and evolving Research Programmes Professor Gilbert Cockton november 5 th 2013 tutorem training schoolbled Outline 21 years of PhD supervision and examination Developed 4 Research Programmes ID: 302838
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Developing" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Developing and evolving Research Programmes
Professor Gilbert Cockton
november
5
th
2013, tutorem training school,bledSlide2
Outline
21 years of PhD supervision and examination
Developed 4 Research Programmes
Evolved 4 Research Programmes
Workshop
A survey of design managers reveals that projects have mixed experiences when using personas.
Brainstorm to outline a research programme to find out why this variation occurs.Slide3
PhD supervision & examination
Supervision role for 32 research students since 1993
in computing, art, and design
Examination role in 40 research degrees since 1992
in 7 countries for computing, engineering, design, psychology and forestry science (!)
Key issues for PhDs
Clear research focus
Clear and well-defended claims
Clear, appropriate and credible methodology
Clear, rigorous self-critical practical work and analysis
A thesis, not a chronicle: smooth argument, strong oral defence, not a diary of set backs and disappointmentsSlide4
The Research hierarchySlide5
PhilosophyProgramme methodology
study
methodSlide6
RESEARCH PROGRAMMES
A research programme is a managed set of projects, including PhDs
Some in sequence, some overlap
Each project involves one or more studies
Each project has a coherent focus, but not necessarily fixed
Projects evolve, programmes evolve
A research programme spans years, often several or more
Typically lead by experienced researchers
Interactiondesign.org chapters, clear evidence of programmes
May involve formal or informal collaborationsWorth-centred design: Microsoft, Finnish VALU TEKES projectUser experience evaluation: MAUSE and TwinTide COST projectsA PhD is one project in an (in)formal programmeIf your PhD project feels like a programme, shrink it now!
Programme
methodology
study
methodSlide7
EXAMPLE HCI Programme (GROUP)s
Cognitive Engineering
Co-Design
Pre-attentive Visual Aesthetics
Interactionist
Affective Computing
Sustainable
HCI
Critical-Empirical HCIValue-Sensitive DesignUniversal DesignApproaches and Resources in Design WorkAmbient IntelligenceInformation Visualisation
Programme
methodology
study
methodSlide8
RESEARCH methodologies
A research methodology can be
a co-ordinated set of research studies
your (evolving) research plan
A coherent set of research philosophies and practices
Chosen research approach, for project or programme
The study of the former (as in biology, geology, ethology,
narratology
)
I will focus on 1 and 2Methodology today means your (evolving) research plan for a co-ordinated set of research studies Methodologies must be appropriate for research programmes
If you’re not part of a programme, align with someone else’s informally
Research is a contribution to a body of knowledge and of practice
Research philosophies
refers to the second meaning of methodology
Programme
methodology
study
methodSlide9
Studies and methods
A research study applies one or more research methods
You do not
use
or
follow
a method, or even
apply
it without
very careful planning firstYou make the method by following a study plan that takes text book accounts of a research method and turns this into concrete practicesResearch methods are techniques that includeGuidance on values, best practices, materials and data recordsYour own careful planning to ensure that the method as applied plays its proper role in your methodology, and can contribute successfully to the embracing research programmeStudies have to be designed because researchis not about rule following – there are no method guaranteesis about candid self-critical reflection and persuasive practices
involves creative design and individual skills, knowledge and expertise
Programme
methodology
study
methodSlide10
Research RealitiesSlide11
We can’t tell you how to …
Choose research programmes
yours was probably chosen for you (if not, choose one quick)
Design your research methodology
that’s too project specific, there’s a lot to take into account here
Design a study
b
ecause ‘good‘ design here depends on the embracing programme and methodology
Complete a research method so that it’s correct for your study
because that depends on specific study goalsBut we can introduce you to General principles, attitudes and values for a range of research approachesSpecific tactics, best practices and pitfalls to avoid that will increase your chance of not falling at the last fence
Each instructor’s hard won experience
Looking forward to hearing them all share this
Programme
methodology
study
methodSlide12
www.flickr.com/photos/travelinio_com/4218547394/sizes/l/in/photostream
/Slide13
Methodology LOOKS BEST WHEN Slide14
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jcuthrell/63028482/sizes/l/in/photostream/Slide15
Don’t just learn rules: Think!
Can I use this research method?
What relevant studies for my research could it support?
How would I get it to work for a relevant study?
What would I have to do? What would my study plan be?
Do I have the required resources? What would I need, and when?
Can I get them?
