Spinuzzi, Part 2

If you would like to begin some discussion from this posting to jump start our discussion Wednesday night, let's get going! I know some of you have already posted on your blogs.

Spinuzzi: Chapters 4 and 5
ENGL 5389 – Field Methods of Research
Week 12 – Debra Burleson

The challenge for any discussion after reading Spinuzzi’s deeply layered text is targeting the application that appeals to the majority for our discussion. Each one of us could read this text and focus on different terms, etc. that we agree with, have issues with, or disagree.

As I was reading some of the blog posts about Spinuzzi, I came across Rob’s posting about Spinuzzi’s terminology. I found myself trying to absorb the new terms and read the text while at the same time trying to find my own metaphors to replace the multitude of terms Spinuzzi introduced in his book. In other words, I found myself applying some of the same concepts he analyzed into the activity of reading. Recognizing that each new term had its own historical perspective, I attempted to work around his various levels and terms but like Terry became frustrated. “If his manager had not encouraged him to use this prototype, Terry might have abandoned it (my thoughts regarding some portions of Chapter 5).

I thought about Nathan’s posting which focused on our discussion last week but I believe is still applicable. Are the users totally aware of the system as a whole and do they have any power to make changes? Here’s a story from an interview session I had last week:

hospitalist: an internist who practices medicine in the hospital setting; an MD who oversees patient care once the patient is admitted to a hospital.

Background: Last week I interviewed the hospitalist coordinator for a local hospital who is also director of the ER. I read over the hospitalist brochure and noted that the brochure stated that if a patient had a question the brochure instructed them to ask a nurse. FYI: most medical brochures would state that patient s needs to talk to their doctor (hospitalist) if they have questions. So I inquired about this change from the typical protocol.

The ER doctor explained by telling me about a study done in the late 70’s that researched cases in surgery where the wrong body part was operated on, removed, etc. The study found that in 40% of the cases one of the medical personnel in the surgical area knew that the wrong body part was removed, etc. and yet they said nothing. He stated that they said nothing because all personnel in the room were subordinate to the surgeon and no one was to question the surgeon. He went on to state that one of his goals is to empower the nurses—to question, to confirm, to make suggestions regarding patient health.

Question:
In the case of Spinuzzi’s research, it is critical that the findings document the level of authority the user has in the hierarchy of the institution? How would the methodology change if the user has no authority regarding actions, processes, etc.?

Scope:

Definition: scope – Spinuzzi coins his own use of the word from information systems’ layers or subdomains and uses the term “scope.” He states that as researchers focus on one layer and analyze the layer, they find the source of the problem. However, the levels (layers) are interrelated. As stated last week, these levels are the why, what, and how: macroscopic, mesoscopic, and microscopic levels of scope.

As Spinuzzi introduces Chapter 4, he emphasizes scope. He states that the scope of his research crosses three levels. Some comments from these introductory pages: genres are seen as product and mediator (p. 115) and genres are caught between history and addressivity (p. 117). He references Bakhtin when he refers to “social memory” as an historical perspective of the “work that has gone into solving problems, as well as the values and assumptions held by the problem solvers.”

Question: What processes are you using in your research to determine social memory? Is this applicable to every ethnography study? How would you apply this to your research methodology? Regarding the importance Spinuzzi places on social memory, do you agree with him?

Practically, will our participants be able to give us time in the interview process to delve into social memory? How does scope factor into social memory?

Regarding compound mediation – are genres ever in isolation? (as a tool in use – mesoscopic level)

Methodology:

Definitions:
destabilization – multilevel gaps and mismatches that develop in an activity or in the meeting of activities (p. 117) As noted, “change spawns destabilization at various levels of scope.”
discoordination – Spinuzzi gives an example of a worker who attempts to use the artifact with the domain knowledge of the perceived genre, finding that the artifact reacts unexpectedly. (p. 69) [This often happens when the artifact has the appearance of an artifact previously used and yet it does not react the same.]

I tried to concisely rephrase the Methodology section. Here’s my take on this section:

Macroscopic analysis: participant profiling (categorize, summarize, transcribe)
Contradictions – tensions developed over time but threatened the integrity of the activity
Microscopic analysis: videocoding (coded by actions versus Bødker’s breakdowns)
Contradictions – manifested as breakdowns
genres are learned habits, unconscious to the worker
breakdowns make unconscious actions, conscious
Mesoscopic analyses: chronological accounts (action sequences)
Destabilizations at this level are called discoordinations
innovations at this level are newly learned operations and are difficult to detect and analyze

Nathan’s blog discussed the importance of the user understanding the levels. In Nathan’s words: “For example, can users handle more tasks at once if most tasks are microscopic instead of mesoscopic? When people say they are good at multitasking, are they really paying attention to more than one task at once? Does it matter?”

Questions: I would echo Nathan’s questions here – What are your thoughts? Do you have a story?

breakdown – p. 145 – When Spinuzzi refers to a breakdown, he is referring to a term used by Bødker “when an artifact that has become operationalized suddenly does not behave as expected.”
I found this topic interesting solely because of my current research. While “breakdown” in my research involves communication breakdowns, the disruption of breakdowns is critical. For the user to understand a breakdown, the user must understand the overall process. In my current research, the hospitalists understand who they should consult and, therefore, understand when there is an interruption in that communication. However, as stated by several in the class, the breakdowns are not always apparent.

As Spinuzzi introduces the narrative about workers using the GIS-ALAS prototype, he begins Chapter 5 by discussing hybrid genres. He cites two ways to understand the process: anticipating destabilizations and anticipating innovations. However, our prior reading in the text focused on observation, interviewing, videotaping.
Hybrid genres – genres that emerge from the unification of two or more disparate activities (p. 160). In the examples used in this text, a hybrid genre is the result of a genre that has been imported into the computer interface (p. 161).

Question: In light of our study of methods of ethnography, to what extent should we as researchers practice anticipation?

Bridging the familiar and unfamiliar

Genres carry with them the histories and interconnections in which they were developed.

Conclusions:
The familiar genres were made “strange” in their union with other genres
Destabilizations results in innovations
The centripetal act of pulling genres into an interface cannot in itself preserve the context of an activity, regulate workers’ behavior, or solve workers’ problems with the software

Spinuzzi cites Hackos & Redish’s book, User and Task Analysis for Interface Design. Metaphor is defined as “conceptual models that reflect how your users will think about the new interface.”

I decided to read some of this text for tonight’s discussion. For those who have not read it, Hackos’ perspective is from the design perspective where Spinuzzi is analyzing the user interface with the design (very simplified). However, it is interesting to read her words from a designer’s perspective as Spinuzzi also thought it was important enough to cite and mention.

Hackos (p. 353) describes it this way:
“Metaphors provide analogs from the user’s real world to the virtual world you have constructed in the interface. If you are carrying over the image of a real-world object, users will assume that it operates in similar ways on the screen. You may want to redesign the paper form to facilitate onscreen use, especially if the original form was poorly designed.”

Hackos also warns that metaphors can also transfer undesired behavior (p. 355). “Because actions that users attach to metaphor objects are so powerful, designers must select metaphors extremely carefully. They are effective reinforcers of desired behavior; they are just as effective reinforcers of undesired behaviors.”

Questions for your consideration:

1. Do we as researchers have the time to fully take in and consider the history of the design? Is it important?

2. If so, what might be the limits of this exploration? (in other words, how far back in time does one delve?)