No Prompt (extra entry): Revising my research question
My research question, as it now stands, is: How do sex, age, and ableness cause people to interact with kiosk technology differently, and what ethical implications does this have for the use of kiosk technology?
I’ve decided to concentrate on sex rather than gender because of the complications in dealing with quantitative data involving gender as opposed to sex. I’ve also decided to incorporate age a major criteria of my research because of several personal experiences in which I saw people having trouble with kiosk technology. These people explicitly stated that they didn’t understand the technology because they were “older.” Finally, I believe ableness is an extremely important consideration in the implementation of this sort of technology, but it may be peripheral issue because of the problems with visually identifying ableness.
Prompt 3 (Blakeslee p. 138): Writing Interview Questions
I am imagining interviewing a patient at a general physician’s office that has recently installed a check-in kiosk. Following are some beginning ideas about what interview questions to ask.
- Name, age, hometown, occupation, ethnic identification, any other demographic details the participant offers
- How long have you been a patient with this physician?
- How many times would you say you have visited this office?
- What was your usual routine from the time you entered the lobby to the time you were taken back to see the doctor?
- Did you find this routine to be efficient and easy?
- How long would you say you usually waited in the lobby after checking in with the receptionist?
- This office recently installed a kiosk check-in system. Do you use it?
- Now, with the kiosk system in place, what is your usual routine from the time you entered the lobby to the time you were taken back to see the doctor?
- Do you find this routine to be efficient and easy?
- How long do you usually wait in the lobby after checking in at the kiosk?
- What is your overall impression of the kiosk system?
Prompt 4 (Blakeslee p. 139): Revising your questions
I think I could revise and improve my questions by asking more detailed questions about patient concerns with the kiosk system. Initially, I was worried that this would skew my results. However, if I add these questions at the end, then I will still have the responses from before I bring up words like “privacy.” So far, at least, I am only going to add to these questions:
- Do you have any concerns with privacy issues pertaining to the kiosk system?
- Were you given a choice about using the kiosk system?
- Did you express reluctance to use the kiosk system? What was the receptionist’s response?
- How many times have you used the kiosk system?
- Having now used the kiosk system, will you continue to do so? If not, how do you plan to address this situation?
Having written these questions, it also occurs to me that interviewing the receptionists about how patients respond to the kiosks and how the receptionists feel about them would be very informative.
Prompt 1 (Blakeslee p. 136): Analyzing a document
I am comparing the interview styles of Chelsea Handler, an official at Augustana College who interview me for admission, and a reporter friend of mine who I’ll call Jake. I have purposely selected wildly different contexts and interview that have very different purposes so that this comparison may show more significant differences.
CH asks questions that she already knows the answers to; they are for the benefit of her audience. The AC official asked questions whose answers didn’t matter; his purpose was to determine intelligence and articulateness. Jake asks questions based on the content he needs from a source. These people also prepare differently for interview. CH no doubt talks to the interviewee beforehand off camera, and probably has staffers who provide her with information. The AC official reads application materials to learn context. Jake does extensive research before an interview, including online searches and interviewing other people as well as discussing potential interview questions with his editor.
These three have very different personas. CH’s is sharp and witty, for entertainment purposes. Her ethos is one of a talk-show host; viewers know she is carefully constructing an identity. The AC official is scholarly and impressive, channeling the prestigious ethos of the college. Jake often takes on an almost subservient role in order to get better answers; although he is almost always smarter and better informed than his interviewees, he lets them take charge and do most of the talking in order to get good quotes and establish a good relationship for the future. The three interact differently with interviewees, although they are all invested in drawing out the interview for at least some length of time. CH sometimes cuts interviews short because of time limitations, but the AC official and Jake draw out interviews for as long as possible; they only benefit from getting more information.
The qualities that strike me most are those about how the interview constructs him- or herself in relation to the interview. Jake’s approach strikes me as most caring and ethical; it is unsurprising that I like him and his style best.
Prompt 2 (Blakeslee p. 138): Analyzing a document
The differences in preparation by interviewers were most profound between the AC official and Jake. The AC official had limited means for research, while Jake researched everything he could find. This made for more natural, productive interviews. Jake was also, simply put, a better conversationalist. This is a skill he has polished for years, and that sort of long-term preparation makes a major difference.
Prompt 8 (Blakeslee p. 125): Analyzing a document
Artifact: Article entitled “Hospital, doctors’ office kiosks increasingly used for collections” (found at http://www.fiercehealthfinance.com/story/hospital-doctors-office-kiosks-increasingly-used-colllections/2009-08-05)
Rhetorical analysis: This article is directed at health executives and financial managers and appears to be trying to convince these healthcare professionals that kiosks are a good idea not only because they let patients check into doctor’s offices on their own, but also because they can be used to facilitate faster payment to doctors’ offices. The article implicitly tells healthcare professionals that kiosks are the up-and-coming trend and that they should consider using them by listing the manufacturers who are now making kiosks.
