Ethnography and Game Studies

I think that Boellstorff brings up some interesting points in his article about ethnography and game studies. In his article, he briefly unpacks the meaning of “participant observation” and its inherent oxymoron – “that you cannot participate and fully observe at the same time.” He states that it is within this paradox that anthropologists do their best work. He explains that participant observation implies a critical engagement that blurs the line between the researcher and the researched and that it is a method based on failure and learning from mistakes.

I think that it is very useful that he frames this method as a method based on failure. If you are going to study something that is unpredictable and complex, it helps to be unafraid of ambiguities, to be able to keep a steady pace without pausing too long in hesitation at potential bumps in the road. It has always seemed to me that games were a better metaphor for life than other types of art that are commonly thought of as imitations of life (film, music, drawings, etc.)

Games are so dependent on experience and engagement that they do not even seem to exist without participation. When a researcher takes it upon themselves to study a game, they must truly go down the rabbit hole – if they do not immerse themselves then they will not really be studying the heart of the game (which consists experience, involvement, action and reaction, emotion, and other human dimensions). They will merely be looking at superficial elements such as the graphics or the mechanics, and therefore might as well be studying a drawing or car. I think that it is important to make this distinction between games and other types of media.

I also think it is interesting how Boellstorff differentiates between three types of game studies: 1) game cultures, 2) cultures of gaming, and 3) the gaming of cultures. In Boellstorff’s description, each level of gaming study seems to broaden the scope of the game studies field. His description very much convinces me that the field of game studies in a complex, multi-level research area that deserves more attention.

I myself do not play any games and cannot claim particular awareness of the first category of gaming research, i.e. “game cultures.” I don’t think I can easily become familiar with a game culture unless I played myself (participant observation). However, I can easily relate to “cultures of gaming” and the “gaming of cultures” because these domains exist in the physical world, and I can also see them at play in my own life with respect to friends and colleagues who do play games. I think that there is an assumption that the only people who would want to study games are those who play themselves, but from Boellstorff’s explanation of the two other ways that gaming can be studied, I can see that anyone with an interest in culture (and not necessarily specific games) would be wise to consider game studies as an area for intellectual study.

Commodification of Academic Research

I just came across this interview with Hans Radder, a Dutch academic, on the commodification of academic research. Figured some of you might be interested.

Ethnographic challenges

This week's reading and today's class discussion has raised a lot of questions and challenges for me in terms of conducting my own research, although that is by no means a negative thing.

For instance, when we were discussing the difference between passive and covert observation, that got me thinking: which one would be applicable in an international context? For instance, if I mean to study the link between religion, politics and access to information in a traditional patriarchal society like Egypt, I'm going to have to study Al-Azhar in-depth or else my study is incomplete. Al-Azhar is by no means co-ed, and not to downplay the female section but the male section is where all the scholarly and political action is (unfortunately). So it got me thinking: how do I get in? I can't just "hang out" in a casual manner, nor can I sit in a corner taking notes. What is a way of overcoming this hurdle that doesn't involve disguising as a man or getting a spy-for-hire to observe and report back to you? Should I forget about first-hand observation all together and just rely on formal interviews? Interviews are no match for observing someone in their natural setting; people just aren't being completely 'themselves' when they are being interviewed. But I won't give up just yet, and all suggestions are welcome!

What I am looking at is actually "Why" but not "What"

Weeks ago when we were talking about "Focus Group" research method, I was struggling and debating with myself -- when I was doing my undergrad Management courses, one of my professors were strongly opposed to the idea of "Focus Group" in general and university students as sampling in particular. I bought in his idea that "focus group" with inappropariated sampling will lead to "group think", which will result in strongly bias. Therefore, within the past two weeks I kept struggling with myself on the sampling scope issues. Finally I have seen the light from Lucker's Field (and Other) Methods chapter. As Luker (2008) mentioned, "Regardless of whether things happened the way people said they did, what interests us is that people chose to tell us that they happend that way. Interviews are, almost by definition, accurate accounts of the kinds of mental maps that people carry around inside their heads, ad that it is this, rather than some videotape of "reality", which is of interest to us" (167). So what I should be looking at is not about what the interviewees have said, but rather why they would choose to say so. In this way, even there is a group think, by looking at the process for them to come up with the similar answers I can actually identify the social pattern thus locate the issues or conflicts.
Besides, Luker interview question design is also insightful to me. In my preliminary research project, I have designed to interview several senior managerial staff of my research subject organization. Now that I have read Luker's interview questions, I will have to redesign my own questions so as to make them lead my interviewees to the issues of the organization that they might not aware of or would not be willing to address unless I ask.

Let's take a poll....

Bill O'Reilly, in his now notorious appearance on "The View," cited a poll that said 70% of Americans were against building a mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.

I have only recently started to question quantitative research findings, since we began INF1240. How many times have we come across so-called 'research findings' in the news, newspapers, magazines, and actually asked ourselves, "How did they come up with this data? What questions did they ask? How many people did they sample? What was their margin of error?" Anyone reading this blog entry can easily come up with ten more questions.

The poll O'Reilly was referring to is an opinion research poll conducted by CNN:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/08/11/rel11a.pdf

CNN interviewed 1009 people over the phone. They felt that number was sufficient enough to issue a definitive statement that 70% of over 300,000,000 Americans opposed the mosque. Should the survey have asked them to list reasons for their answer? Does it matter what their reasons are? How much time did the respondents take to actually think about what the 41 questions were asking? Is it possible the questions were designed to illicit negative responses? Personally, I know if I'm forced to take a phone survey characterized by such long-winded questions, I respond mindlessly without thinking about what the question is really asking. I think, "Who cares? It's just a survey. I just want to get off the phone."

