Can playing with LEGO® help us understand our data?

Introduction

For the past year, our ‘Attitudes to Data’ DDRC research team has been working extensively on the topic of organisational data. Namely, we have been investigating how to improve it, how to make it more secure, and what are the concerns of British workers. Our project right now seeks to establish a baseline understanding of these attitudes. We will then explore how this relates to defence in closer detail.

When setting out the research design of the project, I approached a conundrum — talking about data is often boring. Data is complicated, non-physical (although it involves many physical devices) and often abstract. It can involve different (and sometimes unknown) actors, flow through different spaces, and mean different things to different people. In the modern world, it is often utilised by the tech-savvy and the layperson alike. Yet it is somewhat likely that most people would probably admit that talking about data can be dull.

As a primarily qualitative researcher, I was left with a challenging dilemma. How do we get people to talk about data in a manner that is engaging and not a chore? More conventional qualitative approaches might include conducting interviews with workers or even ethnographic observation of workers. These approaches are well-recognised in research terms. However, they posed challenges to the scope of this project. It might be tough to convince people to commit to a one-on-one interview about such a dry topic. Ethnographic observation may be impractical and unlikely for companies to agree to. It would also be a lengthy process. Consequently, I faced a significant conundrum. How could this research reach and engage with different people about something that can often be perceived as tedious, abstract, frustrating, or seemingly unknowable?

What inspired using LEGO®?

The work of the ‘attitudes to data’ team heads up some of the social, or ‘sociotechnical’ elements of the DDRC’s research (Doing ‘sociotechnical’ research is, broadly speaking, a way to combine people-oriented and technology-oriented ways of thinking). It is often inspired by the work of (generally) social scientists working with digital innovation or digitalisation. A particular challenge of sociotechnical work is being sufficiently attentive to both technology and people. In the process of our research design, it was critical to opt for a method that would get people to talk critically about their relationship with their data in both social and technical terms.

It was during discussions on our plans my memory was cast back to my early days as a doctoral researcher when I was invited to a workshop using LEGO® to map perceived cybersecurity threats. One of my enduring memories of that event was the positive level of engagement from my fellow participants. Sometimes the pieces acted as triggers for things we maybe may have neglected or forgotten. Other times the pieces were used creatively as approximations of what we wanted to talk about. Either way, the approach stuck with me, even though I did not personally use it again. Until now.

This research discussion design led to further reading – a critical stage in the research design stage of any project. Who else has used LEGO® as a methodological tool? Is it a valid approach to sociotechnical research? Further reading uncovered a broad spectrum of research, ranging from topics such as workplace training, and social care, to cyber security exercises. In the following section, I have reviewed some of the academic research that is already out there.

It is also pertinent to note that LEGO® has not just been used prolifically in academia but also the business world. A further influence on our work is the official LEGO® Serious Play® (LSP) product. As difficult as it is to believe now, in the late 90’s and early 00’s, LEGO® was struggling financially as a company. One of the ways it envisioned broadening its appeal was by marketing its product as a team-building exercise to businesses while harnessing the nostalgic appeal of LEGO®. LEGO® pioneered its Serious Play® product as a ‘storytelling’ tool and has suggested that what marked this now open-source product out as particularly helpful was the ability to build powerful metaphors through the creative thinking of participants (Roos & Victor, 2018).

LEGO® in Research: The story so far

 Our approach was inspired by and builds upon the work of others who have used LEGO® as a creative tool in related studies and disciplines, such as Coles-Kemp, Jensen, & Heath (2020) who held workshops for participants to outline their perceived cyber (in)securities. Other studies have focused on risk visualisation, noting how LEGO® could be a useful tool to envisage different types of data, actors and devices (Hall, Heath, & Coles-Kemp, 2015) and how it can be used to help participants visualise their ideas and perspectives on everyday cyber security (Coles-Kemp & Hansen, 2017). Asprion et al. (2020) utilised LEGO® Serious Play® as an educational tool for visualisation in a classroom setting, De Saille et al. (2022) used LEGO® as a participatory method for health and social care, and Rashid et al (2020) used LEGO® as a tool for wargaming cyberattacks and even created their own game (Decisions & Disruptions, 2019) to practice decision-making scenarios. LEGO®, as a creative tool, has been used across numerous disciplines due to its flexibility and utility as a method to engage with diverse groups.

Heath, Coles-Kemp, & Hall (2014) used a multi-step approach involving interviews, participatory diagramming, and physical modelling to foster collaboration and dialogue. They highlight the role of shared modelling in making assumptions visible and allowing for their revision, providing an overview of complex concepts. The method’s repeatability and scalability are showcased, with an emphasis on adaptability to different contexts and its potential for deeper insights into human sociotechnical interactions and organisational policies.

Schulz et al (2015) compared LEGO® Serious Play® with Toolkit-based modelling in a methodological study. They suggest that Serious Play®, with its focus on intuitive, playful interactions with the toolkit, fosters unpredictable outcomes while still addressing general tasks. While they found providing toolkits (with which participants could build artistic creations) as similarly useful, they also found that Serious Play® encourages creativity and idea generation by providing a scaffold for creative acting. Additionally, the paper emphasises the role of Serious Play® in promoting shared understanding among participants and facilitating the development of innovative concepts and solutions.

