The idea of collaboratively working with our peers to better understand our issue was great as everyone’s input was constructive. Over a period of two weeks, our group worked on two tasks that made us start to consider what possible approaches we might take when proposing a design response for the issue.
Firstly, our group members came up with 100 words related to online privacy and grouped them according to different categories (e.g. emotions and motivations). That process assisted us to understand other ways of approaching our issue from different perspectives. Following that, we laid out the 100 words on the floor and peers from other groups were asked to identify the words that they found most appealing, intriguing or attracted to. This really helped our group to have an idea of how other students who are not researching the same issue perceive online privacy and why. For example, one of the words that really attracted people’s attention was ‘consent’. In my opinion and in a shallow analysis, that could represent that authorities should not be collecting a vast amount of citizens’ personal data without our consent.
Following the word exercise, we worked on a new stakeholders map. By combining everyone’s stakeholders’ map from week 2, all group members discussed possible connections between different stakeholders as well as motivations for those connections to happen. For example, one of the hypotheses that emerged from the map was: national security is the motivation for government to enforce authoritarian anti-terror laws. However, population only become accepting of those laws because government used the media to create a culture of fear among us, using terrorism as a pretext. There is also the other share of the population who advocate for online privacy no matter what. Those people believe that privacy is directly related to respect and have freedom as their main motivation.