Bridging the gap between research and practice – let’s talk

An article from The Ergonomist in February 2013 written with Steve Shorrock and Amy Chung

Most people who read The Ergonomist would acknowledge that there are differences between the challenges that researchers and practitioners face on a day-to-day basis. Furthermore, the value placed on different types and formats of research, will, invariably, change based upon the individual challenges faced. The stereotypical view is that those in academia are more focused on the fundamental understanding of the interactions among humans and other elements of a system; whereas, those working in industry are more interested in the application of tools and techniques in order to optimise human well-being and overall system performance.

Making the, somewhat contentious, assumption that the readership can be broadly divided into two groups (researchers and practitioners), most would probably agree that there is much benefit from collaboration between the two groups. Practitioners need to remain up-to-date with substantial advances in thinking, and researchers must demonstrate the application of their research. As such, the application of research has clear advantages to researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and the public. Increasing collaboration, communication and networking between researchers and practitioners was the most cited suggestion by human factors and ergonomics practitioners in the largest study conducted on the research-practice relationship in Human Factors and Ergonomics (see References).

Our experience is that the level of collaboration is often inconsistent, and frequently reliant on individual contacts or networks, and has varied success. Given this, we contend that more could be done to increase the level of collaboration between researchers and practitioners. We will be hosting a discussion session at the upcoming IEHF conference in April to discuss (1) in which areas collaboration is needed, and (2) the appropriate mechanisms for supporting this collaboration. During the discussion, we would especially like to hear your stories of collaboration – what worked well, what did not, and how could collaboration be optimised to bridge the gap between research and practice? It would be great to see you there and hear your thoughts.

References

Shorrock, S.T. and Chung, A. (2010). Human factors research and practice Part 1: Surveying the gap. The Ergonomist, February, 4-5. http://db.tt/EV5uLuSi

Shorrock, S.T. and Chung, A. (2010). Human factors research and practice Part 2: Bridging the gap. The Ergonomist, March, 4-5. http://db.tt/oOUO28So

Shorrock, S.T. and Chung, A. (2010). Human factors research and practice Part 3: Crossing the bridge. The Ergonomist, April, 6-7. http://db.tt/p2Q4Shr

See original article: http://www.sociotechnic.com/articles/theergonomist_Feb2013.pdf

Wikipedia - A call to arms

An article from The Ergonomist in January 2013

For many, Wikipedia is the destination of choice when we are presented with an unfamiliar term or reference. In the right situation, it’s a very useful tool. Well-developed entries contain a succinct definition and description along with a list of more traditional peer-reviewed references for more information.

For others, notably those that have received formal deliverables that reference Wikipedia directly, it can be a source of frustration. One of Wikipedia’s greatest strengths, the fact that anyone can add to it, is also one of its weaknesses. The reliability and the quality of the entries can be questionable. Recent cases in the press highlight this issue; a 25 year-old American student was falsely identified as the cofounder of the Independent newspaper in the Leveson enquiry report.

When the former editor of encyclopaedia Britannica read the entry “encyclopaedia” he gave it 5 out of 10, stating that it left him with the “impression that it was written by someone who had no previous knowledge of the subject and who, once he got into it, found it did not interest him very much.” Likewise, when the editor of Vogue was asked to look at the entry on ‘Haute couture’ she found it “broadly speaking inaccurate and unclear”, with “few correct facts” and “every value judgement wrong”. Zero out of ten.  Not that it matters too much because chances are, by the time you read this, the entries will have changed.

Love it or hate it, with around 600 million page views per day, it is safe to say that Wikipedia will be around for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, at the time of writing, Wikipedia entries are the ‘top hit’ for Google searches on ‘ergonomics’ and ‘human factors’. With this in mind, as a society, the obvious question is, should we be doing more to participate in the upkeep of the entries that are relevant to our discipline?

If your answer to the previous question was yes, and you are interested in increasing the accuracy and the quality of the entries on the Wikipedia site, we are proposing a session at the next IEHF conference this April, in Cambridge, to make some changes. So please come along, armed with your laptop, tablet or smart phone, and help improve the quality of the relevant entries.

see article http://www.sociotechnic.com/articles/theergonomist_Jan2013.pdf