Keywords

1 Introduction

Blockchain systems constitute a rapidly expanding, yet comparably less well investigated object of interaction design research [1]. A growing interest is fueled by the success of the Bitcoin cryptocurrency, the initial and still most famous instance of Blockchain technology [2]: Through an ingenious combination of distributed ledger, immutable storage, and distributed consensus algorithms, the Bitcoin system allows any participant of the system to make a secure payment without having to trust an intermediary such as a bank or broker.

1.1 Internet of Values

While revolutionary from a technological point of view, Bitcoin merely provided a novel technological model for a well established social practice, that of making digital payments. Due to this state of affairs, Bitcoin is sometimes categorised as a “Blockchain 1.0” technology, in contradistinction to more disruptive Blockchain 2.0 and Blockchain 3.0 technologies yet to come [3]. The latter include smart contract and smart property applications [4], distributed autonomous organizations [5], participatory budgeting [6], self-sovereign digital identity services [7], and decentralized transparent voting [8].

This emerging system of technologies and practices is described as “Internet of Values” [9] in order to point to the magnitude of expected transformations, comparable to that effected by Internet technologies [10].

If these predictions regarding the success of Blockchain technologies will indeed come to fruition remains to be seen. However, interaction designers are today faced with the challenge to design systems aimed at either contributing to these disruptive changes or operating on the assumption that these disruptions will have taken effect at the time of system deployment.

2 Methodology

In order to account for this inherent future-directedness of blockchain artefacts, we propose to combine methods of practice-based research and speculative design. This is in line with studies such as that of Elsden et al. [1] who explicitly call for combining design-led, speculative, and artistic methods in order to account for the specific set of challenges posed by Blockchain systems.

2.1 Practice-Based Research

Practice-based research is a methodology for achieving knowledge through the careful conduct of a constructive designerly or artistic process [11]. Following the principle of “Knowing through Making” [12], concepts are formed and explored through continuous engagement with constructed artefacts, paired with ongoing processes of reflection and empirical observation.

Following the argumentation of authors such as Elsden (see preceding paragraph), we see the potential of design-led thinking and artistic exploration regarding novel designs for Blockchain technology. At the same time, intelligible methodological guidelines have to be established and followed. Novel interaction patterns will not appear out of nowhere but evolve from existing relationships between users and technological artefacts.

In order to grasp the specificity of practice-based research as a method, we employ a schematic juxtaposition of research styles developed by digital media scholar Ashley Holmes (Table 1) [13]. Differentiating technology research and creative production projects, it provides a detailed set of criteria for identifying and comparing both.

Table 1. Characteristics of Technology Research and Creative-Production Projects - Reproduced from [13].
Full size table

2.2 Speculative Design

Speculative Design [14] and Research through Design Fictions [15,16,17] are methodological tools to extend the reach of design activities into the realm of the future.

We argue for including speculative elements within the practice-based process in order to account for the disruptive and future oriented nature of many Blockchain systems. Including an element of speculation allows for a more adequate relationship to an anticipated, albeit not yet existing, situation of use. Speculative design specifically allows for addressing the need for widespread adoption that acts as prerequisite for many Blockchain artefacts.

3 Practice-Based Framework

The situated nature of practice-based research makes it impossible to formulate any strict procedures which could guarantee success. However, this renders detailed analysis and description of methodological elements within the research process even more valuable. The methodological approach presented here is based on previously developed design frameworks [18,19,20], which have been adopted in order to account for the specificity of studying Blockchain technologies.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Iterative practice-based process

Full size image

3.1 Iterative Process

The practice-based process is structured in an iterative manner (Fig. 1). An iteration commences with description of research questions, intentions, and goals. The conceptual apparatus is irritated by artefacts generated, while interpretations formulated call for novel vehicles of expression. Resultingly, existing concepts have to be refined or rethought. Where necessary, research questions are reframed using the novel conceptual basis. The refined conceptual apparatus allows for a more nuanced articulation of research questions, in turn informing the process of further artefact construction. This succession of iterative steps drives the ensuing process, producing expanded theory over time.

