‘Utterances’ allow coders to deal with one thought or cognitive process at one time and were used as the metric for this research.
6.3.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Protocol Analysis
The major advantage of protocol analysis is that it allows researchers to analyse the design process in a relatively closed setting, safe from interruptions. Protocol analysis also allows researchers to reduce the complexity of their studies as all variables do not need to be accounted for (Baya and Leifer 1996).
The Delft workshop study indicates that protocol analysis is extremely limited in its capacity to delineate non-verbal cognitions associated with design. Should some comparisons be discovered, a large degree of interpretation is needed (Cross, Christiaans and Dorst 1996). The subjectivity of analysis and the length of time required to complete an analysis on one dataset further undermine the
appropriateness of this method. However, protocol analysis (Baya and Leifer 1996) and content analysis still offer a highly appropriate solution for the analysis of teams at work. These approaches facilitate an understanding of a preselected area of interest as participants can be asked to describe (‘think aloud’) their cognitions.
Following the work of Rice and Love (1987), Pena added two extra categories which represented the giving and asking of socio-emotional questions such as ‘How old are you?’. These were considered to be positive in valence, in accordance with Rice and Love’s (1987) study. Four other categories were also included:
• Messages which fixed grammatical and other errors in previous messages
• Messages which were automatically created by the game for events such as players entering or leaving
• Messages which discussed technical difficulties
• Messages for undefinable messages
Pena’s (2004) study found that more socio-emotional communication occurred during game play than with task orientated work. He also noted that there were differences between socio-emotional messages.
Jaffe et al (1995) examined the use of pseudonyms in mixed gender group computer communication. Their hypotheses related to the experience of participants with CMC, use of pseudonyms by each gender, and the conditions that foster an environment where pseudonyms are used in CMC. This study acknowledges that Bales’s IPA may not account for ‘…multidimensional relational qualities’ and that its categories alone may be ‘…rigid’ (Jaffe et al, 1995: p, 411). Jaffe et al (1995) adopted extra categories used by Rice and Love (1987) including:
• Communications which refers to others communications.
• Communications which include ‘first-person pronouns’ such as ‘I’, and ‘me’.
• Communications which provide support, such as ‘…that’s true’.
• Emotional communication using an electronic symbol, such as an emoticon.
Using a revised version of Bales’s IPA, Jaffe et al (1995) established that under study conditions people using CMC felt more comfortable using pseudonyms instead of their true identity. They found no significance attached to the experience levels of participants (as those with little or significant experience of CMC participated equally).
Chou’s (2002) study compared the interactions which occur in both asynchronous and synchronous distance CMC learning. Bales’s IPA was expanded so that both the ‘gives orientation’ and ‘asks for orientation’ categories in the ‘task orientation’
section of the system included sub-categories. The sub-categories for the categories concern personal information, topic-related information, and technical information.
Findings from this research included:
• More socio-emotional (SE) interactions occur in synchronous CMC compared with asynchronous CMC.
• There was an increase in one way communication in the asynchronous mode when compared to the synchronous CMC.
• There were gender interaction differences where females engaged in SE more often than males in both forms of CMC.
Figure 6.3 Interactions present within teams [adapted from Bales (1951)].
Interactions Description Shows solidarity Raises other’s status, gives help,
reward Shows tension
release
Jokes, laughs, shows satisfaction
Agrees Shows passive acceptance, understands, concurs, complies Gives suggestion Direction, implying autonomy for other
Gives opinion Evaluation, analysis, expresses feeling, wishes
Gives orientation Information, repeats, clarifies, confirms
Asks for orientation
Information, repetition, confirmation
Asks for opinion Evaluation, analysis, expression of feeling
Asks for suggestion
Direction, possible ways of action
Disagrees Shows passive rejection, formality, withholds help
Shows tension Asks for help, withdraws out of field
Shows antagonism Deflates other’s status, defends or asserts self.
A
B
C
D
E a b c d e f
KEY
a = Problems of communication b = Problems of evaluation c = Problems of control d = Problems of decision
e = Problems of tension reduction f = Problems of reintegration
A = Positive reactions (Socio- emotional area: positive) B = Attempted answers (Task area: neutral)
C = Questions (Task area:
neutral)
D = Negative reactions ((Socio- emotional area: negative) E = Task area neutral
Gorse and Emmitt’s (2003) study assessed three methodologies used with small groups to determine an appropriate method for analysing group interaction. The methods examined were: ‘diaries and interviews’, ‘observation supported by audio recordings’, and ‘observation using Bale’s IPA’. These researchers considered Bales’s IPA to be effective and the least onerous for researchers and participants.
The participants felt comfortable knowing that their interactions were not being analysed for what was being said, but rather for the content of their speech.
The major preliminary findings from this study indicated a lack of Socio-Emotional (SE) interaction between construction partners and that most interactions were task orientated. Gorse and Emmitt (2003) argue that this may account for the ‘adversarial behaviour’ dominating the construction industry today. However it was also observed that SE communication raised the alertness of team members, especially negative SE communication such as ‘disagreeing’.
Bales’s Interaction Process Analysis was selected as it specifically investigates the interaction and communication between team members. It has been used in a number of studies into the move from face-to-face to CMC.