Reflections on a Research Practicum
By
Brian Gore
A Research Practicum submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Masters in New Professional Studies: Organizational Learning
George Mason University
1999-2000
Approved by Don Lavoie
Chairperson of Supervisory Committee
Program Authorized
to Offer Degree: Program on Social and
Organizational Learning
Date
George Mason University
Abstract
An appreciative approach to understanding the power of tech-talk
by Brian Gore
Chairperson of the Supervisory
Committee: Professor Don Lavoie
Department of PSOL
This paper is three-fold. Somewhere in the middle is the content of a
research project conducted at the National Academies entitled “An
Appreciative Approach to Understanding the Power of Tech-Talk”. The data in this paper is extremely
valuable and provides some significant insights into the relationships
between technical help personnel and computer users. The paper represents a tremendous amount of effort as well. Due to some challenges ranging from institutional policies governing studies of this nature to rounding up participants and the “politics” of doing research in one’s own workplace, the value-added as a result of reflecting on this project “out-loud” may be greater than the project itself. So, I will spend some time reflecting on the original intent of the project along with the proposed methodology. Then, “in the middle”, I will share the major portion of the paper and, finally, close with reflections on topics such as how the project actually went, thoughts on appreciative inquiry and the hazards of doing research at work. |
The first chapter, Getting Started, reflects on the original
project proposal and how I saw the research and the paper evolving. This
project was full of surprises to one who has had little experience with the
research process. |
The second chapter includes the bulk of the Final Draft of the paper, excluding reflective sections that may now be more suited to the Reflections portion of this expanded paper. |
Then, in the chapter titled What Really Happened?, I will talk
about how the research and resulting paper compare with the original plan
along with some discussion about the challenges with Appreciative Inquiry and
doing it at work without a “Champion”.
|
And finally, a summary of the whole experience entitled, Appreciating
the Whole Experience. It is important to recognize the value of the whole
experience, even though the project may be viewed as incomplete. This entire paper may be read in one of two ways. First, feel free to
simply read through its entirety from front to back. Otherwise, you may wish
to read the text of the original project before reading chapters 1, 3, and 4.
I actually suggest the latter to allow you to make your own judgment on its
merits before reading my reflections on it. Then after reading, feel free to share your own reflections in some way,
whether it be silently, by writing down thoughts, or finding a way to
communicate these to me directly. My E-mail address is included here for this
purpose (bgore@erols.com). |
Table
of Contents
Chapter 1 - Getting
Started: With Eyes Wide Shut
Chapter 2 - An
Appreciative Approach to Understanding the Power of Tech- Talk
Chapter 3 - What
Really Happened?
Chapter 4 - Appreciating
the Whole Experience
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank his Wife and Children for their rugged endurance and patient support.
To his peers, for their faithful friendship and the support we provided one another as adult learners.
To the Faculty of PSOL, for their guidance through a process that he thought
would have ended by now.
To those at the National Academies who participated in the project as
interviewees and members of the initial AI group. This was challenging to do at
work - Thank You!
Getting Started: With Eyes Wide
Shut
Reflections on the original project
proposal and how I saw the research and the paper evolving. This project was
full of surprises to one who has had little experience with the research
process.
The original proposal called for 30 individuals to participate at various levels of the project. Initially, 20 would participate in the group session where stories would be shared and the "core values" or, in this case the characteristics of a positive technical exchange, would be hashed out. I also had some fairly strict guidelines imposed by the legal folks at the NAS that governed non-Academy sponsored studies. While this was understandable, the guidelines stifled some of my initial ideas about gathering participants. So, the workgroup that came up with the initial characteristics consisted of three people. Prior to this I had conducted five electronic-based surveys, asking the typical AI questions and those same questions asked in the group session. These responses tended to support one another so I felt confident that they were fairly accurate, at least for this group.
Another aspect of the proposal called for 10 individuals to participate in verification interviews intended to validate the results of the initial AI group. Of course, the reality was that electronic surveys and the AI group both occurred prior to the verification interviews.
While these interviews held fairly true to the findings of the two previous data gathering methods, I am not sure how much the results were impacted by this change of method.
Some individuals seemed resistant to the electronic survey after expressing interest in a group session where ideas might be exchanged. I am unsure whether these individuals changed their minds about participating in the project as a result of this change or whether this would have happened when it actually came time to participate in some way anyway.
So, my initial projections about how many people I would be able to gather were much too optimistic. I felt constrained to use some fairly passive methods for inviting participation. I avoided personal relationships and instead posted a message in an all-staff database inviting participation. All those who responded already knew me personally except for one, who turned out to be one of the most valuable participants of all.
Because I had not anticipated such problems in getting participants I found the resulting obstacle almost impassable. I panicked, actually, at the wonder of how I would accomplish the project with so few people. So, the first lesson for me comes from my lack of preparation in the face of adversity. Having a Plan B and possibly even a Plan C may have lowered my stress level and allowed me to continue much more smoothly when participants were not as forthcoming as I had anticipated. Another note here: this number was fairly arbitrary, as I really had no idea how many participants would be necessary nor how many would be available and willing.
So, while I was optimistic and excited about talking people about the topic and making an attempt at applying Appreciative Inquiry on my own, I was ill-prepared in some of the finer points of conducting research.
In Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry, Sue Annis Hammond reminds us that “to begin to understand Appreciative Inquiry, … you have to understand the role of assumptions in organizations”. My assumptions regarding the ability and willingness of several people to participate proved overly optimistic. I don’t apologize for this but note only the importance of assumptions and the need check them carefully. In hindsight, it seems useful to have someone to bounce some of these ideas around with. My proposal adviser asked me about the number of people and I thought I could do it. I thought so because that is my orientation to the world. Feeling this out at work may have proven more insightful but, at this point, that is speculative hindsight – and not even 20-20!
Regarding my optimism – I believe that this is in harmony with the spirit of
Appreciative Inquiry, which seeks to find the positive. Taken too far, one can
be blinded to potential problems. In reflecting on her experience as a change
management consultant enlightened by the AI method, Hammond suggests that
asking AI questions provides her with the information that she needs, but
leaves the organization with the “confirmed knowledge, confidence, and
inspiration that they did well, and will continue to do well with a heightened
awareness of what works. Not only do I have new eyes, but, hopefully
others do too.”
I think that I have done well, and this reflective process will help me to see with new eyes. Dr. Tojo Joseph Thatchenkery in A Guide to Appreciative Organizational Analysis, refers to the distinction that Gabriel Marcel makes between problem and mystery. “A problem is something to be fixed”, he says and, “there is very little to appreciate in a problem other than getting rid of it or solving it” (p.4).
My point here is really a warning: Although Appreciative Inquiry is a positive-oriented method, the AI consultant cannot be so blinded by optimism that he cannot foresee “problems”. My perspective was so positive that it occurred to me that only positive things could happen. I would also say that if one is going to err, that this is the direction one should go. While it may make completing a paper and getting a good grade challenging, the resulting new and more positive approach is well worth any other aggravation!
In this project I made a choice to play the “believing game” as opposed to the “doubting game”, as Peter Elbow describes (Thatchenkery, p.7). This is related to where the title for this section came from. My eyes were wide open to the believing and the possibilities that I foresaw. I was also extremely excited about conducting a project of this kind – something I had never before done. Yet, my eyes were very much closed to the challenges that waited to befall me ahead. I hope that this is also useful to the first-time researcher who attempts this kind of project.
One pivotal point occurred very early in the project and is reflected on some in the original paper. That is: the decision to distribute an electronic survey after several original group members decided to not participate. This really took the “low road”, hoping to easily capture some data to get started with. I felt so behind the curve as it was that this method was too tempting to pass up. Starting early enough when there is a prescribed time limit to work with is obviously essential. I had identified a time line in the proposal, but this was completely obliterated from all reality very early on.
Again however, optimism kept me going. Because this is a quality-oriented program it is easy to be fooled into thinking that whatever one does is quality. There are active proponents of this, although I am not purposely one of them (though it may appear so at times). I think about quality time with my children. My 5-year old son yearns for time playing castle or baseball. But frankly, 10 minutes of really quality castle playing just simply is not enough! He needs some significant time regularly and frequently – as do my two daughters. It takes time to create quality!
So it is with this project. I did not really appreciate the connection between quantity and quality (really, not until my advisor pointed this out to me in subtle ways) and found it difficult to adjust when what I thought was quality – and still do – could not be supported by quantity. This is something that I appreciate much more now than I ever have and I am glad for that.
Though not technically a case study, this AI project was designed with particularistic qualities as defined by Sharan B. Merriam in her book, Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. This design is especially good for "practical problems--for questions, situations, or puzzling occurrences arising from everyday practice". For me, these technical relationship and language questions are extremely puzzling. And while the scope of the "problem" is very broad, I was particularly interested in the specific situation here at the NRC and trying to "concentrate attention on the way specific groups of people confront specific problems …" (Merriam, p.29).
With several individuals participating, this seems viable. The intention was to have a large enough group to support a claim that results were representative of the entire institution. It is possible that many of these characteristics hold true in other groups as well, but my intention was to focus on my own workplace.
Several concepts that Mishler talks about went to into my preparations for conducting this project. Mishler talks a about the interviewer's frameworks of meaning as something that people have to be able to accept working within for interviews to be successful (Mishler, p.54). I expected that my enthusiasm would rub off and infect those who participated. I also anticipated that, since I share much of the frustration that accompanies computer use, many people would be excited about the project as an opportunity to talk about computers and the way they get help. As a result, I think that I may have assumed that this shared meaning already existed. My initial presentation was intended to familiarize people with the process more than creating any shared meaning. It is possible that the positive outcomes of this process were as ambiguous to the group as they were to me given the challenges related with getting the project off the ground. If this were the case people could feel initially excited about being part of a forum for sharing issues about computers and computer-related communication but could not see the long-term benefit of their participation. Even for me at this point I suspect that this project will be a great learning experience for me with little hope for wide impact in my work environment.
Along with shared meaning I think come shared understanding - understanding what I mentioned regarding the potential impact of this project. Obviously, the hope in doing this project was not only for me to gain experience in a field that I am extremely interested in, but that the project might make a difference for people in their everyday work lives. If I were to state the top motivation for me to do good work, it would be to do meaningful work that will make a difference for someone. So this was the motivation for the project. I wondered early that, instead of shared meaning and understanding, some participants were more interested in a forum for complaint rather than really being part of a larger process. This assumption may seem unfair, but given the dropout rate, I have seen this as a major factor in weeding people out early.