What would success look like if I used this research method?
because that depends on specific study goals
When I explain what I’m going to do/did, then …How confident am I? How well can I defend what I’ve done? What questions could I have to answer?
Programme
methodology
study
methodSlide16
I’m NOT DOING RULESSlide17
I’m DOING landscapesSlide18
Questions?Slide19
Philosophies and programmes in actionSlide20
RESEARCH Philosophies
Research programmes align themselves to one or more philosophies
Research philosophies are characterised by:
Epistemology – positions on the nature of truth
Ontology – positions on the nature of reality
Axiology – positions on what is important
Axiology dominates
Five research philosophies are commonly distinguished
Positivist
InterpretivistRationalistCriticalAction, including Research through DesignAll have their strong and weak points, no one is bestYour disciplinary context can fix your research philosophy
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide21
POSITIVIST RESEARCH
Realist ontologies – there is one unchanging world that can be revealed through rigorous systematic practices
Objectivity is possible and subjectivity must be avoided at all costs
Values evidenced based knowledge that we should all rationally accept
Language challenges can all be managed via precise definition
Reliable value-free knowledge requires verification of theories via controlled studies
Predictive knowledge is highly valued, but accurate description is valued too
Explanation typically takes the form of validated predicted theories
Hypothetico
-deductive methods, theories logically yield testable hypothesesCareful design results in convincing experiments where alternate hypothesis must be accepted under specific conditions, null hypothesis accepted otherwiseThe facts do not speak for themselves, rather they only have force within specific experimental contexts, and no evidence can rescue a poorly designed experimentScientism is an extreme form of positivism where ONLY positivist knowledge is valuedAchilles heels of induction (Popper) and argument for experimental designs (Quine)
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide22
INTERPRETIVIST RESEARCH
Phenomenological ontologies – we all have unique perspectives on the world, and experience it through individual perspectives, values and conceptual schemata
Objectivity is controversial: inter-subjectivity must be accepted as the best achievable
Language is a resource, not an
enemy of positive truths
Valuable knowledge requires critical reflection on collection and analysis of evidence
Predictive knowledge is often unattainable, but accurate description and transparent analysis are highly valued – no tampering with data, no hiding analytical steps
Explanation typically takes the form of well grounded themes in data
Inductive methods
Theories emerge from analysis of data, they do not precede them as systems of conjecture from which testable hypotheses can ariseInter-rater reliability of coding and theoretical saturation can be empirically groundedInterpretivism can range from strong empiricism to relativismStrong claims of ethnomethodology, claims for universality weaken once critical perspectives
are embraced
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide23
RATIONALIST FORMAL RESEARCH
Logic without the positivism
Objectivity is replaced by rigour, (formal) language is the main intellectual resource
Language is
formalised, and thus all ambiguity is removed
Analytical philosophy: necessary and sufficient reasons for the use of a term
Formal (mathematical) methods: argument is replace by proof
Formal specifications can be analysed, and principles articulated
Modernist aesthetics, focus on how content and structure make user interfaces work
Formal methods need to be well directedFormal analyses only reveal what the analyst can recognisePoor analyses lack resonance and expose what was already obvious, but only after extensive elaboration, true but …
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide24
CRITICAL RESEARCH
Ideological ontologies – we receive perspectives on the world from those in power
Objectivity is an instrument of repression, as is common sense and realism
Valuable knowledge results from systematic distrust of categories and discourses
Liberating and empowering knowledge is attainable through the adoption of critical perspectives (philosophical criticism,
Postcolonialism
, Feminism, Queering)
Resonance, insight and revelation are valued, new perspective and paradigms
Critical analysis methods
Theory is unavoidable, and is embedded in all of our concepts and categoriesExplicit theory is preferable to implicit theoryEffective critics deploy a range of theoretical perspectives in their criticismCritical analysis can range from genius to boring mechanical insensitive posturingCritical perspectives can significantly reframe research thinking, but they can also trap analysis in unproductive dead endsNot always heavy on theory, e.g., ordinary language analysis methods of
analytical philosophy, but this moves back towards a rationalist philosophy
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide25
ACTION RESEARCH
Pragmatic ontologies – the world is how we make it
Objectivity on paper is less important than effectiveness in the world
Valuable knowledge results from practical engaged committed reflective action
Truly practical knowledge can only result from real world engagement
Collaborative learning and development are valued, as are new local practices and understandings, rather than what is universally and externally true
Action research methods
Bias and subjectivity are accepted, but are subject to reflective critique
Research practices are constantly monitored, evaluated and revised, rather than being rigorously planned and preserved
unchanged at all costsAction research can range from outstanding innovation to routine workStakeholders are the primary evaluators of action research. Interventions need to succeed for engaged stakeholders. Value takes precedence over academic rigour.Research through design, co-design, Engineering Design Innovation
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide26
Research through Design
Using creative design practice as the basis for knowledge about the world
Koskinen
, Binder,
Wensveen
, Zimmerman,
Folizzi
, Stolterman,
Gaver
, …Constructive Design ResearchYou can’t preplan creativityDealing with Wicked Problems (Rittel and Weber, Conklin)Rigour is achieved through documentation (Gaver and Bowers, Workbooks) and critical reflection (
Schön
)
Compare discussion sections of scientific papers (plea bargaining?)
