Human factors research and practice - Part 2: bridging the gap

This article by Steve Shorrock and Amy Chung was published in The Ergonomist (newsletter of the Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors), March 2010. It is reproduced here to give more open access and to encourage further conversation on this issue.  Part 1 is here. The full article in the journal Ergonomics is at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00140139.2011.568636 (ask me for a preprint).

In the last article we outlined some of the quantitative findings from our survey of 587 practitioners regarding the application of ergonomics and human factors (E/HF) research. We concluded that the research practice gaps could be reduced by addressing a number of factors associated with the research, the organisation, and individual practitioners and researchers. In this Part 2, we report on the respondents’ top suggestions for how practitioners and researchers could improve research application. Respondents made 733 suggestions for practitioners and 781 suggestions for researchers. Below, we identify the top 5 suggestions for practitioners and researchers.

How practitioners can improve research application

1. Increase collaboration and communication between E/HF researchers and/or practitioners and increase contact, conferences, networking and association. Many of the suggestions concerned the relevance of the research focus to the ‘real world’. Typical comments included: “need to communicate real-world problems to researchers so that solutions can be researched”, “communicate the voids in research (as applied to the real world), perhaps in Letters to the Editors”. Other suggestions concerned a more collaborative working relationship, with suggestions such as “practitioners in research laboratories” and “researchers on the project team to provide strategic oversight”. One suggested “links with a research group that share your basic approach and philosophies”, while another suggested that practitioners “consult researchers using helpdesks”. Finally in this category were suggestions for more crossover workshops, dissemination clubs, and forums for discussion of current research. 

2. Read more and be more aware of the research, including more time to read research at work. Many respondents suggested that time to search literature should be built into projects. But several commercial conflicts were noted: “it’s hard to find the time if you work in consultancy; time is money and so if you commit to searching out and then reading papers they had better be good and useful (and a lot are not)!” Some respondents suggested seeking articles for a specific task/ job, but others hinted that this did not meet their needs (e.g. “figure out an easier way to monitor and filter research as it is published instead of searching for it when specifically required”). Some respondents suggested linking reading to personal development planning. 

3. Promote or obtain better awareness, support, cooperation, permission and authority for research application from decision makers, stakeholders, colleagues, organisation, Societies, other disciplines/ professions and public. One respondent suggested that “practitioners need to educate their customers and ‘translate’ research into everyday English for their customers to aid buy-in of its application”. Another noted that “more industry applications should be based on specific literature; clients should start looking for more than just a guru that says he knows what to do and should insist on evidence”. Other suggestions concerned allied professions (“feed HF into the tools and techniques other technical specialists use and own; translate our discipline into their language!”), and users (“make sure you have a strong link with operational people”). 

4. Provide more appropriate application of research findings to real problems. Several respondents argued for an evidence based approach (“seek evidence for their interventions – don’t just follow fads”). Another set of suggestions promoted more publishing of application (“provide real world application results in published work”). Other respondents suggested more collaborative application, such as “a mentor coaching relationship with researchers to help find solutions and test ideas”, or “researchers involved in the application environment.” However, several comments indicated that the horse should come before the cart. One respondent warned that practitioners should “address real world problems rather than invented abstractions.” Another stated they should “identify the problem, then identify the solution. Don’t go looking for places to make the research fit.” 

5. Carry out more research and publication, including replicating or extending research, addressing conflicting results and methodologies and specific themes or topics of research. Several of these emphasised relevance (“write more about ‘real/applied’ problems in practitioner/professional literature, so that researchers can keep up to date with current applied challenges.”) Many of the respondents suggested that practitioners publish case studies showing successful application. However, several highlighted the lack of outlets to do this (“this is a huge problem as practitioners don’t have a venue to do this”).

How researchers can improve research application

1. Ensure the research focus and methodology is more applied, real-world, relevant, germane, practical and generalisable to organisational environment. Many comments concerned the research focus: “focus research efforts on immediate HF problems relevant to industry”; “understand the needs of practitioners in real industrial environments and aim research at solving real problems”. Respondents frequently mentioned the external validity of methodology, especially the need for more field studies and more representative participants (“more in-situ studies; there is a difference in how people behave at work and in a laboratory”; “stop using simulators as the only means of data gathering”). 

