Advertisement

The Quest for Integrating Data in Mixed Research: User Experience Research Revisited

  • Annika Wiklund-EngblomEmail author
  • Joachim Högväg
Chapter

Abstract

Researching human experiences in new media environments is an exciting endeavour, as it allows for a multitude of technologically enhanced ways to explore the situations. We are using a wide range of research methods for collecting both qualitative data (e.g. interviews, open-ended survey questions, observations) and quantitative data (e.g. questionnaires, electroencephalography (EEG), electrodermal activation (EDA), heart rate, eye tracking). In this chapter, we discuss the challenges in finding solutions for integrating different types of data in a mixed methods approach in order to answer specific research questions related to various media contexts. In addition to the eye tracker analysing tools (TobiiStudio), we are developing our own analysing software, eValu8, for synchronizing eye-tracking data with video recordings, and psychophysiological measures, such as EDA and EEG. We are exploring how to combine softwares to maximize the added value of mixed methods in integrated analyses in user experience research for the purpose of iterative design of digital content and format development.

Keywords

Mixed Method Digital Content Mixed Method Research Mixed Data Digital Storytelling 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bargas-Avila, J. A., & Hornbæk, K. (2011). Old wine in new bottles or nov9l challenges? A critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience. Proceedings of CHI 2011, May 7–12, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  2. Bazeley, P. (2006). The contribution of computer software to integrating qualitative and quantitative data and analyses. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 64–74.Google Scholar
  3. Bazeley, P. (2012). Integrative strategies for mixed data sources. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 814–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bazeley, P., & Kemp, L. (2012). Mosaics, triangles, and DNA: Metaphors for integrated analysis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(1), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1989). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. di Gregorio, S., & Davidson, J. (2008). Qualitative research design for software users. London: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  9. Eilers, K., Nachreiner, F., & Hänecke, K. (1986). Entwicklungund Über prüfung einer Skala zur Erfassung subjektiv erlebter Antrengung [Development and evaluation of a questionnaire to assess subjectively experienced effort]. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft, 40, 215–224Google Scholar
  10. Esch, M., Wiklund-Engblom, A., & Staffans, S. (2011). Experience as a Starting Point of Designing Transmedia Content. Proceedings of the EuroITV 2011 conference. Available online at the ACM Digital Library.Google Scholar
  11. Fisher, W. R. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hassenzahl, M. (2010). Experience design: Technology for all the right reasons. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 3(1), 1–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hassenzahl, M., & Monk, A. (2010). The inference of perceived usability from beauty. Human-Computer Interaction, 25(3), 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(14).Google Scholar
  16. McCarthy, J., & Wright, P. C. (2004). Technology as Experience. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Moore, M. (2009). ‘Do we need to move from instructional design to experience design?’ The eLearning Guild’s discussion forum on LinkedIn, December 30th, 2009Google Scholar
  18. Poh, M.-Z., Swenson, N. C., & Picard, R. W. (2010). A wearable sensor for unobtrusive, long-term assessment of electrodermal activity. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 57(5)Google Scholar
  19. Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying needs? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 325–339Google Scholar
  20. Tobii (2009). Retrospective Think Aloud and Eye Tracking. Whitepaper by Tobii Technology. http://www.scribd.com/doc/20155331/Tobii-RTA-Whitepaper
  21. Vyas, D., & van der Veer, G. (2006). Experience as meaning: some underlying concepts and implications for design. ECCE ’06 Proceedings of the 13th Eurpoean conference on Cognitive ergonomics: trust and control in complex socio-technical systems. doi:10.1145/1274892.1274906.Google Scholar
  22. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule—Expanded Form. Iowa City: University of Iowa.Google Scholar
  23. Wiklund-Engblom, A., Hassenzahl, M., Bengs, A., & Sperring, S. (2009). What needs tell us about user experience. In T. Gross, J. Gulliksen, P. Kotzé, L. Oestreicher, P. Palanque, R. O. Prates, M. Winckler (Eds.) Proceedings of INTERACT 2009, 12th IFIP TC13 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.Google Scholar
  24. Wiklund-Engblom, A., Hiltunen, K., Hartvik, J., & Porko-Hudd, M. (2013). Transmedia storybuilding in sloyd. Proceedings of IADIS Mobile Learning 2013.Google Scholar
  25. Zijlstra, R., & van Doorn, L. (1985). The Construction of a Scale to Measure Subjective Effort. Delft. The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology, Department of Philosophy and Social Sciences.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MediaCity, Åbo Akademi UniversityVaasaFinland

Personalised recommendations