A Few Thoughts on Research Ethics

Standard

One key aspect in the research process that is often ignored or overlooked by students when doing social research is the question of ethics. When students go out to do their own research for the first time, they are usually excited and nervous about it and all they do is think about how they can get their research question answered and how they can best collect the data they need. This is totally understandable. I myself usually get really excited when I have a research project in mind and I don’t immediately think about ethical issues and dilemmas involved. Nonetheless, after the first excitement about a new research idea has cooled off a little and I start thinking about how to operationalize my project, the question of ethics is one of the first ones that I need to consider.

Ethics discussions can often be very abstract and philosophical due to which many people quickly switch off. I sympathize with these people, I really do, but when you really think about what ethics entails, you quickly realize that it is one of the most important aspects to consider in doing research. For three reasons:

  1. It affects you as a researcher, your health and safety.
  2. It affects other human beings (your research subjects, possibly your families), their health and their safety.
  3. If affects the social sciences more generally, their reputation and chances of getting access in the future.

When I talk about ethics I am referring to moral questions of what is right and what is wrong in doing research, who may get harmed in the process, and who needs to be protected and how. Usually, there is no black or white answer to what is ethical or unethical in social research. Rather thinking about ethics is supposed to make you reflect on important issues and it wants you to justify your approach, while minimizing any harm (to your participants, yourself and other researchers and your discipline). It urges you to consider all possible consequences (including unintended) and what they mean to you and others. One key dilemma in the discussion on ethics is the question of covert vs. overt research.

Covert vs. Overt Research: The debate whether covert, that is, “undercover” research is ever justified is one of the key ethical dilemmas social scientists face and there is no yes or no answer to this question. Generally speaking there are quite a few celebrated research studies out there where researchers have conducted covert research. However, quite often they put somebody at risk, either themselves, their families and friends, their participants or their discipline. So, even though important insights may be won e.g. about drug dealers or gang culture, by doing covert research. There are huge ethical issues involved that you should NEVER try to solve or handle by yourself, as a student researcher.

So in general, the key thing to ethical research is trying to think through a variety of possible scenarios and consequences before you go out to do research. In addition, not having done this beforehand will most likely put you into difficult situations and then you are not sure how to respond. You may well be unsure how to respond even if you think about ethical issues beforehand, nonetheless, you are much better equipped at responding to tricky situations in an acceptable, ethical manner if you have considered potential ethical dilemmas beforehand.

Some more practical tips for “doing ethics”:

Informed Consent: One key tool that social researchers usually draw on to minimize ethical dilemmas is informed consent, which basically refers to a written statement in which your participants agree to take part in your research. Such consent should clearly state purpose and process of the study, as well as use of the data gathered afterwards and it is crucial that you talk through this with your informants prior to e.g. doing interviews. Obviously, seeking informed consent is not always possible, especially if you are doing ethnographic research in public spaces like attending an official political debate. Nonetheless, there are ways around this issue. For instance, you can try to seek approval from the formal organizers of the event you want to study or you can explain your research to people you talk to during the event. Verbal informed consent is better than no informed consent.

Key questions you should ask yourself before doing research:

  1. Am I the right person to do this research? Is my background suitable to this kind of research? Here I am particularly referring to issues of class, gender and race. For example, is a white, middle class man the best person to research black, working class females’ experiences of motherhood? Consider the issue of power and privilege in this research setup. A researcher has always a position of power.
  2. Who can get harmed in this process? Is the organization you research put at risk because you reveal too much information about their internals to the outside world? Are you endangered because you are trying to get access to a subculture such as gangs or organized crime? Are your informants endangered because you may reveal sensitive information about them and their doings that may put them in jail or make them outsiders of their community?
  3. What can be done to minimize any harm? Here think about your methods of doing research. About protecting anonymity of your informants. About their emotional experiences and their wellbeing when they talk about sensitive experiences. What about your emotional investment in your research participants?
  4. Who will I be able to talk to about any ethical dilemmas that come up and that I didn’t expect? This is very important, as quite often you will encounter dilemmas that you would like to discuss with other, more experienced people, such as your supervisor, but sometimes due to reasons of protecting anonymity this may not be an easy thing to do.

 

If you find answers to these questions and you follow the ethics guidelines of your institution, you should be well equipped to deal with ethical dilemmas that may appear in your research. And, as the head of department, Professor Mike Savage, thinks, the most interesting research usually entails a variety of ethical dilemmas. So be ready to deal with them!

