. Examples of subcodes were feedback_cards, form of a newspaper front page. feedback_avatar, and feedback_workshop. We continued coding in We conducted all these stages in a single Miro board that inte- collaborative sessions, discussing the codes, updating the final list grated the tools and instructions to guide the development of the of codes, and categorizing them according to time frames (i.e., about workshops. After completing this stage, participants had a break. the future, about the present). We conducted three sessions using The second section of the workshop was back-casting. At this Taguette2 to highlight the relevant quotes, in which all the authors moment, the participants presented their ideas and discussed them, participated. With all the above, we ended the process with seven giving their overall impressions of their emerging technologies con- codes grouped under three themes: Visions of the future, Perceptions cepts, explaining what was meaningful about their ideas’ potential of the Present, and Workshop Implications. implications and finalizing by sharing their general perceptions on their experience participating in the workshop dynamic. 4 FINDINGS 4.1 Participants’ Co-speculations 3.2 Participants call Participants created 15 stories of meaningful interactions between We invited participants through an online open call by contacting intercultural strangers (Table2). These stories narrate how interac- NGOs working for social inclusion, the social media of such NGOs, tions developed and introduce technologies that would be used for and our own research group’s social media. With the open call, we promoting these interactions. shared a survey through which participants could learn the purpose Idea1 was an extended reality game promoting intercultural con- of the activity and enroll for a specific date. Once they registered, tact between individuals who were curious about another country. we sent each participant a calendar invitation so they could confirm their participation. Each invitation contained a Zoom link through 1 https://www.panopto.com/ which they could join the activity. 2 https://www.taguette.org/ 105 Imagining Emerging Technologies for Promoting Intercultural Meaningful Social Interactions: A Participatory Futures Approach Academic Mindtrek 2022, November 16–18, 2022, Tampere, Finland Figure 1: Example of materials. From left to right, first, we present the card decks, then the template to determine the IMSI design challenge (step 1 and 2) and an example of a filled template Figure 2: On the left the template of a diversity persona, on the right the template of an IMSI journey map Idea 2 was a VR experience developed through different devices to Idea6 was a digital experience for people to develop intercultural find similarities and understand each other’s points of view. Idea 3 contact in a fun way. Idea 7 was a virtual hub to provide intercul- was an extended reality experience established through a book for tural support to each other. Idea8 was a device for intercultural people to have a shared experience through their similar interests. participants to make art together. Idea 9 was an extended reality Idea 4 was a technological device to help people overcome cultural art exhibition to promote intercultural art exchange. Idea 10 was and language barriers. Idea5 was a VR experience that showed how an extended reality experience to create an online intercultural people from different cultures live their life for cultural exchange. 106 Academic Mindtrek 2022, November 16–18, 2022, Tampere, Finland María Laura Ramirez Galleguillos et al. Table 1: Participants’ demographic information. On the right, participants working on intracultural groups. On the left, participants working on intercultural groups. interaction space. Idea 11 proposed redesigning public transporta- interactions impact an actual physical location of Istanbul. Hence, tion spaces to help different individuals integrate into society. Idea it seems that the digital and physical worlds might be more inter- 12 was a device to facilitate understanding between diverse peo- twined in the future. Moreover, participants discussed that we might ple. Idea 13 was an app to create distant contact with someone by not even be able to perceive a big difference between these realities helping them discover the city and get in touch. Idea14 was a 3D (i.e., digital and physical) and what happens in which place. Further- food printer to promote Intercultural food exchange with feelings more, in the future, it might not even be relevant to differentiate attached. And Idea 15 was a redesign proposal for a public park to between physical and digital realities as they might complement give more opportunities for people to exchange their cultures. each other. Most of the ideas were related to XR technologies (e.g., Idea1, 4.1.1 Patterns. Among the ideas participants presented, we could Idea2, Idea4). While discussing them, participants expressed that find some patterns. For instance, participants introduced differ- even if some of these technologies are available today, it is not a ent multisensorial experiences (e.g., Idea2, Idea5, Idea14) in which common thing for most people in Istanbul. Therefore, even if some people could exchange experiences such as bodily sensations and of these ideas were evaluated as less out of the box, they expressed memories. These participants expressed that these kinds of experi- that it would be a common aspect of the future to access these ences were relevant as just seeing from somebody’s eyes (referring experiences and an easy way to promote IMSI. to VR) might not be enough to empathize; it might be needed to feel what others feel. Further, participants seemed to think these experiences would be ordinary in the future and could support 4.2 Perceptions of future intercultural contact connecting meaningfully. Still, these proposals had some ethical The presentation and discussion of the ideas allowed us to explore considerations that participants also discussed. For instance, they imaginaries of the futures of IMSI in Istanbul of 2050, which we thought someone could misuse multisensorial experiences and take now introduce of visions of the future. advantage of them. Hence, it could make someone too vulnerable to people with bad intentions. 4.2.1 Vision1: interculturality beyond migration. When asked how Other ideas had both digital and physical components (e.g., Idea7, they thought intercultural contact would be in Istanbul in 2050, 10, and 13). For instance, starting an interaction online and contin- most participants thought interculturality would not be about pass- uing it in person or interacting in a digital city and having those ports or nationality. Instead, interculturality would be based on 107 Imagining Emerging Technologies for Promoting Intercultural Meaningful Social Interactions: A Participatory Futures Approach Academic Mindtrek 2022, November 16–18, 2022, Tampere, Finland Table 2: Description of the ideas created and the cards selected for each concept. In the idea column, we described the composition of each group that created each idea as intra (i.e., intracultural) and inter (i.e., intercultural). Idea Description Focus Cards Used Idea1 Augmented (AR) reality bar game Helping to find people to interact Kind of IMSI: Joy Intra that connected people from different with and overcome the lack of Strategy: Shared experience countries to a culture they could be motivation to interact by giving them Elements: Group size: 1 to1 curious about a shared goal Communication: By text Duration: Brief Proximity: Physically close Idea2 Extended reality (XR) experience Finding people to interact with while Kind of IMSI: Bonding Intra ignited through a watch and avoiding misunderstandings from Strategy: Shared experience headphones different cultures and points of view Elements: Group size: group to group Mobility: Staying Duration: Medium Proximity: Virtual Idea3 XR book experience that allowed Tackling people’s lack of skills to Kind of IMSI: Bonding Intra people to meet in a different time connect in real life Strategy: Shared experience and space by sharing an excerpt Elements: Group size: 1 to a group from their favorite book Mobility: Staying