Again, this was such an exciting prospect to apply Appreciative Inquiry among employees at the National Academies – a place of prestige in the scientific community – that I could almost not see straight! Enthusiasm is a wonderful gift, and can be contagious (but shouldn’t be laid on too thick)! I was enthused about this project and looked forward to the opportunity. I thought of this as a first attempt at the consulting world that so many of my PSOL associates were already involved with. I think this idea has been tempered as a result of my experience, but the thought of aiding organizational change in a positive way is still a very real hope for me. I saw myself as a rookie looking to make a name for myself and begin building a portfolio of experience and credentials. Maybe I missed the point somewhat by looking so far ahead though I can’t say necessarily that my focus was wrong or misdirected. I do recognize that my ambition may have affected my ability to see what was happening, but I’m not sure that I would have known what to do in some of these trouble spots anyway. I think I can spell rookie with a capital ‘R’!
I think that the scope of this project was something that I was somewhat blind to. I had done AI with a group and so I was fairly confident that I could follow the steps and make this work on my own. This process requires a lot of work, a lot of thought. On paper, my proposal made it look fairly easy, in fact, and given the shared meaning that I assumed already existed this seemed straightforward. The challenging reality was a different story indeed! This AI project turned out to be a surprisingly much larger animal than I had thought. The interpersonal aspects were appealing to me while the rigor of this kind of research was something I knew nothing about.
I played baseball, football, a little soccer, and wrestled as a child and young adult. Visualizing in sports is a powerful way of preparing for competition. Learning skills and practice are vital requisites if this is to be effective. After all, one must know what to visualize! In looking at this project I visualized my actions and those of the potential participants. Visualizing problems was not part of the process in preparing for sports and I did not visualize problems with AI either. There goes that blind enthusiasm again!
But winning at sports is all about overcoming obstacles. Visualizing a touchdown run or a stolen base includes overcoming the obstacles that would impede progress. Something I knew about were the obstacles involved in stealing second base (and third occasionally). Something that I didn't know about were the obstacles I might encounter along the way. This for me stresses the importance of having time to build a foundation of experience so that when visualization occurs it is not glossed over by images that portray success without obstacles. An additional help would be to have a partner in the process.
In The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, the authors share an image of the Chinese characters that represent Learning. The two characters mean to study, and to practice constantly, respectively. The character for to study is represented by symbols that represents a child in a doorway and means, to accumulate knowledge. The other symbol, meaning to practice constantly, shows a bird that is developing the ability to leave the nest. One part of the symbol represents flying, the other youth.
Senge, et al., goes on to explain that the root for the English word for learning held similar meaning - that learning is a lifelong process. For me, I jumped right out of the nest with periods of flying and crashing. Using these symbols to define learning, however, I can say that for this process has the potential of being a lifelong opportunity for learning. The lead time prior to taking on the project was fairly short, but given the opportunity to reflect on this at some length I not only will salvage my grade but, more importantly, I will hopefully be able to fly even just a little further next time!
An Appreciative Approach to
Understanding the Power of Tech-Talk
The bulk of the Final Draft of the paper, excluding reflective sections that
may now be more suited to the Reflections portion of this expanded paper.
The following several pages include the substance of the original project. The paper has been left in it’s original form to the extent possible including hypertext links, web formatting, and some color. Occasionally you may spot what sounds like an apology for not having enough participants or for making a slight modification in the process. These and other references to trouble spots in the project will not be hyper-linked together, but one should pay attention to them and recall general references to these in other parts of the paper.
You may also find some ideas duplicated in portions of Chapters 1, 3, and 4. While I have made some effort to add some very reflective portions of the original paper within the text around it, I have not been concerned too much about finding all references. Because I believe that the original paper still holds much value, I hope to preserve it here as much as possible so that the reflection around it makes sense and so that you as the reader can see the original project.
This original paper represents the process, the learning and though
unintentionally, draws some attention to the challenges of the project. I
should also say here that despite these challenges, which is why this
“packaging” is being written around it, this was an extremely fulfilling and
meaningful project. I hope that this is evident in the following text.
An Appreciative Approach to Understanding the
Power of Tech-talk
A Research Project conducted at
The National Research Council
Purpose
The purpose of this analysis is to
describe and profile both the power and the most helpful uses of technical
language. Through this analysis, the most helpful methods for communicating
technical language as well as some suggestions for improvement will be
extracted and analyzed through a method know as Appreciative Inquiry (AI). The
term Core Values will be used to describe the most meaningful
Characteristics of the technical-based exchange. Also, the AI process has been
modified somewhat to accommodate the following: 1) the focus on technical
language and the exchange between technical (computer-related only) and the
"end-user" and, 2) some restrictions guiding this research project at
the National Research Council.
Disclaimer
The use of this data will be used in
accordance with NRC Guidelines regarding non-sanctioned studies. It should also
be noted that this study and its contents are the sole responsibility of the
author, Brian Gore, and that the National Research Council has not commissioned
this study nor given consent for the publication of the results. Appendix
contains a memo from The Office of the General Counsel regarding specific
guidelines.
Appreciative Inquiry Consultant:
Brian Gore
LRNG 792 – Spring 1999
George Mason University
Adviser – Dr. Don Lavoie
Table of Contents
Overview of
Appreciative Inquiry
Discussion
and Interpretations
Surprises and Special
Learning
More Questions:
A Theoretical Bent
Appendix A
- Consent Form / Questionnaire
Appendix B
- Electronic Responses
Appendix C -
Selected Bibliography
Appendix D -
Memo from General Counsel
Appreciative Inquiry
Appreciative inquiry is a philosophy for
change. It assumes that within every organization, something works. By
identifying what works, change can be managed more easily through these areas
that work. Rather than the traditional theory of "Change Management,"
that looks at/for the problem in an organization and focusing on what’s wrong
or broken, appreciative inquiry looks at what is right in the organization.
What works is key to appreciative inquiry. The methodology for AI is simple.
Through a collective gathering of employees/people, moments of success are
shared and discussed, creating positive energy. Taking that positive energy and
turning it into a "living process" is how AI works. Since the
statements are from real people and are real experiences, the success can be
repeated. This approach is used by organizations to discover, understand, and
foster positive innovations in organizational processes. To apply AI the
following six steps of are followed:
Step
1. Identification of organizational core
values or life giving forces (LGF’s). (This step takes place in a
2-3hour session with a group of about 20 people).
Step 2. Expansion of core values or
LGF’s using interviews designed and conducted by an AI team of consultants. (Once the core values are identified, find
which ones sustain the LGF’s.)(This is accomplished through the appreciative
interview.)
Step 3. Thematic analysis of the data
undertakes organizational analysis.
(A model is developed to frame the organizational analysis. A matrix is
developed and agreed upon, then the LGF’s or core values are matched against
organizational factors.)
Step 4. Constructing possibility
propositions. (States ‘what
is’ rather than, ‘what might be’. This step recognizes and focuses on what organizational
practices maximize the potential for participation. Then the ‘what is’ is
expanded to "what might be".)
Step 5. Consensual validation of the
propositions. (This is where a
survey is conducted based on what was set between possibility propositions in
Step 4 to gauge them, and tabulation is performed afterwards to prioritizes
those propositions in the organization.)
Step 6. Creating and mandating an
implementation team. (This is
the most important step in the AI process. Groups must begin implementation
either through individuals, teams or committees.
These six steps are a small part of the
AI process. Ideally throughout the process appreciation, focus, envisioning,
open dialogue and innovation are all occurring. What an organization focuses on
becomes reality.
Consistent with my intention to focus on
computer-related interactions between technical support people and end-users
(as people who actually use computers are so labeled), some steps will be
modified and the use of the terms Life Giving Forces (LGF) and core values will
be substituted with the term Characteristics, to denote desirable
characteristics of a technical help-related interchange from the end-user
perspective.
The National
Academy of Sciences is a non-profit organization chartered by the Congress
of the United States in 1863, by order of the President, Abraham Lincoln. The
charter requires the Academy to provide the US Government with Scientific
advice. Thus the current nickname; Advisers to the Nation. Since the original
charter, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and
the National Research Council have joined the NAS to form what is now known as
The Academy Complex. The National Research Council constitutes the operating
arm of the Academies, and is staffed by more than 1,200 employees who provide
support to the research of the Academy member’s and other scholars who
participate in the work of the Academy. The organization structure of the Academy
is fairly complex, and organization charts depicting the Program Organization and
the Administrative
Organization are attached for reference. Also, you may click on the links
and view the charts directly from the NAS website. Other charts depicting
various organizational structures may also be viewed via links from the pages
referenced above.
The President of the National Academy of
Sciences also serves as Chairman of the National Research Council, and various
Executive Offices serve to support the staff and program functions of the NRC.
These offices include the President’s Office; NRC Executive Officer; NAS
Executive Officer; Office of General Counsel; Office
of Congressional and Government Affairs; Office Public Understanding of Science; Office of News and Public Information.
It is among these offices, along with one program unit – the Commission on Physical Sciences and
Mathematics Applications - that this research was conducted.
Another fascinating element of the
Academy is its academic, collegial environment, seemingly mixed with a
government agency "feel" to it. Eighty percent of the studies and
reports generated by this non-profit organization of scholars in the medical,
engineering, and natural sciences are requested by United States government
agencies. As a result, the perception is that this organization is
characterized by many qualities unique to both academic institutions and
government agencies alike.
The Office of Information and Technology
Services (ITS) provides such services to the entire institution. One
characteristic of this is that the program and administrative units of the NRC
pay a tech rate for such services as computers; network connectivity; internet;
computer support; Help Desk services; application development; much like a
typical contractor relationship. However, technology-related employees are
fully employed by the NRC just as all other NRC staff. A basic rate paid per
computer residing on a user desktop provides certain services to the units.
Special requests such as website development, custom application development,
are paid for at a specified rate. The NRC units become "paying
customers" as a result of this relationship and, as such, have high
expectations. They want to be sure, and rightly so, that they receive services
commensurate with the costs so associated.
The initial methodology as outlined in
the attached document entitled "Practicum Proposal", was modified to
accommodate both the needs of the National Research Council staff who
participated in the study as well as organizational, time, and legal restraints
as provided by the Academy’s Office of the General Counsel (see
attached).
The original plan required the use of a
"slightly modified version of a technique called Appreciative Inquiry. A
summary of the process is attached. The modification extends only to the point
that participants will be asked to limit their initial "stories" to
those of a technical nature; experiences when technology and technology support
people were helpful, and why. Normally, participants would be asked to share a
generic experience illustrating when they felt valued, excited, etc.
Data Collection and Instrumentation – In
the process of Appreciative Inquiry, I will gather two separate groups of ten
(10) participants each to share initial stories for the gathering of themes or
values related to technology-based experiences. The second phase of the study
will include interviews of a separate group of twenty (20) participants to
"verify" the themes. I am hopeful that some of the participants in
the first phase will help to facilitate the second phase. I will need to study
the impact this may have on the latter’s responses.
