Dr Phil Turner: Techniques from Psychology

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    11-Nov-2014
  • Category

    Education

  • view

    1.937
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

description

Presentation to the third LIS DREaM workshop, held at Edinburgh Napier university on Wednesday 25th April 2012.More information about the event can be found at http://lisresearch.org/dream-project/dream-event-4-workshop-wednesday-25-april-2012/

Transcript of Dr Phil Turner: Techniques from Psychology

  • 1. Personal Construct Theory,My Experience of Fruit & What people Chose to Care About Phil Turner
  • 2. PERSONAL CONSTRUCT THEORY
  • 3. George Kelly clinical psychologist Created a theory of personality is predicated on one axiom: Man is a Scientist (Kelly, 1955) That is, each of us tries to make sense of the world as we experience it, and we do this by constantly forming and testing hypotheses about the world. By the time we are adults, we will have developed a very complex model of the world and our place in it: this model is, according to Kelly, our personality. 3
  • 4. The term construct is particularly well- chosen, because it reflects the concepts dual role. On the one hand, your constructs represent the view you have constructed about the world as you experienced it. On the other hand, your constructs indicate how you are likely to construe the world as you continue to experience it. 4
  • 5. Our construct system is our history and our predisposition to perceive. Kellys full theory of personal constructs is very detailed but its main points are: Our construct systems make our world more predictable Our construct systems can grow and change Our construct systems influence our expectations and perceptions 5
  • 6. Our construct system is our truth as we understand and experience it - nobody elses A persons construct system represents the truth as they understand it. Construct systems cannot be judged in terms of their objective truth - whatever objective means in the world of personal feelings and choices. 6
  • 7. Construct systems are not always internally consistent People can and do live with a degree of internal inconsistency within their construct systems. Kelly created a way of getting people to reveal their construct system and this is the Repertory Grid interviewing technique. 7
  • 8. The term repertory derives, of course, from repertoire - the repertoire of constructs which the person had developed. Because constructs represent some form of judgement or evaluation, by definition they are bipolar. 8
  • 9. As they have become more widely used they have dropped their theoretical trappings and seen to be a matter of co-construction and exploration And as such not suited to hypothesis testing 9
  • 10. Uses Rep grids have been used in knowledge elicitation for expert systems Shaw and Gaines, 1987, 1992 Information system and HCI design e.g. Dillon and McKnight 1990; McCarthy and OConnor 1998 Turner, 2000, 2001, 2011 Job design (e.g. Hassard, 1987) 10
  • 11. My experience of fruit Or, how to create a rep grid 11
  • 12. Select a set of elements. The elements are concrete examples of the domain you wish to explore, in this instance, fruit.
  • 13. So working in pairs (interviewer & interviewee) we would aim to identify different types of fruit (which interviewee has eaten) How many 8 is a minimum starting point
  • 14. Triadic construct elicitation 14
  • 15. Write the name of each piece of fruit on a small piece of paper. Taking the elements (fruit) in groups of three, and ask the question: Can you tell me a way in which two of these are similar and which one is different ? A typical response might be these two are similar because they are easy to peel whereas this one one has rough skin 15
  • 16. These are the constructs Work through different combinations of fruit until you have generated (say) 8 different constructs
  • 17. Next step is to create a grid Elements rated against constructs A five point scale is usual 17
  • 18. 1 2 3 4 5sweet Orange Apple lemon sour Peach banana pineappleCheap Apple peach pineapple expensive Orange Banana lemongood to cook Apple Banana Orange bad to cookwith Lemon peach pineapple withcommonplace Apple pineapple peach exotic Orange Banana Lemon 18
  • 19. Once entered into appropriate software the grid is subject to a PCA and visualised http://repgrid.com/ 19
  • 20. Grandfathers iPod: investigating attachment to digital and non- digital artefacts Winner of best contribution award at ECCE 2011
  • 21. We treasure or are attached to artefacts of special significance grandfathers watch, babys hospital nametag, family photographs, jewelry, fountain pen Our lives are now populated with digital stuff So are people also attached to digital stuff If so, how? 21
  • 22. Attachment: affective meaning beyond functionality (cf. Verbeek) Related to ensoulment/heirloom status/enchantment An artefact as an expression / extension of the self Relevant to sustainable interaction design (SID) if we are attached to objects we are less likely to dispose of them prematurely 22
  • 23. SID studies Key finding: people were less likely to be attached to digital items However our informal surveys among students in 2009/10 suggested that this may be changing digital artefacts had significant personal meaning preserved even when long superseded 23
  • 24. Our study was in two stages Stage 1 24
  • 25. Group of 8 postgraduate students Method followed Fransella and Bannister (1977) Each person chose 4 digital and 4 non-digital artefacts (elements) to which they felt some attachment Using the triadic approach, at least eight constructs elicited from each participant Then examined the entire set of constructs and identified the most common 25
  • 26. Aesthetically appealing - unremarkable Received as a gift - bought this myself Long term - short term Reminds me of others - no association with other people Personalised - generic Exciting - everyday Part of who I am - not really a part of me Irreplaceable - easily replaced 26
  • 27. Stage 2 27
  • 28. 55 interviewees Chose 4 digital and 4 non-digital possessions (elements) to which they were attached Rated against the supplied constructs on a scale of 1 to 5 Results processed using Rep IV package 28
  • 29. Individual results analysed by examination of the resulting grids But also selected the most common elements those nominated by at least 20%