Sustainability, Development, and Human–Computer Interaction

Research Background and Issues

• Problem/Challenge Description: Researchers in the field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) have conducted extensive studies on the design and use of technology for sustainability and development, forming two subfields: "Sustainable HCI" (SHCI) and "HCI for Development" (HCI4D). However, these two subfields have largely developed independently, lacking an integrated perspective, despite the growing global demand for integrated approaches to sustainable development.
• Significance of the Problem: Unifying sustainability and development can ultimately guide solutions to global issues, addressing ecological, social, and economic challenges comprehensively. Many regions, particularly in the Global South, face survival pressures from the intertwined challenges of climate change and development, necessitating a more systematic research framework.
• Research Motivation and Related Work: SHCI focuses on ecological issues in the Global North, while HCI4D primarily examines social and development issues in the Global South. Previous studies have proposed integrating these two fields, such as through research directions like "Collapse Informatics" and "Computing Within Limits," but specific pathways for advancing this integration remain unclear.

Solution

• Research Methods and Framework:
  • The authors conducted a systematic literature review to identify research trends in SHCI and HCI4D.
  • They interviewed 32 HCI researchers to explore understandings of sustainability and development within the two subfields and the tensions between them.
  • Using a political economy analytical lens, they examined how power structures, knowledge production, and institutional influences shape the development of these two subfields.
• Innovations:
  • Introduced "political economy" as an analytical framework to uncover underlying issues related to funding allocation, knowledge production, inequality, and Global North-South dynamics.
  • Explored inherent contradictions between sustainability and development, such as the fundamental conflict between "reducing resource consumption" (sustainability) and "promoting economic growth" (development).
• Implementation Steps:
  1. Literature Review: Using the PRISMA-ScR framework, the authors screened relevant papers published between 2015 and 2023 in ACM and SIGCHI conferences, analyzing a total of 190 papers.
  2. Interview Study: Conducted semi-structured interviews with 32 researchers, covering topics such as academic perspectives on sustainable development goals, limitations of technological interventions, and potential future directions for collaboration.
  3. Data Analysis: Employed inductive interpretive coding to extract understandings, critiques, tensions, and future considerations from the interview data.

Research Findings

• Specific Findings:
  1. Trend Summary:
     • SHCI primarily focuses on environmental issues (e.g., energy, food waste management), while HCI4D is dedicated to social issues (e.g., health, education).
     • SHCI research is predominantly concentrated in the Global North, whereas HCI4D research is more focused on the Global South.
  2. Understanding and Critique of Sustainability and Development:
     • Sustainability in technology design is mainly understood as intergenerational resource preservation.
     • Development is viewed as a spectrum between "top-down" macro-level implementation and "bottom-up" localized practices, often showing significant divergence.
  3. Challenges of Integration:
     • Sustainability demands reduced economic activity, while development requires growth, presenting a fundamental "sustainable development paradox" that is difficult to resolve.
     • Academia is dominated by a "growth logic" (e.g., project scaling, publication volume), with limited exploration of "post-growth models."
     • Current collaboration between SHCI and HCI4D remains at the level of theoretical advocacy, lacking structural support and practical frameworks.
• Strengths Analysis:
  • The proposed analytical framework and integrated perspective help uncover the root causes of fragmentation in the research fields and provide theoretical support for cross-disciplinary collaboration.
  • Combining literature review with interviews balances macro-level data with micro-level insights.
• Limitations and Future Directions:
  • Limitations: The study primarily focuses on SIGCHI conference outputs, potentially overlooking relevant research from other academic conferences and interdisciplinary fields.
  • Future Directions: Further exploration of "post-growth" HCI models is needed, along with the development of integrated frameworks for addressing global challenges through sustainability and development. Additionally, incorporating more localized practices and knowledge from the Global South is essential.

Conclusion

The authors emphasize the importance of integrating SHCI and HCI4D research and call for cross-disciplinary dialogue and collaboration within the HCI field to advance the practice of sustainable development goals. They particularly highlight the need to rethink academia's over-reliance on "economic growth" and propose that HCI should serve as a catalytic platform for driving technological transformation toward social and ecological justice.