Qualitative requirements



Obtaining Requirements

-

Qualitative methods

Written by: Robin Beaumont e-mail: robin@organplayers.co.uk

Date last updated: 09 January 2008 Version: 2

[pic]

How this document should be used:

This document has been designed to be suitable for web based and face-to-face teaching. The text has been made to be as interactive as possible with web based group exercises.

If you are using this document as part of a web-based course you are urged to use the online discussion board to discuss the issues raised in this document and share your solutions with other students.

Who this document is aimed at:

This document is aimed for two types of people:

( Those who wish to become involved in planning a role in Information Systems development/maintainance/evaluation but are not interested in the nuts

and bolts of systems analysis, such people are commonly called domain experts and act a bridges between a professional group (e.g. medics, Solicitors etc) to which they belong and IT experts.

( As an introduction for those just beginning professional computer science courses

I hope you enjoy working through this document.

Robin Beaumont

Contents

1. Before you start 3

1.1 Prerequisites 3

1.2 Required Resources 3

2. Learning Outcomes 4

3. Introduction 5

4. Ethnography 5

4.1 The Stages of an Ethnographic Study 7

4.2 The Mini-Ethnographic Study 8

4.3 Shadowing 9

4.3.1 The importance of having a theoretical framework for the reflection 9

4.3.2 What is the difference between shadowing a person and visiting an organisation? 13

4.3.3 What should I tell the person I am shadowing is the purpose of the exercise? 13

4.4 Ethnography and Information Systems 14

4.5 Ethnography and User Interface Requirements 15

5. Dry and Wet Data 16

6. Ethnomethodology 16

6.1 So What is Ethnomethodology? 16

6.1.1 Explanation One 17

6.1.2 Explanation Two 18

6.2 Ethnomethodology in Health and Information Systems 20

7. Software support - Bridging the void 21

8. Exercises 22

9. Summary 23

10. Links 23

11. References 24

Before you start

1 Prerequisites

This document assumes that you have worked through a number of documents to gain the following knowledge and skills:

1. Basic knowledge of information systems see the following to check out specifically what you should know:



2. Basic knowledge of systems development methods see the following to check out specifically what you should know:

3. Basic knowledge of issues around user involvement in systems development - see the following to check out specifically what you should know in the document " Getting Users Involved in Developing Information Systems" at

4. Quantitative /Qualitative research fundamental propositions see the following to check out specifically what you should know in the document at



5. Obtaining Requirements using a Requirements Engineering Perspective - - see the following to check out specifically what you should know in the document at



You can find all the above documents at:



2 Required Resources

You need the ability to be able to view this document while online so that you can check out the various web sites mentioned.

Learning Outcomes

This document aims to provide you with the following skills and information. After you have completed it you should come back to these points, ticking off those with which you feel happy.

|Learning outcome |Tick box |

|Be able to describe the difference between the systems engineering approach and more qualitative methods |θ |

|Be able to provide a summary description of Ethnography |θ |

|Be able to describe the main stages of an Ethnographic study |θ |

|Be able to describe an example of Ethnography in ‘Workplace Studies’ |θ |

|Be able to undertake a mini-ethnographic study (i.e. shadowing) |θ |

|Be able to write up a mini-ethnographic study (i.e. shadowing) |θ |

|Be able to re-interpret a mini-ethnographic study (i.e. shadowing) using various theoretical frameworks such as Feminism, Marxist |θ |

|and Symbolic Interactionism (i.e. roles and acting metaphor) | |

|Be able to evaluate the various reflective interpretations that you applied to a shadowing exercise |θ |

|Be able to compare / evaluate the various qualitative methods described in this document against those presented in the |θ |

|‘Requirements Engineering’ perspective document | |

|Be able to describe Goguen’s concepts of Wet and Dry Data |θ |

|Be able to provide a brief summary of Ethnomethodology |θ |

|Be able to provide an example of where Ethnomethodology as been used in Healthcare research |θ |

|Be able to provide a brief description of the various web sites that provide information about Qualitative methods and Information|θ |

|Systems | |

Introduction

In the previous documents we have considered the fundamental differences between the Quantitative and Qualitative approach and have investigated various methods that purport to apply the empirical/quantitative paradigm to elucidating Information System requirements. In this document we will concentrate on qualitative approaches. It is interesting to note that if one takes a iterative approach to systems development much of what is discussed in this document can also be applied to qualitative evaluation.

I will not discuss the assumptions that are made when choosing to use either a quantitative or qualitative approach here – I assume you know these. If you do not I strongly advice you to read the document “Quantitative /Qualitative research fundamental propositions” now. The following will make little sense if you do not appreciate the fundamentally different beliefs espoused by the two views. It is important also to realise that one can not apply standards developed to assess quantitative approaches to qualitative work. This is fundamental. See Potts & Newstetter 1997 for details

In this document we will look specifically at two qualitative techniques that have gained some popularity in the last few years. The first is ethnography and the second, a much more exoteric approach called, ethnomethodology.

Ethnography

Much of the information below is taken from McNeill 1990, one of the few sources of information that clarify, rather than cloud, research methods, particularly concerning qualitative methods.

Basically, ethnography means "Writing about a way of life" (McMeill 1990 p64). The important aspect is that it involves a process of getting to know the culture by immersing oneself in it. Possibly, a description is best:

"Go and sit in the lounges of the luxury hotels and on the doorsteps of the flophouses; sit on the Gold Coast settees and on the slum shakedowns; sit in the Orchestra Hall and in the Star and Garter Burlesk. In short gentlemen, go get the seats of your pants dirty in real research" (Park quoted in Gomm and McNeill 1982).

Most people tend to think that this, originally anthropological, technique is mainly being used to investigate cultures from distant lands. However, this is not the case as the researcher's gaze is more frequently turned to an unusual subculture of some type. (Sociologists would frequently call such cultures "deviant".)

Such an approach has a long history:

"Charles Booth (1840-1916) was conducting one of the first major social surveys, which he published between 1891 and 1903 in seventeen volumes entitled Life and Labour of the People in London. Booth, prompted by a number of newspaper and magazine articles, was concerned to find out the true extent of poverty among the working classes of London at that time, and he collected vast quantities of data about them, using a combination of early survey techniques and other less statistical methods. He went from house to house in certain areas of the East End of London, painstakingly recording the number of residents, the number of rooms they occupied, their living conditions, their income, diet, clothing, and so on. He also collected their feelings about it. He spent some time actually living as a boarder in houses in the areas that he was studying, and making detailed studies of particular families" (McNeill 1990 p3).

