Framework negotiation and UX design

Abstract

Framework negotiation is a mixed-methods research approach to help a UXD researchers uncover the relationship between cross-cultural identity and location. In this study, surveys initially located connections between conceptions of the self and symbolic pathways. Then, community-based research and usability testing verified root metaphors for website navigation. This mixed-methods research uncovered how Kenyans ported navigational strategies from other institutional settings. The article outlines the creation of the research instrument, describes how early data collection guided later data collection, and finally details how the methods uncovered user significance through metaphor.

References

1. Ceccarelli, L. (2001) Shaping science with rhetoric: The cases of Dobzhansky, Schrodinger, and Wilson Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2. Díez, A., & Tapiador, A. (2012) Social cheesecake: An UX-driven designed interface for managing contacts. ArXiv: preprint ArXiv 1209.0578.
3. Getto, G. (2015). What technical communicators and UX designers can learn from participatory action research. Guiseppegetto.com. Retrieved, from http://guiseppegetto.com/2015/11/04/what-technical-communicators-and-ux-designers-can-learn-from-participatory-action-research/
4. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
5. Hayes, G. R. (2011). The relationship of action research to human-computer interaction. ACM Transactions of Computer-Human Interaction, 18 (3): Article 15.
6. Johnson-Sheehan, R.D. (1997) The emergence of a root metaphor in modern physics: Max Planck's 'quantum' metaphor. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 27(2): 177--190.
7. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers 1st ed. New York: Harper.
9. Portigal, S. (2013) Interviewing users: How to uncover compelling insights. Brooklyn, NY: Rosenfeld Media.
10. Salvo, M. (2001). Ethics of engagement: User-centered design and rhetorical methodology. Technical Communication Quarterly, 10 (3): 273--290.
11. Scott, J. B., Longo, B., & Wills, K. V. (2006). Introduction: Why cultural studies? Expanding technical communication's critical toolbox. In J. B. Scott, B. Longo, & K. V. Wills (Eds.), Critical Power Tools: Technical Communication and Cultural Studies (pp. 1--24). Albany: SUNY Press.
12. Somek, B. (2006). Action research: A methodology for change and development. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
13. St.Amant, K. (2017) Of scripts and prototypes: A two-part approach to user experience design for international contexts. Technical Communication, 64(2), 113--125
14. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15. Sun, H. & Hart-Davidson W.F. (2014). Binding the material and the discursive with relational approach of affordances. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3533--3542). New York: ACM.
16. Watts, J. & Spartz, J. M. (2016). Towards a participatory action research model for extending programmatic assessment with industry advisory boards. Programmatic Perspectives, 8(2), 163--185.