Revisiting my blog posts at the end of semester has led me to trace back over emergent – and discarded - thoughts about my research topic and highlighted for me the difficulty in marrying theory with practical research – and the difficulty in predicting subject response rates.
The blog has two main themes: practical methods for research and an exploration of ideas around how people make sense of their technology use.
Early on, it became evident from observations of the subject site that there were not many examples of ‘knowledge creation’, and those rather shallow and fleeting, leading me to drop this concept from the research project.
On reflecting on the sensemaking post after conducting several interviews, I can wholeheartedly agree with the idea that people use ‘extracted cues’ of the familiar to make sense of a situation: almost without fail, when asked to describe the subject site interviewees compared it to Facebook. In trying to put the forum questions into action, I’ve found that it is easier to ask people to talk than to write answers and a personal message is useful in gaining a response. One comment from an interviewee was that he would answer multiple-choice questions, but written answers were a quick turn-off.
I think that the post relating uncertainty about the method of virtual ethnography is understandable, as it is a loose, flexible approach. I am reminded of the advice of a research methods lecturer to immerse myself in the data and get to know it inside and out. Patterns and ideas will then emerge.
As a planner, one ‘a-ha’ idea that has come from sensemaking is how it is an ongoing process; that, in a way, any start or plan is OK as long as it results in action. Actions shape the outcome and the process is more important than the initial plan. Rather ethnographic in its philosophy.
Towards the end of the semester, my attention has been with the emotional and sensual relationship that people have with technology. In the idea of ‘perturbation’ introduced by the authors of ‘Technology as Experience’ (McCarthy & Wright, 2004), I think I’ve found an interesting line of thought. The level of tolerance for disruptive technologies and the necessary effort they require is, perhaps self-evidently, a high indicator of openness to using online tools. If people have put in effort and realised personally useful results from using technology, they will be more likely to invest time in a new technology even if its benefits aren’t immediately evident. Balancing the disturbance of new technologies against positive rewards, keeping promised rewards higher than the perceived effort required; there is a role for a technology mediator to actively encourage a technology’s use before the balance favours the rewards side.
Writing a blog for the course has been a more personal response to material: a chance to sort out my own opinions and relate ideas to experience. As one post outlined, the personal background and opinions of the researcher influence research questions and interpretation of data. The inevitable bias of authorship is one more contextual factor in research.
Reference:
McCarthy, J. & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as Experience. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Reflection on method
The request to view online materials, focusing on particular group, had an overall response of around around one third, with a better response from currently active students. The older groups only garnered one or two responses. The documentary group of 13 produced six positive and two negative responses, with the remainder not replying. This is enough to gain a good overview of the group. I will describe the group’s interactions generally and use the consenting members’ posts to illustrate.
The documentary group can be placed within a general description of the types of interactions and purposes of the other groups in the site. To quote or reference particular posts from these groups will require another, possibly vain, attempt to gain permission for use. With the initial response to the request to use online materials plus the permission from interview subjects to use their posts, I will have a good number of individuals that I will be able to examine and quote in detail.
It is difficult in an interview to strike a balance between not imposing one’s own ideas and maintaining a relaxed, conversational atmosphere. I think that I have been reasonably successful in allowing the interviewee to choose their topics and responses. However, I did find myself adding some leading phrases, usually based on what the interviewee had mentioned; in trying to ‘reflect’ the interviewee’s ideas, I may have re-phrased them in a way that was not necessarily meant, evidenced by hesitant replies such as ‘yes, I suppose…’ The tone of responses guides analysis. In addition, I have caught myself jokingly referring to some discussions as 'begging letters', producing disapproval in the interviewee and breaking the cardinal rule of impartiality.
Five interviews have now been conducted and at least another four are planned, two with lecturers and two with members of the documentary group. With feedback from my supervisor and a work colleague, there will be a chance to improve interview technique, although I have been pleased with the overall results of the interviews, which have been fairly relaxed and conversational.
Asking about expectations rather than barriers or obstacles seems to be an easier way of eliciting information. Expectations that were or weren’t realised are an ‘in’ into people’s sense-making processes.