While one may well ask why Booth went to such extremes as living among the poor, it is he who provides the following explanation:

"It is not easy for any outsider to gain sufficient insight into the lives of these people. The descriptions of them in the books we read are for the most part as unlike the truth as are the descriptions of aristocratic life in the books they read. Those who know, think it is a matter without interest, so that again and again in my enquires, when some touch of colour has been given illuminating the ways of life among the people who are above the need for help, it has been cut short by a semi-apology: "But that is not what you want to know about"...Of personal knowledge I have not much...Yet such as it is, what I have witnessed has been enough to throw a strong light on the materials I have used, and, for me, has made the dry bones live. For three separate periods, I have taken up quarters, each time for several weeks, where I was not known, and as a lodger have shared the lives of people...I became intimately acquainted with some of those I met, and the lives and habits of many others naturally came under observation. My object, which I trust was a fair one, was never suspected, my position never questioned. The people with whom I lived became, and are still, my friends" (Booth quoted in McNeill 1990 p65)

The ethnographic approach has been used much more recently in the healthcare situation to great effect in two classic studies, both published in 1961, these being:

1. Erving Goffman's study of an asylum, his aim being:

"...to try to learn about the social work of the hospital inmate, as this world is subjectively experienced by him. I started out in the role of an assistant to the athletic director, when pressed avowing to be a student of recreation and community life, and I passed the day with patients, avoiding sociable contact with the staff and the carrying of a key. I did not sleep in the wards, and the top hospital management knew what my aims were." (Goffman 1961 p.Preface)

2. Howard Becker's study to understand the process of becoming a doctor. In this study he made use of interviews, but possibly more interestingly, he later made use of his skill as a jazz pianist to study the music of dance musicians (Becker 1963).

The first of the descriptions above are frequently referred to as using the technique of participant observation (in contrast to non-participant). Although participant observation frequently means taking on an assumed role it need not mean fully participating:

"The essence of participant observation is the prolonged participation of the researcher in the daily life of a group (although not necessarily as a member of the group) and his or her attempt to empathize with the norms, values and behaviour of that group" (Becker 1970 quoted in Hammersley 1993 p185)

Possibly the most famous example of voyeuristic participant is the 1970 study by Humphreys (Humphreys 1970):

"...who investigated casual homosexual encounters in public lavatories in the USA. By passing himself off as a voyeur, interested in watching the sexual behaviour of others, he was able to obtain a considerable amount of information about the patterns of such encounters. Amongst the details given in his final report are accounts of the characteristics of the kinds of public toilets in which such behaviour takes place." (Quoted in Brodie, Williams and Owens 1994 p104).

As described in the above example, a personal characteristic of the researcher is often used to maximum advantage in this type of research (i.e. the ability of the researcher to be able to play Jazz piano). Here is another example:

"Patrick's (1973) study of a Glasgow gang is one of the best known, A social worker who looked considerably younger than he was, Patrick, managed to become accepted as a gang member by a Glasgow gang. His position as an accepted member of the gang provided him with a unique opportunity to investigate the activities, motivations and attitudes of gang members." (Quoted in Brodie, Williams and Owens 1994 p96).

Occasionally researchers act to gain admission to a particular world:

"Rosenhaln (1973) who with several colleagues [in the United States] succeeded in having himself admitted to a psychiatric hospital with a diagnosis of Schizophrenia (the single researcher [who] was admitted to a private, rather than a state hospital, was given a diagnosis of mainic-depressive psychosis, a diagnosis with much better prognosis - despite the fact that all researchers had claimed identical symptoms when presenting!) In Rosenhahn's study the 'participant' status of the observers was in some way unusual, in that having been admitted to hospital all researchers thereafter behaved quite normally; notably the staff of the hospital typically failed to notice that they were 'normal' (one researcher's taking of notes was recorded in the hospital as 'obsessional note-taking behaviour) whilst a number of real patients recognised the researcher for what they were. Thus from the patients' point of view, Rosenhahn and his colleagues were outsiders, but from the viewpoint of the staff, who failed to recognise them, they were participants." (Quoted in Brodie, Williams and Owens 1994 p97)

The above situation of 'acting' to trigger certain behaviour is more common in the 'Ethnomethodological' approach, which will be mentioned later.

While the majority of ethnographic data is reported by the researcher, the life-history technique allows those being investigated to talk for themselves. A 'life history' is an autobiography of a person which has been obtained through interview and guided conversation (McNeill p85). The 'oral-history' project in the UK is an example of this technique.

Ethnographic techniques aim for 'naturalism' and are always carried out in the natural setting. This is pivotal to success as it provides part of the explanation of the meaning for the ethnographer.

To sum up, the purpose of an ethnographic study is to gain insight and understanding about a particular 'way of life' which is usually some type of subculture. It is a qualitative method; therefore, 'uniqueness' and interpretation, rather than generalisability and replicability, are valued more highly.

Now let's consider how one goes about undertaking an ethnographic study.

Exercise

Spend a few moments listing a few areas where you think the ethnographic approach might be useful.

1 The Stages of an Ethnographic Study

In the past, ethical issues regarding deception or confidentiality were not considered important, and I wonder just what the local ethics committee in the UK would think of Goffman's proposal nowadays concerning his technique for observing asylum patients and staff?

Below are the main stages of an ethnographic study:

Choose the Topic Area: This is to do with a particular social group (nurses socialising, home for the elderly, etc) rather than an abstract topic.

Review Literature: This focuses on discovering the group normalities, the degree of exposure and possible resistance to new members.

Plan/Join Group: At this stage you decide if you will be overt or covert, the planned length of time and your 'cover story'. You also ensure that you understand and can mimic any rules that may be impinged upon you to gain admission and stay in the group.

Familiarisation 'Passive' Stage:  At this stage you keep your ears and eyes open but mouth firmly shut! You will take copious notes often covertly. One example of this is of an ethnographic researcher writing in the loo on loo paper while working on a car production line.

Interactive Stage: At this stage you build up relationships with people, identify key individuals and penetrate 'fronts' that people put on when you first get to know them. Often in the ethnographic account a particular event is recounted which to the researcher reflects the incident. For example, in one particular project where an ethnographer was working with policemen (Cain 1973 quoted in Hammersley p186), she felt she was initiated into 'easing' behaviour when, amongst over things, she was included in drinking beer in a cupboard. Another example of literally 'easing' is given by Maurice Punch (Punch 1979 quoted in Hammersley 1993 p190) who worked with the Amsterdam police force: "...my acceptance seemed to be complete when 'Jan' ostentatiously lifted his buttocks from the seat of the patrol car and broke wind with aplomb. It was the turning point of the research and I felt like Whyte (1955 p318) stumbling on the informal social structure of Cornerville".

Active Stage: This is only applicable when the research is covert and is the state when unstructured interviews ('guided conversations') commence.

Conclusion Stage: The researcher now reflects on the experience and identifies patterns and issues. While a 'report' is produced, the importance of it is to enable people who have not experienced the alien culture be able to understand it (within their own cultural context). The 'report' frequently bears little resemblance to that of an empirical document of the same name. In fact, occasionally the reports are more like novels enabling readers to understand the alien culture within their own frames of reference. Just think of Goffmans Asylums.

However, there are some techniques that permit a more structured approach. One such technique is 'Componential analysis' (Wallace 1972) where a conceptual map of an individual and/or community is developed with the people involved. (For more details, see Brodie, Williams and Owens 1994 p98.)

Myers, Michael D. 1999. “Investigating Information Systems with Ethnographic Research,” Communication of the AIS, Vol. 2, Article 23, pp. 1-20 describes various types of ethnographic research on page 8 it is available to download from (Active 08/01/08)

Note: I disagree with Myers concerning the possibility that qualitative research can be positivist as I feel that this is a form of double counting.

