Christine Welch

Are ‘Qualitative’ and ‘Quantitative’ Useful Terms for Describing Research?

We examine the concepts of quantitative research and qualitative research and argue that this dichotomy has several dimensions which are often, erroneously, assumed to coincide. We analyse two of the important dimensions – statistical versus non-statistical, and hypothesis testing versus induction. The crude quantitative-qualitative dichotomy omits many potentially useful possibilities, such as non-statistical hypothesis testing and statistical induction. We also argue that the first dimension can be extended to include establishing deterministic laws and the consideration of fictional scenarios; and the second to include ‘normal science’ research based on questions defined by an established paradigm. These arguments mean that the possible types of research methods are more diverse than is often assumed, and that the terms ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ are best avoided, although other, more specific, terms are useful. One important sense in which the term ‘qualitative’ is used is simply to refer to the use of data which yields a deep and detailed picture of the subject matter: we suggest the use of the word ‘rich’ to describe such data.

Bias, Misinformation and the Paradox of Neutrality

What is normally described as bias? A possible definition comprises attempts to distort or mislead to achieve a certain perspective, i.e. subjective descriptions intended to mislead. If designers were able to exclude bias from informing systems, then this would maximize their effectiveness. This implicit conjecture appears to underpin much of the research in our field. However, in our efforts to support the evolution and design of informing systems, the way we think, communicate and conceptualize our efforts clearly influences our comprehension and consequently our agenda for design. Objectivity (an attempt to be neutral or transparent) is usually regarded as non-biased. However, claims for objectivity do not, by definition, include efforts to inquire into and reflect over subjective values. Attempts to externalize the mindset of the subject do not arise as part of the description. When claims to objectivity are made, this rarely includes any effort to make subjective bias transparent. Instead, objectivity claims may be regarded as a denial of bias. We suggest that bias can be introduced into overt attempts to admit subjectivity. For example, where people are asked to give subjective opinion according to an artificially enforced scale of truth-falsity (bi-valued logic), they may find themselves coerced into statements of opinion which do not truly reflect the views they might have wished to express. People do not naturally respond to their environment with opinions limited to restricted scales; rather, they tend to use multivalued logic. This paper examines the impact of bias within attempts to establish communicative practice in human activity systems (informing systems).

A Double Helix Metaphor for Use and Usefulness in Informing Systems

Following the theme of this monograph, this paper discusses a dialectic we perceive to subsist between meaningful use and reflection upon use. This dialectic between experiencing use and reflecting upon experiencing use (or thinking, and thinking about thinking) may be considered in the following way. Each of these elements is subject to change. As reflection triggers change in use, and such change triggers further reflection, a spiral comes about. Lived human experience, and reflection upon that experience, seems to shape a double helix. In this paper, the authors suggest a need for a hermeneutically-informed, phenomenological approach when considering the complexities of informing systems, viewed as human activity systems. It is suggested that human actors, as users of informing systems, must own and control any inquiry into use in relation to design for themselves, and that individual sensemaking processes are the key to successful interaction within the double helix metaphor. (Less)

Contextual inquiry: a systemic support for student engagement through reflection

Much research has been published which attests to desire felt by educators to improve the quality of student reflection, and engagement with learning, through processes of assessment. This paper describes how research in Systems Analysis is being transformed and applied to educational practice. Staff considered that methods were needed to stimulate students to reflect and engage in higher orders of learning in order to help them to experience ‘success’ in their assessments. The paper describes the background to a Systems Analysis approach and its specific adaptation for support in student learning in the field of creative technologies.

To share or not to share? Research-knowledge sharing in higher education institution: preliminary results

The world has witnessed that knowledge has become a valuable resource and asset in a new economy, which demands people not only to create knowledge but also to attain, apply and share knowledge effectively. Knowledge sharing is viewed as a natural activity in higher education institutions HEIs, especially in relation to its core activity, i.e., research. This study focuses on the nature of research-knowledge sharing in a university, exploring three aspects: 1 why sharing; 2 why not sharing; 3 what and when to share. Since there is a dearth of research examining knowledge sharing in academia, a qualitative approach has been employed in order to gain in-depth understanding and insights about the desired phenomenon. This study suggests that the way research-knowledge is shared does not follow a single standard pattern. The results generate original insights into the issues and have practical implications for university academics and leaders.

