PURSENALITY: A
PHOTO-ETHNOGRAPHIC METHOD FOR
SELF-ELICITATION AND CO-CREATION
JOKE MULDER
CREATING010, ROTTERDAM UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES
J.W.MULDER@HR.NL SASKIA BEST
ROTTERDAM UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES
S.E.BEST@HR.NL
INGRID MULDER
CREATING010, ROTTERDAM UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES & DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
I.J.MULDER@HR.NL
ABSTRACT
The current work introduces pursenality, a
photo-ethnographic method for self-elicitation and
co-creation, which elaborates upon current
photography methods used in (design)
ethnography. In total 91 bachelor students in the 6
thsemester participated in a purse diary study and
used the pursenality method to gain rich insights
informing their human centered design process.
Part of a design research elective, students actively
took part in both photo collection and analysis. In
this, our primary focus is to explore the students’
role as researcher and co-creator. The pursenality
method as well the purse diary study are described
and reflected upon.
INTRODUCTION
Within design research more and more ethnographic methods are used to identify, discover, and analyse unspeakable or unexpected issues. It is a process of observing, describing, and interpreting human and cultural behaviours (Boradkar 2011). For design, ethnographic images of certain cultural situations and issues can be truly interesting and easily used as raw
data into research to support a deeper understanding of design problems (Sanders & Stappers 2011). Photo-ethnography observes through photography; it uses photos to increase data and insights. Researchers aim to view aspects of human culture in local or global surroundings by photographing or asking images of the respondent’s life (e.g., Pink 2006; Prosser & Schwartz 1998; Schwartz 1989). Although photo-ethnography has its origin in anthropology, it is increasingly used in applied science, sociology and other studies (Collier 1979; Collier & Collier 1986). The use of photo-ethnography in social research precedes the sociological analysis of social structure (Barthes 1981) and allows researchers to consider the way in which perceptions, motives, and behaviours relate to each other and to social structures (Hernandez 2009).
PHOTO ELICITATION
Photo Elicitation is a well-known applied research method within anthropology, based on the principle that photos can convey deeper elements of human behaviour and beliefs than words can explain (Harper 2002, Lapenta 2011). Using photos during interviewing, the photo shows a stimulus, enabling the respondent to elicit worthy full information about human values and beliefs. Using Photo Elicitation Interview (PEI) Collier (1979) showed that using photos in interviews gave deeper understanding and insights in specific human cultural values and beliefs. According to Harper (2002) photo elicitation is a research method examining cultural or social identity, focused on how people discern themselves through clothes, brands, hairstyle and objects they carry with them. Harper (2002) divided photo elicitation studies into four study domains: Social
class, Community, Identity, and Culture. Hurworth (2003) distinguished four photo elicitation approaches, which are auto driven, reflexive photography, photo novella, and photo voice. Furthermore, Lapenta (2011) examines the use and role of photo-elicitation, how and by whom the photographs are generated, as well as the role of both researcher and respondent. Interestingly, he adds another category to the photo-elicitation
approaches, namely the collaborative or participatory image production. Petersen and Østergaard (2003) divide the use of photo elicitation in a classic two by two matrix, which they clearly noted as an attempt to categorize how to use photo in organizational research.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: USERS AS
RESEARCHERS, USERS AS CO-CREATORS
We used Petersen and Østergaard’s (2003) distinction between the role of the researcher and the status of the photo in framing our conceptual framework (Figure 1). In similar vein, we refer to research generated content when the researcher takes the photos and use these in combination with interviews to get insights into human action and behaviours; when photos are taken by the respondent himself without the intervention of the researcher we refer to user generated content. Both approaches combine visual observation with interviews to gain insight into the ideas and values of a cultural (sub) group. In the latter situation, the role of the researcher is still dominant; the researcher analyses, discusses, and interpret the user generated content. Hence, in design ethnography the social context of human behaviour co-determines the design context. What does this mean for the role of the researcher, the user, and the designer?Figure 1: Conceptual framework.