Reflection at the end of phases or stages of activities
Phases or stages typically include more than one activity
Primary research, secondary research, analysis, problem scoping, design generation, evaluation
Activities need to co-ordinated, balanced and integrated
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide27
HCI: A Community of communities
Carroll –
Encyclopedia
of Interaction Design,
Three Eras
Multiple communities, multiple philosophies
1980s
Cognitive Engineering – positivist lab. research dominant (
info
processing)1990s Contextual Ethnography – interpretivist field research dominant (agents)2000s Critical Interaction Design – humanities and applied arts influences (social and material embedding , Dourish, Where the Action is, 2001)Action Research in all 3 Waves of
HCI
1980s
Usability Engineering – user-centred interventions in systems development
1990s
Participative Design – contextually focused co-design practices
2000s
Design Activism – politically motivated community initiatives
HCI
Research can and does mix all four research philosophies via separated and integrated practices during different stages of research
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide28
Questions?Slide29
Research philosophies in actionSlide30
interactiondesign.org encyclopedia
Löwgren
(1)
Critical and Action Research
Caroll
(2)
Examples of all research philosophies, strong emphasis on
action research
Höök
(12)Interpretivist, critical and action researchTractinsky (19)Positivist, Barzell’s critical response, aided by Tractinsky’s languageDix (29)
Rationalist (Formal Methods)
Cockton (19) - ?
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide31
Five EXAMPLES OF PhD WORK
All references should be available from/via my academia.edu pages
If not, let me know and I’ll add them
Darryn
Lavery
(1993-2000), Glasgow, Computer Science
Critical interpretivist research
Alan Woolrych MPhil 2001, Sunderland, Computing
Interpretivist researchAlan Woolrych (PhD 2012) and Mark Hindmarch, SunderlandPositivist researchEamon Doherty (PhD 2001), Sunderland, ComputingAction researchMichael Leitner (PhD write up), Northumbria, Design
Research through Design
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide32
CRITICAL RESEARCH: darryn lavery
Lavery
, D. Cockton, G. and Atkinson,
M.P
., "Comparison of Evaluation Methods Using Structured Usability Problem Reports,"
in
Behaviour and Information Technology
, 16(4), 246-266. 1997.
Lavery, D. and Cockton, G., “Representing Predicted and Actual Usability Problems”, in Proc. Int. Workshop on Representations in Interactive Software Development, QMW London, 97-108, 1997.Critique of constructs and research methodologies for inspection method development and evaluationDerived new problem report formats for usability problemsDeveloped new analysis methods for extracting usability problems from user testing data
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide33
Interpretivist RESEARCH: AlAn
Woolrych
Cockton
, G. and Woolrych, A., “Understanding Inspection Methods: Lessons from an Assessment of Heuristic Evaluation,”
in
People and Computers XV
, eds. A.
Blandford
et al., Springer-Verlag, 171-192, 2001,Application of Lavery’s methodological innovations to Heuristic EvaluationNew explanatory
contructs
Discoverability (inferential statistics applied)
Discovery and analysis resources
(pilo
t analysis)
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide34
Positivist RESEARCH: Alan Woolrych & Mark HinDMARCH
Cockton, G., Woolrych, A., Hall, L. &
Hindmarch
, M., “Changing Analysts' Tunes: The Surprising Impact of a New Instrument for Usability Inspection Method Assessment,” in
Palanque
, P
.
et al
.
People and Computers XVII, Springer-Verlag, 145-162, 2003. Cockton, G., Woolrych, A., and Hindmarch, M., “Reconditioned Merchandise: Extended Structured Report Formats in Usability Inspection”, in CHI 2004 Extended Abstracts, ACM, 1433-36, 2004.
