Just delivered the thesis for my supervisor to read it.
It is a curious process, this of delivering the thing. It is like a birth, really. It spent so much time being mine, in my small computer, and now it is out there, in the world, being handled by a complete stranger. ...
Difficult to concentrate these days. Have my mind into other affairs. Desert-like.
Also I have been doing some research about usability in Brazil. But this is a subject for another post. Maybe even to another blog??
I have plans about reformulating this blog. I want to have time to do it.
Thursday 14 August 2008
Friday 8 August 2008
Geeky blogs and academic work - a good match?
In a conversation with Stephan at Tinseltown over a rather nice glass of milkshake, he told me he investigated the use of blogs in academic research -- and the little ant only told me this now.
He even published two papers on the subject (!) available on his webpage.
That made me
1) remind me that I have a blog
2) think why I stopped writing.
Number 1) brought me here today to try to answer number 2). I think -- and Stephan's studies confirmed -- that is because I don't have a reason to write. In fact, I do, but I am writing somethin else (the thesis).
I guess that if I had used this blog to communicate with my supervisor, i.e., if I had made this blog available and that he could read and comment on my posts, it could have been interesting. But how much of my thesis would I really want published on the web? How much of my line of thinking would I want exposed to people I don't know. And, considering I have an external host, how much of their identity would I have given away?
During the first part of this research I didn't have anything concrete to write about, and a lot of anxiety to be ejected from my system. So I think that writing had this main function. At the moment I re-directed the anxiety to somewhere else, the blog lost its function.
I think it would be really useful, though, if I was working with someone else on the project. for two reasons:
1) We are not always in the same room, so it is nice to be able to communicate online. But what are emails for. That leads me to two:
2) Conversations over comments are organized and restricted to specific themes. I find that in emails people feel free to go astray, because it is like a little letter you are writing to someone. You can include lots of "BTWs", like "what are you doing tomorrow", "did you see Heroes yesterday?" or "I hate the weather", which can lead to other infinite, non-related topics (specially the last one, if your partner is English).
Need to refine these thoughts, but this is a very interesting topic.
He even published two papers on the subject (!) available on his webpage.
That made me
1) remind me that I have a blog
2) think why I stopped writing.
Number 1) brought me here today to try to answer number 2). I think -- and Stephan's studies confirmed -- that is because I don't have a reason to write. In fact, I do, but I am writing somethin else (the thesis).
I guess that if I had used this blog to communicate with my supervisor, i.e., if I had made this blog available and that he could read and comment on my posts, it could have been interesting. But how much of my thesis would I really want published on the web? How much of my line of thinking would I want exposed to people I don't know. And, considering I have an external host, how much of their identity would I have given away?
During the first part of this research I didn't have anything concrete to write about, and a lot of anxiety to be ejected from my system. So I think that writing had this main function. At the moment I re-directed the anxiety to somewhere else, the blog lost its function.
I think it would be really useful, though, if I was working with someone else on the project. for two reasons:
1) We are not always in the same room, so it is nice to be able to communicate online. But what are emails for. That leads me to two:
2) Conversations over comments are organized and restricted to specific themes. I find that in emails people feel free to go astray, because it is like a little letter you are writing to someone. You can include lots of "BTWs", like "what are you doing tomorrow", "did you see Heroes yesterday?" or "I hate the weather", which can lead to other infinite, non-related topics (specially the last one, if your partner is English).
Need to refine these thoughts, but this is a very interesting topic.
UPA & BBC
Went to the UPA event yesterday at LBi, to see the what the BBC is up to. Of all presentations we heard, the most interesting was definitely the one by Nicky Smyth, head of Innovation and Research at BBC -- who I met at the VizThink event last month, with her lovely friend Sal.
I was fascinated by the approach they had to research -- despite the fact that her 15 minutes only allowed her to give us a taste of what they are doing. The Participate project seems to encompass a myriad of areas, from augmented reality to encouragement and perception of media. I will look at their delicious logs as soon as I get over this bit of work.
I was fascinated by the approach they had to research -- despite the fact that her 15 minutes only allowed her to give us a taste of what they are doing. The Participate project seems to encompass a myriad of areas, from augmented reality to encouragement and perception of media. I will look at their delicious logs as soon as I get over this bit of work.
Monday 28 July 2008
Returning comments
Well well, here I am. I spent the last ten or so days writing myself up, so didn't have time to blogging. In fact, I didn't even think of this.
At the moment, my comments are:
- It is a very frustrating thing having to put all the experience one has in the field into a 12.000 words document. That is including all the protocol of a thesis.
- Having said that, I am in a moment of choice. I can either explain something really well, or lots of things superficially. In fact, I am trying to explain two things and not quite managing. So the solution could be to concentrate on one of them. But then questions about the quality and usefulness of my thesis arise, with that feeling of "so that is all I have been working so hard for?".
- On the other hand it has been a brilliant experience to play around with the English. Not my husband (who hasn't seen me for quite a while now), but the language. I am absolutely adoring the writing, no better satisfaction than the sound of a well written paragraph. I am not sure about my style, if it is academic enough,... I am sure I will edit over and over and over again.
- Distance is good. Every time I struggled with something, it was better to close the word window and do something else and then come back to that.
-
At the moment, my comments are:
- It is a very frustrating thing having to put all the experience one has in the field into a 12.000 words document. That is including all the protocol of a thesis.
- Having said that, I am in a moment of choice. I can either explain something really well, or lots of things superficially. In fact, I am trying to explain two things and not quite managing. So the solution could be to concentrate on one of them. But then questions about the quality and usefulness of my thesis arise, with that feeling of "so that is all I have been working so hard for?".
- On the other hand it has been a brilliant experience to play around with the English. Not my husband (who hasn't seen me for quite a while now), but the language. I am absolutely adoring the writing, no better satisfaction than the sound of a well written paragraph. I am not sure about my style, if it is academic enough,... I am sure I will edit over and over and over again.
- Distance is good. Every time I struggled with something, it was better to close the word window and do something else and then come back to that.
-
Tuesday 8 July 2008
Tools
Tools can be a very, very distracting thing.
At the moment I am using HyperResearch to analyse my data, Freemind to organize my thinking and Omnigraffle (which was my friend Joahanna's recommendation) to put shape on things. I just wish that there was a way of doing them all together.
I wish HyperResearch had a graphic way of representing the connections of concepts. Couldn't they have just made a way to connect codes from different cases? Another big BIG frustration is that it doesn't like "cosmetics highlighting", meaning that you can't just highlight a quote or a passage of a text: you are obliged to code it if you want to retrieve it later. That forced me to create a code that is actually "highlights", which is ridiculous -- but a quite nice workaround. Now I can see why all those heated posts from those irritated researchers make sense: the software can indeed influence the shape of your analysis!
Now Omnigraffle is, for sure, the biggest distraction I had so far, with its little furniture shapes, and its cute colours and arrows.
This is why today was not be most productive of days. On the other hand, it was a nice day because I met Carly Stevens, a UCL MSc student like me and a very interesting person. She is doing research in electronic publishing, more specifically, she is investigating personalization and why it didn't really catch on.
At the moment I am using HyperResearch to analyse my data, Freemind to organize my thinking and Omnigraffle (which was my friend Joahanna's recommendation) to put shape on things. I just wish that there was a way of doing them all together.
I wish HyperResearch had a graphic way of representing the connections of concepts. Couldn't they have just made a way to connect codes from different cases? Another big BIG frustration is that it doesn't like "cosmetics highlighting", meaning that you can't just highlight a quote or a passage of a text: you are obliged to code it if you want to retrieve it later. That forced me to create a code that is actually "highlights", which is ridiculous -- but a quite nice workaround. Now I can see why all those heated posts from those irritated researchers make sense: the software can indeed influence the shape of your analysis!
Now Omnigraffle is, for sure, the biggest distraction I had so far, with its little furniture shapes, and its cute colours and arrows.
This is why today was not be most productive of days. On the other hand, it was a nice day because I met Carly Stevens, a UCL MSc student like me and a very interesting person. She is doing research in electronic publishing, more specifically, she is investigating personalization and why it didn't really catch on.
Thursday 3 July 2008
Design implications
It is incredibly refreshing to find a paper that terminates all your doubts: now you not only can justify yourself, you can say that there is someone else, out there, in the academic authority Olympus, who agrees with you.
I'm talking about the never-ending discussion about design implications for ethnographic research: to be or not to be?
One of the most mind-tearing, heart-squeezing, leg-shaking questions one can ask himself during the fieldwork is "what if I don't find any design implications??". Every time this evil question came to my mind during the days (or nights) at The Newspaper, my stomach felt funny.
And the reason for that is that you don't know until it is over. And, even when it is, it might be that you simply don't have anything specific to tell anyone. Yes, the main role of ethnographic work for CSCW research is to inform systems design, but trying to squeeze a list of things that need to be done in the end of a report might to asking to much from the researcher.
It might be that you just have an insight, and a solution for a problem is right in front of your nose: clear, objective ways of improving people's work, accompanied by a thorough analysis of why this or that innovation might work in this specific culture you just spent 3 months examining is obviously a good thing.
However, if a study describes a specific work setting in detail, giving a sound, thorough account of how those people do what they do every day explaining what works what doesn't work and why it doesn't can be already a good contribution to a corpus of study.
Lydia Plowman, Yvonne Rogers and Magnus Ramage agree with me. According to them:
"...workplace studies carried out primarily to understand a particular working practice are making a valuable contribution to the body of CSCW knowledge in their own right As pointed out in the section on basic research such studies can inform CSCW design through raising awareness of important conceptual issues and questioning taken-for-granted assumptions about work activities and how they should be supported. In essence, 'the main virtue of ethnography is its ability to make visible the 'real world' sociality of a setting' (Hughes et ai, 1994).
They also say that:
1. researchers should not feel obliged to force design implications from their material;
2. researchers and designers should engage more in a continuous dialogue to help bridge the gap and misunderstandings between 'techno-talk' and 'ethno-talk';
3. workplace studies for 'their own sake' have played an important role in shaping CSCW and should continue to be supported unfettered to provide further insight into the social, the cognitive and the technical aspects of work.
I couldn't agree more. When I first heard this argument -- from my supervisor's mouth, before starting my fieldwork -- I had the impression that this was somehow connected to lazyness. Yes, I did my friends, I thought that. For me it seemed quite reasonable that the researcher should also come up with the design solution for any problems they find in the field.
And that is the mindset behind much of the research we see today: researchers go to the field so obsessed with finding "what's wrong" that it is difficult to believe that the bulk of qualitative research today isn't biased.
Anyway, this is enough discussion. I made my point, I guess. :)
I'm talking about the never-ending discussion about design implications for ethnographic research: to be or not to be?
One of the most mind-tearing, heart-squeezing, leg-shaking questions one can ask himself during the fieldwork is "what if I don't find any design implications??". Every time this evil question came to my mind during the days (or nights) at The Newspaper, my stomach felt funny.
And the reason for that is that you don't know until it is over. And, even when it is, it might be that you simply don't have anything specific to tell anyone. Yes, the main role of ethnographic work for CSCW research is to inform systems design, but trying to squeeze a list of things that need to be done in the end of a report might to asking to much from the researcher.
It might be that you just have an insight, and a solution for a problem is right in front of your nose: clear, objective ways of improving people's work, accompanied by a thorough analysis of why this or that innovation might work in this specific culture you just spent 3 months examining is obviously a good thing.
However, if a study describes a specific work setting in detail, giving a sound, thorough account of how those people do what they do every day explaining what works what doesn't work and why it doesn't can be already a good contribution to a corpus of study.
Lydia Plowman, Yvonne Rogers and Magnus Ramage agree with me. According to them:
"...workplace studies carried out primarily to understand a particular working practice are making a valuable contribution to the body of CSCW knowledge in their own right As pointed out in the section on basic research such studies can inform CSCW design through raising awareness of important conceptual issues and questioning taken-for-granted assumptions about work activities and how they should be supported. In essence, 'the main virtue of ethnography is its ability to make visible the 'real world' sociality of a setting' (Hughes et ai, 1994).
They also say that:
1. researchers should not feel obliged to force design implications from their material;
2. researchers and designers should engage more in a continuous dialogue to help bridge the gap and misunderstandings between 'techno-talk' and 'ethno-talk';
3. workplace studies for 'their own sake' have played an important role in shaping CSCW and should continue to be supported unfettered to provide further insight into the social, the cognitive and the technical aspects of work.
I couldn't agree more. When I first heard this argument -- from my supervisor's mouth, before starting my fieldwork -- I had the impression that this was somehow connected to lazyness. Yes, I did my friends, I thought that. For me it seemed quite reasonable that the researcher should also come up with the design solution for any problems they find in the field.
And that is the mindset behind much of the research we see today: researchers go to the field so obsessed with finding "what's wrong" that it is difficult to believe that the bulk of qualitative research today isn't biased.
Anyway, this is enough discussion. I made my point, I guess. :)
Wednesday 2 July 2008
A step ahead
Yesterday was my last day in the newspaper, and it was a great one. I felt sorry for leaving... not only I got used to those people, I even liked them. I think they liked me too. It is a strange thing a fieldwork ... you create bonds with people, you know what they are thinking, what they are doing, the way they move, ... and then you go. It's almost heartbreaking.
