HITL has evolved in response to a search for tests that simulation is good. However, it might be too surface to talk about it regarding social studies on science and technology. IoT is an interdisciplinary area. It more than engineering work but also need a full understanding of technology use in social aspects. It is possible to test and validate a HITL model by scoring its outputs. However, it is too early to say that an algorithm is confident for a correct decision.
We must acknowledge how work practices are done with what artifacts for what purposes. This effort go beyond the structure of HITL model and reshape it to scope not only human but also artifact as a network which is non-touchable but can represent the structure of the IoT platform with meaningful social meaning.
In this matter, HITL is about a loop insists of all actors who participate, contribute, and work together for a specific task. This may be the fundamental basis for the IoT development. Through tracing the actors’ roles and attributes in different work practices through time and space, the IoT design and implementation can dynamically support different tasks through time and space.
Schön [66] attributed a situation to the fact that real-world problems present themselves to professionals as messy, indeterminate, and problematic. The challenge, in his view, was not how to solve real-world problems, but how to frame them and construct them. He reasoned that in addition to problems frequently being unique, there are numerous perspectives and ways to interpret and approach the:
Reflecting on the surprising consequences of his efforts to shape the situation in conformity with his initially chosen frame, the inquirer frames new questions and new ends in view. (p. 269)
Researchers draw on a repertoire of knowledge and skills to make sense of problem situations and create candidate concepts and solutions, which are investigated as alternatives. The use of these candidate concepts and solutions depends as much on professional skills and practical experience as on the contingencies of the situation. The solution must match the problem. According to Schön, one is the need to develop meaning-making skills that draw on but are not limited to theoretical and technical knowledge and the other is the need to develop robust, practical inquiry skills so that professionals can understand and resolve unprecedented types of problems not only unprecedented instances of problems.
However, in the field of systems design, the issue is between research and its application [63], architectural research [67], and the use of digital technologies, e.g., in schools [62]. Research and its practice are divided perhaps because the space for action and reflection is not integrated. Design and development require actions that must be sufficiently structured to integrate multiple kinds of collaboration, participation, and construction. In this context, the design study uses paradigms from qualitative and quantitative research to seek an integrated space. In this space, action, and reflection on the use of technology and its design and development should be launched in a double-loop learning process in which researchers and practitioners reflect, act, and offer feedback to each other to make knowledge usable in the field. However, a translator is needed to make this loop work. This paper is a step toward providing a theoretical approach. We assert that this issue will be (or already is) common in the SIoT and its corresponding industrial practices. We claim that researchers must take this responsibility to in facilitating a double loop to produce methodologies for use in society and to reflect on those methodologies for the better support of society.