OUTLINE
1. 21 years of PhD supervision and examination
2. Developed 4 Research Programmes
3. Evolved 4 Research Programmes
4. 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
PHILOSOPHY
PROGRAMME
METHODOLOGY
STUDY
METHOD
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 collaborations
 Worth-centred design: Microsoft, Finnish VALU TEKES project
 User experience evaluation: MAUSE and TwinTide COST projects
A PhD is one project in an (in)formal programme
 If your PhD project feels like a programme, shrink it now!
PROGRAMME
METHODOLOGY
STUDY
METHOD
EXAMPLE HCI PROGRAMME (GROUP)S
Cognitive Engineering
Co-Design
Pre-attentive Visual Aesthetics
Interactionist Affective Computing
Sustainable HCI
Critical-Empirical HCI
Value-Sensitive Design
Universal Design
Approaches and Resources in Design Work
Ambient Intelligence
Information Visualisation
PROGRAMME
METHODOLOGY
STUDY
METHOD
RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES
A research methodology can be
1. a co-ordinated set of research studies
 your (evolving) research plan
2. A coherent set of research philosophies and practices
 Chosen research approach, for project or programme
3. 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
PROGRAMME
METHODOLOGY
STUDY
METHOD
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 first
You 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
PROGRAMME
METHODOLOGY
STUDY
METHOD
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 here
Design a study
 because ‘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 goals
But 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
PROGRAMME
METHODOLOGY
STUDY
METHOD
www.flickr.com/photos/travelinio_com/4218547394/sizes/l/in/photostrea
METHODOLOGY
LOOKS BEST WHEN
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
METHOD
I’M NOT DOING
RULES
I’M DOING
LANDSCAPES
QUESTIONS?
PHILOSOPHIES AND
PROGRAMMES
IN ACTION
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
Interpretivist
Rationalist
Critical
Action, including Research through Design
All have their strong and weak points, no one is best
Your disciplinary context can fix your research philosophy
PHILOSOPHIES
PROGRAMMES
IN ACTION
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 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 experiment
Scientism is an extreme form of positivism where ONLY positivist knowledge is valued
 Achilles heels of induction (Popper) and argument for experimental designs (Quine)
PHILOSOPHIES
PROGRAMMES
IN ACTION
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 arise
 Inter-rater reliability of coding and theoretical saturation can be empirically grounded
Interpretivism can range from strong empiricism to relativism
 Strong claims of ethnomethodology, claims for universality weaken once critical perspectives
are embraced
PHILOSOPHIES
PROGRAMMES
IN ACTION
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 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 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 categories
 Explicit theory is preferable to implicit theory
 Effective critics deploy a range of theoretical perspectives in their criticism
Critical 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 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 costs
Action 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 DESIGN
Using creative design practice as the basis for knowledge about the world
 Koskinen, Binder, Wensveen, Zimmerman, Folizzi, Stolterman, Gaver, …
 Constructive Design Research
You 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 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 ACTION
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 ACTION
QUESTIONS?
RESEARCH
PHILOSOPHIES
IN ACTION
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 research
Tractinsky (19)
 Positivist, Barzell’s critical response, aided by Tractinsky’s language
Dix (29)
 Rationalist (Formal Methods)
Cockton (19) - ?
PHILOSOPHIES
PROGRAMMES
IN ACTION
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 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 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 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 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 Evaluation
 New explanatory contructs
 Discoverability (inferential statistics applied)
 Discovery and analysis resources (pilot analysis)
PHILOSOPHIES
PROGRAMMES
IN ACTION
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 ACTION
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 ACTION
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 Humancomputer 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 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 ACTION
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
METHOD
QUESTIONS?
EVOLVING
RESEARCH
PROGRAMMES
RECAP
We can’t tell you how or where to start, but we can keep you going
Research programme
progresses
Methodology
contributes to
Study
supports
Method
PHILOSOPHIES
PROGRAMMES
IN ACTION
PROGRAMME
METHODOLOGY
STUDY
METHOD
WHY METHODOLOGIES EVOLVE
Methodologies 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 needed
3. 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 reflection
5. of insights from pilot studies or replications
6. of the need for fine tuning, or not so fine oh dear it’s broken mending
7. Other …
PHILOSOPHIES
PROGRAMMES
IN ACTION
RESEARCH
EVOLUTION
IN ACTION
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 sponsor
 Brain-Body Interfaces
 Tab-select device for ATMs (cash machines)
PHILOSOPHIES
PROGRAMMES
IN ACTION
http://www.freefoto.com/preview/1042-05-23?ffid=1042-05-23
Eamon Doherty, PhD 2001
Paul Gnanayutham, PhD 2007
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 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.
