Week 6 - Workshop + Interviews/Questionnaires
- Daniella Lim-Yip
- Sep 8, 2024
- 9 min read
From now on, I have decided to use Gibb's Reflective Cycle again, as the 5R Framework from last week was more challenging to use. I didn't find it as beneficial - particularly the Relating section, which wasn't helpful (The University of Edinburgh, 2024).
Description:
This week, I gathered more responses from my anonymous questionnaire, which I shared on our design discord while conducting more in-person interviews (IDEO.org, 2015). Overall, I got responses from 27 research participants and formulated a summary of responses regarding questions on disability, general perceptions of food allergies, and those that targeted hospitality workers or those with food allergies.
One of the defining questions I asked regarding disabilities was, "Do you consider food allergies a disability? Why/Why not?". There was the underlying importance of autonomy and how disabilities exist on a spectrum, with most participants feeling more comfortable using the word 'impairment' instead, which is due to the extremity of having a "disability". Societal barriers and attitudes are the most significant factors that truly disable someone as opposed to the inherent impairment. A few participants expressed that the label of being 'disabled' should only be self-imposed as the definition of a disability draws attention to a person's 'interaction with their environment and society'; therefore, if they believe it doesn't significantly impact their interactions, then it doesn't need to be considered a disability.
For those who didn't consider it a disability, this revolved around the idea that you can "control it". Although you can make a conscious effort to avoid an allergen, there's no guarantee that it is 100% safe, especially when another person prepares it, as your safety is in someone else's hands.
As many of my participants were Asian, their cultures viewed having food allergies as either being disrespectful or that it's a part of modern-day diet culture. The assumption that it is a preference rather than a health issue is associated with the fact that the concept of food allergies is not common in Asia. To add to this lack of understanding, some of the participants' views on my topic were due to media depictions of food allergies, always being about peanuts and extreme consequences like death. Regarding those in hospitality, almost all participants said they don't ask if a customer has allergies due to signs that mention to declare them upon arrival, yet one participant was trained to ask. However, this was when they were working in hospitality overseas.
For the next step, I categorised all my sticky notes into the Health Belief Model (mentioned in my previous blog) (Etheridge et al., 2023) and then asked myself, "What is the impact of each of these responses?" - this helped me decipher aspects of my problem that I needed to highlight and emphasise in my prototype (still don't know what it is yet 😅). I used these knowledge gaps as a foundation to conduct further research.
e.g. The response was that they mistook an allergic reaction for a fever. The impact of this is that if people are unaware of the symptoms of an allergic reaction, they won't know if it's happening in their restaurant. Therefore, I need to highlight the symptoms so staff can communicate effectively with customers who have food allergies.
My lecturer dedicated this week's studio time to a Crafting Change Workshop. During this, we participated in crafting activities related to the DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) concepts from Diversity Works (González and Diversity Works NZ, 2022), which challenged our thinking based on our positionalities. We did the "Privilege Beads" game, where the whole class stood in a line, holding onto a single piece of string. We stepped forward or backwards based on the scenarios about our privilege. By the end of this game, I was in the middle. The other activity that we did included nine different coloured pieces of string representing each of the DEI concepts (González and Diversity Works NZ, 2022). For this "Connecting Strings" activity, we were tasked to join the strings we connected to based on our lived experiences.
Feelings:
I didn't expect to get many responses from the anonymous questionnaire - this is because I had many questions for the research participants to answer, albeit all optional - but I was pleasantly surprised with the outcome. From the insights gained, the response from one of the people with food allergies didn't surprise me much, but their attitude and the way they spoke did. Most of the questions I asked them about living with food allergies didn't apply to them because they didn't consider it a disability or that it affected their life much (or at least to the same degree that it has to me). It was insightful to hear about how food allergies are portrayed in the media because I didn't realise how vital accuracy was in communicating them. One of the technical challenges I faced was transcribing all the responses. After my sister saw me struggling, I realised towards the end that I could've had them all automatically transcribed through the 'voice recorder' app on my phone - the whole time I was using the regular 'recorder' app. So that felt like a fat waste of my time; I didn't even realise I had two recording apps. The biggest challenge I had to overcome was figuring out how to implement the Health Belief Model (Etheridge et al., 2023) because it took me an entire day for some stupid reason. Although I knew the purpose of the model, I didn't understand if I was applying it correctly.
I got confused about whether the perceived severity, susceptibility, benefits, and barriers should be based on people's responses or secondary research and whether they should be objective or subjective. "Mistook an allergic reaction for a fever" (perceived severity), so what? What am I supposed to do with this information? I knew that I had secondary research to do afterwards. However, I needed to finish this exercise before I moved on, which made things worse because it felt like I would never progress further. On a good note, one of the interviewees' answers has prompted me to research laws, regulations, and management strategies in other countries, which will be highly beneficial in contextualising my research question.
I didn't expect much from this workshop because I generally don't find them interesting or fun, but that's just me generalising all of them because I loved this workshop. For the "Privilege Beads" game, it was surprising that I was in the middle because I expected to be further back. At one point, I was ahead of my friend and started to feel tension on the string, which made me feel somewhat guilty and awkward, which I know wasn't the intention of the activity. However, I also felt the effects of other people in front of me pulling the string, which demonstrated how a person's privilege affects those around them and how others may notice it when you don't. One of the scenarios that stood out to me was when the lecturer said, "I feel comfortable walking alone at night" it seemed like such a confronting topic which all the males in the class took a step forward, and all the females remained where they were. When I first started the "Connecting Strings" activity, I didn't think many of them had significantly affected me. However, they made me more aware of my intersectionality.
