Developing and evolving Research Programmes

DEVELO

PING A

ND

EVOLVING RESEARCH

PROGRAMMES

P R O F E S S O R G I L B E R T C O C K T O N

N O V E M B E R 5T H 2 0 1 3 , T U T O R E M T R A I N I N G S C H O O L , B L E D

OUTLINE1. 21 years of PhD supervision and

examination2. Developed 4 Research Programmes3. Evolved 4 Research Programmes4. 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.

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 disappointments

THE RESEARCH HIERARCHY

PHILOSOPHYPROGRAMME

METHODOLOGY STUDY

METHOD

RESEARCH PROGRAMMESA 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 evolveA research programme spans years, often several or moreTypically lead by experienced researchers Interactiondesign.org chapters, clear evidence of programmesMay involve formal or informal collaborations Worth-centred design: Microsoft, Finnish VALU TEKES project User experience evaluation: MAUSE and TwinTide COST projectsA PhD is one project in an (in)formal programme If your PhD project feels like a programme, shrink it now!

PROGRAMME METHODOLOGY

STUDYMETHOD

EXAMPLE HCI PROGRAMME (GROUP)SCognitive EngineeringCo-DesignPre-attentive Visual AestheticsInteractionist Affective ComputingSustainable HCICritical-Empirical HCIValue-Sensitive DesignUniversal DesignApproaches and Resources in Design WorkAmbient IntelligenceInformation Visualisation


STUDYMETHOD

RESEARCH METHODOLOGIESA research methodology can be1. a co-ordinated set of research studies

your (evolving) research plan2. A coherent set of research philosophies and practices

Chosen research approach, for project or programme3. The study of the former (as in biology, geology, ethology, narratology)I will focus on 1 and 2 Methodology 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


STUDYMETHOD

STUDIES AND METHODSA research study applies one or more research methodsYou 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 practices

Research methods are techniques that include Guidance on values, best practices, materials and data records Your 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 programme

Studies have to be designed because research is not about rule following – there are no method guarantees is about candid self-critical reflection and persuasive practices involves creative design and individual skills, knowledge and expertise


STUDYMETHOD

RESEARCH REALITIES

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 hereDesign a study because ‘good‘ design here depends on the embracing programme and methodologyComplete 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 approaches Specific 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


STUDYMETHOD

www.flickr.com/photos/travelinio_com/4218547394/sizes/l/in/photostream/

METHODOLOGY LOOKS BEST

WHEN

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jcuthrell/63028482/sizes/l/in/photostream/

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 goalsWhen 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?


STUDYMETHOD

I’M NOT DOING RULES

I’M DOING LANDSCAPES

QUESTIONS?

PHILOSOPHIES AND

PROGRAMMES IN ACTION

RESEARCH PHILOSOPHIESResearch programmes align themselves to one or more

philosophiesResearch 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 dominatesFive research philosophies are commonly distinguished Positivist Interpretivist Rationalist Critical Action, including Research through DesignAll have their strong and weak points, no one is bestYour disciplinary context can fix your research philosophyPHILOSOPHIE

S PROGRAMME

S IN ACTION

POSITIVIST RESEARCHRealist ontologies – there is one unchanging world that can be revealed

through rigorous systematic practicesObjectivity 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 definitionReliable value-free knowledge requires verification of theories via controlled

studiesPredictive knowledge is highly valued, but accurate description is valued tooExplanation typically takes the form of validated predicted theoriesHypothetico-deductive methods, theories logically yield testable hypotheses Careful design results in convincing experiments where alternate hypothesis must be

accepted under specific conditions, null hypothesis accepted otherwise The 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 valued Achilles heels of induction (Popper) and argument for experimental designs (Quine)PHILOSOPHIE

S PROGRAMME

S IN ACTION

INTERPRETIVIST RESEARCHPhenomenological 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 truthsValuable knowledge requires critical reflection on collection and analysis of

evidencePredictive 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 dataInductive methods Theories emerge from analysis of data, they do not precede them as systems of conjecture from which

testable hypotheses can arise Inter-rater reliability of coding and theoretical saturation can be empirically groundedInterpretivism can range from strong empiricism to relativism Strong claims of ethnomethodology, claims for universality weaken once critical perspectives are

embracedPHILOSOPHIE

S PROGRAMME

S IN ACTION

RATIONALIST FORMAL RESEARCHLogic without the positivismObjectivity 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 proofFormal specifications can be analysed, and principles