But well, now it is writing time. I found that:
- It is almost irresistible not to start drawing conclusions about what you found. The "data analysis" that must happen during the data gathering didn't happen for me in any formal way, i.e., I didn't code any data before the end of the fieldwork, as you are supposed to do, but I believe I did a sort of analysis by writing up the summaries for each day and comparing things from one day to another. How I am going to explain this in the theses is another subject.
- In many many ways, ethnography is like making a long news story. You go there, you listen to what the people have to say, you ask questions, you make notes, you transcribe tapes, and then you come back to the office with the hint, that feeling that you know what the lead of the story is, but you need to check the transcriptions again, see if you are not jumping ahead with conclusions, and you check with your editor what he thinks (that's Simon, in a way) and then you seat down and write the story. There is always the "uh, am I sure this is the lead? Did I get this right?" question you ask yourself, but in 99.999% of the times, you are spot on.
The difference here is that, as a reporter, if you are not right about the lead you will get to know the day after when you read the other newspapers. And what a horrible feeling that is...
If you are a researcher, nobody will know if you missed the lead or not, because is pretty much your choice, it depends on what the data tell you, but also how you want to look at it, and from which angle you want to describe what you saw.
So being an ethnographer, for me, is like a step ahead: it is journalism with choice, thought and freedom. I think I love it! (godforbidsomeonereadsthis!)
But well, now it is writing time. I found that:
- It is almost irresistible not to start drawing conclusions about what you found. The "data analysis" that must happen during the data gathering didn't happen for me in any formal way, i.e., I didn't code any data before the end of the fieldwork, as you are supposed to do, but I believe I did a sort of analysis by writing up the summaries for each day and comparing things from one day to another. How I am going to explain this in the theses is another subject.
- In many many ways, ethnography is like making a long news story. You go there, you listen to what the people have to say, you ask questions, you make notes, you transcribe tapes, and then you come back to the office with the hint, that feeling that you know what the lead of the story is, but you need to check the transcriptions again, see if you are not jumping ahead with conclusions, and you check with your editor what he thinks (that's Simon, in a way) and then you seat down and write the story. There is always the "uh, am I sure this is the lead? Did I get this right?" question you ask yourself, but in 99.999% of the times, you are spot on.
The difference here is that, as a reporter, if you are not right about the lead you will get to know the day after when you read the other newspapers. And what a horrible feeling that is...
If you are a researcher, nobody will know if you missed the lead or not, because is pretty much your choice, it depends on what the data tell you, but also how you want to look at it, and from which angle you want to describe what you saw.
So being an ethnographer, for me, is like a step ahead: it is journalism with choice, thought and freedom. I think I love it! (godforbidsomeonereadsthis!)
Wednesday 25 June 2008
Relationships and The Dog...
Building a relationship with the informants is the single most important thing one can think of doing in the field. I have 21 interviews after 4 weeks of research, but I am not sure how many are actually of any use, because I don't know how some of them represent the truth about what these people do and think in their work.
People, and journalists specially, can be very doubtful of our intentions in asking all those questions about how they do things, they are afraid that giving in to much could put them in risk, or make them vulnerable. Also, I perceive in some of them a discourse that matches the management's discourse, and the opposite in others, which means that the the first case is when they are not disclosing what they really think, what they really do: they are just afraid of where am I going to send that tape...
Also, I am not sure if I observed enough. It is very difficult to tell what they are doing from any distance. Unless they talk you through it, it is a very misterious -- or dull, depending on your take -- think to do to watch a journalist working.
I had some very honest testimonies, people that said very confidential things, complained and told me what they think about things. But in those the problem is now separating their personal opinion about management from what are actually processes they go through in a days' work.
I think the most difficult part of my job is about to start: analysing this data will be The Dog...
People, and journalists specially, can be very doubtful of our intentions in asking all those questions about how they do things, they are afraid that giving in to much could put them in risk, or make them vulnerable. Also, I perceive in some of them a discourse that matches the management's discourse, and the opposite in others, which means that the the first case is when they are not disclosing what they really think, what they really do: they are just afraid of where am I going to send that tape...
Also, I am not sure if I observed enough. It is very difficult to tell what they are doing from any distance. Unless they talk you through it, it is a very misterious -- or dull, depending on your take -- think to do to watch a journalist working.
I had some very honest testimonies, people that said very confidential things, complained and told me what they think about things. But in those the problem is now separating their personal opinion about management from what are actually processes they go through in a days' work.
I think the most difficult part of my job is about to start: analysing this data will be The Dog...
Monday 23 June 2008
Looong time no see
So, that was it, I dropped the ball. It is too much, the whole fieldwork thing is too much. I thought that the uncertainty was something that haunted you on the first couple of days, maybe first week. But here I am, fourth week in, and still don't have a clue.
The funny part of it is that I seat there, at the newsroom, and sometimes I think I've seen it all, I heard it all, I know how it works. It can't be, I know, I know. And that is when my paranoid side talks louder into my ears (which are soar from the combination transcription headphones + glasses): "You must be missing something. "These people are all lying to you. You have no idea of what goes beneath..."
I think I should had just remained as a journalist, a profession where paranoia is a great skill.
Have I finished? Being bored and finding it easy means that I'm done? Should I know what to write about? Am I extending this further than I need to? Do I have enough material to write about? Did I find anything interesting?
I have 6 weeks to find out.
The funny part of it is that I seat there, at the newsroom, and sometimes I think I've seen it all, I heard it all, I know how it works. It can't be, I know, I know. And that is when my paranoid side talks louder into my ears (which are soar from the combination transcription headphones + glasses): "You must be missing something. "These people are all lying to you. You have no idea of what goes beneath..."
I think I should had just remained as a journalist, a profession where paranoia is a great skill.
Have I finished? Being bored and finding it easy means that I'm done? Should I know what to write about? Am I extending this further than I need to? Do I have enough material to write about? Did I find anything interesting?
I have 6 weeks to find out.
Thursday 19 June 2008
The story so far
Almost end of the third week in the field and I have done 16 interviews. I don't know what am I going to do with all this... I started reviewing the literature again (very slowly) to guide my thoughts in this last week, and I think I drew a line here and there, of things that I am NOT interested in. For example, I am not interested in the details of editor's interactions with the Content Management System. Poor usability there abounds, but this is not what my theses is about. In the same way, I am not interested in fixing management problems (shortage of staff, for example).
On the other hand I can start seeing patterns in what people tell me, about what story I can tell about the comparison I set myself to do.
"Acting with Technology" is Bonnie Nardi and Victor Kaptelinin's new book on Activity Theory, which I recommended to UCL's library to purchase and happily collected today!
On the other hand I can start seeing patterns in what people tell me, about what story I can tell about the comparison I set myself to do.
"Acting with Technology" is Bonnie Nardi and Victor Kaptelinin's new book on Activity Theory, which I recommended to UCL's library to purchase and happily collected today!
Tuesday 17 June 2008
After the badge, the backpack attacks!
After a few weeks at the newsroom, I have the strong feeling that people started avoiding me. They look at me and pretend they didn't see me -- even if their eyes cross mine -- and they change their routes to avoid me.
There are two very possible things happening here:
1) They have been told off by management for slowing or not being very efficient, because they were being distracted by me
2) They got gradually aware that I am talking to everyone in the newsroom, and therefore the possibilities that I know things that they don't increased, as well as the risk of me letting off information they gave me or opinions they expressed.
I also realize that people pretend not to see me or get slightly uncomfortable when I approach them with my blue notebook -- which is not full of "secret notes" -- in hands. So I left the notebook in the bag and, else, went to see people with my backpack in place (on my back, of course), so to transmit the message: "I will not disturb you now, whatever I will tell you will be quick, because I am either arriving at the newsroom or most probably, leaving". It did work!
I interviewed a very concerned person today. And I must say it was a shame to have to ask this person if I could turn on the recorder, because the issue we discussed was very delicate, and I am sure that had we been just chatting I would have got more from him. But then, how would I remember it in detail? Specially today, as I seem to have a gray cloud over my head.
Trade offs.
The more people tell me what they think, the more I get involved with delicate issues, and the bigger my awareness of how it is important to keep their identities safe.
There are two very possible things happening here:
1) They have been told off by management for slowing or not being very efficient, because they were being distracted by me
2) They got gradually aware that I am talking to everyone in the newsroom, and therefore the possibilities that I know things that they don't increased, as well as the risk of me letting off information they gave me or opinions they expressed.
I also realize that people pretend not to see me or get slightly uncomfortable when I approach them with my blue notebook -- which is not full of "secret notes" -- in hands. So I left the notebook in the bag and, else, went to see people with my backpack in place (on my back, of course), so to transmit the message: "I will not disturb you now, whatever I will tell you will be quick, because I am either arriving at the newsroom or most probably, leaving". It did work!
I interviewed a very concerned person today. And I must say it was a shame to have to ask this person if I could turn on the recorder, because the issue we discussed was very delicate, and I am sure that had we been just chatting I would have got more from him. But then, how would I remember it in detail? Specially today, as I seem to have a gray cloud over my head.
Trade offs.
The more people tell me what they think, the more I get involved with delicate issues, and the bigger my awareness of how it is important to keep their identities safe.
Changing habits
Interesting comment by Julia Hailes, sustainability consultant:
The biggest challenge is not the technology, but in changing peoples’ habits.
After these weeks at The Newspaper, I couldn't agree with her more.
The biggest challenge is not the technology, but in changing peoples’ habits.
After these weeks at The Newspaper, I couldn't agree with her more.
Monday 16 June 2008
Bad interview
Today I did what was probably my poorest interview so far. I was carried away from my main subjects and didn't have the power to stir him back in.
The interviewee -- being a schooled journalist himself -- made sure to take a long time and add a lot of detail to the inoffensive questions and not so much in the ones I was really interested in, which, in turn, made the interview longer than necessary, very dull and not very useful.
Also he didn't tell me what he really thought, I think. I have the impression that either I failed in making him comfortable with the confidentiality with which I would treat the data, or he does believe in the success of the operation for the sake of his job. After all, waking up in the morning for something you think is doomed mustn't be easy.
What could I have done better? Interrupt him in the dull parts was out of question. Contesting what he said was impossible, because he was giving his opinion about things.
So my question is: what kind of science is this that ethnography does that is based on people's opinions? Is this what we are trying to capture: detailed accounts of what people think of ongoing processes? How much objectivity needs to be put in an interview to make it valid?
The interviewee -- being a schooled journalist himself -- made sure to take a long time and add a lot of detail to the inoffensive questions and not so much in the ones I was really interested in, which, in turn, made the interview longer than necessary, very dull and not very useful.
Also he didn't tell me what he really thought, I think. I have the impression that either I failed in making him comfortable with the confidentiality with which I would treat the data, or he does believe in the success of the operation for the sake of his job. After all, waking up in the morning for something you think is doomed mustn't be easy.
What could I have done better? Interrupt him in the dull parts was out of question. Contesting what he said was impossible, because he was giving his opinion about things.
So my question is: what kind of science is this that ethnography does that is based on people's opinions? Is this what we are trying to capture: detailed accounts of what people think of ongoing processes? How much objectivity needs to be put in an interview to make it valid?
Friday 13 June 2008
Cold feet
So I reached half of the period I have for the observations: two weeks. And I think I reached a critical point, that point that what Hammersley calls "the tunneling" effect needs to happen, and quick.
I basically have three paths to follow.
1) Clash of cultures: how do two cultures, the newsroom journalism and the online journalism work together? How does one influence the other and how do they change the other? Changing habits, routines, quality x speed, rhythm of production, tensions both in human relations and resources x constraints.
2) Decision making under pressure: how the decisions that need to be taking in writing and editing are constrained by the time limits imposed by the online edition
3) I forgot. Which means that is probably not important.
I'm more inclined to think like the first one. Specially because I have been thinking about it through "Activity Theory's eyes". But then I am afraid I should submit this theses at the Sociology department, not the Interaction Center...
Simon says "it's fine". And the chief of the department, a carrier researcher, says it's fine too. I just wonder if I won't be telling an old story, something that is not the whole truth, because the newsroom is just too much of a complicated environment for me to absorb in a month, or something that is of no use...
I think I have cold feet.
I basically have three paths to follow.
1) Clash of cultures: how do two cultures, the newsroom journalism and the online journalism work together? How does one influence the other and how do they change the other? Changing habits, routines, quality x speed, rhythm of production, tensions both in human relations and resources x constraints.
2) Decision making under pressure: how the decisions that need to be taking in writing and editing are constrained by the time limits imposed by the online edition
3) I forgot. Which means that is probably not important.
I'm more inclined to think like the first one. Specially because I have been thinking about it through "Activity Theory's eyes". But then I am afraid I should submit this theses at the Sociology department, not the Interaction Center...
Simon says "it's fine". And the chief of the department, a carrier researcher, says it's fine too. I just wonder if I won't be telling an old story, something that is not the whole truth, because the newsroom is just too much of a complicated environment for me to absorb in a month, or something that is of no use...
I think I have cold feet.
Wednesday 11 June 2008
Ethics
Almost two weeks down the road of the observations at The Newspaper I can say I am sure I did the right choice of not introducing myself as a journalist.
