Research Methodology
My approach to this research will be utilising Action Research, with particular emphasis on participatory action research.
2.1 Action research
Action research is a reflective process of progressive problem solving led by individuals working with others in teams or as part of a “community of practice” to improve the way they address issues and solve problems. Resulting in improving their strategies, practices, and knowledge of the environments within which they practice.
Action research is an interactive inquiry process that balances problem solving actions implemented in a collaborative context with data-driven collaborative analysis or research to understand underlying causes enabling future predictions about personal and organizational change (Reason & Bradbury, 2001).
Action research challenges traditional social science, by moving beyond reflective knowledge created by outside experts sampling variables to an active moment-to-moment theorizing, data collecting, and inquiring occurring in the midst of emergent structure.
Knowledge is always gained through action and for action. From this starting point, to question the validity of social knowledge is to question, not how to develop a reflective science about action, but how to develop genuinely well-informed action—how to conduct an action science” (Torbert, B, 2004)
2.2 Participatory action research
Action research involves utilizing a systematic cyclical method of planning, taking action, observing, evaluating (including self-evaluation) and critical reflecting prior to planning the next cycle (McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J. 2006).
The actions have a set goal of addressing an identified problem in the workplace. It is a collaborative method to test new ideas and implement action for change.
It involves direct participation in a dynamic research process, while monitoring and evaluating the effects of the researcher’s actions with the aim of improving practice (Dick, B. 2002).
At its core, action research is a way to increase understanding of how change in one’s actions or practices can mutually benefit a community of practitioners (Dick, B. 2002).
Essentially Participatory Action Research (PAR) is research which involves all relevant parties in actively examining together current action (which they experience as problematic) in order to change and improve it.
Participatory action research is not just research which is hoped will be followed by action. It is action which is researched, changed and re-researched, within the research process by participants. (Wadsworth, Y. 1998)
Research in PAR is ideally by the local people and for the local people. Research is designed to address specific issues identified by local people, and the results are directly applied to the problems at hand. PAR proceeds through repeated cycles, in which researchers and the community start with the identification of major issues, concerns and problems, initiate research, originate action, learn about this action and proceed to a new research and action cycle. Participants in Action Research projects continuously reflect on their learning from the actions and proceed to initiate new actions on the spot.
2.3 Critique of Participatory action research
Community participation in such a context should be recognized for what it is – an externally motivated political act.
However much the rhetoric changes to participation, participatory research, community involvement and the like, at the end of the day there is still an outsider seeking to change things… who the outsider is may change but the relation is the same. A stronger person wants to change things for a person who is weaker. (Chambers, R. 1983)
2.4 User-centered design
User Centred Design is an Action Research approach which I will be adopting a number of its techniques in order to complete my project.
User-centered design (UCD) is a design philosophy and a process in which the needs, wants, and limitations of the end user of an interface or document are given extensive attention at each stage of the design process. User-centered design can be characterized as a multi-stage problem solving process that not only requires designers to analyze and foresee how users are likely to use an interface, but also to test the validity of their assumptions with regards to user behavior in real world tests with actual users. Such testing is necessary as it is often very difficult for the designers to understand intuitively what a first-time user of their design experiences, and what each user’s learning curve may look like.
User-centred design tries to optimize the user interface around how people can, want, or need to work, rather than forcing the users to change how they work to accommodate the system or function.
In these models, user requirements are considered right from the beginning and included into the whole product cycle. Their major characteristics are the active participation of real users, as well as an iteration of design solutions.
To gain user feedback through this study I will be using a combination of –
Bipolar Emotional Response Testing
Voice Mapping
Interview (with both qualitative and quantitative aspects)
I hope to gain the relevant insight into the ways in which people engage in the architectural design process, and how technological influences effect their design decisions. Highlighting on how virtual reality could integrate into aspects of their design process.
