the work occurred, such as the timing, duration, intent, and notable features of wrangling session. As in an elicitation study, I also instructed participants to record their work in a minimal form, such that there would be enough detail to recall the issue (such as the name of a difficult tag) without requiring them to stop and explain the complexities of the situation at that time. The diary protocol appears in Appendix A. The diary protocol I distributed to participants is an event-contingent protocol. Event-contingent protocols are ideal for capturing each instance of an event, particularly when that event does not conform to a predictable schedule (Iida et al., 2012; Ohly, Sonnentag, Niessen, & Zapf, 2010). I instructed participants to complete the form for each session of wrangling tasks, with an understanding that participants could make adjustments for styles of wrangling that were not conducive to this pattern (e.g., several short periods of work throughout the day). Diary studies carry two considerable drawbacks: difficulty and burden (Carter & Mankoff, 2005; Iida et al., 2012; Ohly et al., 2010). They carry a risk common to any protocol participants complete independently, namely that the participants might misunderstand a difficult protocol and fill it out incorrectly. One way to alleviate potential difficulty is to provide a sample, instructional diary to participants. Doing so risks participants conforming to the example, which is counter to the goal of capturing participants’ diverse experiences and understandings of their work. I took an opposite approach in designing a diary protocol with few constraints outside of a few factual questions (e.g., time is it?”). The protocol was open-ended and allows for “What participant interpretation. For example, the instruction to record example of a “an complex wrangling task” did not define but instead allowed participants to “complex,” define this term for themselves. Nina provided the following examples of wrangling tasks
the work occurred, such as the timing, duration, intent, and notable features of wrangling session. As in an elicitation study, I also instructed participants to record their work in a minimal form, such that there would be enough detail to recall the issue (such as the name of a difficult tag) without requiring them to stop and explain the complexities of the situation at that time. The diary protocol appears in Appendix A. The diary protocol I distributed to participants is an event-contingent protocol. Event-contingent protocols are ideal for capturing each instance of an event, particularly when that event does not conform to a predictable schedule (Iida et al., 2012; Ohly, Sonnentag, Niessen, & Zapf, 2010). I instructed participants to complete the form for each session of wrangling tasks, with an understanding that participants could make adjustments for styles of wrangling that were not conducive to this pattern (e.g., several short periods of work throughout the day). Diary studies carry two considerable drawbacks: difficulty and burden (Carter & Mankoff, 2005; Iida et al., 2012; Ohly et al., 2010). They carry a risk common to any protocol participants complete independently, namely that the participants might misunderstand a difficult protocol and fill it out incorrectly. One way to alleviate potential difficulty is to provide a sample, instructional diary to participants. Doing so risks participants conforming to the example, which is counter to the goal of capturing participants’ diverse experiences and understandings of their work. I took an opposite approach in designing a diary protocol with few constraints outside of a few factual questions (e.g., “What time is it?”). The protocol was open-ended and allows for participant interpretation. For example, the instruction to record “an example of a complex wrangling task” did not define “complex,” but instead allowed participants to define this term for themselves. Nina provided the following examples of wrangling tasks
Bullard-Dissertation-ClassificationDesign.docx