Some researchers maintain that there is a difference between the ethnographic study and a 'case study' while others (i.e. Robson 1993 p148) define the concept to be sufficiently broad to include both. The main area of derision relates to the writer's stance when producing the report and how much time they spend collecting information.

The above process requires the researcher to dedicate a large amount of time, often years, in the field; therefore, to make ethnography more palatable, it has become watered down and more user friendly by the development of the 'mini-ethnographic' study.

Exercise

1. Now that you have seen what is actually involved in a full ethnographic study indicate on the list you created in the previous exercise those topics which would need to receive the full-blown treatment and those where the ‘mini-ethnographic’ approach might be sufficient.

2. Do you think there might be something wrong with trying to guess the amount of effort required at this stage. If so why?

2 The Mini-Ethnographic Study

The problems associated with the classical ethnographic study can be reduced in a number of ways. The person can undertake an ethnographic study within their own situation rather than move into one, or the process can be condensed into a set of small more focused stages. Examples have already been given of people using their own situation for the ethnographic study, and you will discover more examples in the following sections.

Because of the reduced range and time span of the study, the process is frequently so reduced that it becomes merely a series of interviews. For example:

• Redican and Hedley 1988 carried out two short interviews on a group of twelve women at a local sports centre that they had previously joined to identify the most suitable individuals. The purpose of the study was to discover the reasons why women attended sports centres. Similarly, Roberts and Brodies 1992 carried out unstructured and semi-structured interviews on a range of users of sports centres.

• For healthcare examples, including interviews with doctors, see "Qualitative Research in Healthcare", Chapter two by Pope & Mays 2000 (available online at ).

The principle problem with the mini-ethnographic approach that is the reduction in the amount of information collected means that you may end up with just a "few banalities" (Miles & Huberman 1984 p27 quoted in Robson 1993 p149).

However, Miles and Huberman suggest that by focusing more than would have been done traditionally, this danger may be reduced. Taking a purely musical analogy, Beethoven's very short piano pieces ('Bagatelles') could easy have become trite unless he had not deliberately decided to explore very specific focused themes within each of them.

Obviously by adopting this more focused technique you are also adopting a more structured (quantitative) stance, the extreme result being that you might carry out a few highly structured interviews. In the end you must think which philosophical view you adhere to rather than what amount of time you have to do the study!

One particular form of mini-ethnography is shadowing which we will consider below.

3 Shadowing

Shadowing has become a popular method in teaching because it can be adapted a number of ways to fulfil a number of purposes. A shadowing exercise can also be thought of as a Case study in some respects.

The exercise is often used to try and get students to move into a more qualitative way of thinking. Students coming from a science background find it difficult to use a relatively unstructured approach where they are often passive. It is often very uncomfortable to leave the research laboratory or not control structured interviews etc. Similarly the style of writing is very different from that required in the quantitative paradigm. Gone has the strict rule to be writing as the third person such as ‘it was demonstrated’ instead ‘I felt’ is the order of the day with the ‘I’ word being positively encouraged.

1 The importance of having a theoretical framework for the reflection

The exercise also provides excellent opportunities to engage in ‘reflective writting’. What I mean here is while traditionally the mini-ethnographic study would end with writing up the study based upon the interpreted experience of the ethnographer with ‘reflective writing’ the student reinterprets the experience from a number of different theoretical perspectives such as Marxist, Symbolic Interactionist or Feminist to name but a few and then evaluates them.

Why do I think it not enough for the person to just reflect upon the experience? Basically this is because of the innate weakness of human memory. The exercise below introduces you so some of the issues.

Exercise

Go to Chis Chathams web site and read about the Seven Sins of Memory



Rather than just believing me I would like you to try the exercise on the next page taken from the excellent book Mind Hacks by Tom Stafford and Matt Webb demonstrating one aspect of memory -see if you can recognise which memory sin it is?

Clearly the above exercise is to do with the creation of false memories. One could argue that the type of exercise above, of which there are several (see the above book for details), would invalidate any type of research involving 'reflective' qualitative practice and many experimental psychologists take that viewpoint. Psychoanalysts offer a paradigm in direct opposition to that of psychologists.

I would take a more lenient view concerning ethnography and shadowing suggesting that by being aware of the foibles of memory and using a particular 'lens' to interpret the experience we are at least being aware of the particular errors we may be making. And the errors will be within a particular 'lens'

A good example of this would be applying Emid Munford's Socio technical approach to interpret a shadowing exercise, You would focus on the users attitudes toward the IT systems to see is they demonstrated a positive attitude (i.e. enhanced job satisfaction/ enrichment). You would also focus on possible technical and social problems that may reduce job satisfaction and work efficiency etc.

Another 'lens' might be that of feminism where you would interpret your experience through the assumptions within that 'lens' such as females tend to be repressed by men and have a unique voice etc.

To find out more about these different 'lens' read the document “Quantitative /Qualitative research fundamental propositions” referred to in the section ‘before you begin’ at the beginning of this document or for more in depth knowledge I recommend Griffin 2006 or Littlejogn & Foss 2006.

Exercise

Imagine that you have carried out a shadowing exercise in the following situations. For each situation consider what aspect of the experience you might concentrate on based on each of the theoretical perspectives listed below. Do not worry too much if you have problems with the Role/actor metaphor this is within the Symbolic Interaction 'lens'.

Other comments:

2 What is the difference between shadowing a person and visiting an organisation?

Shadowing exercises have been less successful than they might have been because people have frequently not interacted in the appropriate manner, for example it is important to realise that

• If you are being shown around like a visitor, this is not shadowing.

• If you are being excluded from observing what the person normally does, this is not shadowing.

• If you take breaks with the person you’re with, then you are shadowing.

• If you concentrate on how they say the organisation does things rather than you observing the person perform, then you are not shadowing. You are interested in their view, regardless of how wacky they might be, not the organisations.

Often this problem is exacerbated when a student chooses to shadow a high level manager rather than possibly someone lower down the hierarchy.

Another common problem is that students often feel that are carrying out the exercise to find out as much as possible about the particular culture/group/organisation in a quantitative way, such as the number of employees there are or the average turnover etc. rather than to get to understand the particular individuals experiences they are shadowing.

3 What should I tell the person I am shadowing is the purpose of the exercise?

The most important aspect is to debrief the person who you shadow, this can be simply a thank you or a detailed explanation of what you focused on and a chance not only to see the report/essay but also to contribute to it.

Before the actual shadowing it is important to gain the persons trust, because ideally you want to tell then as little as possible before.

The best type of pre shadowing exercise is something like "As part of a course I’m doing at College, we are encouraged to broaden our horizons by seeing what other people do in their jobs for a day. Any information I come across will be treated in complete confidence. And we can stop at any time. "

Always avoid such things as:

• "I’m doing a computing course."

• "I’m doing an IT course."

• “I’m interested to see how effectively you communicate with your colleagues”

• etc.

