Compare and contrast the emotional connection that music consumers experience with physical music collections and music streaming services
\nWhy do Millenials experience a greater emotional connection with their curated physical music collections compared to streaming services and playlists?
\nBased on existing literature, collectors feel very strongly about their physical possessions even at a time where artifacts tend to become digital. I want to compare and contrast the emotional relationship of music consumers with their physical music collection and online streaming playlists to establish if going forward, technology can bridge that emotional connection gap.
\nProposed research schedule
\nPilot Study - Start January 2021\nData collection - January 2021\nData coding February 2021\nData analysis March 2021
\nDescription of data collection methods and instruments; explanation of how reliability and validity will be assessed/how the quality of the project will be assessed; what method of data analysis is to be utilised.
Using methodological triangulation to draw data from different sources at different times using a variety of data gathering techniques. While it might not be possible to achieve true triangulation, this approach might permit different insights from the data analysis that ensues.
\nA pilot study will be conducted with a limited number of participants (likely peers) as a trial to ensure the methods are viable. The pilot study participants will not be involved in the main study of course.
\nQuestionnaire
\nA questionnaire will be presented to any participants answering the call to action. The questionnaire will take approximatively 5 to 7 minutes to complete.
\nSemi-structured interviews and Focus groups
\nI will build on the existing data gathered during the survey by conducting semi-structured interviews and a focus group in turn.
\nI will have a basic script and cover the same key elements with all interviewees. I will rely on probes and prompts to get more elaborated information.\nThe interviews will be recorded (audio and video). The interviewees will not be anonymous. The data issued from the study will however be anonymised.\nThe limitation of this method: online conversation; limited view of body language
\nDepending on the data gathered so far, it might be relevant to have more than one focus group -- especially if I want to separate representative sample of the population. The session(s) will be recorded (audio and video) for a follow-up analysis and transcription. In order to keep the conversation between participants flowing, I will abstain from taking notes and simply guide the participants in their discussion.\nBecause the focus group session(s) will be recorded and the participants will not be anonymous. The data issued from the study will however be anonymised.\nThe limitation of this method: online conversation; limited view of body language; participants might have submissive or dominant personalities disrupting the conversation
\nif required for further data collection
\nDiary Studies
\nAs a possible mean of supporting the data gathered thus far, I will invite a limited amount of participants to track their interaction with music via a diary study.
\n How they are recruited; what, if any, incentives will be given; where participants will be interviewed or tested; duration of the testing/interview period.
Study population - trickle down participants
\nFor the questionnaire: sample target of 100-400 people\nFor the semi-structured interviews: 5 to 8 people\nFor the focus group: 4 or 5 people
\nIf relevant;\nFor the diary studies: sample target of 10 to 12 people
\nThe participants are adult and fall into the group of Millenials (born between 1980 and 2000). As they are over the ages of 18 years and under 65 years old, they are not considered vulnerable in terms of their group. The participants are music lovers who own music in a physical format (Cds, vinyls, etc.) and use music streaming services as well.
\n Will deception be involved; is there potential for physical, psychological or social risk, and if so why? Will the procedure require participants to reveal details of a sensitive nature; for what purpose? What are the procedures for minimising distress? Will substances be administered? Are there any other risks, including to the researcher? What safeguards are in place if there are any adverse or unexpected outcomes?
What are the likely benefits to the participants?
What arrangements you will make to protect anonymity and maintain confidentiality?
Details on your debriefing procedure; details on where and how results will be disseminated and whether participants will receive information on the research findings.
Who will have access to the data, where will it be stored and how will it be disposed of?
Bibliography
\nSharp, Helen, et al. Interaction Design : Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2019. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dcu/detail.action?docID=5746446.\nCreated from dcu on 2020-11-08 08:01:50.
\nCaine, K. (2016). Local Standards for Sample Size at CHI. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 981–992. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858498 (7 November 2020)
\nVlachos, P., & Vrechopoulos, A. (2004). Emerging Customer Trends Towards Mobile Music Services. www.mad.gr (Accessed 2 November 2020)
\nBell, J, & Waters, S (2014), Doing Your Research Project : A Guide For First-Time Researchers, McGraw-Hill Education, Milton Keynes. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. (2 November 2020).
\nCaine, K. (2016). Local Standards for Sample Size at CHI. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 981–992. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858498 (2 November 2020)
\nGolsteijn, C., Van Den Hoven, E., Frohlich, D., & Sellen, A. (2012). Towards a more cherishable digital object. Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference, DIS ’12, 655–664. https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2318054 (Access 2 November 2020)
\nCsikszentmihalyi, M. & Rochberg-halton, E. (1981) The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (n.d.)
\nJung, H., et al. How Deep Is Your Love: Deep Narratives of Ensoulment and Heirloom Status.International Journal of Design 5, 1 (2011), 59-71.
\nKirk, D.S. and Sellen, A. On human remains: Values and practice in the home archiving of cherished objects.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 17, 3 (2010), 1-43.
\nOdom, W., et al. Understanding why we preserve some things and discard others in the context of interaction design. In Proc. CHI 2009, ACM Press (2009), 1053-1062.
\nOdom, W., Zimmerman, J., and Forlizzi, J. Teenagers and their virtual possessions: design opportunities and issues. In Proc. CHI 2011, ACM Press (2011), 1491-1500.
\nPetrelli, D. and Whittaker, S. Family memories in the home: contrasting physical and digital mementos.Personal Ubiquitous Computing 14, 2 (2010), 153-169.
\nPetrelli, D., Whittaker, S., and Brockmeier, J. AutoTopography: what can physical mementos tell us about digital memories? In Proc. CHI 2008, ACM Press (2008), 53-62.
\nMäntymäki, M., & Islam, A. K. M. N. (2015). Gratifications from using freemium music streaming services: Differences between basic and premium users.
\nBelk, R. W. 1988. Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 2, 139-168.
\nWirfs-Brock, J., Mennicken, S., & Thom, J. (2020, April 21). Giving Voice to Silent Data: Designing with Personal Music Listening History. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376493\n.
\nNg, J., & Yew, J. (2017). Why download when you can stream? The experience of collecting music in the streaming age. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Part F129310, 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3077343.3077346
\nKleine, S., Baker, S. 2004. An Integrative Review of Material Possession Attachment. Academy of Marketing Science Review. 1-39.
\nMiller, D. 1987. Material Culture and Mass Consumption, New York: Blackwell.
\nBrown, B. and Sellen, A. Sharing and Listening to Music. In K. O’Hara and B. Brown, eds., Consuming Music Together: Social and Collaborative Aspects of Music Consumption Technologies. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2006, 37–56.
\nGreengard, S. Digitally possessed. Communications of the ACM 55, 5 (2012), 14–16
\nOdom, W., Zimmerman, J., and Forlizzi, J. Virtual Possessions. (2010), 368–371.
","timeToRead":7,"excerpt":"Project Name Compare and contrast the emotional connection that music consumers experience with physical music collections and music…","frontmatter":{"title":"Planning the research in more details","cover":"https://unsplash.it/1152/300/?random?SuperLong","date":"2020-11-07T00:00:00.000Z","categories":["Groundwork"],"tags":["ethics"]},"fields":{"slug":"/planning-the-research-in-more-details","date":"November 07, 2020"}}},"pageContext":{"slug":"/planning-the-research-in-more-details","nexttitle":"Catchup with my supervisor","nextslug":"/catchup-with-my-supervisor","prevtitle":"Reviewing my plan draft","prevslug":"/reviewing-my-plan-draft"}},"staticQueryHashes":["3969716136"]}