In keeping with the Living Lab research methodology the current work aims to bring users early into the creative process in order to better discover customer insights, behaviour, and beliefs. A Living Lab is a user driven innovation method, enabling co-creation for new products, services, and societal infrastructures by sensing, prototyping, validating, and refining complex solutions in multiple and evolving real-life context (Mulder 2012). The iterative–inductive research process
is a minimal condition for good ethnographic research. (O’Reilly 2005). The proposed framework elaborates upon the current photo-elicitation methods (Harper 2002; Lapenta 2011; Petersen & Østergaard 2003) and takes a user as research paradigm. The framework allows for co-creation with the researcher and the user, contrasting the user as a research object. In keeping with Lapenta (2011) data are generated by the researcher together with respondents. Consequently, there is no longer a clear distinction between researcher and respondent user.
A PURSE DIARY STUDY
Aiming to get insights in the user as researcher approach, the current study describes how you can provide tools allowing the user himself to analyse the data and interpret it as well as how the researcher can use this ‘personal and intimate deeper analysed data’ of the user to uncover and obtain new insights regarding human values, beliefs, and patterns, but also in terms of phenomena.
The goal of the purse diary study and the corresponding collaborative approach was a twofold. Primarily as an education goal, students had to practice photo
ethnography and to come up with a design based upon gained findings. The research goal, however, was to gain insight in the users as researchers approach, and on a meta-level, whether the purse diary findings provide insights regarding students’ collective rhythms and could inform the design of new communal practices in the domains of work and citizenship.
METHOD
In the current purse diary study a photo elicitation method is used to gather insights in identity (Harper 2002). The user takes pictures his/herself and interviews another user. There is a constant exchange of roles; the student has the role of the user but also the role as the researcher and designer.
Students of a bachelor design research course (n=91) were instructed to photograph and analyse the contents of each other’s bags and received in a toolset enabling them to conduct data collection and data analysis (see Figure 2). The data collection consisted of
photographing the contents of the bag and determining indicators of the present artefacts in the bag. As shown in Figure 3, artefacts were photographed separately. Consequently, students conducted a laddering interview using PEI and the resulting photoset. In the data analysis students consisted to pick out the values and insights and translate these into statement cards (Sanders & Stappers 2011) using the transcription of the laddering interview (see Figure 4). Next, values and insights were translated and visualized by the photo elicitiation on using metaphors, the ZMET® method (Zaltman 1994). Finally, students used these data students to inform design a new product or service for their ‘studied’ peer student (see Figure 5).
Figure 2: Overview of Purse Content.
Figure 3: Example of Photoset of Purse Diary Study.
Figure 4: Example of Statement Cards used in Diary Study.
Figure 5: Example of the final design road map of the Purse Diary Study.
RESULTS: USER AS RESEARCHER
A total of 91 students participated in the purse diary study. Using the students’ analysis and final results we could make a meta-level analysis. The results lead to surprising insights. What was striking was that students had a lot of stuff in their bag.
Figure 6 shows the artefacts categorised in: electronics, writing gear, clothing & accessories, drinks & food, money & identification, grooming products, medicine, keys and smoking materials. In general, students had equal amount of electronic and old school writing stuff. Secondly, food and drinks were found, and in the third place, money and grooming products. Interestingly, clothing and accessories were also found across students. Finally, keys, medicine, and in last place, tobacco.
Figure 6: Categorisation of artefacts found in the students’ bags.
RESULTS: USER AS CO-CREATOR
Looking at the designs students came up with using the gained insights, 27% chose for a physical data
organizer, while 45% went with a digital service or product as an RFID solution, gadgets, or apps (Figure 7). Interestingly, these designs seem to be a solution for a better-organized and balanced life. Both interviews and statement cards showed that many students left their artefacts in different places. Some students were used to travel between four different places; their own room, their boy/girlfriend’ place, and their parents’ house, who were living in different locations as well, e.g., due to divorce. The current finding showed how students lived as nomads in the city. Moving between these different locations, it is likely one loses personal belongings or cannot remember where it is. In conclusion, all designs emphasised bringing a balance into their lives.