The reason for this is obvious, the subject will change their behaviour based upon the information you give them. For example you may well be interested in focusing in on how they interact with various Information Systems which if you mention at the start probably will result in them spending the day telling you what they think should be done with IT in the organisation rather than how they manage information, and also stop them from working normally. From a theoretical perspective one might argue that such presumptions on your part concerning what are the important aspects of their work might be invalid anyway!

Obviously when you write up the shadowing experience you should describe in detail what you did tell them along with their response.

Moving now to more familiar ground lets look at how the ethnographic approach has been used in relation to Information Systems (IS).

4 Ethnography and Information Systems

The ethnographic approach to either aid the elucidation of systems requirements or evaluate such systems was first used in the mid 1980s. (See Sommerville, Rodden and Sawyer et al 1993 for details.) Sommerville, Rodden and Sawyer et al 1993 provide a clear reason for adopting this approach:

"The rationale for these studies is that actual work practices often differ quite markedly from the 'prescribed practices' set out in company manuals and handbooks. It is usually the case that a 'working division of labour' (Anderson, Hughes & Sharrock 1989) evolves where a team organises itself to carry out a task irrespective of the job descriptions and job titles defined by the organisation. This working division of labour is not static. It is continually re-negotiated depending on circumstances, resource availability and priorities.

The notion that there is a fixed process or procedure for most tasks which can be automated is an over-simplication;. We believe that the existence of this 'working division of labour' rather than the prescribed organisation is one important reason why the requirements for a software system are often such that the system does not meet the real needs of end-users. The system requirements are defined according to documented procedures and standards but don't take into account actual working practices.

Involving prospective end-users of a computer system in the requirements analysis does not solve this problem. We know from work in knowledge acquisition that experts find it very difficult to articulate their expertise. It is equally if not more difficult for end-users to describe the working division of labour which is, in fact, informal and dynamic. In other cases, the actual work practices may be quite contrary to organisational standards and the end-users of the technology will simply not admit that these practices go on." (p165)

Heath and Luff 2000 provide more academic reasons for the uptake of 'workplace studies' which they consider to be ethnographies (p8):

(Extract below has been slightly re-formatted):

1. "A wide-ranging critique of the more conventional models which inform our understanding of human-computer interaction, models which have permeated HCI, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and cognitive science.

2. Growing interest in developing technologies to support collaborative activities amongst personnel who may be co-present or located in distinct physical domains.

3. Well publicised technology failures has led to a growing interest amongst computer scientists and engineers in finding new and more reliable methods for the identification of requirements for complex systems.

4. Growing recognition that technological deployment is more complex than hitherto assumed; work practices do not necessarily change to make systems work." (p8)

It should be mentioned that some commentators, such as R J Anderson 1994, have argued that using ethnography to collect data rather than as a method of reportage is basically degrading the technique. Those who use the techniques in this way argue that the point is that the spirit, if not the letter, of ethnography has been used to help analyse aspects of Information Systems. One could just as easy argue that you are invalidating any results by merely using the tool without taking into account the underlying philosophical aspects.

Specifically this technique has been used to help provide information about user interface requirements (ie Sommerville, Rodden and Sawyer et al 1993) and the nature of information (Goguen 1994). We will consider both these aspects now.

5 Ethnography and User Interface Requirements

One of the more recent trends in user interface development is the 'Adaptive interface' concept (see Hill and Hollan 1992, Grudin 1989), of which an example is Microsoft's Office 2003 to the present 2007 version. This is where less frequently used facilities disappear from the screen dynamically. Additionally, individual users have the opportunity to change the interface to suit their needs. This is the accepted viewpoint. However, in the Sommerville et al 1993 ethnographic study concerning flight controllers, they discovered:

"From our observations we have become convinced that some 'conventional' assumptions made by systems designers may be invalid when co-operative systems are being developed. Examples of these assumptions are:

1. Computer systems should always automate tedious manual tasks which involve comparisons of similar information and ordering of records in a data store. Therefore, the computer system not the human operator should be responsible for sorting information and maintaining the sort order when new information is added to the system.

2. User interface designers should always provide facilities for end-users to tailor interfaces to suit their own personal ways of working and personal preferences." (p.167)

The first assumption was found to be invalid because the apparently simple task of manually ordering the paper 'flight strips' to prioritise landings etc was found to have a great deal of significance, not least as a safety check.

The second assumption was invalidated because:

"Much of the work of controllers requires 'at a glance' observations of strips and flight progress boards. A supervisor or chief controller, for example, will simply walk around the suite and will assist more junior controllers if any potential problems or difficulties are observed. This can only be effective if all controllers can rapidly assimilate flight strip information and this rapid assimilation is hindered if even slight differences in strip representations are supported. The requirements identified through ethnography are therefore 'negative' requirements. The system must not provide tailorability which will affect immediate understanding of the representation." (p168).

Several aspects of the above studies should be noted but probably the most important is the lack of adoption of ‘assumptions’ and the use of any technique to verify or repute them – a characteristic of the qualitative paradigm rather than the traditional quantitative approach where one enters with a clearly defined hypothesis etc.

We will now take a brief look at what ethnography has contributed to the debate concerning the nature of information.

Dry and Wet Data

Goguen 1994 proposes that information can be graded on a continuum from wet to dry. Wet information is that which requires knowledge of the context to help define it whereas dry information is context independent. Goguen uses the word 'situated' to describe a concept similar in meaning to context. Here is the relevant paragraph:

"...information...can be understood in a wide variety of contexts from information that is so thoroughly situated that it cannot be understood except in relation to very particular contexts. We call these types of information dry and wet, respectively...Of course, there is really a continuum of intermediate cases, e.g. 'damp' information, such as cookery recipes. In general, information cannot be fully context sensitive (for then it could only be understood when and where it is produced) nor fully context insensitive (for then it could be understood by anyone at any time). A fairly extreme case is the 'raw data' collected in a scientific experiment; although it may be just a collection of numbers, it is very highly situated, because those numbers only make sense to a very small group who share a very particular context. On the other hand, an equation that summarises the numbers is relatively more dry, and a physical law is even drier. It is important to notice that information, however dry, must still be interpreted in some local context. Therefore, the qualities of situatedness...apply to information; that is, information is always emergent, contingent, local, embodied, open and vague. This has important implications for requirements engineering, in suggesting what we can responsibly expect from requirements documents, as opposed to the unattainable ideals of positivist philosophers." (Goguen 1994 p173-174)

Note: Do not worry about not understanding the last few sentences about 'situatedness' in the above abstract.

In a more practical light, ethnographic approaches have been used to help specify high level system requirements for various Information Systems, including those for learning disabilities in the UK by 'shadowing' individuals (Rhode and Beaumont 1997).

The above Goguen abstract demonstrates the ethnographic stance regarding the perceived importance of cultural aspects in whatever one is investigating. Bound up with the concept of culture is the shared understanding we each have of 'the other' which is necessary for communication. While this is generally considered as given in the ethnographic approach, in contrast in the ethnomethodological approach it becomes the focus of the investigation.

Ethnomethodology

Before discussing this topic, it is sensible to provide a health warning, namely the following:

1. The first person to use the term 'ethnomethodology' was Harold Garfinkel in 1967 in his book Studies in Ethnomethodology. You are advised not to try to read this because "Many sociologists regard this book as one of the most difficult books in sociology ever written" (Cuff and Payne p157).

