Week 8: Research and ethics

29th July 2021

---

The importance of user research

Week 8 discusses research and ethics and the importance of user experience by applying user-centred design methodology to your artefact. User research is essential because you can understand and learn about the target audience as Buley says, “you can design products that meet their needs" (Buley, 2013). Empathising with your user allows you to step inside their shoes and fully comprehend their views, potential goals, pain points and emotion. By having an insight into your users, you can create personas, mental models and user journeys to map out the experience of your artefact and how it plays a part in their daily life.

The two approaches to user research are quantitative and qualitative research. Quantitative information is numbers, facts and answers the 'what' type of question. Qualitative information is an in-depth understanding of users needs and behaviour. It answers the 'why' type of question (Barnham, 2015).

Qualitative research

• Interview: This involves asking the user the right questions.

• Cognitive walkthrough: This involves sitting down with the user and going through the artefact with them and allowing them to think aloud about why they are doing something and what their thought process is.

• Group interview: Interviewing a group of people and leading a group discussion.

• Observations: Observing someone using the artefact.

• Self-reflections: Keeping a diary for yourself and reflecting on your artefact in the creative and development stages.

Quantitative research

• Questionnaire: It involves asking random users questions but can be directed to specific user categories online.

• Physiological measurement: This involves measuring the heartbeat, blood pressure, measuring sweat of an activity.

• Observations: Similar to observations in qualitative research, this involves the user describing when, how long and how often.

• Psycho-physical testing: This is a powerful method that involves the senses - seeing, tasting, feeling and smelling.

Ethical implications of your research

Integrity and ethics is a crucial aspect in research in product design. It is ethically challenging when research is conducted on humans (Bracken-Roche et al., 2017). Before any research takes place, the participant criteria are reviewed, along with their consent and the risks and benefits weighed. It is mandatory to respect the participants by protecting them at all costs. An ethics checklist must be completed and sent to the Ethics Committee if the project reveals to be medium or high risk.

Low risk: This is research that has risks related to everyday situations such as routine scenario practices. It may involve equipment that does not require a risk assessment.

Medium risk: This is research that has potential harm but is managed under standard procedures. For example, researching individuals or groups, accessing personal/confidential records and observations of animals.

High risk: This is research that has potential harm without any procedures in place. For example, accessing or storing unlawful information or terrorist acts, topics on sexual, abuse, exploitation, racism and anything that may result in psychological stress, anxiety, humiliation or the wellbeing of the participant.

The role of the Ethics Committee is to protect the research participants, especially those that may be part of a vulnerable group or background. A vulnerable person is “incapable of protecting their own interest”, (CIOMS, 2016). The process of how the Ethics Committee measures the capability and incapability of a participant protecting their interests is not accurate. There is no defined way of telling someone is vulnerable based on stereotype assumptions. There is a lack of agreement amongst the definition of vulnerability as ethical policies have increased. The ethics review process is flawed in detecting vulnerability in research participants. The Ethics Committee and researchers may misjudge the potential risks based on their distance from the research (Peter and Friedland, 2017). Not enough information and lack of evidence may lead to poor recommendations and results.

Exercise one

This exercise involves placing myself in the shoes of the Ethics Review Committee and analysing and considering an individual ethics application based on potential benefits, harms and ethical issues.

Case study

Charlotte wants to research the effect of labeling students (gifted vs struggling) on their achievement in the first year of HE. She proposes that students be divided into reading groups in which ability levels are evenly mixed. One group will be told they are gifted readers, another group will be told that they are struggling readers, and a third group will be told nothing at all. Charlotte’s hypothesis states that by the end of the year, the students in the ‘gifted’ level group will outperform those in the ‘struggling’ group on the same reading test.

What additional information might you want to know about the study in order to decide whether or not it should be approved?

• What classifies as a gifted student?

• Has the parents consented to this?

• How long will this research go on for?

• Will this affect the students' learning in their normal academic year?

• How would you test the students at the end of the year?

• What if a student was taking extra classes elsewhere or their parents hired a tutor outside of this research?