Advertisements

What Research Question? A short exercise that will help you get your ideas flowing

Standard

Towards the end of your undergraduate and postgraduate studies, and possibly even earlier, it is likely that you will be asked to design your own small research project. In such situations some of you may feel, yes, finally I can do what I am interested in, however, they may not yet be sure how to link their interest to key theoretical issues in their respective discipline. Others again may not even have discovered yet what really interests them due to which they have major issues coming up with any idea of what to research in the first place. In both cases, the following exercise may be useful, which I have designed and successfully applied in my own teaching (for undergraduate sociology students) very recently, with good feedback from my students.

Please note that the theoretical concepts and examples I am using in the following illustration are based on sociology and the specific setting (i.e. the city of London) that I used in this exercise, but I believe that this exercise can prove useful beyond sociology and London as a research site.

  1. Where?

The first step is fairly easy. As an undergraduate and in most cases also as a postgraduate, you will have limited resources and mobility, due to which you should probably choose a research site which is easily accessible to you. In most cases this will be your immediate surroundings. In the case of my students it was the city of London, as I used this exercise at the London School of Economics. However, don’t forget, it can also be online!

  1. What about your setting?

In the next step, you need to ask yourself, what issues do you really hate / love / care about in this setting? Make a list of all of these issues. Again in my example, I asked students what they loved / hated in and about London, leading us to the following list:

  1. Transport issues (rush hour, tube, strikes, long commutes, etc.)
  2. Housing (housing crisis, poor living conditions, huge costs)
  3. Cultural diversity (London as melting pot of different cultures, different foods / religions / ethnicities / traditions, immigration)
  4. Money issues (banking, generally high costs of living, shopping)
  5. Crime (robbery, rape, youth crime, immigration)

 

  1. What about your discipline?

Once you have such a list, ask yourself, what issues / debates / topics do you find interesting in your studied discipline? Again, make a list of all of these issues. When I asked my students about their interests we came up with the following list in class:

  • Gender / Feminism / Family
  • Class & Inequalities
  • Exploitation
  • Crime
  • Religion
  1. Now, connect the two!

In the next step I wanted students to connect their discipline specific interest with one of the themes they had come up with in step 2. This allowed them to discover an area of interest, which could be researched in their chosen setting, while being relevant for their academic discipline. So for instance, one student paired gender with transport, as he was interested in how women change their perception of means of transport at night in different circumstances (e.g. alone or with others). Another obvious example was that of linking the housing issue to class and inequalities, a very current topic in the city of London of today. Finally, another connection was that of youth crime, with a particular focus on gangs, and inequalities and class.

  1. Formulate your question

In this last step you now only have to connect your area of research with a certain type of question. Do you want to explore processes? Then ask a how question. Do you want to investigate trends and factual events? Then it may be better to ask a what question. You want to find out why something happens? Then ask a why question (please not the list of types of questions here is not exhaustive, there are other questions you could ask!).

That’s it, if you try this out for yourself, substituting the examples I have given above with your own settings, interests and discipline depending theoretical constructs and you will hopefully be able to generate some good ideas of what you might want to research. I think this is really exciting! Good luck!

Interviewing Part 2 – Insights from Interviewing Practice

Standard

In the first blog post on interviewing (Interviewing part 1) I introduced you to the process of interviewing in the social sciences. In this blog post I want to build on the first part, but dive into real interviewing practice, explaining to you some of the issues I have come across when interviewing that you usually don’t read about in methods books. The list of experiences I want to share with you is not exhaustive but at least it sensitizes you to challenges of real life interviewing.

Common issues I have come across

  1. Interviewees try to look at your topic guide

This has happened to me on various occasions. You sit at a table facing your interviewee and put your topic guide (your questions) on the table as to fully concentrate on your research participant. However, as people are generally curious they will look at the guide to find out how many questions you have prepared, what will await them next etc. This will greatly distract both the interviewee and the interviewer and it will prevent a natural conversation from emerging. For this reason I have learned to memorize my questions as well as possible and to bring a clipboard with the topic guide clipped on to the interview, so that I have it close if needed without tempting the interviewee to look.