Today I watched, for the second time, a sub-editor doing his job. He let me seat behind his chair and literally look over his shoulder for about 2 hours. At one point he asked me what were the notes I was taking and I showed him my notebook and explained a few pages, and what are the things I am interested in.
After that he opened up and explained me another universe of things he does when editing. Now, imagine if I had introduced myself as "hi, I have some experience in this field and I would like to watch your work".
The ethics of the situation has been pinching my brain, and my concern of not being entirely true or trustworthy to the participants led me to an almost paralisis. However, my mind came to peace when I concluded a couple of things:
- One, I am not lying, because nobody asked me if I am a journalist yet. And if they do ask I will tell them what I have done in the past. In fact, the ones who asked me if I had been in a newsroom before I said that yes, I had, but not as a journalist, and that is true.
- Two: I am not a journalist. I am a researcher and I am looking at their work from the perspective of Human Computer Interaction.
Apart from that I am doing all I can to respect the participants, protect their identities, member check and be accurate and clear about my work and my interest. Consent forms are filled in and signed, rules are explained before interviews... and, of course, I still walk around with my badge...
There is a really fine line between being ethic and not in an ethnographic study. I wonder how the researchers from the Chicago School dealt with with when doing their 10 years long studies, how did they hide their other lives, how did they live through it and how they remained ethical.
I wonder if I should talk to them at after the research is done.
Today I watched, for the second time, a sub-editor doing his job. He let me seat behind his chair and literally look over his shoulder for about 2 hours. At one point he asked me what were the notes I was taking and I showed him my notebook and explained a few pages, and what are the things I am interested in.
After that he opened up and explained me another universe of things he does when editing. Now, imagine if I had introduced myself as "hi, I have some experience in this field and I would like to watch your work".
The ethics of the situation has been pinching my brain, and my concern of not being entirely true or trustworthy to the participants led me to an almost paralisis. However, my mind came to peace when I concluded a couple of things:
- One, I am not lying, because nobody asked me if I am a journalist yet. And if they do ask I will tell them what I have done in the past. In fact, the ones who asked me if I had been in a newsroom before I said that yes, I had, but not as a journalist, and that is true.
- Two: I am not a journalist. I am a researcher and I am looking at their work from the perspective of Human Computer Interaction.
Apart from that I am doing all I can to respect the participants, protect their identities, member check and be accurate and clear about my work and my interest. Consent forms are filled in and signed, rules are explained before interviews... and, of course, I still walk around with my badge...
There is a really fine line between being ethic and not in an ethnographic study. I wonder how the researchers from the Chicago School dealt with with when doing their 10 years long studies, how did they hide their other lives, how did they live through it and how they remained ethical.
I wonder if I should talk to them at after the research is done.
Monday 9 June 2008
Back to the newsroom
... I had to get my head around things pretty quickly. It was very good to go there late at night and meeting one of the subeditors with whom I talked to last week. And he let me watch him doing his job from quite close and ask him questions and chat... it was fabulous!
I am trying to keep the Activity Theory background questions in my head, but finding it complicated. I find that I focus more on certain aspects (like rules and community) and less in others (like division of labour and the objects). I guess I started seeing patterns of behaviour, as now I have seen the work of more than one person. And I think that I will start seeing things better as I write them down.
Tempted to dig into the night and transcribe everything I saw right now...
I need to keep thinking: what is this story about? what am I seeing?
I am trying to keep the Activity Theory background questions in my head, but finding it complicated. I find that I focus more on certain aspects (like rules and community) and less in others (like division of labour and the objects). I guess I started seeing patterns of behaviour, as now I have seen the work of more than one person. And I think that I will start seeing things better as I write them down.
Tempted to dig into the night and transcribe everything I saw right now...
I need to keep thinking: what is this story about? what am I seeing?
Bimbo Town
Leipzig was just great! The city is fantastic, the neighbourhood where we stayed was the industrial part of town (and when I say industrial is East Germany Industrial), with infinite derelict buildings, just waiting for people to make parties in them. My favourite thing was to look inside them through the holes in the doors and windows. The interior of some of them is still quite impressive. In some there are some people living, others were converted into huge apartments, in others there is nothing but past. It felt like half of the city had ran away from some plague: things left half done, plants growing in the ceilings of abandoned towers and massive massive plants with great massive smashed glass windows, all these places made of bricks and concrete. Nobody was around. It was a weekend.
Then the party was something else. We were invited -- to go to Leipzig in the first place - to go to the last ever party in Bimbo Town (which in German apparently means Negro Town, and is not related to bread as I thought, or to cute useless blonde girls as Ian thought)
I have been thinking in how I can describe what this place is like, and the best I could compare it to is Blade Runner's toy maker: that guy that seats around making his own little weird dolls and dwarfs and all these other weird, quite old and decadent things, which are incredibly curious and inspiring.
Jim, the author of such a parallel world, is a parallel guy himself. What an amusing, interesting, intelligent person to talk to. What an amazing man... he builds what he calls "friendly machines", which are, in fact, robots: small, funny, big, bumpy, rude, missing parts, they are every where. Then the sofas that "eats you up" and the bed that takes you for a walk, and the "giant pudding made of air chambers that feels your presence and bumps into you. And, the detail is that we have the place all for ourselves. It was like having someone closing Disney just to you when you are a kid (I guess)
I could spend the night writing about it.
The point I wanted to make is that for 2 days I have been to another planet: Spinnereistraße, 7. And it is difficult to get used to Earth again. And specially difficult is to make all last week's thoughts flow back again into my head...
Saturday 7 June 2008
1st week wrap up
So, that's it, the first week is gone. At first I had the impression I didn't gather much, but reading my notes yesterday made me change my mind.
I feel now I understand the basis of how the newsroom works, and I have contacted 13 people, observed 1 of them working, interviewed 3 others, chatted to other 4 and have interviews scheduled for the rest. Which is good, but not enough.
Yesterday I met Simon and he seemed pleased with the work so far. We had a good chat about AT, which I had kind had put in the back of my mind, for now. But now he read my "theoretical considerations" document he seems to be less suspicious about it now and less reluctant that I decided to use it as a framework. He also liked the document, specially the analogy of trip to an unknown city, regarding the question about using or not a framework to guide research.
He asked me to put together a list of "what the story is about", which is a great way of thinking for me, as this is what I do, I put stories together. He also clarified to which extent I need to explain "how I did it". He thinks, for example, that the story of the badge is a good example that shows I was sensitive to the constraints of the field, and to the people around me, which is a good methodological point, but the limit to which I need to tell the story "behind the scenes" in the theses.
There is another framework, which he used in his theses, by Rasmunssen, which in a way talks about the same things that AT does, with another language. He says it is enormous and very complicated to get your head around it, but recommended I read chapter 2 of his (Simon's) theses, where there is a good summary of it all.
I feel rested and today I could stay at home and write all day long. But I am off to Leipzig now and will be back on Monday. Looking forward to knowing a new city, this time, without any maps!
I feel now I understand the basis of how the newsroom works, and I have contacted 13 people, observed 1 of them working, interviewed 3 others, chatted to other 4 and have interviews scheduled for the rest. Which is good, but not enough.
Yesterday I met Simon and he seemed pleased with the work so far. We had a good chat about AT, which I had kind had put in the back of my mind, for now. But now he read my "theoretical considerations" document he seems to be less suspicious about it now and less reluctant that I decided to use it as a framework. He also liked the document, specially the analogy of trip to an unknown city, regarding the question about using or not a framework to guide research.
He asked me to put together a list of "what the story is about", which is a great way of thinking for me, as this is what I do, I put stories together. He also clarified to which extent I need to explain "how I did it". He thinks, for example, that the story of the badge is a good example that shows I was sensitive to the constraints of the field, and to the people around me, which is a good methodological point, but the limit to which I need to tell the story "behind the scenes" in the theses.
There is another framework, which he used in his theses, by Rasmunssen, which in a way talks about the same things that AT does, with another language. He says it is enormous and very complicated to get your head around it, but recommended I read chapter 2 of his (Simon's) theses, where there is a good summary of it all.
I feel rested and today I could stay at home and write all day long. But I am off to Leipzig now and will be back on Monday. Looking forward to knowing a new city, this time, without any maps!
Thursday 5 June 2008
The things that (only) people do when you get close to them
"It is incredible what people let you do when you get close to them". That is what Simon said about the fact that yesterday I had the chance of observing a sub-editor doing her work, and talking aloud and explaining things to me. It was fascinating.
I didn't ask her to talk aloud. She just did. Not all the way through, but she did. And she explained errors when they happened. And they happened, oh lord, they did. :)
I'm feeling less uncomfortable, more capable of approaching people, but also a bit more annoying and less "news" to them. Which is good and bad. It is good because I am not supposed to be news, I am supposed to fade in the background. And bad because I don't have the excuse "hi I am new here" to introduce my conversations, so will have to come up with a different approach.
I will do a wrap up of the 1st week tomorrow, draw a route of the story as I understand it so far, make a list of issues I want to present to Simon, a list of questions I have for him, print the material produced -- specially the interviews -- and put together a plan for next week, including the people I have scheduled to talk to and a bit of a direction to the interviews I want to make to the head of news and the head of online.
One last point: I need to stop saying "right" every time the person I am interviewing stops talking. It is very annoying to hear when I am transcribing the audio. It must be annoying for them as well.
I didn't ask her to talk aloud. She just did. Not all the way through, but she did. And she explained errors when they happened. And they happened, oh lord, they did. :)
I'm feeling less uncomfortable, more capable of approaching people, but also a bit more annoying and less "news" to them. Which is good and bad. It is good because I am not supposed to be news, I am supposed to fade in the background. And bad because I don't have the excuse "hi I am new here" to introduce my conversations, so will have to come up with a different approach.
I will do a wrap up of the 1st week tomorrow, draw a route of the story as I understand it so far, make a list of issues I want to present to Simon, a list of questions I have for him, print the material produced -- specially the interviews -- and put together a plan for next week, including the people I have scheduled to talk to and a bit of a direction to the interviews I want to make to the head of news and the head of online.
One last point: I need to stop saying "right" every time the person I am interviewing stops talking. It is very annoying to hear when I am transcribing the audio. It must be annoying for them as well.
Tuesday 3 June 2008
The badge-trigger
Today I had a real revelation: badges can do you a big favor in an overt observation. At The Newspaper there are a lot subeditors or writers who are "casuals", i.e., that come to the newsroom in an irregular basis. And they do rotate a lot, there are a lot of different people coming and going everyday. So, as far as everybody is concerned, I am just another "sub", or another "temp".
So this morning I had an insight: I noticed that nobody wears their badges, which works as a security pass, opening doors and allowing you in and out of the building. My theory was that if I did wear a badge, it would be a sign for people to notice that I am not one of them. I dress up like them, (I'm wearing my glasses and hair tied back, which gives me this "journalist look"), do a lot of what they do: take notes and write in a computer, which allows my existence in the newsroom without causing disturbances.
But there is a little sign hanging around my neck saying "are you interested? talk to me!". And it worked! People looked at me and asked what on Earth I was doing there, which gave lead to explain the project and what I am doing and ask questions about them. It is quite tacky, but I don't mind. I think it is worth it. Also prevents me from losing it.
Strange are the triggers of conversations in the field...
So this morning I had an insight: I noticed that nobody wears their badges, which works as a security pass, opening doors and allowing you in and out of the building. My theory was that if I did wear a badge, it would be a sign for people to notice that I am not one of them. I dress up like them, (I'm wearing my glasses and hair tied back, which gives me this "journalist look"), do a lot of what they do: take notes and write in a computer, which allows my existence in the newsroom without causing disturbances.
But there is a little sign hanging around my neck saying "are you interested? talk to me!". And it worked! People looked at me and asked what on Earth I was doing there, which gave lead to explain the project and what I am doing and ask questions about them. It is quite tacky, but I don't mind. I think it is worth it. Also prevents me from losing it.
Strange are the triggers of conversations in the field...
Monday 2 June 2008
First day in the field
So, if all they say in the books about feeling extremely uncomfortable, quite lost and drained on your first day in the field is true, I think I am on the right path. It is one of the most exhausting things I have ever done. Because it is not like going to a press conference, where the "thing" you want to know is there in front of you, or interviewing someone looking for a lead that is news. It is more subtle than that.
Today I just let myself get acquainted with the place: who is who, who seats where, where is the bathroom, how does it all feels together. I think I did a good job on that.
It is a funny game to be an ethnographer: you want to be as discrete as possible, to "merge with the background", but you also need to be interesting enough for people want to talk to you. And I tested it today: it all depends on your attitude and your body language. I am sure that some people thought I am a complete weirdo, others got interested in what I do, others couldn't care less. But in all cases it really depended on my attitude.
The other thing is that it is quite difficult not to confuse it with "the first day in your new job". I don't work there, and I won't work there. These people are not my colleagues, they are my subjects, I am interested in what they do -- trivial that it sounds when I explain it to anybody outside my own little usability/ethnography world -- and how they do what they do. So that might be kept in mind.
Tomorrow is the second day. And I don't have the "admin+getting to know the place" excuse. I need to bring home some solid results.
Today I just let myself get acquainted with the place: who is who, who seats where, where is the bathroom, how does it all feels together. I think I did a good job on that.
