Dear Simon,

Your efforts remind me of the invention of grounded theory — which has had tremendous impact on social research — in about 1968. Glazer and Strauss. I suggest you respectfully shelve the "design" angle here, and simply step back into the question of "how are patterns found in qualitative research data", and how data sets are constructed.

Grounded theory was invented because of a concern with the overlay of classification systems onto data, rather than learning about patterns that exist empirically within the data. By "trusting in emergence" grounded theory created a new path in empirical research on qualitative social phenomena.

They also used index cards, sorting systems, iterative learning and hypo-thetico deductive reasoning. If you follow these lines, you'll find that touchpoints emerge from data sets in ways that are unexpected. You can also circle back to design issues later, as the theory is not as rich in that discipline as it is qualitative research design generally.

I can provide specific references if you'd like.

Best wishes, and I'll be curious to know where this goes!

Derek
_______________
Derek B. Miller, Ph.D.
—Senior Fellow
United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR)
—Associate Scholar
Center for Local Strategies Research, University of Washington
Norwegian telephone: +47 450 393 66
U.S. voicemail: +1 617 440 4409 











On Nov 17, 2010, at 9:22 AM, Simon Clatworthy wrote:

> I have been developing a card based toolkit for service design as part of the AT-ONE project (www.service-innovation.org). The cards and tools support innovation processes based upon analysis and design of service touchpoints. They are basically cards with images and text, that function as a visual list of potential touchpoints. More information about them is available here:  http://designgeneralist.blogspot.com/2010/01/customer-experience-touch-point-cards.html
> 
> During evaluation of the cards, I have noticed that people use the cards in different ways, and that the tangible nature of the cards assists them with the cognitive processes they are engaged in. As an example, when laying out cards in specific relations for a task, someone will hold a card in their hand and move their hand back and fore to different groups, to consider if that card fits in the group. The movement of the card, somehow seems to assist the assessment process - "does it fit here, hmm no, maybe here ..." and the combination of tangibility, movement and cognitive process seem to combine to make the task easier. 
> 
> I don't think this is new knowledge, and I am certain that I have seen somewhere that this has been analysed and discussed - a taxonomy of modes of use. But, I can't find references for this. Can anyone help me? 
> 
> I am particularly looking at this in relation to the design of task aids, but I guess that this overlaps with the use of visualisation in workshops and even the tangibility of simple prototypes (I have plenty of references in these areas). 
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Simon Clatworthy
> Oslo School of Architecture and Design