Qualitative HCI Research. Ann Blandford

Semi-Structured Qualitative Studies (SSQSs): understanding current needs and practices and evaluating the effects of new technologies in practice. The typical interest is in how to understand the world in terms that are useful for interaction design. This can often demand a “bricolage” approach to study design, adopting and adapting methods to fit the constraints of a particular situation. On the one hand this makes it possible to address the most pressing problems or questions; on the other, the researcher is continually having to learn new skills, and be open to new possibilities. Experience with qualitative projects and techniques will bring a maturity that will make these possibilities and adaptations easier to handle.

Table 2.1: Key features of techniques

Table 2.2: Key features of approaches

2.1 SO, YOU’VE GOT THIS GREAT IDEA OR BURNING QUESTION…

      Every study has a purpose. As noted already, within HCI there are two main roles for qualitative studies: the first starts by trying to understand people’s needs and the context within which a future technology might be used; and the second starts by assessing how well an existing technology is working and the effect that it is having on the people and the context. There are three common areas to focus on in HCI studies, as summarised below (see also Figure 2.1).

      1. How people exploit technologies to support cognition (e.g., Hutchins 1995; Attfield and Blandford, 2011), or developing theories of emotion, cognition and interaction to inform design (e.g., McCarthy and Wright, 2005; Schneider et al., 2016).

      2. How a particular kind of technology shapes people’s experiences (e.g., Palen, 1999; Kindberg et al., 2005). This includes ways in which a new product changes attitudes and behaviours and how the design of the product might be adapted to better support people’s needs and aspirations.

      3. The nature of particular “work” (where “work” might be a leisure activity, paid work, home work or voluntary work), and how interactive technologies support or fail to support that work (e.g., Hartswood et al., 2003; Hughes et al., 1994; Mentis et al., 2013).

      Figure 2.1: People use technology to achieve “work” (broadly conceived). The focus of HCI studies might be on or between any of these components.

      Some (e.g., Crabtree et al., 2009) argue that the only purpose of an ethnographic study in HCI is to inform system design. Others (e.g., Dourish, 2006) argue that designers need a rich understanding of the situation for which they are designing, and that one of the important roles for ethnography is to expose and describe that context for design, without necessarily making the explicit link to implications for design. The best designs are usually ones where the design team has a rich understanding of the intended users of their products. We are often reminded of the power of intuitive design (e.g., Moggridge, 2007), but when the design team cannot have good intuitions about their users, they need other means to put themselves in the user’s shoes. Rich qualitative studies describing people, technology and work have a valuable role to play in HCI: in particular, for the design and evaluation of technology, agenda setting, theory creation and critique of predominant design paradigms.

      Figure 2.2: Planning and preparation is of paramount importance to ensure that decisions about direction, sampling, editing, etc., result in a coherent and achievable project.

2.2 PLANNING AND PREPARATION

      One way to think about the planning of a study is in terms of the PRET A Rapporter (PRETAR) framework (Blandford et al., 2008a). This is a basic structure for designing, conducting and reporting studies:

      • Purpose: every study has a purpose, which may be more or less precisely defined; methods should be selected to address the purpose of the study. The purpose of a study may change as understanding develops, but few people are able to conduct an effective study without some idea of why they are doing it.

      • Resources and constraints: all studies must be conducted with the available resources, also taking account of existing constraints that may limit what is possible.

      • Ethical considerations often shape what is possible, particularly in terms of how data can be gathered and results reported.

      • Techniques for data gathering need to be determined (working with the available resources to address the purpose of the study).

      • Analysis techniques need to be appropriate to the data and the purpose of the study.

      • Reporting needs to address the purpose of the study, and communicate it effectively to the intended audiences. In some cases, this will include an account of how and why the purpose has evolved, as well as the methods, results, etc.

      To tackle a project competently you will need to build up relevant expertise in qualitative research and in the study domain. There is no shortcut to acquiring that expertise. Courses, textbooks and research papers provide essential foundations, and different resources resonate with (and are therefore most useful to) different people. Corbin and Strauss (2015) emphasise the importance of planning and practice: “Persons sometimes think that they can go out into the field and conduct interviews or observations with no training or preparation. Often these persons are disappointed when the data they are able to gather are sparse” (p. 37). Kidder and Fine (1987) describe the evolving focus of qualitative research: that one of the researcher’s frequent tasks is “deciding which question to ask next of whom” (p. 60). There is no substitute for planning, practice and reflecting on what can be learnt from each interview or observation session.

      It is tempting to want to apply a precisely defined method (Yardley, 2000). But, in all probability, you will be faced by complexity that demands some improvisation along the way (Furniss et al., 2011a; Woolrych et al., 2011). We provide a series of checklists to help focus on particular decisions when designing, conducting and reporting a study.

      As well as expertise in qualitative methods, the level of expertise in the study context can have a huge influence over the quality and kind of study conducted. When the study focuses on a widely used technology or an activity that most people engage in, such as time management (e.g., Kamsin et al., 2012) or in-car navigation (e.g., Curzon et al., 2002), any disparity in expertise between researcher and participants is unlikely to be critical. Where the study is of a highly specialised device, or in a specialist context, the expertise of the researcher(s) can have a significant effect on both the conduct and the outcomes of a study. At times, naiveté can be an asset, allowing one to ask simple but important questions that would be overlooked by someone with more domain expertise. At other times, naiveté can result in the researcher failing to note or interpret important features of the study context. In preparing to conduct a study, it is important to consider the effects of expertise and to determine whether or not specific training in the technology or work being studied is required before data-gathering starts.

      Rather than trying to anticipate every possible eventuality, it is often best to do enough preparation, where what constitutes enough is likely to vary from one individual to another as well as from one study question to another. So, as a starting point, we summarise an idealised shape of a qualitative study (Figure 2.3): you start with a purpose (a research question), then you gather and analyse data, to yield results that are then reported (in a dissertation, paper or client report); the study is shaped by various factors, including the expertise of the research team (discussed above), resources and constraints, the