2. Garfinkel himself was rather dismissive of the term and felt that too much importance was placed upon it (Turner 1974 p15).

3. Sociologists tend to spend an inordinate amount of time discussing the theoretical foundations of their present focus of concern. While this is necessary for a sociologist, it is not necessary for the understanding of the actual technique under discussion.

1 So What is Ethnomethodology?

Personally I have found this small section the most difficult I have ever written, many of the references to the subject seem to delight in obfuscation and contradiction. I have provided two explanations below, what I consider to be the best of the bunch!

Do not try to understand all the content of each of them. The important aspect for you to realise is that ethnomethodology is not the same as ethnography because:  it is looking in more detail, it has a different theoretical basis and often makes use of manipulated social situations (“experimental conditions”) to gain data.

1 Explanation One

Ethnomethodology from McNeill 1990 (p94 - 96)

"...Ethnomethodology...has found a niche as a specialized way of analysing how people make sense of, construct, and confirm their world-view and their way of life...its central focus is on the meanings and understandings that people use to make sense of their everyday lives.

The central idea of ethnomethodology is that the orderliness of social life is not the result of people obeying social norms or giving way to social pressures, but rather that orderliness is attained by all those involved working to achieve it. The orderliness is produced by the participants, on every occasion that they interact. For Garfinkel, the founder of ethnomethodology, social events are entirely the product of the actions of those 'members' involved at the particular moment. People perceive the world as though it were guiding and constraining them. Garfinkel's interest is not in whether they are right or wrong in perceiving it this way, but rather in how they come to perceive it in this way [the 'method' they use], and what effect this perception has on their actions. People need to make enough sense of any social event to be able to act appropriately. Garfinkel's recommendation to sociologists is:

'Look around you and everywhere you will find ordinary persons going about their everyday business performing familiar, unremarkable activities. This mundane fact is the very crux of the social world. The ability of members successfully to perform practical activities in collaboration with others is what makes the social world possible.

Therefore, take these practical actions and examine them for how they are accomplished. You will find that the methods involved are complex and sophisticated, yet they are possessed (and require to be possessed) by pretty nearly everyone.' (Quoted in Cuff and Payne 1984)

Ethnomethodology has developed various ways of demonstrating these unwritten rules of social life, and of showing how they are continuously achieved by social actors. There is the disruptive experiment, invented by Garfinkel himself. In this, the ethnomethodologist deliberately disrupts the taken-for-granted routine of social life and watches what happens. One famous example of this was when he asked students to pretend that they were boarders in their own homes and to behave accordingly. That is to say, they were more formal, more polite and rather more distant than usual, asking permission to do things that usually they would have done without question. The effect on others in the home highlighted, for Garfinkel, the taken-for-granted rules of family life, which became apparent when they were broken rather than when they were being achieved and observed. The taken-for-granted world was shown as the fragile construction that it really is.

But it is in the area of conversational analysis that ethnomethodology had made the greatest contribution. Given that social order is continuously worked at and achieved by members, the question arises, 'How is this done?' 'What is the main method that people use to achieve social order?' The answer is 'conversation and talk,' and this led ethnomethodologists like Harvey Sacks into detailed analysis of conversation as a practical accomplishment of ordinary people. His aim is to show what are the taken-for-granted rules of conversation and how we describe the world to one another so that we all make sense of it in similar ways. As a result, we are able to interact with each other. He is particularly interested in the way that words and sentences change their meaning according to the context in which they are said and heard, and in the ways in which we all fill in unspoken background of what is said to us. To understand the meaning of what is said to us is a cultural accomplishment that we take for granted. The ethnomethodologist does not take it for granted. S/he tries to spell out how we do it.

Schegloff has made studies of the rules of conversation in so far as they govern who speaks when, and how we know when it is our turn to speak. For example, what are the rules that govern the opening of a telephone conversation? And how do we end the conversation in such a way that both persons involved recognise that the end has been reached, and neither feels snubbed? Of course, sometimes we do feel that the other person has been rather abrupt in ending the conversation, and that is the moment when we should do our ethnomethodological analysis to identify what it was they, or we, failed to do as part of bringing the conversation to a proper and recognisable end. If we can identify it, then we have identified a taken-for-granted rule of everyday life.

Lastly, ethnomethodologists have made studies of what they call 'practical reasoning'. How do people arrive at conclusions about what is going on in a particular instance? This process is not only one that occurs in everyday life, but has also to be carried out by scientists in the laboratory, or by coroners' courts (Atkinson 1978).

The development of techniques for both sound and video recording have opened up another world of data to enthomethodologists...Making a recording of, for example, people walking along the street enables the researcher to study the unwritten rules which apply when people are trying to pass each other on a narrow pavement. Atkinson (1984) made detailed analyses of politicians' speeches recorded on video. He identified the methods they used, both of language and of body language, to elicit applause from their audiences.

Newcomers to sociology may find it difficult to make much sense of ethnomethodology. Many old hands find it extraordinarily obscure, though fascinating, activity. For the purposes of this book, the important point to grasp is that it is a way of studying social life that concentrates on the unwritten rules that make ordinary everyday social activity orderly, and tries to spell out these rules."

2 Explanation Two

Ethnomethodology - An Introduction By Simon Poore



Ethnomethodology is a fairly recent sociological perspective, founded by the American sociologist Harold Garfinkel in the early 1960s. The main ideas behind it are set out in his book "Studies in Ethnomethodology" (1967). Ethnomethodology simply means the study of the ways in which people make sense of their social world.

It differs from other sociological perspectives in one very important respect. Although Functionalists, Marxists and Symbolic Interactionists are all markedly different, they all assume that the social world is essentially orderly, that is that patterns of behaviour and interaction in society are regular and systematic rather than haphazard and chaotic. Of course they all explain this social order in different ways. Functionalists regard it as the outcome of value consensus in society, which ensures that behaviour conforms to generally accepted norms. Marxists see it as a result of the subordination of one class to another, it is precarious and prone to disruption by revolution but nevertheless it exists. Interactionists differ from these macro-perspectives in that they see order less as a feature of the social system but more as something that is created and recreated everyday in the multiplicity of interaction situations. It is 'negotiated order' Which results from the processes of definition, interpretation and negotiation which constitute social interaction. However as with Functionalism and Marxism, social order is presumed to be an objective feature of social life.

By contrast, Ethnomethodologists start out with the assumption that social order is illusory. They believe that social life merely appears to be orderly; in reality it is potentially chaotic. For them social order is constructed in the minds of social actors as society confronts the individual as a series of sense impressions and experiences which she or he must somehow organise into a coherent pattern.

Garfinkel suggests that the way individuals bring order to, or make sense of their social world is through a psychological process, which he calls "the documentary method". This method firstly consists of selecting certain facts from a social situation, which seem to conform to a pattern and then making sense of these facts in terms of the pattern. Once the pattern has been established, it is used as a framework for interpreting new facts, which arise within the situation.

