Advertisement

The Guided Imaginary Projection, a New Methodology for Prospective Ergonomics

  • Anaïs Allinc
  • Béatrice Cahour
  • Jean-Marie Burkhardt
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)

Abstract

We tested a new methodology called “guided imaginary projection” (GIP) to support people in projecting themselves into the use of emergent services, in order to gather information about their probable subjective experience with the future service. For the purpose of the study, the targeted service was ‘dynamic’ carpooling, a mobility service geolocated for short distance and immediate travel, still rarely used. We aimed to collect information about the sources of comfort and discomfort imagined by non-users. 24 interviews were conducted to evaluate the method. The population was divided in two groups, the projection group and the non-projection group. Our hypothesis is that if the projection group had a more complete projected form of experience of the service, this group should produce more elements about the sources of comfort and discomfort of the dynamic carpooling compared to others. The results indicate that the projection group’s interviews lasted significantly longer and contained significantly more elements of comfort and discomfort than the non-projection group. We also analysed the types of discourse used during the GIP to evaluate the degree of projection: imaginary-embodied, imaginary-analytical, or general discourse. At the end we discuss the results, limits and perspectives.

Keywords

Prospective ergonomics Projection methodology Guided imagination Psychological comfort and discomfort Dynamic carpooling 

References

  1. 1.
    Agatz NA, Erera AL, Savelsbergh MW, Wang X (2011) Dynamic ride-sharing: a simulation study in metro Atlanta. Transp Res Part B Methodological 45(9):1450–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cahour B, Salembier P, Zouinar M (2016) Analysing lived experience of activity. Le Travail Humain/Hum Work 79(3):259–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cahour B, Salembier P, Brassac C, Bouraoui JL, Pachoud B, Vermersch P, Zouinar M (2005) Methodologies for evaluating the affective experience of a mediated interaction. In: Workshop 14 on innovative approaches to evaluating affective interfaces, CHI 2005, Portland, USA, pp 2–7Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Desoille R (1965) The directed daydream, no. 18. Psychosynthesis Research Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee A, Savelsbergh M (2015) Dynamic ridesharing: is there a role for dedicated drivers? Transp Res Part B Methodological 81:483–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maurel M (2009) The explicitation interview: examples and applications. J Conscious Stud 16(10–11):58–89Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thomas V (2015) Using mental imagery in counselling and psychotherapy: a guide to more inclusive theory and practice. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Urquhart C, Light A, Thomas R, Barker A, Yeoman A, Cooper J, Spink S (2003) Critical incident technique and explicitation interviewing in studies of information behavior. Libr Inf Sci Res 25(1):63–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vermersch P (1994) L’entretien d’explicitation, vol. 2003. Esf, ParisGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anaïs Allinc
    • 1
  • Béatrice Cahour
    • 2
  • Jean-Marie Burkhardt
    • 3
  1. 1.Vedecom, Télécom ParistechParisFrance
  2. 2.CNRS i3 Télécom ParistechParisFrance
  3. 3.IFSTTAR LPCVersaillesFrance

Personalised recommendations