The documentary group can be placed within a general description of the types of interactions and purposes of the other groups in the site. To quote or reference particular posts from these groups will require another, possibly vain, attempt to gain permission for use. With the initial response to the request to use online materials plus the permission from interview subjects to use their posts, I will have a good number of individuals that I will be able to examine and quote in detail.
It is difficult in an interview to strike a balance between not imposing one’s own ideas and maintaining a relaxed, conversational atmosphere. I think that I have been reasonably successful in allowing the interviewee to choose their topics and responses. However, I did find myself adding some leading phrases, usually based on what the interviewee had mentioned; in trying to ‘reflect’ the interviewee’s ideas, I may have re-phrased them in a way that was not necessarily meant, evidenced by hesitant replies such as ‘yes, I suppose…’ The tone of responses guides analysis. In addition, I have caught myself jokingly referring to some discussions as 'begging letters', producing disapproval in the interviewee and breaking the cardinal rule of impartiality.
Five interviews have now been conducted and at least another four are planned, two with lecturers and two with members of the documentary group. With feedback from my supervisor and a work colleague, there will be a chance to improve interview technique, although I have been pleased with the overall results of the interviews, which have been fairly relaxed and conversational.
Asking about expectations rather than barriers or obstacles seems to be an easier way of eliciting information. Expectations that were or weren’t realised are an ‘in’ into people’s sense-making processes.
Monday, October 11, 2010
The feltness of technology
A big reason for the ethnographic/sensemaking approach to my research topic has been observations of the wildly varying degrees of take-up of - and associated comfort with - technology. The aversion to using online tools and publishing online is a real fear and anxiety for some. There are personal, individual and situational factors that produce feelings for technology and its use. And the emotional, affective side of technology use has a great influence on success in using technology in learning.
I've been a web designer and producer, now learning technologist, and hence an interested user of online technologies for around 12 years. Over that time, my relationship with technology has changed and developed. From the first tremulous ftp uploads with fast-beating heart to my many devices and numerous accounts, it has always been an emotional relationship. The change in going from a dial up to broadband access was a watershed, not only in speed but in the pleasure I had in going online. No longer did I have to sit through the sound of my modem connecting, which formed an audible barrier between me and the wide web.
I think that everyone has their own versions of the modem, experiences that colour their approach to online tools, as well as the physicality of touching keyboards and mice; the curves of an iPad, the matte face and round keys of a Kindle.
A book I'm reading at the moment is Technology as Experience by McCarthy and Wright (2004), that promotes thinking and research around the emotional and sensual experience of using technology. In their term, the introduction of a new technology is a 'perturbation', the response to which we can't predict - either our own or others' (McCarthy & Wright, 2004). Action is not based on plans, but is much more immediate and situated (McCarthy & Wright, 2004, referring to L.A. Suchman, 1987).
In pondering my research project, what I want to know comes down to this difference in reaction to the perturbation of new technologies. How one person will happily upload galleries of photos and add videos to a site, answering discussion questions, while another will not. Much of the explanation, I think, is in the individual's history of technology use - which mediates the shock of the new - but even given similar histories, there is still a difference in how people participate online. The concept of sense-making is very much a situated view, where the individual's circumstances and the immediacy of action form practice that is more intuitive than planned. This leaves the problem of gaining an understanding of this unconscious, immediate sense-making through the left artefacts and reflective backward looks of research subjects. If I can get a handle on their perceived obstacles and confusions, plus how they approach them and why they give up, I hope that I can gain some understanding of the whys of individuals' types and level of participation. The feelings people bring to online interactions and towards technologies will be a large part of this explanation
On the particulars of the research project: with a low response from two of my three target groups permitting me to use their posted artefacts, I will have to spread a wider net for artefact and interview subjects. As stated before, I would like to interview both active and less active participants, with a view to comparing their approaches to the site and its tools.
McCarthy, J. & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as Experience. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Computer Interaction. Cambridge University Press.
I've been a web designer and producer, now learning technologist, and hence an interested user of online technologies for around 12 years. Over that time, my relationship with technology has changed and developed. From the first tremulous ftp uploads with fast-beating heart to my many devices and numerous accounts, it has always been an emotional relationship. The change in going from a dial up to broadband access was a watershed, not only in speed but in the pleasure I had in going online. No longer did I have to sit through the sound of my modem connecting, which formed an audible barrier between me and the wide web.
