Chapter 6: Participatory Evaluation by users
6.3 Analysis Based On Conversation Analytics of Audio Recording
6.3.2 Analysis
Following section identifies three aspects of the 2-minute fragment of interaction that make it to be about 'assessing appearances’. It shows that the moderator elicits a final round of assessments and, together with the user participants, sets it up to concern primarily the outward appearance of vehicle concepts. Relatedly, it is seen that all three- user participants draw on the same rendering, i.e. a visual representation of a particular vehicle concept, to highlight a shared basis for their individual assessments. These two
aspects lend support to an overall focus on appearances where positive assessments are favored over negative ones. Discuss here is each aspect in turn by presenting three fragments of the interaction as it unfolds in time.
The transcripts follow conversation-analytic conventions (G Jefferson, 2004), and relevant fragments of the user participants’ bodily conduct are described using italics and with participant labels written in lower-case letters (e.g. sub for Subhani).
It may be noted that these are the real names of the participants whose prior consent to use their names and images has been taken.
In the section to follow detailed description of the analysis is given.
6.3.2.1 Elicited round of assessments
Please refer Table 6.2. When the discussion between the user participants reaches a lull, the moderator initiates the final round up of the session does it go with the image that you had in your mind? (Transcript 1, lines 1–2). This can be heard both as a general prompt to assess whether the designers have succeeded in turning the user participants’
ideas into vehicle concepts or not, and as a more specific encouragement for the user participants to elaborate on their views on the outward appearance of the vehicle concepts, a feature that they themselves have highlighted in their discussion so far.
Formatted as a yes/no interrogative, the prompt sets up an expectation of a type- conforming response, that is, a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ from the recipients (Raymond, 2003).
The user participants respond positively to the prompt: all three shake their heads from side to side in affirmation (producing so-called Indian head wobbles), and two of them also provide affirmative verbal responses (Transcript 1, lines 3–4). The responses are thus not only type-conforming but also delivered as preferred ones: produced immediately after the prompt and displaying clear agreement with the proposition conveyed in the prompt (Pomerantz, 1984).
The moderator then reformulates his enquiry into is it uh m- exactly matching with what you, (Transcript 1, line 5), inviting further elaborations from the user participants.
Subhani, who is sitting at the right, provides an affirmative response, picks up a
physically—certain elements in the rendering (Transcript 1, lines6, 8–9; Figures 2 and 3). After Subhani has responded at some length, the moderator also elicits responses first from Pratap and then from Rao with how about you (Transcript 2, line 1, and Transcript 3, line 1, respectively).
Table 6.2: Transcript 1: Moderator initiates and co-ordinates the final round-up.
01 MOD: does it go with the image that you had 02 in your mind?
03 SUB: [(yes sir.) 04 RAO: [yes.
05 MOD: is it uh m- exactly matching with what you, 06 SUB: yes sir.
07 RAO: [°yes.°
08 SUB: [the only thing is like uh, the< eh whatever, sub reaches for rendering and picks it up 09 SUB: the detachable, (.) (where-) we can keep 10 for luggage.
11 =but it is not even required actually.
12 (as it [is,) 13 RAO: [mm,
14 SUB: if you increase the length you can even 15 accommodate this small type of luggage.
16 =(we were going to use this one.) 17 I think this is good actually. (than,) 18 this is matching.
19 MOD: okay.
In this way, the concept validation session is gradually brought to a close with a round of assessments where the three user participants are each given an opportunity individually to reflect on their common understanding of how the introduced vehicle concepts meet their expectations. The round of assessments is elicited and coordinated by the moderator, whose initial inquiry reflects and further sets up an orientation to appearances.
Figure 6.9: Rendering of a vehicle concept.
Figure 6.10: Subhani picks up the rendering.
6.3.2.2 Shared visual basis
During their discussion, the user participants have clearly established a favorite among the many renderings that are laid out on the table. Here focus is not on how participants select the particular rendering (Heinemann, 2011), but on how they employ it as a shared visual basis for their assessments. When Subhani began his assessment of the vehicle concept, he picked up from the table in front of him a rendering that they had dealt with earlier (Transcript 1, line 8; Figure 3).
When Subhani concludes his turn and the moderator moves on to address Pratap, Subhani releases his grasp of the sheet of paper and Pratap in turn picks it up (Transcript 2, lines 1–2; Table 6.3).
Table 6.3: Transcript 2: User participants circulate the rendering as they assess.
01 MOD: how about you?
sub lets go of rendering 02 PRA: yes sir, the design, interior,
pra reaches for rendering and picks it up 03 PRA: everything looks pretty good.
04 and this is exactly what we had in mind.
05 >I mean,< something, 06 (.) a vehicle in between,
07 (1.3) I mean, as per utility and the cost, 08 in between a bike and a car.
