Hypothesis
This proposal will ultimately look to combine usability testing with qualitative research methods within a workplace environment that uses software to complete task. Ultimately, I will be looking into ways to improve the companies software through test and observation. I will identify what is challenging for users and ask, How can this workplace improve the software. The improvements will be based upon usability and making the software more accessible. I hypothesize that by observing and identifying usability issues within the workplaces software, I can identify necessary improvements within their workflow.
Flow Chart
Outline
Purpose Statement
This proposal will outline a mixed method experiment that implements components of usability testing in order to test changes made in a workplace software. This software will be utilized by six employees in two separate fields at the same workplace establishment. The objective of the study is to observe difficulties found in the current user interface and proceed to use research methods to improve upon the software.
Research Approach
The research approach will be conducted utilizing observational data collection and qualitative semi-structured interviews that will include task to be completed. The completion of these task will be timed to add quantitative to the experiment as well. The population will consist of the employees already in place.
Measures of Measurement
- Methods Triangulation (Interview and Observation)
- Ratio Measurements (Timing of Task)
Analysis
The data collected will be compared to the test and observations run prior to introducing the new software. Additionally, it will be compared to the control group of participants whom will not have utilized the new software.
Great start, Benjamin! I love how you are working in advance. However, this outline has a lot going on and the hypothesis will need some revision.
Right now, your hypothesis reads as follows:
H: If I observe a workplace utilize the software that they currently use and collect data on areas that are deemed improvable, then I can create and test a program that will expedite and simplify the task they set out to complete.
In your proposal, your hypothesis should be much more specific and simplified. You are considering a full circle study in the action research model (see Question #7). However, remember that “The ARC begins as you identify a problem and shape it into a question or hypothesis statement” (Duesbery & Twyman, 2020, p. 10). Your hypothesis shouldn’t outline the full arc, it should just be a starting point.
Traditionally, I try to nudge students to a previous study, with a specific hypothesis, that they can replicate. In that way, they should have an idea of what the results of their study probably will be. That would be the deductive approach to research.
In the example above, you are proposing an inductive approach:
“In an inductive approach, research provides a ‘ground-up’ approach, using observations and conclusions to formulate a theory. It can also be thought of as moving from the specific to the general by adding up observations of specific events or people to notice patterns, and using those patterns to develop theories that explain the events or behaviors observed.”
(Patten & Newhart, 2018, p. 8, Topic 3)
In this case, you should start with one, simple research question, such as: “How can ____ improve its software?” In this case, you should plan to watch people at a particular office use a particular software. And, instead of “improve” it would be better to mention how you want the software to be improved.
For instance, a newsroom program could improve by allowing news writers to write stories more quickly. On the other hand, the news media has recently reported a number of studies showing that face identification software could improve by using a larger diversity of faces when the AI identification is developed. Your hypotheses, or at least the proposal as a whole, should clarify what “improvement” would be in this situation.
With this post due on Tuesday and the final paper due on Friday, I probably won’t be able to provide most with such specific feedback. However, I welcome emails to check if you are on or off-track and am happy to meet with students who would like additional guidance.
Professor,
Thank you for the opportunity to improve my post and for the clarification. I have revised my hypothesis section. I am still not sure if I hit the nail on the head with my explanation but I think that I have a better idea of what you are asking. Would it be beneficial to me to name a mock company and explain the notational workflow that I would be observing?
For the proposal, I’d suggest getting more specific. What workplace situations have you already considered that you are familiar with? I would think you are familiar enough with army software and procedures that you could be pretty specific with an example from there.