I think that everyone has their own versions of the modem, experiences that colour their approach to online tools, as well as the physicality of touching keyboards and mice; the curves of an iPad, the matte face and round keys of a Kindle.
A book I'm reading at the moment is Technology as Experience by McCarthy and Wright (2004), that promotes thinking and research around the emotional and sensual experience of using technology. In their term, the introduction of a new technology is a 'perturbation', the response to which we can't predict - either our own or others' (McCarthy & Wright, 2004). Action is not based on plans, but is much more immediate and situated (McCarthy & Wright, 2004, referring to L.A. Suchman, 1987).
In pondering my research project, what I want to know comes down to this difference in reaction to the perturbation of new technologies. How one person will happily upload galleries of photos and add videos to a site, answering discussion questions, while another will not. Much of the explanation, I think, is in the individual's history of technology use - which mediates the shock of the new - but even given similar histories, there is still a difference in how people participate online. The concept of sense-making is very much a situated view, where the individual's circumstances and the immediacy of action form practice that is more intuitive than planned. This leaves the problem of gaining an understanding of this unconscious, immediate sense-making through the left artefacts and reflective backward looks of research subjects. If I can get a handle on their perceived obstacles and confusions, plus how they approach them and why they give up, I hope that I can gain some understanding of the whys of individuals' types and level of participation. The feelings people bring to online interactions and towards technologies will be a large part of this explanation
On the particulars of the research project: with a low response from two of my three target groups permitting me to use their posted artefacts, I will have to spread a wider net for artefact and interview subjects. As stated before, I would like to interview both active and less active participants, with a view to comparing their approaches to the site and its tools.
McCarthy, J. & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as Experience. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Computer Interaction. Cambridge University Press.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Ethnography for design
Ethnography seems to be used fairly often in systems design research (Sayago & Blat, 2010; Andersen, 1994; Blomberg, Burrell & Guest, 2008; Button, 2008; Macaulay, Benyon & Crerar, 2000). I see sensemaking, especially Dervin's approach to interviews, as fitting easily into a sub-set of ethnography.
I've been reading some ethnographic articles (e.g. Sayago & Blat, 2010) and appreciating the narrative or even conversational style that they adopt. They acknowledge the subjectivity of the approach, but do not accept that this means it is not a legitimate method (Sayago & Blat, 2010). I liked the following, quoted by a fellow student:
This is where the narrative of ethnography comes into its own. In researching how people select articles in information searches, Brenda Dervin, of Sense-Making Methodology fame, found that the best way to find relevant articles were by using ones that explicitly described the background of researchers and their reasons for conducting the research (I can't find the reference now, unfortunately). Context is invaluable. When information on the researchers is missed in an article, it can make the argument and conclusion more opaque and perhaps less legitimate. Author bias can be part of the appeal rather than a detraction from the legitimacy of the results. I think it is important to include some introduction of my formative experiences and motivations in doing this particular study.
Sayago and Blat (2010) have created a well-structured article on an ethnographic study of older people's use of email. They divide their findings into two sections: 'nature of use' and 'interaction barriers' and then further headings in those sections. The 'nature of use' section has the headings 'social circles', 'frequency of use and content', 'geographical distance and its relationship with other means of contact', 'e-mailing and other daily activities' and 'socialisation, emotion and accomplishment'. Their argument is supported throughout the findings by quoting the words of their subjects together with relevant references to literature. My own results could probably be presented and organized similarly.
References:
Andersen, R. (1994). Representations and requirements: the value of ethnography in system design. Human–Computer Interaction 9, 151–182.
Blomberg, J., Burrell, M., Guest, G. (2008). An ethnographic approach to design. In: Jacko, J.A., Sears, A. (Eds.), The Human–Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp. .
Button, G., (2008). The ethnographic tradition and design. Design Studies 21, 319–332.
Macaulay, C., Benyon, D., Crerar, A. (2000). Ethnography, theory and systems design: from intuition to insight. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 53, 35–60.
Sayago, S. & Blat, J. (2010). Telling the story of older people e-mailing: An ethnographical study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 60, 105-120.