Extension of
Lavery’s
usability report format to expose separate discovery and analysis resources
Doubled evaluation quality on validity and appropriateness
Replicated in deliberate planned hypothesis testing study
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide35
ACTION RESEARCH: EAMon DOHERTY
Doherty
E.P
, Cockton G., Bloor C. &
Benigno
, D., "Mixing Oil and Water: Transcending Method Boundaries in Assistive Technology for Traumatic Brain Injury,"
in
Proc. ACM 1st Conf. on Universal
Usability, eds. J. Sholtz and J. Thomas, ACM, 110-117, 2000.Doherty E.P, Cockton G., Bloor C. & Benigno, D., “Improving the Performance of the Cyberlink Mental Interface with the Yes/No Program,” in Proc.CHI
2001,
ACM
, 69-76, 2001
.
Co-Design of Brain-Body Interfaces
Different designs for different stakeholders
Compromise design for both
Diagnosis of one participant changed from comatose to
Persistent Vegetative State
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide36
Research through design: Michael leitner
M.
Leitner
, M., Cockton, G., Yee, J. and
Greenough
, T.
2012. The
Hankie Probe: a Materialistic Approach to Mobile
UX
research, in CHI 2012 Extended Abstracts. ACM, 1919-1924..Leitner, M., Cockton, G. and Yee, J.S.R. 2013. At the mobile experience flicks: making short films to make sense for mobile interaction design. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services (MobileHCI '13). ACM, 304-307. Honourable Mention Award.Materialising Theory in Probes, Visualising Insights in FilmTwo theories of mobility inscribe in hankie probesInterviews with completed probes
Workshop packs and films for design teams to communicate results of probe usage
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide37
H
ankie Probe Workshops
Michael
Leitner
, Northumbria University, Mobile HCI 2013
In design sessions the hankie is presented together with additional and focused data, introducing the couples' or the mobile workers' everyday practices and experiences with mobile
communication technologies
(1) a short summary of the scenario
(2) a short description of the couple
or
the person
(3) an annotated version of the hankie highlighting the relevant parts for the scenario
(4) selected quotes taken from the interview
(5) an abstracted and theoretical version
of
the scenario
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide38
SUMMARY
Methodologies, studies and methods all need to be designed
We can’t tell you how to design your PhD research, as that’s a creative activity that draws on individual skill, knowledge and expertise
We can present solid techniques and knowledge associated with them, and explain why some practices are valued and others are not
Values have their roots in research philosophies
The right philosophy in the right place results in good research
The
wrong philosophy
in the
wrong place results in poor research, even when the technical execution is flawless‘Correct’ use of a method cannot compensate for flaws in study or methodology design
Philosophies
programmes
in action
Programme
methodology
study
methodSlide39
Questions?Slide40
EVOLVINGResearch ProgrammesSlide41
RECAP
We can’t tell you how or where to start, but we can keep
you going
Research programme
Methodology
Study
Method
progresses
c
ontributes to
supports
Philosophies
programmes
in action
Programme
methodology
study
methodSlide42
WHY Methodologies EVOLVE
Methodologies evolve in the course of a research project for a range of reasons, for example, because …
they can (ethics permitting)
it may not be possible to get around the limits of
methods in completed studies, so a different mixed method approach is needed
of paradigm shifts (
e.g
, from usability method comparison to resource effect studies)
of the task artefact cycle in HCI, new findings change the nature of the research, perhaps invalidating previous studies, through reflectionof insights from pilot studies or replicationsof the need for fine tuning, or not so fine oh dear it’s broken mending
Other …
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide43
Research evolutionin actionSlide44
Evolving from replication
Gnanayutham
, P., Bloor C., & Cockton G., “Discrete Acceleration and Personalised Tiling as Brain‑Body Interface Paradigms For
Neurorehabiliation
,”
in
Proc. CHI
2005
, 261-70, ACM, 2005.Cassidy, B., Cockton, G., Bloor, C., and Coventry, L., “Capability, Acceptability and Aspiration for: collecting accessibility data with prototypes,” in Proc. HCI 2005, Volume 2, 138-43, 7, 2005.Replication/extension of previous work by predecessor PhD/project sponsorBrain-Body Interfaces
Tab-select device for ATMs (cash machines)
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide45
Paul Gnanayutham, PhD 2007
Eamon Doherty, PhD 2001
http://www.freefoto.com/preview/1042-05-23?ffid=1042-05-23Slide46
Evolving from pilot studies
Woolrych
, A., Cockton, G. and
Hindmarch
, M., “Knowledge Resources in Usability Inspection,”
in
Proceedings of
HCI
2005, Volume 2, eds. L. Mackinnon, O.