It is a funny game to be an ethnographer: you want to be as discrete as possible, to "merge with the background", but you also need to be interesting enough for people want to talk to you. And I tested it today: it all depends on your attitude and your body language. I am sure that some people thought I am a complete weirdo, others got interested in what I do, others couldn't care less. But in all cases it really depended on my attitude.
The other thing is that it is quite difficult not to confuse it with "the first day in your new job". I don't work there, and I won't work there. These people are not my colleagues, they are my subjects, I am interested in what they do -- trivial that it sounds when I explain it to anybody outside my own little usability/ethnography world -- and how they do what they do. So that might be kept in mind.
Tomorrow is the second day. And I don't have the "admin+getting to know the place" excuse. I need to bring home some solid results.
Points of general interest
Before going to the field later on this morning, I elaborated this list of points that can be of general interest to me. It is short, which I think is a good thing, since each of these points can originate a paper of its own. I am sure, though, that it will be changed and expanded with time and as I get to know the business better.
• Process: how is a story born and how is the path it follows in the newsroom? What goals people have individually and how to they compare with the goals of the organization?
• Sources of news: original material x newswire material. Who produces them, how do they do that, why do they do that, what are the differences?
• Destination of news: online x paper for deadlines (time), formats, requirements, planning, editorial meetings, interactions with the readers, multimedia, people involved, production involved.
• Organization of the newsroom: how are desks distributed, “themed” x “un-themed desks”, hierarchies, flows of interactions
• Flows of interactions: communications, duplications, disposition, rules, means, “outlouds”…)
• Jobs: as they are described x reality, what each “type of job” does (editor, writer, subeditor, head of desk, etc)
• Routines: what are the routines people have in the newsroom, how were they created (may be impossible to find out), what purposes do they serve, how do they change?
• Added value: how does a story get “The Newspaper" value? How do the people involved in its production make it unique, how do they communicate about it. Novices x experienced journalists.
• Software: how does it support what they need to do? Different softwares for different activities?
• Documents: how are they used and produced. Tangibility, hierarchy, meanings, format (printed, screen, PDFs, available, not available, public, restricted, etc).
I believe that I will have to choose one of these to follow, instead of trying to understand them all. A good hint of that is Macaulay's theses, which is entirely focused on origin of news. My main flaw, so far, is that in the proposal for this project I didn't limit this focus, and offered a quite wide one ("how do journalists gather, process and convey information").
As for today, I need to talk to my gatekeepers and find out where I can start talking to people. An internal change in the company will make my life more difficult today (or not, because people love to criticize internal changes). It might not be a very productive day, but it is important that I leave the newsroom today with a sense of its dynamics, who is who, who seats where. According to Hammersley, I hope not to feel comfortable, because when one feels comfortable in the field it is a sign either that things are not going well or that they are finished.
Let's see what the day reserves
• Process: how is a story born and how is the path it follows in the newsroom? What goals people have individually and how to they compare with the goals of the organization?
• Sources of news: original material x newswire material. Who produces them, how do they do that, why do they do that, what are the differences?
• Destination of news: online x paper for deadlines (time), formats, requirements, planning, editorial meetings, interactions with the readers, multimedia, people involved, production involved.
• Organization of the newsroom: how are desks distributed, “themed” x “un-themed desks”, hierarchies, flows of interactions
• Flows of interactions: communications, duplications, disposition, rules, means, “outlouds”…)
• Jobs: as they are described x reality, what each “type of job” does (editor, writer, subeditor, head of desk, etc)
• Routines: what are the routines people have in the newsroom, how were they created (may be impossible to find out), what purposes do they serve, how do they change?
• Added value: how does a story get “The Newspaper" value? How do the people involved in its production make it unique, how do they communicate about it. Novices x experienced journalists.
• Software: how does it support what they need to do? Different softwares for different activities?
• Documents: how are they used and produced. Tangibility, hierarchy, meanings, format (printed, screen, PDFs, available, not available, public, restricted, etc).
I believe that I will have to choose one of these to follow, instead of trying to understand them all. A good hint of that is Macaulay's theses, which is entirely focused on origin of news. My main flaw, so far, is that in the proposal for this project I didn't limit this focus, and offered a quite wide one ("how do journalists gather, process and convey information").
As for today, I need to talk to my gatekeepers and find out where I can start talking to people. An internal change in the company will make my life more difficult today (or not, because people love to criticize internal changes). It might not be a very productive day, but it is important that I leave the newsroom today with a sense of its dynamics, who is who, who seats where. According to Hammersley, I hope not to feel comfortable, because when one feels comfortable in the field it is a sign either that things are not going well or that they are finished.
Let's see what the day reserves
Sunday 1 June 2008
Beginning of fieldwork
Tomorrow is my first day at The Newspaper. I am not very clear about how things are going to go, specially because they are launching a new design today, so the moods might not be very calm in the newsroom tomorrow.
I prepared my theoretical considerations and the one sentence explanation I will give to the gatekeeper when we meet in the morning, so he can help me finding out with whom I need to talk.
I'm not having a good personal day today and I am not as focused as I should be.
I prepared my theoretical considerations and the one sentence explanation I will give to the gatekeeper when we meet in the morning, so he can help me finding out with whom I need to talk.
I'm not having a good personal day today and I am not as focused as I should be.
Thursday 29 May 2008
Presentation + Plans
So, had my presentation about the project today and the fact that, even after preparing it I found it difficult to express what they outcomes of it could be is worrying.
Also had a meeting with Simon -- which was nice, given that I will start at The Newspaper on Monday! :O
We agreed:
1. On my first day I should be concentrating on finding out who I can talk to. That could in through talks with the two gatekeepers I identified. For that, I need to tell them what I am looking for, which leads us to point 2:
2. I will prepare a "one sentence explanation" of what I want to know. That could be in the format "I am interested in understanding...". From what I had the chance to talk so far it is basically: "I would like to understand how is the process of writing for the web and for the paper editions", so they can point me in the direction of seeing the people who make this process happen
3. We talked again about AT and I felt more confident in explaining it to Simon, specially the 3rd generation approach. He seems to see some sense in what I say, but I don't think he is entirely convinced though. Will finish that theoretical considerations document and send it to him. But he emphasized how I shouldn't be slaved by the theory, that I am good in eliciting data, finding out things and talking to people, so in his view ethnography is not that different from journalism. I couldn't disagree with him more on that point, but I understand what he means by being more "free" about how I look at this setting.
4.We agreed on a weekly meeting, on Fridays, to discuss my progress. That made me feel safer. And he also said I shouldn't feel like I'm bothering him at all
5. I am nervous and I can't relax, even if this is a fantastic thing to be able to do, I can't relax. I think I will feel better if I write more about the AT thing and think through this better.
6. Simon says that member checking is a good idea, but not the "continuous writing" idea. So I won't be writing stuff during the collection of data.
7. I need to reply to Kari Kuutti.
8. The gatekeeper didn't reply to my email. If he doesn't say anything until tomorrow morning I will write again.
Also had a meeting with Simon -- which was nice, given that I will start at The Newspaper on Monday! :O
We agreed:
1. On my first day I should be concentrating on finding out who I can talk to. That could in through talks with the two gatekeepers I identified. For that, I need to tell them what I am looking for, which leads us to point 2:
2. I will prepare a "one sentence explanation" of what I want to know. That could be in the format "I am interested in understanding...". From what I had the chance to talk so far it is basically: "I would like to understand how is the process of writing for the web and for the paper editions", so they can point me in the direction of seeing the people who make this process happen
3. We talked again about AT and I felt more confident in explaining it to Simon, specially the 3rd generation approach. He seems to see some sense in what I say, but I don't think he is entirely convinced though. Will finish that theoretical considerations document and send it to him. But he emphasized how I shouldn't be slaved by the theory, that I am good in eliciting data, finding out things and talking to people, so in his view ethnography is not that different from journalism. I couldn't disagree with him more on that point, but I understand what he means by being more "free" about how I look at this setting.
4.We agreed on a weekly meeting, on Fridays, to discuss my progress. That made me feel safer. And he also said I shouldn't feel like I'm bothering him at all
5. I am nervous and I can't relax, even if this is a fantastic thing to be able to do, I can't relax. I think I will feel better if I write more about the AT thing and think through this better.
6. Simon says that member checking is a good idea, but not the "continuous writing" idea. So I won't be writing stuff during the collection of data.
7. I need to reply to Kari Kuutti.
8. The gatekeeper didn't reply to my email. If he doesn't say anything until tomorrow morning I will write again.
Sunday 25 May 2008
IM and AT
I was running around the web trying to find some illumination for my ACS exam question about cultural influences in design and I bumped into the Interaction Culture blog. She, or he, I couldn't get it, has a tag dedicated to Activity Theory and even does an experiment on looking at Instant Messenger from an AT perspective. It is a good example how it is possible to do an AT analysis, that is of course, not very deeply rooted into the whole Russian-Scandinavian philosophical discourse, but that helps designers -- as the Mr. or Mrs. from the blog -- to understand what people do with a tool.
Also found another book by Nardi and Kaptelinin "Acting with Thechnology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design". It seems quite good and a reviewer say that they give practical examples of application of the theory model in real design situations. That's what I am looking for.
Also found another book by Nardi and Kaptelinin "Acting with Thechnology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design". It seems quite good and a reviewer say that they give practical examples of application of the theory model in real design situations. That's what I am looking for.
Friday 23 May 2008
Back to the methodological hell I am in
Problems I have at the moment with convincing myself that AT is a good framework for my study:
- Studies explore the "developing" feature of activity theory from an education perspective: how users acquire knowledge about the technology they use, how they go from being novices to being experts, how their actions evolve into (automatic ) operations and how design can support this transition. Mainly derived from Engërstrom line of thought in AT. THIS IS NOT MY CASE, there is no new technology being introduced at the moment at The Newspaper.
- Studies that focus on AT as a framework to inform design by providing a structure of analysis. THIS IS NOT MY CASE EITHER, because I am not designing anything for The Newspaper at the moment, no NEED for a new system was expressed. This could change as I get in there, I might realize that there is space for a new system and the company is interested, for example, in unifying the content management systems. I have been relying secretly on this possibility, so I decided to make explicit, because it is an enormous bias I can get myself into. Don't think like this!
-I am not studying how artifacts change with activity, nor how can activity change with the introduction of new artefacts. Does this tell me something?
- I wrote to Kari Kuutti in a desperate attempt to find light.
- Studies explore the "developing" feature of activity theory from an education perspective: how users acquire knowledge about the technology they use, how they go from being novices to being experts, how their actions evolve into (automatic ) operations and how design can support this transition. Mainly derived from Engërstrom line of thought in AT. THIS IS NOT MY CASE, there is no new technology being introduced at the moment at The Newspaper.
- Studies that focus on AT as a framework to inform design by providing a structure of analysis. THIS IS NOT MY CASE EITHER, because I am not designing anything for The Newspaper at the moment, no NEED for a new system was expressed. This could change as I get in there, I might realize that there is space for a new system and the company is interested, for example, in unifying the content management systems. I have been relying secretly on this possibility, so I decided to make explicit, because it is an enormous bias I can get myself into. Don't think like this!
-I am not studying how artifacts change with activity, nor how can activity change with the introduction of new artefacts. Does this tell me something?
- I wrote to Kari Kuutti in a desperate attempt to find light.
The New New Journalism
Went to an Innovation Forum talk yesterday, the "New new journalism". Interesting to be in a room full of journalists again, but not very interesting conversation. Lots of the old "we need reporters instead of people with phone cameras", and "we must seek the absolute truth" and stuff. Not very interesting from the design point of view either, I didn't get much from it.
Charlie Beckett (who just published his book "Super Media") in his defense of a brighter future to "the journalism we can all do", said some interesting things about "public searches" -- I guess that pretty much the same as crowd sorting, like the people who scrutinized satellite pictures to find the guy who got lost in the desert. Interesting point of view on "crowdfunding" to journalism.
A bit of a waste of time for my project, as didn't get the chance to talk about technology at work, they all seemed more interested in technology for the masses: blogs, videos, twitters, etc, etc. Good to catch up with general facts (or more like general opinion) conversation.
Charlie Beckett (who just published his book "Super Media") in his defense of a brighter future to "the journalism we can all do", said some interesting things about "public searches" -- I guess that pretty much the same as crowd sorting, like the people who scrutinized satellite pictures to find the guy who got lost in the desert. Interesting point of view on "crowdfunding" to journalism.
A bit of a waste of time for my project, as didn't get the chance to talk about technology at work, they all seemed more interested in technology for the masses: blogs, videos, twitters, etc, etc. Good to catch up with general facts (or more like general opinion) conversation.
Saturday 17 May 2008
What is compelling about using a theoretical approach in a theses?
The way I see the question about using a theoretical framework or not compares to the trip to an unknown city. If I have never been to a place before, I have two choices: the first alternative is to get a map of the city and study it to find out where are the things I would like to do and see, the places I would like to visit – and likewise to find out the ones I am not interested in and how to avoid them. The other alternative is I forget the map and just explore the city freely and let myself be charmed by it.
There are obvious advantages and disadvantages to each way and I will have different experiences depending on which one I choose: without the guide I might be surprised by the different things I find on my journey, and even become acquainted with things I never knew that existed or that were located in those places, or in that city. I might even have a richer experience by letting one place lead to another and making a path of my own, which would be a very special and unique trip. However, there is the risk I will leave the city thinking: was there anything else there that I could have found very interesting and I didn’t see? Or worse even: did I just miss the best thing in town?
