FINAL

REFLECTION
Making a Mess with Methods
Lecturer. Dr. Michael Penkler

_
1st Semester
Master of Arts
Science and Technology Studies
Technical University of Munich (TUM)
_
March 2021
I.D. Daniela Cruz
TABLE OF
CONTENTS

1
How did your own assumptions and perspectives on qualitative research
methods change?
_P3
What did you learn?
_P3
What is the importance of taking a reflective stance towards qualitative
research?
_P4
How would you asses the importance of the different methods and
approaches you have accounted for the type of research that you would like
to do?
_P5
Literature
_P7
How did your own assumptions and
perspectives on qualitative research methods
change?

2
 First, it brought acknowledgement on qualitative and quantitative research. On second place, it created
a deeper understanding of qualitative research.
As an industrial designer, the type of research I applied during the design process followed
qualitative standards. I had the idea, based merely on experience, that qualitative research was more useful
for the design process. That we could get access to “sensible data”. Somehow, I also thought that qualitative
research was more ethical and respectful of the “user” as if quantitative research was only looking at users
with “numbers”, without including “social” characteristics, like social context, personal traits or ideals.
After our Methods class, my understanding of qualitative and quantitative research methods
became a matter of research goals, rather than a perception of the user. Now I can validate both
approaches as ethical and useful, and decide on either of both based on the purpose of the research. There
is no longer a division between them, but a complementariness where they can be applied simultaneously.
Ethic is no longer an exclusive characteristic from qualitative methodologies. It’s an isolated
concept that plays a big role on every step of the research method. It’s a fine equilibrium between
interviewer and interviewee, data and interpretation, research and the researcher, between our methods
and our goals. When we approach a user, we have to strongly consider that our own interests are already
implied on the interaction itself, and that we are requesting information from them, whether is their point
of view on a specific topic or sharing their daily routine. An ethical approach on any given research method
is exposed on the use and application of the data, the results and most important, the impact of the
research in our users (Hermanowicz, 2002).
The perception of my personal bias. It was extremely interesting and confusing (in a challenging
way) to understand “bias”. How it interacts with our construction of knowledge while making use of
research methodologies. Like a love and hate relationship, our bias defines our interests and provides us
with a guide line to follow a specific style and goal. At the same time, it influences our understanding and
interpretation of research data. Being reflective and aware of how our narrative shapes the analysis is a
good strategy to pursue a less biased more inclusive result (Brinkmann and Kvale, 2005).

What did you learn?

Before taking this course, I though qualitative research was not as structured as quantitative research.
After our class, I understood both have a very clear structure and also, that the quality of the structure in the
analysis of our research can drive us to obtain specific information. Let’s suppose we will perform an analysis
on an interview. Keeping a flexible structure will open space for a natural construction of knowledge. On the
other hand, if we are looking for details on a very specific topic, specific questions work better than open
questions. Structure doesn’t necessarily mean a strict order, it can also mean al flexible set of steps or rules,
that work as a reference point for our research purposes (Silverman, 2015).
To practice, get on the field. As important as it was to have a clear idea of the theories and
methodologies before applying them, there is no comparison between preparing the structure, techniques
and methodologies of our research, and actually being on the field. There is a social quality of our work as
researchers, that needs to be recognized and included in our research goals and expectations. I was able to
notice, how much of my impute is thrown into the data collection without even planning on it. Also, that we
cannot expect our users and collaborators to strictly follow our plan. Only by practice and personal
experience, we will manage to integrate these social qualities and hopefully, have a chance to manage them
in a more constructive way for our research purposes.
To observe and engage in active listening. I can recall our first interview exercise and transcription,
and how surprised I was while listening to the audio recording. I was speaking more than necessary and
ignoring important ideas that my interviewees were sharing, just because I wanted to continue with the

3
questions. This exercise was very insightful in a way that it allowed me to understand the importance of
going into the field as an observer, without any expectations on the outcome (Silverman, 2015).

¿What is the importance of taking a reflective

stance towards qualitative research?
I would think of ethnography as a good qualitative method to exemplify how taking a reflective stance
allows us to perform an ethical role as researchers. Whether is for a long or short period of time, collecting
information while we are taking part in a research group will demand to balance our focus between
observing and participating. It’s important to acknowledge that our persona, including our emotions and
ideals, become the tool through which we understand the information we collect. The experiences we have,
as part of an immersion in a research group as well as the interpretations that come out of it, are shaped by
our very personal understanding of the situation.
Therefore, it’s easy to get lost of our focus between observing and participating, especially with all
the roles and activities that need to be performed, such as writing notes, gathering and selecting data,
conducting analysis or organizing interviews. On the other hand, if we are too attached to an analytic
approach, we could also forget about the importance of living as part of the group and overlook the
opportunity to obtain powerful insights.
Setting a space to be reflective along our research process, could also allow us to stay aware of constant
negotiations with our role as participants. Interacting with a specific group, subject or community for a long
period of time involves their understanding of our role as an external subject. The more we interact with
them in a local way, using their language and participating on their activities, the easier it becomes for
everyone to feel comfortable and forget the fact that we are externals. At first, the group might share
superficially their point of view or perspective. While times goes by, they might slowly open and share in a
more personal way. This is directly related to the way they perceive us, and the roles they assign to our
participation. Most of the time this could happen without us receiving a notification about these changes, or
even being aware of it. If we manage to stay reflective of our role and notice how the interactions with
participants change, we can redirect our observation according to the stage of trust and interaction
developed on each stage of the research. And get deeper access to authentic norms, ideals and opinions
from the group (O’Reilly, 2005).

