HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION

Human-Computer Interaction

Human-Computer Interaction

Task 1 - Techniques for understanding users

Method descriptions

What contribution, if any, can quantitative methods make to contextual, interpretive inquiry? Although most qualitative researchers would acknowledge that quantitative techniques and data can, at times and under certain circumstances, assist in the exploration of at least a few research questions, it is conceivable that quantitative research strategies can offer more than an occasionally useful set of procedures. As I will argue, some quantitative strategies, when carefully interpreted and employed, can make integral contributions to the meaningful study of human action in context and provide a potentially useful resource for the development of novel questions, theories, arguments, and problem solutions within a contextual framework. More specifically, I will make a case for an alternative approach to quantitative research—termed contextual -quantitative inquiry —by arguing that there is no convincing reason to reject this possibility out of hand, that some quantitative strategies can provide useful resources for qualitative researchers, and that new forms of quantification can be adapted or developed to support this work.

In presenting this argument, my aim is not to remake or reform various post-enlightenment movements by smuggling the “quantitative imperative” (Michell, 2003, p. 5) into them, having presupposed that these alternative perspectives can only be viable and persuasive when supported by numeric data. Rather, my aim is to advance the thesis that no paradigm or movement within psychology should rigidly adhere to a set of methodological options determined in advance, and that important contributions can come from unlikely sources, even from quantitative methods, provided that they are used carefully and cohere with contextual, interpretive assumptions.

Indeed, from the perspective of several prominent philosophers and historians of science (e.g., Feyerabend, 1975/1993; Holton, 1973; Wartofsky, 1980), and in light of the recent proposal for the use of critical methodologies (Yanchar, Gantt, & Clay, 2005), it is inadvisable to pre-establish or routinize certain research methods and practices—qualitative or quantitative—without regard for entire ranges of alternative methodological possibilities.

I would also like to note that although I am arguing from a generally hermeneutic perspective that privileges human agency, lived experience, practice, and interpretation in context (see Gadamer, 1975/1989; Palmer, 1969; Taylor, 1985), contextual -quantitative inquiry could conceivably be used with a variety of existing qualitative approaches or within hitherto unestablished frameworks that break theoretical and methodological ground. Because contextual-quantitative inquiry can be put to use within a variety of perspectives, all of which take seriously context and interpretation in one way or another, I will use the term contextual, interpretive research to refer to the general realm of application within which contextual -quantitative inquiry is relevant.

Method strengths

First, it is possible that some aspects of human action and experience can be meaningfully interpreted in terms of magnitude or frequency, the relevance of which bears directly on the social, moral, practical, and spiritual fabric of people's lives. It may be the case, for instance, that at least some aspects of decision making, problem solving, creativity, learning, and related activities are meaningfully and contextually experienced ...