On the other hand, with the guide I can make sure I visit the places and things I would like to see, I can make my judgment if that was interesting or not. But I will also be aware of the points of the city I haven’t been and draw conclusions of why I didn’t go: because I was not interested or because I spent my time enjoying one particular place or attraction I had planned to visit. It can be more of a boring way of seeing things, but at least I won’t come back with the feeling of missing something,.
However trivial this metaphor may be, I think it helps me explain why I am interested in making use of a theoretical framework in this research: according to Wolcott (1995) the choosing to use or not a theoretical framework is ultimately a question of personal taste. For this matter, I am more of guide a sort of person.
It is clear that this top-down approach to field research contradicts much of what the inventors of Grounded Theory and preachers of inductive methods in general would see as the correct thing to do: for them, the emergence of theory from raw data is what creates theory. However, I don’t believe that complementing the bottom up approach with a theoretical structure can be disadvantageous from a practical point of view of a study that needs to be focused, specific and concluded in a short period of time.
I don’t see Activity Theory, or CHAT as a straight jacket to which fieldwork is supposed to fit, but as a guide to what areas I could be interested in looking within the limits of my research. Quite the opposite, I don’t intend to adapt the fieldwork to it: the theory is supposed to serve the purpose of the research, not to slave it.
There are obvious advantages and disadvantages to each way and I will have different experiences depending on which one I choose: without the guide I might be surprised by the different things I find on my journey, and even become acquainted with things I never knew that existed or that were located in those places, or in that city. I might even have a richer experience by letting one place lead to another and making a path of my own, which would be a very special and unique trip. However, there is the risk I will leave the city thinking: was there anything else there that I could have found very interesting and I didn’t see? Or worse even: did I just miss the best thing in town?
On the other hand, with the guide I can make sure I visit the places and things I would like to see, I can make my judgment if that was interesting or not. But I will also be aware of the points of the city I haven’t been and draw conclusions of why I didn’t go: because I was not interested or because I spent my time enjoying one particular place or attraction I had planned to visit. It can be more of a boring way of seeing things, but at least I won’t come back with the feeling of missing something,.
However trivial this metaphor may be, I think it helps me explain why I am interested in making use of a theoretical framework in this research: according to Wolcott (1995) the choosing to use or not a theoretical framework is ultimately a question of personal taste. For this matter, I am more of guide a sort of person.
It is clear that this top-down approach to field research contradicts much of what the inventors of Grounded Theory and preachers of inductive methods in general would see as the correct thing to do: for them, the emergence of theory from raw data is what creates theory. However, I don’t believe that complementing the bottom up approach with a theoretical structure can be disadvantageous from a practical point of view of a study that needs to be focused, specific and concluded in a short period of time.
I don’t see Activity Theory, or CHAT as a straight jacket to which fieldwork is supposed to fit, but as a guide to what areas I could be interested in looking within the limits of my research. Quite the opposite, I don’t intend to adapt the fieldwork to it: the theory is supposed to serve the purpose of the research, not to slave it.
Monday 12 May 2008
Grounded Theory (again)
Interesting text by Cutcliffe, J.R. "Methodological issues in grounded theory":
- He proposes a combination of the methods proposed - separately - by Glaser and Strauss. He says that any attempt of a purist approach to the method can only constrain the gathering of data.
- However, he advocates the strict definition and execution of the methodology once it is chosen. Not being able to describe the method used for the gathering/analysis of data is, according to him, one of the greatest weaknesses of grounded theorists.
- He is in favour of pre-field revision of literature and use of researcher's background knowledge -- for what Glaser's must be turning in his thumb. Fair point: if the researcher doesn't know what has been written about the matter of investigation, how can he possibly know what to look at. Some minimal direction must be taken.
- Understandably so, Cutcliffe doesn't seem to think that researchers should choose their informants before the observations take place. But he does think that an activity that can -- and should -- take place before the observation period starts is the definition of criteria to choose the informants. What should informants have or be to be good informants for this specific research? Generally, informants are people who have content knowledge about the phenomenon being studied and who are willing to talk. However, each field and each research questions turns itself to one -- or more -- people in the field, and these are the informants for this specific study. POINT TO THINK ABOUT.
- Insists in the importance of doing theoretical coding as well as substantial coding. According to him, substantial coding are called this because they codify the substance of the data and often use the very words used by the actors themselves. I think I am on the right way for this one. What about theoretical coding? Is it categorizing?
This article was published on the Journal of Advanced Nursing, in 2000. Funny eh?
- He proposes a combination of the methods proposed - separately - by Glaser and Strauss. He says that any attempt of a purist approach to the method can only constrain the gathering of data.
- However, he advocates the strict definition and execution of the methodology once it is chosen. Not being able to describe the method used for the gathering/analysis of data is, according to him, one of the greatest weaknesses of grounded theorists.
- He is in favour of pre-field revision of literature and use of researcher's background knowledge -- for what Glaser's must be turning in his thumb. Fair point: if the researcher doesn't know what has been written about the matter of investigation, how can he possibly know what to look at. Some minimal direction must be taken.
- Understandably so, Cutcliffe doesn't seem to think that researchers should choose their informants before the observations take place. But he does think that an activity that can -- and should -- take place before the observation period starts is the definition of criteria to choose the informants. What should informants have or be to be good informants for this specific research? Generally, informants are people who have content knowledge about the phenomenon being studied and who are willing to talk. However, each field and each research questions turns itself to one -- or more -- people in the field, and these are the informants for this specific study. POINT TO THINK ABOUT.
- Insists in the importance of doing theoretical coding as well as substantial coding. According to him, substantial coding are called this because they codify the substance of the data and often use the very words used by the actors themselves. I think I am on the right way for this one. What about theoretical coding? Is it categorizing?
This article was published on the Journal of Advanced Nursing, in 2000. Funny eh?
About using video
I read Jirotkas manual about it and also a couple of other things and my considerations are:
- It is true that in the long term video is a powerful tool, because it can store a moment for further consultation. If I am doing a PhD to build on this work, this might be a good idea.
- On the other side, video is a very difficult thing to analyse. And I have no training on that. I might be trying to bite more than I can chew.
- More than difficult, analising video takes a long time. And I don't have a long time now.
I will discuss it with Simon at our meeting this week.
Also meeting Paul Luff on Wednesday, at Kings College.
- It is true that in the long term video is a powerful tool, because it can store a moment for further consultation. If I am doing a PhD to build on this work, this might be a good idea.
- On the other side, video is a very difficult thing to analyse. And I have no training on that. I might be trying to bite more than I can chew.
- More than difficult, analising video takes a long time. And I don't have a long time now.
I will discuss it with Simon at our meeting this week.
Also meeting Paul Luff on Wednesday, at Kings College.
Thursday 8 May 2008
Conversations
Great day yesterday! Met Marina Jirotka for a chat near Paddington station and it was very fruitful. She told me about her research in the City and how she did it. Highlights from conversation:
- She is not a very big fan of Activity Theory or of any theory really. She thinks they are not very useful and she never used them anyway.
- She gave me a print out of her to be published book - Notes towards applied Ethnography, which basically contains a lot of what I was going to ask her in the first place
- She reckons I should use a camera in my observations at The Newspaper. She believes it gives you a security of a resource that you can consult even after the observations.
- She thinks it is a good idea if I don't tell anyone about the fact I am a journalist myself.
- She advised me to talk to Kari Kuuti if I am really interested in Activity Theory. I shall do so.
She also advised me to talk to Paul Luff, who did an ethnography in a radio station in London.
- She is a great woman and really fun to talk to!
PS: It's sunny and I found dulce de leche at the supermarket! Yehyeeee!
- She is not a very big fan of Activity Theory or of any theory really. She thinks they are not very useful and she never used them anyway.
- She gave me a print out of her to be published book - Notes towards applied Ethnography, which basically contains a lot of what I was going to ask her in the first place
- She reckons I should use a camera in my observations at The Newspaper. She believes it gives you a security of a resource that you can consult even after the observations.
- She thinks it is a good idea if I don't tell anyone about the fact I am a journalist myself.
- She advised me to talk to Kari Kuuti if I am really interested in Activity Theory. I shall do so.
She also advised me to talk to Paul Luff, who did an ethnography in a radio station in London.
- She is a great woman and really fun to talk to!
PS: It's sunny and I found dulce de leche at the supermarket! Yehyeeee!
Tuesday 6 May 2008
design interactions, not applications
Among my readings of the weekend, the paper by Saul Greenberg, who revisits the concept of context and analyzes why designers find it so difficult to build context awareness applications.
He gives a brief explanation of three theories of context: Situated Actions, (our most beloved) Activity Theory and another approach I have never heard of before, the "locales framework".
According to the author "the Locales framework was developed as a principled approach to help people understand the nature of social activity and work, and how a locale (or place) can support these activities ... In many ways, the Locales framework is about the social construction and use of context, and it too recognizes its dynamic properties. Locales (the site and means) are the external contributors to context; although locales can be fixed, most are fluid.
His overall argument, though, is more interesting: if in many cases some contextual situations are fairly stable, discernible and predictable, there are many others that are not.
That implies that 1) it may be impossible to determine an appropriate set of canonical states of context 2) determining what information is necessary to infer a contextual state may be difficult and 3) determining an appropriate action from a given context may be difficult, because the kind of responses that people expect from a context-aware application are very situation-dependable.
So here I must agree with Suchman when she says that human beings don't plan anything: they just react. We do, we are opportunistic creatures who optimize the path to accomplish a task that will require the least effort.
From his brief description of the "context theories", general perceptions arise:
- interactions evolve over time, therefore the historical character of activity is relevant for understanding the interaction
- people have particular views of the same things (or places, or practices) so the individual's history counts when analyzing a context
- artefacts are the media by which people achieve goals, they are not (or shouldn't be) the goal itself
We should aim to design interactions, not applications.
He gives a brief explanation of three theories of context: Situated Actions, (our most beloved) Activity Theory and another approach I have never heard of before, the "locales framework".
According to the author "the Locales framework was developed as a principled approach to help people understand the nature of social activity and work, and how a locale (or place) can support these activities ... In many ways, the Locales framework is about the social construction and use of context, and it too recognizes its dynamic properties. Locales (the site and means) are the external contributors to context; although locales can be fixed, most are fluid.
His overall argument, though, is more interesting: if in many cases some contextual situations are fairly stable, discernible and predictable, there are many others that are not.
That implies that 1) it may be impossible to determine an appropriate set of canonical states of context 2) determining what information is necessary to infer a contextual state may be difficult and 3) determining an appropriate action from a given context may be difficult, because the kind of responses that people expect from a context-aware application are very situation-dependable.
So here I must agree with Suchman when she says that human beings don't plan anything: they just react. We do, we are opportunistic creatures who optimize the path to accomplish a task that will require the least effort.
From his brief description of the "context theories", general perceptions arise:
- interactions evolve over time, therefore the historical character of activity is relevant for understanding the interaction
- people have particular views of the same things (or places, or practices) so the individual's history counts when analyzing a context
- artefacts are the media by which people achieve goals, they are not (or shouldn't be) the goal itself
We should aim to design interactions, not applications.
Coding
Difficult day after a long break (bank holiday). I managed to do some reading during the weekend, but didn't succeed much in concentrating.
Today I read Strauss & Corbin, Chapter 8 on "Open Coding", all about phenomena, concepts, categories, subcategories, properties and dimensions. We give names to phenomena, transforming them into concepts so we can make sense of them, compare them, group them and analyze them, and in the end, make theory out of them. When we put names on things we fix our attention on them and ask questions about them. This is why coding is important.
I was not entirely convinced by Strauss and Corbin's arguments and even less clear about how to do it. So I gave it a go and did it to the data (interview) I collected at The Newspaper last week. I am not quite sure about how accurate my understanding is, but as I told Simon: the advantage of researching versus doing journalism is that with research you don't find out that you had the long lead by reading all the other newspapers the morning after. In research you are all the other newspapers and even better: you can come back and re-write the lead if you find out it is wrong.
Today I read Strauss & Corbin, Chapter 8 on "Open Coding", all about phenomena, concepts, categories, subcategories, properties and dimensions. We give names to phenomena, transforming them into concepts so we can make sense of them, compare them, group them and analyze them, and in the end, make theory out of them. When we put names on things we fix our attention on them and ask questions about them. This is why coding is important.
I was not entirely convinced by Strauss and Corbin's arguments and even less clear about how to do it. So I gave it a go and did it to the data (interview) I collected at The Newspaper last week. I am not quite sure about how accurate my understanding is, but as I told Simon: the advantage of researching versus doing journalism is that with research you don't find out that you had the long lead by reading all the other newspapers the morning after. In research you are all the other newspapers and even better: you can come back and re-write the lead if you find out it is wrong.
Friday 2 May 2008
A little 45 dgrees difference
Just a comic note: I was very amused to find this book in the library today:Pink, Sarah.: Doing visual ethnography : images, media and representation in research / Sarah Pink.. 2nd ed.. London : SAGE, 2007..
There she is, Dr. Pink, interested in how images can be introduced in the ethnographic analysis, published author and good writer (you have to be if you are an ethnographer, right?)