Unfortunately, due to time constraints,
access to users, and some legal restrictions, the AI process was modified even
further as outlined below.
Thirteen users initially committed
verbally to participate in the project. The process and the intention were
explained to each individual. Most expressed a sincere and enthusiastic
interest in participating. Due to the constraints listed above, the initial
group meeting was canceled. I then sent an E-mail to each participant that
included the following:
PowerPoint presentation explaining AI methodology and process
Interview Consent Form
Interview Questions
Each participant was informed of the
changes to the process and the reason for this departure from that previously
explained to them.
Along, with the electronic forms, I also
had face-to-face conversations with five participants who did not respond to
the electronic survey. Of the thirteen original participants, five responded to
the electronic, five were informally interviewed face-to-face, two participants
requested that they be excused from the project, and one participant left
employment at the NRC and did not participate in the project at all.
Data from the electronic responses were
analyzed for various themes that could be interpreted as Core Values for
the purposes of the AI Model. Also extracted from the data were Characteristics,
which replace the traditional AI Factors that Enhance Core Values. These
Characteristics represent aspects of the technical interchanges
described in the interviews. Therefore, the AI Matrix describes Values and
the Characteristics of the technical interchange that Enhance those
values.
Those users who did not respond to the
electronic survey were asked the following triggering question:
What about the electronic process made it challenging for you to respond?
After this initial question, some of the
other questions originally on the survey were asked, but generally the
conversation was allowed to flow around the difficulties I now assumed - but
had not anticipated - that people had with the electronic survey. Responses to
these conversations are recorded and Analyzed in the Section titled Surprises
and Special Learning.
It should also be noted that even
conducting informal interviews posed a time problem. All of the users are
extremely busy with many managing the offices and schedules of Academy
executives. Notes were not taken during these interviews in an effort to allow
the process to be as natural as possible.
The results of the study were actually
not very surprising. The assumptions outlined in the Practicum
Proposal which prompted the study were strongly supported. However, the
objective of the study was not to verify the assumptions but to provide some
insights into the characteristics that compose a positive and helpful
interchange between technical support personnel and the computer user.
Following is a list of Themes that
I extracted from the stories shared by those who responded to the electronic
survey form. An * next to an item denotes that this theme was noted more than
once by a given respondent. A + means that the theme was listed by more than
one respondent.
Availability (of Technology)
Productivity (Technology Increases) +
Calm
Professional
Simple English ++
Technical Terms Explained +
Learning Opportunity (for User) + *
Technical Skill (of Techie)
Team Effort (Techie and User) *
Patience + *
Trust
Confidence
Communication
Understanding (of Techie)
Competence (of Techie)
Helpful Attitude
Time
Knowledge Sharing +
In extracting the data, it was
interesting to note that 4 of the 5 respondents alluded that they hoped to be a
part of the process of solving the problem. One respondent stated that he/she
had never received help from a technical person. This was an interesting
because I have personally been involved in situations where technical help was
provided to this individual. I have worked hard to not regard this as a
personal affront, but I am also still trying to make some sense of this
response. At some moment that "seems" right, I will ask the
respondent about this answer. It is hard to tell whether the individual may
have misunderstood the question or simply found it difficult to put an
experience into words.
Several characteristics were verified as
key elements by the five interviewees who did not respond to the electronic
survey. The top four are listed on the graphic in the Discussion and
Interpretations section. However, four of these five individuals shared the
view that fixing the problem quickly was the most important element, and that
how it was done and any learning gained was not important. As a note, from
personal experience, all of these users generally prefer what we call deskside
assistance in trouble situations.
Clearly the priority for people is to
have their problems resolved quickly. There are certainly differences in preference
as to how this occurs and much depends on the particular situation.
Unfortunately, there is simply not enough data in this study to reach any
concrete conclusions.
Discussion
and Interpretations
Thematic Analysis/Implications
Examples of Factors
that Enhance Technical Communications (Figure I)
Characteristics: Ţ Factors That Enhance Them:ß |
Plain English |
Courtesy |
Knowledge |
Understanding of Problem by
Techie/User |
Attitude of Techie |
Helpful |
|
|
Patient |
Attitude of User |
|
|
Desire to Learn |
Patient |
Learning Opportunity |
|
|
|
|
Timeliness |
|
|
|
|
Resolution |
|
|
Quickly |
|
I was disappointed when several users opted
not to participate in this project after initially committing enthusiastically
to the project. After some careful reading along with some insightful
discussions with Dr. Lavoie, I have a better idea now of some things that may
have happened. The fact that more than half of the original candidates did not
participate along with some reasons that may have contributed to this have had
significant impact on the study. One obvious result is that there is simply not
as much data as originally anticipated. So, some of the interpretations and
discussion result not only from the data but from these other factors as well.
For these reasons, this discussion seems to fit best here.
As some users either did not respond in a
timely manner or expressed their desire not to participate, time demanded that
the process change some, as outlined earlier in this paper. The original group
discussion was replaced by a standard questionnaire which was distributed
electronically. I had not anticipated that the way the questions were asked
would have such an impact on the response. D. Nadler made a comparison between
various methods of data collection(Cummings and Worley; p.114). The four major
potential problems he associates with the questionnaire method follow:
1. Nonempathy
2. Predetermined questions/missing issues
3. Overinterpretation of data
4. Response bias
One user expressed all of these problems
in her response to my electronic query:
"I have not had a 'positive
experience' where I understood
and used technology well. I may not be the person to respond to these
questions. The questions are so obviously asked in such a way that you will get
positive responses only."
It seems that the restriction that seems
to be placed on users by asking them to recall a situation when they understood
and used technology well was flawed, and overwhelming for this user. One of my
assumptions is/was that most of us do not understand technology well at all.
Secondly, that my questions were geared to solicit only positive experiences
also caused a problem. I had made an assumption that people would enjoy the
opportunity to share positive experiences. This proved difficult for all
respondents, and two users stated this specifically in slightly different ways.
Also, this method seemed to provide users
a blank sheet on which they were required to provide some positive experience
about the "thing" they were required to use in drafting responses:
their computers. In my personal interactions with all of these users, I
recognize frustration levels of varying degrees regarding the use of computer
equipment. The group interaction would probably have provided a much less
threatening environment and a refreshing break from their computers. We might
ask who wants to talk about computers using a computer?
The NRC recently completed the
organization-wide upgrade to Microsoft Office 97. For many this caused
tremendous stress. WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS users are feeling particularly
threatened. According to the Force-Field Analysis method, a derivative
of Kurt Lewin's three-step mode of change, Group Performance Norms, Well
Learned Skills, and Member Complacency are all factors in resisting
change (Cummings & Worley; p.125. As a group of sensitive users, these
factors must come in to play as we "force" software upgrades upon
them.
These factors also appear to come into
play within the context of this study. As some users recognized the real impact
and intention of the research, I wonder if there was some concern that these
areas might be threatened. Afterall, if we make things better as a result of
our efforts, we will be accountable for that input which may require an
increase of output and the learning of new skills. It is hard to say exactly
what is going in people's minds without asking them directly. Even then, one
would be hard-pressed to flesh out all of the root causes of behavior.
My own sense is that software upgrades
threaten these areas; that discussions about how to use technology well
threaten these areas; and that sharing information about what works well may be
used as evidence for driving the user community further from their comfort
zone. Professor Yasmin Kafai, in briefing an NRC committee assembled to address
information technology literacy, stated that the term "fluency connotes
the ability to reformulate knowledge, to express oneself creatively and
appropriately, and to produce and generate information (CSTB/NRC; p.viii;
1999). This concept of "cluency" could potentially create some apprehension
for computer users. Many already feel intimidated by the machine that occupies
their desktop. But many also feel "fluent" in the processes that they
have "memorized" to accomplish certain tasks. Events that appear to
threaten ones fluency must certainly exacerbate any previously existing
feelings.
This data along with the attending
discussion and interpretations denote several significant implications, not
only for the NRC but for all technical organizations that provide support to
computer users. The assertion in the Practicum Proposal as originally suggested
by Dr. Lavoie is that techies and users appear to be operating within a system
that does not necessarily promote cooperation and understanding. In short, the
road that can bridge the apparent gap between the techies and the community of
computer users is certainly a two-way street.
Techies become expert in understanding
how computers work and in navigating their interfaces. But, this does not
require that the techie understand the business of the user. Conversely, users
know what it is that they want to accomplish but have been given a tool to help
without having a good grasp of how these tools work. The what and the how
don't seem to always connect nicely. Computers want to "force" users
into accomplishing the user's objective in a predefined way. This may account
for the many forms of vain use of the name of Bill Gates.
Candace Sidner of Lotus Development
Corporation admits that "today's user interfaces are just too hard to
use". She continues, "they are too complex even for the narrow range
of users for whom they were designed (More Than Screen Deep; p. 315). Ms.
Sidner made this assertion in a Proposition Paper submitted for a study
conducted by the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board of the National
Research Council. Now, what chance do we have to close the gap I have discussed
when an executive from the developer of Lotus Notes software makes such an
admission? And who are these interfaces designed for? It appears that these
interfaces were designed for a few users who "fit the profile of use for
current interfaces" (NRC; p.319), whatever that really means.
Ms. Sidner suggests that the lack of
research in the areas of "human discourse communication" and of
"human-to-human collaboration" and thus the lack of application of
these principles to the design of user interfaces contribute to their lack of
usability. Dr. John Warfield, Professor at George Mason University, asserted in
a lecture from his course entitled, "Resolving Complexities in
Organizations, that the main problem with software to day is that it is not designed
at all. Conversely, more research in these areas would "offer a means
of integrating various modalities and of extending the range of computer users
(NRC; p.315). She also suggest that industry will be less interested in this
type of research because the payoff is questionable (NRC; p. 317).
Consequently, government and institutions such as the National Research Council
are in a position to make an impact in this important area. A collaboration
between developers and designers may have to occur to bring us
closer to interfaces that more closely resemble the natural processes of human
discourse (see Possibility Propositions 6 & 7).
In many typical consulting models, this
section would most likely be entitled "Recommendations". Having
identified problems, the natural next step for the Consultant would be to
recommend changes, or fixes for the organization’s problems.
Previously, the implications and
interpretation of the results of this inquiry are represented in a matrix
(Figure I) which references the relationship between particular Organizational
Factors and the Core Values, otherwise known as Life Giving Forces (LGF’s). The
results of this thematic analysis represent the status quo, or the "What
Is", in the AI Model.