  1. Interviewees try to interpret why you ask certain questions

This has happened to me a lot! So be prepared for this. I don’t have an answer for how to behave best in such situations either. It is difficult. What I would usually do is try to reply to the interviewee in a way that shows my appreciation for their concern to thoroughly understand the interview but I would also try to be very honest about what I try to accomplish. So I would say something like: “Yes that is a very good aspect you mention here, which is also something I wanted to get to, but there is another aspect I tried to understand…”

  1. Interviewees get bored with the questions or get distracted (e.g. if you interview over phone or internet)

This is a very tricky situation. What has worked for me is trying to let the interviewee determine the direction of the conversation more autonomously to regain their interest. If this doesn’t work, I would try to get to the key questions quickly and then end the interview to make it less painful for both of you. If you want to be more provocative you can also ask the interviewee why this topic bores them. Maybe this will take the conversation in exciting new directions.

To stop them from getting distracted online, it is a good idea to explain at the beginning of the interview how important it is that you have their full attention. This will at least make it less likely that they engage in some other activity while you interview them.

  1. Interviewee answers with yes or no

This is a situation where you should seriously reflect on your own questions. Are they not phrased openly enough (i.e. open ended not leading to yes / no answers)? Can you think of other ways to probe for longer answers, such as “Can you tell me more about this?” “What is the story behind this?” “Do you have an example to illustrate this?” If the interviewee is still very much sticking to yes and no, then sometimes it is just best to end the interview early.

  1. Interviewee goes off to talk about something irrelevant for you

This is again a very difficult situation. You are glad they share their stories with you but you want to make sure you cover the key questions you have prepared. In this situation, I would stop the interviewee after a little while and say something like “That is so interesting, thank you for sharing, but going back to this topic…”

  1. Connection drops while interviewing (if online)

In this situation it is very important that you immediately write down what you were talking about when the connection dropped. Even if it is just a few seconds, you may both forget where you left off leading to valuable information getting lost. It happened to me on a few occasions and it is painful; so I now have a pen and paper ready so that I can write down the last sentences immediately after the connection drops.

  1. Interviewee has strong opinion you, as interviewer, don’t or even strongly disagree with

This is probably the most difficult situation to deal with and yes it happened to me. In such a situation it is really a question of what methodological standpoint you are taking. Are you a co-constructor of the narratives that emerge from the interview or do you think that you are a passive bystander? Depending on your standpoint to these questions you need to think about how to react. This is something you should really and carefully think through before you start any interview as to be prepared for the situation when it unfolds in the moment. If you decide to engage in a discussion with the interviewee rather than accepting his or her position then you should nonetheless make sure that you maintain a professional and polite tone at all times. I have found that in situations where I did challenge the interviewee on something I didn’t agree with, the most interesting insights were generated or co-constructed. Yet, it is a really difficult situation to deal with and you need to reflect on this on your own and possibly discuss this with your supervisor as well to find the most suitable approach for your specific research project.

Interviewing in Social Science Research Projects Part 1 – Some Basic Principles

Standard

Interviewing is a very common method to collect qualitative data in social science research projects. Interviewing is a very time consuming but very fruitful method to use and much can be said about it. Due to this reason I will split this topic into two posts. In this first post I will cover some of the basic principles you should adhere to when interviewing; in the second post I will discuss some personal experiences and pitfalls I have come across or fallen into in the dozens of interviews I have conducted to date and I will explain how I tried to solve some of these situations.

Type of interviews

There are 3 types of interviews that are used:

  1. Unstructured: You only have an idea of what you want to talk about, but you have not prepared a set of questions you plan to ask. Instead it feels as if you are having more of a conversation than a formal interview.
  2. Semi-structured: You have prepared a set of questions and you have a clear idea of what topics you want to cover. You can still deviate from your questions and talk about new things that come up, but generally you aim to cover the same questions in all your interviews.
  3. Structured: You have a clear set of questions, often with yes and no answers. This is a very formal way of interviewing and most often used in survey research. It is less commonly used to collect qualitative data that aims to uncover meanings, experiences and stories of the interviewees.

Most typically interviews for qualitative studies are semi-structured, so the remainder of this blog will be based on the assumption that you conduct semi-structured interviews.