articulated Modernist aesthetics, focus on how content and structure make user

interfaces workFormal methods need to be well directed Formal analyses only reveal what the analyst can recognise Poor analyses lack resonance and expose what was already obvious,

but only after extensive elaboration, true but …

PHILOSOPHIES

PROGRAMMES

IN ACTION

CRITICAL RESEARCHIdeological ontologies – we receive perspectives on the world from those in powerObjectivity is an instrument of repression, as is common sense and realismValuable knowledge results from systematic distrust of categories and discoursesLiberating 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 paradigmsCritical analysis methods Theory is unavoidable, and is embedded in all of our concepts and categories Explicit theory is preferable to implicit theory Effective critics deploy a range of theoretical perspectives in their criticismCritical analysis can range from genius to boring mechanical insensitive posturing Critical perspectives can significantly reframe research thinking, but they can also trap

analysis in unproductive dead ends Not always heavy on theory, e.g., ordinary language analysis methods of

analytical philosophy, but this moves back towards a rationalist philosophy

PHILOSOPHIES

PROGRAMMES

IN ACTION

ACTION RESEARCHPragmatic ontologies – the world is how we make itObjectivity on paper is less important than effectiveness in the worldValuable knowledge results from practical engaged committed reflective

actionTruly practical knowledge can only result from real world engagementCollaborative 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 work Stakeholders 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 ACTION

RESEARCH THROUGH DESIGNUsing creative design practice as the basis for knowledge about the

world Koskinen, Binder, Wensveen, Zimmerman, Folizzi, Stolterman, Gaver, … Constructive Design ResearchYou can’t preplan creativity Dealing 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 activitiesPhases 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 integratedPHILOSOPHIE

S PROGRAMME

S IN ACTION

HCI: A COMMUNITY OF COMMUNITIESCarroll – Encyclopedia of Interaction Design, Three ErasMultiple 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 initiativesHCI Research can and does mix all four research philosophies via separated and integrated practices during different stages of research

PHILOSOPHIES

PROGRAMMES

IN ACTION

QUESTIONS?

RESEARCH PHILOSOPHIES

IN ACTION

interactiondesign.org ENCYCLOPEDIALöwgren (1) Critical and Action ResearchCaroll (2) Examples of all research philosophies, strong emphasis on

action researchHöök (12) Interpretivist, critical and action researchTractinsky (19) Positivist, Barzell’s critical response, aided by Tractinsky’s languageDix (29) Rationalist (Formal Methods)Cockton (19) - ? PHILOSOPHIE

S PROGRAMME

S IN ACTION

FIVE EXAMPLES OF PHD WORKAll references should be available from/via my

academia.edu pagesIf 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 research Alan Woolrych (PhD 2012) and Mark Hindmarch, Sunderland

Positivist research Eamon Doherty (PhD 2001), Sunderland, Computing

Action research Michael Leitner (PhD write up), Northumbria, Design

Research through Design PHILOSOPHIES

PROGRAMMES

IN ACTION

CRITICAL RESEARCH: DARRYN LAVERYLavery, 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 evaluation

Derived new problem report formats for usability problems Developed new analysis methods for extracting usability

problems from user testing data

PHILOSOPHIES

PROGRAMMES

IN ACTION

INTERPRETIVIST RESEARCH: ALAN WOOLRYCHCockton, 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 Evaluation

New explanatory contructs Discoverability (inferential statistics applied) Discovery and analysis resources (pilot analysis)

PHILOSOPHIES

PROGRAMMES

IN ACTION

POSITIVIST RESEARCH: ALAN WOOLRYCH & MARK HINDMARCHCockton, 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 studyPHILOSOPHIE

S PROGRAMME

S IN ACTION

ACTION RESEARCH: EAMON DOHERTYDoherty 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 ACTION

RESEARCH THROUGH DESIGN: MICHAEL LEITNERM. 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 Film

Two theories of mobility inscribe in hankie probes Interviews with completed probes Workshop packs and films for design teams to communicate

results of probe usage PHILOSOPHIES

PROGRAMMES

IN ACTION

HANKIE PROBE WORKSHOPSMICHAEL 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 ACTION

SUMMARYMethodologies, studies and methods all need to be designedWe 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


STUDYMETHOD

QUESTIONS?