How would you asses the importance of the

different methods and approaches you have
accounted for the type of research that you
would like to do?

4
 As an Industrial Designer, I had the opportunity to conduct several user analyses, for product and brand
development. The analysis was generally based on “Design Thinking” methodologies, which include several
qualitative methods such as interviewing, ethnomethodological analysis, visual rationalities, semiotics and
iconography. After this course, I realize that our data analysis was to a certain degree, superficial.
The analysis of our interview’s transcript had no specific approach. After understanding the difference
between positivism, naturalism or constructionism, I would identify our approach strongly naturalistic with
specific sections of positivism. If we had decided on a specific approach, the results of our analysis would be
clearer for our customers, providing them precise insights in different levels; the positive or negative
characteristics of the product according to their users (positivism), how the users understood the product
worked from their own perspective (naturalism), or how the interview constructed meaning around the
product (constructionism).
If we had defined our approach early in the research analysis, it would be easier to divide our
finding into useful categories. One could be the content from the interview that helped us to make
commercial decisions, such as type of product, style, price, etc. Another categorization, around the user
perspective and how they constructed and assigned meaning to a specific product or service, how this
product participated in the understanding of her/his persona and what expectations hadn’t been covered,
from their customer point of view (Law and Urry, 2004).
Ethically speaking, the participants from our session had been correctly informed on the purposes
of the interview, as well as the analysis we would be conducting and the latter use of information for
commercial purposes. Since the goal of the session was to present our proposals with a neutral discourse,
we were always encouraging the participants to speak up their opinions, whether favorable or not. Now,
after having a bigger understanding of the ethical role on interviews and research, I would definitely include
a post-analysis session, to share with the participants the results of our research and get their feedback and
suggestions for further improvement.
Some of the activities from the sessions involved the production and analysis of images. The
participants would produce images based in our instructions; we would later analyze those images as part of
our research. For specific purposes, the images were produced in different stages. The first stage allowed
the participant to work under certain limits, the second stage would broaden the limits and the third stage
would give them complete freedom on how to work with the image produced (Leeuwen and Jewitt, 2000).
At that moment, we had not identified the layer of meanings that emerged from the visual analysis, focusing
only on what the participant had drawn rather that what it meant or the connotations of the elements they
had included. Another topic were the meanings that we had previously assigned by choosing specific
elements (Burri, 2012). I think we could provide a better result by being reflective about our choices for the
visual elements included on the analysis (image 1).
During the design development process, the proposal creation absorbs a big part of the project
resources. There was little time to include further research methodologies, money and timewise. For any
further qualitative research, I would be very interested on considering ethnography, document and
discourse analysis (Schneider, 2013). They might require a longer period of time for collecting data and
analyzing, but I’m sure the results include a deeper understanding of the context and social factors around
the data collected, who produced it and with what purpose on mind.

5
Image 1. The participants were asked to furnish an office with a specific budget. On the first stage they could pick five elements. On the
second stage they could only add three elements. On the third stage, they could draw anything that they wanted to add to the office.

LITERATURE
1. Brinkmann, S., Kvale, S., 2005. Confronting the Ethics of Qualitative Research. J. Constr. Psychol. 18,
157–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720530590914789

2. Burri, R.V., 2012. Visual rationalities: Towards a sociology of images. Curr. Sociol. 60, 45–60.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392111426647

3. Hermanowicz, J.C., 2002. The Great Interview: 25 Strategies for Studying People in Bed. Qual.
Sociol. 21.

4. Law, J., Urry, J., 2004. Enacting the social. Econ. Soc. 33, 390–410.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0308514042000225716

5. Leeuwen, T.V., Jewitt, C., 2000. The Handbook of Visual Analysis. SAGE.

6. O’Reilly, K., 2005. Ethnographic Methods. Psychology Press.

7. Schneider, F., 2013. How to Do a Discourse Analysis - PoliticsEastAsia.com. Politics East Asia 5.

8. Silverman, D., 2015. Interpreting Qualitative Data. SAGE.