Duration: Medium Proximity: Virtual Idea4 A system that helps people connect Overcoming cultural and language Kind of IMSI: Joy Inter by translating and guiding their barriers Strategy: Similarities interaction Elements: Group size: 1 to 1 Communication: Oral Duration: Long Proximity: Physically close Idea5 VR experience that allows the user Finding people to interact with and Kind of IMSI: Self-reflection Intra to see each other’s lives and facilitating the interaction Strategy: Shared experience understand them Elements: Group size: 1 to a group Mobility: Transiting Communication: Oral Proximity: Virtual Idea6 Hybrid cultural event based on VR Facilitating intercultural knowledge Kind of IMSI: Bonding Inter and online content, promoting and contact Strategy: Cross learning intercultural contact in a fun way Elements: Group size: group to group Mobility: Staying Communication: Gestures Proximity: Physically close Idea7 A virtual hub where people can Enable people to help each other and Kind of IMSI: Discovering Intra tackle current city issues together have a tangible impact from a virtual Strategy: Cross learning space and let people get to know Elements: Group size: Group to group different cultures by discovering the Mobility: Transiting world virtually Communication: Gestures Proximity: Virtual Idea8 A Device to create art together in a Tackling language barriers and the Kind of IMSI: Bonding Inter coffee shop providing alternative incommodity of starting interactions Strategy: Understanding ways of communicating with strangers Elements: Group size: 1 to 1 Communication: Drawing Duration: Medium Proximity: Physically close Idea9 AR intercultural art exhibition that Exploring art as a means to connect Kind of IMSI: Joy Intra displays intercultural art pieces and with others, this idea tried to provide Strategy: Syncing feelings provides instances to interact with more access to art created by artists Elements: Group size: Group to group others from other countries Mobility: Staying Communication: Oral Proximity: Virtual 108 Academic Mindtrek 2022, November 16–18, 2022, Tampere, Finland María Laura Ramirez Galleguillos et al. Idea10 An online platform that promoted Tackling problems of access to the Kind of IMSI: Joy Intra intercultural interactions in the form physical space, the issue of not Strategy: Cross learning of an AR and VR system to discover knowing when and with whom to Elements: Group size: group to group the cultural layers of Taksim interact, and language and cultural Mobility: Transiting barriers Communication: Oral Duration: Medium Proximity: Virtual Idea11 A new transportation system Tackling difficulties Martians could Kind of IMSI: Kindness Inter promoting multiculturality, the experience while integrating into Strategy: S-worth system includes kiosks, cultural regular life in Istanbul (e.g., moving Elements: Group size: group to group stores, and transportation around, using public transportation). Mobility: Transiting Communication: Gestures Proximity: Physically close Idea12 Contact lenses that allow users only Tackling the lack of contact due to Kind of IMSI: Self-reflection Intra to see similarities, thus facilitating physical and language differences Strategy: Similarities understanding between Martians Elements: Group size: Group to group and earthlings Communication: Oral Proximity: Virtual and physically close Idea13 An app for people to interact while Tackling the problem of not knowing Kind of IMSI: Discovery Inter on the ferry, users receive a a town or people in that city Strategy: Understanding recommendation to visit certain city Elements: Group size: Group to group places based on a drawing they have Mobility: Transiting to elucidate Communication: Drawing Duration: Medium Idea14 A 3D food printer for food exchange Creating another level of Kind of IMSI: Kindness Inter with memories, feelings, and understanding between the involved Strategy: Empathy experiences attached to the food participants Elements: Group size: Group to group communication: Gestures Duration: Brief Proximity: Physically close Idea15 Redesign the experience of going to Tackling the lack of intercultural Kind of IMSI: Discovery Inter Macka Park, proposing new public places Strategy: Empathy playground and activities to give Elements: Group size: 1 to 1 more opportunities for people to Mobility: Transiting exchange their cultures and interact Communication: Gestures around them ways of thinking or personal values. On the other hand, partici- experiences in which people could exchange felt experiences such pants thought that intercultural contact would most probably be as body sensations and memories, for instance, seeing as someone performed through apps and platforms to help people connect at else sees or feels (e.g., ideas 1, 2, 3, 5, 14). Participants discussed various levels through different multisensorial experiences. For different sensory levels feeling what others feel would be more some people, this was positive as it could make it easier to interact impactful than just seeing from somebody’s eyes (i.e., compared with others. However, some participants perceived it as unfavorable to VR). Further, participants thought these experiences would be as people might lose the human ability of interpersonal connection ordinary in the future and could support connecting meaningfully. by developing it through technology or entirely relegating it to the Still, these proposals had ethical consequences that participants latter. . Also, participants felt that people in the future would be also discussed. For instance, they thought that someone could make more inclusive and open to new experiences and meeting other inappropriate use of these experiences and the personal information people than in the past (i.e., our present). For instance, P5 said, involved. Hence, it could make someone vulnerable to potentially "I feel like Istanbul in 2050 will be very multicultural, considering harmful people or people who would want to take advantage. the number of immigrants that Turkey welcomes. And I think the Similarly, vision2 is related to finding other ways of communi- initiative for more inclusive conversations regarding multiculturality cating beyond an individual’s language. For the latter, some ideas and multicultural dimensions is necessary". proposed diverse ways of communicating (e.g., ideas 8, 9, 14, 15) or facilitated intercultural communication (e.g., idea 4). The par- ticipants discussed relevant aspects concerning these ideas, such 4.2.2 Vision2: the impact of multisensorial experiences. The stories as their quality of finding another layer of contact, for instance, from the futures pose alternatives or even complement ideas of the art, food, and memories. Supporting this vision, P16 explained that futures. There was a trend in proposing different multi-sensorial 109 Imagining Emerging Technologies for Promoting Intercultural Meaningful Social Interactions: A Participatory Futures Approach Academic Mindtrek 2022, November 16–18, 2022, Tampere, Finland "(by) tasting their food you can understand the tastes of the different second life) or even transitioning towards mainly digital lives, which cultures, maybe there is a story which connected to this food, kind of presented opposing perspectives. On the one hand, participants the background behind the dish. And the person through this expe- thought that people could feel freer to be whoever/do whatever rience can reflect on themselves", additionally concerning art, P26 they want in the digital space without the social pressure they explained that "it is good because you don’t judge your partner, you might feel in the physical space. don’t know each other, and you go out there, draw something, draw On the other hand, some participants questioned whether that what comes from your heart, what comes from your mind, and then life was real or not, expressing that it is unclear what would be true. you unify those things. And it will give you the feeling that we are Moreover, they criticized the relevance of digital lives in the future, different, but we can be one together". arguing that people would forget human-like activities because there would be no in-person activities; for instance, people