2. Increase collaboration and communication between E/HF researchers and/or practitioners; increased contact, conferences, networking and association. Many of these had a dual focus on realism (“listen to industry about what research is required instead of deciding what is interesting!”; “by asking practitioners where they think the gaps are in research to back up their practice”). Others focussed on the need to collaborate with regard to outputs (“engage with industry working groups to tailor publications that educate without patronising, i.e. understand that the applied world is not the research world”; “researchers should work together with practitioners on ergonomics projects and stop sitting in their offices publishing loads of theoretical papers”). 

3. Form more definitive conclusions, and clearer implications, recommendations or applications when reporting. These suggestions were more focussed on the need to provide implications (“describe the outcomes in terms of tangible implications for practitioners”; “provide pragmatic recommendations, guidelines or applications when summarising their research findings”). One focused on the need for “better abstracts” and “clear articulation of ‘so what’ in human language”. Other respondents lamented “silly one-paragraph impact statements” and conclusions indicating that “further research is necessary”. 

4. Report text and statistical analyses in a different format (e.g. web, magazines, practitioner journals, society publications, summaries, database, email alerts) or in native language. These respondents suggested such alternative non-journal media should be used for “snippets” or “practitioner-friendly versions”. Coupled with the barrier that many practitioners don’t have time to read academic articles, such alterative formats may help uptake of research application if presented “in a form that industry can use”. 

5. Report text and statistical analyses in a more understandable, clear and readable manner in journal articles. Respondents emphasised the need for writing “in plain English that can be understood outside of their industry” and “dropping the academic jargon”. One responded starkly that academics should “get out of their ivory towers and speak a language that HF people and non-HF people can understand instead of psychobabble”. Another advised researchers to practise what they preach: “Write to your audience, apply the principles of HF to the writing of the article.”

Research and practice are sometimes painted as cosier bedfellows than appears to be the reality in E/HF. This work has highlighted the gaps and bridges between research and practice, but it is up to us to build and cross the bridges. We hope that the data derived from this study may spur motivation for more applicable research and more research application.

This article reported just the top suggestions for improved research application. What more can researchers do to improve application? What can practitioner do to turn theory or research findings into real world application? 

Human factors research and practice - Part 1: surveying the gap

This article by Steve Shorrock and Amy Chung was published in The Ergonomist (newsletter of the Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors), February 2010. It is reproduced here to give more open access and to encourage further conversation on this issue.  The full article in the journal Ergonomics is at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00140139.2011.568636 (ask me for a preprint).

As a “scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system”, and a profession that “applies theory, principles, data and methods to design” (according to the International Ergonomics Association), ergonomics and human factors (E/HF) practice should arguably be built upon a solid research base. But do practitioners actually apply research? Do they find it useful and usable? Despite a historical schism between researchers and practitioners, such questions have, perhaps unsurprisingly, been almost completely overlooked in the literature. Yet they are questions that have profound implications for the discipline and profession.

Photo credit: futureshape at http://flic.kr/p/S2VLM

A widening gap between research and practice has been observed in many disciplines, and especially concerns research published in academic journals. Researchers have found that, while academics place a high value on research, practitioners often do not. Practitioners are often largely unaware of relevant research, or do not implement research findings, or lament that the field is not practical or relevant enough. Understanding whether such a gap exists in E/HF is relevant to all researchers and practitioners. So we conducted a study to examine E/HF practitioners’ application of research findings published in scientific journals, in terms of levels of readership, usefulness, and barriers and facilitators to application.

A questionnaire was developed comprising questions about the practitioner, their access and attitude to published research, and possible barriers and facilitators to using research findings in practice. The questionnaire was targeted at practitioners who apply an understanding of E/HF to the design of interactions in real settings. We wrote to IEA federated E/HF societies to request that they ask for potential respondents. We also advertised the survey on E/HF LinkedIn groups, and emailed LinkedIn members and other professional contacts.

A total of 587 usable questionnaires were submitted from respondents working in 46countries. The top five countries in which respondents worked were US, UK, Australia, Netherlands and Canada, which also approximately reflected national ergonomics society membership. The respondents represented a wide range of organisational types, application areas, qualifications and industries. Respondents’ averaged estimated work time over the most recent 12 months as an active E/HF professional was split fairly evenly between research, application and education.

Respondents read an average of one scientific journal article per month concerning E/HF or related fields over their most recent12 months as an active E/HF professional. The three journals most frequently named as most useful to respondents as practitioners were Applied Ergonomics, Human Factors and Ergonomics. These were also the three most highly rated of the 13 IEA-endorsed journals (see www.tinyurl.com/IEAjournals), and only these journals, plus International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction and International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics were marked as having been read by 50% or more respondents.

