This week, we discussed the necessity of audience/user research and its ethical implications, as well as assessing the risk level of specific case studies which I will later explain in one study case example.
Audience/user research is a way to get to know your audience and systematically evaluate the product created based on the research result. User research is a necessary component of any design plan. It assists in developing a user-friendly product and getting the facts to back up strategy and design choices (Ghosh, 2018). Therefore, audience feedback is extremely useful in helping designers and developers better understand people and their wants, as well as identifying product criteria in order to develop the best possible products.
Figure 1, illustration of audience research (Garnett, 2019).
Ghosh (2018), also implies that there are reasons not to compromise on doing user research—especially during the early phases of your product lifecycle. However, when conducting audience/user research, it is also important to consider the impact of the research on the participants. Even if it is not intentional, the method and or the way in which research is delivered can have a negative impact on the participants. These are:
However, when conducting audience/user research, it is also crucial to consider the impact of the research on the participants. Even if it is not intentional, the method and or the way in which research is delivered can have a negative impact on the participants. This is where the ethical implications of research are needed to be thought.
Hereby is one study case example from weekly activities material on GDO710 Development Practice’s discussion forum where ethical implications will matter:
Charlotte wants to research the effect of labeling students (gifted vs struggling) on their achievement in the first year of HE. She proposes that students be divided into reading groups in which ability levels are evenly mixed. One group will be told they are gifted readers, another group will be told that they are struggling readers, and a third group will be told nothing at all. Charlotte’s hypothesis states that by the end of the year, the students in the ‘gifted’ level group will outperform those in the ‘struggling’ group on the same reading test.
What additional information is needed?
What are the benefits/harms?
Mixing different abilities students into a group is not considered a problem. However, telling one party that they are gifted and struggling students is quite risky for their mentality. It is stated that Charlotte’s wanted outcome is to see how students who are being told that they are gifted, no matter how their actual ability is, are going to outperform the others. This indicates that she hopes that students who are actually gifted will underperform, and in this case, might affect their future.
Personal recommendations
In cases where minors are involved, there must be extra caution as it might affect their future. I myself recommend grouping the struggling students and telling them that they are gifted to see whether Charlotte’s hypothesis is correct.
According to Falmouth University’s Research Integrity and Ethics Handbook (2019), “low-risk research activities describes research that presents ethical risks no greater than those encountered in everyday life; Medium risk describes research in which there is potential for harm or distress but where the likelihood is low and these risks can be mitigated with simple, standardised procedures; and high risk describes activities in which the potential for harm or distress is high without appropriate mechanisms for mitigation. Mitigation might require complex or bespoke planning and approval will require ongoing scrutiny from the ethics committee”. Based on these descriptions, in the following, I will explain t scenarios in research activities and analysis of the classification of its risk levels.
A researcher plans to interview eight artists / curators / designers for her thesis. She offers a letter of introduction about the project, gains written informed consent for the interview from each interviewee, later checks the contents of the transcription with each interviewee, allows the interviewee to withdraw comments / approve the interview record. The interviews will be used as attributed statements within the thesis. A recognised approach from oral history / social sciences / ethnography / art and design criticism and history is part of the methodology. The interviews will involve travel in the UK and abroad, the researcher has discussed her travel plans and personal safety with her supervisors.
Analysis: This scenario is classified as a medium-risk research activity. This is because participants need to travel to the UK to fly where there is potential for harm or distress but the likelihood is low. In this case, the harm that might occur is while traveling on an airplane such as a plane accident. However, researchers must prepare several costs such as travel costs and travel insurance. It is also included in the Research Integrity and Ethics Handbook (2019) in the “expenses and lost earnings” category.
A researcher plans to interview around 30 producers of legitimate graffiti at the Southbank Undercroft. Participants were to be interviewed about their opinions and ideas regarding activities and future possibilities for the Undercroft, and also where relevant, their own graffiti habits and key trends in graffiti practices.
Analysis: This scenario is classified as a low risk research activity as long as the participants are legitimate grafitti producers that have the right under the law to create grafitti at where it is prohibited. Otherwise, I could be categorized as high risk activity if the participants are people who are doing unlawful job. According to Falmouth University’s Research Integrity and Ethics Handbook (2019), it is considered high risk research activity if it contains illegal behaviour, in this case, is vandalism.
Conclusion
From the examples of scenarios and case study above, it appears that there are many factors that must be considered in conducting a research. Can the research be detrimental to the participants, institutions, or the state? Can the research be in contravention of applicable law? And many other things. Research must be supported by a possible risk-prevention, especially research activities that are classified as high-risk research, which is also not recommended to be carried out.
Falmouth University Integrity and Ethics policy. 2019. Research Integrity and Ethics Handbook (for staff and PGR students) [online]. Falmouth University. Available at: https://www.falmouth.ac.uk/sites/default/files/download/handbook_for_research_integrity_and_ethics.pdf (Accessed 12/12/2021).
Ghosh, Apurvo. 2018. ’UX Research Is Essential to Product Success’ [online]. Available at: https://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2018/09/ux-research-is-essential-to-product-success.php (Accessed: 12/12/2021)
Garnett, Christina. 2019. ‘What Is Audience Research? (+How to Conduct It)’ [image]. G2 Learn Hub. Available at: https://learn.g2.com/audience-research (Accessed: 12/12/2021)
12 / 12 / 21
Sarah Shafira Novianti
GDO710 Development Practice
MA User Experience Design, Falmouth University