Matemática de FFT

Within the remit of CSCW, a variety of methodological approaches have been used to study col- laboration. Workplace studies have employed ethnographic techniques (Hughes et al., 1994) in a variety of environments, such as offices (Rouncefield et al., 1994), trading rooms (Heath et al., 1995), news rooms, operating theatres, control rooms (Heath et al., 2002b) and high risk environ- ments which demand full concentration, and where people’s activities are time-critical, highly interdependent and potentially life-threatening (Endsley, 1995, Gutwin and Greenberg, 2002). Other studies have looked at the complex interactions between people engaged in creative tasks and design activities (Healey et al., 2005, Healey and Peters, 2007). These ethnographic work- place studies typically attempt to characterise the interaction and group processes that take place through the presentation, analysis and detailed discussion of specific incidents within the ob- served interaction. For instance Heath et al. (1995) identified instances of individuals verbalising thoughts, activities and work-related information as a means of informally drawing co-workers’ attention to potentially salient details about the task at hand. These verbalisations were named ‘outlouds’, and were identified in a number of different workplace environments.

Furniss and Blandford (2006) and Hutchins (1996) used Distributed Cognition frameworks to develop rich accounts of interaction in work settings. Distributed Cognition can be used to explain some of the ways in which groups of people are able to collaborate despite holding in- complete, disparate or conflicting mental representations of the situation or activity. Distributed Cognition also considers the role objects, artefacts and technologies play in shaping and scaf- folding cognition and collaboration. Finally, Distributed Cognition has proved a useful tool for the study of musical interaction (Nabavian, 2009, Nabavian and Bryan-Kinns, 2006). Heath et al. (2002b) argued that an understanding of the ways in which groups of people engage in focused work activities can inform approaches to CSCW, however they stressed that the outcome of ob- servations about the way people work should not necessarily be embodied in the design of new collaborative systems until there is a thorough understanding of how people engage in conven- tional activities. Similarly, Rouncefield et al. (1994) stressed that in addition to systems design to support workplace collaboration, CSCW is concerned with ‘work redesign’, and consequentially CSCW research requires a sensitivity to the (possibly unexpected) implications such redesigns may have on the target workplace.

laboration are laboratory studies which take place in artificial or controlled environments rather than genuine work settings. By definition, this type of study observes participants in a unnatural context, rather than in a genuine workplace environment. This approach may give more options for data collection, by for instance allowing the researcher to set up multiple video cameras, inter- rupt participants during interaction (Endsley, 1995), conduct interviews and collect questionnaire information. In many cases, such methods cannot be used within purely observational workplace studies, as they might interrupt the people under observation, and disrupt the natural flow of the activities the researcher is attempting to study. The use of questionnaires and interviews might also alert the participants to the motivations of the researcher and could potentially cause the participants to alter their behaviour in response to what they believe the researcher is seeking to discover.

Evaluation of groupware in CSCW research is often based on an experimental approach where groups perform a task or work activity using interfaces with different features or support for collaboration. For instance Gutwin and Greenberg (1999) investigated different on-screen awareness widgets for supporting coordination in a shared document editors. Similarly Dourish and Bellotti (1992) explored the role of privacy in shared document editing by observing how groups collaborate using different interface configurations, and Olson et al. (1993) measured performance in group activities with and without technological support. Such studies can offer additional flexibility for the researcher, for instance in determining the activities participants are engaged in, and the introduction of additional constraints on the participants, such as limiting the time allocated for a given task or restricting the available resources.

Typical observations and measures in laboratory studies are task completion time, quality of the solution, ease of collaboration and user satisfaction. Gutwin and Greenberg (1999) described these features as Product (the result or outcome of a task), Process (the activity of the group while developing their solution), and Satisfaction (feelings about the work and interaction with the system). These metrics are appropriate within a work context where the emphasis is on efficiently completing a task to a high standard, and where the outcome and performance of the task is quantifiable (Olson et al., 1993). However in less productivity oriented domains such as music the balance may need to be adjusted. This issue is explored further in Chapter 3.

Grounded Theory (Charmaz, 2006, Glaser and Strauss, 1967) and Grounded Theory derived techniques (Muller and Kogan, 2010) are increasingly common research methods within HCI and

CSCW (Furniss et al., 2011, Muller and Kogan, 2010). The definition of Grounded Theory is a contentious issue, due to the conflicting ideological perspectives of some of its’ key proponents. Grounded Theory is based on a process of coding and continual comparison of coding with the data set, which is performed in tandem with data collection. The data collection and sampling process should also be informed by the on-going coding process. The method also requires copi- ous note taking, memo writing and comparison of these written documents with previous codes and collected data. This bottom-up approach is intended to promote the discovery or construction of theories which are ‘grounded’ in data, in opposition to methods which ‘forcing’ data into a preexisting theories. Grounded Theory methods typically propose that underly theories ‘emerge’ from the data set (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), although more constructivist views acknowledge the active role a researcher plays in the generation of such theories (Charmaz, 2006). Within this thesis, Grounded Theory methods are applied in Chapter 6.

In the case of both lab based studies and real-world observations, studying collaborative groups presents many practical challenges. In ethnographic studies gaining access to existing workplaces may be difficult, and the presence of the researcher may have effects on the activities being studied (Hutchins, 1996). On the other hand, Rogers et al. (2009) discussed the logistical problem of recruiting groups for experimental sessions, and implications this has for both exper- imental designs and reliable statistical results. Large numbers of sample groups may improve the reliability of statistical results, however finding a large quantity of suitable participant groups may be difficult, or impossible given limited research budgets, project timeframes and access to potential participants. In an experimental context the researcher may also need to balance the controls and manipulations introduced through the experimental design against the similarity the activity bears to a real-life work setting.