What are the benefits that might result from this research? What are the potential harms?

• Could affect the students mental state

• Could affect the students normal academic studies

• Impact the students grades

If you were on an IRB reviewing this proposal, what would your recommendation be?

I would disapprove of the study. There are too many factors that can negatively affect the student life, mental state and learning.

Exercise two

Scenario 1

A researcher plans to interview eight artists / curators / designers for her thesis. She offers a letter of introduction about the project, gains written informed consent for the interview from each interviewee, later checks the contents of the transcription with each interviewee, allows the interviewee to withdraw comments / approve the interview record. The interviews will be used as attributed statements within the thesis. A recognised approach from oral history / social sciences / ethnography / art and design criticism and history is part of the methodology. The interviews will involve travel in the UK and abroad, the researcher has discussed her travel plans and personal safety with her supervisors.

RESULT: Medium risk - The standard procedures are in place. The interviews with the artists will involve travelling in the UK and abroad, which requires the researcher to access the artist’s personal details.

Scenario 2

The research, for a practice-based PhD, involves engaging online presences in social networking sites under a pseudonym. It aims to explore the ways in which identity is constructed online. The research is such that it cannot be revealed in advance to those involved. The core of the research involves developing a community of online presences into a community of offline friends.

RESULT: High risk - There are not many details about this research. It is hidden and can be misleading.

Summary

To summarise this week, I have learnt that user research plays an important part. Gathering quantitative and qualitative information about your user is beneficial to your artefact because you understand the target audience and meet their potential goals. It is also significant to consider the ethical side of the research. Determining whether or not the research participant is vulnerable or at risk needs to be looked at thoroughly as in-depth research is required before any recommendations and approvals are confirmed.

When I conducted the interviews in my second rapid ideation, it was essential to anonymise the users and only reveal their age and gender in the research. I ensured I created relevant but general everyday lifestyle questions that they can answer without harming or exploiting them. I did not realise how sensitive I have to be when involving real users however, I understand it is the standard procedure. It is something I will take away with me and apply in future projects.

My next step is to consider a wide range of research techniques in my future projects. I would like to have a balance of both quantitative and qualitative research. For example, observations, questionnaires, cognitive walkthroughs and interviews will help me obtain a better and thorough understanding of the user to achieve the user's goals.

References

2021. Week 8 introduction. [online] Available at: <https://flex.falmouth.ac.uk/courses/912/pages/week-8-introduction?module_item_id=54128> [Accessed 18 July 2021].

Geelhoed, E. 2021. User and audience research. [online] Available at: <https://flex.falmouth.ac.uk/courses/912/pages/week-8-user-and-audience-research?module_item_id=54130> [Accessed 18 July 2021].

Parker, A. 2021. Integrity, ethics and policy. [online] Available at: <https://flex.falmouth.ac.uk/courses/912/pages/week-8-integrity-ethics-and-policy?module_item_id=54131> [Accessed 19 July 2021].

Peter, E., and Friedland, J. 2017. Recognizing Risk and Vulnerability in Research Ethics: Imagining the “What Ifs?”. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 12(2), 107-116. Available at: <https://www.jstor.org/stable/90012286> [Accessed 29 July 2021].

Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences [CIOMS]. 2016. International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans, p. 57. Available at: <https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf> [Accessed 29 July 2021].

Bracken-Roche, D., Bell, E., Macdonald, M.E., and Racine, E. 2017. ‘The Concept of “Vulnerability” in Research Ethics: An in-Depth Analysis of Policies and Guidelines’. Health research policy and systems 15(1), 8–8.

Buley, L. 2013. The user experience team of one. New York: Louis Rosenfeld, p.26.

Barnham, C. 2015. ‘Quantitative and Qualitative Research: Perceptual Foundations’. International journal of market research 57(6), 837–54.

Images

2018. Run a usability test. 2018. [image] Available at: <https://unsplash.com/photos/WC6MJ0kRzGw> [Accessed 29 July 2021].