Preparation

  1. Define topic of interview: What do you want to find out?
  2. Who to interview and how to access them: Once you know what your topic will be, it is important to ask yourself who you want to interview and how you want to access them. If you want to find out about a certain subject that only a specific group of people know about, it is of crucial importance to find one first contact who can help you identify more interviewees who he/she thinks would be good candidates. From these new contacts you can then identify even more candidates and so on. This method is called snowballing and is often used in interview studies. While it may be difficult to get that first contact, in my experience, once I had it I have often found it very easy to get access to more interviewees.
  3. Topic guide: Before you start with your interviews you need to develop a topic guide. In this guide you should include all questions that you want to ask, grouped by theme or topic. You should also make sure that you have a logical order in which you want to ask your questions, though this order may need to be adjusted during the interview.
  4. How to interview (virtual, in person, telephone): During the time you seek access, you also need to think about how to interview. Will you be able to meet everybody in person for a face-to-face interview, can you call them by phone, can you do a video call with them e.g. through Skype? I have used all three of them on many occasions and while face-to-face is probably the best way to establish rapport between you and the interviewee, it is not always possible. In such cases Skype can be of great help and can also allow you to save significant amounts of money, if you don’t have to travel physically.
  5. Obtaining consent: Once you are clear on the above points, you should draft an informed consent form that details the aims and objectives of your research, the methods you use, the confidentiality procedures you have put in place and what will happen after the interview. Often universities provide examples of consent forms that you can adjust to your needs.
  6. Bring equipment e.g. recorder, pen & paper: In times of smartphones you usually carry your recorder with you, but you should still make sure that you know how it works and how good the quality is. If the interview is online you can download apps that record the interview for you e.g. “MP3 Skype recorder”.
  7. Location of interview: If the interview is face-to-face think about where you can interview in confidence and quiet without interruptions. Cafes may be a good meeting point but are not a good option due to noise and distractions. If the interview is online you should still make sure that you and your interviewees sit in a quiet room so that nobody will interrupt or overhear your conversation.
  8. Bring/Provide “thank yous” as incentive: It is always a good idea to let interviewees know upfront that you are grateful for the time they give you, due to which you will provide e.g. snacks, drinks, cookies, chocolates. Depending on budget, other incentives can be useful as well such as a small amount of money to thank them for their time. It is not necessary but often appreciated. If the interview is online, the least you can do is to offer the interviewees a summary of the results at the end of your study.

Conducting the interview

  1. Speak slowly and clearly: This will make the transcription afterwards easier and will also make it easier for your interviewees to follow your questions and understand them fully.
  2. Introduce yourself: This may sound obvious but especially when it is an online interview, it is easy to forget this. It is important that your interviewees know who you are so that they can establish some initial trust.
  3. Clarify objectives: Make sure the interviewees are clear on what this project is all about and give them the opportunity to ask questions.
  4. Start interview with fairly easy questions: This is very important as you don’t want to be too demanding at the beginning and you need to slowly work your way towards more complicated and/or personal questions.
  5. Try to build up trust and rapport between you and your interviewee e.g. by telling them something about yourself: This has often worked for me. I ask them about something personal and I make it easier for them to answer by providing a personal story of my own.
  6. Ask more difficult questions later on: Once the trust is there it is much easier to ask delicate questions.
  7. Be sensitive: Not everybody is always willing to talk about all the things you will want to talk about. Respect this and stop pushing, if it is clear that they don’t want to go there.
  8. Probe for more details if something interesting comes up: For instance, ask “can you be more specific”, “do you have a concrete example”.
  9. Clarify complicated statements by rewording them and by asking if you understood this correctly: Ask them “Did you mean…” or “To sum up, I understood this…”
  10. Complete interview and tell the interviewee what happens next: Once the interview is done, be clear about it, tell them how you will proceed and how long you estimate it will take before you can provide them with a summary of the results.
  11. Thank them for their participation and time
  12. Possibly ask for contact detailsg. email address so that you can provide the interviewees with the results of your study, should they be interested.

After the interview

  1. Reflect on the interview: What has gone well and what hasn’t? How can you improve next time?
  2. Develop topic guide further: Possibly new issues or themes have come up in one interview that you hadn’t thought about previously. In such cases I have often extended or modified my topic guide to include these new issues for the remaining interviews.

Getting Started with Research – Basic Knowledge on Social Science Research Methods

Standard

Choosing the correct method depends on your research question and your aim. Do you want to describe something, explore new questions or do you want to confirm a hypothesis? Answering this question first will be of key importance when choosing methods for your research project. Another factor to consider and heavily linked to the first question raised above, is asking yourself what kind of research you want to carry out. The question then is whether you want to use a deductive or an inductive approach.

Deductive: This term simply means that you start with a theory from which you develop a hypothesis, based on which you choose your research methods. In your research you then seek to confirm or disprove your hypothesis. This research approach is associated with quantitative data.

