The HCI community is well aware of the gap between research and practice in the field. The issue is often discussed in terms of the applicability and adaption of theories and methods to the real world, but both categories seem insufficient for explaining how practitioners navigate the complexity of the problems they work on. This study takes a more fundamental perspective, inspired by theories of reflective practice and design. As a consequence, the attention is shifted to the framing of a problem that happens prior—or in parallel—to the use of theories and methods. Six case studies were collected through semi-structured interviews to investigate this position. The findings point towards a rather small set of techniques which are used for supporting the (re-)framing of a problem in an often pragmatic and informal way. A model locating the methods in their respective stages is proposed; and the methods are related to other research to suggest additional possibilities not mentioned by the participants of this study. What most clearly distinguished HCI practitioners from designers in other professions was their distrust in their own intuition, and the key role they attached to the user in response.

<div>As part of an increasing interest in a "Turn to Practice," HCI scholars have investigated the felt design complexities and ethical concerns in everyday technology practice, calling for practice-led research approaches. Given the ethical nature of technology design work, practitioners have to often negotiate and mediate their personal values, disciplinary notions of ethics, organizational policies and values, and societal impact of their design work. To tease apart and describe practitioner accounts of ethical aspects of their design work, I used three different approaches to investigate what practitioners from different professional roles communicate about and participate in (potentially) strengthening their ethical engagement in their everyday design work within and across role boundaries: survey, design of co-creation activities, and deployment/pilot of these co-creation activities. </div><div><br></div><div>In the survey study, I identify and describe the differences in disciplinary values, responsibilities, commitments, and alignment in relation to ethics and social responsibility through captured data from 256 technology and design practitioners from a range of professional roles.</div><div><br></div><div>As a part of the design phase of co-creation activities, I design, iterate, and prototype three co-creation activities (A: Tracing the Complexity; B: Dilemma Postcards; and C: Method Heuristics) and sequences of these activities to engage a range of different professional roles to communicate about their ethical action and (potentially) strengthen their ethical engagement in everyday design work. I define design vocabulary/Schemas: 1) <i>A.E.I.O.YOU model</i> to investigate the landscape of ethics in practice and 2) <i>Classifiers</i> to codify the activities and potential variants.</div><div><br></div><div>As a part of the deployment phase of these designed co-creation activities, I piloted four sequences of these activities with twelve practitioners with three different professional roles per sequence, engaging in approx. 23 hours of facilitation, artifact creation, and conversation. I present the results of deployment of the co-creation sessions where practitioners articulated that the co-creation activities helped <i>expand</i> their ethical horizons through self-awareness, <i>learn</i> new approaches to ethics vocabulary, <i>become (re-)aware </i>of their current practice, and <i>imagine</i> trajectories of change in their practice. Practitioners also identified a preliminary set of ethics-related practices that could be better supported such as tools for performance, leadership support, ethics education, and resources for ethical decision making. </div><div><br></div><div>Based on the results from these three approaches, I propose contributions to HCI and design audiences. For HCI researchers, practitioners, and educators, the survey results describe differences in professional notions and valence of ethics, framing the need for translation and transdisciplinary approach to ethics in a practice context. For design researchers, the designing of the co-creation activities is a methodological contribution where I propose and illustrate opportunities for creating novel ways to engage practitioners in co-creation work as a means of communicating their felt ethical concerns and practices. For co-creation researchers and professional ethicists, the engagement of practitioners in the co-creation reveal: 1) complexities to facilitate different disciplinary roles and design a space for ``representing'' a range of practitioners; and 2) gaps and potential synergies in supporting practitioners through practice-resonant ethics-focused methods. </div>

Mob programming is a collaborative software development method that has gained increasing attention in both industry and research. While the focus of mob programming is on the benefits of teams programming together, there are also potential benefits for other aspects of the software development process. However, there is a lack of research on the use of the method outside the domain of programming. This study explores user-centred design (UCD) in mob programming through a case study of three software development teams at Sveriges Television, a Swedish public broadcasting company. Results show that the teams use the method for a variety of tasks in their daily work, calling for a rebranding of the method to mob development to encompass the broader scope. The integration of UCD is analysed through the principles of user-centred agile software development. The results indicate that a revision of these principles is needed to include the cross-functional and social factors that mob development adds to the software development process.