Contextual Inquiry and Requirements Shaping

A primary purpose of traditional systems analysis is seen as ‘capture’ or ‘elicitation’ of user requirements, in order to produce specifications as a basis for information systems design. Such a view presupposes that user requirements are pre-existing, and that the particular ‘users’ concerned know what they are, and can therefore articulate them. We argue that these assumptions cannot be taken for granted. If a system is to be created which is useful to particular individuals, we suggest they need to take ownership and control of the analysis themselves. By exploring their own experiences, aspirations and sense-making processes in the context of their problem space, they enable richer and more comprehensive understandings to emerge. A creative process of requirements shaping is then promoted. Our focus, therefore, moves away from problem description by an external analyst, towards contextual inquiry, which supports creative thinking and problem re-definition by those individuals most affected. We discuss contextual inquiry and requirements shaping to facilitate exploration of multiple, simultaneous and dynamic roles of the same autonomous individuals, separately and collectively. Their purpose is to enable emergence of reflective, shifting perspectives, leading to deepened understandings of problem experiences. It is then possible for resolutions to be created that address experiences, rather than descriptions, of problems.

Double Helix Relationships in Use and Design of Informing Systems: Lessons to Learn from Phenomenology and Hermeneutics

The theme of this monograph of Informing Science is a dialectic we perceive to exist between meaningful use and reflection upon use. This dialectic between use and reflection on use (or thinking, and thinking about thinking) may be considered in the following way. Each of these elements is subject to change. As reflection triggers change in use, and such change triggers further reflection, a spiral comes about. Lived human experience, and reflection upon that experience, seems to shape a double helix. The monograph contains contributions exploring particular ways in which studies of use could benefit from a relationship to philosophical frameworks such as hermeneutics and phenomenology. (Less)

Contextual inquiry and socio-technical practice

Purpose – During discussions at the ASC 2013 Conference, the authors were stimulated to consider acting, learning and understanding in the context of organizational change, and in particular the relationship between organizational actors and external analysts. The purpose of this paper is to review from a cybernetic perspective how a socio-technical toolbox can help to facilitate organizational change, and to examine issues involved in use of such a toolbox by organizational actors supported by expert analysts. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is conceptual and adopts a critical stance, i.e. to provide support for emancipation of individuals through ownership and control of their own analyses. Findings – Drawing on work by e.g. Bateson, the authors consider organizations as dynamic and complex human activity systems, and how actors can be helped to develop a productive learning “spiral” of acting and reflecting by means of a proposed socio-technical toolbox. Acting and reflecting upon action can be...

A Case for Holistic, Multicriteria Benefit Analysis

This paper discusses the ways in which a critical systemic approach to systems analysis can provide support for a holistic, multicriteria benefits analysis. It highlights the importance of inquiry into the nature and boundaries of a perceived organizational problem space, taking into account unique perspectives of the living, engaged actors who desire beneficial change in their working systems. The role of the IS professional within a collaborative inquiry is explored, taking into account creation of relevant methodological frameworks (in contrast to uncritical, rigorous application of standardized methods). The paper discusses the ways in which collaborative teams can approach identification of desirable benefits.

Information technology projects: leaving the 'magic' to the 'wizards'

In this chapter, we explore the significant challenges relating to investment in IT business. Information technology does not in itself deliver business value. We highlight the complexities that are often ignored in management of IT projects. If the management system in an organization is ineffective, then installing information technologies does not constitute a ‘magic wand’ that will generate prosperity. It can only generate value if attention is paid to the design of the system for use at the same time that technological systems are developed. The authors explore how IT benefits require attention from management generally and show that investment in IT projects cannot be left to ‘IT experts’ alone. We point out that undue reliance on rational planning is unsatisfactory, as it ignores contextual dependencies in organizational life. Criteria by which the success/failure of projects is to be judged must go beyond a focus on timescales, budgets, and ‘requirement specifications.’ We suggest that the criteria need to be expanded to embrace usefulness of resultant systems, as perceived by organizational staff as they attempt to use them in carrying out their work.