Respondents rated E/HF or related scientific journals overall as moderately useful to them as an E/HF practitioner. Statistical analyses showed that reading frequency and overall journal usefulness were significantly higher for:

• respondents who worked in academic/research institutions, against other organisations;
• society members, against non-members;
• respondents who spent less than half their time applying E/HF, against those that spent more than half;
• respondents who spent more than half their time engaged in research, against those that spent less than half; and
• respondents who spent more than half their time engaged in research, against those who spent more than half their time on application.

There were no meaningful correlations between years of professional experience in E/HF and reading frequency, or between experience and overall journal usefulness.

The top five barriers to research application for respondents working in academic/research institutions were:

• “Decision makers won’t allow application of research”
• “The research has methodological inadequacies”
• “Key stakeholders won’t cooperate with application of research findings”
• “I don’t feel I have enough authority to change current organisational processes”
• “There’s insufficient time on the job to apply new ideas”

The top five barriers to research application for respondents working in other organisations were:

• “The relevant literature isn’t compiled in one place”
• “Implications for practice aren’t made clear in the article”
• “I don’t have time to read research”
• “The research isn’t relevant to my practice”
• “Journal articles aren’t readily available/accessible”

Four of the five top barriers for those in academic/research organisations were related to characteristics of the organisation, with only one related to the research. However, for non-academics the situation is reversed; four of the top five barriers were related to research, with only one related to the organisation.

The findings of the survey provide valuable insights into E/HF practitioners’ reported access to, and attitudes toward, research published in journals, and factors that hinder research application. The dominance of barriers related to the research itself for practitioners may parallel the drift from pragmatic to pedantic science in industrial, work and organisational psychology. The secondary organisational barriers may reflect the pressures in organisations to produce rapid results, contributing to a shift from pragmatic to popularist science in practice.

This research highlighted a number of gaps between research and practice associated with organisational affiliation, research/application involvement, experience, and ergonomics society membership. Those practitioners with the most power to effect change in organisations may, ironically, be benefiting least from E/HF research.

Further research is underway to examine the issues raised in more depth. However, the research-practice gaps could be reduced by addressing a number of factors associated with the research, the organisation, and individual practitioners and researchers. In Part 2, we report on the respondents’ suggestions for ‘bridging the gap’. We hope that this work may encourage a conversation within our discipline about the research-practice relationship.

So, what are the barriers to research application for you? How do you find and access useful and applicable research among the hundreds of HF articles published each month? What value does published human factors/ergonomics research have for humanistic practitioners? What others genres of research might be beneficial to a humanistic approach of human factors?

Empathy: A core condition for humanistic design

Many involved in human-centred design (ergonomics, human factors, UX, interaction design, etc) have an internal or external consulting role. Much of the time is spent thinking about task/interaction design, user interfaces, work environment, and many technical and project management issues. In getting caught up with the detail, we can forget something fundamental about consulting. That is, consulting is primarily a relationship business (see Peter Block). If you are a practitioner, client, co-worker or end-user or other project stakeholder, think about the design (or helping) projects that were most successful and enjoyable. Chances are, the quality of the relationships between those involved in the project was a critical factor, and something that you remember fondly. The positive relationships are more often causal to this success than consequential. 

If this is so, what facilitates these productive relationships? Research in the helping professions suggests that a key ingredient in effective relationships is empathy. In the context of therapeutic personality change, Carl Rogers argued that empathy within a relationship one of the ‘core conditions’ which create a climate conducive for growth and development. Daniel Goleman cited empathy is one of the five components of emotional intelligence at work, and empathic listening is one of the ‘seven habits of highly effective people’ according to Stephen Covey. 

Despite being such a fundamental human capacity, empathy is not often considered in scientific- or engineering-oriented disciplines, but human-centred design consulting involves consulting with people, about people, for people. In effective consulting, perhaps without realising, consultants (and consultees) use empathy to understand the perspectives of others, from their viewpoint. Empathy is a rich and complex concept, it may be viewed as a trait or state of a person, a process and a skill. Empathy is colloquially seen as 'walking in another’s shoes'. In this sense, empathy can be thought of as ‘perspective taking’; the ability to perceive accurately the frame of reference of another person while maintaining a sense of separateness - the 'as if' quality.