From this perspective then, the natural
next step is to reflect "What Will Be". As the previous matrix
illustrates the relationship between Organizational Factors and the LGF’s, the
following matrix (figure II) shows Propositions related to factors that
enhance the Core Values (LGF’s).
So,
there is some qualified hope in these possibilities. And with some effort and
reorienting toward a service organization, this hope may even be quantified and
even measurable and some point in the future. Possibly not in the traditional
methods but, who knows, the possibilities are endless!
Possibility Propositions
Matrix Illustrating Characteristics
and Factors that Enhance Them (Figure II)
Characteristics: Ţ Factors That Enhance Them:ß |
Language (Plain English) |
Courtesy |
Knowledge Sharing |
Understanding of Problem |
Attitude of Techie |
Propositions related to Attitude T that Enhance Language |
Propositions related to Attitude T that Enhance Courtesy |
Propositions related to Attitude T that Enhance Knowledge |
Propositions related to Attitude T that
Enhance Understanding |
Attitude of User |
Propositions related to Attitude U that Enhance Language |
Propositions related to Attitude U that Enhance Courtesy |
Propositions related to Attitude U that Enhance Knowledge Sharing |
Propositions related to Attitude U that
Enhance Understanding |
Learning Opportunity |
Propositions related to LO that Enhance Language |
Propositions related to LO that Enhance Courtesy |
Propositions related to LO that Enhance Knowledge Sharing |
Propositions related to LO that Enhance
Understanding |
Timeliness |
Propositions related to Timeliness that Enhance Language |
Propositions related to Timeliness that Enhance Courtesy |
Propositions related to Timeliness that Enhance Knowledge Sharing |
Propositions related to Timeliness that
Enhance Understanding |
Resolution |
Propositions related to Resolution that Enhance Language |
Propositions related to Resolution that Enhance Courtesy |
Propositions related to Resolution that Enhance Knowledge Sharing |
Propositions related to Resolution that
Enhance Understanding |
Note the complex relationships that exist
between all of the Factors and Values. Also, not all relationships include a specific
example for the relationship. Those without examples are given for reference
only. From this matrix I will extract the relationships which I see as having Possibilities.
It may be assumed that among these other relationships, the present, or What
Is", already represents What Will Be.
These possibilities will be illustrated
from the matrix in the form of Possibility Propositions, as opposed to
Recommendations. These Proposed Possibilities will be for the client to use as
desired.
Proposition 1:
As part of the ITS philosophy, we do not
assume that all computer users understand completely, nor do we expect them to,
how it is that the computer technology they use works. We appreciate that for
them computers are a tool, not "the job". Recognizing that computers
are much easier to use if we understand some basic concepts, we provide as part
of our regular "Brown Bag" training courses, a course in basic
computer and network terms and functions.
Proposition 2:
We describe those who use computers to do
their work as "interacter's", as opposed to mere "users".
This attitude helps our technical staff to appreciate and respect those who
interact with computers to accomplish the vital mission of the National
Research Council. This helps us to shed a more positive light on the abilities
of those interacters and on the often difficult challenges that today's
computer interfaces present to them.
Proposition 3:
We are developing a short-course training
program that sensitizes technical employees to the challenges faced by computer
interacters. This program is intended to help technical employees appreciate
that it is in fact their job to completely understand the computers that are
used in the institution. Likewise, it is intended to remind technical employees
that it is an unrealistic to expect all interacters (or even a majority) to
understand all aspects of the computer and its operations and functions.
Proposition 4:
In helping interacters understand the
often un-scientific nature of computers, we hope to create an atmosphere of
patience and tolerance in resolving problem technical situations. That direct
cause and effect relationships are not always clear and that troubleshooting
processes can be as much intuitive as logical is a goal of this initiative.
Another outcome of this proposition is a more realistic compromise to the often
stated expectation: "fix it now!".
Proposition 5:
Our technical organization recognizes the
community of interacters as customers. As such, each ITS employee recognize him
or herself as a customer service representative. As such, a total service
orientation exists which absolutely extinguishes any feelings of superiority by
technical staff regarding computer interacters. Service is our motto. Customer
satisfaction is the Clarion call.
Proposition 6:
The ITS organization at the NRC is so
serious about customer service, it has commissioned the Computer Science and
Telecommunications Board to launch a study in the areas of concern outlined in
Candace Sidner's Proposition Paper as part of the NRC publication entitled
"More Than Screen Deep". The two areas of focus are:
1. Principles of Human Discourse
Communication
2. Principles of Human-to-Human
Collaboration
All applications developed
"in-house" will be designed based on the findings of such a study.
Proposition 7:
In conjunction with Proposition 6, ITS
and the NRC are working actively to promote the implementation of the
principles of design consistent with the study findings into future revisions
of software.
The first and, possibly, most obvious
conclusion is that doing research at work is a challenging task. A technical
person doing research among computer users about the helpful qualities of computer-related
exchanges may be considered either brave or fool-hearty! Not because the people
among whom the research was conducted, but because this computer world effects
everyone. And it effects everyone in different ways. Some people really love using
computers to get work done. Others recognize that they cannot get their work
done without them. Some want to understand them and make computers really
useful tools. Others seem to look behind the computers to the people who build
them at write the software they use with as sort of contempt. I can appreciate
this because I have my own gripes with the design of so much software and
hardware today.
Computers are everywhere. Auto mechanics
use computers, attorneys use computers, scientists and clerks use computers. At
the Academy, there is no shortage of highly educated people who could run
circles around computer-related techies in discussions about biology or
chemistry or physics. But while average person experiences these things daily,
they are somewhat invisible to us. We don't have to how we breathe to do
it. We don't have to know the properties of water to drink it or cleanse
ourselves with it.
But everyone has a computer on his or her
desk. It is an in escapable thing that sits on our desks and forces us
to do things its way. And so often computer-related techies seem to take
advantage of the pervasiveness of the computer in our lives. We have to use
them and, in many ways, it is difficult to use one effectively if we don't have
some idea of how it works. Put gas in your vehicle, turn the key, and drive
along the country enjoying the view. Combustion, voltage, spark, air pressure,
cooling, etc. All of these things and more make the car go. But we don't have
to understand it all to drive to the grocery store or to Grandma's house. But
if want to type a letter to Grandma and send it to her electronically, we may
need to understand a little about how the computer works.
Not necessarily when everything is going
the way we are accustomed. It is when something goes wrong that we find
ourselves at the mercy of the techie. While there may be several ways to
perform an operation, we may only know one of them. Knowing how the process
actually works would provide us with the knowledge to try a new of doing something
that may work. Then again, maybe not.
Clearly, many are convinced that they do
not, cannot, and never will understand computers. As a Techie, I am not
sure that I do either. But something in my training and experience guides me
through a process of trying a new way if something isn't working right.
Computers are a tool, just like a car. And we expect those tools to work
properly, and that is fair. We may also wish that they would work the way we
want them to and they may never happen. Because people learn differently, like
and dislike different things, etc., it is unrealistic to think that this will
ever happen. But it appears that these expectations often cause us some
difficult in the computer revolution era. Computers also generally do what we tell
them to do. And they don't always respond well when we tell them to do
something that they are not programmed to do. They will never understand us, so
our only choice seems to be to try and understand them. Scary!!
Here is an example: An individual was
working in a Microsoft Access database. This database had tables and forms. A
nice feature allows a user to sort by form. So, while looking at a table, one
users attempted to use the Sort by Form feature. Unfortunately, tables are
populated by Fields, not Forms. So this function did not work. Well it did
sometimes. That was the strange part. This should have NEVER worked in this
way. But because it had somehow worked once or twice, the perception when it
did not work was that the software, well, wasn't working. It was enlightening
for all of us as we learned more about this. So, a frustration that was
initially blamed on bad software (and I agree on the point that the function
should never work so as not to confuse users regarding its proper use), was merely
a result of not having a clear and broad view of how a database works. So,
while one may be able to enter data and create a database, interacting
effectively with that data may require some deeper conceptual understanding of
how databases actually work.
So, can we conclude that all users are
dummies and don't understand computers? I don't think that would be fair. The
computer revolution is moving rapidly and changes daily the way people do their
work. People who provide computer support normally understand technology well.
People who use technology to try and do their jobs understand their business
function very well. But where do the two meet? This is what I am not sure of.
We have some more questions to ask, but hopefully this is a good start on the path
to bridging the gap between technology and those who support it, and those who
use it everyday, often under extremely frustrating circumstances, to accomplish
their work.
Surprises
and Special Learning
As this section title suggests, I was surprised
by several aspects of this study and, consequently, have learned some things I
had not anticipated. I also have several unanswered and, in many cases, still
unformulated questions. I will make no intentional attempt to draw any
conclusions in this section. Rather, I wish to share some of these surprises,
learnings, and questions with a hope that this will generate some more
discussion that may not only help to fill in gaps in this paper, but also to
assist with research processes that may have helped to avoid some of the
difficulties of this study. However, I do believe that some of the surprises I
encountered may be associated with the technology system that we function and
cannot be attributed solely to any flaws in the approach.
As stated elsewhere, I was surprised by
the shift of enthusiasm for the project by people who had originally committed
to participate. I am not angry with these individuals, but I hope that
somewhere along the way I can get a better handle on "what happened"
that "caused" individuals to withdraw from the study. My initial
impression - and resulting from a limited conversation with one user - is that
the change in process form group interaction to electronic survey format had an
impact on some people's willingness to participate. I have not been able to
verify this with those individuals and, because of my work relationship with
them, may never feel able to approach this topic. I will be open to
opportunities as they arise.
Another surprise, and hopefully a
learning, was the response by some who stated that they had never had a
positive experience using technology and/or with a technical help person. My
initial gut reaction to this was along the lines of personal offense. I know
that I have helped all of these individuals to some degree with technology. But
I was asking the question from my perspective and so, as I reflected on this,
recognize that I may have simply asked the question in a way that did not carry
the same meaning for them as it did for me. Was it the way the question was
phrased, or the format provided for answering the question? One nagging
question for me is what results may have been afforded had the original plan
for a group session actually occurred? My assumption is/was that as individuals
shared positive stories that others would also have been able to
"piggy-back" on the stories of others. In this sense they may have
realized that they do share positive experiences and that interaction with
others may have brought those to light.
On the other hand, it is possible that
many do not feel that a computer can be a medium for a positive experience. I
don't know what basis I have for that feeling except that in my interactions
with many computer users, there seems to be an almost constant, antagonistic "relationship"
that exists between user and machine. A near-hatred for the computer seems to
hang like a shroud over one's ability to recognize the computer as a powerful
tool and a useful facilitator of certain activities that would otherwise be
much more difficult to accomplish. Among many users, however, talking on the
telephone, and face to face conversation are really the "tools of the
trade". In this context, the computer may be seen as a hindrance to the
more human-oriented, natural course of communication.
