Qualitative Methods Part Two

1. Qualitative MethodsPart Two January 20, 2010

2. Today’s Class • Qualitative Methods • Probing Question for next class • Special session • Assignment #2 • Surveys

3. Clarification questions? • Any questions on dialectic or phenomenology brewing in your minds since last class?

4. Contextual Inquiry

5. Contextual Inquiry • Contextual Inquiry is apprenticeship compressed in time • One who visions must be steeped in the customer data • Keep the customer concrete by exploring ongoing work • He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions • Partnership creates a sense of shared quest

6. Contextual Inquiry • Contextual Inquiry is apprenticeship compressed in time • One who visions must be steeped in the customer data • Keep the customer concrete by exploring ongoing work • He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions • Partnership creates a sense of shared quest • Which of these is not actually from Beyer & Holtzblatt?

7. Contextual Inquiry • Contextual Inquiry is apprenticeship compressed in time • One who visions must be steeped in the customer data • Keep the customer concrete by exploring ongoing work • He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions • Partnership creates a sense of shared quest

8. Contextual Inquiry • The relationships in Contextual Inquiry • The Process of Contextual Inquiry • How to Screw Up a Contextual Inquiry

9. What is Contextual Inquiry? “The core premise of Contextual Inquiry is very simple: go where the customer works, observe the customer as he or she works, and talk to the customer about the work. Do that, and you can’t help but gain a better understanding of your customer.” -- Beyer & Holtzblatt

10. Ethnographic method… • A different one than Schofield’s • But still fundamentally phenomenological • Goal of understanding the participant as he/she understands him/herself

11. Key aspect of Contextual Inquiry • Relationship between researcher and participant • Different from the methods we’ve studied up until this point

12. Subject or Participant? • In most educational research, “subjects” are “subjected to” experiments or

13. Subject or Participant? • In most educational research, “subjects” are “subjected to” experiments or are “the subjects” of studies,

14. Subject or Participant? • In most educational research, “subjects” are “subjected to” experiments or are “the subjects” of studies, to help the researcher develop understanding

15. Subject or Participant? • In most educational research, “subjects” are “subjected to” experiments or are “the subjects” of studies, to help the researcher develop understanding • In contextual inquiry, “participants” “participate” in helping the researcher develop understanding

16. Note that… • It is also often PC to call subjects participants • However, in this case the difference actually means something 

17. What is your relationship to the participant?

18. What is your relationship to the participant? • In a scientist/subject relationship: • The scientist does stuff or asks questions • The subject responds in some way • The scientist collects data, goes back to their office, and analyzes the data to gain understanding of the subject

19. What is your relationship to the participant? • In an interviewer/interviewee relationship:(like what was described in the R&R reading) • The interviewer asks a question • The interviewee responds immediately • As soon as there is a pause, the interviewer asks another question from the list • When all the questions have been answered, • the interview is over. • Beyer & Holtzblatt argue that this is only appropriate for gaining phenomenological understanding if you know what questions to ask in advance, and this requires already having phenomenological understanding

20. What is your relationship to the participant? Beyer & Holtzblatt argue that this is only appropriate for gaining phenomenological understanding if you know what questions to ask in advance, and this requires phenomenological understanding How do you think Schofield would respondto this claim?

21. What is your relationship to the participant? • In a master/apprentice relationship: • The master is doing stuff • The master explains what they’re doing, to the apprentice • The apprentice asks a clarification question • The master answers • Contextual inquiry attempts to simulate (in part) this relationship

22. What is your relationship to the participant? Photo of me in 2003 with Albert Corbett

23. What is your relationship to the participant? • In a CI researcher/participant relationship: • The participant is doing stuff • The participant explains what they’re doing to the researcher • The researcher offers an immediate interpretation • The participant agrees or corrects • The researcher’s goal is to develop understanding • of what the participant is doing • in partnership with the participant.

24. What is your relationship to the participant? How does this differ from Jean Lave’s more standard ethnographic approach? How did Lave relate to her participants? How did Lave interact with her participants?

25. Despite Beyer & Holtzblatt’s analogy It’s not quite a master/apprentice relationship The researcher’s goal is not to learn to do the task Instead, the researcher’s goal is to learn how the participant does the task, in order to understand the activity better And the researcher enlists the participant’s active assistance in understanding the activity

26. Partnership In Beyer & Holtzblatt’s view: Traditional interview models give too much control to the interviewer. A pure apprenticeship model gives too much control to the master. In Contextual Inquiry, the researcher and the participant are partners.