Inductive: In contrast to deductive reasoning, using an inductive approach means that you start with observations without having either a hypothesis or a theory guiding your research. The goal of inductive research is to let the hypothesis and theory emerge through the research you do. The idea is that you start your research with a clean slate in terms of theoretical expectations. This is of course very difficult, if not impossible, as we are always influenced by the things we experience and we often can’t help but have preconceived ideas of things, people and social phenomena surrounding us. Nonetheless, the challenge is to block this out as much as possible and to let the theory emerge from the observations you make. This kind of approach is strongly associated with qualitative data.

As you can guess from the above differentiation, often there lies a large ideological gulf between these two approaches that is also reflected in the question what kind of data you should collect. The key difference lies in quantitative and qualitative data.

Quantitative Data: Basically, quantitative data are numerical data that allow you to measure and quantify things and to test hypotheses. Most typically you will collect quantitative data through questionnaires with closed questions and scales. This means that the participant can only select pre-given answers which have an assigned numerical value for later analysis. Alternatively, they may be asked to select a numerical value on a scale that represents a certain answer e.g. Strongly disagree =1, Strongly agree = 5. These types of scales are called Likert Scales. Quantitative data have long been seen as the only valid sort of data in scientific research, but this perception has been eroded as the collection of qualitative data has become more widely accepted and used, especially among social scientists.

Qualitative Data: When you collect qualitative data you try to understand meanings and interpretations. The idea is to collect narratives of research participants, to be more detailed and holistic, and to account for contextual circumstances. This kind of data may be made up of words, direct observations, videos, texts, pictures etc. and will be most typically collected using interviews, focus groups or observational techniques.

The distinction between quantitative and qualitative data seems very clear and hard, yet numerical data always has a qualitative and subjective element to it and qualitative data can be quantified as well, e.g. through textual analysis that counts words. If you are interested in a more detailed discussion of this ideological divide, have a look here: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/datatype.php

Mixed Methods

In fact overcoming this gulf can actually be very fruitful and more and more researchers, including myself, discover the beauty of using mixed methods. A mixed methods approach allows you to collect both quantitative and qualitative data and benefits from the advantages of both types of data while offsetting, at least to some extent, the disadvantages of either. In addition it makes your final thesis and interpretations stronger as you rely on multiple sources of evidence, not just a single one. An often used term to describe this advantage is data triangulation.

The Difference between Methods and Methodology

This question is another thing that bothers many students that are confronted with it for the first time and often teachers fail to give a simple answer to this question. The problem is it is not easy to answer this question in simple terms but I will try to answer it in the way I have learned to understand the difference over the years. For me Methodology is the overall approach I am using to develop a research project and Methods are the techniques I utilize as part of this approach. Methodology requires you to understand your research aim and question first and to have a good understanding of the different ideologies that may guide this research. This understanding will then allow you to choose the best methods to accomplish your goals.

So in the most basic and reductionist sense:

Methodology = the why

Methods = the how

The above discussed terms are only a starting point in understanding the research process in the social sciences but sometimes just getting a basic understanding of some complicated sounding words can open a new world of exciting research opportunities for you.

Ethnomethodology – A Provocative Research Method Missing the Point?

Standard

***This blogpost is adopted from an earlier blog I wrote as part of an assignment during my master’s degree, I have slightly altered and adapted it.***

A big organisation. People do their work. One man doesn’t fit in. He is watching, observing, analysing. That’s Mark Rouncefield’s job. He is an ethnomethodologist.

During my master’s I had a very valuable course that thought me how to do research in academic contexts and introduced me to the different kinds of methods out there. One particular lesson I remember was that on Ethnomethodology, a very interesting and provocative qualitative research method, taught by Mark Rouncefield of Lancaster University. This lesson really challenged everything what I had read, learned and believed in the past. And it particularly challenged grand narratives and theories such as the ideas of modernity and postmodernity. For these reasons I find it quite important to revisit this subject in this methods blog, though it is a much more philosophical and less hands-on post than usual. So, if you are interested in the philosophical discussions behind doing research, this post is for you!

Sociologists argue that there are underlying social constructs that shape society which influence our work, home, the technologies we use, our understanding of our identity – capitalism being one of them (e.g. as discussed by sociologists such as Richard Sennet in his book “Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism” – I highly recommend it). This is just one side of sociology though. There are many different streams. A very prominent one that I have strongly identified with recently is that of social constructivism which argues that everything is socially constructed including technologies, gender identities etc. (e.g. Bjiker & Law, 1992 in “Shaping Technology/Building Society”; MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1999 in “The Social Shaping of Technology”). Theories are a fundamental element of such approaches to sociology in their attempt to untangle the grand narrative that builds our society and civilization.

Mark Rouncefield on the other hand is an ethnomethodologist; another fancy word with probably a purely academic meaning and most likely not much controversy, so it may seem at first sight, but bear with me as I will explain how it relates to sociology and why I find it fascinating and relevant!

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnomethodology) ethnomethodology is the study of everyday methods that people use for the production of social order. This method aims to understand how and through what practices people make sense of their world.

While this definition doesn’t seem to be too radical at first sight, when Rouncefield explained it, it became clear quickly how fundamentally different his approach is to that of sociology (even though strictly spoken ethnomethodology is considered a part of sociology). Even more drastic than merely being the opposite of conventional sociology, he aggressively rejects anything that has to do with it, especially when it comes to actively designing artefacts. He completely discards the idea of having a theory and a grand narrative as he considers these all to be “made-up speculations.

As I understood, he believes that claiming to look for underlying causes in society and meanings in our behaviour is a waste of time and only a sociologist imposing his or her theory on the world: he basically considers sociologist assuperfluous. Instead he proposes that it makes a lot more sense to actually go out and study what people do by documenting every step of their actions and how they do it. He looks at the daily processes that people engage in and tries to discover routines and exceptions to these routines. That way his ethnographic accounts of how people live can then inform design decisions.

For design, he believes, looking at the grand narrative is no more than a mere distraction and not helpful in producing something useful to make people’s lives better. In that way sociology is highly impractical, and again superfluous.

Ethnomethodology – the best way to design?

Wow! What a drastically different approach to what I had known so far and seen in academia. Fascinating. What do you think? It definitely got me thinking! I can clearly see his point, for a general theorization of why society is how it is is not directly or visibly constructive in designing artefacts. Yet, I also feel that he is missing a crucial point in completely rejecting grand narratives of society. From the point of view of a constructivist – the vantage point I have come to identify with the most – one tries to understand why our society is how it is, which includes an analysis of power structures. Our norms and behaviours are shaped by underlying values of our cultural background and this background is also reflected in the artefacts we use as our designers shape and are shaped by our society. In this way society advances and brings about innovation.

Another aspect of design I have recently come across is the widespread tendency of designers to infer that their own preferences will also be liked by other people. One example of such “egocentrism” (this is how it is officially called as I learnt from behavioural science literature), I came across recently in the use of email. We automatically assume that people understand emails as we do while writing them; yet often this is not so, leading to misunderstandings (Derks & Bakker, 2010, have a really good paper on this topic). This can also be a problem for designers of new technologies, another example being computer games that often exclude women as most game designers are still mainly young men.

My point is then, if we don’t question the underlying hierarchies and power relationships at play and only observe the existing processes, how do we identify inequalities and how do we hear the voice of the marginalized not present in such ethnographic studies?

More inclusive alternatives

An interesting approach, again something Rouncefield would reject, is that of Standpoint Theory (which I read about for the first time in Haraway (1988) and it made a lot of sense to me) which says that the voice of the unheard needs to be considered in the design process as well in order to be truly objective and hence to bring about innovation for everybody. Where is the criticality in his approach that could lead to social change and advancement? How can disruptive technologies evolve (for me disruptive meaning that they are disruptive to society in terms of change for the better), if we only manifest what we already know? How can the marginalized be heard and how can designers help them and give them a voice if they are absent from the places where ethnographic studies take place?

These questions I started to think about while listening to his ideas and they remained unanswered as he simply said it didn’t matter to him why society was how it was. Don’t you also think he should try to answer these questions?

Again, I totally see his point that for design it is important to observe the existing, as new emerges from the old, just like Schumpeter already argued in his notion of creative destruction. Yet, I argue that to detect and mitigate social inequalities, one also has to have a look at the grand narrative and the underlying causes for power hierarchies. Together, I believe these two approaches could become very powerful indeed in their attempt to create truly innovative and inclusive designs.

Bjiker, W.E. & Law, J., 1992. Shaping Technology/Building Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Derks, D. & Bakker, A.B., 2010. The Impact of Email Communication on Organizational Life. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 4(1), [online] Available at: <http://cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2010052401&article=1>  [Accessed on 31/01/2013].

Haraway, D., 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies,  14(3), pp.575–599.

MacKenzie, D. & Wajcman, J., 1999. The Social Shaping of Technology. 2nd ed. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Sennett, R., 1998. The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism, New York: WW Norton & Company.