Brown & Collins (2018) used LEGO® as a means for their research participants (doctoral students) to express feelings and emotions as well as to navigate power relations in the workplace. This research, which denoted complex and often mixed feelings among doctoral researchers, also credited the use of LEGO® with creating a relaxed atmosphere in which participants could express themselves. They also note a key challenge of using LEGO® for research in the sense it can be dismissed as ‘not serious’ and ‘playing with toys’ in certain circumstances. In another non-technological case study, Rainford (2020) examines how drawing and LEGO® building tasks were used to explore the gap between policy and practice in higher education, emphasizing the role of creative confidence. It identifies barriers like fear of judgment and losing control that affect participant engagement, while also highlighting the benefits of creative methods in fostering reflection and engagement. Strategies to overcome these barriers are suggested for wider utilization of creative methods in research.

de Saille et al (2022) explore how LSP was employed in the “Imagining Robotic Care” project to engage stakeholders in designing autonomous care systems. It highlights LSP’s effectiveness in eliciting diverse perspectives and tangible insights, emphasizing its potential as an inclusive tool for shaping the values guiding technological design. This significant contribution to sociotechnical research again validated our decision to use LEGO® in our work.

It is noteworthy that across the existing body of work using LEGO®, there are some variances in terminology. Some research uses LEGO®, eschewing the Serious Play® aspect. So what is Serious Play® and what sets it apart?

In the words of LEGO® (2010), LEGO® bricks are perfect for communication as they are easy to use, familiar to many, and versatile in shape and colour. They inspire metaphors naturally and allow individuals to attach diverse meanings to them comfortably. This fits across all the above research, but when it comes to the matter of what is and is not Serious Play®, this is a more prescriptive process which, according to LEGO® involves cycles of building, reflection, and collaborative learning, serving specific purposes. LEGO® goes to some lengths to insist that Serious Play® not just a fun icebreaker nor is it a tool for organisational diagrams or physical planning. They also strongly argue that it requires more than an hour (ideally at least four hours) and claim anything using LEGO® while contravening these ideas is not ‘Serious Play®’. However, Serious Play® is now Open Source. Before 2010, LEGO® protected this intellectual property (IP) more rigidly and insisted that only accredited trainers could deliver Serious Play®. Now, LEGO® simply owns the intellectual property and the brand itself. They also sell prescriptive, ‘Serious Play®’ sets.

LSP developers Roos & Victor (2018) discuss at length the evolution and impact of the LSP method, emphasising its widespread adoption and benefits across various sectors. They address some conflicting narratives about LSP’s origins and acknowledge the collaborative effort behind its success. Dann (2018) also discusses how LSP originated in the mid-90s to address market challenges, and notes how LSP offers a structured process for problem-solving and shared understanding. Dann outlines LSP’s history, principles, and integration into academia. He also focuses on LSP’s role in the classroom. Dann also found that LSP is somewhat prescriptive and rejects the idea of shorter workshops as useless, using 90-minute sessions.

Dann (2018) and LEGO® (2010) both note that LSP is not terribly useful in situations where there is definitively a right and a wrong answer, and instead note that LSP is far more effective as a means of consensus-building, explaining through shared experience, and in the use of often humorous metaphors. It is collaborative but not perfect in all scenarios.

Overall, there has been considerable research involving the academic use of LEGO® and LEGO® Serious Play®. As I hope the above demonstrates, this has been used in both social and technical research, and now increasingly in sociotechnical research. There is also some divergence between the use of LEGO® and what constitutes the use of LEGO® Serious Play®. LSP, as per Lego’s guidance, has some prescriptive guidelines of what is and is not a Serious Play® workshop. However, Dann’s use of LSP is loosely interpreted, while other authors eschew using this terminology, instead focusing on their own creations (such as Decisions-Disruptions) or simply using LEGO® as a creative means to deliver workshops of their design.

Conclusions and Reflections

Currently, we continue to work on the results of our many workshops held over the past year. Our findings from these workshops are forthcoming and our work is ongoing. However, it is possible to offer some critical reflections here on our methods and the methods of others who have utilised LEGO® in research.

Firstly, there has been significant use of LEGO® by researchers seeking an innovative way to hold workshops/focus groups spanning the last two decades or more. There is a growing, more recent interest in using LEGO® to discuss sociotechnical matters. In both our observed experience and personal feedback, we have found LEGO® extremely useful for human-focused sociotechnical research. LEGO®, and the availability of myriad human and technical pieces, is an ideal vehicle to encourage critical thinking about sociotechnical problems.

In our research design, we were positively influenced in several ways by the above literature. Hall, Heath, & Coles-Kemp (2015) and Coles-Kemp & Hansen (2017) pioneered colour-coding for meaning, including different types of data, actors, and devices. This is evident in our own research design, as we used colour coding to help participants visualise how they felt about their relationships with the data in their organisations. Dann’s (2018) findings somewhat mirror our approach to workshop length. Workshop timings were finalised through trial and error whilst running pilot workshops and shorter workshops, advanced generally by academic research rather than the longer workshops prescribed by the LSP method were favoured.  Like Brown & Collins (2018) we were cautious of our work not being taken seriously and took steps to mitigate this by carefully framing our work and research questions, emphasising that LEGO® was a means to talk about serious issues.

Overall, while the analysis is still ongoing, I can the following final reflections and comments.

• Our work reflects and furthers the work of other scholars across disparate, interdisciplinary fields.
• LEGO® is a wonderful tool, when used in a methodologically sound way, to get people talking about wider issues.
• LEGO® is particularly useful for talking about sociotechnical problems.
• What is and is not Serious Play® is contestable. I observed that shorter exercises were helpful and practical. It was also extremely useful in mapping organisational data. Yet, this contravenes the LEGO® definition of Serious Play®.
• We did not use Serious Play® sets but instead constructed our sets with pieces appropriate for our topic, in the manner of the other academic research outlined in this blog.