Crucially, research questions themselves evolve gradually as the concepts to frame and describe them successively take shape (Fig. 2). This implies a distinction in relationship to research styles based on testing hypotheses such as hypothetico-deductive models. Testing of hypotheses usually requires a stable conceptual frame of reference: Hypotheses are commonly framed within established conceptual categories, supported by a large volume of research literature. This, in turn, is based on an abundant amount of data, all expressed within the same system of categories which is only minimally perturbed in the process of hypothesis testing.

Fig. 2.
figure 2

Practice-based process - detailed account

Full size image

Resultingly, practice-based research processes calling for transformations of concepts, operating across disciplinary boundaries, synthesising antagonistic forms of knowledge within processes of theory making often sit uneasily with hypothetico-deductive approaches. However, practice-based processes can contain elements of hypothetico-deductive endeavours as subcomponents of the inquiry: In this case, the current practice-based conceptual apparatus is used to frame a step of hypothesis testing during which concepts remain stable. Observations made during the hypothetico-deductive step are then channeled back into the practice-based process of reflection and criticism, providing fresh questions and incentives towards its processes of theory making.

3.2 Methods

In the following, we provide a brief discussion of methods employed within the current practice-based process.

Workshops. One of the proposed ways for combination of practice-based and speculative design methods is through adequately conducted workshops. Workshop situations allow for focussed and collective forms of imagining a future state of society: Building on existing work regarding Blockchain related workshop situations [21], the concept of Blockchain computing is broached through provision of tangible computing elements. Introductory video material allows for participants to immerse themselves within the respective scenario. Subsequently, participants are presented with designed interfaces and artefacts. They are encouraged to interact with these according to the content of the presented scenario. Interactions are observed, recorded, and analysed following a mixed methods approach [22].

Workshops are unique in that they create a temporary community, able to materialise common goals, internal struggle, congeniality, bewilderment, inspiration, and strife with an intensity that is unlikely to appear outside of a closed environment. They thus provide the conditions both for practices of communal imagination and those of spirited debate.

Writing as Research Tool. Practices of writing constitute a popular vehicle of speculative research endeavours. Understood in a broad sense, as encompassing both production of narrative content and the creation of computer code, the concept of writing facilitates a synoptic perspective regarding differing disciplinary practices. At the same time, the expressive potentials of writing allow for the joint articulation of viewpoints that might otherwise remain incommensurable due to the absence of a common conceptual frame [23].

3.3 Concepts

The following sections present the conceptual apparatus of the current practice-based inquiry. As discussed, concepts both serve as the intellectual and propositional basis of research activities undertaken while in turn being produced by the research endeavour itself.

Programs and Anti-Programs. The concept of programs and anti-programs was introduced by science-and-technology-studies scholar Bruno Latour in his text Technology is Society Made Durable [24]. Fuchsberger et al. later adopted the concept in order to serve the purposes of HCI [25]. Programs constitute patterns of practice relating to a specific artefact. An antiprogram on the other hand constitutes a conflicting pattern, incompatible with realisation of the first.

An example might serve to elucidate the concept: In the case of a smartphone-based route planning application, a practice involving use of the app would constitute a program. It could consist of checking the app every couple of minutes or of keeping one’s eyes locked to the screen, while intermittently glancing upwards as not to lose track of the real world. An antiprogram, however, could consist in putting the phone away and asking strangers for directions until the destination has been reached. As is analysed in [26] the operation of interactive artefacts depends on a successful balancing of programs and anti-programs.

Artefact and Interpretation. Within the practice-based stance adopted, artefacts become central to the proces of inquiry. Artefacts do not simply “contain” or transport knowledge. Indeed they are “mute objects” [12], in need of interpretation and intellectual engagement. Instead of being an object of study, or constituting the outcome of a development process, they thus become the condition of knowledge claims. The role of the artefact thus becomes that of the facilitator of experiences and the interpretations informed by them.

Materiality. It has to be stressed how the concept of artefact is in no way limited to the realm of the physical. Artefacts do not necessarily constitute things “you can touch”. However, we do argue for conceptualising artefacts as material objects. Here, materiality is conceptualised, in line with Nake and Grabowski [27] as endowing objects with the capacity of resistance. Objects are not material because we can touch or sense them, but since they resist our efforts to shape them. The work needed for the imposition of form becomes the index of materiality. Ideal and imagined things are immaterial, not because they are not rooted in the physical world, but since they do not offer any resistance to the one thinking them. Analysing the materiality of a phenomenon thus entails describing its capabilities for offering resistance. Following this conceptual proposition, the materiality of the artefact stretches across physical elements such as props, decorations, sensors, and displays, into the realm of rule systems and software components.

