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.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)