27. Partnership The participant knows their process better than the researcher The researcher has the distance to be able to see patterns and important features in the participant’s process and practice The researcher can draw the participant into a partnership in trying to richly understand the participant’s process This partnership can often result in insight for both parties (which is not a feature of either traditional interview or pure apprenticeship interactions)

28. Question • Which approach is more likely to give phenomenological understanding? • Schofield? • Beyer & Holtzblatt?

29. Comments? Questions?

30. Contextual Inquiry • The relationships in Contextual Inquiry • The Process of Contextual Inquiry • How to Screw Up a Contextual Inquiry

31. The Process of Contextual Inquiry • Let’s contextualize the process of contextual inquiry with an example • Let’s say we’re studying how a college student writes a term paper

32. The Process of Contextual Inquiry • Let’s contextualize the process of contextual inquiry with an example • Let’s say we’re studying how a college student, call her Beth, writes a term paper for her anthropology class • How would we study Beth’s process?

33. The interviewer says… • Why don’t you just ask Beth how she writes her paper? • What arguments would Beyer & Holtzblatt give against doing this?

34. The interviewer says… • Why don’t you just ask Beth how she writes her paper? • Beth might not entirely know… • When she summarizes how she does it for you, • she might not remember vital details • Like the fact that she always has her roommate read her drafts • she might gloss over important difficulties • Like the trouble she has searching for references on the web • Many people remember summaries rather than exactly what happened

35. The ethnographic interviewer says… • Why don’t you watch Beth write her paper, and then ask her questions about it afterwards? • We’ll discuss this in a few minutes, when we discuss Retrospective Contextual Inquiry

36. In Contextual Inquiry • You go to the actual setting where Beth is writing her term paper, and you interview her there • In this fashion, CI is like Lave’s methods

37. The Stages of a CI Interview/ Warm-Up Observe Behavior Withdrawal and return cycle Share Interpretation Refine Interpretation Wrap-Up

38. CI Stage 1: Conventional Interview • Introduce yourself and explain the interview procedure (consent, recording, how CIs work). • Ask Beth to summarize the goal she will be working towards during the CI • Writing her term paper • Don’t take too long on this.

39. CI Stage 1: Conventional Interview • Beyer & Holtzblatt emphasize that at this point • The researcher should clearly and very explicitly state the rules of the CI. • This is important, because if it’s not completely clear, the encounter may devolve into a traditional interview (since this relationship is more familiar to people)

40. CI Stage 2A: Observe Behavior • Now ask Beth to go about her normal tasks, exactly as she would if you weren’t there – for example

41. CI Stage 2A: Observe Behavior • Now ask Beth to go about her normal tasks, exactly as she would if you weren’t there – for example • Outlining her article

42. CI Stage 2A: Observe Behavior • Now ask Beth to go about her normal tasks, exactly as she would if you weren’t there – for example • Outlining her article • Downloading references

43. CI Stage 2A: Observe Behavior • Now ask Beth to go about her normal tasks, exactly as she would if you weren’t there – for example • Outlining her article • Downloading references • Copying text out of wikipedia

44. CI Stage 2A: Observe Behavior • Now ask Beth to go about her normal tasks, exactly as she would if you weren’t there – for example • Outlining her article • Downloading references • Copying text out of wikipedia • Slightly changing the copied text while looking around furtively

45. CI Stage 2A: Observe Behavior • And as she’s doing it, ask her to explain what she’s doing whenever it’s not 100.0% obvious • “Beth, why did you just search on ‘trepanation’?” • And take lots of notes.

46. CI Stage 2: Withdrawal and Return • B&H recommend a pattern called withdrawal and return • In withdrawal and return: • The researcher observes something in the pattern of action that indicates there’s something meaningful going on • The researcher asks about this, and the pair withdraw momentarily from the task at hand. • The pair discuss the researcher’s issue. • Afterwards, the participant returns to the task at hand.

47. During those Withdrawals • The researcher should not only attempt to observe what’s going on. • The researcher should try to interpret what it means. • Then, the researcher should check these interpretations with the participant to see if the interpretation is correct

48. Checking an Interpretation: B&H • Say “I believe X. Is that correct?”

49. Checking an Interpretation: B&H • Say “I believe X. Is that correct?” • “Beth, I believe you are searching for papers on trepanation because it was mentioned in the Wilkinson article, and that article did not explain the physiological effects sufficiently. Is that correct?” • “Yes!” • Or • “No. I think that trepanation was a symptom of the moral decline of the Monte Alban culture, and want to see if it was associated with the decline of other civilizations.”

50. How does this differ? • How does this differ from the types of questions asked by Lave and Schofield? • How does this differ from the ways interpretations were checked in Lave and Schofield? • Advantages/disadvantages?