I've been reading some ethnographic articles (e.g. Sayago & Blat, 2010) and appreciating the narrative or even conversational style that they adopt. They acknowledge the subjectivity of the approach, but do not accept that this means it is not a legitimate method (Sayago & Blat, 2010). I liked the following, quoted by a fellow student:
'The attempt to produce value-neutral social science is increasingly being abandoned as at best unrealizable, and at worst self-deceptive, and is being replaced by social sciences based on explicit ideologies. Mary Hesse (1980)'I wouldn't necessarily agree that we are applying ideologies, but if anyone believes that their research is not affected by their beliefs, theories and biases, then they definitely are having themselves on.
This is where the narrative of ethnography comes into its own. In researching how people select articles in information searches, Brenda Dervin, of Sense-Making Methodology fame, found that the best way to find relevant articles were by using ones that explicitly described the background of researchers and their reasons for conducting the research (I can't find the reference now, unfortunately). Context is invaluable. When information on the researchers is missed in an article, it can make the argument and conclusion more opaque and perhaps less legitimate. Author bias can be part of the appeal rather than a detraction from the legitimacy of the results. I think it is important to include some introduction of my formative experiences and motivations in doing this particular study.
Sayago and Blat (2010) have created a well-structured article on an ethnographic study of older people's use of email. They divide their findings into two sections: 'nature of use' and 'interaction barriers' and then further headings in those sections. The 'nature of use' section has the headings 'social circles', 'frequency of use and content', 'geographical distance and its relationship with other means of contact', 'e-mailing and other daily activities' and 'socialisation, emotion and accomplishment'. Their argument is supported throughout the findings by quoting the words of their subjects together with relevant references to literature. My own results could probably be presented and organized similarly.
References:
Andersen, R. (1994). Representations and requirements: the value of ethnography in system design. Human–Computer Interaction 9, 151–182.
Blomberg, J., Burrell, M., Guest, G. (2008). An ethnographic approach to design. In: Jacko, J.A., Sears, A. (Eds.), The Human–Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp. .
Button, G., (2008). The ethnographic tradition and design. Design Studies 21, 319–332.
Macaulay, C., Benyon, D., Crerar, A. (2000). Ethnography, theory and systems design: from intuition to insight. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 53, 35–60.
Sayago, S. & Blat, J. (2010). Telling the story of older people e-mailing: An ethnographical study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 60, 105-120.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Lift-off on data collection
Finally sent out permission requests for the uploaded posts section of my research.
Now to add a forum.
As I have had about a third of the people respond and there have been a couple of responses with 'please don't use my material', I am re-thinking my original idea of adding separate forums for each of the groups. I think that one forum is going to work better in practice with the number of likely posts. The ability to see all others' ideas would be useful in creating a more of a conversation around the questions. Also, it means less confusion; respondents might not have been sure whether to post to the main or group forum.
Now to add a forum.
As I have had about a third of the people respond and there have been a couple of responses with 'please don't use my material', I am re-thinking my original idea of adding separate forums for each of the groups. I think that one forum is going to work better in practice with the number of likely posts. The ability to see all others' ideas would be useful in creating a more of a conversation around the questions. Also, it means less confusion; respondents might not have been sure whether to post to the main or group forum.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Second assessment task
For the second assessment task, I would like to refine the description of method and also put data collection and analysis into practice on at least some of the artefacts and forum and interview responses. Getting the right tone and focus will require some work, and feedback on how I'm handling actual data will be invaluable.
I think the assessment task itself will be an overview of more detailed work that I need to get done for the actual research project. The data is confidential, so won't be publishable on this blog. The assessment task will likely also include confidential data, so it won't be shareable except with lecturers, though I will post general reflections on data collection and analysis here.
I think the assessment task itself will be an overview of more detailed work that I need to get done for the actual research project. The data is confidential, so won't be publishable on this blog. The assessment task will likely also include confidential data, so it won't be shareable except with lecturers, though I will post general reflections on data collection and analysis here.
Virtual Ethnography
While implementing Dervin's Sense-Making methodology (her capitals) as a guide to how to devise and use questions, the overall method for inquiring into the use of the social network is that of a virtual ethnography.
This can be a labour-intensive approach and I'm not sure that I am actually implementing it fully. I am a member of the site, but also the administrator. I have been an observer of the site from inception, of course, but have not kept detailed notes throughout its development. As a background to the research, I can give a quite detailed account from memory, notes and site logs of how the site was set up, the information provided and the types of interactions as members established themselves. So there is some longitudinal detail there for the site as a whole.