EVOLVINGRESEARCH

PROGRAMMES

RECAPWe can’t tell you how or where to start, but we can

keep you goingResearch programme

Methodology

Study

Method

progresses

contributes to

supports


IN ACTION


STUDYMETHOD

WHY METHODOLOGIES EVOLVEMethodologies evolve in the course of a research

project for a range of reasons, for example, because …

1. they can (ethics permitting)2. it may not be possible to get around the limits of methods in completed

studies, so a different mixed method approach is needed3. of paradigm shifts (e.g, from usability method comparison to resource

effect studies)4. of the task artefact cycle in HCI, new findings change the nature of the

research, perhaps invalidating previous studies, through reflection5. of insights from pilot studies or replications6. of the need for fine tuning, or not so fine oh dear it’s broken mending7. Other …


IN ACTION

RESEARCH EVOLUTIONIN ACTION

EVOLVING FROM REPLICATIONGnanayutham, 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 sponsor

Brain-Body Interfaces Tab-select device for ATMs (cash machines)


IN ACTION

Paul Gnanayutham, PhD 2007

Eamon Doherty, PhD 2001

http://www.freefoto.com/preview/1042-05-23?ffid=1042-05-23

EVOLVING FROM PILOT STUDIESWoolrych, 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 methods

Woolrych, 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.


IN ACTION

EVOLVING FROM CRITIQUELavery, 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 evaluation

Derived 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


IN ACTION

EVOLVING FROM ACTION RESEARCHCockton, 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


IN ACTION

WORTH SKETCHING AND MAPPINGWorth 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 Form

VALUE-FOCUSED FIELD DATA ANALYSISPEOPLE: 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 other

FAMILY ARCHIVE UEF (HCI 2009)

SENTENCE COMPLETION VALU Project, FinlandPaf Case StudyReveals user values that

make outcomes worthwhile

When playing online, I feel myself..0 % 10 % 20 % 30 %

exited and active

normal

as a king, winner, genius

as an idiot, loser, bad conscience

happy, glad, satisfied

as a player

as a lucky winner

calm and relaxed

bored

Group 1, n = 20 Group 2, n = 45

http://secure.paf.com/?locale=en_GB

BUILDING WORTH MAPS TOP DOWN

EVOLVING FROM RESEARCH THROUGH DESIGNCockton, 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


IN ACTION

Two two-day workshops 2012 (Oct 10-11: TU Delft ; Nov 27-28: Northumbria University,

SUMMARY

SUMMARYWe know that research methodologies will

evolve, but we can rarely predict how they will in advance

1. Collaborator/PhD student priorities, ambitions and values reshape methodologies and programmes

2. 1.5 degrees of look ahead is often they best that we can do in creative, methodologically innovative research (i.e., much of HCI)

3. All design is iterative, research design is not different. It’s hard to get it right first time (pilot, pilot, pilot)

4. Other people’s research will force changes, some of us will make breakthroughs that invalidate existing study rationales

5. New research instruments are developed and become available, enabling new forms of study (beware!)

6. And lots more (no closures, this is people territory)


IN ACTION

METHODOLOGY

STUDYMETHOD

QUESTIONS?

WORKSHOP

WORKSHOP EXERCISEA 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. use a mix of positivist, interpretivist, critical,

rationalist and action research approaches, including research through design

PERSONA EXAMPLE (1)

http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/03/16/a-little-thing-about-personas/

PERSONA EXAMPLE (2)

www.pleiportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/workshop-persona-example-med.jpg

PERSONA EXAMPLE (3)

http://blog.highlandbusinessresearch.com/2007/12/

PERSONA SKELETONS

How to express your personasDecide on content and layout

pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/wiki/uploads/CPSC681/topic-wan-personas.pdf – quoted from Pruitt and Adlin book

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)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/0125662513/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link

WORKSHOP EXERCISEA survey of design managers reveals that projects have mixed experiences when using personas.

Brainstorm to outline a research programme to find out why this occurs.

Use a mix of positivist, interpretivist, critical, rationalist and action research approaches, including research through design

Experiments (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 practices

QUESTIONS?

DISCUSSION

HVALA, XBAЛA, БЛАГОДАРАМ, DZIĘKUJĘ, ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΏ, CẢM

ƠN, 謝謝 , TÄNAN, DANK U, TAK, TACK, MERCI, GRACIAS,

GRAZIE, O SE, MEDA ASE, THANK YOU

Developing and evolving Research Programmes

Documents

Transcript of Developing and evolving Research Programmes