|
| Personal | Forskning | Utbildning | Publikationer | Sök |
| OBS: Arkiv – underhålls ej mera |
[ Text Version of "Theory" ]
Theory
The following is a presentation of selected parts of three existing theories with
indications as to which parts CERTEC uses in its research.
1. Case studies
CERTEC tries to bring into its work
This seemingly impossible task has turned out to be possible in the context of case
studies. Like Bent Flyvbjerg among others, we are contending that case studies are a
widely underestimated research strategy. Interested readers may refer to Flyvbjerg's book
"Rationalitet og makt" [9] and above all to the brilliant "Kapitel 8.
Exemplets magt".
We do not believe that we would have been able to demonstrate the importance of the
picture as language in a clearer or quicker way than we have done through our
collaboration with the very special Isaac users. Neither do we believe that we could have
come to understand the meaning of empowerment, one of the main results of the Isaac
project, in a better or faster way than in the environment at Tryckolera, where people
with intellectual disabilities are allowed to be differently abled rather than being
people with mental disabilities. Nor would we have been better able to show how
individuals with both lesser and more severe mental disabilities (even at the so-called
A-level) were able to be carried away, influenced, and uplifted by their friends' advanced
picture communication.
One example like this is enough to reveal deficiencies in existing theories. Some of
the results we have arrived at by using digital pictures have, for example, falsified part
of what was previously believed to be known about the picture as a means of communication.
If we had been trying to obtain a large amount of statistics from the start, if we had
been seeking general knowledge in several group homes or day centers, we probably would
not have been able to achieve these results. At least not as quickly. The fact that we
achieved these results in special conditions does not mean that the result cannot be of
general value. On the contrary, they often have a very high degree of general value. What
we have been doing is to try to make use of examples which carry a lot of information and
then, on the basis of these, go on to the more typical ones. A typical or an average case
seldom carries the most information.
We have borrowed the following outline of how an information-maximizing selection
should be constituted from Flyvbjerg:
1. Look for extreme cases
Freja [ 8], for example, by her whole person, her disability and her previously very
aberrant life makes visible a considerable amount of new knowledge every day. This
knowledge is valid not only for her, but it is her aberrance which has contributed to
making the knowledge visible.
2. Look for maximally divergent cases
It may be advantageous to choose 3-4 cases which are maximally divergent with respect
to a certain parameter - age, for example.
3. Look for critical cases
These are the cases where it is possible to say: “If this applies to him, it
applies to everyone". Or: “If this does not apply to him, it does not apply to
anyone".
(A classic example to help the thought process: In physics, when one wanted to show
that a kilo of matter would fall just as fast regardless of what it consisted of, it was
enough to do one experiment with 1 kilo of lead and 1 kilo of feathers. The densities of
lead and feathers are so different that if these materials fall to the ground in the same
amount of time, the same will be true for all other materials.) When the extremes have
been covered, there is absolutely no reason to repeat the experiment.
One CERTEC example of a critical case was how the example of minarets and rockets [10],
and other combinations of special technology and special educational methods in a special
school, drew attention to the importance of the students' power or lack of power in the
classroom; to how great the difference can be between individualization and empowerment.
This particular teacher will never more be able to disregard this difference. She has been
very successful in communicating the approach to others as well.
4. Look for paradigmatic cases
This is what Flyvbjerg calls cases which can found a school for the field and act as a
metaphor for it. A scientific activity is recognized and acknowledged as good science on
the basis of similarities with one or more examples of good scientific work. A
paradigmatic case is precisely the type of case which founds a school for the field.
A specialist field, says Thomas Kuhn, without many good case studies, is a specialist
field without a systematic creation of models, and, consequently, a weak specialist field.
CERTEC wants to contribute to making the field of Rehabilitation Engineering a strong
specialist field, and the best way of doing this is probably to work with more case
studies which can become models. We are particularly pleased that case studies are so very
suited to being a meeting-place for people with disabilities, researchers, and other
interested parties.
2. HMI, Human Machine Interaction
HMI research is exceedingly important to CERTEC, but, more than is the case for general
HMI research, we need to take into consideration the social context in which the
technology is being used.
HMI has its origins in experimental psychology. Usability and adaptation were discussed
as early as 1979/80. The use of iterative prototyping was attempted, but this type of work
was often difficult to reconcile with user requirements. Usability design (with measurable
usability) began around 1985. It was criticized, however, for measuring only that which
could easily be measured, and in 1987 participatory design had to reinvented, this time as
“contextual design".
This is how HMI research has developed, with increasing flexibility, which makes HMI
hard to define and describe what exactly is it that unites (and distinguishes from other
research) these studies of the interaction between the individual and technology which
goes by the name of human/machine interaction? Other, completely or partly, overlapping
concepts are ergonomics, human factors, human/computer interaction. CERTEC's main interest
in this is how HMI for people with disabilities can benefit from general HMI, in theory
and in practice.
There are, of course, a large number of principles for the design of usable technology.
Good technology means that the right parts are visible and that they convey the right
message. A button, for example, should convey the message “press me", a lever
should say “pull me" and a handle “turn me". In order for technology
to be easy to use, the user has to receive confirmation that the right things are being
done. What if a seat belt did not click when being fastened correctly? What if a camera
did not click when a picture has been taken? (CERTEC has a new, otherwise high-quality,
digital camera made in 1996 where this has not been accomplished. Most irritating.) Other
ways for technology to confirm that it has received information can be lamps that light
up. HMI can speak to the need for, and the function of, these kinds of features.
Technology should help the user remember and provide cognitive support. Preferably, it
should be self-explanatory. It is important that the user does not need to use strength in
operating the technical device, that the design is such that he or she is able to
concentrate on what has to be done. The user should be able to create a good inner picture
of how the technology works. There should be a comprehensible relationship between the
functions of the device and the means of operating it. Furthermore, the technical device
should be sturdy. Preferably, it should be impossible to make a mistake, and if the user
should still manage to make a mistake, it should not have disastrous consequences.