The artefacts of the target group will also provide longitudinal detail, as the groups have used the site over a period of months. Their posts and other artefacts are dated, so are plot-able over time. (Wall posts can be frustrating though not difficult to follow, as only half a conversation is visible at once: the other person's wall needs to be read to get the full gist.)
From my observations of the site over time, I have formed some judgments of how the site has been used, both positive and negative. However, the use of private messaging is hidden from me, as well as the use of email and phone to contact other members, which would shed further light on the role of the site in connecting its members. In addition, the experience of a student, from early discovery to use (or rejection) of the affordances of the site, will only become apparent from their relation of that experience. It will be interesting to contrast my assumptions with those of the students.
It is uncertain whether the site constitutes a 'community' or 'culture' as is implied by the use of an ethnographic approach, though a virtual ethnography is an adaptation of the traditional ethnography. I think there are common attributes between users' understandings of how the site could or should be used. There certainly is a community, covered by tacit and explicit rules and understandings, within the school. The social network site may not in itself provide an independent community, but might be seen as an extension, where communication and interaction goes back and forth from the physical to the virtual, and identity is shaped or performed in both.
As with other ethnographies, both in person and virtual, the voice of the people in the community is important. I'll be conducting online discussions as well as in-person interviews, using open questions (see my post on the 'Schedule for online forums and interviews'), thereby gaining the ‘authority that comes from exposing the emergent analysis to challenge through interaction’ (Hine, 2000).
I'm just about to start asking for user involvement in online discussions, at the same time as asking target group members to permit me to use their online artefacts for the study. I've been delaying this move from some apprehension of how it is going to be received. I am not at all sure of students' attitudes to the site or if they will be willing to cooperate, though have no real reason to expect otherwise. The questions I've devised are very open. I wonder if the respondents will be confused as to what I'm asking. It is time to jump in.
Reference
Hine, C. (2000) Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage.
This can be a labour-intensive approach and I'm not sure that I am actually implementing it fully. I am a member of the site, but also the administrator. I have been an observer of the site from inception, of course, but have not kept detailed notes throughout its development. As a background to the research, I can give a quite detailed account from memory, notes and site logs of how the site was set up, the information provided and the types of interactions as members established themselves. So there is some longitudinal detail there for the site as a whole.
The artefacts of the target group will also provide longitudinal detail, as the groups have used the site over a period of months. Their posts and other artefacts are dated, so are plot-able over time. (Wall posts can be frustrating though not difficult to follow, as only half a conversation is visible at once: the other person's wall needs to be read to get the full gist.)
From my observations of the site over time, I have formed some judgments of how the site has been used, both positive and negative. However, the use of private messaging is hidden from me, as well as the use of email and phone to contact other members, which would shed further light on the role of the site in connecting its members. In addition, the experience of a student, from early discovery to use (or rejection) of the affordances of the site, will only become apparent from their relation of that experience. It will be interesting to contrast my assumptions with those of the students.
It is uncertain whether the site constitutes a 'community' or 'culture' as is implied by the use of an ethnographic approach, though a virtual ethnography is an adaptation of the traditional ethnography. I think there are common attributes between users' understandings of how the site could or should be used. There certainly is a community, covered by tacit and explicit rules and understandings, within the school. The social network site may not in itself provide an independent community, but might be seen as an extension, where communication and interaction goes back and forth from the physical to the virtual, and identity is shaped or performed in both.
As with other ethnographies, both in person and virtual, the voice of the people in the community is important. I'll be conducting online discussions as well as in-person interviews, using open questions (see my post on the 'Schedule for online forums and interviews'), thereby gaining the ‘authority that comes from exposing the emergent analysis to challenge through interaction’ (Hine, 2000).
I'm just about to start asking for user involvement in online discussions, at the same time as asking target group members to permit me to use their online artefacts for the study. I've been delaying this move from some apprehension of how it is going to be received. I am not at all sure of students' attitudes to the site or if they will be willing to cooperate, though have no real reason to expect otherwise. The questions I've devised are very open. I wonder if the respondents will be confused as to what I'm asking. It is time to jump in.
Reference
Hine, C. (2000) Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)