Level Issues in Research

Just read an excellent article about the level issues in the OB research. This article focuses on the level of theory, measurement, and statistical analysis, so it can be applied not only in the OB field but also other research areas as well. I strongly recommend people to read it, especially for those are interested in doing social level research. It’s so important to ensure the conformity on the level of your theory, data collection, and statistical analysis; otherwise, your findings and conclusion might be very problematic.

Klein, K.J., Dansereau, F. & Hall, R. (1994) Level Issues in Theory Development, Data Collection, and Analysis. Academy of management review. 19 (2). 195-229.

Everyone sees the same thing != No Customization??

I enjoyed the class activities on Wed, especially the IBM social computing study. The six claims give me a chance to reflect what I have learned in the social computing class. However, it seemed everyone (including me) had a little doubt about the first claim: No Customization. Therefore, I took a little time thinking about this claim after the class, and I finally got it.

I believe the reason that the IBM holds this claim in the social computing research group is that you don’t have the control power on most things, other people, and the context in our real social world. Clearly in a personal or privacy setting, you can customize almost everything to the way you like it to be, such as your office, your room, your appearance, etc.

However, in a social setting which involves other people, you can only control your own behaviors and potentially use that to influence others. For example, if you are in the classroom, you cannot arrange the room the way you want it to be without considering others.

But I think this is a little extreme to put “no customization” in their claim. It seems the most important component in this claim is “everybody sees the same thing” even though each one of the members may interpret it differently. Indeed, if everyone sees different things, there is increasing danger of mis-communication.

But to make sure everyone sees the same thing doesn’t necessarily needs to forbid customization. When considering different levels of social worlds, the group should have the power to create the world/settings for more effective work. For example, in the real world, I can move the chair around the way I like it. What if someone in my team doesn’t like it, he can move somewhere else too. Eventually there will be a balanced setting that everyone accepts, but everyone still gets to see exact the same thing.

In conclusion, in social settings, to make sure everyone sees the same thing is very important, but to some degree, no customization is not a necessary principle to achieve it. Therefore, I would only keep “everyone sees the same thing” in the first claim.

Social World & Online Discussion

The online activities for the past two weeks were very interesting to me. In particular the social world activity, we identified our social worlds and also compared them with others. I like the people who use the Venn diagrams (cycles) because it clearly represents the importance of the social worlds by using the different size of cycles and also it demonstrates the relationships among those worlds by using the vary proportion of overlapping. In our group discussion, we also discover only one person implies the concept of time by using a timeline to indicate the social worlds. Most people (including me) only consider the present, even though we all agree that our past experience definitely has strong impacts on the way we see who we are and how we act now.

Basically I like online text-based synchronous meeting for a small group with 3-4 members, but there is a shortcoming for text-based tools. Even though it’s a synchronous tool, there is still a slide “time delay” during the text-based conversation. The time delay here I mean the typing delay. Fro example, when I am replying to A but because of the typing time the text shows up following by B’s comment, so B thinks I am asking him/her. This delay somehow causes some degrees of misunderstanding during the meeting. For example, we have to come up with three insights and everyone of use takes care of one insight. But when we write up the insights to show to other teammates, it’s obvious that there are some degrees of differences of our perceptions of the insights. I once read a paper about decision making of a online team that the accuracy of the decision is decreased because of the lengthy discussion logs and misunderstanding. Now, I kind of experience how that happens from this group activity.

Social-World Process

The s I have been reading some models of group process lately. I discover lots of similarities between Strauss’s social world process of segmentation, intersection, and legitimation and those models; for example, both of them talk about the conflicts, negotiation, and powers and the influences. Of course, there are some levels of differences too. Besides the use of different terminologies, Strauss tends to look at the mankind as a whole; I will say it’s a more macro level of looking at the society. Those models that I have been reading are tying to look at the specific periods of time or purposes and find out potential factors influencing the process. Even though a small group is just a little tiny form of society, but according to Strauss, there are no boundaries. Moreover, people all have multiple memberships which might be different levels from peripheral to intense. Since it’s difficult to cover everything, I believe studying a small group process and just look at how one membership is built will be a good start before looking at the social world.

Future is coming.......

I never think of what the role of interface design will be when computation has been spared though out and embedded in everything in the environment. Like the author mentions, the invisibility is a challenge and an optimal goal for computation. It will happen within just a matter of time, sooner or later. To solve this problem, besides the traditional HCI approach, the design perspective needs to move forward to focus on engaging the user experience and considering social settings. After understanding what people do, and then we will have the chance to make the invisible interface. I personally think the Design Communicates is very important for interaction design too, especially in a group work setting like CSCW. It’s another challenge that how we can use the system design and develop to help people communicate more effectively among group members, not just being fast but also helping create meaningful interactions for them. Essentially, there are "a lot" more concerns when designing system for a group of people. Anyway, I am still on my way trying to figure it out.

I am an interface designer

Since I am currently working on an interface design, I have some insights when I read the chapter 5, in particular the three aspects of meaning: ontology, inter-subjectivity, and intentionality. It changes my perspectives of looking at the system design process and my role as a designer.

I used to think my job is to create a user-friendly interface. I followed the principles & steps in the role model & task model to analyze different roles, create use cases, and test usability. Therefore, I thought a good design was having a good navigation, accessibility, readability, and so on. I have to admit that I didn’t think it thoroughly that user’s experience plays such an important role in designing process. Based upon this concept, I was actually building a common ground with the users and negotiating meanings in user’s experience during in interviews.

Thus, I am so agree the author’s statements: “Computation is fundamentally about representation (p.137)” and “The system can be thought of as the medium through which a designer and a user communicate (P.132)”. The representation must fit into user’s experience and can be understood & share common meanings by users, because users are acting through the system in order to accomplish something in their minds, for example: maybe making a complaint, a compliment, a suggestion, or a solution, etc. If the system doesn’t make sense to the users or doesn’t fit their ontology, they will simply not use it anymore. This is also the major finding I discovered after the usability tests in my project.

After reading these chapters, I do learn a lot and I realize the importance of a. From now on, I will have a brand new attitude toward my design process and I will keep those 6 principles in mind. :-)

miserable day... :-(

I am so miserable today. I spent a lot of time getting lost.... and, of course, doing some interviews & usability testing today (from 10:00am to 4:00pm). However, when I went back to transfer my DV firms to a CD, I found out my firms had NO audio at all. I was so shocked and upset, but I could do nothing about it even though some friends were trying to help me out. I should have checked it right after each interview, but, instead, I just assumed that it worked fine based upon my prior experience. Anyway, I learned a lesson today. However, I might be a victim of a broken camera because a friend of mine checked out a camera and reported the same audio problem last week. Therefore, the problem might not be fixed yet. Anyway, because of this event, I got some insights too. One is how come the camera doesn’t have any volume indicator. Second, I finally realize how a person feels when he is trying to report an error and how he would expect a system to help him with and to function.