Bertelsen and N. Bryan-Kinns, 15-20, 2005.Analysis of data from HCI 2003 and CHI 2004 studies (pilot and replication)Developed into COST MAUSE project resource function theory for design and evaluation methodsWoolrych, A. Hornbæk, K. Frøkjær
, E. and Cockton, G
..
Ingredients and Meals Rather Than Recipes: a Proposal for Research that Does Not Treat Usability Evaluation Methods as Indivisible Wholes,
IJHCI
, 27(10),
940-970, 2011.
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide47
Evolving from critique
Lavery
, D. Cockton, G. and Atkinson,
M.P
., "Comparison of Evaluation Methods Using Structured Usability Problem Reports,"
Behaviour
and Information Technology, 16(4), 246-266. 1997
Cockton
, G. and
Lavery, D. “A Framework for Usability Problem Extraction”, in Proc. INTERACT 99, eds. A. Sasse & C. Johnson, 347-55, 1999.Critique of constructs and research methodologies for inspection method development and evaluationDerived new problem report formats for usability problems
Built on by Alan Woolrych and Mark
Hindmarch
Inspired
MAUSE
COST Project CODE-LIGHTS study, and provided a critical lens for
MAUSE
Working Group 2
Developed new analysis methods for extracting usability problems from user testing
data
Improved on by Arnold
Vermeeren
, PhD Delft 2009
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide48
Evolving from action RESEARCH
Cockton
, G.
Kujala
, S.,
Nurkka
, P. and
Hölttä
, T
., Supporting Worth Mapping with Sentence Completion in Proceedings of INTERACT 2009, Part II, (LNCS 5727) eds. Gross, T.; Gulliksen, J.; Kotzé, P.; Oestreicher, L.; Palanque, P.; Prates, R.O.; and Winckler, M, Springer, 566-581, 2009.Cockton, G. Kirk, D.,
Sellen
, A. and Banks, R
.,
Evolving and Augmenting Worth Mapping for Family Archives
in
Proceedings of HCI 2009 – People and Computers
XXIII,
329-338,
BCS
eWIC
,
2009
Action Research Projects at
MSR
Cambridge and within Finnish
TEKES
VALU
project
Evolved worth map formats into simpler versions
Augmented by new practices
Value-focused field data analysis
Sentence completion for value elicitation
User experience frames provide details for experience elements
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide49
Worth Sketching and Mapping
Worth as net benefits (benefits – costs)
Connects artefacts (means) to purposes (ends) through experiences
OT1 Treasures sold or passed on
QI1 Playful, Fun
OF6 Stewardship obligations discharged
OH3 Living Family Heritage: a past
you want to revisit
OF5 Stronger sense of family past
X13 Telling
my/our story
X2 Sharing stories and memories
MT1 Multitouch Thinsight, IR, Tagged props
MIO5 Microphone
MT6 Detachable Camera
MT4 OBEX/Bluetooth detection, data transfer
CAP2 Personal area, access control
PRO7 Assets Shared,
Individual Curation
PRO6 Automatic Voice Annotation
PRO2 Auto Format Updating
QT3 Self-explanatory, guiding, suggestive, familiar, intuitive, supportive
QA1 Safe,
protected,
savable
QT2 Inviting
QI2 Doing things together
X4 Preserving heritage, exercising stewardship
X9 Having fun,
playing around
QA2 Enriched, enhanced, augmented
QT1 Accessible, at hand suggesting casual, efficient, calm, easy capture in use
QT4 Capable, comprehensive, versatile, inclusive
OT2 Protected Heirlooms
OF3 New Shared Times as a family
OH2 Nurturing: somewhere you want to be
OF8 Achievement of closure
X5 Being a family, caring & nurturing
OF2 Increased Family Empathy
QA5 Keeps secrets
PRO9 Subtle reminders, safe originals
OF7 Stronger roots in the past
X1 Reliving (shared) memories
X3 Reflecting, taking stock, moving on
MN2 WAN back up
CAP3 Functional object ‘ghosts’
PRO3 Rummaging
CAP6 Family Member Identification
QA4
Respectful, empathic
PRO5 Edit, Associate, Loose Tag, annotate
PRO1 Moving stuff between boxes
PRO8 Support for Triage
X8 Gaining control, making progress
MIO6 TBD h/w & s/w for family member ID
MT2 Table FormSlide50
VALUE-FOCUSED FIELD DATA ANALYSIS
PEOPLE: A Happy Family
PLACE: A Nice Home
OBJECTS
:
Treasures
Manifest Identities
Newly less
cluttered
Treasures sold or passed on
Increased Family Empathy
Nurturing: somewhere you want to be
Protected heirlooms
New Shared Times as a Family
Living Family Heritage: a past
you
want to revisit
Well displayed
Manifest Status for external social standing
Enviable: somewhere others want to be
Materialisation with enhancements
Stronger
family
past
Stewardship obligations discharged
Stronger Roots in
past
Achievement of closure
New pride in improved
organisation,
enhanced.
