Database Reference
In-Depth Information
this explains the almost monotonic choice for splitting up activities. Correspondent R7 had
different considerations, but could also explicitly support his deviating score.
Correspondents R2, R5 and R13—of whom the individual scores signifi cantly cor-
responded with our cohesion metric—were much less outspoken about their considerations.
They considered the dilemmas one by one, without a general design motive. Correspondent
R5 admitted that she was highly intrigued by the relation between her opinion and the cohe-
sion metric, while at the same time she could not explicitly support most of her decisions
in retrospect.
Discussion
From the second part of the analysis it follows that the opinion of each individual
correspondent reasonably well corresponds with the group's average ( Corr R_avg ): The
opinion of 11 out of 14 respondents signifi cantly corresponds with this average; for half of the
correspondents this signifi cance is high. This gives us some reassurance that comparing the
average respondent's score is a good measure for refl ecting the group's opinion. Combined
Table 3: Data and Analysis of the Web Survey (1 = combine, 2 = combine/split, 3 = split)
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8
D1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
D2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
D3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
D4
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
D5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
D6
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
D7
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
D8
3
1
3
1
3
3
1
1
D9
3
1
3
2
3
3
1
3
D10 1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R_avg H
D1
2
3
3
3
3
3
2.8
3
D2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1.1
1
D3
1
3
3
2
3
1
2.5
3
D4
2
3
3
1
3
3
2.7
3
D5
1
1
3
1
1
1
1.3
1
D6
1
1
3
2
1
3
1.5
1
D7
1
3
3
2
1
3
2.5
2
D8
1
3
3
1
3
1
2.0
3
D9
2
3
1
2
1
1
2.1
3
D10
1
1
3
1
1
1
1.4
2
Search WWH ::




Custom Search