Reading Response (week 2): Silverman's Chapter 1 & 2

I am a slow reader but I am glad to find that Silverman's preface and chapter 1 & 2 are worth reading slowly and staying up this late. After the reading, I looked back to the usability evolution proposal I wrote for the last term's Introduction to Doctorial Study class. What a mess! Here I want to share with you how a novice researcher makes mistakes.

The following paragraph is what I wrote in the “Methods and Instruments” section in my proposal:

"In order to counterbalance the weakness of each method, this study combines several different methodological approaches to assess different aspects of the site with usability criteria. The main phase (phase three) of the project focus on the user-centered evaluations consisting of questionnaire, formal usability testing, card sorting and card description, as well as a combined label intuitiveness and category membership expectation test. Before carrying out the user-centered evaluations, focus group meetings and a pilot study will be conducted in the phase two.”

In this study, I desire to use multiple methods because I want to get many different aspects of the studied target (i.e. the studied website). Some methods gather only quantitative data (e.g. questionnaire) while others gather only qualitative data (e.g. focus group). And the formal usability testing even contains both the two kinds of data because it involves observation, open-ended questions for comments, and Likert scale for satisfaction ranking. Too many methods increase the difficulty and complication of data gathering and analysis. It means that the researcher will have to learn many more data analysis skills. This research design is time consuming and neglects the original purpose which is to give re-design suggestions in the phase of testing. It means the more efficient way is needed.

I think one of the solutions is to break down this study into several small narrow-downed studies. One aspect of the website usability testing is focused at one time instead of desiring to cover all aspects of evaluation.

"Ask the IRB" session

Before I went to the "Ask the IRB" session, I am not quite familiar with IRB or Human Subjects Review Board. Then I knew that IRB is established to improve human subjects protection. After the session, I did some study about the ethics of research. Here are some notes I think we, as researchers, should keep in mind when conducting any research.

• All researchers must be aware of and attend to the ethical considerations related to their studies. This need is important for all types and methods of research.
• Two of , perhaps the most basic and important, ethical issues in research are concerned with participants' informed consent and freedom from harm.
  
• Informed consent ensures that research participants enter the research of their free will and with understanding of the nature of the study and any possible dangers that may arise. Collecting information on participants or observing them without their knowledge or without appropriate permission is not ethical.
• Freedom from harm is focused on not exposing subjects (participants) to risks. It involves
  issues of confidentiality (for example, to protect participants from embarrassment or ridicule) and issues related to personal privacy.
  
• Access to data should be limited to persons directly involved in conducting the research. An individual participant's performance should not be reported or made public using the participant's name, even for an innocuous measure. Lack of privacy may lead to harm.
  
• The use of confidentiality or anonymity to avoid privacy invasion and potential harm is common. Anonymity means that the researcher does not know the identities of participants in the study. Confidentiality is that the researcher knows the identities of participants but promises not to release them to anyone else.
  
• Deception is another ethical dillemma. It is recommended not do the initial research studies using a topic that requires deception.

Ethical Issues in Qualitative Research
There are features of qualitative research that raise additional issues not typically encountered in quantitative research:

1. Qualitative research plans typically evolve and change as the researcher's immersion in and understanding of the research setting grows. In a real sense, the research plan is "in process" and only generally formed when presented to the IRB. As the plan evolves with added understanding of the context and participants, there is increased likelihood that unanticipated and unreviewed ethical issues will arise and need to be resolved on the spot.
   
2. Second, qualitative researchers typically are personally involved and engaged with the research context and its participants. The closeness between participants and researcher helps to provide deep and rich data, but may also create unconscious influences that raise issues for objectivity and data interpretation.

We might encounter ethical issues other than what I mentioned above in our research since there are many dimensions to the ethical conduct of research. However, I think the fundamental ethical rule is that participants should not be harmed in any way. Respect and concern for your own integrity and for your participants' dignity and welfare are the bottem lines of ethical research.

Reference:
Gay, L.R. & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications. New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Getting Started!

Here is the first time for me to create Blog for academic purposes. I think it is a good way to share opinions, ideas, and thoughs outside the classroom. It also a good way to examine our own path of doing research project. I am expecting to see how much benefit we can get from blogging.