Linguistic analysis: This article uses words with positive connotations to help readers associate kiosks–the technology that is being promoted–with a positive feeling. The article uses phrases like “smoother experience” and “fewer financial surprises” and “giving access” to indicate the benefit for the patients, “steady growth” to refer to the future for kiosks, and using metaphors like pushing forward to indicate that kiosks are representative of technological progress.
Thematic analysis: The basic theme of this piece, because it is directed at healthcare professionals, is increased revenue. In each paragraph, the author comes back to considerations of money as the anchor point for why kiosks should be implemented.
This brief analysis helped me see the benefits of thinking about all these lenses before embarking on a longer project. Although I am somewhat used to rhetorical analysis and am familiar with linguistic analysis, attention to thematic analysis could probably often help me step back and see the broader picture. In terms of my research, this article raises questions for me about the wisdom of always advocating whatever is new and seems easy. I’d like to learn more about how kiosks can benefit patients so that I can balance this against increased efficiency for physicians. In order to do this, I will need further information about what patients perceive to be the benefits of such technology. I believe I can get this further information from the study I am currently planning.
Prompt 5 (Blakeslee p. 113): Observing a setting
I am planning to use a general physicians’ waiting room as a site for my research. Other potential sites would include different types of waiting rooms, but I am limited to these lobby areas by the scope of my research. The general physician’s office, in particular, is advantageous because I am interested in studying people’s constructions of themselves as patients and examining my observations in relation to gender. The GP’s office, then, is least likely to inflict inherent bias depending on the special treatment patients might be seeking in other settings. This site does pose a challenge in regard to privacy concerns, which I discussed in a non-prompted post below.
I do not feel comfortable doing an observation of a waiting room without having first considered the privacy implications with the help of the IRB committee. I can, however, work based on my observations picked up as a patient myself. Based on the continuing flow of patients and the conspicuousness of someone writing in a waiting room, I suspect that I will use a traditional observation notebook for my research. A tape-recorded log is out of the question because of Illinois laws involving audio tapes; in-the-middle and after-the-fact notes are unnecessary. The two-notebook approach seems burdensome and conspicuous in this setting. Either a traditional or dialogic notebook might work; I favor the traditional because I believe it will help me to record as objectively as possible and reserve analysis for later.
Prompt 6 (Blakeslee p. 118): Looking at how others analyze artifacts
This response refers to:
Lawrence, D. “Cashing in on check-in: As hospitals face steeper challenges in collecting fees for service, bringin the revenue cycle to the kiosk may be an answer.” Healthcare informatics 27.1 (2010): 18, 20.
This prompt was difficult for me to respond to because I have so far been unable to find work in the genre I’ll be writing in on check-in kiosks. The article referenced above reads more like a newspaper or magazine report. Therefore, the texts used as artifacts in this article are primarily interviews with experts. It is also obvious that Lawrence has developed some familiarity with the technologies he discusses–kiosks and tablets–themselves. Lawrence relied on these sources because they were primary sources that did not require significant investments of his time, which is appropriate to the genre in which he is writing. Again adhering to genre, he largely refrained from personally analyzing them, but used expert testimony to frame these technologies in terms of revenue and legal precedent on billing patients for services. His discoveries from this analysis are as follows (verbatim from the article’s conclusion):
- Kiosks are expected to become more interactive in terms of the revenue cycle.
- Consent forms and way-finding are the more traditional uses of kiosks.
- The emergency room is an ideal place to use kiosk or tablet technology because of the long waits.
- Using tablets before a full kiosk implementation is a sound strategy.
No Prompt (extra entry): Update to research question and other details
The future audience for my proposal is scholars in my field. More specifically, I’ll be trying to reach scholars in technical communication and gender studies, rhetoric and composition. (While I envision someday producing products with a “general public” audience, I feel the need to establish myself in this way first.) My research question, at this moment, is: Does gender/sex affect the ways that people utilize automated check-in technologies in physicians’ offices? My method for answering this question, at least in its first iteration, is observation. I hope to sit in a lobby area and watch as people check in for appointments.
Prompt 2 (Blakeslee p. 105): Researching in Multiple Ways
Cairns, Kate, Johnston, Josee, and Baumann, Shyon. “Caring About Food: Doing Gender in the Foodie Kitchen.” Gender & Society 24.5 (2010): 591-615 . Print.
Cairns, Johnston, and Baumann conducted interviews with 30 subjects to examine how gender is constructed and perceived in foodie culture; they theorize their results in three categories: pleasure, care work, and knowledge/expertise. I would argue that they did use triangulation–although they do not explicitly address it–because they also surveyed literature in the field, including online literature such as the blogs of some of their participants. They also produced tables, which are the results of survey-style questions, that show demographic information for each of their 30 participants. This use of triangulation contributed a sense of accuracy. Rather than collecting one-time only written statements and analyzing what they happened to get, these researchers took the time to get to know their participants and understand those participants’ perceptions of foodie culture. One part of this article I found lacking was the dearth of attention to gender performance as an indicator of views on foodie culture. The article essentially examines the role of sex–that is, how women and men perceive and are perceived differently in this culture. However, several of the participants are listed as “partnered” rather than “married,” and I wonder how this distinction–presumably one of attention to gender roles–might have affected results.