To demonstrate the documentary method in action, Garfinkel set up an experiment in the Psychiatry department of a university. He asked a number of students to take part in the experiment, telling them that it involved a new form of Psychotherapy. The students were invited to talk about their personal problems with an 'advisor' who was separated from them by a screen. They could not see the advisor and could only communicate with him via an intercom. They were to ask him a series of questions about their problems to which he would respond by answering either 'yes' or 'no'. What the students didn't know was that these responses were not authentic answers to the questions posed but a predetermined sequence of yes and no answers drawn from a table of random numbers.

Garfinkel found that although there was no real consistency in the answers given to the questions asked the students nevertheless managed to make sense of them, discerning some underlying pattern in the advice they were being given. Most found the advice reasonable and helpful. This was so even when, as must inevitably happen when answers are given randomly, some of the advice was contradictory. Thus in one case a student asked: "so you think I should drop out of school then?" and received a 'yes' response. Surprised by this he asked, "You really think I should drop out of school?" only to be given a 'no' answer. Rather than dismissing the advice as nonsense, the student struggled to find its meaning, looking back for a pattern in the advisors' responses, referring back to previous answers, trying to make sense of the contradiction terms of the advisors' knowledge of this problem. Never did it occur to the student to doubt the sincerity of the advisor.

What the students were doing throughout these counselling sessions, Garfinkel argues, was constructing a social reality to make sense of an often-senseless interaction. By using the documentary method they were able to bring order to what was in fact a chaotic situation.

One important aspect of the documentary method to which Garfinkel draws attention is "indexicality". This means simply that people make sense of a remark, sign or particular action by reference to the context in which it occurs; that is they index it to particular circumstances.

Thus for example, the answers given by the advisors in the counselling experiment made sense to the students only in the context of the experiment. The setting of the experiment, the information they were given about it and so on led them to accept the situation as authentic. Had the interaction taken place in the students' own rooms with fellow students acting as advisors, for example, the interpretation put upon the answers would have been completely different.

Garfinkel suggests that we are all constantly making use of the documentary method in our daily lives to create a "taken-for-granted" world which we feel we "know" and can be "at home" in. We perceive our social world through a series of patterns we have built up for making sense of and coping with the variety of situations that we encounter everyday. Sometimes we know (or think we know) something so well that we do not notice when it changes. For example a wife may become angry when her husband does not notice her new hairstyle or new dress. The pattern of her appearance and behaviour has which the husband carries in his mind has become so fixed that it is incapable of accommodating new facts. The taken-for-granted world we all inhabit is to some extent necessary in order to avoid confusion which would be experienced if we saw everything as if it were the first time.

A favoured technique among ethnomethodologists is to disrupt temporarily the world which people take for granted and see how they react. The point of this is to expose background assumptions that have been accepted as reality for a long time. In one of his experiments Garfinkel asked students to behave as visitors in their own homes, and record the bemused reactions of their parents as they struggled to comprehend the sudden disruption of their informal relationship built up over many years with their children.

As we have seen ethnomethodology tends to ignore the information actually transmitted during interaction, concentrating purely on how interaction was performed. This is because the stance of ethnomethodology suggests that all meanings are and can only ever be subjective and that the only objective social reality, and therefore the only thing worth studying, is the reality of commonly understood methods of communication.

It is this kind of near-relativism that is often used to criticise ethnomethodology. Although it can be said to be a reaction to the structuralist views of sociology in the 1960s, and the dangers of totalitarianism, in taking a relativist stance ethnomethodology cannot make moral judgments about meanings. Therefore it cannot address problems such as inequality and power. It can be argued that ethnomethodology is not purely relativistic in that it must provide rules for itself to work. That is the ethnomethodologist must assume that others will understand the meaning of his or her work, in the same way that I am assuming that the reader will understand this text.

It could be said that the human capacity to produce order out of chaos is the only worthwhile capacity in the eyes of the ethnomethodologist. For them other human capacities, such as moral judgment, would be seen as subjective only and therefore perhaps containing no real truth. However ethnomethodology is a very good method for seeing how individuals make sense of the social world for themselves, in effect creating their own reality from precious little real information provided.”

We will now take a quick look at examples of ethnomethodology in healthcare and also in Information Systems.

2 Ethnomethodology in Health and Information Systems

From the above descriptions of ethnomethodology, it is reasonable to guess that such studies in a healthcare setting will take taken-for-granted occurrences and examine them in a great deal of detail. I will just present two studies here, both concerned with medical records. The first looks at how they are used while the second one takes this further to develop a set of possible requirements for an (improved) IS.

'Good' Organisational Reasons for 'Bad' clinical Records (in Harold Garfinkel Studies in Ethnomethodology 1967)

Garfinkel spent time investigating the content and uses of clinical records in an Out-Patient Psychiatric Clinic at the UCLA Medical Centre (California). He proposed that the various 'bad' characteristics of medical records often have a rational reason and frequently enhanced the functioning of the records. He considered the records from a number of perspectives. Possibly one of his most interesting aspects is his discussion concerning the reading of the documents:

"Above all, it is desired that folder contents be permitted to acquire whatsoever meaning readership can invest them with when various documents are 'combinatorially' played against and in search of alternative interpretations in accordance with the reader's developing interests on the actual occasion of reading them. Thus the actual event, when it is encountered under the auspices of the possible use to be made of it, furnishes, on that occasion, the definition of the document's significance. Thereby, the list of folder documents is open ended and can be indefinitely long. Questions of overlap and duplication are irrelevant. Not only do they not arise but questions of overlap cannot be assessed until the user knows, with whatever clarity or vagueness, what he wants to be looking for and, perhaps, why. In any case questions of overlap and omission cannot be decided until he has actually examined whatever he actually encounters.

Further contrasting features of 'duplication' and 'omission' in the two reporting systems require comment. In an actuarial record, information may be repeated for the sake of expediency. But the statement of a present state of a bank account does not add any information to what can be readily gathered from the account's earlier state and the subsequent deposits and withdrawals. If the two do not match, this points irrefutably to some omission. The record is governed by a principle of relevance with the use of which the reader can assess its completeness and adequacy at a glance.

A clinical record does not have this character. A subsequent entry may be played off against a former one in such a way that what was known then, now changes complexion. The contents of a folder may jostle each other in bidding to play a part in a pending argument. It is an open question whether things said twice are repetitions, or whether the latter has a significance, say, of confirming the former. The same is true of omissions. Indeed, both come to view only in the context of some selected scheme of interpretation.

Most important, the competent reader is aware that it is not only that which the folder contains that stands in a relationship of mutually qualifying and determining reference, but parts that are not in it belong to this too. These ineffable parts come to view in the light of known episodes, but then, in turn, the known episodes themselves are also, reciprocally, interpreted in the light of what one must reasonably assume to have gone on while the case progressed without having been made a matter of record."

'Bad' Organisational Reasons for 'Good' clinical Records (by Christian Heath and Paul Luff)

The exercise below asks you to read through this article and answer several questions. You may be interested to know that since publication of the original article in 1996, the authors have updated it and included further details of Information System requirements in Health and Luff 2000.

