Importancia para el niño/a y el adolescente el grupo de amigos como ámbito de

3 Research design and methodology

This chapter describes the design of the research and the methods and practical tools used to address the research questions presented in the Introduction. Recall the primary intention of this research: To assess the suitability of different UCD processes, tools and techniques in a developing-world context, by actually attempting to design appropriate ICTs.

The literature review presented the two alternative UCD processes that will be applied. The first leverages an empathic [86] approach to user-centred design. The second uses a technology probe to extract user perspectives on a technology experience. As well as describing research methods and design, this chapter also describes the methodologies, tools and techniques used to design and evaluate the resultant artefacts.

The chapter begins with an overview of Design Research, the overarching framework for the current research.

existing knowledge to construct an artefact, then evaluates the results of the design intervention to build the knowledge base (see Figure 3-1). DR therefore aligns well with the objective of this thesis – to build knowledge regarding the application of the UCD methodology within a new domain of research, namely ICT4Dev design initiatives.

Figure 3-1: Owen’s general model for generating and accumulating knowledge

This brings us to a second attractive feature of DR. DR is particularly appropriate for use in complex, multivariate social situations that typically characterise ICT4Dev design initiatives.

The method encourages researchers to construct and deploy technological artefacts within real world rather than laboratory settings. This achieves two objectives: First, designers can assess the artefact’s in-situ performance, use and effect on the social situation. Second, they can at the same time reflect on the in-situ execution of the design process. This dual focus of DR effectively bridges the gap between research and practice.

3.1.2 Philosophical assumptions

The combination of DR with UCD yields a fundamentally interpretive method in which researchers learn by accessing perspectives on, and interpretations of, the social situation and effects of the planned actions from all participants, including themselves [41]. The underlying philosophical assumption is that language, consciousness and shared meaning offer valid access to the users’ reality [159]. The primary data collection instruments for an interpretive method are therefore qualitative tools such as participant observation, semi-structured interviews and inquiry. The UCD processes described in this thesis will leverage these tools to understand users and their context and to evaluate the designed artefacts created.

3.1.3 Potential shortcomings of DR

Baskerville and Wood-Harper [4] remind us that interventionist approaches have been criticised for their lack of rigor and impartiality. DR addresses the issue of rigor by operating within a set of structured processes and using well-documented rules, conventions and best practices based on the results of previous empirical research. In addition, this research wraps DR around UCD processes that are, as we will show in this chapter, themselves highly structured.

The problem of impartiality, and the effect of the designer on the validity of results, is common to most user-centric design projects where the designer engages directly with the target users. This can never be entirely overcome, but over time a clear and widely accepted set of mitigating tools and practices has evolved. The most useful is the practice of triangulating multiple quantitative and qualitative data sources, which we have adopted for this research [4].

3.1.4 A DR framework for UCD

DR is a necessary research framework within which to wrap our UCD processes, as UCD on its own does not include a learning phase within each design cycle. The learning phase is important because it encourages the designer to reflect on the execution of the design methods, tools and techniques used in each cycle and to combine the results of that reflection with the results of the findings produced in the evaluative phase of the cycle (‘Evaluate the design against the requirements’). DR also enforces iteration on the design process that it frames. UCD is often applied iteratively, but this is not a requirement.

More specifically, the DR framework to be used follows Zimmerman, Forlizzi and Evenson’s [165] model, which consists of the following phases:

1. Identify and engage with a problem.

2. Integrate existing design knowledge into the process (rules, best practices, conventions).

3. Design a prototype and evaluate it in situ.

4. Use findings to reframe the problem, reflect on the design process and iterate back to first phase.

The outputs of the model are a concrete framing of the problem, a detailed articulation of the preferred state and a description of the appropriateness of the artefact and the suitability of the

design process. The outputs of the design research cycles are then packaged and presented as a knowledge contribution [165].

A basic UCD process can be mapped onto a DR framework. The resultant process is as follows (see Table 3-1):

Table 3-1: DR mapped to a UCD process

DR UCD

Identify and engage with a problem Understand and specify the context of use Integrate existing knowledge Specify user and organisational requirements

Design a prototype Produce a design solution

Evaluate the prototype in situ Evaluate the design against the requirements Use findings to learn (reframe) the problem,

reflect on the design process

Inherited from DR: Reflect on the designed solution and the methods used to produce it’

Iterate back to first phase Inherited from DR: Iterate back to first phase

As noted above, we will explore two variants of UCD, presenting two alternative ways of understanding the social situation and integrating the resulting data into the design process.

The first, an empathic UCD process, encourages the designer to observe the target users performing their daily tasks in their ordinary social situation [86]. The second, a technology probe approach, exposes users to a high-fidelity technology prototype early on in the design process. Community uses and interpretations of the probe then serve as a catalyst for further design iterations.

The next section of this chapter detail each approach in turn. We will start by describing the empathic UCD process within its wrapping DR framework. We will also describe how several of the methods, tools and techniques described in the literature review were incorporated into the design process. These include Millen’s [103] key informants, the formation of local partnerships and a selection of tools from Participatory Design [81,82,110,111] to strengthen the author’s understanding of the context and to enhance communication, negotiation and buy-in amongst the local stakeholders.