Caring for each otherSlide51
Family Archive UEF (HCI 2009)Slide52
Sentence completion
VALU Project, Finland
Paf
Case Study
Reveals user values that make outcomes worthwhileSlide53
Building Worth Maps Top DownSlide54
Evolving from RESEARCH Through Design
Cockton, G. You (have to) Design
Design,Co
-Design Included,
2013.
Mareis
, C., Held, M., and
Joost
, G. (
eds): Wer gestaltet die Gestaltung? Praxis, Theorie und Geschichte des partizipatorischen Designs. Bielefeld: transcript. 181-205, ISBN 978-3-8376-2038-2.Cockton, G., 2013 “A Load of Cobbler’s Children: Beyond the Model Designing Processor”, CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI
EA
'13). ACM, 2139-2148
Synthesis of insights from PhD students’ research (supervised and examined)
Design work constructed in practice from re-usable and local resources, some prefigured into approaches
Resources emerge and are formed and completed in use
Philosophies
programmes
in actionSlide55
Two two-day
workshops 2012 (Oct
10-11: TU
Delft
; Nov
27-28: Northumbria University, Slide56Slide57Slide58
summarySlide59
SUMMARY
We know that research methodologies will evolve, but we can rarely predict how they will in advance
Collaborator/PhD student priorities, ambitions and values reshape methodologies and programmes
1.5 degrees of look ahead is often they best that we can do in creative, methodologically innovative research (i.e., much of HCI)
All design is iterative, research design is not different. It’s hard to get it right first time (pilot, pilot, pilot)
Other people’s research will force changes
,
some
of us will make breakthroughs that
invalidate existing study rationalesNew research instruments are developed and become available, enabling new forms of study (beware!)And lots more (no closures, this is people territory)
Philosophies programmes
in action
methodology
study
methodSlide60
Questions?Slide61
BREAKSlide62
workshopSlide63
WORKSHOP exercise
A survey of design managers reveals that projects have mixed experiences when using personas.
Brainstorm to
o
utline
a research programme to find out why
this variation occurs.
use
a mix of positivist, interpretivist,
critical, rationalist and action research approaches, including research through designSlide64
Persona Example (1)
http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/03/16/a-little-thing-about-personas/Slide65
Persona Example (2)
www.pleiportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/workshop-persona-example-med.jpgSlide66
Persona Example (3)
http://blog.highlandbusinessresearch.com/2007/12/Slide67
Persona Skeletons
How to express your personas
Decide on content and layout
pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~
saul
/wiki/uploads/CPSC681/topic-wan-personas.pdf – quoted from Pruitt and
Adlin
bookSlide68
Persona Lifecycle
Phase 1: Family Planning (planning a persona effort)
Phase 2: Conception and Gestation (creating personas)
Phase 3: Birth and Maturation (launching and communicating personas)
Phase 4: Adulthood
(using personas)
Phase 5: Lifetime Achievement and Retirement (ROI and reuse of personas)Slide69
WORKSHOP exercise
A survey of design managers reveals that projects have mixed experiences when using personas.
Brainstorm
to
o
utline
a research programme to find out why
this occurs
.
Use a mix of positivist, interpretivist, critical, rationalist and action research approaches, including research through designExperiments (Visser & Stappers DPPI 2007 Mind the Face)
Usage/case
studies (Turner, P
.
&
S
., & McCall, R. 2001. Getting
the story
straight
)
Value critiques (Blythe: Pastiche scenarios)
Directional value of persona elements (
BIG
Design)
New persona formats and/or practicesSlide70
Questions?Slide71
DISCUSSIONSlide72
HVALA, XBA
Л
A,
Благодарам
,
dziękuję
,
Ευχαριστώ
,
Cảm ơn, 謝謝, tänan, DANK U, TAk, TACk, Merci, gracias, grazie, o
se,
Meda
ase
,
Thank yoU