|
RO.1 To analyze how members of the public, in face-to-face and online environments, reason and deliberate around the desirability of sociotechnical changes in three thematic areas.
|
Processes:
| | | |
|
Ways in which participants reason, agree/disagree, and ponder the desirability of sociotechnical changes within/across thematic areas.
|
√
|
√
|
√
|
|
The influence of group deliberations over the formation of one’s judgments (including the group moderator).
|
√
|
√
|
√
|
|
Outcomes:
| | | |
|
Similarities/differences within/across thematic areas in participants’ knowledge claims, normative assumptions and argumentative patterns.
| |
√
|
√
|
|
Similarities/differences between the two deliberative environments in how views are articulated and shared.
| |
√
|
√
|
|
RO.2 To identify usability and ethical issues raised by various design assumptions and features in three areas
|
Outcomes (to be interpreted in light of the scholarly literature):
| | | |
|
Usability and ethical issues that are addressed/ignored by participants within/across thematic areas.
| |
√
| |
|
Design assumptions and features considered desirable/undesirable, that predominate, are reframed or ignored by participants.
| |
√
| |
|
RO.3 To assess whether the sociotechnical scenario method fosters critical, reflective and creative deliberations around the design of health innovations
|
Processes:
| | | |
|
Appraisal of the audiovisual and written components of each scenario.
|
√
|
√
|
√
|
|
Participants’ level of engagement throughout the process and ability to relate to the protagonists’ and other participants’ stories.
|
√
|
√
|
√
|
|
Expressions of creativity, reflexivity and critical sharing of information.
|
√
|
√
|
√
|
|
Outcomes:
| | | |
|
Ways in which participants envision and describe the value of sociotechnical developments in healthcare.
| |
√
|
√
|
|
Critical observations toward design assumptions and features, and scope/depth of proposed alternatives (participants’ own conclusions).
| |
√
|
√
|