explor- 4.2.3 Vision 3: navigating from digital to physical interactions. Six ing cities or finding topics to talk about. They further expressed ideas had both a digital component and a physical component, that as everything would be automatized, there would not be a need meaning that the interaction could start through a digital platform to put effort into doing these activities or engage in interactions. and continue in person (e.g., ideas 5, 6, 12, and 15) or involve in- Additionally, some participants thought people would lose the abil- teracting in a digital city and having those interactions impact an ity to empathize with others. Nonetheless, the participants also actual physical location (e.g., ideas 7 and 10). Hence, participants speculated this would not be a fixed state; once people realize they perceived that more interactions would begin digitally, and the are losing something inherently human due to the strong influence in-person interaction would only happen once participants built of technology, they would try to regain it and propose new social trust in one another. changes. However, who they would be able to meet in those digital spaces might also present a level of exclusion. Concerning digital places, 4.2.5 Vision5: contact ahead of borders and governments. Another participants perceived social media as a public place because they vision revolved around individuals helping each other (e.g., ideas 7, are open to everyone. They also mentioned that people are spending 10, and 11) and creating together (e.g., ideas 8 and 13). For instance, more time on these platforms because they might want to be in idea seven was about a digital world in which people from differ- places where they feel more equal than in current reality, a need ent countries would help each other overcome their local social they thought would increase in the future. However, an opposing problems. Hence, it seems like participants envision more collab- perspective expressed that different digital worlds would provide oration among people and citizens from different countries than different experiences for different people, thus creating different government involvement in various issues. With these ideas, in access levels linked to their social and economic status. For instance, a way, participants perceived fewer barriers to experiencing and P8 said that "maybe there will be special platforms for some people learning about cultures and between geographical countries and since we have these special luxury restaurants for them to feel much international people, hence the relevance of digital experiences to more superior, maybe they can have like that kind of closed groups, facilitate IMSI. Nonetheless, participants identified negative conse- platforms that will not (be) accessed by others". quences of the technologies they ideated. For instance, the ideas Moreover, some participants thought that as real-life experiences that promote the exchange of felt experiences can open the door to become increasingly expensive, the digital world would provide ex- abusing the knowledge of a person’s previous experiences, inter- periences for people with low resources while real-life experiences ests, or memories. Therefore, participants also discussed that as life (i.e., really traveling) would only be for wealthier people. As an becomes more digital, there would be a need to create digital police implication, a participant expressed there would be a digital over- to fight digital vandalism. In a way, participants think such online load that would only be experienced by people with less economic control could avoid bad experiences, violence, and discrimination, resources (i.e., they might need to watch many ads, being infoxi- among other things that might need to be regulated in the future. cated). Consequently, there would be a socioeconomic hierarchy in the digital world. 4.2.6 Vision6: delaying biases. A more controversial vision was 4.2.4 Vision4: complementing hybrid realities. Overall, the discus- related to the stories that used hiding an aspect of the self as a sions reflected that the digital and the physical worlds might be strategy to decrease differences (i.e., idea11 and idea 12). This idea more intertwined in the future, so much that we might lose the was discussed from different perspectives concerning its implica- ability to identify which is real and what happens in which place. tions for diversity and meaningful intercultural interactions. For Participants actually discussed that it might not be a relevant dif- instance, while hiding aspects of the self could be beneficial and ference to make in the first place as both (i.e., digital and physical) not create conflict, it is unclear whether it is ethical to promote it or would form one entity. whether erasing differences could encourage tolerance and diver- With these second-life ideas about a virtual life that connects sity in society. However, P25, who proposed such an idea to ignite to the physical one, some ideas extended power issues from the the interactions, explained that "they can eliminate the differences current social exclusion to a possible digital future (i.e., privileged and come to terms with their similarities. We hope and believe that vs. unprivileged groups). Further, this discussion initiated a debate these two communities can build better relationships and learn from around post-truth, mentioning that people in the future might each other without feeling inferior or superior to each other when we not care about what is real anymore. In a way, some participants physically and knowledge-wise make these groups in an equilibrium". thought there would be a redefinition of what is real as more people Therefore, suggesting that humans can only understand each other start complementing their in-person lives with digital lives (i.e., by being the same, which is against interculturality and diversity. 110 Academic Mindtrek 2022, November 16–18, 2022, Tampere, Finland María Laura Ramirez Galleguillos et al. Nevertheless, participants argued that these experiences could intercultural discussion of the different perceptions of the city. Also, be helpful in specific moments. For example, some international we noted that the discussions about the present were related to participants mentioned that if they could momentarily change their what futures participants dreamed of for Istanbul. At the end of the appearance to physically blend or know more about the culture workshops, participants expressed hopes of a less crowded, greener, in particular locations of Istanbul, they would adapt easily to the and more just Istanbul, where diversity is accepted and people with city. Accordingly, it could be helpful in specific moments of the their differences can live peacefully. interaction, but not on its own. However, due to its possible negative implications, this approach must be supported by other methods 4.4 Participatory Futures Workshops that promote accepting people with their differences. We created these workshops’ structure to promote participants’ future thinking and creativity in ideating, imaging, and dreaming 4.3 Perceptions of the present intercultural of alternative futures and potential technologies for IMSI. For the contact latter, we ideated and iterated different materials. After the eight sessions, we extracted some findings concerning these materials. Overall, participants perceived Istanbul as a multicultural city. Many participants referred to Istanbul as the world’s capital, expressing 4.4.1 About the workshop experience. Concerning the online for- how it is a cosmopolitan and multicultural city where diverse as- mat, participants had mixed perspectives. For instance, some par- pects of various cultures could be found. So much that participants ticipants found it challenging and frustrating that we conducted thought it could be confusing, even more for tourists and migrants, the activity online. Some felt overwhelmed by using different digi- because there is so much to see and do. However, this was also tal tools at once. P9 said, "using Miro was enjoyable, but switching discussed as what makes Istanbul an attractive and exciting city. between the tabs was hard, and it distracted me". Additionally, some