Funny!
I might write to her...
Thursday 1 May 2008
First impressions... 'blink' rules
Had first taste of The Newspaper today. Some interesting findings, some confusing ones. They are in the middle of an "integration process" between the online and the paper editions. This can be good and bad news. It can be good to watch that happen, it can be bad because I will just miss it by a month. To catch it still "separate" I would have to start there tomorrow.
According to the "integration project leader" - to whom I talked today -- regarding my question about how the journalists work is divided he said that there isn’t a division to write in one and not in the other ...that distinction has really drindled away.
That leads us to the question: so it did exist one day?
Yes, we did for a period, and it is not entirely integrated, we did have a period where they worked for the online only, but that distinction is now pretty much gone. There is still a little bit of that in “news” but things are changing, we will soon rearrange part of the newsroom so some of those guys will be re-housed, this distinction we will get away from. They are reporters for The Newspaper and that’s it.
The whole thing is part of a big structure re-organization that happened when the new editor took over last year. He created a position called "head of news", who is "a crossing platform", is "the director of traffic on both sides" and "roles the ship".
Now here is where we get interesting: The journalists just write the text and deliver it "raw" to the sub-editors. These guys are the ones who are going to cut it and dress it to the different outlets: print or online.
Also had the chance of watching the morning editorial meeting, which is pretty crazy for an outsider. I tried not to get bogged down with things I already know, like what is the document they all follow, and how these meetings are generally. The strange thing, I realized, is that I have always participated of these meetings by phone, never live.
It is exciting to watch people. It was also difficult to take notes of the "what was happening" instead of the "content". There were times I started taking notes about the stories they were discussing, as if I were in a press conference.
Tried to identify people by what they were saying and match it to what they were wearing -- a silly attempt of remembering them latter). I have good face recognition features and spent time trying to fix their faces in my head.
Lots of questions in mind. Lots of note taking. Lots of reporting back. Created a flow chart of the "life of a story" as of these first of today.
Will get the chance of another interview, this time with another guy who is quite senior (but wasn't at the editorial meeting today)
Uf, it's happening. I can't scape!
PS: strangely enough I read an article about this book Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell, which I read sometime ago, and talks about the power of first impressions. They do!
According to the "integration project leader" - to whom I talked today -- regarding my question about how the journalists work is divided he said that there isn’t a division to write in one and not in the other ...that distinction has really drindled away.
That leads us to the question: so it did exist one day?
Yes, we did for a period, and it is not entirely integrated, we did have a period where they worked for the online only, but that distinction is now pretty much gone. There is still a little bit of that in “news” but things are changing, we will soon rearrange part of the newsroom so some of those guys will be re-housed, this distinction we will get away from. They are reporters for The Newspaper and that’s it.
The whole thing is part of a big structure re-organization that happened when the new editor took over last year. He created a position called "head of news", who is "a crossing platform", is "the director of traffic on both sides" and "roles the ship".
Now here is where we get interesting: The journalists just write the text and deliver it "raw" to the sub-editors. These guys are the ones who are going to cut it and dress it to the different outlets: print or online.
Also had the chance of watching the morning editorial meeting, which is pretty crazy for an outsider. I tried not to get bogged down with things I already know, like what is the document they all follow, and how these meetings are generally. The strange thing, I realized, is that I have always participated of these meetings by phone, never live.
It is exciting to watch people. It was also difficult to take notes of the "what was happening" instead of the "content". There were times I started taking notes about the stories they were discussing, as if I were in a press conference.
Tried to identify people by what they were saying and match it to what they were wearing -- a silly attempt of remembering them latter). I have good face recognition features and spent time trying to fix their faces in my head.
Lots of questions in mind. Lots of note taking. Lots of reporting back. Created a flow chart of the "life of a story" as of these first of today.
Will get the chance of another interview, this time with another guy who is quite senior (but wasn't at the editorial meeting today)
Uf, it's happening. I can't scape!
PS: strangely enough I read an article about this book Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell, which I read sometime ago, and talks about the power of first impressions. They do!
Tuesday 29 April 2008
Little attention to work practices? Here I go!
Singer et al 1999 showed that online newsrooms are filled with young journalists with different educational backgrounds than their print counterparts and that their main activity is known as "shovelware": 'taking information generated originally for a paper's printed edition and deploying it virtually unchanged onto its website'.
However, Boczkowski says that this trend is being reverted and that there is more original material being produced by online newsrooms (is it true?). Moreover, he suggests that original material may be a more appropriate ground to examine changes in the technologies and practices of newspapers as it moves from the paper to the screen.
He also suggests that despite the great amount of work that has been done in investigating newspaper technological changes, the majority of this work "has remained confined to the familiar landscape of notions and models such as gatekeeping, agenda-settings", etc, commonly investigated in new media studies. He complements his reflection by saying that further research is needed that could lead to a multidisciplinary theory building about online newspapers, such as the fields of sociology and anthropology and contextual approaches to knowing, such as activity theory and distributed cognition (Horray!!)
Even better: he says that little attention has been paid to the role of technology in the actual work practices of editorial personnel -- something which is not surprising given the neglect of technology's role in most studies of news-making in print and broadcast media.
And gets better and better: "further research is needed to illuminate what goes on in the creation of original content, taking advantage of the the web's unique technical features...and more conceptually, examining the role of technology in news-making, a long-overdue theme in sociology of news production... Potential issues include (4) the changes in gathering, processing and delivery of news content in relation to having multiple media for storing ad conveying information" (this guy read my proposal... ) :)
Dammm!
However, Boczkowski says that this trend is being reverted and that there is more original material being produced by online newsrooms (is it true?). Moreover, he suggests that original material may be a more appropriate ground to examine changes in the technologies and practices of newspapers as it moves from the paper to the screen.
He also suggests that despite the great amount of work that has been done in investigating newspaper technological changes, the majority of this work "has remained confined to the familiar landscape of notions and models such as gatekeeping, agenda-settings", etc, commonly investigated in new media studies. He complements his reflection by saying that further research is needed that could lead to a multidisciplinary theory building about online newspapers, such as the fields of sociology and anthropology and contextual approaches to knowing, such as activity theory and distributed cognition (Horray!!)
Even better: he says that little attention has been paid to the role of technology in the actual work practices of editorial personnel -- something which is not surprising given the neglect of technology's role in most studies of news-making in print and broadcast media.
And gets better and better: "further research is needed to illuminate what goes on in the creation of original content, taking advantage of the the web's unique technical features...and more conceptually, examining the role of technology in news-making, a long-overdue theme in sociology of news production... Potential issues include (4) the changes in gathering, processing and delivery of news content in relation to having multiple media for storing ad conveying information" (this guy read my proposal... ) :)
Dammm!
Journalists and the readers
Interesting chapter in "The Handbook of New Media" by Pablo Boczkowski (summary in a bit). Just a quick note to remember myself of including in the spectrum of my areas of interest to investigate is the journalists relationships with the readers.
Reseachers who have examined these relationships concluded that journalists are not very keen about it. Riley concluded that journalists were horrified of receiving an email from readers about a story they wrote and that the readers expected an answer! A study at The New York Times (Schultz, 2000:214) reports that 12 out of 19 journalists admitted they never visit the Times online forum.
Interesting thoughts: how is it now? Did they get used to it? Do novice journalists just take it for granted? How do they see the interactivity of the online edition? Is it a problem? Is it good? Is it more work? How do they perceive feedback to their story? Do they visit the online forums? if they do, why, because they want, because they are told to do so, because they perceive it as part of their job? If they don't, why? Do they get personal emails from readers? is it possible to contact a journalist (is their email address on the website? this I can find out by myself...)
Reseachers who have examined these relationships concluded that journalists are not very keen about it. Riley concluded that journalists were horrified of receiving an email from readers about a story they wrote and that the readers expected an answer! A study at The New York Times (Schultz, 2000:214) reports that 12 out of 19 journalists admitted they never visit the Times online forum.
Interesting thoughts: how is it now? Did they get used to it? Do novice journalists just take it for granted? How do they see the interactivity of the online edition? Is it a problem? Is it good? Is it more work? How do they perceive feedback to their story? Do they visit the online forums? if they do, why, because they want, because they are told to do so, because they perceive it as part of their job? If they don't, why? Do they get personal emails from readers? is it possible to contact a journalist (is their email address on the website? this I can find out by myself...)
Sunday 27 April 2008
Early-stage interview
"The aim of pre-fieldwork phase and in the early stages of data collection is to turn the foreshadowed problems into a set of questions to which an answer can be given, wether this be a narrative description of a sequence of events, a generalized account of the perspectives and practices of a particular group of actors, or a more abstract theoretical formulation. Sometimes in this process the original problems are transformed or even completely abandoned in favour of others". Hammersley and Atkinson (:28)
I hope that the latter is not my case.
The newspaper agreed on an early interview, to be held this month (May) with the manager with whom I talked to the first time I went there. I think this (Simon's brilliant idea) will cast away doubts and give me with some direction.
I am slightly nervous again, now I realize it is all happening in a month and I still didn't do half of the reading I wish I had done. Next reading, Strauss and Corbing on how to code for grounded theory.
I hope that the latter is not my case.
The newspaper agreed on an early interview, to be held this month (May) with the manager with whom I talked to the first time I went there. I think this (Simon's brilliant idea) will cast away doubts and give me with some direction.
I am slightly nervous again, now I realize it is all happening in a month and I still didn't do half of the reading I wish I had done. Next reading, Strauss and Corbing on how to code for grounded theory.
How we write reflects directly on what we write.
Hammersley on writing ethnography: (Chapter 9)
"It is not enough to prove 'evocative' or 'rich', in its descriptive detail... it is equally important that the ethnography should display and demonstrate the adequacy of its methodological and empirical claims".
Loflands criteria in evaluating qualitative research:
Criterion of use of generic conceptual framework, i.e., the extent to which the particular subject matter of the ethnography is located in wider conceptual frameworks? It is not enough to report particular stories or events. Successful interweaving of local and general.
Criterion of novelty: not that all ethnography seats on completely novel framework, but a successful text will show how ideas are being developed, tested, modified or extended. "The text will not be evaluated positively if it achieves no more than a chronicle of events in a particular setting.
It should be 'eventful', i.e. , endowed with concrete interactional events, incidents, occurrences, episodes, anecdotes, scenes and happenings in the real world. The analytical claims need to be 'grounded' or anchored in particularities of observed life. But it shouldn't be over eventful, though.
They also mention that, like any other text, the ethnographic report should be written with an audience in mind. They alert to the fact, however, that it is impossible to please all audiences.
"It is not enough to prove 'evocative' or 'rich', in its descriptive detail... it is equally important that the ethnography should display and demonstrate the adequacy of its methodological and empirical claims".
Loflands criteria in evaluating qualitative research:
Criterion of use of generic conceptual framework, i.e., the extent to which the particular subject matter of the ethnography is located in wider conceptual frameworks? It is not enough to report particular stories or events. Successful interweaving of local and general.
Criterion of novelty: not that all ethnography seats on completely novel framework, but a successful text will show how ideas are being developed, tested, modified or extended. "The text will not be evaluated positively if it achieves no more than a chronicle of events in a particular setting.
It should be 'eventful', i.e. , endowed with concrete interactional events, incidents, occurrences, episodes, anecdotes, scenes and happenings in the real world. The analytical claims need to be 'grounded' or anchored in particularities of observed life. But it shouldn't be over eventful, though.
They also mention that, like any other text, the ethnographic report should be written with an audience in mind. They alert to the fact, however, that it is impossible to please all audiences.
Bannon and Bodker
Another brilliant discussion about the limitations of the cognitive psychology approach to HCI.
"...It seems like we have to take the use process, and not the artefact, as the central object of our study. The way cognition is viewed in human activity theory is socially and historically situated, and it is tied to the physical conditions in which it takes place. Whatever action a human being makes in the world, this action is mediated by artefacts. In this view, the study of mediation becomes central to HCI".
Engerström (1987) look at change processes in organizational settings says that “the reason for someone to want a change is a contradiction between this person’s activity and the surrounding activities” (:244). He suggests studying contradictions between tools currently in use and the object created and the norms of the praxis and the division of work. He gives the example of a secretary who wants to do a better layout for a document and ends up using paper and glue, for the non existence or her lack of access to advanced designing tools.
These contradictions, he claims, may explain why the artefact may not work, which we wouldn’t have found out just by analysing the steps in the actual process (by doing a task analysis, for example). If we had just looked at the use of the word processor, nothing would have come up as “wrong”, because the processor would have been used anyway. What the AT framework provides is a wider look into the system. Engerström argues that “artefacts are used differently from original intentions, and that is why the need for new artefacts arise”:
"...It seems like we have to take the use process, and not the artefact, as the central object of our study. The way cognition is viewed in human activity theory is socially and historically situated, and it is tied to the physical conditions in which it takes place. Whatever action a human being makes in the world, this action is mediated by artefacts. In this view, the study of mediation becomes central to HCI".
Engerström (1987) look at change processes in organizational settings says that “the reason for someone to want a change is a contradiction between this person’s activity and the surrounding activities” (:244). He suggests studying contradictions between tools currently in use and the object created and the norms of the praxis and the division of work. He gives the example of a secretary who wants to do a better layout for a document and ends up using paper and glue, for the non existence or her lack of access to advanced designing tools.
