seminar on qualitative methods in design gunnar stevens alexander boden gunnar stevens human...
TRANSCRIPT
Seminar onQualitative Methods in DesignGunnar StevensAlexander Boden
Gunnar StevensHuman Computer InteractionUniversity of Siegen, Germany
Introduction
‣ JProf. Dr. Gunnar Stevens ([email protected])
‣ Background in Computer Science (University of Bonn)
‣ Working in the field of CSCW since 1999
‣ Assistant Professorship on Human Computer Interaction
‣ Alexander Boden M.A. ([email protected])
‣ Background in Cultural Anthropology (University of Bonn)
‣ Working in CSCW/Software Engineering since 2006
‣ Dissertation on the role of coordination and learning in distributed software teams
Aims and Scope
‣Introducing the role of qualitative methods in design research
‣Providing an overview on fundamentals, traditions and current discussions
‣Based on readings and discussions of key papers and book chapters
‣Focus on „Siegener Approach“
What We Expect
‣Each of you will have to read the papers that are listed in the schedule as preparation for the discussions in each session
‣Each of you will have to present a summary of one paper or article in the course of the semester
‣Each of you will have to contribute to term papers on a topic related to this seminar
The Summaries
‣ Each summary presentation should be about 20 minutes and center around the following questions:
‣ What is the author attempting to describe/argue?
‣ What do you think the author is most concerned about regarding this issue, OR, what are you most concerned about regarding this issue?
‣ What do you think the author is most optimistic about regarding this issue, OR, what are you most optimistic about regarding this issue?
‣ We will discuss the paper after this presentation as a plenum (so again, it is necessary that all of you prepare the papers for the sessions)
The Term Papers
‣We will assign you to groups for writing the term papers in the next session (26.10.)
‣We will organize two editorial sessions during the semester, where we will discuss the scope and progress of the papers
‣Term papers should be around 3000 words and follow the ACM CHI Extended Abstract Paper Template (see schedule)
Schedule I
No. Date Topic Reading
1 19.10. Ethnography and Design
1. Anderson, B. 1994. Representation and Requirements, HCI Journal 2. Anderson, B. 1997. Work, Ethnography, and System Design, Report
2 26.10. How to write a scientific paper
3 02.11. Describing culture
Malinowski 1922 (first print). Introduction (chap 1). In: Argonauts of the Western Pacific, Routledge.
Geertz, 1977. Thick Description: Towards an Interpretive Theory of Culture, The Interpretation of Cultures.
4 9.11. Analytic Induction and ideal types
Weber, M. 1904. Die >Objektivität< sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntis. In: Gesammelte Werke zur Wissenschaftstheorie
Znaniecki, F. 1934. Analytic Induction in Sociology (chap VI). In: The method of sociology
5 16.11. Action Research Lewin, K., 1946. Action Research and Minority Problems, Journal of social issues.
Susman, G. & Evered, R., 1978. An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research, Administrative Science Quarterly.
6 23.11. Technology oriented Action Research
Wulf, V. & Rohde, M. 1995. Towards an Integrated Organization and Technology Development. In Proc. of DIS
Nett, B. & Stevens, G., 2008. Business Ethnography – Aktionsforschung als Beitrag zu einer reflexiven Technikgestaltung. In: Wissenschaftstheorie und gestaltungsorientierte Wirtschaftsinformatik.
Schedule II
Questions?
LAB, FIELD, GALLERY, AND BEYONDKoskinen, Binder, and Redström (2009)
WHAT IS THE AUTHOR ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE?
IS DESIGN RESEARCH A OWN DISCIPLINE, AND IF SO, WHAT IS IT’S SUBJECT MATTER AND ITS METHODOLOGYWhat do you think the author is most concerned about regarding this issue?
If a designer is successful in proposing the design of a new chair, he has also explicitly or implicitly convinced us that we can think of chairs and the act of sitting in ways we were not familiar with before.” - Anderson
Design & Research
‣ Whatever this supporting structure has been, much of this early work has tended to employ a dual strategy.
‣ Design experiments and the evaluation of design have largely been treated as separate processes, often carried out by different people.
‣ By “design experiment,” we refer to pieces of design carried out as a part of a research effort.
Research-through-Design
‣ Since Frayling (1993) more than a decade ago suggested research-through-design as a viable road to take for design
research, we have seen a number of researchers integrating design experiments in design research. Initially, this work borrowed heavily from more established disciplines. ‣ For example, from human-computer interaction, design
researchers learned the experimental tradition of human factors engineering.
‣ From the humanities and artists, they learned to exhibit their work in galleries and to critique design.
‣ From the social sciences, they learned action research and other case-based research traditions
Similarities, but are important differences too.
‣ Even if a chair designer would make a contribution to what we know about sitting and chairs, it does not make this chair design into a research contribution.
‣ What is missing:‣ The CUDOS Ethos (Communist, Universal, Disinterested
and Organized Skepticism) (Merton, 1968)‣ The particular piece of work is part a overall research
program (Lakatos, 1970)
In current design research, the main methodological problem in our view is that researchers give too little concern to research programs in a Lakatosian sense.
3. Lab: Can You Really Study Design in the Laboratory?‣ The first approach we focus on is the mainstream of design research in
technical design disciplines. We call it the Lab.
‣ The foundations of this approach are in the natural sciences, but for design research, it usually comes through experimental psychology.
‣ Studies are conducted in laboratory-like conditions by introducing explanatory variables like gender or lighting conditions systematically into the laboratory, and by observing what happens to the outcome variable as these parameters are varied.
‣ The aim is to identify causal mechanisms in factors such as limits in cognitive processing capabilities affect error rates in user interfaces.
‣ The justification for the program is straightforward: if causal mechanisms
are found, they provide a solid ground for design.
4. Field: How to Follow Design Experiments through Society‣ An alternative approach is that The Field approach is typically
builds on interpretive social science.
‣ Instead of bringing the context into a design experiment as a set of variables to be varied in an experiment, it places design into a
naturalistic setting.
‣ Researchers follow what happens to it in that context; how people and communities understand it, make sense of it, talk about it, and learn to use it. Precursors to this approach come from PARC’s
ethnomethodological research as its most recent
proponent, participatory design , and activity theory.
More recent work tends to build on pragmatism and symbolic interactionism.
‣ The main difference between these precursors and recent work is the role given to field studies. In precursors, it informed the early stages of
design. In more recent work, research is integrated seamlessly into design.
5. Gallery as a Mode of Design Experimentation‣ the third approach builds on forms familiar in an altogether
different institution, the art world.
‣ For artistically oriented design researchers, gallery is one of the traditional formats for disseminating one’s work.
‣ Ranging from degree shows at design schools to large corporate expos and fairs, the exhibition presents concepts and design objects as well as ideas and visions, by giving
people the opportunity for first-hand experience.
‣ This format implies that the design experiment, be it a model, a prototype, or a performance, is the final presentation of the work and its process.
The lab, the field, the showroomDesign Research styles or paradigms? ‣We would like to stress that in many crucial
respects, these approaches are incommensurate.
‣ In particular, Lab and Field are based on two completely different understandings of social context, notions of causality, and methodological procedures. With its artistic undertones, Gallery in turn is clearly incompatible with Lab (actually, it is partly created to counter the scientific ethos of the Lab), and also with Field, which situates design into ordinary, rather than gallery or showroom-like settings.
DISCUSSION
19
As design researchers, we need to study the most methodologically advanced design research practices, allow each a fair chance, and let the field define its own criteria for success.