From the above articles, you can appreciate the difficult nature of the literature; Garfinkel seems to produce sentences worthy of Proust with each sentence being a paragraph in itself!

Exercise

Please read the following article.

C Heath P Huff 1996 'bad' organisational reasons for 'good' clinical records Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Boston: ACM Press pp. 354-363. You will need to find it in your e-journals.

Originally available from Kings College London, Work, Interaction and Technology Research Group Home page: .

Note that the authors use the term 'class' to indicate an entry of one or more items for a consultation. When you have finished reading the article, make certain that you can answer the following questions:

1. What is defeasibility?

2. What are the three classes that they suggest the traditional medical record consists of?

3. What are the four 'basic' requirements they suggest to improve the VAMP system?

Software support - Bridging the void

I was in two minds where to place this section as traditionally the process of identifying significant nouns from a narrative that may indicate if they are possible Entity Types or Classes etc is a vital preliminary stage of most quantitative systems development methods. However when one thinks about it this particular process this is very similar a procedure in qualitative data analysis where transcripts of conversations are analysed for themes etc. (using such software as Nudist etc) to help develop an interpretive framework is very similar.

Therefore one could argue that one of the vital preliminary stages of most quantitative systems development methods is firmly rooted within the qualitative tradition. This has become a source of frustration and stress for those with firm quantitative beliefs with the result that there is a advice area of research within RE to automate the Entity type/ Class identification process from narratives etc. However, this is still very much a research activity within the RE community.

Several Systems modelling tools (Case tools ) provide the functionality to select text from a narrative and specify that it is a candidate class / use case / actor, for example the screen shot below is taken from the resource pages for the Visual Paradigm software . Those of you who have use a qualitative textual analysis toll will see the similarity immediately.

Exercises

In contrast to many of my teaching documents this one does not include any multiple choice questions (MCQs). This is because I feel that the subject matter is not suitable for such treatment, however if someone would like to present me with a set of MCQs I would be most grateful. Instead I have included a number of practical exercises based around a shadowing exercise.

1. Arrange to spend a day with someone outside of your typical environment, If you work choose someone in a different organisation, a different profession and in a different position regarding power. Follow the guidelines mentioned in the section on shadowing.

2. How useful to you think the technique was in allowing you to evaluate how a person communicates and manages information (i.e. verbal, non-verbal, IT mediated etc).

3. How useful was it in allowing you to learn about another profession?

4. What personally did you like or dislike about the experience?

5. How successful was the shadowing – did the person allow you to shadow them, or were they determined to keep you at a distance or only provide a façade, etc? What made you come to these conclusions?

6. What would you change if you were to do the exercise again?

7. Did you think of a number of areas you might focus attention on before the day or did you go in completely cold - upon reflection, which do you think would have been the most useful?

8. In communication theory it is often said that self-disclosure is a good technique to gain trust, what do you think you did to gain trust? Are you sure you did?

9. How easy was it to relate your experience to the material presented in this document?

10. Provide sensible suggestions for possible improvement in terms of how the person manages information.

11. How could the exercise be improved?

12. If you were to mark a set of shadowing day reports you might produce a marking scheme similar to the one below. What do you think of it? Any suggestions for improvements?

13. If you are working through this document as part of a web based course:

Set up a discussion thread to:

a. Consider the various stages of the shadowing exercise

b. Possible answers to the various exercises in this document

c. Suggesting other ways of obtaining the same experience but without spending the day shadowing someone

Summary

This document has introduced you to a number of qualitative techniques used to gain insight, into Information systems, rather than be the start of a 'quantitative process'. Two specific qualitative approaches were discussed in detail ethnography and ethnomethodology and you were also introduced to the technique of shadowing.

Ethnography and Ethnomethodology and two different (very) Approaches

Finally the process of extracting entity types/classes from a narrative was discussed demonstrating that even so called quantitative modelling techniques have as their first step a qualitative process.

Links

Since writing the last version of this handout many of the free educational resources concerning qualitative methods for obtaining requirements have disappeared, probably been subsumed into Electronic learning Environments within institutions. I have mentioned several of them below in case those who originally provided them read this document.

Mark Rouncefield at Lancaster University, computing department is interested in Ethnomethodology and systems development () and has a set of excellent links including

Technomethodology: Paradoxes and Possibilities by Graham Button and Paul Dourish (1996)

Hazards of Design: Ethnomethodology and the Ritual Order of Computing - by Philip E. Agre Department of Information Studies University of California, Los Angeles

Ethnomethodology and the Study of Online Communities: Exploring the Cyber Streets - by Steven R. Thomsen, Joseph D. Straubhaar and Drew M. Bolyard from the  IRISS '98: Conference

Also at Lancaster University there is information about Ethnographic studies of people using technology in cooperative settings are well established in the CSCW (Computer Supported Cooperative Work):



Association for Information Systems (university of Aukland) This site holds a large amount of information concerning Qualitative research methods. However it is rather biased and I feel fails to present a balanced case. Much of the material on the site lacks understanding of what are the consequences of the propositions of the positivist paradigm.

1. Myers, Michael D. 1999. “Investigating Information Systems with Ethnographic Research,” Communication of the AIS, Vol. 2, Article 23, pp. 1-20. This is available online at the above site. Page 8 describes various types of ethnographic research.

2. Klein, H. K. and Michael D. Myers. 1999 "A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems," MIS Quarterly, Special Issue on Intensive Research  (23:1), 1999, pp. 67-93. This is available online at the above site. It provides a historical perspective of ethnographic. However I feel that it does a poor job criticising the method.

Link no longer available:

The theory and practice of fieldwork for Systems Development (UK). This was an excellent site developed by Dave Randall at Manchester Metropolitan University and Mark Rouncefield at Lancaster University.

References

Anderson R J 1994 Representation and requirements: The value of ethnography in System design. Human-computer interaction 9 (2) 151 - 82

Anderson R J Hughes J A Sharrock W W 1989 Working for profit:The social organisation of calculability in an entrepreneurial firm. Aldershot, Avebury.

Becker H S 1963 Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Devience. The Free Press. New York Gomm R McNeill P 1982 Handbook for Sociology Teachers. Heinemann, London.

Becker H S Geer B Hughes E C Strauss A L 1961 (reprinted 1980) Boys in white: Student culture in medical school. University of Chicago Press.

Brodie D A Williams J G Owens R G 1994 Research Methods for the Health Sciences. Harwood Academic Publishers. Reading UK.

Christel M G Kang K C 1992 Issues in Requirements Elicitation Technical Report CMU/SEI-92-TR-12 ESC-TR-92-012 Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 available from: (click at bottom of page).

Cuff E C Payne G C E 1984 (2nd ed.) Perspectives in sociology. George Allen & Unwin.

Davis A M 1993 Software Requirements: Objects, Functions and States. Prentice-Hall

Davis G B 1982 Strategies for Information Requirements Determination. IBM Systems Journal 21 (1) 4 -30

Gause D G Weinberg G M 1989 Exploring Requirements: Quality Before Design. Dorset House.

Gilb T.1988 Principles of Software Engineering Management. Addison-Wesley Longman.

