Human and Computer Interactions - Essay Example

Human-Computer Interactions Introduction In the current business and social world, enterprises are keen to make sure the innovations that they are coming up with are designed in a way that they are human-centered. It is this push that has increased the human-computer interactions experienced in our workplaces and also social platforms (Pascal, Thomas, & Romme, 2013). Today, human-centered technology is taking over the world of innovations and investments. However, to make sure this technology is useful, there is a need to involve every stakeholder in the relevant industries. Therefore, most of the research done in this field relies on the participatory research methodologies that are sometimes referred to as participative. The participatory research approach is one where the researchers push for an involvement of the entire population in the study activities. The basis for such moves is to make sure that the recommendations from the research are authentic and will be useful in bringing a solution to the problem in question. The primary goal of participative approaches is to bridge the gap between the activities at the field study and what the real world is experiencing (Axup & Foth, 2006). Through this, the communication to the real world after the research will be quick and short since the affected population would have been involved already. This essay is going to look into two participative research methodologies when used as an approach to the design of human-centered technology. The discussion is going to be a comparison of participatory design and action research. The differences and similarities between these two approaches are to be discussed through analyzing the background of each of them and finally making a comparative analysis of the two approaches. Participatory Design It has a Scandinavian origin with a lot of concern about democracy of the parties involved in the research. The development of technology in this region affected the welfare and job security of a lot of workers. The intensity of social equality in the vicinity and the many strong unions called for participation of workers in the development of these technologies, that ended up affecting them either positively or negatively (Bjerknes & Bratteteig, 1995). The reason for coming up with this approach was to make sure the effect of the new technologies being introduced after short intervals is not harsh on the workers to operate with them. It was to be guaranteed by their involvement in the development of the technologies. It is true that when all stakeholders are involved in the drafting of a project,t it is expected to receive little resistance in its implementation, and sometimes no resistance at all is faced. Through this, the society is expected to enjoy more advantages of human-centered technology as per the perception of this approach (Bergold & Thomas, 2012). There are some distinctive goals that characterize the participatory design. One of the goals of this methodology is to ensure there is a maximum participation of stakeholders. People from different areas of specialization are to be involved if a research is to be done using this kind of approach. The broad base of expertise is used so that the quality of the human-centered technology that is to be recommended be of high quality (Blomberg & Henderson, 1990). The other goal of this type of methodology is to come up with prototyping of ideas aimed at solving a problem in the society. It is at this point that designers and users join ideas so that they can come up with technological tools that match the workplace of the tools (Lindsay, Jackson, & Schofield, 2012). Under this approach, if a human-centered technology is to be developed, there are three stages that must be followed. Step one is the initial exploration of work. At this level, the designers of the intended technology meet with the users. They take this opportunity to analyze the working environment that the innovation will be introduced into. Step two is the discovery process where the users and designers get to discuss the values expected for their work areas and the goals that the project can have. The final stage is prototyping where the tools to be introduced are tailored to match the work environment that exists. All these steps are followed with an aim of coming up with a human-centered technology. It is also important to note that participatory approach concentrates on ethnographic methods. Indirectly this means that it is more inclined towards being a qualitative research since ethnography is usually qualitative (Lindsay, Jackson, & Schofield, 2012). Action Research It is a participative research methodology that combines action and research. It is an approach to an American and English origin in the 1940s. In the United States, the father of action research is believed to be a psychologist called Kurt Lewin. This analyst argued that people will be more willing to participate in a study if they knew the study was going to add some value to their daily operations. Therefore, this gave rise to the action research approach that not only raises the alarm about a problem that needs solving but also made sure action was taken. It is a research method that pushes the researchers to the field to enquire about a problem and then report back. Finally, change is ordered when the researchers go back to the field to implement actions that are based on the report issued earlier on (Axup & Foth, 2006). The whole process of an action research model can be described as a constant cycle that takes and gives. The approach takes information from the environment where the research has been conducted. The information provides the relevant taskforce with an idea of what action should be taken to solve the problem. Therefore, the society is given the appropriate human-centered technologies that are suitable to address the issue (Zoltowski, Oakes, & Cardella, 2012). The action research approach is also taken through a series of stages. It starts with planning of the entire technology development. The planning has to be based on a study that was done in the fields where every stakeholder took part. Doing this makes sure that the strategy that will be proposed is concerned about the human population. The second stage is acting. At this phase, actions that are perceived to be well informed are taken. Such measures include implementation of technologies that are keen on the welfare of the people who are to work with the ideas (Hayes, 2011). The next stage entails observing how the specified action is to be effected in the working environment of the people. The observation gives room to note what needs to be done and was not done, or what was done inappropriately. Finally, reflections are made on how the used technology has been affecting the population working with it. All these stages involve processes that engage every stakeholder in the area of study (Mathiassen, Chiasson, & Germonprez, 2012). One particular thing about action research is the fact that, it is not only aimed at exposing a situation in the society that needs attention, but also targets to make sure the problem is solved by the planned actions. Furthermore, it also ensures the participants can take control of such situations by themselves on reoccurrence (Hearn & Foth, 2005). The attribute makes it a beneficial approach to the people thus it is suitable for use when developing human-centered technologies. Differences of the Participatory Design and Action Research The review done above on the two approaches shows various activities and objectives of each of them. They are preferred by many organizations that are seeking to come up with developments in their working environment and improve of services offered to the society because the approaches are concerned about the welfare of the people. However, the ways that these two participative research methodologies work are different in some ways. The following are some of the differences that distinguish the two approaches especially when it comes to designing human-centered technological advancements. The first difference of these two approach is the intent they have when used to conduct a study. The core objectives that they have as their set targets are varying. Participatory design is