Cyclists are ignorant to the potential dangers of using the road in Leeds.
What evidence did you find to support your decisions?
As a group we produced a vast amount of research in order to arrive at the above problem. Taking into consideration both secondary Internet research as well as conducting primary research in order to obtain statistics in support of our problem. We found the evidence mainly in the form of statistics and opinions. The following are quantitative facts statistic which I feel support our problem effectively:
• 20% of all road accidents involve a bicycle.
• 90% of West Yorkshire's cycling accidents occur in urban areas.
• 25% of cyclists killed are under 16.
• 60% of fatal cycle accidents have been caused by the cyclists
And this is a qualitative opinion that is also in support of our problem:
• ‘Cycling campaigns have encouraged a rush of inexperienced riders.’
We also realised that although cycling safety is a prominent issue; there is currently not a lot being done to resolve it, leaving a clear gap in the market.
What methods did you use to gather your evidence and what forms did it take?
Primary Qualitative
We had two main sources of Primary Qualitative research these were the answered we received from the slightly more open questions within the questionnaire and the photographs we took to show the confusion and possible dangers, which the current cycle lanes in Leeds provoked.
Primary Quantitative
We received Primary Quantitative research purely from a questionnaire that we handed out and received answers from mainly students, but we also tried our best to verbally question random members of the public in the city centre, Hyde Park and Headingly. After combining all of these sources, we formed pie charts to represent the data.
Secondary Qualitative
To obtain Secondary Qualitative research we used majorly Internet research combined with newspaper articles, to support our problem.
Secondary Quantitative
To obtain Secondary Quantitative research we again worked mainly with the Internet, in order to build up a strong amount of facts from previously undertaken studies.
What methods of research did you find useful and why?
Personally I feel that it was the combination of varied approaches to research, which enabled us to have a strong argument that our proposed problem deserved a resolution. The Internet research gave us the facts, from already undertaken surveys and the primary questionnaire gave us a large amount of quantitative research to further support the problem.
How did these inform your response to your problem?
It enabled us to direct out resolution towards the people that would be affected by our issue.
What methods did you encounter as problematic?
I think there were two main flaws within our research; these were the ways in which we sourced our research. Secondary research was majorly sourced from only the Internet and primary research was sourced from a variety of people, but perhaps not a balanced range of sources. Also the general public were not very helpful and often quite rude.
How did you overcome this?
Possibly the main problem was the public, which you can obviously never control, perhaps only encourage them to be more positive.
What research could you have carried out that would have proved more useful?
Everything we produced worked well together, but we lacked the breadth and varied amounts of research we could have pushed to interview different types of people, especially current cyclists themselves.
Five things that I have learnt about the design process.
1. How to structure the collection of varied research
2. How to effectively categorise research.
3. The more research produced across a broader range, the more opportunity you have to decide on a final direction.
4. How to effectively prepare a presentation in order to get the best possible feedback.
5. The stronger and more thorough your research, the more effective your resolution will be.
Five things I would do differently next time.
1. Find a way of encouraging a broader range of primary sourced research
2. Decide on a definite problem sooner, in order to concentrate the detail.
3. Summarise the key points of my research to present a stronger point to my group.
4. Push each idea further to realise possible potential.
5. Be more constructive within the group, in order to get the most out of each other, as I’ve found constructive crits are more useful than polite comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment