Primary Research Lecture - Reflection and Development of own Primary Research

Primary Research Lecture

Quantitative/Qualitative data - use these terms when discussing research, looks really good on submission.

Quantitative - numerical
Qualitative - can't be expressed numerically, whys and hows.

Data collection - considering how we're going to collect information
Data analysis - what are we going to with that information.

Need to be using these terms when evaluating own research, why did you use that data collection method, how did you use it? Same for data analysis.

Polls and Surveys:

Quantitative - Must be multiple choice, to generate numerical data. Just having it alone isn't enough, needs to be analysed, easiest way is descriptive analysis to show trends. Becomes more interesting when correlating data. Need to ask more people to get "rich" data.

Qualitative - Asking open questions, where respondent is offering more, reason, why, how, experience etc. Can be talked about in "richness" terms, how much useful info is there? Don't need to ask as many people because ach response is already "rich". Still need to be representative in this. To analyse this information use thematic analysis, this applied codes to data, highlighting phrases, statements etc that tell you something relevant that is interesting and then give it a label (code), this may then pop up frequently within other responses. This helps to group together aspects of research. After you have all the codes you group those together into related notions and these become themes, and these are the basis of your discussion.

Interviews:

Qualitative - Conducted in person or online, structured, semi-structured or unstructured. This depends on interview skill, structured interviews leave no room to react. Just a few in enough, as long as the participants have diversity. Data can be subject ot thematic analysis also, can code onto audio also (software that does this online but can do by yourself just by noting).

Focus Groups:

Qualitative - Groups of participants instead of one at a time. They allow for interaction between participants. Data can be analysed same as interviews but need to acknowledge the interactions and engaged, would be good to video these so can reflect on body language etc.

Image Elicitation:

Might occur as part of an interview or focus group. It asks participants to respond to images as part of interview situation, most often photographs, can be anything, stuff you've made, stuff that already exists. Could be selected by researcher or participant. Again analysed by thematic analysis.

Creative Visual Methods:

As talk based methods can be problematic as they don't allow participants time to generate a meaningful response, sort of put on the spot. They also create a challenging power dynamic between researcher and participant, this can influence the way participants respond. CVM are meant to overcome these issues. CVM asks participants to create something based on a theme in video, collage, mood board, lego reconstruction etc. Then the visual artifact becomes a dataset. Analysis draws on semiotics to create themes but can be very unreliable, so often combine CVM with talk-based approaches also to allow participant to describe the choices they've made.

NEED TO BE ABLE TO ARGUE WHY YOU USE A METHOD, WHY ARE YOU CONDUCTING THE RESEARCH?

Other ways of involving users/audiences:

1. PARTICIPATORY AND CO-DESIGN: These involve the stakeholders of whatever you're designing into the design process. Not just asking questions about whether the design works or not, but actually involving them in design choices, colour, typeface, stock etc. Can be a great way of breaking down the power relationships, but also to start thinking differently about westernised approaches to design but absorbing those participants in the design process. They're able to offer insights that you wouldn't be able to considered based off of your own assumptions.
   
   
2. USER JOURNEY: Involved with user experience design (UX), doesn't have to be digital only. Get people of target audience to use something (packaging, website etc.) and engage with it, how they would get from start to finish, ask and learn from existing artifacts. Observe how they interact with the book, use this info to inform design choices. Once you've got own design can reproduce observation, could highlight issues with design. Gives a good justifiable arguable reason for your choices.
   
   
3. CARD SORTING: Comes from UX design, can work elsewhere also. Asks participants to organise a series of cards (or sections of information) in a way that make sense to them, you don't show them how you ask how they would make sense of the stuff.
   
   
4. A/B TESTING: Can be done with anything, asking people to come and look at this design approach vs this design approach. Ask which they feel better with, why is it better? How does it help? Could fit into data collection and data analysis.

• Need to get permission from supervisor before doing primary research. 
• Extra reading is needed. Blog this, talk about what you've learnt from extra reading. 
• Start using terms, method, analysis, etc. 
• Use the language, helps with grade, shows you're engaging and hat you understand your practice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reflection and Development of own Primary Research

From theoretical reading physical elements of books have come up as beneficial for learning and retaining information, I'm wanting to take these and test them practically (through observation) to develop my practical. 

Paper stock:

(1) It was easier for those who read on paper to remember what they had read (2013 study in norway). Mangen et al say that this is because paper gives spatio-temporal markers while you read. Touching paper and turning pages aids the memory, making it easier to remember where you read something.

• From this devise an observation exploring the extent of spacio-temporal markers and the physicality of turning pages.

- Have a book where pages have to be turned, one have with varied paper stock another with all the same paper, see if there's an impact on comprehension. > This could be conducted as A/B testing, wanting to understand the impacts of different design choices.

Layout:

(2) 'Information presented with clear and logically set out titles, subtitles, texts, illustrations and captions will not only be read more quickly and easily but the information will also be better understood and retained in the memory.'

• From this could have text organised into sub categories and see if this compared to having the text in one block is more beneficial.
  > Again here this could be a second A/B test, see the preference. These could be conducted alongside a comprehension test of content to see if there is a difference between preference, if people thought they did better with one than the other, and then the actual result. 

Upon reflection of these research activities I think I would benefit from conducting an initial User Journey observation to gage how participants react to books designed to teach initially, do people use contents or index, how do they do this, why? Do they think there would be a more proactive why? What parts of finding information are confusing etc.