Gilb T.1997 Towards the Engineering of Requirements. Requirements Engineering 2 165-169 Springer-Verlag London Also available online at:

Goffman E 1961 Asylums. Penguin Books.

Goguen J A 1994 Requirements engineering as the reconciliation of social and technical issues, in Requirements Engineering: Social and technical issues, Jirotka M & Goguen J (eds.) p. 165 - 200 London, Academic press

Goguen J A Linde C 1993 Techniques for requirements elicitation in Proceedings of RE'93: IEEE International symposium on requirements engineering, San Dago CA, 4-6 Jan pp. 152-64

Griffin E 2006 (6th ed) A first look at communication theory. Mc Graw Hill

Grudin J 1989 The case against User Interface Consistency. Communications of the ACM 32 (10) [October] p. 1164 - 1173

Hammersley M 1993 Social Research: Philosophy, Politics and Practice. Sage Publications.

Heath C Luff P 2000 Technology in action. Cambridge University Press.

Hill W C Holland J D 1992 Edit wear and read wear. Proceedings of ACM CHI'92 Conference. Monterey, CA, 3 - 7 May p3 - 9.

Holbrook H 1990 A scenario based methodology for conducting requirements elicitation. ACM Software engineering notes 15 (1) No page numbers given in reference

Hooks I F 1994 Managing Requirements in "Issues in NASA Program and Project Management: A Collection of Papers on Aerospace Management Issues". Winter 1994.

Humphreys L 1973 The Tearoom Trade. Duckworth, London.

Littlejohn S W Foss K A, 2007 (9th ed) Theories of human Communication. Wadsworth publishing company. London.

Loucopoulos P Karakostas P 1995 System Requirements Engineering. McGraw-Hill.

McDermid J 1989 'Requirements Analysis: Problems and the STARTS Approach', in IEE Colloquium on Requirements Capture and Specification for Critical Systems, Digest no. 138, Nov. 1989.

McNeill P 1990 Research Methods. Routledge. London

Patrick J 1973 A Glasgow Gang Observed. Eyre Methuen. London

Pope C Mays N 2000 (2nd ed.) Qualitative Research in Healthcare. BMJ Publications. (available online at: - click on the Contents link and then click on Chapter 2)

Potts C Newstetter W C 1997 Naturalistic inquiry & requirements engineering: Reconciling their theoretical foundations, in Proceedings of third IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, Annapolis, MN pp. 118-27

Punch M 1979 Observation and the Police: The Research Experience in Hammersley M 1993 Social Research: Philosophy, Politics and Practice. P.181 - 199. Sage Publications.

Redican B Hedley D A 1988 A field studies project in a City Health & Leisure club. Sociology of Sports Journal 5 50 - 62

Rhode J Beaumont R 1997 Feasibility of developing & implementing a joint classification for those with learning disabilities. IMG(A) NHS

Roberts K Brodie D A 1992 Inner-City Sport:Who plays, and what are the benefits. Giordano Bruno, Culemborg, the Netherlands.

Robson C 1993 Real World Research. Blackwell.

Rosenhahn D 1973 On being sane in insane places. Science 179 250 - 258

Saward Guy 1996 'Requirements engineering' course material at: (1).HTML

Silverman D 1997 Studying Organisational Interaction: Ethnomethodology's contribution to the 'new institutionalism', Administrative theory and Praxis 19 (2) 178 - 95

Sommerville I Rodden T Sawyer P Bentley R Twidale M 1993 Integrating Ethnography into the Requirements Engineering Process, in Proceedings of RE '93, San Diego CA. 165 - 173.

Turner R 1974 Ethnomethodology. Penguin. [Contains a set of papers including Garfinkels description of how he came to think of the term].

Wallace A F C 1972 Culture and Cognition by J Spradley (ed.). Chandler, New York p.111 - 126.

Document details:

First version 2001 (part of another document) 2003 abstracted:

End of document

-----------------------

Evaluate

Interpret

Apply lens

Memory Experiment Taken from Mind Hacks by Tom Stafford and Matt Webb page 288 (edited)

First wrap your eyes around the words in the table below, read them out loud once, then cover the page and try to list all the words you saw.

Table 1 Read these words aloud straight off, and then close the book and write down all you can remember

|THREAD |POINT |HURT |

|PIN |PRICK |INJECTION |

|EYE |THIMBLE |SYRINGE |

|SEWING |HAYSTACK |CLOTH |

|SHARP |THORN |KNITTING |

Write the list down now

Do the same with the next set listed below: read the words aloud, then cover the page and try to list all the words you saw

Table 2. As before, read these words aloud, and then write down all you can remember

|BED |WAKE |SNORE |

|REST |SNOOZE |NAP |

|AWAKE |BLANKET |PEACE |

|TIRED |DOZE |YAWN |

|DREAM |SLUMBER |DROWSY |

Write the list down now

Don’t worry about the words you didn’t get. But did your lists include either “needle” or “sleep”? If so, you should know that those two words were phantoms in your mind: They’re not in either list! This is the Deese/ Roediger/McDermott paradigm, or DRM, and highlights how the fallibility of memory is not limited to the absence of information but includes outright fabrications. Experts believe that this doesn’t represent glitches in the system but an outcome of the healthy memory system—built as well as needs be.

One point ought to be noted: when this technique is used, subjects are asked not to guess and typically will afterward state that they reported the “critical lure” (the lure is one of the words we asked whether you’d seen just now, but which wasn’t in either list, e.g., “needle”) not because they had a hunch that it could be there, but because they actually remember seeing it.

In other words, there is a reported subjective experience of the word that wasn't there. This experience seems strong enough to produce better memory for the critical lures (which were never seen) than for the real items when retested two days later!

|  |Component |Description |

|1 |Situation Identification |From situation not identified to situation clearly identified, within the particular lens of |

| | |interpretation selected |

|2 |Situation Description |From situation not described (or described inappropriately) to clearly described to enable a |

| | |reflective stance to be taken within the particular lens of interpretation selected |

|3 |Logical Structure in the Development of |-.}ŒŽ˜™š›?¾¿;ZFrom no reasoning to clear reasons and imaginative/logical (within the lens |

| |Reflection |selected) structure |

|4 |Reflection |From none to insightful reflection and appropriate recommendations with demonstration that the |

| | |candidate was probed during the day |

|5 |Balance Between I and Other |From "I" not considered to a highly individualistic and personal account |

|6 |Genre issues |From inappropriate lens selected for context and inappropriate method of study chosen to highly |

| | |appropriate lens and methods |

|7 |Analysis and synthesis |Linkage between day, theoretical material and reflection:  nonexistent to high degree of linkage|

|8 |Discretionary |Examples of additional reading and insights beyond that expected from the course material. |

|Shadowing situation |Marxist perspective |Feminist perspective |Role / actor |

| | | |metaphor |

|Male elderly Doctor | | | |

|consultation with a young | | | |

|female | | | |

|A young inexperienced | | | |

|waitress | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|A male teacher | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|Police officer over a 24 | | | |

|hour period | | | |

| | | | |

Consider various theoretical perspectives and re-interpret experience

Shadowing exercise

Mini-ethnographic study

Recall

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download