Scrapbook - Unit 11

11.08.07

Oftentimes I feel as though there is a disconnect between what we learn and discuss in class versus what we can realistically do when we join the 'practical' world. It is rare that we read a study that incorporates the working world; instead, researchers tend to survey students or other academics - most likely because this is an easy audience to come across. However, as someone who wants to work and use the knowledge I have gained at SILS in a practical sense, I think it would be most beneficial to me to read studies on practitioners.

When I wrote my undergraduate thesis at SILS, I want to discuss my qualitative methods from a feminist standpoint - i.e., using feminist research methods. (I used a hybrid study of both quantitative and qualitative measures; I also took research methods both in SILS and the Women's Studies department). I was discouraged from saying I was analyzing my qualitative data from a feminist standpoint because 'certain IS researchers' would see my research as non-scientific and thus, invalid. Likewise, when I took research methods as a graduate student, we were told that quantitative is considered 'hard' science and qualitative methods are considered 'soft' science. Having done both, I would argue that neither route is easy by any means and I actually think that quantitative data is much easier to manipulate than qualitative data. I can manipulate statistics and no one would question it - but you can't deny would people report in interviews or ethnographic studies. Judging academics based on social or traditional sciences isn't fair to either discipline and truly limits the ways in which we can expand our research. To grow as a field, we must be open to the ideas of others, which is what I believe Dervin was trying to tell us in her essay.

I really enjoyed reading the article by Gerber and Grunes. This seems to be one of the most user-focused plans I have encountered in IS research. Obviously we always discuss taking the user into account, but this is the first practical implementation I've seen that truly uses the user's needs in building a system. At the end of the article they mention that people made comments like 'this is similar to how we find solutions in books' - statements like this illustrate the fact that it is not always a good idea to bring in something totally new; sometimes it is better to improve a system the user is already familiar with, like browsing in books.

Their method of designing the system is what truly intrigued me. They outline five steps:

1. "Brainstorm design concepts,

2. Develop an initial prototype that could be demonstrated to focus groups of art directors,
3. Refine the prototype based on focus group comments,
4. Conduct user testing to establish usability, productivity measurements and determine user attitudes about the program, and
5. Iteratively refine and test the user interface." (p. 161)
   

I think this is an excellent model for designing systems and interfaces; having a concise, formal design process is key to coming out with a good end-product. And if you aren't designing the system/interface for the users, what's the point? All in all, Gerber and Grunes do an excellent job of illustrating how the design process can and should be built around the needs of the user.

Update on our Tour

I think Alex and I have already found many gaps that need to bridged for our tour that directly relates to joining the needs of the designer to the needs of the user. Last week, we took a physical tour of all of the Women's Centers in Chapel Hill and were immediately overwhelmed with information. The problem with the battered women is that it's hard enough for them to go out in search of information to get help, but once they hit a road block along the way they become frustrated and oftentimes stop seeking help via information. The reason so many women hit road blocks is because they don't know which Women's Center to go to for which services. Not to reveal too much about our tour before you are all dazzled with our presentation :), but we were immediately confronted with the problem of which Women's Center to go to for all of the many information needs that battered women are confronted with. The reason for this problem, we believe, is that most non-profit community centers (Women's Centers for instance) are under-funded and we have been told that the first budget item cut is outreach services. Without outreach services, the user (battered women) will never know where to go or how to find their information.