In 'humanistic design', we may empathise in several ways, for instance:

• emotionally, e.g. How might a plant worker be emotionally affected by a change to a new shift pattern? How might automation of the more engaging aspects of flying affect a pilot’s job satisfaction?
• cognitively, e.g. How might an air traffic controller’s decision making be affected by a new decision support tool? What might be the side effects of a new and more restrictive procedure introduced without worker involvement?
• physically, e.g. What physical challenges are faced by schoolchildren who must carry very large bags? How are less able travellers ‘disabled’ by the design of buses and trains? 
• socially, e.g. What might be the effect of family life of a new product for children? How might new working hours or travel requirements affect workers' social and community lives?
• ethically and morally, e.g. What is the effect of design decisions to improve the user experience on assembly line workers in the manufacturing plant? What ethical or value tradeoffs might be involved in the decision to purchase a product or service that may have contributed to harm to humans, animals, or the environment?

These questions can be addressed formally though scientific inquiry and informally via empathy. There need be no conflict between the two. Insight gained via empathic listening and observation can complement more formally acquired knowledge to better understand the fit between people and activities, artefacts and environments, and build the relationships that are necessary to improve this fit. An empathic approach can also detect the need for more formal scientific inquiry.

While human-centred designers may refine their knowledge about people via formal education, the foundation for this knowledge is our day-to-day experience of the encounters that we have throughout life. With this understanding, and the knowledge developed in formal education, we further our understanding via our professional relationships with the people that we help. 

Empathy helps to establish rapport, which helps develop an understanding of people’s behaviour as well as their values, attitudes, feelings, knowledge and skills, and the meanings that they ascribe to these. Fulton Suri notes that empathy helps us to learn ‘why’ as well as ‘how and what’ people do, and helps us to take a more holistic approach to the person. In some cases, empathy can help us to understand the person more accurately than the detailed models, and in a manner that is more timely than studies that may take many months – or years. So practitioners may use empathy as a qualitative research tool as well as a consulting skill.

The human-centred design disciplines are naturally focused on the 'user' (or rather, the person). But another group is often responsible for making decisions about users: clients (or sponsors, customers, project managers). Empathy with clients is vitally important to achieve change as a result of the intervention – to ensure that a recommendation becomes implemented and delivers the outcome desired. Empathy can help to create a working alliance with clients, and leverage commitment. How often do we consider what it is like to be a client? What are their values? What are their goals and expectations? What pressures and constraints impact their decision making? The same goes for other stakeholders, including those affected by the things - products, processes, procedures, etc -  that we design (beyond the 'user'). Perhaps we can also help decision makers to empathise with those who will be affected by their decisions, thus generating a climate conducive to the acceptance of human-centred advice.

Empathy is a fundamental human capacity, but effective empathy is not as intuitive as we may think. Bohart et al suggests that we can distinguish between three different modes of empathy. Adapted to a consulting perspective, these are:

• Empathic rapport: the consultant uses empathy to build rapport and support the consultee.
• Process empathy: a moment-by moment empathy for the consultee’s experience, cognitively, emotionally, and physically.
• Person empathy: this is known as ‘experiencing near understanding of the consultee’s world’ or ‘background empathy’.

But beware: losing the sense of separateness and impartiality may lead to ‘sympathy’ with the consultee. The consultant may become lost in the consultee’s world, even taking responsibility for the consultee’s decisions. In fact, sympathy can block the capacity for empathy and so can be counterproductive. For instance, while we generally strive to understand ‘end users’, if this leads to strong state of sympathy, then empathy with clients and colleagues (and even the end users themselves) may become very difficult. This will get in the way of acceptance of insights by decision makers and other stakeholders. I have seen this many times (and no doubt fallen for it myself too), not only in design but also in other aspects of human factors practice, such as incident investigation.

So, it can be concluded that empathy is a core condition for humanistic design (necessary but in itself not sufficient). What role does empathy have in training, practice and personal development, and how can empathy be fostered and used effectively? And what are the other core conditions? A little time diverted from our more formal approaches toward this fundamental issue will help us to remain centred on the human, and improve further the effectiveness of design and consulting.

Adapted from Shorrock, S. and Murphy, D. (2008). Empathy: a humanistic take on human factors. The Ergonomist, October 2008, 10-11.