More Questions: A Theoretical Bent
This paper highlights some very strong
relationships between technical support people and those who use computers,
along with characteristics that help (or hinder) the communicative process between
the two groups of people. But, simply, there is not enough data to make the
solid conclusions along with some possibilities that would satisfy me and my
academic adviser while also preserving the integrity of this study and that of
the research process as well.
So, there are still many questions to
ask. This section is intended to provide some theoretical basis for some of the
actions described along with conclusions. Some historical background will also
shed some light on the progression of technological impact in society. This
should be a fascinating journey that will not only serve to fill in some gaps
in this paper, but to serve as a catalyst for asking some deeper questions in
trying to sort out what appears often to be a cultural clash. Not only between
technical people and the users of that technology but also the intrusion of
technology into our social systems, changing completely many ways that we
function and even the way we think about the world around us.
In his book titled Technopoly: The
Surrender of Culture to Technology, Neil Postman illustrates the impact of
technology on societies through Plato's story of Thamus and his interaction
with the god Theuth. Theuth had invented several useful tools such as number,
calculation, geometry, astronomy, and writing (Postman). Theuth displayed his
inventions before the king Thamus, who inquired as to their purpose and use.
From Socrates the story goes as follows:
"Thamus … judged Theuth's claims
to be well or ill founded" and "is reported to have said for and
against each of Theuth's inventions. But when it cam to writing, Theuth
declared, 'Here is an accomplishment, my lord the King, which will improve the
wisdom and the memory of the Egyptians. I have discovered a sure receipt for
memory and wisdom.' To this, Thamus replied, 'Theuth, my paragon of inventors,
the discoverer of an art is not the best judge of the good or harm which will
accrue to those who practice it. So it is in this; you, who are father of
writing, have out of fondness for your off-spring attributed to it quite the
opposite of its real function. Those who acquire it will cease to exercise
their memory and become forgetful; they will rely on writing to bring things to
their remembrance by external signs instead of by their own internal resources.
What you have discovered is a receipt for recollection, not for memory. And as
for wisdom, your pupils will have the reputation for it without the reality:
they will receive a quantity of information without proper instruction, and in consequence
be thought very knowledgeable when they are for the most part quite ignorant.
And because they are filled with the conceit of wisdom instead of real wisdom
they will be a burden to society."
Of
course, Thamus judged Theuth's "invention" of writing to be a burden
while appearing to miss the potential benefits of this discovery. It is
fascinating to note their completely opposite perspectives toward this
technology. Theuth was enthralled with his invention, while Thamus saw only the
downside. Donald Norman describes this phenomena in terms of a machine-centered
view of technology and a human-centered view of technology (Norman, p.9). In
this case, Thamus was probably over zealous in his wholesale condemnation of
the art. Yet, the contrast between the two points of view is undeniable. And
the point is well taken and worthy of discussion. Clearly, one side often only
recognizes the benefits while the other may only be able to recognize the
criticisms. While both are probably valid, they are not sufficient to stand
alone. As Thamus and Theuth needed then, and as our techno-culture certainly
does today, a recognition of the total impact of any technology on society is
vital.
The
case for computer technology is no different today. Writing was sold by Theuth
as a tool for increasing memory, etc. Actually, the opposite is true. Writing,
and computers as well, may be viewed as crutches that allow us to forget things
with the knowledge that we can retrieve them later. This should not be viewed
necessarily as a judgment, for I highly value both writing and the ability to
use a computer. It is obviously important to note that any technology will
certainly deliver some benefits, but should not be accepted with one's
proverbial eyes closed! The impact of technology cannot be measured only in
terms of contribution. This crutches metaphor may be also substituted for more
favorable ones. Conversely, computers should also allow us to know less,
because so much knowledge becomes "embedded" over time. Instead of
the computer being looked at as a crutch that allows us to remember less, it
may be viewed as a tool that should allow us to remember less, but doesn't
always work well.
Gutenberg,
for example, perfected the printing press, allowing the Bible to be made available
to a much larger audience (Postman). Gutenberg surely did not anticipate was
the newly found ability of people like Martin Luther to use this technology and
its resulting mass-produced book of scripture to poke holes in the religious
thinking of the day. Had he anticipated this, would he have proceeded as he
did? As Theuth, he only saw what he defined as the good that would result from
his invention without - and probably without all the information necessary to
do so - considering what he may perceive as undesirable effects resulting from
this new technology.
There
are hundreds of examples of technologies which came about as mankind searched
to better his lot in life. The clock, for example, came about as Monks sought
to keep a tight schedule for prayer and ritual. As we all know, much of our
lives are now regulated by the clock. Time and motion studies, with the clock
as the central figure, were meant to help business become more efficient and
produce more. This contribution is indisputable. But what has happened to the
worker as a result? This represents the qualitative element that is so often
missing at the launch of new technology and, possibly even more critical,
missing as technologies make their weak effort at assimilating into our
societies.
Computers
do not work the way we work. They do not think at all, but if they did, the
process would be much different than our own. And, somehow, this is judged
worthy of our acceptance and even our giving in to the demands of the
technology. Truly we must question the value of a tool that is not molten with
our own hands with our own needs in mind! From the machine-centered perspective
(Postman, p.17), the infallible technology provides a form of "unreal
knowledge" to the technocrat. But how long will this so-called knowledge
be held in such high esteem? Along a similar vein, Donald Norma admits, "…
that technology aids our thoughts and civilized lives, but it also provides a
mind-set that artificially elevates some aspects of life and ignores others,
not based upon their real importance but rather by the arbitrary condition of
whether they can be measured scientifically and objectively by today's
tools" (Norman, p.15). Likewise in the words of Thamus to Theuth,
"the discoverer of an art is not the best judge of the good or harm which
will accrue to those who practice it" (Postman, p.4). It certainly would
not take a genius to see who is preaching the value of computer technology
today! But, if anyone needs any help, software vendors and manufacturers of computer
hardware are leading the cheering section touting the value of their
"wares"!
So,
what does this discussion have to do with the communication between technical
people and the end-user of computers today? From my perspective in a technical
support role, this knowledge as power issue provides a strong base from which
to operate. An arrogance and even a disconnect from reality (Norman?) is
pervasive among technical people. The clash between the machine-centered
micro-world and the reality of the human-centered world is stark and often
intense. I submit then that much of our communication problems stems not
necessarily from a purposeful plot on the part of the technician to exercise
some power and control over those who use the technology. Rather, there seems
to a problem built into the very nature of technology, why we seek and deploy
it, how it is administered, and who understands it.
In
our growing world of Knowledge Workers, one world of knowledge that strings
possibly all others together is the computer world. So, is it any wonder that
some arrogance may exist in the technical world. Opposed to an interdependent
relationship, so many fields rely on computer technology to accomplish
their work. "You can't work without us and our machines" the computer
workers may say. And everyone knows it. Not that this attitude is intentional,
the value of technical people can effect the relationship they manage with users.
In
my organization, a five-thousand dollar reward is available to those who
recommend a technical employee who is hired and remains for at least 6 months.
This incentive - while possibly necessary - sends a powerful message to the
supposed non-technical world. There is no incentive program to recommend
experts in the fields of biology, chemistry, or any of the social sciences.
While these fields represent the work of the organization, and there are
programs to recruit individuals with these skills, the 5 Grand associated with
the successful recruitment of a technical employee confirms our suspicions:
that technical people are highly valued. And while this is not necessarily a
bad thing, the assumptions that technical people make more money and the fact
that the organization is willing to pay such an amount for the recruitment of
technical employees enhances negative perceptions and aids in widening the gap
that seems to already exist between the technical world and the users of that
technology.
The
following is an excerpt from Howard Rheingold's Homepage and seems appropriate
here. This experience affirms the concerns of the mythological character
Thamus:
It's a good thing I chose the first week of June to visit
Intercourse, PA, to ask Amish people how they make their rules about tools. Two
weeks later, two young Amish males in that vicinity -- "Abner Stoltzfus
and Abner King Stoltzfus (no relation)" -- were busted for buying cocaine
from the Pagans motorcycle gang and distributing it through Amish youth groups.
For a couple of days, reporters from everywhere were in Intercourse, Bird-in-Hand,
Gordinville, and Gap. It wasn't easy finding people who would be willing to
speak to me before the bust. It would be impossible now.
My brief excursion into the Amish philosophy of technology is in the process
of becoming a magazine article, so I probably won't put the full narrative here
for a while, but I do want to share a few tidbits that struck me. I visited an
Amish-run machine shop -- a place that uses machines, powered by diesel and
hydraulic power rather than electricity, to make machines. The owner-operator
wore the plain black Amish uniform and the Abe Lincoln beard without a
moustache. He handed me a reprint of an interview with Jaron Lanier when I
asked him about his philosophy of technology: "I agree with this
guy," he said,
"especially the part about it not being possible to build
something foolproof, because fools are so clever."
This fellow, call him Abner, looked me in the eye and said: "We
don't stop with asking what a tool does. We ask about what kind of people we
become when we use it."
It
is probably fair to say that much of our society stops at asking what the tool
does, and then we wait for the implications to manifest themselves later. But
is it too late then? Should we ask these questions sooner in an effort to
design tools - computers and software in this case - in ways that allow them to
function in more human, and humane, ways? And here is something to think about:
"A systematic rejection of
subjectivity in the name of a
mythical scientific objectivity
continues to reign..."
So
the cry for objectivity often drowns out the voice that may be trying to
scream, as Abner above asks, "wait, what will we become when we use it
(new technology?)? This creates problems in many aspects of our lives both
morally and otherwise. Objectivity is equated with open-mindedness while
questions of why or what or how are viewed as evidence of an old-fashioned
mindset that is outdated and needs to be cast out. So, is it surprising that
when computer users raise questions or express frustrations that there is often
no one there to hear them? The answer is "keep up with progress". And
while we should progress, there are many working definitions regarding what
progress is.
I
experimented with some other graduate students on the use of virtual worlds as
a way of transferring knowledge. There were powerful experiences associated
with this effort. One thing that rang clear was the fact that while the
experiences were virtual, not real, the emotions and effects of those
experiences were very real indeed. In sharing my experience with some friends,
a mother of four children told me that her children were trying to learn how to
communicate with each other. This struck me as profound. We are asking an electronic
tool for communicating in ways that we may not be capable of doing otherwise.
Is this good? Is it bad? Can we really ask a tool to help us accomplish
something that we haven't figured out? I wonder if some frustration comes from
using a tool that is a weak substitute for the way that humans naturally
interact, but that we find difficult to do regardless!