Examples of this are electrical plugs which only fit in the right kind of outlet and cars
that will not allow you to lock the keys inside them.
HMI and disabilities
The fact that technology has to be adapted to the individual, and not vice versa, is
particularly obvious where people with disabilities are concerned. They are not able to
compensate for the deficiencies of the technology, the way other people often can, and
thereby achieve a functioning system in spite of the lack of functionality. In other
words, the technology/disabled person interaction makes it necessary to tackle the design
of the technical device in order to make it usable to people other than 18-30 year-old
male technology-lovers.
Where the technology in advanced airplanes, nuclear power plants or the processing
industry is concerned, the technology itself dominates its environment. The technology
defines what is to be done - a particular task has to be carried out, and the technical
device has been manufactured to do just that. With respect to everyday technology and
rehabilitation technology, the situation is different. In this case, there is always an
environment to consider and there are people around the technology user who can influence
how well the individual/machine system works. In addition, the user himself has more say
in defining what is to be done. The focus is on the user and his/her needs, wishes and
dreams. There is a big difference between developing a personal robot to meet the needs of
a disabled person and a factory robot for industrial use [13].
The importance of the environment makes it difficult, if not impossible, to test
rehabilitation technology in laboratories. In order for the finished system to be usable,
the environment has to be part of the development process. The natural way of achieving
this is to let the development, in principle, take place in the environment where the
technical device is intended to be used. If this is impossible, the development process
has to at least connect with the environment as often as possible by way of tests carried
out by future users in real situations.
This type of process requires very good interaction between the engineer/developer and
the user and requires that every prototype in an iterative process can act as a means of
communication between the engineer and the user. The knowledge generated in the
development process can sometimes be transferred to other engineers and users. A
particularly effective way of transferring such knowledge is via the technology itself. As
mentioned earlier, technology itself can, at its best, function as a language.
The definition of a handicap - that it is something which arises when a disability is
confronted with a certain environment - leaves no doubt about the fact that a RehabHMI
center is needed, one which tries to deal with the whole complex of disability technology
in the interaction between individual - individual - environment. Such a center would work
on both interpersonal technology ( e.g. communication tools, learning/education, group
interaction) and individual - environmental technology (e.g. robot technology). CERTEC is
hoping to take part in the establishment of a RehabHMI center.
3. Action research
To CERTEC, the most important features of action research are its emphasis on user
influence, of the need for a shared language and the fact that it has an element of
intention: “we are doing this in order to … “.
The action perspective, which is so natural to technological research that we hardly
think about it, in other sciences is part of action research. That is where the
theoretical foundation can be found for the type of research where the object of the
research and the researcher are considered partners in a process which both of them can
influence. It is the explicit objective of action research to give the
object of the research more power to handle her opportunities and difficulties herself.
Action research has existed for about 50 years (although the term was not used by the
original action researchers). Kurt Lewin is often mentioned as the first action
researcher. When doing research on the social work taking place in Germany after the
Second World War, he was appalled by the fact that nobody asked those in need of help how
they wanted to be helped. Consequently, he gave his research an explicit goal: to improve
the situation of those in need; and he also involved the people concerned in the research
process.
The emphasis on participation, which is predominant in action research, is normally not
part of technological research. Rather the opposite: Technological research is by
necessity based on such a high degree of expert knowledge that other people are
automatically excluded from participation and influence. Unless very high priority is
given (the way CERTEC does) to precisely the technology user perspective (NB! this is not
the same as the technology use perspective).
The following are usually considered the central elements of action
research:
A true action research project should start with the development of shared linguistic
frames of reference concerning the nature of the problem, the reality which surrounds the
project, the concepts and assumptions of the participants, and the methods which may be
suitable for studying what is taking place. However, sometimes, in our experience, the
actual introduction of new technology can work as liberating education (c.f. above). Later
on in the process, the users themselves also take the initiative in developing new
technology. Discussion is generated; honest, focused, discussion which does not lose touch
with reality by disappearing into a vague mass of words, but which relates to a reality
which is concrete to everybody involved. Experience has also taught us that the
development of shared frames of reference is a continuous process where the inner pictures
of the participants increasingly overlap. A considerable shift of power takes place in the
discussions between disabled people and researchers it is the user, at the outset perhaps
the weaker party, who influences the direction the discussion takes. This is unusual in
ordinary research.
Naturally, neither disabled people, nor others, can express their needs, wishes and
dreams without being helped and stimulated by knowing what the possibilities are.
Consequently, it is not possible to be dogmatic with regard to the actual start of a
research project. The initiative is often with the researcher, at least as far as the
initial development of the technology is concerned. Later, it is, in our experience, more
common than not for the development and introduction of new technology to be initiated by
the users themselves. Compare how the technological basis for the original Isaac [11] came
from CERTEC alone. Subsequent phases, which may be called Isaac II, Isaac III, etc., in
the form of the Pictorium, the Picturegraph and Clock o'clock, were developed through this
type of interaction between users and CERTEC, and it is impossible to distinguish which of
the ideas were generated by the users or by CERTEC respectively.
So, although action research has a lot in common with the underlying foundations of
CERTEC, and although our evaluators, as early as in our first evaluation, pointed out the
action research spiral as described by Galtung [12], action research has not contributed
much to our work from a research point of view. Perhaps because it belongs to the social
sciences. Perhaps because core parts of action research are some of the hidden
presumptions of technical research. We are grateful, however, for the inspiration it has
given us, and we would gladly invite action researchers to evaluate CERTEC's research from
an action research perspective.
Technology as a language and a probe