This document summarizes various observational methods used in user-technology studies, including ethnography, digital ethnography, participatory observation, contextual inquiry, and conversation/interaction analysis. It provides examples of how each method has been applied, such as studying how technologies integrate into people's daily lives, coordination of actions in collaboration, and analysis of control room problem solving. Key aspects of each method like the researcher's role, challenges, and how data is collected and analyzed are outlined.

1. Antti Salovaara
Aalto University, School of Business
22 January 2015
Methods in User–Technology Studies
Observational studies
15.30 – 16.15

2. Observational studies
= methods where user’s behaviour is not intentionally
affected
Ethnography
Digital ethnography
(Participatory) observation
Contextual inquiry
Conversation / interaction analysis

3. Ethnography
≈ description of cultural groups, their practices and
meanings
Example: Winking with eyes
Thin description: “Boy rapidly contracted eyelids”
Thick description: ““Practicing a burlesque of a friend
faking a wink to deceive an innocent into thinking a
conspiracy is in motion” (Geertz, 1973, p. 7)
Requirements of ethnographic research:
1. Empirical approach
2. Remaining open to elements that cannot be codified
at the time of the study
3. Grounding the phenomena observed in the field
(Baszanger & Dodier (2004)
Geertz (1973)

4. Ethnography…
How ethnographies are evaluated?
Mere description is not sufficient (cf. thin description)
Are the descriptions and interpretations backed by evidence?
Are the interpretations interesting?
Reflexivity: researchers’ own role as participant and interpretant
Ethnography in user–technology studies
“How technologies integrate into people’s everyday lives”
Often used in studies of special user groups (e.g., developing
countries; ICT4D)
1. Recommendations/implications (design / managerial)
2. Deeper understanding of people’s (users’) contexts
3. Critiques/corrections of established simplistic views
See Dourish, CHI2006, “Implications for design”

5. Digital ethnography
Also called virtual ethnography, online ethnography,
netnography
Ethnography in the digital spaces
Web 2.0
Games
Virtual worlds
Similar to standard ethnography in its approach; only that it is
oriented to digitally mediated cultures
Can include also non-virtual methods
Does not only mean “lurking”, i.e., non-participatory observation
Some issues:
Reliability and validity of data, e.g., informant demographics
Paucity of contextual information in observations
See Wittel (2000)

6. Participant / participatory observation
One of the main methods in ethnographic research
Researcher plays two roles at once:
Insider: Active participant
Outsider: Research
Challenges:
Can be very stressful
“Going native”: losing objectivity by becoming too sympathetic to
participants
Negotiating access to the community
Choice of recording instrument
Digital camera + notebook would be a good combination
However, battery life and effect on natural behaviour are issues

7. Example of participatory observation
Data collection had to be
integrated naturally to the life of
a fantasy world
Playing three roles as once: 1.
role playing character, 2.
participant, 3. researcher
Live-action role playing
©Author©Author

8. !© Author

9. © Author

10. !© Author

11. © Author

12. © Author

13. Contextual inquiry
Is a rapid participatory interviewing
technique
Is widely applied in usability consulting practice
Follows master–apprentice model:
observation is interleaved with teaching
Researcher assumes the role of an apprentice
Informant is the master
Goal is to learn how the work is carried out
Interview takes place in the real context where
activity of interest takes place
“Show me how you do that thing”
Beyer & Holtzblatt
(1998)

14. Conversation / interaction analysis
Is a methodology for analysing actions
(Instead of meanings as in ethnography)
Main characteristics:
Recordings of naturalistic interaction
Extremely detailed transcriptions of action
[] Overlapping speech
? Rising intonation
: Stretched phoneme
(( )) An action
(0.3) A break of 0.3 s
( ) Unclear speech
Jordan & Henderson:
Interaction analysis (1995)
© Author

15. Interaction analysis in technology studies
Possible uses:
How users coordinate their actions in collaboration
How technologies are used in very dynamic settings
Critical analyses of validity of broad behavioral theories
Suits also for interventionist research designs
Is theory-neutral
Although the methodology has origins in micro-level sociology,
especially ethnomethodology, as well as linguistics

16. Example: How do control centres solve safety-
critical incidents based on uncertain information?
=> Interaction analysis of collaborative use of information resources
!
©Author

17. Ambulance helicopter and car locations
on a wall map
© Author

18. Duty officer’s desk
© Author

19. Parallel push-to-talk communication channels in
Virve (“viranomaisverkko”)
© Author

20. GPS map of all
rally cars
+
official time
© Author

21. “Road book”: every crossroads on every
rally track listed and indexed
© Author

22. Representational redundancy: transformations
of information between information resources
Source: Wahlström et al. (2011)
Situation:
Can you get
an ambulance
to where a co-
driver has
reportedly
injured his
back?
Transcript
Video© Author

23. Small break

24. References
Baszanger, I. & Dodier, N. (2004). Ethnography:
Relating the part to the whole. In D. Silverman
(Ed.), Qualitative Research: Theory, Methods and
Practice, ch. 2 (pp. 9–34). London, UK: Sage
Publications.
Beyer, H. & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual
Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems.
San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Dourish, P. (2006). Implications for design. In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI
2006) (pp. 541–550). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures:
Selected Essays. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Jordan, B. & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction
analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.
Wahlström, M., Salovaara, A., Salo, L., &
Oulasvirta, A. (2011). Resolving safety-critical
incidents in a rally control center. Human--
Computer Interaction, 26(1 & 2), 9–37.
Wittel (2000): Ethnography on the move: From
field to net to Internet. http://www.qualitative-
research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1131