Lest this sound to some
like technology-bashing - which it is not meant to be - an excerpt form an
article written by Howard Rheingold should help to clarify my view here, which
I now share with Mr. Rheingold. As he articulates:
How do we find new modes of perceiving technology, new ways to think
about, design, and use tools? How can we develop more conscious means for
democratic societies to make decisions about technologies? The next step beyond
access to tools is access to understanding how to use them. In what directions
does that step proceed? How do we start learning to look at the world of
technology, and our places in it, in new ways? Before we can hope to achieve
answers, we must elevate the level of discourse from an argument between
tree-huggers and nuke-lovers. The world is more complicated than that. We need
richer, more widespread, less simplistically polarized discourse about technology
and social issues, because that is the only kind of environment where viable
solutions are likely to emerge (Rheingold)
This
ideal really will not be able to happen without some cooperative discourse
between those who discover and enable technology and those who will eventually
use it. Or maybe the nature of those who do the discovering needs to change.
Daily I here people say they don't understand technology and could never do
what I do. I find this somewhat odd given the extraordinary things some of
these people do in their own fields. I wonder what the obstacles are that limit
the power of great minds to discovering things that we feel unqualified to do?
Certainly if the user has more to say about what is useful the tool would
expectedly be more useful. Right? There appear to be some disconnects regarding
to who is deciding who needs what.
However,
Jerry Mander describes what he calls a pro-technology paradigm in his book, In
the Absence of the Sacred. This model assumes that technology is neutral
and that its affects are determined only by people. He describes this as
pervasive and dangerous. Interestingly, Mander makes a connection "between
the advances of modern technological society and the plight of indigenous
peoples around the world". He suggests that these are the very people who
are best equipped to help us out of our fix, if only we'd let them be and
listen to what they say." The model of deep listening - even some shallow
listening would be a good start - could do much in the way of not only creating
technology that is more useful and helpful (and maybe less harmful) but also in
narrowing what is often a deep communication chasm that separates the technical
people of the world and those who they are employed to help and support!
Howard
Rheingold has also interpreted some of Calvin's writings on evolution in some
interesting ways regarding technology. One piece of "evidence" that
he cites seems to suppose that humankind's penchant for change is
"hardwired". Or, that we somehow are predisposed with an "urge
to alter things". We might assume form this that our chase for things to
improve our lives, or even to simply try new things is built in. But I wonder
if what it is that individuals are interested in altering varies so
dramatically that we find two groups - mentioned previous - that seem to clash:
the technophiles and the technophobes. Or is it that we search for things and
when someone "finds" something useful we all want to try it, possibly
without thinking ahead of its potential impact or our looming over-dependence
on the thing? Langdon Winner, in his book entitled, Autonomous Technology:
Technics-Out-of-Control as a theme in Political Science, states that
"technical systems become severed from the ends originally set for them
and, in effect, reprogram themselves and their environments to suit the special
conditions of their own operation. the artificial slave gradually subverts the
role of its master". Clearly someone does this, not the machines. But the
system certainly does include both man and machine.
We
must ask as Thamus did who should judge the value of the new technology and the
sum of its whole impact on society. It seems in the technical environment that
is so pervasive today that the field is set up for the technophiles to win,
with the phobes coming out on the losing end. Or at least they may perceive
this anyway. And perception is reality, isn't it! Thus in this
environment that now demands that we bend our will to that of the methods
employed by those machines supposedly built to aid us in our work, what or who
is serving what or who? And while the tool is still useful, we may also ask
whether we are driven by technology or whether it is really being pushed by us
to where we want to go? Or is that we go where technology wants us to go? If
this sounds discombobulated it should. So many seem to feel this stress and
anxiety around the very computers that are created as tools. But without good
design and rife with constraints and narrow conditions for their successful
use, no wonder that often those employed to help the user get caught in this
same metaphorical bind. Can the technical person unwittingly become a
representation of the very thing that causes the anxiety?
Appendix A - Consent Form/Questionnaire
INTERVIEW CONSENT
FORM
Brian Gore is completing a Master’s
Degree in a George Mason University program titled Organizational Learning and
is required to do a project for completion. The purpose of the project
is to do an organizational analysis using a new methodology called appreciative
inquiry. The project should normally provide valuable insights about the
organizational dynamics of the firm and generate concrete propositions that are
based on the core values of the organization.
Your participation in this project is
requested. If you participate, you will be interviewed using variations of the
questions listed on the next page. The interview may be audio-taped (optional)
and transcribed for later analysis. The information will be used in writing a project
report and turned in to the professor as an assignment. Should the results of
this project be published in the future, the permission of the organization
will be sought. If your organization requests a copy of the project report, it
will be given to a designated person who may share the findings with you.
This project will be performed according
to George Mason University procedures governing your participation in this
research. The student’s Adademic Adviser is Professor Don Lavoie, who may be reached
at 703 993 1142 for questions. You may also contact the George Mason University
Office of Sponsored Programs at 703-993-2295, if you have any questions or
comments regarding your rights as a participant in this research.
I have read this form and agree to
participate in this project.
________________________________ _____________
SIGNATURE DATE
Appreciative Inquiry questions that
will be used in the interviews
1) Think about a few recent positive
experiences you have had in this organization. Describe one such event when you
felt you understood and used technology well.
Follow-up questions
a) What made it a significant positive
experience? Or, What is it about the experience that you continue to cherish?
b) What did you learn from that
experience?
2) Name an event where a technical person
was particularly helpful. (outstanding/highly successful). What did s/he do?
Follow-up questions
What did you admire in her/him?
a) How has that (what s/he did) contributed
to the success of the organization?
b) What kind of language did he/she use?
3) What are your images for the
successful use of technology? What would you like to contribute to make that
happen?
4) Tell me something about what attracted
you to this organization? How did you start out? What were your initial
excitements and impressions?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) Several people in your organization
have identified ______ as a core value. Can you tell me something more about
it?
Appendix B - Electronic Responses
Following are transcripts of the
electronic responses to the survey questions. The original question is listed
followed by the answers given by respondents.
1) Think about a few recent positive
experiences you have had in this organization. Describe one such event when you
felt you understood and used technology well.
Brian:
I have not had a "positive experience" where I understood or used
technology well. I may not be the person to respond to these questions. The
questions are so obviously asked in a way that you will get positive responses
only.
A
recent positive experience was updating and designing webpages for three units.
I was asked to modify existing sites to update information, make the sites
easier to maintain, and/or to make the sites more usable for readers.
Our
office inadvertently deleted the data in one of our databases. It was a
significant amount of data that was entered over the course of an entire year.
To recreate the data would have been an enormous amount of work. We contacted
the help desk and requested a file restore from the backup tape. However, it
didn’t work and the data wasn’t restored. One member of our office was
frustrated and began reentering the lost data. The other member of the office
and I felt that we should try the file restore again. I contacted the help desk
and explained the situation. After discussing the sequence of events, the
person from the help desk determined what went wrong on the first attempt and
arranged a second file restore that worked. We were all very relieved that we
recovered our data and avoided a tremendous amount of extra work.
My
boss and I were working on a form in Access and I learned a few new ideas in
making the form more user friendly. I used that experience to complete the form
and prepare it for the person who will enter the data.
a) What made it a significant positive experience?
Or, What is it about the experience that you continue to cherish?
This
was a positive experience because it allowed me to be creative, while balancing
amount of information with ease-of-use.
The
fact that the technology worked and saved us so much time and effort. It was a
particularly gratifying experience for me because it involved working with
someone to solve a problem. The help desk person and I were able to solve a
problem by effective communication and patience.
I
love to learn new things, especially in databases, and it is nice to know that
people are willing to share their knowledge.
b) What did you learn from that
experience?
I
improved my understanding of html coding (which I had previously been
encouraged to learn on the job), how to work with the relevant units to figure
out what information they wanted available, how to design the sites so they
will be easy to maintain for people without an html background, and how to
prioritize the information to determine what should be posted.
That
technology is more effective when there is good communication between IT
providers and users, and patience and understanding as well.
Mainly
the technical knowledge of fitting combo boxes with typed in options as opposed
to combo boxes linked to queries of tables. Also new ideas of how to make to
form easier to input data.
2) Name an event where a technical person
was particularly helpful. (outstanding/highly successful). What did s/he do?
Though
it did not have a huge impact, one such event was when a coworker developed a
macro to fix formatting errors in Microsoft Word. They then distributed the
macro and described how to install it.
I
have to use the same event as above because I’m relatively new to the Academy
(9 months service) and have not had a lot of contact with IT folks. She was
able to arrange for a file to be restored from the backup tape. This was after
an initial file restore failed.
I am
sorry to say I have no such experience.
What did you admire in her/him?
I was
impressed by the person’s willingness to attempt to write such a macro (they
are not a trained programmer, just someone who saw a software need and fixed
it).
Her
competence and willingness to work with me to solve the problem.
a) How has that (what s/he did)
contributed to the success of the organization?
While
it has not contributed widely, the macro can save a fair amount of time when
handling text either pulled from the Internet or received from outside sources.
The time alleviates very boring work and allows one to spend it more
effectively.
Her
assistance saved our office a considerable amount of time that would have been
expended in recreating the lost data.
b) What kind of language did he/she use?
When I
was given the macro, the author explained to me in plain language what each
line of the macro was doing, then attempted to explain the programming code
used to accomplish it. I understand fully how the macro works, though I would
not be able to duplicate the writing of the program. How to install the macro
was clearly described.
She
used mostly non-technical language, which facilitated effective communication
between us. Of course, the problem was not very technical in nature. However, I
had the feeling that, even if it were a very technical issue, she would have
been able speak to me in a way that would be understandable.
3) What are your images for the
successful use of technology? What would you like to contribute to make that
happen?
I
believe that making technology successful depends on the amount of time the
creators of the technology take into account the end use. It is equally useless
to have a wonderful technology that users cannot figure out as it is to have an
easy-to-use technology that no one needs. Similarly, if the technology is not
widely disseminated, or at least advertised, to the user community, it is
useless. I try to make people aware of helpful functions in known technology
and spread the word when I hear about new useful technologies.
The
effective delivery of technical support to end-users is, obviously, the most
important element for the successful use of technology in an organization. My
contribution to make this a reality is to understand that the IT Dept and the
end-users are a team, both working toward the same objective. The relationship
should not be one of, "us against them".
Logical
and precise dissemination of information, improving medical care and education
in general
4) Tell me something about what attracted
you to this organization? How did you start out? What were your initial
excitements and impressions?
The
nature of science policy and combination of writing with science attracted me
to the organization. My initial impressions had to do with the quality of the
staff members and committee volunteers, the amount of non-scientific office
work done, and the ease of communication with people within the Academy
complex.
I was
familiar with the Organization and was impressed by its stature and reputation.
