在工業設計、建築、人機互動等相關領域，文化探針（Cultural probes）大量被運用在設計流程中以探索使用者的需求。這個方法與其他使用者研究方法不同之處在於，用以揭露、分享使用者經驗，同時也能喚醒使用者意識、激發使用者創造力。在此，本文回顧相關的質化研究方法，企圖找出文化探針在使用者研究方法中的定位。文化探針沿用民族誌（Ethnography），強調研究者須進入
實際場域；而文化探針作為一個工具代替研究員進入場域。從敘事研究中瞭解，讓使用者以自己的觀點，記錄自我的意義，說出自己的故事，即所謂的「展現（unpacking）」。本文以主流科技發展的重點之一：智慧語音服務（Intelligent Audio Service)為例，以網絡民族誌（Connective Ethnography）將線上線下使用者視為一體作為觀察之對象，以Leander & McKim（2003）所提出的網絡民族誌作為使用者脈絡；以設計為核心，發揮設計研究的最大價值與效應，引用Wallace（2013）的設計準則，一步步設計出文化探針，探索忙碌者（使用者）對於未來智慧語音的應用與想像。透過此文化探針，使用者展現了哪些自我、說出了哪些自己的故事，而其中的設計人造物又如何影響使用者的自我展現。本研究歸納出使用者展現的已知與未知範疇，呈現為冰山式圖像，以及五個影響使用者展現的探針包設計特點，「詳細的情節記錄」、「話題放在周遭習以為常的人造物上」、「將關係、信念、價值觀等長時間存在卻複雜抽象的概念，以視覺化方式做整理」、「不同以往或特別的方式看相同的事件」以及「挑選具有重要意義的片段與事物」，提供給設計研究團隊在操作文化探針時更明確的依據。

Cultural probes have been widely used to explore users’ needs of design process in the field of design, architecture, HCI, etc. The uniqueness of cultural probes is not only to reveal and share a user’s experience, but also to evoke his/her consciousness and inspire creativities. In this research, we review methodologies in qualitative research in order to locate the position for cultural probes. Ethnography as a situationbased methodology that a research must enter the field; while cultural probe as a tool to replace for a researcher to enter the field. Through narrative analysis, we can comprehend what a user unpacks him/her-self by telling us his/her stories.
Following these, we chose one of the mainstream technologies - intelligent audio service as the service context. We applied the strategies of connective ethnography (Leander & McKim, 2003) which considers online and offline behavior should be deemed as whole in users’ contexts. And applied the strategies of cultural probes (Wallace, 2013) which seems design as a core in design research. To design a cultural probe to explore the new service for busy users.
What kinds of stories users will talk via this cultural probe? How the design of culture probes influences users’ unpacking themselves. This research includes the category of things that users have vs. haven’t known as an image of iceberg. And proposes five design features for unpacking the users: ‘’detail episodic recording’’, ‘’topic of regulation artifacts’’, ‘’visualize the long-term but abstract concepts such as relationship, faith, and value’’, ‘’look the same things in different ways’’, and ‘’pick up the important part’’. The results form this study could provide the basis of designing a cultural probe for design research teams.

Boehner, K., Vertesi, J., Sengers, P., & Dourish, P. (2007, April). How HCI interprets
the probes. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in
computing systems (pp. 1077-1086). ACM.
Brott, P. E. (2001). The storied approach: A postmodern perspective for career
counseling. The Career Development Quarterly, 49(4), 304-313.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in
qualitative research.
Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: cultural probes. interactions, 6(1),
21-29.
Gaver, W., & Dunne, A. (1999, May). Projected realities: conceptual design for cultural
effect. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (pp. 600-607). ACM.
Gaver, W., Boucher, A., Pennington, S., & Walker, B. (2004). Cultural probes and the
value of uncertainty. interactions-Funology, 11(5), 53-56.
Graham, C., Rouncefield, M., Gibbs, M., Vetere, F., & Cheverst, K. (2007, November).
How probes work. In Proceedings of the 19th Australasian conference on
Computer-Human Interaction: Entertaining User Interfaces (pp. 29-37). ACM.
Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research
complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions.
Rockport Publishers.
Hemmings, T., Crabtree, A., Rodden, T., Clarke, K., & Rouncefield, M. (2002, June).
Probing the probes. In Proc. of PDC 2002 (pp. 42-50).
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. Sage.
Hine, C. (2007). Connective ethnography for the exploration of e-science. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 618-634.
Leander, K. M., & McKim, K. K. (2003). Tracing the everyday'sitings' of adolescents
on the internet: A strategic adaptation of ethnography across online and offline
spaces. Education, communication & information, 3(2), 211-240.
McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by.
Rohrer, C. (2008) When to Use Which User Experience Research Methods. Retrieved
from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/user-research- methods.html on April 16, 2009.
Updated on October 12, 2014.
Sanders, E. B. (2001, September). Virtuosos of the experience domain. In Proceedings
of the 2001 IDSA Education Conference.
Sanders, E. (2002). Special section: ethnography in NPD research. How ‘applied
ethnography’can improve your NPD research process. Visions Magazine, 8-12.
Sluis-Theischeffer, W., Bekker, T., & Eggen, B. (2009). Adding user creativity to the
UX toolbox: Exploring the use of Creative UX methods. 13th CHI Netherlands, The
Netherlands.
Visser, F. S., Stappers, P. J., Van der Lugt, R., & Sanders, E. B. (2005).
Contextmapping: experiences from practice. CoDesign, 1(2), 119-149.
Wallace, J., McCarthy, J., Wright, P. C., & Olivier, P. (2013, April). Making design
probes work. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (pp. 3441-3450). ACM.
卜玉梅（2012）。虚拟民族志: 田野, 方法与伦理. 社会学研究, 6, 217-236.
何粵東（2005）。敘說研究方法論初探. 應用心理研究, (25), 55-72.
林品章（2012）。設計學方法論. 桑格文化出版.
陳萍（2008）。精進網路研究方法-網路民族. 圖書資訊學研究, 2(2), 1-15.
洪瑞斌, 陳筱婷, & 莊騏嘉（2012）。自我敘說研究中的真實與真理: 兼論自我敘說研究之品質參照標準. 應用心理研究 (56), 19-53.
顏寧（2011）。質性研究：設計與施作指南。台北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
Clandinin, D. J., Connelly, M.（2003）。敘說探究: 質性研究中的經驗與故事（蔡敏玲, ＆余曉雯譯 ）。台北：心理。原著出版於2000年。
Freedman, J., & Combs, G.（1996）。敘事治療—解構並重寫生命的故事（易之新譯）。台北：張老師文化。
Raoul Vaneigem（2008）。日常生活的革命（簡體書）（張新木, 戴秋霞, 王也頻譯）。南京：南京大學出版社。原著出版於1967年。
Riessman, C. K.（2003）。敘說分析（王勇智, 鄧明宇譯）。台北: 五南。原著出版於1993年。