These contradictions, he claims, may explain why the artefact may not work, which we wouldn’t have found out just by analysing the steps in the actual process (by doing a task analysis, for example). If we had just looked at the use of the word processor, nothing would have come up as “wrong”, because the processor would have been used anyway. What the AT framework provides is a wider look into the system. Engerström argues that “artefacts are used differently from original intentions, and that is why the need for new artefacts arise”:
Thursday 17 April 2008
Activity Theory - why we should all love it
So I resumed my readings about Activity Theory and had a nice chat with Ian about it. I was glad to read in a chapter of Nardi's Context and Consciousness one more of the main reasons why I am sympathetic to this theory: they way it views people.
(these are extracts from the notes I took when reading the text yesterday that I thought it would be nice to post here, just in case I forget in the future why I like AT so much)
"Another very important very important difference between DC and AT is in how they see the relation between people and artefacts. In AT, artefacts are seen as mediators of activity. The theory perceives humans as carriers of motive and consciousness, which objects and machines aren’t. Therefore people and artefacts can’t be seen as symmetrical or equivalent.
Conversely, DC treats both people and objects as “nodes in a system” and conceive a rather difficult to understand notion of artefacts as ‘cognizing entities’. However, a human can act in an unpredicted, unexpected, self-initiated way, according to social or personal motives. A machine or an object will always act in a foreseen, programmatic way. Therefore, a theory that posits equivalency between humans and machines damps out sources of systemic variation and contradiction that might have important ramifications for a system. So, the AT position would seem to hold greater potential for leading a more responsible technology design in which people are viewed as active beings in control of their tools for creative purposes rather than as automatons whose operations are to be automated away, or nodes whose rights to privacy and dignity are not guaranteed.
About the difference between AT and Situated Action (:44) about the three men that go nature walking: the bird watcher, the meteorologist and the entomologist. If the first two were only videoed, their behaviour would look exactly the same, but their goals are completely different: one looks for clouds, the other for birds. Now, suppose that the bird watcher is on a mission to create a list with all the birds in North America. This we would never learn only from observing these people. That is what AT brings to front: people’s motives. It gives us a vocabulary to talk about the walker’s activities in meaningful subjective terms and gives necessary attention to what a subject brings to a situation.
So if we want a world where technology is a means to an end, is a mediator that serves thinking, critical, active and reactive human beings, who are capable of planing and adapting to the circumstances, instead of just behaving as "nodes in a system", then AT is a good path to follow".
I find it strange the rejection it has in the academic melieu. I find it specially interesting how the lecturers from my course presented it to us with an almost deprecating way. The result, as expected, is that nobody from my course can hear about it and find me a weirdo for finding it interesting.
Apparently there is this guy Dan, who is working as a free lancer for Amberlight, who is interested in a commercial application of AT. I am curious to talk to him about it, specially, what does he think of the time span for an AT application. I am concerned about the time scale I would need in oder to, for example, see the historical changes in an environment. Or is it something that is possible to do at The Newspaper?
(these are extracts from the notes I took when reading the text yesterday that I thought it would be nice to post here, just in case I forget in the future why I like AT so much)
"Another very important very important difference between DC and AT is in how they see the relation between people and artefacts. In AT, artefacts are seen as mediators of activity. The theory perceives humans as carriers of motive and consciousness, which objects and machines aren’t. Therefore people and artefacts can’t be seen as symmetrical or equivalent.
Conversely, DC treats both people and objects as “nodes in a system” and conceive a rather difficult to understand notion of artefacts as ‘cognizing entities’. However, a human can act in an unpredicted, unexpected, self-initiated way, according to social or personal motives. A machine or an object will always act in a foreseen, programmatic way. Therefore, a theory that posits equivalency between humans and machines damps out sources of systemic variation and contradiction that might have important ramifications for a system. So, the AT position would seem to hold greater potential for leading a more responsible technology design in which people are viewed as active beings in control of their tools for creative purposes rather than as automatons whose operations are to be automated away, or nodes whose rights to privacy and dignity are not guaranteed.
About the difference between AT and Situated Action (:44) about the three men that go nature walking: the bird watcher, the meteorologist and the entomologist. If the first two were only videoed, their behaviour would look exactly the same, but their goals are completely different: one looks for clouds, the other for birds. Now, suppose that the bird watcher is on a mission to create a list with all the birds in North America. This we would never learn only from observing these people. That is what AT brings to front: people’s motives. It gives us a vocabulary to talk about the walker’s activities in meaningful subjective terms and gives necessary attention to what a subject brings to a situation.
So if we want a world where technology is a means to an end, is a mediator that serves thinking, critical, active and reactive human beings, who are capable of planing and adapting to the circumstances, instead of just behaving as "nodes in a system", then AT is a good path to follow".
I find it strange the rejection it has in the academic melieu. I find it specially interesting how the lecturers from my course presented it to us with an almost deprecating way. The result, as expected, is that nobody from my course can hear about it and find me a weirdo for finding it interesting.
Apparently there is this guy Dan, who is working as a free lancer for Amberlight, who is interested in a commercial application of AT. I am curious to talk to him about it, specially, what does he think of the time span for an AT application. I am concerned about the time scale I would need in oder to, for example, see the historical changes in an environment. Or is it something that is possible to do at The Newspaper?
Tuesday 15 April 2008
What it takes...
One general point about Hammersley and Atkinson: the general idea I get from this book about conducting ethnographic research is that there isn´t a formula or even a method to apply: the success of an interview or even of a whole field study counts as much on the state of things (circumstances) as it does on the researcher's savoir fair, on its ways with people and its means to get on with different situations, all based on ad hoc decisions.
Insider accounts
Hammersley and Atkinson Chapter 5: on insider accounts:
There are distinct advantages in combining participant observation with interviews, in particular the data from each can be used to illuminate the other. As Dexter notes from his research on the United States Congress, one's experience as a participant observer can have an important effect on how one interprets what people say in interviews. (: 131)
They also discuss the difficulties in selecting and having access to informants and people to interview. Also the problems in choosing the setting for an interview and deciding between an individual or group interview.
The advantages of the interview is that it can elicit different types of data, required by the changing demands of the research (:156)
As for the answers gathered, they shouldn't be treated as "the truth" about any phenomena, because they are only one person's account of that reality, but neither should be discharged, as they can be a valuable source of information about events and perspectives and practices of those who perform them. (:156)
About informants, they present Dean et al illustration of types: (:137)
(see book for details, it is pretty funny)
1. Informants that are specially sensitive to the area of concern
2. The more-willing-to-reveal informants
There are distinct advantages in combining participant observation with interviews, in particular the data from each can be used to illuminate the other. As Dexter notes from his research on the United States Congress, one's experience as a participant observer can have an important effect on how one interprets what people say in interviews. (: 131)
They also discuss the difficulties in selecting and having access to informants and people to interview. Also the problems in choosing the setting for an interview and deciding between an individual or group interview.
The advantages of the interview is that it can elicit different types of data, required by the changing demands of the research (:156)
As for the answers gathered, they shouldn't be treated as "the truth" about any phenomena, because they are only one person's account of that reality, but neither should be discharged, as they can be a valuable source of information about events and perspectives and practices of those who perform them. (:156)
About informants, they present Dean et al illustration of types: (:137)
(see book for details, it is pretty funny)
1. Informants that are specially sensitive to the area of concern
2. The more-willing-to-reveal informants
Friday 11 April 2008
Roles in the field
At the moment I am agonizing with the following doubt: should I tell the journalists at The Newspaper that I am a journalist as well or should I just be presented as an ethnographer.
I may sound overdramatic when I say “agonizing” but the questions has been a theme of an entire chapter (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983 chapter 4). When presenting what I consider a thorough account of “field relations”, the authors bounce back andd forwards with examples of advantages of the two options.
For example, Beynon (1983) explains that during his research at a school, telling the other teachers that he had taught for ten years worked out as a “bonus”. It and opened up the other teachers for more conversation as they considered Beynon to be “one of theirs”.
Hammersley and Atkinson go on saying that a problem that the ethnographer often faces is deciding “how much of self-disclosure” is appropriate or fruitful. They also quote Klatch (1988) whose investigative willingness to understand the social scene was confused with accordance with principles she was not particularly in agreement with. (The study was about women who are involved in right wing organizations).
The chapter also gives various examples of how personal characteristics of the researcher invariably influence the fieldwork: gender, ethnic group, religion, colour, sexual orientation, nationality, etc.
Other very interesting topic raised on this chapter is the variety of roles the ethnographer can adopt, the “theoretical social roles for field work”: complete participant, participant as observer, observant as participant and complete observer. Disregarding the detail about the theory, they do have one brilliant conclusion for this question:
“While ethnographers may adopt a variety of roles, the usual aim throughout is to maintain a more or less marginal position, thereby providing access to participant perspectives but at the same time minimizing the dangers of over-rapport. (…) The ethnographer needs to be intellectually poised between familiarity and strangeness, and (…) between stranger and friend. (…) the ethnographer is generally a marginal native”.
They also go about the stresses and strains of fieldwork, describing a variety of symptoms, from discomfort to physical pain, suffered by ethnographers in the past. They say that, however bad these feelings can be, the one thing to be avoided at all costs is the feeling of being at “home”: “the comfortable sense of being ‘at home’ is a danger signal. From the perspective of the marginal reflexive ethnographer there can thus be no feeling of ‘surrender’ or ‘becoming’. There must always be some intellectual distance – without that the ethnography can be transformed into an autobiographical account of a conversation. If the sense of being a stranger is lost, one might have lost the critical perspective.
So, what should I do? Should I tell the manager of the newsroom I would like to keep my background as a secret, take the role of the “acceptable incompetent” (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983: 103) and pretend all the time not to know what is “closure” and “lead” and all the journalistic jargon, or should I just let the truth out and tell them I had some experience as a journalist in the past?
I think that either way I will be misinterpreted. First because despite the fact I had some experience, I never have been to a newsroom except Reuters and other newspapers as a visitor. Second, I might know some jargon in Portuguese, but I’m certainly not fully acquainted with the English version of these, therefore it would be perfectly acceptable that, as a foreigner I ask silly questions about the language. Third, if I do decide to hide it, there is a possibility that I will slip that through a conversation as I get close to the people I will be conversing with.
So I think that my attitude is going to be the following:
- make sure I am introduced as a researcher from UCL, not a journalist
- reassure them I am no spy, no management “secret weapon” or consultant, that I am there to fulfil my own interest: writing my theses
- don’t lie about the fact that I have some experience as a journalist but don’t present it as a big deal, just mention it in the conversation
- feel entitled to ask questions about journalism practices and jargon I do know, but not in English
I may sound overdramatic when I say “agonizing” but the questions has been a theme of an entire chapter (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983 chapter 4). When presenting what I consider a thorough account of “field relations”, the authors bounce back andd forwards with examples of advantages of the two options.
For example, Beynon (1983) explains that during his research at a school, telling the other teachers that he had taught for ten years worked out as a “bonus”. It and opened up the other teachers for more conversation as they considered Beynon to be “one of theirs”.
Hammersley and Atkinson go on saying that a problem that the ethnographer often faces is deciding “how much of self-disclosure” is appropriate or fruitful. They also quote Klatch (1988) whose investigative willingness to understand the social scene was confused with accordance with principles she was not particularly in agreement with. (The study was about women who are involved in right wing organizations).
The chapter also gives various examples of how personal characteristics of the researcher invariably influence the fieldwork: gender, ethnic group, religion, colour, sexual orientation, nationality, etc.
Other very interesting topic raised on this chapter is the variety of roles the ethnographer can adopt, the “theoretical social roles for field work”: complete participant, participant as observer, observant as participant and complete observer. Disregarding the detail about the theory, they do have one brilliant conclusion for this question:
“While ethnographers may adopt a variety of roles, the usual aim throughout is to maintain a more or less marginal position, thereby providing access to participant perspectives but at the same time minimizing the dangers of over-rapport. (…) The ethnographer needs to be intellectually poised between familiarity and strangeness, and (…) between stranger and friend. (…) the ethnographer is generally a marginal native”.
They also go about the stresses and strains of fieldwork, describing a variety of symptoms, from discomfort to physical pain, suffered by ethnographers in the past. They say that, however bad these feelings can be, the one thing to be avoided at all costs is the feeling of being at “home”: “the comfortable sense of being ‘at home’ is a danger signal. From the perspective of the marginal reflexive ethnographer there can thus be no feeling of ‘surrender’ or ‘becoming’. There must always be some intellectual distance – without that the ethnography can be transformed into an autobiographical account of a conversation. If the sense of being a stranger is lost, one might have lost the critical perspective.
So, what should I do? Should I tell the manager of the newsroom I would like to keep my background as a secret, take the role of the “acceptable incompetent” (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983: 103) and pretend all the time not to know what is “closure” and “lead” and all the journalistic jargon, or should I just let the truth out and tell them I had some experience as a journalist in the past?
I think that either way I will be misinterpreted. First because despite the fact I had some experience, I never have been to a newsroom except Reuters and other newspapers as a visitor. Second, I might know some jargon in Portuguese, but I’m certainly not fully acquainted with the English version of these, therefore it would be perfectly acceptable that, as a foreigner I ask silly questions about the language. Third, if I do decide to hide it, there is a possibility that I will slip that through a conversation as I get close to the people I will be conversing with.