aimed at understanding and explaining a problem that exists in the population or the working area. It further goes to explaining the problem that is experienced by the people while giving recommendations (Sanders, Brandt, & Binder, 2010, November). All the stakeholders that take part in the participatory design are given an opportunity to influence the recommendations that are to be issued since the technological proposed solutions have to be covering the entire population. On the other hand, the intention of action research model is to analyze a given problem in the working environment and bring change to the situation. The change is brought about through adequately informed actions that are taken after an evaluation of the problem by all the stakeholders. It is because efforts are geared towards bettering the people’s welfare (Axup & Foth, 2006). The second difference between the two approaches when designing a human concerned technology is the strategies that are taken to make people participate in the research. The participatory design gets people from the environment participating in gathering information from them. The approach taken here is usually restricted to gathering of data and information about what has been going on in the place (Kensing & Blomberg, 1998). Therefore, before the design for a given technological advancement is made all the stakeholders participate through releasing the information they have about the current conditions. On the other hand, action research invites the participation of the people right from the gathering of information on developing the designs. In this approach, all the stakeholders participate in the designing of the technology through prototyping. Opinions are sought as the models are developed so that the human resource can find a technological tool that they are all able to use effectively (Axup & Foth, 2006). The other difference is experienced when it comes to the preferred methods of conducting the studies. The participatory design approach puts emphasis on the ethnographic methods of study. Ethnography is a type of research method that calls for the interaction of the researcher with the occupants of the area being studied, to the level of living in culture or environment (Bjerknes & Bjork, 2012). Ethnography design is mostly used for qualitative studies thus bringing the notion that the participatory design is preferable for qualitative researchers. However, this does not mean that participatory design only deals with qualitative studies. From the other end, action research is not confined to a particular study method. Any method can be used under this approach as long as the participation of the people to be affected by the proposed technology is allowed. Lack of restrictions on what to use makes action research a methodology that is very flexible when designing a technological tool that suits the needs of the people. Lastly, these two approaches differ when it comes to the period of participation for the stakeholders. The participatory design requires the participators to be available just for a short time when compared to the action research (Ravera, Hubacek, Reed, & Tarrasón, 2011). For the participatory model, the research activities end at analyzing the situation at the workplace as recommendations are made on how the problem can be solved. It is an indication that the research will take a shorter time. The action research approach moves to the level of taking informed actions to bring change to the current scenarios. The participators are kept for long in this case as they are also involved in the design of the human-centered technology. Therefore, we can conclude that there are longer periods of participation in action research model as compared to the participatory design approach. Similarities of the Two Approaches Since both participatory design and action research are in general grouped under participative research methodologies, they have some common features. One of the similarities of these two models is the fact that they both require the participation of stakeholders (Axup & Foth, 2006). In the participatory design, the people who are intended to use the technology being developed are usually involved in the research. For the action research, the people who are going to be attached to the improvement are involved in the organizing and implementation stages of the design. The two approaches priority is to making sure the well-being of the human beings as they use the technology (Lindsay, Jackson, & Schofield, 2012). The other similarity between these two approaches that are used in designing of human-centered technology is the fact that they both operate in stages (Axup & Foth, 2006). First is the participatory design; it is done in three stages. The first stage is the initial exploration of work that analyzes the current position before any improvements on the operations of the workplace are implemented. The second stage here is the discovery process that is keen on considering that the goals of the project suite the value needed for the workforce. The third and final stage here is prototyping. It involves making sure the technology that will be introduced can fit into the exact working conditions that are available. In the same way, the action research approach works in stages. It has four steps that are operated in a cycle. According to this statement, the four phases of the research are to be handled one at a time, and even the entire process repeated if there is need. The four stages include planning, taking actions, making observations, and reflecting. All the scenes here take advantage of the participation of the stakeholders. Just as the case of the participatory design, the idea here is to make sure the technology to be employed is human-centered. The other similarity between these two approaches is seen when it comes to the methodologies that can be used in the designs. Both of them can be grouped under meta-methodologies. All the quantitative and qualitative methods can be used in these types of studies. The attribute makes them useful in many cases where a design for a new technology is to be structured, and it needs to be concentrated on how people will be affected. It is important though to note that for participatory design, ethnography was stated as the most preferred methodology but not the only option (Axup & Foth, 2006). Conclusion The essay has looked at two strategies that are useful when it comes to conducting a study on how to come up with a technological design. Earlier studies have shown how technology is soon taking over most operations in the world. Therefore, there is need to have these technological improvements match the values and standards that human beings can withstand. In the essay, various ways through which participatory design and action research can be used to harmonize technology and human welfare have been highlighted. Through this, a comparison and contrast of the two approaches was clearly noted down. The significant similarity of the two is that they both emphasize on the participation of the people who are to work with technology or strategy that is to be issued. The differences in the two approaches are seen when the strategies they use are analyzed separately. The goals of these study models are also varying through the involvement of all the stakeholders is still the reason of embodiment. The central part purpose of action research is to make sure there is a change from the current situations that might not be pleasant. The change is to be impacted through the actions that are to be taken as recommended by the study. On the other end, the goal of participatory design is to involve all the relevant people in analyzing and understanding of a situation. Despite such differences, the strategies advocated by the two approaches can be productively engaged in designing a human-centered technology. While one study is keen on engaging stakeholders on the best choices to make, the other model concentrates on taking actions that ensure the development is successfully made (Rogers, Sharp, & Preece, 2011). Therefore, the comparison that has been done on this paper can be relied on as an argument that advocates for a combination of the two approaches when designing a technology that is human-centered. References Read More