TRABAJO EXPERIMENTAL

This section considers the nature of the different ways of collecting data concerning human behaviour. It will be taken that there are broadly two alternatives, although it is acknowledged that these might more properly be thought of as lying at opposite ends of a continuum. The aim is to assess these two extremes and to justify the choice of one of them. The section is organised with a discussion of their merits per se to begin with, followed by considering each with respect to the proposed

developmental method. A choice is made which is used in subsequent chapters (4, 5 and 6).

The first extreme would be characterised as reductionistic experimentation, and is typified in much of the research of Experimental Psychology. Briefly, it centres around the idea of eliminating or controlling as many of the variables in a situation as possible in order to gain an understanding of just one or two of them. Such research methods are closely associated with the Popperian view of the advancement of knowledge by refuting hypotheses.

The other extreme would be characterised as ecological research. This paradigm seeks to emphasise the richness of the world, but in so doing forsakes a great deal of the experimenter’s control over a situation, and thus the data gathered. Rather than hypothesise and test, this type of research would be more likely to rely on less structured observation.

There are proponents of this alternative. Brehmer (1984) discusses what has been termed ‘Brunswikian’ psychology, after its originator. This view distinguishes between an encapsulated psychology, concerned with the organism - i.e. the

psychological machinery without reference to the environment, and a functionalistic psychology. Encapsulated psychology is considered to have missed the point, in that psychological mechanisms have a specific use and must be studied in use. The need to study the organism in a context gives rise to functionalism:

“Consequently, the primary datum for psychological analysis should be achievement of goals under natural circumstances and further analysis should be directed at finding the strategies and tactics employed by the organism to reach its level of achievement” (Brehmer, 1984, p384).

Chapter 2

Much the same distinction is apparent in e.g. Chapanis (1988). He distinguishes between basic and applied research, where the former is equatable with traditional psychology laboratory research. The latter is not strictly the same as functionalism in that he uses the word ‘applied’ simply to indicate the degree to which the

experimental conditions match some current problem. Nevertheless, there is a feeling that this has some of the flavour of more ecologically valid research.

The choice is then between a functionalistic, ecological, approach, which forsakes control but promises to deliver a richer and fundamentally more relevant set of

observations, and the traditional experimental paradigm. The latter’s hypothesise and test mechanism will suffer from the limits of the experimenter’s imagination in the initial stages when little is known. The same is not true of less structured

observation.

9.1 Real-World observation

Several authors (e.g. Baddeley & Wilkins, 1984) have made remarks to the effect that one of the important benefits of practical studies is that they throw up new phenomena. In terms of the developmental method outlined in this chapter, this means that such studies are likely to contribute well to horizontal development, and thus to the final scope of the model.

Considering the contribution of such a study to the vertical development of a model, such data can be used in all three sub-categories. It can support debugging, but only in a passive sense. It can certainly support consolidation, and it is probably quite good for unpacking for the same reasons that it is good at horizontal development (because it turns up new things).

9.2 Manipulated, experimental research

This type of study might be expected to be less able to feature in the horizontal development of the model, for reasons already stated. Similarly, its contribution to unpacking might also be restricted. This type of data gathering is, however, likely to be much stronger when it comes to debugging a model. Rather than being limited to passive debugging, it would be possible to contrive a situation to answer a particular question, and thus actively debug the model. There is no reason why experimental research could not contribute to the consolidation of a model, although it should be remembered that such development is typically in the form of supportive evidence and thus contrary to the usual approach.

^ n ap ter z

In conclusion, it is the intention for this project to rely on observational data gathered in an uncontrolled, ecological, manner. This is partly a matter of choice, but also partly justified by the slightly more favourable balance of contributions such data is able to make to the development of a model according to the proposed method.

10. Summary

This chapter has reviewed what it means to model behaviour in the context of

Cognitive Ergonomics. From this consideration, a heuristic development method has been proposed. This method forms the basis for the research to be reported in the remainder of the thesis, and is reviewed in the final chapter.

v n a p i u j

The Initial