The Future of Work is Multi- and Inter-disciplinary

Description

In this conversation, I will illustrate why future work and the study of the future of work research requires a multi- and inter-disciplinary perspective. I will draw upon three different experiences. First, in a recent review paper [1], I investigated research into human-automation interaction over the past fifty years and made some projections into the future. The review showed that automated technology is increasingly being applied in a wider set of contexts and being used by a wide(r) variety of humans. To create successful interaction therefore requires both an understanding of the domain of operation, of the technology, and of the human, and how those three relate. This requires a multi- and interdisciplinary approach. Second, I draw upon my experience in teaching on an interdisciplinary program in Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Utrecht. For this program, I led a team that revised part of the curriculum. A particular challenge that we faced was how to demonstrate the value of multi- and interdisciplinary work. Many students that enroll in AI programs nowadays are drawn by the engineering promise that technology can make our world a better place, and they are drawn to “hot” techniques such as deep learning. However, in Utrecht, we try to take a wider approach, by also providing insights from for example psychology, linguistics, and philosophy. How can students be convinced of the relevance of such “non-engineering” fields for AI? This will draw upon our insights that we also published recently [2].

Third, I will draw upon my personal experience, which has been in research at the intersection of HCI, AI, and Cognitive Science. The majority of my research has focused on human multitasking and distraction, particularly in automotive settings. I’ve had the pleasure of working on relevant problems with students and colleagues that come from different backgrounds. Being based in a psychology department, I see the value of such interdisciplinary work in that it can help demonstrate where concepts and theories from psychology can inform other domains, but also where other fields can show where existing theories break down. For example, recently we investigated [3] what is even meant by the words “model” and “simulation” in the context of human-automated vehicle interaction, and we found that across different fields, these words have very different meanings. How can we still benefit from each other’s insights? I look forward to the conversation and to your questions.

Citations (mostly open access; otherwise, pre-prints are available through my website) [1] Janssen, C.P., Donker, S.F., Brumby, D.P., Kun, A.L. (2019) History and Future of Human-Automation Interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 131, 99-107. [2] Janssen, C.P., Nouwen, R., Overvliet. K. Adriaans, F., Stuit. S. Deoskar, T., and Harvey, B. (2020 accepted) Multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary teaching in the Utrecht AI program: Why and how?," IEEE Pervasive Computing [3] Janssen, C.P., Boyle, L., Ju, W., Riener, A., and Alvarez, I.(2020) Agents, Environments, Scenarios: A Framework for Examining Models and Simulations of Human-Vehicle Interaction. Transportation Research: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 8, article 100214

Period	3 Dec 2020
Held at	HCI and the future of work and wellbeing A series of conversations, United States
Degree of Recognition	International