As part of the information gathering and planning process, I used several methods geared toward synthesizing my research. These included process maps, sketches, motion studies, persona and scenario-building, and wireframes. The maps below show my thought processes in understanding both my target audience and the framework upon which I based my investigation. I created the audience maps using findings from Born Digital by John Palfrey & Urs Gasser and We the Media by Dan Gillmor. The argument maps are from and based upon The Uses of Argument by Stephen E. Toulmin.
Audience Map View Larger
Created using findings from Born Digital by John Palfrey & Urs Gasser and We the Media by Dan Gillmor
This audience map shows connections between the basic characteristics and typical information gathering behaviors of Millennial Citizen Journalists. Below, I have broken out and described the two main portions of the audience map.
back to top
Millennial Citizen Journalists
Created using findings from Born Digital by John Palfrey & Urs Gasser and We the Media by Dan Gillmor
In order to contextualize and focus my research investigations, I selected an audience of users which I deemed Millennial Citizen Journalists, based on research of the Millennial Generation and modern day citizen journalists. For purposes of my investigation, Millennial Citizen Journalists are American citizens, born between 1978 and 2003 who are not professional journalists but who maintain an online presence through self-published written opinions.
back to top
Information Gathering Behaviors
Created using findings from Born Digital by John Palfrey & Urs Gasser and We the Media by Dan Gillmor
After researching the Millennial Generation, I was particularly drawn to Born Digital, by John Palfrey and Urs Gasser. In their text, they describe the three typical information gathering behaviors of this generation: grazing, the deep dive, and the feedback loop. Based on these behaviors, I deduced that Millennial Citizen Journalists need tools to help them sort through an influx of information, assess its credibility, and contribute their opinions to the public discourse. For the design portion of my project, I proposed a system that could accommodate these characteristic information-gathering behaviors.
back to top
Stephen Toulmin’s Model of Argument
From The Uses of Argument by Stephen E. Toulmin
To inform my design studies, I adapted Stephen Toulmin’s Model of Argument as a foundationary underpinning and as a means of exploring my ideas. Toulmin, who was a British philosopher, focused on the structure of an argument, providing a method for practical application as opposed to theoretical study. In his Model of Argument, Toulmin laid out the components for the analysis of an assertion: claim, data, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, and backing. His model focuses on the finer structural details within an argument, rather than on the main organizational components of the whole. The original model is above, and I’ve reinterpreted it below to show how each component flows and relates to the overall structure of an argument. Toulmin’s model purports an informal logic that encourages criticality, allowing usage across multiple subject areas and levels of debate.
Created using findings from The Uses of Argument by Stephen E. Toulmin