98
as unbounded, evasive, distributed, and constantly mutating (Kallanikos et al., 2010). For example, the Web appears to us as a process, happening continuously and continuously transforming before our eyes, with us and through us. However, although the websites that are built bloom and disappear, the Web continues, because the Web is made up of people and the digital technologies of the Internet (Thompson, 2014). Thus, Ruppert, Law, and Savage (2013, p. 24) observe that “digital devices and the data they generate are both the material of social lives and form part of many of the apparatuses for knowing those lives”. However, in order to make sure that I did not lose any data, backing up on external storage was a daily practice.
99
Data for this research are constituted by tracing the trails that were left by the actors that were involved in the collaborative design process. At all three identified nodes there was some form of design translation which needed to be traced through the four stages of translation as suggested by Callon (1986c). Following the actors unveiled the actors’ action (Latour, 2005).
Data at each node were constituted at the various stages of the design process, from the problem analysis through possible solutions, evaluation of the chosen solution, production of the prototype and its testing.
3.9.1 Design studio
Data at this node were constituted by what happened at the beginning of the design project, tracing how the controlling or focal actor problematised the design problem, how other actors were attracted to the project through interessement and got enrolled into the project, how their roles were defined, and their acceptance of these roles through passing through the OPP. This was not an easy task given the fact that the early stage of the design process is complex and the designers attend to a myriad of design uncertainties and controversies that need to be resolved before a satisfying design solution can be agreed upon. In other words, the moments of the design translations are not well-defined phases of the design activity.
Various data collection instruments were used, including a questionnaire, an observation schedule and a semi-structured interview guide. I used the questionnaire to gather data related to the formation of the teams, namely the activities that the actors engaged in throughout the stages of the design process, from the time they formed their design teams to the time they presented their design artefacts to the departmental panel of examiners. In the process the key actors were identified. In addition, the questionnaire allowed me to illuminate the associations formed between the actors, including the non-human actors. The questionnaire also allowed me to collect data on students’ experiences with Web 2.0 during their design collaboration. By collecting data on students’ experiences, I was able to trace the association of actors with others actors in the collaborative design project. I could also collect data on students’ interpretations of the effectiveness of Web 2.0 technologies in facilitating design collaboration. At the end of each section I left a blank space which students used to elaborate on issues they found needed further clarification or were not covered by the questionnaire, thus allowing actors to speak for themselves.
100
The interviews explored a number of issues, including students’ backgrounds, their roles in during the collaborative design project, their experiences with Web 2.0 technologies, demographics, their opinions, feelings, and knowledge on the role played by Web 2.0 during the collaborative project. Since the questions were open-ended the interview schedule did not constrain the interview process; instead they allowed the interviewee to lead the conversation describing their associations.
The semi-structured interview guide allowed actors to tell their stories at liberty and gave me the flexibility to follow up on issues and probe actors to elaborate further if required. Many of the interviewees opened up by sharing personal experiences and opinions regarding the use of Web 2.0 tools to facilitate the collaborative design process, and were happy to elaborate and collaborate on any additional points I raised. More often than not, interviewees directed me to other actors or websites which confirmed their points of discussion. This facilitated the collection of in-depth students’ views of their experiences in collaborative design that was facilitated by Web 2.0 technology. I successfully recorded and transcribed all of the interviews for analysis.
3.9.2 University LAN
At this node a questionnaire and the activity log were used to collect data on the Web 2.0 technologies that students were using, and the activity log was used to trace the relations, associations or ties that were formed in the process. It is also important to note that the university internet connectivity was also available through Wi-Fi which stretched beyond the university’s physical boundaries.
3.9.3 Web 2.0 design spaces
At this node data were constituted following the actors through the traces left (postings) on the discussion forums. I was a non-participant observer/guest on the platforms, observing how students were interacting through the various Social Networking (SN) platforms they used which included, Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter and MySpace . These were used to trace the association/ties which were formed as the actors went through the stages of the design process.
The table 2 on the next page summaries how data were constituted.
101 Table 2: Summary of how data were constituted
Node Practice followed Conspicuous actors followed
Instruments used to collect data
Design Studio The design process Students, design collaboration tool, Web 2.0 tools
Questionnaire,
semi-structured interviews
Web 2.0 discussion places
Group formation Early stages of the design process
Students, design collaboration tool, Web 2.0 tools
Questionnaire,
online observation of Web 2.0 postings, post-
observation University
LAN (Wi-Fi)
Group formation The design process
Students, design collaboration tool, Web 2.0 tools
Questionnaire, activity log, observation schedule