skip to main content
10.1145/1621995.1621999acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

<Methods>Experience Design</Methods>

Published:05 October 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we trace and historicize two of the most common contextual research methods: Participant Observation and Contextual Inquiry. In doing so, we describe how these methods have evolved, describe the need for these methods to support Experience Design research, and make the case for interdisciplinary collaboration through clarifying these practices.

References

  1. Beyer, H. and Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Courage, C. and Baxter, K. (2005). Understanding Your Users: A Practical Guide to User Requirements. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Saffer, D. (2007). Designing for Interaction: Creating Smart Applications and Clever Devices. New Riders, Berkeley, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. DeWalt, K., DeWalt, B., and Wayland, C. (1998). Participant Observation. In Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology, H. R. Bernard, Ed. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA, 259--299.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Stocking, G. (1983). History of Anthropology: Whence/Whither. In Observers Observed: Essays on Ethnographic Fieldwork, G. Stocking, Ed. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Ervin, A. (2000). Applied Anthropology: Tools and Perspectives for Contemporary Practice. Allyn&amp;Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Agar, M. (2006). An Ethnography by Any Other Name...{149 paragraphs}. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(4), Art. 36, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0604367.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Beebe, James L. (2001). Rapid Assessment Process. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Handwerker, W. P. (2001). Quick Ethnography. Altamira Press, Lanham, MD.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Corbett, Sara. (2008, April 13). Can the Cellphone Help End Global Poverty? The New York Times. Retrieved online July 13, 2009 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/magazine/13anthropology-t.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=login.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Green, Penelope. (1999, May 2). MIRROR, MIRROR; The Anthropologist of Dressing Rooms. The New York Times. Retrieved online July 13, 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/02/style/mirror-mirror-the-anthropologist-of-dressing-rooms.html?scp=5&sq=anthropologist&st=cse.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Malinowski, B. (1961). Argonauts of the western Pacific, 1961 edition. E.P. Dutton&amp;Co, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Spinuzzi, C. (2005). The Methodology of Participatory Design. Technical Communication, 52 (2), 163--174.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Raven, M. E. and Flanders, A. (1996). Using Contextual Inquiry To Learn About Your Audience. Journal of Computer Documentation, 20 (1), 1--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Spinuzzi, C. (2002). Toward Integrating Our Research Scope: A Sociocultural Field Methodology. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 16 (1), 3--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Good, M. (1989). Contextual Field Research in a Usability Engineering Process. SIGCHI Bulletin, 20 (4), 25--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Winograd, T. and Flores, F. (1986). Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Ablex, Norwood, NJ. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Potts, L. (2009). Using Actor Network Theory to Trace and Improve Multimodal Communication Design. Technical Communication Quarterly, 18 (3), 281--301.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Slattery, S. (2007). Undistributing work through writing: How technical writers manage texts in complex information environments. Technical Communication Quarterly, 16 (3), 311--325.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Swarts, J. (2007). Mobility and composition: The architecture of coherence in non-place. Technical Communication Quarterly, 16 (3), 279--310.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Spool. J. M. (2007, March 13). Field Studies: The Best Tool to Discover User Needs. Retrieved online July 13, 2009 from: http://www.uie.com/articles/field_studies/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Hackos, J. T. and Redish, J. C. (1998). User and Task Analysis for Interface Design. John Wiley&amp;Sons, Inc., New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Tec-Ed, Inc. (2009). Field Research. Retrieved online July 13, 2009: http://www.teced.com/services_usability_field_detail.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Jono. (2007, July 23). Recording Ethnographic Observations: 6 Useful Frameworks. Retrieved online July 13, 2009 from: http://palojono.blogspot.com/2007/07/recording-ethnographic-observations.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Cavaletti, M. (2005, July 29). Ethnographic Research Methods {Msg 6747}. Message posted to: http://www.ixda.org/discuss.php?post=6747.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Jain, A. (2006, May 9). Ethnography -- Frameworks {Msg 9910} Message posted to: http://www.ixda.org/discuss.php?post=9910.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Marut, M. (2005, November 22). Several Resource Questions {Msg 7830}. Message posted to: http://www.ixda.org/discuss.php?post=7830&search=ethnography.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Bernard, H. R. (1998). Introduction: On Method and Methods in Anthropology. In Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology, H. R. Bernard, Ed. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA, 259--299.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Sanders, L. (2008). On Modeling: An Evolving Map of Design Practice and Design Research. Interactions. 15, 6, (November/December 2008), 13--17. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1409040.1409043 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Hawley, M. (2009, July 22). Design Research Methods for Experience Design. Retrieved online July 13, 2009: http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2009/01/design-research-methods-for-experience-design.php.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Merholz, P. (2006, February 1). Get Out of Your Lab, and Into Their Lives. Retrieved online July 13, 2009: http://www.adaptivepath.com/ideas/essays/archives/000569.php.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. <Methods>Experience Design</Methods>

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Conferences
              SIGDOC '09: Proceedings of the 27th ACM international conference on Design of communication
              October 2009
              328 pages
              ISBN:9781605585598
              DOI:10.1145/1621995

              Copyright © 2009 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 5 October 2009

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              Overall Acceptance Rate355of582submissions,61%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader