Guy A. Boy
- 1 Barrett, E. Sociomedia: The Social Creation of Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massacusetts, 1992.Google Scholar
- 2 Boose, J.H. Personal Construct Theory and the Transfer of Human Expertise. In Proceedings of the 1984American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-84) Conference. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, California, 1984, pp. 27-33.Google Scholar
- 3 Boy, G.A. Intelligent Assistant System. Academic Press, London, 1991.Google Scholar
- 4 Boy, G.A. The Group Elicitation Method: An Introduction. In Proceedings of European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop - EKAW "96, Nottingham, United Kingdom. Lecture Notes in Computer Science series. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996. Google Scholar
- 5 Fisher, D.H. Knowledge acquisition via incremental conceptual clustering. Machine Learning 2 (1987), 139-172. Google Scholar
- 6 Kelly, G.A. The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Norton, New York, 1955.Google Scholar
- 7 McLeod, P.L. An assessment of experimental literature on electronic support of group work: Results of a meta-analysis. Human-Computer Interaction 7 (1992), 257-280.Google Scholar
- 8 Neal, L. and Mantei, M. Computer-Supported Meeting Environments. Tutorial Notes. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, INTERCHI"93. Amsterdam, 1993.Google Scholar
- 9 Nielsen, J., Mack, R.B., Bergendorff, K.H., and Grischlowsky, N.L. Integrated Software Usage in the Professional Work Environment: Evidence from Questionnaires and Interviews. In Proceedings, Conference on Computer- Human Interaction 1986 (CHI'86), Mantei M. and Oberton P. (Eds.), ACM Press, New York, 1986, pp. 162-167. Google Scholar
- 10 Norman, D.A. Turn Signals Are Facial Expressions of Automobiles. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massacusetts, 1992.Google Scholar
- 11 Shaw, L.G. and Gaines, B.R. Personal Construct Psychology Foundations for Knowledge Acquisition and Representation. Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Base Systems. In Proceedings of European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop- EKAW"93, Toulouse, France, N. Aussenac, G. Boy et al. (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993, pp. 256-276. Google Scholar
- 12 Tognazzini, B. Tog on Interface. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massschusetts, 1992. Google Scholar
- 13 Warfield, J.N. Societal Systems: Planning, Policy and Complexity. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1971.Google Scholar
- 14 Winograd, T. and Flores, E Understanding Computers and Cognition--A New Foundation for Design. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1986. Google Scholar
Index Terms
- The group elicitation method for participatory design and usability testing
Recommendations
What is a participatory design result?
PDC '16: Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference: Full papers - Volume 1In this paper we discuss what the result of a Participatory Design (PD) process is and how it can be described and evaluated. We look at several PD projects and discuss if they have a participatory result and how we know that it is participatory. We ...
The role of design fiction in participatory design processes
NordiCHI '18: Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer InteractionParticipatory design is in essence very malleable as any design technique could lend itself to it, as long as users and stakeholders are involved. Design fictions however, have more often been used as either a vehicle for critical designs, or as a sheer ...
Advances in Participatory Design
CHI EA '16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing SystemsIn this course participants are introduced to the theory and practice of Participatory Design. The course offers an overview of state of the art Participatory Design literature, practices and methods, and provides participants with the opportunity to ...
Reviews
El-Sayed Nasr-El-Dein El-Sayed
The elicitation of consensus knowledge from a heterogeneous group of experts is a challenging problem with potential difficulties, such as misunderstanding and the dominance of strong personalities. A six-phase method called the Group Elicitation Method (GEM) is presented as a way to overcome these problems. The first three phases deal with concept generation. In the fourth phase, the author uses a triangular matrix, filled in by each participant, to determine the priority relationships between the concepts that have already been generated. An interactive computer program is used to derive a consensus based on these priority matrices. The consensus is expressed in terms of four parameters—mean priority, interparticipant consistency, mean priority deviation, and global consensus. In the last phase, the results are critically analyzed. The GEM has been validated through 24 sessions in which it was used to elicit knowledge from experts (users, managers, and designers) from a wide range of domains in aeronautics. Among the best features of this method is its integrative approach to knowledge elicitation, which combines the benefits of the analytical approach, the group meeting properties, and an understanding of the social construction of knowledge. This method can serve as a good basis for a group decision support system.
Access critical reviews of Computing literature here
Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.
Comments