2.5 User Centered Design
Purpose
Users of the study will be a range of landscape architects from my current practice. This allows me to gain a greater understanding of the day to day issues that occur through varying stages of the design process. (The findings will be communicated through a channel of people within the architectural visualisation, games, and 3D graphics industries for their thoughts on my findings, and future possibilities.)
Users will complete a range of interview questions, a bipolar emotional response test, and a voice mapping tasks to allow me to accurately gauge user’s feedback and assessment of the use of virtual reality in the design process.
Due to the nature of the architectural industry users will generally have a good knowledge of the core technologies available to undertake general design processes. This is structured by the dominance of the large software developers such as Autodesk, through industry standard software applications such as AutoCad, 3D Studio Viz etc, along with Adobe Photoshops and Google SketchUp to name a few. These have developed into core components in architecture and stem from University and education, through to working practice.
This investigation will allow me to gain greater understanding into the influences on decision making throughout the design process. Results should allow me to make an informed assessment surrounding the needs and requirements of users.
An initial investigation will assess the user’s current knowledge and experience in relation to virtual reality. It is important that an outlook of the benefits and implementations of VR are highlighted to allow users to make informed decisions.
Overall, from my investigation I must ensure that I investigate this research in an active and appropriate manor to allow me to gain useful and insightful information into user feedback surrounding VR as a design decision making tool.
Rhetorical Situation
Audience
My research will focus on a focus group of 9 landscape architects from my current practice (20 participants, which is the bulk of my practice, were asked to complete the survey and 9 responded), ranging from graduates, to project managers and Directors. Ages range from 20 – 50 and located in 2 locations in England. One in Winchester, the other in London. Thus, allowing me to assess the usefulness in 2 isolated user groups, which will help to compare and contrast result to improve their effectiveness and reliability. I am fortunate enough to work with a variety of architects from around the world and aim to obtain a wider view of that just of the people from the UK. Equally this will also include an even mixture of male / female ratio, alleviating any gender bias.
Purpose
The investigation will allow me to assess users understanding of VR in varying stages of the design process, allowing me to acknowledge current perspectives towards VR, and make informed decisions into its future uses.
To fully develop my UCD investigation I feel it is important for me to consider certain issues raised through The Diffusion of Innovations theory. By questioning these aspects I believe I will be able to make more informed decisions regarding the way it can structure my UCD study, and focus the questioning in the most useful way.
Despite all the benefits virtual reality offer the architectural industry, I believe one of the key reasons it has not been adopted on a wider scale preliminary comes down to architect’s and designer’s lack of awareness of its existence and / or potential.
Which Comes First, Needs or Awareness of an Innovation?
Hassinger (1959) argued that individuals seldom expose themselves to messages about an innovation unless they first feel a need for the innovation, and that even if individuals are exposed to innovation messages, such exposure will have little effect unless the innovation is perceived as relevant to the individuals needs and is consistent with the individual s attitudes and beliefs. This process is selective perception, defined as the tendency to interpret communication messages in terms of the individuals existing attitudes and beliefs.
(Rogers, E, M, 2003.)
It is impossible to develop consistent and favorable ideas about ideas that we have not previously encountered. Through understanding this major hurdle, I must then consider, how are needs created?
A need is a state of dissatisfaction or frustration that occurs when an individual’s desires outweigh the individuals actualities. (Rogers, E, M, 2003.)
This then raises the issue of whether there is in fact an existence of dissatisfaction within the current design process. It will be important for me to gauge if there is enough dissatisfaction in existing methods?
An individual may develop a need when he or she learns that an innovation exists. Therefore, innovations can lead to needs, as well as vice versa. Through this research I hope to understand needs among users. Thus knowledge of the existence of an innovation can create a motivation to learn more about it and, ultimately, to adopt it.
The innovation-decision process is essentially an information-seeking and information-processing activity in which an individual is motivated to reduce uncertainty about the advantages and disadvantages of an innovation. An innovation typically comes with such questions as “What is the innovation?’ “How does it work?” and “Why does it work?” (Rogers, E, M, 2003.)
Posted by cwayling 