Figure 7: Resulting design from the user as co-creator approach.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
As highlighted in our conceptual framework, three areas of expertise have set the scene for the current purse diary study; the approach, user generated content by Petersens and Østergaard (2003), the role/part, the user as researcher by Lapenta (2011), and within the photo elicitation study area Identity (see Harper 2002). The purse diary study embraced these different approaches and domains resulting in the pursenality method. Our framework distinguishes three levels: the user as researcher, the user as co-creator, and a meta-level of research to study social rhythms. The purse diary study enabled students to acquire insight in the user and examine the use of artefacts in a natural context. Study students were taught how to use photography into fieldwork for qualitative research in the design process. Having different tools at hand to analyse photos and data, students were able to carry out the research independently. Students were aware of their role as a researcher and a co-creator, and showed ownership of the problem. Some students said that they regret not experiencing the current purse diary study in a junior year, because they got to know both each other and their selves better through doing the purse diary study. A lot of personal insights and values were gained, which were taken into account very respectfully, but also insights that they preferred to know earlier in their studies as it could have contributed to social cohesion within the student group in an earlier stage. In another study we therefore apply the pursenality method with just started first year students and study whether they are more open and critical in their analysis. All in all, it can be
concluded that the pursenality method is a welcome method to train students in design ethnography. Unique and valuable insights were gained and it seems to have a binding function within a group.
The focus of the current study was on the roles of user as researcher and the role user as co-creator, though insights gained on the meta-level were valuable as well. Interestingly, the meta-level analysis of the students’ highlights trends and social behaviour, which are valuable to our research on communal practices. In a non-intrusive and active way, we got an exclusive insight in the student’s way of living and the collaborative data collection approach yielded a rich sustainable and effective dataset.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to all students who participated in purse diary study. Special thanks go to Rosita Brouwersma and Boyd Poulus who gave permission to reuse their visual material in the current study.
REFERENCES
Barthes, R. 1981. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Boradkar, P. 2011. Visual Research Methods in the Design Process (chapter 8). In: E. Margolis and L. Pauwels (ed). The Sage Handbook of Visual Research Methods (2011), Sage Publication.
Collier, J. 1979. Evaluating Visual Data (pp 102-118). In: Wagner, J. (ed). Images of Information: Still Photography in the Social Sciences, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Collier, J. and Collier, M. 1986. Visual Anthropology. Photography as a Research Method. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Harper, D. 2002. Talking about Pictures: a case for Photo Elicitation. Visual Studies, 17 (1), pp. 13-26. Hernandez, L. 2009. Photo-ethnography by People Living in Poverty Near the Northern Border of Mexico, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10 (2), art 35. Hurworth, R. 2003. Photo Interviewing for research, Social Research Update (40). [online]. Available from: http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU40.pdf [Accessed 12-2-2013]
Lapenta, F. 2011. Some Theoretical and Methodological Views on Photo-Elicitation (Chapter 11). In: E.
Margolis & L. Pauwels (ed). The Sage Handbook of Visual Research Methods Sage Publication.
Mulder, I. 2012. Living Labbing the Rotterdam Way: Co-Creation as an enabler for Urban Innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review. September 2012: 39-43.
O’Reilly, K. 2005. Ethnographic Methods. London: Routledge.
Petersen, N.J. and Østergaard, S. 2003. Organisational Photography as a Research Method: What, How and Why. In: Proc. Academy of Management Conference. Pink, S. 2006. Doing Visual Ethnography. London: Sage Publication.
Prosser, J. and Schwarz, D. 1998. Image-Based Research, a Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers, (Chapter 8). London: Routledge.
Sanders, E. and Stappers, P.J. 2011. Analysis-What to do With What you Got (pp. 113-142). In: Reader Context and Conceptualization (September 2011), Delft University of Technology.
Schwartz, D. 1989. Visual Ethnography: Using photography in Qualitative Research, Sage: London. Sleeswijk Visser, F. 2009. Bringing the Everyday Life of People into Design. Delft, the Netherlands.
Zaltman, G. 1994. Using the Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique to Understand Brand Images. Advances in Consumer Research, 21, pp. 501-507.