Further, compared to other cities in Turkey, it was identified as participants mentioned they would like to see other people’s faces already more technological regarding its public places. For instance, while using Miro. So, looking at someone’s face was relevant for P13 explained, "I’ve already seen incorporation (of technological in- them to engage in the activity. However, some participants ex- terventions). In the Gayrettepe metro station, there is dialogue in the pressed that opening their cameras felt like opening a space of their dark (i.e., a museum promoting visitors experiencing the world as home to strangers. Further, some felt uncomfortable at the start visually impaired people). So, interventions like that, good technology, of the activity while working with someone they did not know. could make the interactions (between people) better". Nonetheless, they mentioned feeling comfortable and having fun However, P14 mentioned that "if you are not a cisgender white with their peers by the end of the workshop. Consequently, the looking middle-class man", it was harder to inhabit the city, referring online format positively and negatively affected participants’ en- to discrimination experienced by some groups. Likewise, partici- gagement. pants referred to geographical exclusion, in the sense that people Likewise, participants mentioned having fun with the dynamics who do not belong to an area are excluded from that place or judged; and feeling comfortable while ideating. It seems that the creative as P14 added, "in Istanbul right now, I’ve seen some controversies be- action enabled them to overcome some initial barriers even though cause certain people are using and are coming to the coast that doesn’t thinking outside the box could make them shy in the first instance. belong to their neighborhood, so, there is this idea that even in the Concerning the obstacles they experienced during the activity, we public spaces and in cities as crowded and diverse as Istanbul, there found different patterns concerning the group composition. For are certain public spaces that are only for certain groups of people". example, participants in the intracultural teams described the chal- Turkish participants were more critical of the city than interna- lenges they had to "let their imagination fly" (P16), or to express tional participants. Turkish participants expressed that people were what "was in their mind when [they] do not have a clear idea them- currently pessimistic about the future, and that the social and eco- selves" (P25). In intercultural groups, participants expressed barriers nomic crises make people hopeless. For instance, P22 said, "Turkey such as conducting the activity in a different language and the lack is not the best place to be positive, so most people will say depressive of common references (culturally) that could help them create a things about it; however, if you are going to talk about the good future, shared understanding and share jokes. For example, P11 expressed Turkey has potential". We observed throughout the workshops that her intercultural experience by saying, "to be honest, it was not there could be a higher sense of mistrust in Turkish participants that easy. Especially if you have so many differences in backgrounds, than in international participants. For instance, P6 expressed that it’s much harder. But my partner had so much imagination, and it sense of mistrust by saying, "we don’t know the foreigners’ inten- inspired me". tions, so maybe they want to harm us or not just us but the country". Nonetheless, the participants mentioned they valued the work- International participants had a more positive stance about the shop as a space to collaboratively build ideas and potentially feel city, although they all expressed experiencing discrimination while they have a chance to influence the future and think differently living in this country. Therefore, their fears were mostly related to about it. Moreover, some participants also mentioned they were experiencing discrimination again, which was a more significant amazed by how they could dialogue with another person from a concern when participants presented physical characteristics linked different culture, understand their perceptions, and honestly share to nationality or ethnicity. their own. In a way, we observed that by getting in contact and Notwithstanding the different perceptions and pessimistic per- building something with someone from different culture, which at spectives, by the end of the workshop, participants expressed hav- the same time has the goal of enabling interculturally meaningful ing a more hopeful sense of the city for the future, ignited by the interactions, they also get engaged in a meaningful interaction with 111 Imagining Emerging Technologies for Promoting Intercultural Meaningful Social Interactions: A Participatory Futures Approach Academic Mindtrek 2022, November 16–18, 2022, Tampere, Finland the other people on their team by sharing their previous experiences tool that allowed participants to also share parts of themselves and and perceptions while building the co-speculations. previous experiences with each other, through the avatar. Diversity personas also seemed to integrate some stereotypes 4.4.2 Cards. We presented participants with three sets of cards, participants had about nationalities with some character traits and the first relating to the kinds of impact IMSI produced [28, 58, access to technology. For instance, if they portrayed a character 67], the second presenting design strategies to promote IMSI [3, that was a migrant from middle east countries, participants associ- 59], and the final set showing the various elements of IMSI [24, ated it with being a refugee and not having access to technologies. 60][60]. The cards helped create a shared understanding of core Thus, this tool was helpful for participants to identify and discuss IMSI concepts. Further, while selecting the cards, the participants stereotypes, how other cultures perceive Turkish people, and how could differentiate between them and share their preferences. The different cultures are perceived in Turkey. For instance, most of cards subsequently served as a base that oriented and inspired the the migrant diversity personas were not Europeans; however, there participants in their ideation processes. were two German characters who, in their characteristics, were Overall, when evaluating the ideas concerning the kind of IMSI presented as more liberal. Concerning gender, some participants selected, we observed that 14 of them matched the brief created created female characters who could understand each other just through the IMSI card selection, while idea14 was more closely because they were women. Hence, there was a supposition that peo- associated with a different kind than the participants’ selected ple labeled with similar stereotypes were expected to relate to and one. Further, concerning the design strategies for IMSI, 14 ideas understand each other, making them homogeneous. Therefore, it integrated their selected design strategy while also integrating seems some participants understood each other in a single-layered another strategy at some point in the interaction process. Still, fashion (i.e., being one thing) instead of multilayered (i.e., being Idea14 was evaluated as applying a design strategy different from many things simultaneously). However, participants argued that the one the participants selected. the diversity personas allowed them to think about their character The elements were slightly more challenging to interpret when more thoroughly. using the cards as a criterion to evaluate them. For instance, we Finally, participants mentioned how these ideas impacted the found more alternatives than the participants defined when consid- avatars’ lives and their characteristics when presenting emerging ering the contexts of use, specifically the group size. In this case, technologies. For instance, they explained that after the IMSI, their even when the technologies were designed to promote group in- diversity persona realized something or learned something. In this teraction, the participants’ stories could be narrating a one-to-one sense, the diversity persona allowed them to identify traits that interaction or vice versa. Therefore, group size could fit with dif- could be improved to create personal growth, thus determining the ferent use contexts. Additionally, mobility level was also slightly positive impact of IMSI on their characters. complex to analyze because even if sometimes the technologies 4.4.4 Journey map. The journey map allowed the participants to were created to be used while staying in a place, apps and digital organize the idea they selected during the ideation process into a technologies allow interaction to happen while moving around a structured sequence of events constituted of four phases: the igni- city by holding an interaction in an app. In fact, with virtual realities, tion phase, the meaningful moment phase, the closure phase, and mobility levels were even more intertwined because VR headsets the self-reflection phase[60]. Overall, participants mentioned that could be used in a private space, for instance, a living room, where the journey map guided them to detail their idea and showed how a participant is staying. Still, the interaction could be held in an their avatars, the card selected, and the technology created were alternative world where participants could be moving around the linked, creating a coherent story. Therefore, this tool helped con- city. nect different aspects of their emerging technologies with actions and reactions of personas according to each stage of IMSI. Addi- 4.4.3 Diversity personas. Participants created diversity personas tionally, it allowed them to think about the emerging technologies’ during the workshop. We designed this tool to make potential cul- potential impacts on the characters, a function we did not initially tural and personal differences visible among the characters that expect. should interact meaningfully through the emerging technologies ideated. Overall, participants found the diversity avatar idea valu- 4.4.5 Board. The board we created to conduct all sections of the able as it helped them ideate and connect with the activity and the workshop provided a co-working space that guided the activities character they were ideating for. and connected the different steps of the workshop. According to When integrating diversity personas into their dialogues, par- the participants’ comments, the board also promoted a feeling of ticipants were generally referring to them in the third person (e.g., progress for the participants since they could see all the outputs my avatar would not like this, would not accept that), but in some of all the activities they completed in one place. Since all groups cases, participants referred to them in the first person (e.g., I am not worked on the same Miro workspace on different boards, it also too fond of this, I do not support this) when talking from the per- allowed them to feel enthusiastic by giving visibility to the activities spective of the avatar, hence taking a more personal identification of the other groups who attended the workshop. However, the par- with the character. Therefore, participants experienced different ticipants still commented that they might need more links between levels of empathy and identification with their created characters. the different stages of the workshop to understand the connection Moreover, some groups discussed how they felt similar to their di- between the activities. They perceived they could only understand versity personas in that they were also intercultural strangers and how everything came together at the end of the future-oriented interacted meaningfully through the workshop. Moreover, it was a section when they created their stories. 112 Academic Mindtrek 2022, November 16–18, 2022, Tampere, Finland María Laura Ramirez Galleguillos et al. 5 DISCUSSION intercultural strangers interacting meaningfully through the co- speculated technology in the future. Second, the tools participants 5.1 Lessons from enabling participatory futures relied on during the activity seemed to support this meaningful 5.1.1 About the tools. The purpose of this workshop was for in- engagement. The cards facilitated a shared understanding of the tercultural strangers to get together and ideate concepts of emerg- goals and characteristics of the aimed interaction, and the latter was ing technologies that could promote IMSI. We created scenarios developed through shared decision-making. The diversity persona that ignite their creativity skills as a usual practice to encourage was helpful for participants to empathize with the character while participants’ future thinking and different tools that could guide also being a space to share part of themselves and their previous ex- participants’ thinking process and promote a shared understanding periences, therefore being a space for meaningful contact between of concepts [2, 5, 11, 27]. Through the workshop, we could ob- these strangers. serve that the structure and tools helped enable participants’ future With all the above, it seems relevant to continue exploring the thinking and creativity skills. The cards helped promote a shared characteristics that make these workshops a space for meaningful understanding of IMSI that could provoke participants’ thoughts interactions, especially the relevance of this activity’s collaborative, and discussions about alternative possibilities concerning emerging speculative, and intercultural quality. Moreover, it is relevant to technologies and IMSI. study how it would develop in an in-person setting. Second, the diversity persona was helpful in enabling empathy with the fictional character and was successful in creating an under- 5.1.3 Images of futures as provotypes. We observed with this work- standing of characters as multilayer personas (i.e., migrant or local shop that, while ideating technologies, participants could also create and a family member, a student, a worker, a caregiver, with specific alternative realities and societies, even discussing how cities could values and gendered) instead of being classified in single labels be and how interculturality would be perceived in 2050. The latter (i.e., "just" a migrant, refugee or local). With this, it also helped links society’s development with technologies and how they influ- to discuss more or less desired futures concerning a diversity of ence each other. Participants were offered a social structure through potential users. Moreover, this tool helped to find similarities and a scenario we created, which they needed to change by developing specific characteristics between characters that could ignite IMSI. new technologies. This process allowed them to discuss the changes With the understanding of IMSI and potential users, the par- they would expect from society concerning how migrants and locals ticipants created images of possible futures detailed through the interact. Participants also discussed how the emerging technologies journey map. This tool allowed them to look at their idea and the ideated for promoting meaningful interactions influenced culture. interaction made more comprehensively than just as a way of start- Therefore, the concepts created represented a discussion ma- ing interactions through serendipity or chance [69, 74]. With all terial or provotype [13](i.e., provocative prototypes). It would be the above, our structure and materials created were supportive of interesting to continue exploring how these emerging technologies ideating emerging technologies for IMSI. Nonetheless, there are concepts would open discussions about potential futures in other aspects we need to improve, such as some descriptions of the cards, contexts and the desirability of certain futures. For instance, we their visuals, and how the materials could guide individuals who could present the ideas to different groups of migrants and locals want to explore emerging technologies and futures on their own. and ask them how they could promote IMSI, in which contexts, and the overall effect they could have in a future society. 