Human Factors & Humanistic Psychology: Distant cousins

Human factors and humanistic psychology are two human disciplines that emerged from adversity during the same era (1940s and 1950s). Both focus on the human, and should have a lot in common. In some fundamental ways they do, but the commonalities are in principle rather than practice. This post begins to explore some possible links. 

Human factors (or ergonomics – the terms are ‘officially’ equivalent) is a discipline concerned with humans as part of sociotechnical systems. According to International Ergonomics Association (to which most other Societies, Associations and Institutes belong), human factors (or ergonomics) “is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of the interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theoretical principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize human well being and overall system performance.” 

The definition does not say anything about the human per se, and seems to formalise how practitioners actually relate to the many and various stakeholders in the process of system (and I mean socio-technical system) design. For me, the definition makes human factors practice out to be rather more Newtonian than is (or should be) the case. One of the essential “methods” that I use is otherwise known as ‘talking to people’, relating to them, listening to them, trying to empathise with them and their unique situation and perspective. This is a very human activity.

This focus on people, and especially the person, can become blurred in an age of advanced technology, large organisations and complex systems and procedures. The focus is not made any clearer by the scientific paradigm in which human factors professionals often operate; it is officially seen as a “scientific discipline” by the IEA but is more properly described as a blend of elements of science (to explain and predict), engineering (to design for improved performance), and craft (to implement and evaluate) (Wilson, 2000).

The craft-side of human factors is often most relevant to how I work as a practitioner, and it is the craft-side of human factors that I perceive to be most instrumental in the outcome of the practice of human factors. It is probably the most familiar role to the very large, perhaps majority, group of ergonomists who provide internal or external consulting services, and yet little is written about it. The science and engineering sides of human factors are essential, but the craft side humanises what we do, and makes the difference between whether decision makers and other stakeholders take notice (in the right way).

Humanistic psychology is a more craft-oriented discipline that could help to rehumanise human factors. While typically associated with counsellors and psychotherapists, humanistic practitioners (or practitioners of anything, working humanistically) may work in fields such as medicine, education, management and social work, and humanistic principles may be applied to organisational functioning. It is harder to pin down in terms of a definition, but the Association for Humanistic Psychology in Britain usefully summarise five basic postulates, which focus on a view of human beings rather than the discipline and profession (very human-centred!). 

1. Human beings, as human, supersede the sum of their parts. They cannot be reduced to components. 
2. Human beings have their existence in a uniquely human context, as well as in a cosmic ecology. 
3. Human beings are aware and aware of being aware – i.e., they are conscious. Human consciousness always includes an awareness of oneself in the context of other people. 
4. Human beings have some choice and, with that, responsibility. 
5. Human beings are intentional, aim at goals, are aware that they cause future events, and seek meaning, value and creativity.

What I see from the definition and postulates above is that both human factors and humanistic psychology are concerned with people, relationships and contexts. In principle, both also emphasise wholeness (e.g. the physical, cognitive, emotional, social, and in the case of humanistic psychology, the transpersonal), awareness (e.g. situation, of oneself, of others), choice and responsibility (e.g. safety-related behaviour), intentionality/goal-orientation, meaning (e.g. in interactions and experiences), values (e.g. safety and productivity), and creativity. 

In practice, several issues combine to fragment the human factors approach to the human (and the system), such as: the scientific paradigm of human factors research; the reward structures in academia; the funding mechanisms for research; the industry sector or application domain of practitioners; organisational structures, policies and processes; interdisciplinary divisions; regulatory requirements; and the tendency for specialism among human factors professionals. 

This drift toward fractionalism is manifested in several ways. The person is reduced to a ‘user’ or an ‘operator’. Cognitivism often clouds out other attributes of the person. Human performance variability is transformed to numbers via human reliability assessment. We may ‘analyse tasks’ without understanding meaning and values. Qualitative or action research is harder to publish. Sometimes a reductionist approach may be the only way within the constraints that exist, but often we don’t look for alternatives. Humanistic psychology, which emerged partly in response to the reductionist (behaviourist and psychoanalytic) ‘forces’ in psychology, may be able to reorient us when we become lost in the detail. 

Both human factors and humanistic psychology are about improving the human condition, but they go about this in very different ways. Perhaps we can become more humanistic in our approach to human factors in practice. In future posts, I will look at some aspects of how humanistic practice can be of value to human factors, along with other views on the state of human factors in research and practice.