4 Trust

A key element that emerged during practice-based engagement with Blockchain systems is the dimension of trust.

During the course of the practice-based inquiry we developed a conceptualisation of trust aimed at elucidating its status regarding the design space of Blockchain systems. The conceptual apparatus developed combines social systems theory, namely the approach of Niklas Luhmann [28] with conceptions of relational trust [29]. This conceptual basis is substantiated by observations specific to the field of blockchain technology.

Resultingly, the following dimensions of trust were identified, among others:

  • Trust in code: Users trust the system does not contain grave programming errors which could expose them to vulnerabilities.

  • Trust in data: Users trust that data entered into the system is correct and verifiable. This is of paramount importance since data directly forms the basis of decisions enforced through smart contracts.

  • Trust in the vision fueling the project: Users trust that the system will gain adequate momentum to create a digital ecosystem able to sustain the platform in question.

  • Systemic trust: In order to effect trust in a certain system or platform, multiple elements have to act in tandem. Whether users trust or mistrust a system or platform depends on the successful interplay of aforementioned elements.

Following the practice-based paradigm, these categories are not only the result of combined reflection and design actions but also feed back into the practice-based engagement with systems and users.

Trust thus constricts the design space for blockchain-based systems while forming the material basis for their operation: Any design has to successfully organise users’ trust in a sustainable manner. Trust thus forms a precious design material that has to be skillfully crafted in order for a design to succeed.

5 Observations

Practice-Based Research and the Blockchain. Practice-based research constitutes an interesting methodological candidate for inquiring into the social dynamics effected through Blockchain technology.

Double Position of Trust in Practice-Based Research Processes. The concept of trust occurs in two positions within the project: It informs research activities, thereby contributing to an understanding of relevant social phenomena encountered. At the same time, the project contributes to a deepened understanding of trust. Ideally, applying received conceptions of trust to the problematic of the Blockchain both benefits our understanding of the emerging technology while rejuvenating our conceptions of trust as a social phenomenon.

The Work of Trust. Trust itself can be conceived as a form of work, brought about by the necessity of processing relevant information about a system’s environment.

Blockchain Anti-Programs. Within the context of the current inquiry, mistrust strengthens anti-programs regarding Blockchain systems, drawing users away from respective artefacts. In contradistinction, trust strengthens programs, increasing the likelihood of user-system-interactions.

Blockchain and Complexity. The technical and formal complication of complex social phenomena emerges as one of the main challenges when introducing smart contract technology [30].

Understanding Code Based Artefacts. Building trust towards Blockchain technologies is predicated on efforts to offer users a better understanding of code-based artefacts such as smart-contracts. As a first step, we require a fuller understanding of code as a design material within design and research processes [31, 32].

Smart Contracts Act as Agents of Complexity Reduction. The feature of “trustlessness” can be described as transformation of the socially complex dynamic of trust into the technologically complicated operation of smart contracts [33].

Smart Contracts Entail a Novel Division of Labour. As pointed out by Kim and Laskowski [30], employing smart contracts entails a novel form of division of labour. This can be described as a relationship of delegation, or as complication of formerly complex trust relationships. While the work of establishing and maintaining trust is done by the machine, humans have to expend effort in order to create the material basis of system complications by virtue of formal systems, software systems, and through data provision.

6 Conclusion

The emergence of Blockchain systems creates an interesting challenge for researchers and practitioners trying to understand and shape the novel interactional dynamics the technology is promising to enable. Its implications are potentially extremely far reaching, yet few systems can be studied in a state of broad adoption. Practice-based research constitutes an auspicious mode of addressing these challenges in a principled, creative, and critical manner. Incorporating elements of speculative design allows to account for the inherent future-directedness of current Blockchain-based implementations while providing material evidence of the potential agency of the novel technology. Hopefully, knowledge generated will allow us as technology creators to sensitise the public towards the characteristics of the novel technology in an effort to jointly steer and negotiate development of emerging institutions and patterns of practice.