I am most impressed with the fact that the studies that are undertaken by the
Academy affect virtually every aspect of our lives. I also feel that this is a
very good place to work, both in terms of compensation / benefits and quality
of working conditions and workspace.
It is
fun to work with the Academy members. I started at the Annual Meeting and had a
chance to meet about 200 members and listen to interesting lectures.
Appendix
C - Selected Bibliography
Computer Science and Telecommunications Board;
National Research Council, "Being Fluent with Information
Technology," National Academy Press, 1999.
Committee on Developments in the Science
of Learning; National Research Council, "How People Learn: Brain, Mind,
experience, and School," Innovative Adult Learning With Innovative
Technologies, Bransford, Brown, & Cocking (eds.), National Academy
Press, 1999.
Steering Committee, CSTB, National
Research Council, "More Than Screen Deep: Toward Every-Citizen Interfaces
to the Nation's Information Infrastructure," National Academy Press, 1997.
Lavoie, Don Dr., Lecture notes and
personal discussions, 1998-1999
Cox, Brad Dr., Lecture notes and personal
discussion, 1998
Postman, Neil, Technopoly: The
Surrendering of Culture to Technology, Alfred A. Knopf, 1993
Norman, Donald A., Things That Make Us
SMART: Defending Human Attributes in the Age of the Machine, Addison-Wesley,
1993
Rheingold, Howard, Rheingold's Rant, http://www.rheingold.com/rants/
Mander, Jerry, Resisting the Machine, http://www.beacham.com/mander/mander_radio.html
Appendix D - Memo from NRC Office of
the General Counsel
To: Suzanne
Woolsey@NAS
cc: Jim
Wright@NAS
Subject: Re:
Research Project - Help
Sue,
If
you're inclined to grant approval, I would recommend that Brian observe the
following conditions:
1.
Any use of Academy computers and related equipment should be limited in nature and
should occur during non-working hours, and in all other respects, be consistent
with the institution's policies, including the policy on Access to Information
and Use of Equipment Owned by the Academy Complex (HRP&P 600.10) and
policies on time-keeping. The institution, consistent with its policies,
reserves the right to review the situation and to determine at any point that
any use of this nature constitutes an unreasonable cost or burden to the
institution.
2.
All individuals asked to participate by Brian, in addition to signing the
consent form he has indicated he will use, should be expressly informed that
their participation is voluntary, that the study is neither sponsored or
endorsed by the institution, and that if they decide to assist Brian in this
endeavor, they should do so during non-working hours.
3.
Any resulting written report, whether published or not, should carry an express
disclaimer that the study was neither sponsored or endorsed by the institution
and that the results, conclusions, opinions expressed in the report are solely
those of the author.
4.
Brian's consent form indicates that publication of the report would require
permission of the institution. In considering any request, any publication
would require compliance with the Guidelines for Staff Publications in Non-NRC
Publications.
Audrey
What Really Happened?
How does the research and resulting
paper compare with the original plan? Challenges with Appreciative Inquiry and
doing it at work without a “Champion”.
The paper that reflects the effort required to write in many ways compares favorably with the original proposal. The process of getting to this point is different than I had probably expected and required some steps that I had not anticipated. Firstly, getting participants was more challenging than expected.
As a teenager growing up in southern Arizona, I was optimistic and trusting almost to the extreme. I recall one day driving my father's 1968 GMC pickup truck on a sparsely traveled back road when I encountered a flat tire. The spare was missing. I suggested to my friend that we attempt to flag down a passerby, borrow a spare with the promise of returning it, and be on our way. He chuckled and agreed to help. So, we spent the next 30-60 minutes, mostly waiting, flagging down those who would stop and making the request. One older couple was obviously nervous and passed on. A monk from a nearby monastery squealed away - in a truck almost identical to my own with full spare in view - anxiously after hearing our request.
Finally, a truck from a company who employed a family friend rolled up. I made the request and threw the name of the friend out for good measure. 15 minutes later I had his spare tire installed on father's truck and we were on our way. The wrath I incurred from my father after he noticed a "new" tire on his truck is another story!
The power of one name meant more than my honest plea for help. I think this person was inclined to help anyway, but the wheels really turned when a mutual friend, although vicariously, was able to establish a foundation of trust and credibility. Knowing something about the friend was also key.
When I developed the proposal and began seeking participants for the research project I firmly believed, as I did that hot day on that back road in the Arizona desert, that people would readily respond and "come to my aid". One thing I was missing was a name - a Champion. My original call for help noted that under guidelines given by the General Counsel, I embarked on this project with the permission of the Chief Operations Officer. I thought that this would help. But I'm not sure that this is the same as having an advocate - as having someone to not only say "yes, you can do this", but that " I think this is really important and encourage you to participate", as well.
One of the difficulties that contributed to this was my apparent unwillingness to approach the COO and ask for “championing”. I don’t know that I would have gotten what I asked for – because I never asked. It’s funny, in a way, that I have a very good relationship with this individual, yet approaching her in person to talk about the project was a hurdle that I could not overcome.
It’s strange that I missed this opportunity given the fact that I am generally gregarious. The problem lay in having to ask for help. Aha! That’s it – I had to ask for the help of someone much more senior – organizationally speaking – than me. Boy, what a silly hurdle to such a critical element of the project!
I have come, for some reason, to despise talking on the telephone. Or at least dialing the number. So, what keeps me from dialing the telephone or walking down to the COO’s office and taking the opportunity to explain my degree program, the elements of my project and to ask her for her support in “championing” the project. In reflecting on this I realize how much real fun that would have been, even if Dr. Woolsey – as a result of policy or otherwise – had been unable to fill the role. I wonder if this stemmed from a fear of rejection, or a simple hangup with asking for help and being dependant on another? I wonder …
I recall a time as an undergraduate attending the University of Maryland in Europe. I had never before given a presentation in a college class, though I had had many opportunities to speak before large groups and teach lessons of one type or another. The fear of interaction – not just reading a speech and sitting down – seemed to be what bothered me most then.
I remember sitting in my BMW in front of the school for some time, debating whether to skip class that night and take my chances later. I went to class – late – and stood eventually to give my presentation. At the instant that I released the first syllable all of that anxiety turned into positive energy. It has been a long time since I have thought about that experience and had probably forgotten that, while I often feel anxious when approaching similar situations, that preparation will save me and that nervous energy will generally result in a positive energy. I have also learned that people are generally quite gracious.
So all of the reasons for not working for a champion, based on my personal experience, were basically unfounded. If nothing else, reflecting on that evening sitting in my car wondering whether to go to class or skip out gives me both energy and hope. To the one who may hesitate to find a champion: pick up the phone or walk down the hall and use the enthusiasm for your project to overcome whatever fear you may feel. So this fight or flight mentality seems to have been changed by technology. Or, technology now provides a new alternative to fight or flight: send an E-mail message. Instead of talking with the COO personally, I now have a safe, detached option which, if all goes well, provides an answer without the pain.
There is a really great advertisement on radio that illustrates an important point: If you have something really important to say (or discuss, or do), do it in person. Telephone still is, as the saying goes, "the next best thing to being there". And E-mail comes in last place on my list of alternatives for communicating really important information.
So, if you are looking for a champion to support and promote you project or to get participants, don't use E-mail to do it! I think I did for some of the reasons listed above and though I can't really get into the psychology of why I tried, I recognize the fear and, after the fact, the frustrations that followed in part because of this.
I would say here again that the impact of technology is tremendous. That this project was about technology and technology-related language and relationships is significant. New challenges emerged in the very effort to make some progress toward fostering understanding and communication. It did not occur to me until much later that using too much technology, as may have been the case with the electronic survey, got in the way of learning more about technology and its impact. On this note, that many people dropped out of the project after the electronic blitz started may be sufficient to support a study of its own! I am interested in learning more about this but I am hesitant to go down this road with people so long after their experience with the project has ended.
One topic that needs to be addressed in approaching a technology related AI project is the impact that the technology will have on the study itself. I have found no scientific data to support the theory that I am about to state but, intuitively, it seems that there may be two ways to approach this – on theoretical and one practical (of course as we know, as Kurt Lewin proposed, that there is nothing so practical as a good theory!). In this regard I mean that one could study technology-related communication by inserting opportunities for exchange and then observing them (but then this wouldn’t really be AI, would it) or by using less technological means to gather the data. It seems that the sharing of stories is meant to personalize this process, something that technology cannot do. By their nature computers isolate people and allow them to function alone. I can see now how someone might balk when learning that they are going to discuss technology related communication electronically. Hindsight is twenty-twenty and it now appears clear at how silly it may have been to think that people would respond favorably to this method. A chance to get away from their computers and possibly talk badly about them left people deflated, I suppose, when they learned that they would have to use the very machines that seemed to control their lives in this effort. Oops!
At this point it may have been wise to look at my own workplace more closely and determine if I needed to widen the potential participant pool. The point is that instead of trying to refit the model to fit the group, it may have been more effective to refit the group to the model. One thing that happened though was that as time moved on the thought of changing location seemed too overwhelming, while changing the model midstream to fit the dynamics of the group appeared to be a viable compromise. I think also that completing the project became the all-consuming focus, resulting in some loss of the initial projects purpose and integrity.
Another option would have been to find creative ways to expand the group of participants at the NRC. We are located in several buildings in Washington, D.C. so it is possible that the project was unattractive to the people given the perceived notion that some may have travel to another location to participate. This can be tricky given the time accounting requirements and with some employees working on several projects, and hour or two unaccounted for can dig into an already tight project budget. So, the electronic option was meant to resolve this problem, but other factors must have contributed as well. Another factor related to our multiple locations is that I am unknown to most people who are not located in my building given that my work is dedicated to individuals who actually work in the main NAS building.
As stated in chapter one, my intention was to perform a particularistic study of technical language characteristics at the NRC. As a large number of participants was not forthcoming, my project became more "descriptive" (Merriam, p.29) in nature with an attempt to provide "thick" description of what had occurred. This provided a challenge since there was not enough data to provide this thick description.
This turned into an effort to thicken the paper with theoretical fluff. I don't mean to devalue theory - I think it's important and valuable. But the initial focus of the paper - an effort to explain some particularly puzzling things - became lost in an effort to artificially "thicken" the paper. So, understanding the term "thick" within the context of qualitative research is obviously critical. Thick doesn't mean to simply add more pages of writing but rather to provide a "complete, literal description of the incident or entity being investigated" (Merriam, p.30). While I thought I understood this term, I was challenged in applying it practically! (That must be obvious since I am writing this new, thick description, not of the original topic, but of my own experience doing it).
