Despite the global nature of problems such as rapid depletion of fossil fuels and water resources, most of the solutions being developed to address these issues are based on studies done in the developed world. We conducted a study of energy, water and fuel conservation practices in urban India, replicating the work of Dillahunt et al., a qualitative study that explored the current practices, beliefs and attitudes of low-income households in two distinct U.S. locations. We used the same method, a photo-elicitation interview study, with 11 participants in Bangalore, India. Our study highlights deep conservation actions, which were influenced by the cultural context and different from the original work. Participants in our study shared motivations to conserve with participants in the previous study including scarcity, money, comfort and religion.
Presented at RepliCHI2013. Copyright © 2013 for the individual papers by the papers’ authors. Copying permitted only for private and academic purposes. This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
The purpose of this paper is to shed insight on our replication study. We discuss the purpose for conducting the replication study and describe the procedures we followed; we also provide information regarding access to procedures and data analysis techniques used from the original study. We discuss subtle differences in our procedure and how this may have affected our results and discuss key findings from our replication.
Energy; Sustainability; Developing World.
H.5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): Miscellaneous.
Human Factors; Design; Measurement.
The goal of our study was to elicit a detailed picture of
consumption and conservation practices and beliefs in
Indian households. Like some of the prior work
conducted in developed nations (primarily in the U.S.
e.g. [
The original study conducted used photo-elicitation
interviews [
We analyzed the data using the same technique
described in Dillahunt, et al. [
Though photo-elicitation interview studies have been conducted in the past and well documented, in replicating the original study, we identified some aspects of the study that needed to be taken into account across various populations. For example, we made some changes in the protocol to factor in new contexts such as cultural differences.
Next, we discuss our method and differences that may have affected the results between the two studies.
Prior conducting our study, we contacted the original researchers for their IRB material. This included recruiting detail, the surveys used to collect demographic information, and the specific script researchers read to participants. We made slight variations in the survey to accommodate for cultural context, such as the types of household appliances and transportation options. For example, we did not include dryers in our appliance list, as they were not as common among our population; we also added water heaters (Geyser) to the list. To understand conservation behavior we asked questions such as whether participants left the fan on to dry clothes, use solar water heaters to heat water, conduct regular refrigerator maintenance, and/or use inverters (UPS). We also removed questions related to religion and spirituality as few participants were offended or felt uncomfortable answering those questions (though we made answering those questions optional). One such question was if they were motivated to conserve resources to protect God’s creation. Access to this information helped in replicating the study method in its original form.
Despite being able to replicate all aspects of the study, there were some subtle differences that may have affected our results. These included the technology used to capture photos, payment, recruitment and the type of researchers conducting the study.
In the original study, participants used disposable cameras and at least one participant had never used a camera before the study. Our participants used either a digital camera or the cameras on their personal phones. Our participants had prior experience using the cameras. With these differences, participants using their own (digital) cameras may have felt more comfortable taking pictures and they may have been less concerned with running out of exposures. Though this unlikely had an impact on the results, it is a difference that should be considered.
The original study compensated participant for the time they spent during the interview. We had a different payment model. We did not pay our participants directly because we found during our interviews that participants were not interested in receiving payment. Instead, we paid our participants 2500INR to a charity organization for every 50 participants to complete our online survey (the results of our survey were removed from our final paper submission).
The original study was conducted as a university study, whereas we were industry researchers conducting the same study. We were studying two distinctly separate populations, which makes it unclear how this may have influenced participant attitudes. As both studies were conducted in participant households, this may have alleviated any differences participants felt in terms of how comfortable they were in being interviewed. Our methods for recruiting were limited because we conducted our study as a private organization. As a result, we did not advertise publically—we relied on word of mouth and snowball sampling, which may have added bias to our participants.
From an internal organizational perspective, the “IRB” process for working with participants is slightly more difficult than in university settings. Industry is concerned about privacy issues such as IP; however, whether or not this is transparent to participants and affects their attitudes was not well understood.
Many of our participants’ conservation practices and
motivations matched key categories of actions noted in
the original study; however, as expected, the findings
were not identical. We were able to contribute new
categories and also leverage a vocabulary described in
a more recent study, which provided evidence that the
authors’ framework generalized across different
populations and cultures [
We also saw how our results generalized with the study
we replicated and past studies of home energy
consumption in developed regions. For example,
participants in our study shared motivations to
conserve with participants in past studies of typical [
When looking to generalize across lower-income U.S. households, our participants did not mention many common conservation behaviors. Our examples included re-using plastic drinking bottles for storing oils instead of buying dedicated containers, packing a family of 5 or 6 onto a single moped, and washing dishes using sand, ash, or coconut husk where water is in short supply—all findings unique to Indian culture. However, India has wide socio-economical, cultural, and demographic diversity, which makes it difficult to know exactly how broadly these findings generalize even within the country.
The major reason for differences among our work and
the work replicated [
We believe we can offer three key insights from our replication study. First, having access to scripts that describe the research method, the surveys conducted, recruiting material, and access to a responsive original author, simplified our process. This information is often available in research Institutional Review Board documentation (IRBs); however, it is unclear whether this material is typically shared among researchers. Further, we are somewhat limited in our recruiting efforts due to the rigor required to advertise publically. This limited the types of participants that we could recruit and perhaps biased our results. Nevertheless, we found similarities between our results and the original study’s results, as well as similarities between other home consumption studies.
Finally, in our study, we found the need to modify our demographic and baseline survey to account for cultural differences that existed between our study population, such as the types of resources used.
Our replication was somewhat atypical as it was a replication of a qualitative study. However, our aim was not to replicate prior results. Our study was exploratory and we expected to see some conflicting results because of cultural and socioeconomic differences between the two populations; however, we anticipated some overlap as well. One topic for discussion is whether we can truly “replicate” a qualitative study. What exactly does it mean to replicate a qualitative study? Another question to consider is if using the same surveys was limiting in any way? We had to modify the survey based on cultural differences but was having the original material as a starting point a limitation?