Summing up

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.