I suspect that much of the difficulty with this project stemmed from a lack of experience. I had read much of this material but, without much opportunity to try out research skills, I found it hard to apply principles and techniques to accomplish the task. All in all, the lack of participants created the catalyst for trouble to set in, and an attempted transition from a particularistic approach to a more descriptive one - without the practical experience and deep theoretical understanding to navigate this transition - made recovery extremely difficult, if not almost impossible.
So I wrote and wrote and wrote about theories and ideas that were relevant to the topic but that still failed to sufficiently describe what had happened. Now I am writing and writing and writing about my experience and, hopefully learning more about thickness in the research context.
Another missing ingredient that I think became critical as the original project progressed was a simple lack of experience in research methodologies and how to respond to problems. Merriam talks about data collection and describes the elements of how sample selection occurs (Merriam, p. 135). Obviously, the person conducting this study has some basis for choosing “LIRs that had been in existence for at least four years” (Merriam, p.135). I selected thirty as the number for my complete group of participants, but I really had no scientific basis for choosing this number. Thirty people approximately represents one-third the number of clients that I personally support (as a support analyst). Having a strong research background and some solid understanding of these methodologies was missing, and may have made a difference in how the project flowed. Having a really interesting topic is important, but certainly not enough to sustain a project of this sort on its own.
In his book entitled, Research Interview: Context and Narrative, Elliot G. Mishler suggests that too often in research “technical solutions are applied unreflectively, they become routine practice, and the presuppositions that underlie the approach remain unexamined. He continues by lamenting one consequence of this approach as “the almost total neglect by interview researchers of work by students of language on the rules , forms, and functions of questions and responses” (Mishler, p.12). While I am not an interview researcher, I am a student who lacked the experience and knowledge of rules, forms, and functions of questions and responses in conducting an interview-based research project. I also appreciate the need for reflection in this process, and expect that he would see value in this in other types of research as well. Time presents a challenge in being reflective during a research project. I was so focused on finding subjects that reflecting on what was happening just did not fit into the schedule.
My orientation to this project was to function as a “collaborator”, as defined by Mishler (Mishler, p.126) and as “observer as participant” (Merriam, p.101). I’m not positive that all of the participants or potential participants really believed that I could really be objective and that I was really a participant and collaborator in a process that was really intended to make life better for them. I don’t that I have any concrete evidence of this assumption or and justification for suggesting this, but it is clear that even though one may state clearly, as I did, his own role and objective, the fact that a supposed outsider impacts the individuals who participate and the groups’ results at large.
I have learned many things a s result not only of doing the original project but also in this reflective wrapping around that paper. Certainly I think that the project was based on an interesting and important set of questions. However, to really sustain such a project several prerequisites must be met, and some have been discussed already.
The process must also be methodologically viable. Dr. Tammy Bennington, in response to my initial proposal, stated that the topic was “fascinating” but “methodologically challenging”. I thought that I had worked these challenges out, but the experience factor and the lacking foundation and experience in empirical research played against me as the project unfolded.
One critical suggestion here: get help early when any signs of trouble arise. I did what Mishler lamented and was so focused on the technical aspect of the project, - of getting answers to my questions in any way that I could - that I could not be reflective and recognize the problem. It did not occur to me that changing the model would have so much impact (which I still have not tried to measure, and probably won’t at this point) because, again, I was so focused on getting data. For some reason this was a challenge for me, though I acknowledge that my advisor and other faculty are quite available and wiling to help. The importance of slowing down when necessary and reflecting constantly on the process and what is happening cannot be overstated!
So, be optimistic and hopeful in embarking on such a project. Appreciative Inquiry is a powerful tool, but one should not be fooled into thinking that a positive approach to organizational issues will not have its challenges.
Returning to Sue Annis Hammond’s, The Thin Book of Apprecietive Inquiry, reveals the key to success in applying Appreciative Inquiry in organizations. The word she uses is Master, which cannot occur without practice. She reminds us that this process is “generative”, which suggests an element of reflection to make it really work. So, immersing oneself in studying the process and allowing time to reflect and practice will make applying AI much more enjoyable and productive. Even the challenges will be easier to appreciate!
I am certainly not a master, and I recognize that I missed out on much of the work required ahead of time to be fully prepared for this project. But I have also learned a great deal and hope that I can find ways to apply Appreciative Inquiry in the future. It may even be possible to try it out in smaller circles, like a family, a church group or a small group of coworkers who are willing to help work out the kinks and be a part of your own learning process.
My first experience with Appreciative Inquiry was with a group of five other individuals who provided support and an opportunity to reflect and share ideas with. Doing AI alone almost seems out of touch with the model itself. AI is about people and stories and sharing, so trying to do it alone for me, at least, may have been just too aggressive. As stated before, without a strong foundation in research and in the event that a partner is either not available, staying in close contact with others who can help with the process is vital.
I also appreciate that more now than I did before, and I hope I get to try this out again to see if I can apply the learning that I have claimed to have gained in this reflective process.
Appreciating the Whole
Experience
As summary of the whole experience.
It is important to recognize the value of the whole experience, even though it
may not have accomplished completely its original objectives.
I remember the feeling that I had after receiving the assignment to prepare
a draft practicum proposal. I already recognized that coming up with an idea
would be troublesome for me. I have always been much better at hearing an idea,
discussing it, and improving it.
I had a concept in my mind but, despite the reading I had done and class
discussions, I felt inadequately prepared to actually build a research project
from scratch. I received help but the product ultimately was mine.
I was excited when the initial idea occurred to me. I felt enthused about
trying out Appreciative Inquiry on my own after participating in a group effort
previously. I was anxious, but looked forward to bringing something to my own
workplace that I knew could be useful and have tremendous impact. I felt confident
that I could get participants and that they would be enthused about
participating in something that could potentially make life easier for them.
I had some trouble in the beginning and along the way. I find it difficult
often to ask for help – I inherited an overdeveloped sense of independence –
which tends to leave me in a position (on occasion) where I have dug a hole
deeper than I am personally capable of extricating myself from. These seem like
graphic terms to describe this situation, but this really is how I felt.
So, another word of caution to others: Ask for help and feedback often!
Communicate challenges and think of ways to overcome them and then bounce these
around with someone who can help (probably your advisor).
I also tended to rely on E-mail for communicating. Telephone calls and face
to face meetings always proved to be more valuable and brought forth more
insight on how the project seemed to be going. Many of the problems associated
with this project can be attributed to the lack of these meetings.
Despite the challenges, the effort to apply something to an organization
that could potentially bring positive change was exhilarating and hope sprung
from reaching even small milestones.
Appreciative Inquiry is a potentially powerful way of helping an
organization to see itself in a positive way. Encouraging people to share
positive stories is more challenging than one might thing – certainly more so
than I had ever anticipated. But in a world that is too often short on the
positive and lacking in positive affirmation of what is right and good, the
challenge is certainly worthy of taking on. My best to those who make an
attempt to apply it!
In the larger scheme of things, this paper reflects my experience in the
Program on Social and Organizational Learning (PSOL) and my work experience as
a result. We see complexity and try to make sense of it. Ambiguity is Life!
And it requires of us to at times just go with it and see what happens and at
others to really work hard at it to make our interactions happy and productive.
One challenge is that we don’t always get to choose how it is we respond to
things. My preference may be to go with the flow while the required action is
much more proactive.
But life, and work, doesn’t always afford us the luxury of reflecting.
Recently, a manager became irritated with an employee who wanted to ponder over
the weekend a potential job opportunity. This change would impact the employee
significantly in many areas; time at work, nature of the job, etc. When it
comes to preparing a paper that reflects a significant effort, one may be
tempted to be satisfied with mediocrity, while another may not be willing to
readily accept such work.
So, the PSOL experience and this project, have helped me to see in greater
light that I may not always get to do things my way, but that I can still enjoy
the journey and appreciate the experience. There may be something to be said
about what the end goal is. Change takes time and effort – two commodities that
are in high demand but often in very short supply. Fortunately, in the case of
this paper, time sufficient to complete was afforded. At the same time, a high
level of effort was still required. It’s really hard to separate these and say
that if I spend the time good things will happen. It is easy for some, maybe,
to think that the PSOL philosophy would lend itself to accepting mediocrity for
the sake of some touchy-feely happiness that magically makes people feel more
accepted.
But the reality is really far from this dream! Time and effort (another word
for WORK) really make PSOL what it is. This is not about sitting around talking
about feelings and then getting an A. But I think that I may have softened up
to this idea more than I had anticipated over time. What I mean is that one can
be so awakened by the opportunity to talk about work and organizations in ways
that may not be “allowed” in the real world that one could mistakenly think
that this si where the work stopped. For me, this project has helped me to see
in many ways that work has just really begun. It is time to do some reflecting
(there’s that Time word again). But it is really time to roll up our sleeves
and get to work (remember, that’s another word for effort). I appreciate the
effort required of me. It is fun to “think about stuff” and even to write about
what we think. But success doesn’t automatically come from being able to
articulate our thoughts – we have to be able to do something with them. I think
that I am still formulating some of my thoughts, and my sleeves are rolled up a
little closer to my elbows than they were previously (I was ready to end this
chapter several paragraphs ago).
On that note, this project is a great success if for no other reason (though
there are many others) than that I now have a greater capacity to go to work
than I did before I started and since I was pushed to do a little more after
attempting to give up a little too soon.
Time … and Effort!
Bibliography
Computer Science and Telecommunications
Board; National Research Council, "Being Fluent with Information
Technology". National Academy Press, 1999.
Committee on Developments in the Science
of Learning; National Research Council, "How People Learn: Brain, Mind,
experience, and School," Innovative Adult Learning With Innovative
Technologies. Bransford, Brown, & Cocking (eds.), National Academy
Press, 1999.
Steering Committee, CSTB, National
Research Council, "More Than Screen Deep: Toward Every-Citizen Interfaces to
the Nation's Information Infrastructure". National Academy Press, 1997.
Lavoie, Don Dr., Lecture notes and
personal discussions. 1998-1999
Cox, Brad Dr., Lecture notes and personal
discussion. 1998
Postman, Neil, Technopoly: The
Surrendering of Culture to Technology. Alfred A. Knopf, 1993
Norman, Donald A., Things That Make Us
SMART: Defending Human Attributes in the Age of the Machine. Addison-Wesley,
1993
Rheingold, Howard, Rheingold's Rant. http://www.rheingold.com/rants/
Mander, Jerry, Resisting the Machine. http://www.beacham.com/mander/mander_radio.html
Mishler, Elliot G., Research
Interviewing: Context and Narrative. Harvard University Press, 1986
Merriam, Sharan B., Qualitative Research
and Case Study Applications in Education. Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1998
Hammond, Sue Annis, The Thin Book of
Appreciative Inquiry. CSS Publishing Co., 1996