A Theoretically Grounded Approach to Assist Memory Recall during Information Requirements Determination

Moody, Janette; Blanton, J. Ellis; Cheney, Paul H.

doi:10.1080/07421222.1998.11518197

Cited by 55 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We also gave suggestions on the web site, such as paying attention to the sights and sounds of the place where the incident took place, noting who was present, noting what happened just before and just after the incident described. This was consistent with the principles behind the interviewing methods (Moody et al 1998;Spradley 1979) as well as the qualitative, interpretive methods of research proposed by Erickson (1986). Similar data collection methods utilizing daily diaries (Niall et al 2003;Travers 2011) and interval contingent diaries (Thoman et al 2014) were effective in capturing the ongoing experiences, interest, and sense of belonging in undergraduate students.…”

Section: Online Entriessupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Table 1 provides a summary of demographic information about the participants, department/program majors, and the number who had male or female advisors. Three experienced qualitative researchers conducted semi-structured interviews based on ethnographic (Spradley 1979) and Cognitive Interview techniques (Moody et al 1998). Interviewees served as informant and reporter of their experiences; and the interviewer elicited concrete details of the interviewee's experience, reactions, and the meanings given.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Chilly Climates, Balancing Acts, and Shifting Pathways: What Happens to Women in STEM Doctoral Programs

Cabay¹,

Bernstein

Rivers

et al. 2018

Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Women in doctoral programs in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) leave without finishing at higher rates than men and, as with men, turn away from academic and research careers. This qualitative study examines the day-to-day influences on female doctoral students during their third or fourth year in physical science and engineering programs. Ethnographic cognitive interviewing and online incident reports document the specific experiences and reactions of 28 participants over a six-month period. The data were analyzed to identify key incidents, categories and recurring themes. Some incidents contributed to women's growing sense of competence, recognition and identification of oneself as a scientist. Others fit a model of microaggressions and gender barriers in a predominantly masculine culture. Problems of work-life balance were demonstrated for some women. Incidents generated responses by some participants that they would disengage from a research-intensive career trajectory toward alternate career interests outside of academic research. The findings provide information about the lived experiences of women in doctoral programs and suggest that the metaphor of career pathways may be more useful than pipelines in explaining the direction of women who are advanced doctoral students in research-intensive fields.Keywords: women; graduate students; science and engineering; STEM; gender inequity Gaps between men and women persist in the pursuit and outcomes of degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) (Shauman 2017; Turk-Bicakci and Berger 2014). In the life and social sciences, women have closed the gap in undergraduate majors and admission to graduate programs and now exceed men in completion of doctoral programs (National Science Foundation 2017). Yet women are awarded fewer than 25% of the doctoral degrees in the physical sciences and engineering, and hold disproportionately fewer tenured faculty positions in STEM and far fewer positions of prestige and power (Bernstein 2011;Handelsman et al. 2005;Fox 2001; National Science Foundation 2017).The "leaky pipeline" metaphor commonly refers to the disproportionate exit of women from STEM at transitions from one educational or career level to another, the consequence of which is fewer and fewer women remaining in the "pool" for subsequent advancement in STEM ). The pipeline metaphor relies on a somewhat linear conception of careers with certain specified outcomes, such as moving from an undergraduate major in STEM, through PhD degrees and postdocs, to faculty positions, to tenure, and eventually to full rank in research universities. Previous research on why women leave STEM fields at a greater rate than their male counterparts has examined the motivation of women to pursue STEM undergraduate degrees (Beyer 2014;Griffith 2010;Grunert and Bobnerb 2011;London et al.

show abstract

Section: Online Entriessupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chilly Climates, Balancing Acts, and Shifting Pathways: What Happens to Women in STEM Doctoral Programs

Cabay¹,

Bernstein

Rivers

et al. 2018

Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moody, Blanton, and Cheney (1998) used a field study to compare interviewing techniques, using standard information requirements interviews with cognitive interviews. Cognitive interviewing, a method they described in detail, was "found to be more effective and more efficient than standard interviewing techniques in eliciting episodic knowledge from reference librarians," (p. 79).…”

Section: Storytelling In Information Requirements Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Storytelling as a Qualitative Method for IS Research: Heralding the Heroic and Echoing the Mythic

