Just a summary of the brief meeting I just had with my supervisors.
What kind of study is this?
Last week I had to submit an assignment on my intended research methods for my project. It was a bit of a struggle trying to fit HCI research instruments like technology probes into the strict Information Systems research categories like ‘Field study’, ‘Case study’, ‘Ethnography’ and ‘Experiment’. I suggested to my supervisor that this is possibly an interpretive field study. Instead, he suggested that however I label my study, it should mention that it is qualitative, online and involves polling/probing in the form of an interview. It may be that there is an existing term to describe this kind of research, or I may have to adapt an existing term or come up with my own. He also said that what I call it will depend on the audience.
Justifying the number of participants
In order to justify the number of participants before the analysis of the data, I need to make a pragmatic argument and also refer to examples of similar research. After the research, I need to make an argument that some kind of theoretical saturation had been achieved from the data, that an analysis of more participants would not reveal any more insights.
From appropriation to adoption
After investigating appropriation it was looking like it was too ill-defined a term. There are few theories about technology appropriation. One that looked like it may be useful is only concerned with whether or not a particular technology is appropriated and the reasons behind its appropriation, rejection and ‘disappropriation’ (Just what do the youth of today want? Carroll et al. 2002). Such theories do not probe to the level of providing a rich account. Also, given the short timeframe available to me to collect data (2 weeks), it is unlikely that the full process of appropriation will run its course.
My supervisor then suggested looking at technology adoption theories instead, which are a lot more well-defined and focus on the stage where technology begins to be used. I asked whether the theory would simply be a tool or whether it was intended for my contribution to be testing how adoption models relate in the context of technology support for behavioural change. The answer I got was, effectively ‘both, but possibly only the first one’. I would use the theory as a way of analysing and understanding their behaviour (in addition to my qualitative analysis). Essentially, it is a tool for investigation (the qualitative analysis to follow would complement the perspective given by this tool). I’m still unsure as to whether this is the appropriate tool if I don’t intend for my contribution to be to adoption theory. I need to think some more about this and clear this up.
Data Analysis
We discussed hermeneutics and ‘open and axial coding’. Steve seemed to think that open and axial coding was more appropriate. His take on the hermeneutic approach was that it would take too long as it involves continually collecting data as you progress through the ‘hermeneutic circle’. I don’t recall that constantly pulling in new data was part of hermeneutics, I thought the principle was to become immersed in the data.
Open and axial coding is generally used as part of a ‘grounded theory’ approach, where the theory emerges from the data. Peter suggested I read a book by Strauss & Corben on grounded theory, which is apparently a practical guide to using grounded theory.
Contribution
I think I’ve been somehow assuming that having theory emerge from the qualitative analysis of the data means that you don’t have to define what your contribution is beforehand. I’m starting to see that that’s a little misguided. What would emerge would be a theory describing something in the area of contribution you have defined. Some possible areas for contribution that were talked about today:
- methodology – how to analyse micro-blogging data
- models of technology acceptance (adjusting the TAM)
My assumption about the contribution was that it would be in the form of design guidelines (which has an implicit assumption that they actually use it) for technology for behavioural change and for micro-blogging in particular in this context. I never seem to be able to articulate this in a way that seems sufficient
Unfinalisability
I spoke to a researcher in the department this week, Tuck Leong, about the concept of unfinalisability. It may be relevant if it seems like the micro-blog is being used for varios purposes. Each of these uses may require the user to express themselves in a different way (eg. reflect, request social support). It seems that it is the kind of thing that I could consider as a minor point in the discussion section of my thesis.
What next?
Well, Steve suggested I find some models of technology acceptance to employ. It seems to be a constant struggle to see how his suggestions fit into my expectations for this thesis. Whenever I have an approach that I’m entirely comfortable with, the question that invariably comes back to haunt me is ‘what is the contribution’. If I’m going to come up with a research approach I need to be able to answer this question clearly.