PHILOSOPHIES
PROGRAMMES
IN ACTION
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 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
PHILOSOPHIES
PROGRAMMES
IN ACTION
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 ACTION
WORTH SKETCHING AND MAPPING
Worth as net benefits (benefits – costs)
Connects artefacts (means) to purposes (ends) through experiences
OF6 Stewardship obligations
discharged
OT1 Treasures sold or passed on
OT2 Protected Heirlooms
X8 Gaining control, making
progress
QA1 Safe,
protected,
savable
OF5 Stronger sense of family past
OH3 Living Family Heritage: a past
you want to revisit
OF3 New Shared Times as a family
OF7 Stronger roots in the past
X4 Preserving heritage,
exercising stewardship
QI1 Playful, Fun
QT1 Accessible, at hand
suggesting casual, efficient, calm,
easy capture in use
PRO7 Assets Shared,
Individual Curation
MN2 WAN
back up
PRO8 Support
for Triage
PRO2 Auto Format
Updating
MT2 Table
Form
PRO1 Moving stuff
between boxes
PRO3
Rummaging
MT1 Multitouch Thinsight,
IR, Tagged props
CAP3 Functional
object ‘ghosts’
MIO5
Microphone
X13 Telling
my/our story
X3 Reflecting,
taking stock,
moving on
QT3 Self-explanatory,
guiding, suggestive, familiar,
intuitive, supportive
QT2 Inviting
PRO9 Subtle reminders,
safe originals
X1 Reliving
(shared)
memories
OF8 Achievement of closure
X9 Having fun,
playing around
OH2 Nurturing: somewhere
you want to be
OF2 Increased Family
Empathy
QA2 Enriched,
enhanced,
augmented
X5 Being a family, caring
& nurturing
QA4
Respectful,
empathic
QT4 Capable,
comprehensive,
versatile, inclusive
QI2 Doing things
together
QA5 Keeps
secrets
PRO5 Edit, Associate,
Loose Tag, annotate
CAP2 Personal area,
access control
CAP6 Family Member
Identification
PRO6 Automatic
Voice Annotation
MIO6 TBD h/w & s/w for
family member ID
X2 Sharing stories and
memories
MT4 OBEX/Bluetooth
detection, data transfer
MT6 Detachable
Camera
VALUE-FOCUSED FIELD DATA ANALYSIS
PEOPLE: A Happy Family
• Manifest Identities
PLACE: A Nice Home
• Newly less cluttered
•
Increased Family
Empathy
•
•
New Shared Times as a
Family
•
•
Manifest Status for
external social standing
Stronger family past
•
•
•
•
Stewardship obligations
discharged
Stronger Roots in past
•
•
Achievement of closure
New pride in improved
organisation, enhanced.
•
Caring for each other
Nurturing: somewhere
you want to be
Living Family Heritage: a
past you want to revisit
Enviable: somewhere
others want to be
OBJECTS: Treasures
• Treasures sold or
passed on
• Protected heirlooms
•
Well displayed
•
Materialisation with
enhancements
FAMILY ARCHIVE UEF (HCI 2009)
SENTENCE COMPLETION
VALU Project, Finland
When playing online, I feel myself..
Paf Case Study
Reveals user values that make
outcomes worthwhile
0%
10 %
20 %
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
30 %
BUILDING WORTH MAPS TOP DOWN
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 ACTION
Two two-day workshops 2012 (Oct 10-11: TU Delft ; Nov 27-28: Northumbria University,
SUMMARY
SUMMARY
We 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)
PHILOSOPHIES
PROGRAMMES
IN ACTION
METHODOLOGY
STUDY
METHOD
QUESTIONS?
BREAK
WORKSHOP
WORKSHOP EXERCISE
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.
 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
personas
Decide on
content
and layout
pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/wiki/uploads/CPSC681/topic-wanpersonas.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)
WORKSHOP EXERCISE
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
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