Kendall

2012

AJIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We all like a good story, but as researchers we too often dismiss a story as being tangential or superfluous. In this paper we review how early adventurous information systems researchers attempted to use organizational stories in their work, but in doing so may have used mere fragments of stories as an alternative method to gathering data for the design, development, or documentation of information systems. From a theoretical perspective formed by the use of the social construction of technology, we reexamine the purpose or functions of myths and relate these to the functions of stories (which can be experiential, explanatory, validating, and prescriptive) and illustrate how myths are similar to the stories (that are normative or descriptive, practical or philosophical) we hear in organizations today. We explore the elements of a story and show why researchers need to be aware of not just the purpose of the organizational story (through elaboration of the myth), but also the telling of the story (through vividness) and the order in which the story is told (through the use of episodes). A researcher gleans understanding through storytelling by reacting, matching, eliciting, and collaborating with organizational participants, but above all the researcher must appreciate the story as a whole. In this paper we develop a new research method based on storytelling. In doing so we aim to inspire IS researchers to realize the depth and richness found in organizational stories and to appreciate and use stories in their own work.

show abstract

“…To date, best practices with respect to interviewing stakeholders are scattered among many fields creating a barrier to novices who are attempting to engage with stakeholders during design 28,29 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, interviewing stakeholders is a practice that spans almost all human-centered design approaches including participatory design, ethnographic fieldwork, contextual design, lead user approach, among others 27 . Despite the importance of interviewing stakeholders during design, remarkably few support structures are available to designers when interviewing or preparing to interview stakeholders 28,29 . This body of literature also documents the challenges associated with interviewing stakeholders such as ensuring that the most important topics are covered during an interview, 30 asking appropriate questions, 31 uncovering how people think or feel about certain topics, 32 and obtaining broader social, political, or cultural factors that may affect the design 33 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating best practices when interviewing stakeholders during design

Mohedas

Daly²,

Sienko³

et al.

2016 ASEE Annual Conference &Amp; Exposition Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

focuses on strategies for design innovations through divergent and convergent thinking as well as through deep needs and community assessments using design ethnography, and translating those strategies to design tools and education. She teaches design and entrepreneurship courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels, focusing on front-end design processes. Grace Louise CravensGrace Cravens is a junior undergraduate student at the University of Michigan studying Industrial & Operations Engineering. She is from St. Joseph, MI, and has worked for Sienko Research Group since 2013. Ms. Linh Huynh c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Evaluating best practices when interviewing stakeholders during design IntroductionDesign is a critical component of engineering students' education and an essential skill in engineering 1,2 . Human-centered design processes are increasingly included in engineering education as evidence has demonstrated the success of these approaches in product design 3 . During front-end design phases, particularly problem definition, requirements elicitation, and engineering specification development, human-centered design principles promote extensive stakeholder engagement 4 . Engaging with stakeholders, however, is a complex process of which engineering educators lack experience and techniques to teach, and thus, an opportunity exists for more refined and explicit instruction in both engineering design and non-design courses. Prior research on how students interact with stakeholders during design has revealed a mismatch in student behavior and the approaches documented in the design practice literature [5][6][7] . Additionally, the challenges students face when interacting with stakeholders causes students to interact less with stakeholders over the semester, reducing their exposure to human-centered design methods 6,8 . This body of research indicates the need to better support students in learning how to engage with stakeholders during design including the development of pedagogy, evaluation methods to determine student proficiency and progress, and design tools to support students during design projects.This study sought to address the lack of evaluation methods by developing a qualitative coding system that differentiates students by their level of sophistication when conducting stakeholder interviews during requirements elicitation. Furthermore, this analysis identifies the key areas in which pedagogy or design tools are most critical. BackgroundWithin both industry and academia, human-centered design processes have been emphasized as a method of developing more usable products that better meet the needs and wants of stakeholders 9,10 . Zhang & Dong, through a review of design literature, identified several characteristics of human-centered design: human beings in a central place, people are understood holistically, it involves a multi-disciplinary collaboration, users are involved throughout the process, and products are made to be more useful, usable, and desirable 10 . This...

show abstract

A Theoretically Grounded Approach to Assist Memory Recall during Information Requirements Determination

Cited by 55 publications

References 28 publications

Chilly Climates, Balancing Acts, and Shifting Pathways: What Happens to Women in STEM Doctoral Programs

Chilly Climates, Balancing Acts, and Shifting Pathways: What Happens to Women in STEM Doctoral Programs

Storytelling as a Qualitative Method for IS Research: Heralding the Heroic and Echoing the Mythic

Evaluating best practices when interviewing stakeholders during design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About