Review of Research: Critical Interface Analysis as a Heuristic for Justice-Focused, Community-Engaged Design Research

IF 1.5 4区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION
Ann Shivers-McNair
{"title":"Review of Research: Critical Interface Analysis as a Heuristic for Justice-Focused, Community-Engaged Design Research","authors":"Ann Shivers-McNair","doi":"10.55177/tc719324","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose:In this review of research, I examine Brock's (2018) critical technocultural discourse analysis approach and Sano-Franchini's (2018) critical interface analysis approach as two methods for critical interface analysis that are useful not only for critique but also for community-engaged design work. Specifically, critical interface analysis can offer a more expansive approach to heuristic evaluation that offers design researchers strategies for a) engaging community members in critical conversations and b) including communities and stakeholders in the design research process in the spirit of justice-focused co-design. Method:I place critical interface analysis in conversation with heuristic evaluation, highlighting similarities, differences, and possibilities for rethinking and expanding each through the connection. Results: I describe how critical interface analysis heuristics from Brock (2018) and Sano-Franchini (2018) can be applied to support layered community engagement throughout design research processes: specifically, in (1) language setting, (2) research plans, (3) participatory analysis, and (4) research evaluation. Conclusion: The approaches to critical interface analysis discussed here afford people in traditionally privileged design research roles (in academic, industry, and public sector institutions) a way to honor the experiences and expertise of community members by not only reflecting on the ways they contribute to and are impacted by designs, but also collaborating with them on critical interface analysis.","PeriodicalId":46338,"journal":{"name":"Technical Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technical Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55177/tc719324","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose:In this review of research, I examine Brock's (2018) critical technocultural discourse analysis approach and Sano-Franchini's (2018) critical interface analysis approach as two methods for critical interface analysis that are useful not only for critique but also for community-engaged design work. Specifically, critical interface analysis can offer a more expansive approach to heuristic evaluation that offers design researchers strategies for a) engaging community members in critical conversations and b) including communities and stakeholders in the design research process in the spirit of justice-focused co-design. Method:I place critical interface analysis in conversation with heuristic evaluation, highlighting similarities, differences, and possibilities for rethinking and expanding each through the connection. Results: I describe how critical interface analysis heuristics from Brock (2018) and Sano-Franchini (2018) can be applied to support layered community engagement throughout design research processes: specifically, in (1) language setting, (2) research plans, (3) participatory analysis, and (4) research evaluation. Conclusion: The approaches to critical interface analysis discussed here afford people in traditionally privileged design research roles (in academic, industry, and public sector institutions) a way to honor the experiences and expertise of community members by not only reflecting on the ways they contribute to and are impacted by designs, but also collaborating with them on critical interface analysis.
研究综述:批判性界面分析法作为注重正义、社区参与设计研究的启发式方法
目的:在这篇研究综述中,我研究了布洛克(2018)的批判性技术文化话语分析方法和萨诺-弗兰基尼(2018)的批判性界面分析方法,这两种批判性界面分析方法不仅对批判有用,而且对社区参与的设计工作也有用。具体来说,批判性界面分析可以为启发式评价提供一种更广泛的方法,为设计研究人员提供以下策略:a)让社区成员参与批判性对话;b)本着以正义为重点的共同设计精神,将社区和利益相关者纳入设计研究过程。方法:我将批判性界面分析与启发式评估结合起来,强调两者的异同,以及通过联系重新思考和扩展两者的可能性。结果:我描述了如何应用布洛克(2018)和萨诺-弗兰基尼(2018)的批判性界面分析启发式方法来支持整个设计研究过程中的分层社区参与:具体来说,在(1)语言设置、(2)研究计划、(3)参与式分析和(4)研究评估中。 结论:本文讨论的批判性界面分析方法为传统上享有特权的设计研究人员(学术界、工业界和公共部门机构)提供了一种尊重社区成员经验和专业知识的方式,不仅可以反思他们对设计的贡献和影响,还可以与他们合作进行批判性界面分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Technical Communication
Technical Communication COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信