So I think that my attitude is going to be the following:
- make sure I am introduced as a researcher from UCL, not a journalist
- reassure them I am no spy, no management “secret weapon” or consultant, that I am there to fulfil my own interest: writing my theses
- don’t lie about the fact that I have some experience as a journalist but don’t present it as a big deal, just mention it in the conversation
- feel entitled to ask questions about journalism practices and jargon I do know, but not in English
This is my attempt to build a schedule for the days at The Newspaper
My objective with this is to see in a more graphical way what I have been thinking about lately. I need to make sure I observe the newsroom in different times and, if possible, at all times, in order to achieve a comprehensive combination of staff + time of the day + day of the week.
This way, if an event happens at a certain time in a certain day of the week I will be able to check not only if it happens also in other times of that same day, but also if it happens in other days of the week.
I am aware of the fact that it will be very difficult to follow this schedule by the line, since interviews and visits will be modulated by the process itself. But I found it important to have a plan that can guide me through it.
Maybe I am just a control freak. Maybe one cannot have such a plan when doing ethnography. Or maybe I just have to be good on it, which means being very adaptable to the circumstances and change the route halfway through the journey. I think I can do it.
Tuesday 8 April 2008
Bibliography
Again, no much news in this side of life.
Reading:
Crabtree, A. (2003) Designing collaborative systems: a practical guide to ethnography London: Springer.
“…the rationalist mentality embedded in methods of description so prevalent in the human sciences keeps us from looking at the essential issues in the workplace, which is to say that the rationalist methodologies gloss over and obscure the real world, real time character of work”. (p.46)
Dey, I. (2004) Grounded Theory. In Qualitative research practice edited by Clive Seale [et al.] London: SAGE p. 80-93
Good historical account of the origins of Grounded Theory, synthetic explanation of Strauss and Corbin's three phase coding system and sufficient critique of the method.
"Concepts can both reduce and enrich data: they reduce in the sense that they summarize a range of observations and they enrich because concepts convey connotations that facilitates connections with other concepts".
“Posing questions isn’t the same as presuming answers”
Hammersley, M. & Atkinson P. (1995) Ethnography:principles in practice 2nd ed.. London: Routledge.
Action
Replied Jirotka's email asking for an appointment
Reading:
Crabtree, A. (2003) Designing collaborative systems: a practical guide to ethnography London: Springer.
“…the rationalist mentality embedded in methods of description so prevalent in the human sciences keeps us from looking at the essential issues in the workplace, which is to say that the rationalist methodologies gloss over and obscure the real world, real time character of work”. (p.46)
Dey, I. (2004) Grounded Theory. In Qualitative research practice edited by Clive Seale [et al.] London: SAGE p. 80-93
Good historical account of the origins of Grounded Theory, synthetic explanation of Strauss and Corbin's three phase coding system and sufficient critique of the method.
"Concepts can both reduce and enrich data: they reduce in the sense that they summarize a range of observations and they enrich because concepts convey connotations that facilitates connections with other concepts".
“Posing questions isn’t the same as presuming answers”
Hammersley, M. & Atkinson P. (1995) Ethnography:principles in practice 2nd ed.. London: Routledge.
Action
Replied Jirotka's email asking for an appointment
Saturday 15 March 2008
Last updates
The DE module is totally sucking all my available time (and the brains too).
Last updates on the research site:
- Marina Jirotka replied to my email saying we could either talk on the phone or I could go to Oxford. Great!
- Had a meeting with Andrew Harder, from Flow Interaction, who did an ethnographic study of the London Underground for his theses a couple of years ago. He told me he used to sit in the back of the room, 2 or 3 hours per day and observe, literally. He let the data talk to him. He says it is agonizing, but things start shaping up little by little. He didn't use any kind of tool (like the Ethnographer or Atlas) to analyze the data, he used post-its that he stuck on his bedroom wall. A good point he made is the post its give a better visualization of the data and he found it easier to find patterns. That's valid point. He also said he didn't worry much about the implications to design, because as it was -- a MSc thesis -- it was already valid just as sn observation study.
Last updates on the research site:
- Marina Jirotka replied to my email saying we could either talk on the phone or I could go to Oxford. Great!
- Had a meeting with Andrew Harder, from Flow Interaction, who did an ethnographic study of the London Underground for his theses a couple of years ago. He told me he used to sit in the back of the room, 2 or 3 hours per day and observe, literally. He let the data talk to him. He says it is agonizing, but things start shaping up little by little. He didn't use any kind of tool (like the Ethnographer or Atlas) to analyze the data, he used post-its that he stuck on his bedroom wall. A good point he made is the post its give a better visualization of the data and he found it easier to find patterns. That's valid point. He also said he didn't worry much about the implications to design, because as it was -- a MSc thesis -- it was already valid just as sn observation study.
Monday 3 March 2008
The career of information
So, in response to my worries, yes, I just need to read more.
Harper agrees with me that there is very little in the literature to guide the novice ethnographer, who just goes to the field with fingers crossed and good faith he/she will "bump into" something interesting. That is why he decides to explain HOW he did his ethnographic research.
Summarizing it all, he bases what he calls his "field work programmes" into 3 main components:
1. Following the career of information
2. Rituals of induction
3. Undertaking interviews and observing work.
I am still trying to absorb this, but the idea of "following a career of information" sounds very appealing. Else, it fits perfectly into the AT framework, where the artefact plays a central role. Understand how a story is prompted, written, edited and published could be a good way to start.
"My view is that reference to the career of information (irrespective of whether that career might be manifest in a document or other artefacts) is a technique through which nearly all organizations can be mapped" (Inside the IMF - Harper - p. 70)
Harper agrees with me that there is very little in the literature to guide the novice ethnographer, who just goes to the field with fingers crossed and good faith he/she will "bump into" something interesting. That is why he decides to explain HOW he did his ethnographic research.
Summarizing it all, he bases what he calls his "field work programmes" into 3 main components:
1. Following the career of information
2. Rituals of induction
3. Undertaking interviews and observing work.
I am still trying to absorb this, but the idea of "following a career of information" sounds very appealing. Else, it fits perfectly into the AT framework, where the artefact plays a central role. Understand how a story is prompted, written, edited and published could be a good way to start.
"My view is that reference to the career of information (irrespective of whether that career might be manifest in a document or other artefacts) is a technique through which nearly all organizations can be mapped" (Inside the IMF - Harper - p. 70)
Lots of "why", lack of "how"
I am curious about something I had noticed and then Harper put into nice words: why is it that we find a lot of texts and papers defending the usefulness of ethnography as a method for collecting information about the context where activity is performed, but very very rarely we find a paper that actually describes HOW the ethnographic observation is done.
Maybe is it because I am only in the beginning of my reading and still didn't find much about it.
Harper's explanation is actually very convincing: he argues that by mid-1980's organizations were tired of being fooled by vendors, who promised a lot of things that technology at that stage couldn't do. So these companies started to make up their own way of finding out WHAT exactly workers need in these terms to improve their performance.
And that is, for example, when Participatory Design comes in. And also, that is when mangers realize that having an anthropologist to take a look at their company and help them in the task could be a good idea. So, basically, the first sparkle for the ethnographic approach started in the commercial world, not in the academia, where the REAL anthropologists are. By no means this diminishes the work of Suchman and Lyin, quite the opposite: they were the first to show that even in ORGANIZations, things don't happen quite in a ORGANIZide and rational way.
So, managers don't really want to know how ethnographers arrived at the conclusions they arrived: they are interested in the results, punto.
I think I need to read more. Need to find HOW to ethnograph.
Maybe is it because I am only in the beginning of my reading and still didn't find much about it.
Harper's explanation is actually very convincing: he argues that by mid-1980's organizations were tired of being fooled by vendors, who promised a lot of things that technology at that stage couldn't do. So these companies started to make up their own way of finding out WHAT exactly workers need in these terms to improve their performance.
And that is, for example, when Participatory Design comes in. And also, that is when mangers realize that having an anthropologist to take a look at their company and help them in the task could be a good idea. So, basically, the first sparkle for the ethnographic approach started in the commercial world, not in the academia, where the REAL anthropologists are. By no means this diminishes the work of Suchman and Lyin, quite the opposite: they were the first to show that even in ORGANIZations, things don't happen quite in a ORGANIZide and rational way.
So, managers don't really want to know how ethnographers arrived at the conclusions they arrived: they are interested in the results, punto.
I think I need to read more. Need to find HOW to ethnograph.
Sunday 2 March 2008
Quote - Harper
"According to the sociological view, documents are tools in the construction of fixed and shared meaning. (...) Without them, organizations would collapse". (Harper, p 42)
Saturday 1 March 2008
Inside the IMF
I just started reading this book by Richard Harper. He analysis the "document careers", i.e. the paths of documents inside the Fund, and how this picture contributes to understanding the institution dynamics as a whole. So far, I am truly amazed.
This book was not available at UCL's library and I had to request it to be purchased. I hope other people enjoy it as much as I am.
Besides that not much work done in the the project front. Emailed Jirotka asking her if she would talk to me. Fingers crossed!
This book was not available at UCL's library and I had to request it to be purchased. I hope other people enjoy it as much as I am.
Besides that not much work done in the the project front. Emailed Jirotka asking her if she would talk to me. Fingers crossed!
Monday 25 February 2008
Grounded Theory 1
This idea that "the data will just talk to you" is not only intangible, it is really scary. I was having nightmares involving all this labels, with these strange names and no faces talking to me in this strange sort of elvish/welsh. It felt really not-nice.
But today Simon -- my supervisor in this adventurous project -- shed some light into the matter with a good explanation of Grounded Theory.
First things first: Glazer is not a guy to trust much, at least not if you want to add some practicality to your life. Second, I secretly think he also had some horrible dreams of data talking to him at some point of his life. So he came up with this really good restaurant example
(scanned image)
First you get the open coding, when you just put labels in things. It is like adding stickers to a big folder. Then you things that go together, well, together. This is the axial coding, when the relationships between the things you named before start to "emerge" (I don´t like that word much). Finally you find this one central thing, that is supposed to be the focus of the whole data set you collected, and that is the your problem, and you arrange things around it. This is "the funneling process" I talk about in my proposal.
Obviously, these were not Simon's exact words, it is just my take on what he said.
The whole thing is less loose than I imagined it could be. But there is a huge risk of getting into a very big mess if the interpretation is not coherent. I also think that there will be a "freaking out moment", when nothing will actually make any sense. I need to trust it and go ahead.
PS: The next two posts were originally put with this one. To make justice to the current area of concern, I should be able to label things better, at least on my own blog. So I made different posts for each theme, despite the fact that they all happened today.
But today Simon -- my supervisor in this adventurous project -- shed some light into the matter with a good explanation of Grounded Theory.
First things first: Glazer is not a guy to trust much, at least not if you want to add some practicality to your life. Second, I secretly think he also had some horrible dreams of data talking to him at some point of his life. So he came up with this really good restaurant example
(scanned image)
First you get the open coding, when you just put labels in things. It is like adding stickers to a big folder. Then you things that go together, well, together. This is the axial coding, when the relationships between the things you named before start to "emerge" (I don´t like that word much). Finally you find this one central thing, that is supposed to be the focus of the whole data set you collected, and that is the your problem, and you arrange things around it. This is "the funneling process" I talk about in my proposal.
Obviously, these were not Simon's exact words, it is just my take on what he said.
The whole thing is less loose than I imagined it could be. But there is a huge risk of getting into a very big mess if the interpretation is not coherent. I also think that there will be a "freaking out moment", when nothing will actually make any sense. I need to trust it and go ahead.
PS: The next two posts were originally put with this one. To make justice to the current area of concern, I should be able to label things better, at least on my own blog. So I made different posts for each theme, despite the fact that they all happened today.
Academic Self-Esteem (with capital letters)
The other good point I got from today is that I need to learn to trust my project. I suffer from academic-low-self-esteem, maybe because I am not an academic person. I am quite a nerd though, so shouldn't really be so skeptical about the ideas I have and mainly about the potential of this project. Being insecure sucks, so I shouldn't be. From now on I will see this project as a cool thing to do and with a LOT of potential. I'd better bloody believe it, otherwise nobody else will.
People I should talk to
We also talked about me contacting the people Dr. Finkelstein recommended:
- Marina Jirotka, a lecturer at Oxford University who recently did an ethnography with the stock market brokers. I would love to know how she did this!
- Paul Luff and Christian Heath, from Kings College, who did the famous LUL project
- Dani Miller. I still don't know exactly who this is, but he is from the Anthropology Department at UCL, therefore, must be an interesting person.
There is another anthropologist I should talk to, called Caroline Hightmeyer, from LSE. I still have very little information about her, so I shall ask Dr. Finkelstein about it.
- Marina Jirotka, a lecturer at Oxford University who recently did an ethnography with the stock market brokers. I would love to know how she did this!
- Paul Luff and Christian Heath, from Kings College, who did the famous LUL project
- Dani Miller. I still don't know exactly who this is, but he is from the Anthropology Department at UCL, therefore, must be an interesting person.
There is another anthropologist I should talk to, called Caroline Hightmeyer, from LSE. I still have very little information about her, so I shall ask Dr. Finkelstein about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)