Directed Epistemic Network Analysis

Fogel, Ariel; Swiecki, Zachari; Marquart, Cody; Cai, Zhiqiang; Wang, Yeyu; Brohinsky, Jais; Siebert-Evenstone, Amanda; Eagan, Brendan; Ruis, Andrew R.; Shaffer, David Williamson

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-67788-6_9

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…ENA, while developed in the learning science community, has proven useful in HFE research (Wooldridge et al, 2018; Wooldridge & Haefli, 2019). Network analysis approaches, which quantify interactions and interdependence, and potentially temporal order (e.g., directed ENA; Fogel et al, 2021), will further support visualizing, measuring and exploring interactions in sociotechnical systems and may also prove fruitful in exploring other HFE topics, for example, teams and communication. An ongoing methodological issue to resolve is linking interactions with outcomes (Hettinger et al, 2015; Waterson et al, 2015), which could be achieved through statistical analysis relating network measures (e.g., centrality, density, centroid location) to outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactions in Sociotechnical Systems: Achieving Balance in the Use of an Augmented Reality Mobile Application

Wooldridge

Morgan²,

Ramadhani

et al. 2022

Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective We explore relationships between barriers and facilitators experienced by users to understand dynamic interactions in sociotechnical systems and improve a mobile phone-based augmented reality application that teaches users about the contents of a standardized pediatric code cart. Background Understanding interactions between performance obstacles and facilitators can provide guidance to (re)designing sociotechnical systems to improve system outcomes. Clinicians should know about contents and organization of code carts, and an augmented reality mobile application may improve that knowledge but changes the sociotechnical system in which they learn. Prior work identified barriers and facilitators impacting the use of this application—participants described dimensions together, indicating interactions that are explored in the current study. Method We conducted four focus groups (number of clinicians = 18) and two interviews with clinicians who used the application. We performed a secondary analysis of focus group data exploring interactions between previously identified barriers and facilitators to application use. We used epistemic network analysis to visualize these interactions. Results Work system barriers interacted with barriers and facilitators interacted with facilitators to amplify cumulative negative or positive impact, respectively. Facilitators balanced barriers, mitigating negative impact. Facilitators also exacerbated barriers, worsening negative impact. Conclusion Barriers and facilitators interact and can amplify, balance, and exacerbate each other—notably, positives are not always positive. To obtain desired outcomes, interactions must be further considered in sociotechnical system design, for example, the potential improvements to the application we identified.

show abstract