5.1.4 Dealing with tensions. Participatory futures as a method rep- 5.1.2 Intercultural co-speculation as a meaningful experience. Pre- resented a way of exploring alternative futures [22] rather than vious work expressed that intercultural interactions must fulfill utopias or dystopias of intercultural contact [18, 42]. We have three characteristics to be meaningful: taking place with someone learned that bridging pluralistic perspectives of IMSI is related perceived as belonging to a different culture, being memorable in- to linking the aggregate of ideas and discussions of more or less teractions with a special event that makes them stand out from desired possibilities rather than creating realistic visions of those other daily interactions, and igniting positive impacts on individu- futures. Nonetheless, pluralism and diversity are often accompanied als such as developing self-knowledge, creating ties, building trust, by tensions between different perceptions of what is more or less spreading joy, and promoting kindness [58]. Our participants high- desired [12, 13, 30]. lighted different aspects pointing to the workshops as not only a By engaging in this kind of research, we learned that participants means to think of ways to promote IMSI, but also as meaningful having opposing views could enrich the discussions if tensions are interaction in themselves. expected and well managed. Thus, facilitators must be careful in At the end of each workshop, participants gave us feedback about promoting an open environment that does not transgress individ- their experience. Some of them referred to the workshop as a space uals. For instance, we experienced tense moments in which, for in which they met with strangers with whom, through the various example, local participants could negatively comment on the mi- activities they had to work on to create and develop their shared gratory situation of the country, a perspective conflicting with the idea, they got to share some of their previous experiences, likes and workshop’s purpose, or situations in which migrant participants dislikes, make jokes, or even just have a fun and enjoyable moment could comment on difficult experiences while living here. Therefore, by being creative together and working towards a shared goal. as facilitators, we needed to intervene and use those experiences Indeed, several aspects of the structure of the workshop seem and perceptions in favor of the activity by highlighting what was to facilitate an IMSI. First, having participants working on inter- behind the comment (i.e., fear of changing traditions, experiences cultural dyads, besides ideating with the purpose of having two that could motivate better intercultural communication) to inspire 113 Imagining Emerging Technologies for Promoting Intercultural Meaningful Social Interactions: A Participatory Futures Approach Academic Mindtrek 2022, November 16–18, 2022, Tampere, Finland design concepts rather than just staying with their negative aspect. used could improve each time to bridge the gap between in-person Futures are not a single and straightforward entity, nor are the and online interactions. presents. Both futures and presents exist in the potential conflict in contexts where diversity is natural. As facilitators, we expect to 6 CONCLUSION create the most diverse ideas; sometimes, those ideas conflict with In this study, we have presented the results of workshops that each other. Still, with the discussion sessions, those conflicts could explored participatory futures of intercultural meaningful social become dialogues about potentially desired futures. interactions. We described the method applied along with the 15 emerging technologies ideas created by locals and international 5.2 Enabling presents through futures participants living in Istanbul. Also, we presented themes associated The discussion on emerging technologies and potential futures also with the discussion of these ideas, and we showed participants’ allowed us to investigate the present and participants’ experiences perceptions of the workshop, its structure, and their insights about being a local and a migrant in Istanbul today. Presents and their the presents and the futures in Istanbul. everyday experiences are diverse [23], as are the futures. After ana- With all the above, we have contributed to IMSI literature by lyzing the discussions of our workshops, we understood that, even presenting nine emerging technologies futures (i.e., functionalities) when we try to inspire creativity, futures thinking is also inspired to promote IMSI and participatory futures literature by discussing by participants’ present and lived experiences [29]. Participants the tools and structure followed to enable futures thinking. Addi- seemed to identify problematic situations today and ideated to solve tionally, we commented on our lessons while enabling participatory them in the future or to present futures without those situations. futures and how this method could be used to explore participants’ In the same way, we observed that futures and related imagi- current diverse realities and perceptions. naries can inspire individuals to discuss their present experiences This study opens doors for future work in different directions. because they take potential ideas of futures and discuss them con- On one side, we could continue to explore participatory futures of cerning their life today, identifying potential differences between intercultural contact and create shared ideas on this topic with the their dreams and the present. For instance, they discussed how it general public, exploring a broader perception of these emerging was needed to develop emerging technologies that are accessible technologies and the potential futures they could create, and thus and inclusive because they realized that today that is not the case, using the images of the future as provotypes. On the other hand, and different individuals are left out of such experiences. We were we continue exploring the methodology of our workshops as an expecting that their recent experiences could inspire the discussion instance for future IMSI and other implications to exploring current concerning futures. However, we did not expect the ideas of futures realities and individuals’ experiences. Finally, the tools that we to enable such a deep discussion of their experiences today. used during the workshop are an aspect that could continue to be Further, this discussion allowed participants to find unexpected explored so that they could be refined according to participants’ similarities between them and their intercultural partners concern- comments, therefore, contributing to creating knowledge around ing thoughts or experiences. Therefore, this study opened a door participatory futures tools. for us to continue exploring both futures and presents grounded in participants’ experiences and ways of promoting meaningful REFERENCES [1] Amaral, E.F.L., Woldetsadik, M.A. and Armenta, G. 2018. Hosting Syrian refugees: interactions. The workshop allowed us to understand participants’ What works best? International Journal of Population Studies. 4, 1 (2018). DOI:https: hopes for Istanbul and their perception of their current life in this //doi.org/10.18063/ijps.v4i1.457. city in the same venue. With these findings, we expect to explore [2] Andrés Lucero, Peter Dalsgaard, Kim Halskov, and J.B. and Abstract 2016. De- signing with Cards. Collaboration in Creative Design: Methods and Tools. (2016), potential emerging technologies that can solve other needs, such as 1–393. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29155-0. the lack of nature, overpopulation, traffic, and physical exclusion, [3] Askins, K. 2016. Emotional citizenry: everyday geographies of befriending, belong- so that our cities can turn into a more human-centered ones. ing and intercultural encounter. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 41, 4 (2016), 515–527. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12135. [4] Askins, K. and Pain, R. 2011. Contact zones: Participation, materiality, and the 5.3 Limitations messiness of interaction. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 29, 5 (2011), 803–821. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1068/d11109. This work’s limitations are related to the format and organization. [5] Astrid Mendez Gonzalez, P., Castaneda Mosquera, S., Paula Bernal Tinjaca, M., Mejía Sarmiento, R., Alejandro Morales Rubio, R., Camilo Giraldo Manrique, J. The workshops were conducted online due to COVID-19 social and Baquero Lozano, S. 2020. Participatory construction of futures for the defense distancing restrictions, thus limiting the number of participants and of human rights. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. 2, (2020), 10–16. potentially their engagement level. Concerning the organization, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3384772.3385155. [6] Auger, J. 2013. Speculative design: Crafting the speculation. Digital Creativity. 24, participants gave recommendations and comments to improve the 1 (2013), 11–35. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.767276. activity’s materials and the number of participants. For instance, [7] Balestrini, M., Marshall, P., Cornejo, R., Tentori, M., Bird, J., Rogers, Y. and Science, some felt shy opening their cameras, while others felt less engaged C. 2016. Jokebox: Coordinating Shared Encounters in Public Spaces. CSCW16. (2016), 38–49. if their teams had their cameras closed. [8] Bardzell, J. and Bardzell, S. 2014. “‘A great and troubling beauty”’: cognitive Additionally, some participants felt overwhelmed by the number speculation and ubiquitous computing. Pers Ubiquit Comput (2014). (2014), 779– 794. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0677-8. of tabs or the inability to see the person in zoom while on the Miro [9] Baumann, K., Stokes, B., Bar, F. and Caldwell, B. 2017. Infrastructures of the board. Therefore, their recommendation concerned the venue and imagination: Community design for speculative urban technologies. ACM In- how the software used could allow them to see each other’s faces ternational Conference Proceeding Series. Part F1285, (2017), 266–269. DOI:https: //doi.org/10.1145/3083671.3083700. while working on their board. These are aspects that were out of [10] Bekker, T., Sturm, J. and Eggen, B. 2010. Designing playful interactions for social our hands to solve. Still, we hope in the future, the digital tools interaction and physical play. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing. 14, 5 (2010), 114 Academic Mindtrek 2022, November 16–18, 2022, Tampere, Finland María Laura Ramirez Galleguillos et al. 385–396. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-009-0264-1. [38] Lucero, A., Holopainen, J., Ollila, E., Suomela, R. and Karapanos, E. 2013. The [11] Biskjaer, M.M., Dalsgaard, P. and Halskov, K. 2010. Creativity Methods in Inter- Playful Experiences (PLEX) Framework as a Guide for Expert Evaluation. Pro- action Design. DESIRE 10. August (2010), 16–17. ceedings of the 6th International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and [12] Bødker, S. 1996. Creating conditions for participation: conflicts and resources in Interfaces (New York, NY, USA, 2013), 221–230. systems development. Human-computer interaction. 11, 3 (1996), 215–236. [39] Luff, P., Heath, C., Norrie, M., Signer, B. and Herdman, P. 2004. Only touching the [13] Boer, L. and Donovan, J. 2012. Provotypes for participatory innovation. Proceed- surface: creating affinities between digital content and paper. Proceedings of the ings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference, DIS ’12. (2012), 388–397. 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (2004), 523–532. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2318014. [40] Lund, K., Lochrie, M. and Coulton, P. 2010. Enabling emergent behaviour in [14] Braun, V. and Clarke, V. 2021. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice location based games. Proceedings of the 14th International Academic MindTrek in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology. 18, 3 (2021), Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, MindTrek 2010. 44, 0 (2010), 328–352. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238. 78–85. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1930488.1930505. [15] Braun, V. and Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative [41] Madden, D., Cadet-James, Y., Atkinson, I. and Watkin Lui, F. 2014. Probes and research in psychology. 3, 2 (2006), 77–101. prototypes: a participatory action research approach to codesign. CoDesign. 10, 1 [16] Brown, C., Efstratiou, C., Leontiadis, I., Quercia, D. and Mascolo, C. 2014. Tracking (2014), 31–45. serendipitous interactions: How individual cultures shape the office. Proceedings [42] Markussen, T. and Knutz, E. 2013. The poetics of design fiction. Proceedings of of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social the 6th International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, computing (2014), 1072–1081. DPPI 2013. (2013), 231–240. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2513506.2513531. [17] Brown, R. and Hewstone, M. 2005. An integrative theory of intergroup contact. [43] Migrants’ Presence Monitoring Flow Monitoring Compilation Report December Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 37, (Jan. 2005), 255–343. DOI:https: 2021: 2021. https://turkey.iom.int/data-and-resources. Accessed: 2022-01-17. //doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37005-5. [44] Milgram, S., Sabini, J.E. and Silver, M.E. 1992. The individual in a social world: [18] Candy, S. 2010. Beyond Utopia and Dystopia. The Futures of Everyday Life: Politics Essays and experiments. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company. and the Design of Experiential Scenarios. July (2010), 22–60. DOI:https://doi.org/ [45] Monastero, B., Lucero, A., Takala, T., Olsson, T., Jacucci, G. and Mitchell, R. 2018. 10.13140/RG.2.1.1840.0248. Multimedia ubiquitous technology for opportunistic social interactions. ACM [19] Candy, S. 2019. Turning Foresight Inside Out: An Introduction to Ethnographic International Conference Proceeding Series. (2018), 545–550. DOI:https://doi.org/ Experiential Futures. Journal of Futures Studies. 23, March (2019). DOI:https: 10.1145/3282894.3286058. //doi.org/10.6531/JFS.201903. [46] Mondada, L. 2009. Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic [20] Chopra, S. 2019. HCI for participatory futuring in sustainable communities: Recon- analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal ciling visions with everyday practice. Conference on Human Factors in Computing of Pagmatics. 41, (2009), 1977–1997. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09. Systems - Proceedings. (2019), 1–6. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3299085. 019. [21] Christ, O. and Kauff, M. 2019. Intergroup contact theory. Social psychology in [47] Olshannikova, E., Olsson, T., Huhtamäki, J., Paasovaara, S. and Kärkkäinen, H. action. Springer. 145–161. 2020. From Chance to Serendipity: Knowledge Workers’ Experiences of Serendip- [22] Epp, F.A., Hirskyj-Douglas, I., Karyda, M., McGookin, D. and Lucero, A. 2020. itous Social Encounters. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction. 2020, (2020). Collocated Sharing of Presentations of Self in Public Settings. Conference on DOI:https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1827107. Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings (2020), 1–15. [48] Olsson, T., Jarusriboonchai, P., Woźniak, P., Paasovaara, S., Väänänen, K. and [23] Escobar, A. 2018. Designs for the Pluriverse. Designs for the Pluriverse. Duke Lucero, A. 2020. Technologies for Enhancing Collocated Social Interaction: University Press. Review of Design Solutions and Approaches. Computer Supported Coopera- [24] Fonseca, X., Lukosch, S. and Brazier, F. 2022. Design Framework for Social Inter- tive Work: CSCW: An International Journal. 29, 1–2 (2020), 29–83. DOI:https: action with Location-based Games. International Journal of Serious Games. 9, 1 //doi.org/10.1007/s10606-019-09345-0. (2022), 59–81. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v9i1.481. [49] Paasovaara, S., Lucero, A. and Olsson, T. 2016. Outlining the design space of [25] Fonseca, X., Slingerland, G., Lukosch, S. and Brazier, F. 2021. Designing for mean- playful interactions between nearby strangers. AcademicMindtrek 2016 - Pro- ingful social interaction in digital serious games. Entertainment Computing. 36, ceedings of the 20th International Academic Mindtrek Conference. (2016), 216–225. January 2020 (2021), 100385. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2020.100385. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2994310.2994344. [26] Gaver, W.W. 1996. Affordances for Interaction: The Social Is Material for [50] Paasovaara, S., Lucero, A., Porcheron, M., Paavilainen, J., Aliakseyeu, D. and Ols- Design. Ecological Psychology. September (1996). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1207/ son, T. 2018. Interaction between nearby strangers: Serendipity and playfulness. s15326969eco0802. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. 2018-April, 1 (2018), 521–532. [27] Gerber, A. 2018. Participatory speculation: Futures of public safety. ACM Interna- DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3297716. tional Conference Proceeding Series. 2, (2018). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3210604. [51] Paasovaara, S., Väänänen, K., Malapaschas, A., Olshannikova, E., Olsson, T., 3210640. Jarusriboonchai, P., Hošek, J. and Mašek, P. 2018. Playfulness and progression [28] Greater London Authority 2009. Guidance on meaningful interaction. in technology-enhanced social experiences between nearby strangers. ACM [29] Haraway, D. 1988. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and International Conference Proceeding Series. (2018), 537–548. DOI:https://doi.org/ the Privilege of Partial Perspective Linked references are available on JSTOR for 10.1145/3240167.3240212. this article: Feminist Studies. 14, 3 (1988), 575–599. [52] Paluck, E.L. and Green, D.P. 2009. Prejudice reduction: What works? a review [30] Harrington, C., Erete, S. and Piper, A.M. 2019. Deconstructing Community-Based and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology. 60, (2009), Collaborative Design. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 3, 339–367. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607. CSCW (2019), 1–25. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3359318. [53] Paulos, E. and Goodman, E. 2004. The familiar stranger: Anxiety, comfort, and play [31] Hines, A. and Zindato, D. 2016. Designing Foresight and Foresighting De- in public places. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. sign. World Futures Review. 8, 4 (2016), 180–192. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/ 6, 1 (2004), 223–230. 1946756716672477. [54] Pettigrew, T.F. 1998. Intergroup Contact Theory. Annual Review of Psychology. [32] International Crisis Group 2018. Turkeys Syrian Refugees: Defusing Metropolitan 49, 1 (1998), 65–85. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65. Tensions. Europe Report. 248, January (2018). [55] Pratt, M.L. 2007. Imperial eyes: Travel writing and transculturation. routledge. [33] IOM 2021. World Migration Report 2022. [56] Pride, M. 2015. Measuring superdiversity: constructing a theoretical multi- [34] Jones, C.E., Theodosis, S. and Lykourentzou, I. 2019. The enthusiast, the interested, dimensional framework. Unpublished MA dissertation. Birmingham: University of the sceptic, and the cynic: Understanding user experience and perceived value Birmingham, School of Social Policy. (2015). in location-based cultural heritage games through qualitative and sentiment [57] Ramírez Galleguillos, M.L., Eloiriachi, A. and Coskun, A. 2022. Beneath Walls and analysis. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage. 12, 1 (2019). DOI:https: Naked Souls: Factors influencing Intercultural Meaningful Social Interactions in //doi.org/10.1145/3297716. Public Places of Istanbul upon. PDC22. 1, (2022). [35] Knutz, E., Markussen, T. and Christensen, P.R. 2014. The Role of Fiction in [58] Ramírez Galleguillos, M.L., Eloiriachi, A. and Coskun, A. 2022. Beneath Walls and Experiments within Design, Art & Architecture. Artifact. 3, 2 (2014), 8. DOI:https: Naked Souls: Factors influencing Intercultural Meaningful Social Interactions in //doi.org/10.14434/artifact.v3i2.4045. Public Places of Istanbul upon. PDC2022. 1, (2022). [36] Kozubaev, S., Elsden, C., Howell, N., Søndergaard, M.L.J., Merrill, N., Schulte, [59] Ramírez Galleguillos, M.L., Eloiriachi, A., Serdar, B. and Coşkun, A. 2022. Design B. and Wong, R.Y. 2020. Expanding Modes of Reflection in Design Futuring. Strategies to Promote Intercultural Meaningful Social Interactions. Proceedings Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. (2020), 1–15. of the Design Society. 2, (May 2022), 2203–2212. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/pds. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376526. 2022.223. [37] Lee, W.Y., Hou, Y.T.Y., Zaga, C. and Jung, M. 2019. Design for Serendipitous [60] Ramírez Galleguillos, M.L., Eloiriachi, A., Serdar, B. and Coşkun, A. 2021. “Tell Interaction: BubbleBot - Bringing People Together with Bubbles. ACM/IEEE Me Your Story , I’ll Tell You What Makes It Meaningful”: Characterization of International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 2019-March, June (2019), Meaningful Social Interactions Between Intercultural Strangers and Design Con- 759–760. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673265. siderations for Promoting Them. HCII 21. (2021), 1–21. [61] Ramírez Galleguillos, M.L., Sekerli, E. and Coskun, A. 2019. Ignite, Share and Reflect: Design Tactics to Foster Social Interactions Between Migrants and Locals 115 Imagining Emerging Technologies for Promoting Intercultural Meaningful Social Interactions: A Participatory Futures Approach Academic Mindtrek 2022, November 16–18, 2022, Tampere, Finland in Istanbul. International Association of Societies of Design Research Conference Alternative accounts and underlying processes. Journal of Personality and Social (Manchester, UK, 2019). Psychology. 99, 2 (2010), 282–302. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018553. [62] Rasmussen, L.B. 2005. The narrative aspect of scenario building - How story [69] Thiel, S.K., Foth, M. and Schroeter, R. 2015. Ad hoc communities on the road: telling may give people a memory of the future. AI & Soc. (2005), 229–249. Serendipitous social encounters to enhance tourist experiences. OzCHI 2015: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0337-2. Being Human - Conference Proceedings. (2015), 643–652. DOI:https://doi.org/10. [63] Sanders, E.B.N. and Stappers, P.J. 2014. Probes, toolkits and prototypes: Three 1145/2838739.2838768. approaches to making in codesigning. CoDesign. Taylor & Francis. [70] Trends, D., Council, N.I., Group, S.F., Community, I., Trends, G., Government, [64] Sauer, S. and De Rijke, M. 2016. Seeking Serendipity. SIGIR 16. (2016), 989–992. U.S. and Community, U.S.I. 2021. The Future of Migration. March (2021). [65] Shklovski, I. and Grönvall, E. 2020. CreepyLeaks: Participatory Specula- [71] Tyne, N. and Gatehouse, C. A Hauntology of Participatory Speculation. 116–125. tion Through Demos. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. (2020). [72] Ujang, N., Kozlowski, M. and Maulan, S. 2018. Linking place attachment and social DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3419249.3420168. interaction: towards meaningful public places. Journal of Place Management and [66] Sohst, R.R., Tjaden, J., de Valk, H. and Melde, S. 2020. The future of migration Development. 11, 1 (2018), 115–129. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMD-01-2017- to Europe. A Systematic Review of the Literature on Migration Scenarios and 0012. Forecasts. [73] Valentine, G. 2008. Living with difference: reflections on geographies of encounter. [67] Spijkers, F.E. and Loopmans, M. 2020. Meaningful intercultural contact: how Progress in human geography. 32, 3 (2008), 323–337. different places pave the way for learning to live together in diversity. Social [74] Werner, J. and Sun, A. 2018. Cerebro: A platform for opportunistic collective and Cultural Geography. 21, 8 (2020), 1146–1167. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/ experiences. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. 14649365.2018.1541246. 2018-April, (2018), 1–6. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3180298. [68] Tausch, N., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J.B., Psaltis, C., Schmid, K., Popan, J.R., Cairns, E. and Hughes, J. 2010. Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: 116