It seems like Content analysis could be both
qualitative and quantitative and not necessarily involves user studies. The
paper about the concept of Actdresses used Content analysis as a major part of
the structure which probably was one reason of why it was quite hard for me to
relate the paper with qualitative methods or the theme of the week. I wasn´t
really familiar with the definition of Content analysis before which recently
may have changed with a clarified example of how you can use it in a particular
context, like in this case on the dinosaur robot Pleo. During the lecture, Ylva
Fernaeus (one of the authors) told us that the study was based on real user
data and semiotics which in turn were the important influences of qualitative content
which were used in the study. At first sight the paper seemed to be more
relevant for the next theme but after this enlightened lecture is it easier to
understand why it was used during this theme and as a transition between qualitative
methods and design research.
During the lecture we discussed the definition of empirical
data and what in the study which in turn could be counted as empirical data. I
have always linked empirical data with some kind of measurements which often is
used within quantitative studies. Apparently are like in this case reflected practices
or sketches counted as empirical data too, even if these sketches don´t visualize
measurements of something. Interesting though because these sketches showed
only the concepts of Actdresses but they were still defined as empirical data.
We also discussed if the paper should be rated as a
research paper and obviously it should because of for instance the content
analysis. On the other hand, I believe that this paper lacked some kind of user
study for necessary feedback and different opinions about the concept, even though
Fernaeus mentioned that it was too early to conduct it. User studies make research
papers more interesting to read and would clarify the need and demand of
Actdresses.
It can be hard to get feedback from users on an early idea. However, there are ways one can try to do it. Focus groups is a common method for this, where you invite potential users and show and discuss your sketches/prototypes etc. A problem in these kind of studies are that you do not experience technical and other problems that occur when one tries to use a technology in "real life". Therefore, these evaluations are often positive, but, nevertheless, can provide valuable feedback. As a researcher you need to be very open to critical remarks that can help you improve the concepts.
SvaraRaderaLike you, I also found this week repetitive. Which is good! We'll hopefully get a deeper understanding of the subject if it's approached from different views, or partly different views. Anyway, there are several more papers by Ylva at dl.acm.org, and at least one of them is a follow up on actDresses, if you want to read more about that.
SvaraRadera"During the lecture we discussed the definition of empirical data and what in the study which in turn could be counted as empirical data. I have always linked empirical data with some kind of measurements which often is used within quantitative studies. Apparently are like in this case reflected practices or sketches counted as empirical data too, even if these sketches don´t visualize measurements of something. Interesting though because these sketches showed only the concepts of Actdresses but they were still defined as empirical data."
SvaraRaderaI also reflected upon this, and I asked Ylva at the lecture why there is not a distinction between for example the study of phenomenology and that of empirical research. She concluded the she agree with me and that it's hard to actually pinpoint this case study as empirical. I just believe it should be clearer guidlines. "If you want to discuss phenomenology do it in this setting or in this qualitative research, if you want to discuss empirical data or findings - do it in this research area".