Evaluation:
I mainly shared my anonymous questionnaire on Discord to get responses from people with food allergies. Unfortunately, nobody met that requirement, and I only got answers from two people with allergies through interviews. Furthermore, I think the interviews were more beneficial to my research than the questionnaires. Once I figured out how to apply the Health Belief Model (Etheridge et al., 2023) to my project, I noticed that many of the questions I asked in my interviews helped me understand current perceptions of severity, benefits, susceptibility, and barriers. I realised that it was just a more structured way to organise what I had learned from the interviews so that I could address the issues through these categories to inform my final prototype. These will help me change hospitality behaviour by seeing what they already know. If their understanding of severity, susceptibility, and benefits is insufficient, or there are too many barriers. In that case, that's what I need to address. Upon using this model, I noticed that it fails to address social and cultural considerations, so I plan to do secondary research after this.
My initial understanding of myself during "Connecting Strings" evolved as I had four different braids by the end: (1) teal and black, (2) orange, pink, and white, (3) pink, black, and white, and (4) pink and green.
For (1), having food allergies (along with eczema) has affected all my siblings and me since we were young, which made things difficult for my parents and grandparents. Although the caregiving situation is not based on me providing care for someone else, these two cards are connected to me. I had a stay-at-home mum who dedicated all her time looking after us (as well as my grandparents) due to our health issues. At the same time, my dad ran the fruit and vegetable shop we used to own to support the family.
For (2), I don't remember why I thought they linked 💀. I made (3) because food allergies are more common in Asians, specifically those in Western countries. Although I'm not a migrant myself, being born in NZ instead of China is a factor in us having food allergies due to the environment of this country. In Asian countries, food allergies aren't commonly understood but are prevalent in NZ.
For (4), I would consider my family middle class. However, at a young age, my dad's father was a beggar in China. When he migrated to NZ, my dad's family (he was born here) were all poor, so I'm grateful for how hard my dad has worked to get my family to where we are now.
Before this activity, I always thought that I had many problems or had more negative life experiences than the 'typical' person due to family and health reasons, at least in comparison to the people relatively close to me. Although there was a selection of scenarios, it's all dependent on what's asked and how it's worded. Regardless, my self-awareness from this workshop deepened, and I understood how my environment and privilege shaped my lived experiences.
Analysis:
Doing the interviews were more beneficial as they allowed me to follow up with more questions and make clarifications for any misunderstandings while conducting them. Additionally, the insights gained about food allergies in the media revealed to me that if people only see peanuts or death as a result of an allergic reaction, then all other allergens and symptoms may be dismissed if witnessed in real life as people won't think it's an allergy or life-threatening.
Concerning the Health Belief Model (Etheridge et al., 2023), I had difficulties because I forced myself to use this specific theoretical framework without in-depth knowledge. I only did brief research because I couldn't find any helpful step-by-step guidance on implementing it into practice. Pacheco-Vega (2020) states that theoretical frameworks are used to comprehend phenomena and serves as a baseline for our expectation of how factors may affect outcomes. He further mentions that when choosing what we want to explain, we must look at the theoretical frameworks previously used for the same reasons. Based on this, I realised that I didn't fully understand what theoretical frameworks are used for; all I knew when choosing this model was that I wanted something that could guide me to changing behaviours.
Conclusion:
While going through the results, I found it challenging to know the key insights as it was all qualitative data, and it felt like I was picking and choosing what I wanted to highlight, which indicates researcher bias. It would've been beneficial to have some questions that resulted in quantitative answers rather than only qualitative ones, as it would've helped me automatically identify and prioritise the main issues present. It would've also helped me to identify any patterns more easily. I didn't rewrite opinions that were the same because it would take too long; therefore, I relied on my memory to know the common answers.
For my anonymous questionnaire, to get more people involved, I should've stated that people with any dietary requirements are encouraged to answer since there are some aspects of living with food allergies that overlap with people who are halal or coeliac. I also should've used the Health Belief Model (Etheridge et al., 2023) at the beginning to structure and formulate my interview questions more effectively. This would have saved me time during the analysis process and reduced unnecessary questions.
I've learnt that I tend to overcomplicate things for myself. Although I know how structured I need things to be, I have begun to hyperfocus on this to the point where I can't progress further. This mental mode can be explained as having a complexity bias (Farnam Street Media Inc., 2024). When there's an information overload, humans tend to perceive things as having a higher complexity with various aspects that require more understanding because we think it's easier to deal with when, in reality, it's simple.
Action Plan:
For the next part of my design process, I will be more open to change, particularly when the current tool that I'm using is not leading me in the right direction, or I'm not getting any results. This will indicate that I'm lost and need to reflect on what I don't understand and what needs to change. I currently plan to use the ADDIE model (for instructional design) to help design my prototype. However, as I'm not entirely confident about what it will be, I will evaluate other potential models to help me as I may find out later that it won't be the most suitable. This calls for a flexible approach, and I must ensure that whatever I choose continues to align with my research objectives.
References
Etheridge, J. C. (2023) The Health Belief Model. Science Direct.
Farnam Street Media Inc.. (2024). Complexity Bias: Why We Prefer Complicated to Simple. Farnam Street.
González, D. A. & Diversity Works NZ. (2022). The Diversity + Inclusion Awareness cards.
IDEO.org. (2015). The Field Guide to Human-Centred Design. Design Kit. https://www.designkit.org/resources/1.html
Pacheco-Vega, R. (2020). Linking theory with research, choosing a theoretical framework and developing alternative explanations. Raul Pacheco. https://www.raulpacheco.org/2020/12/linking-theory-with-research-choosing-a-theoretical-framework-and-developing-alternative-explanations/
The University of Edinburgh. (2024).The 5R framework for reflection. https://www.ed.ac.uk/reflection/reflectors-toolkit/reflecting-on-experience/5r-framework
Comments