09 (0.8) and,
10 (1.7) I would say, (.) this is just that.
pra lets go of rendering 11 PRA: (2.2) this is what we imagined.
rao reaches for rendering
12 PRA: the design is actually, .hh >I mean,<
rao withdraws hands from rendering 13 PRA: (2.8) this is much better than what we 14 imagined. (.) at least the looks.
15 RAO: °yes sir.°
16 (2.0)
rao reaches for rendering 17 MOD: how about you.
18 RAO: actually it is very: weh:::, attractive sir.
19 in design-wise?
Figure 6.11: Pratap picks up the rendering.
Similarly, as Pratap releases his grasp of the rendering and summarizes his assessment, Rao prepares for taking a turn by reaching for the sheet of paper (Transcript 2, lines 10–
11). Pratap, however, continues to talk and hold his hands on top of the document, and Rao withdraws his hands back to his sides (Transcript 2, line 12). The rendering and the opportunity to assess it are passed on successfully a moment later from Pratap to Rao, with an additional prompt by the moderator (Transcript 2, lines 13–19; Table 6.3).
Figure 6.12: Rao picks up the rendering.
In this fragment and within this activity, then, taking turns at talking is governed by the handling of the rendering: the participant who has a hold of the document gets to talk about it (Nishant Sharma, 2011), (Mortensen Christina, 2011). Moreover, in holding and moving the sheet of paper as well as pointing to and touching various elements in the images on it, the participants establish the document as a shared visual basis for their assessments and maintain their joint orientation to both the rendering and the activity.
6.3.2.3 Favorable focus on appearance
While taking their turns at assessing the rendering, all three-user participants refer to its appearance in a positive light. Pratap and Rao, who respond to the moderator’s general prompt how about you, in effect begin with overall assessments that seem to target the way in which the vehicle concept is presented to them: Pratap with yes sir, the design, interior, everything looks pretty good. (Transcript 2, lines 2–3) and Rao with actually it is very: weh:::, attractive sir. (Transcript 3, line 2).
Table 6.4: Transcript 3: User assesses the rendering in favour of appearance.
01 MOD: how about you.
02 RAO: actually it is very: weh:::, attractive sir.
03 in design-wise?
04 because: it is in between a car and uh:
05 (.) bike. so::, it is good sir.
06 but we- actually we thought that in some 07 of the other<
08 some:: extra space for eh:: lu- for luggage, 09 but it is not required.
10 MOD: mhm,
11 RAO: now this: new is good.
12 MOD: okay.
At the start of the round-up, the moderator specifically prompts the user participants to compare the vehicle concepts now presented to them with the ideas that they conveyed to the designers during the first participatory session. As the round-up develops, however, the user participants constantly move between comparing two abstract notions, on the one hand, and assessing the rendering, an image that they have at their disposal in the present context, on the other hand (Brouwer & ten Bhömer, 2013). In a sense, then, the sketches and renderings provide the user participants with a point of reference on which to establish their shared understanding and evaluation of the vehicle concepts as well as with a source of distraction which draws their attention to how a particular vehicle concept is represented in a rendering.
Moreover, although the user participants do bring forward criticism about the vehicle concept in the final round-up, they tend to downgrade or dismiss such aspects of their contributions. The moot points that are mentioned concern elements that have been omitted from the rendering and may thus run counter to the expectations that the user participants had on the basis of the earlier prototyping session. Subhani, for instance, presents storage space as the only thing that possibly causes concern in the vehicle concept (Transcript 1, line 8), and the same issue is later taken up by Rao (Transcript 3, lines6–8). Both in a sense sandwich their criticism between positive evaluations of the vehicle concept: they begin with an affirmative assessment that the vehicle concept meets their ideas to a sufficient degree, move on to voice their concerns and then finish
with another positive assessment or clear dismissal of those concerns (I think this is good actually. (than,) this is matching., Transcript 1, lines17–18, and but it is not required. now this: new is good., Transcript 3, lines 9 and 11). Pratap does this balancing slightly differently: he provides a highly positive assessment, which he finally restricts to appearance only with at least the looks (Transcript 2, line 14).
The positive bias in the user participants’ assessments may be established by the way in which the final round-up is elicited and organized, but it is certainly reinforced by each individual’s contribution. The user participants may in effect be under a similar constraint as conversational participants in casual gifting occasions: with an obligation to provide a positive assessment of a gift that they have just been presented with (Robles, 2012). However, whereas the positively appraised appearances may now be considered as satisfactory and in no need of further development, the few features that are negatively assessed about this ‘mutable object’, a vehicle concept that is being developed, are likely to be taken up as proposals for further development and improvement (Fasulo & Monzoni, 2009).