But to Bill O'Reilly and (judging by the thunderous applause he received and the video comments on YouTube) to many others, it is not just a survey. It amounts to rhetorical ammunition.

Guess the moral of the story is: never underestimate the power of a CNN poll.

Rare Disease Patients and Privacy Risk

It wasn't until I read Luker's chapter for this week and saw a guest presentation in INF1001 that I came to a conclusion regarding my sample – assuming it actually is a conclusion. Following a guest lecture in INF1001 regarding the social networking website for patients called patientslikeme.com, it sort of hit me. I've consistently been struggling with an exciting “place” online where I could carry out research regarding the relationship between altruism and personal revelation. I think I may have found it. Patientslikeme.com is an extremely interesting website that encourages patients of varying diseases to share their medical history. That data is stored, analysis on that data is done via some algorithm, and then shared with the community in an attempt to better understand diagnoses, symptoms, and treatments of similar patients.

The interesting part is that the community tends to be more or less split up into two halves: those with common diseases and those with rare diseases. Each user has a profile, which takes quite a long time to fill out. Additionally, each profile consists of modules, which are meant to be filled out over time and with varying granularity. What I'm principally interested in is whether patients with rare diseases, in relation to those with common diseases, divulge more information more often – I would do my best to sample either population according to available statistics. The “so what” of this is to, as my hypothesis would suggest, potentially find that rare disease patients are more likely to participate in personal revelation in an attempt of empathetic altruism. In other words, they understand the systemic limitations of rare disease diagnoses and treatment. Perhaps a greater knowledge base could mitigate some of these failures. In addition, and most importantly, what that could suggest is that those on the margins of the “disease-occurrence spectrum” are at greater risk of personal privacy exploitation. Additionally, risk analysis could be extremely useful in such a study.

Research for the sake of research?

After this weeks readings --- experiment, quasi-experiment, sampling, confidence intervals, control groups, generalizations, surveys, pilot testing, I am in full data overload. Reserach on research methods, ethnography, small populations, niche populations, general populations, the list goes on. My head is spinning and yet at peace. Now, I completely understand more than ever that there is nothing... no sacred topic, nothing too small, nothing too big... that cannot in some fashion be brought to study. It is what seems to make the world go round. So this afternoon, I took to the newspaper and made a concerted effort to see how many front page news items were related to some research paper that has just come out --- the answer.... of the 3 front page news items....2 were directly related to presenting research facts. It's quite simply everywhere!! And so, no matter if my SSHRC is accepted or if I go on to do my thesis, these valuable methods if nothing else will help me enjoy and dissect the Saturday paper with coffee.

Ethnography

I'm pretty sure most people have seen Michael Wesch's video in which he and his students embark on an ethnographical study of YouTube. It got me thinking about the research methodology itself, and how it almost seems like an oxymoron. Researching anything implies a degree of detachment; otherwise, how can you be objective? But ethnographical research requires you to immerse yourself in the thing which you are studying. Does that detract from the scholarly integrity of your work? Or does it do the opposite and add to its authenticity?

I am also thinking about ethnography in terms of my own research proposal. In general terms, I wonder if it is even possible to detach yourself from what you are studying. Can I, a Muslim, be an objective or even neutral observer of Islam and Muslims?

Research Proposal Assignment

This week as I was working on my research proposal assignment, I found myself frequently referencing Chapter 5 of Luker's book, which deals with literature review. As I was searching through social science databases for articles relevant to my topic: "Social Anxiety Disorder and Online Support Forums", I often felt that I wasn't using the right keywords for my searches. I became apprehensive about whether or not there really wasn't much on my specific intersection of interests, or whether it only seemed that way because my search skills were poor. I ended up using Luker's method of creating a daisy. I used a thesaurus to make sure I had all synonyms covered, and I also tried to look at my topic not only from a social sciences perspective, but also from a technology perspective. The multi-disciplinary nature of research topics these days definitely forces you to be more creative when you think about ways to find information on a topic. It can become a case of not knowing where to begin not because there doesn't seem to be any logical starting point, but because too many starting points are possible.

Collaboration as Peer Review

I've had a few opportunities recently to explore how collaboration facilitates peer review, with a notable example being this blog! We quiet, shy, studious types, often batting ideas around the gymnasiums of our heads, too consumed to nod at each other in the hallways... somehow manage to deliver insightful, biting, and even inspiring comment and criticism to each other regularly. Initially with Mike's post about Open Data, we've managed to turn this blog into a real arena of shared inquiry.
Lately, I've been attending the iTable lunch series (Brian has, as well), where an author has a chance to receive fairly informal peer review from faculty and grad students. There's a bit of verbal jousting, lots of questioning, some exposition, and a really rich exchange of ideas in an environment where few seem apprehensive about expressing their thoughts. But is this sort of informal gathering the best way to throw balls at the wall? Does the fact that digital text is revisable make it less intimidating than the immediate judgment arising from sticking one's hand in the air? One interesting thing about active (live) collaboration, is it allows so many atoms of thought to smash against each other in immediate succession that a fairly anarchic explosion is possible. Cohesion might be missing, but the conversation, criticism, review, and what-have-you usually takes on a more organic form.
What does that mean for this class? For this blog? Are we missing the charged environment of a traditional graduate seminar?

Public libraries and social change

I admittedly scrapped several daisies while jumping from topic to topic, and I was pretty distraught with my inability to come up with a specific research question… I think I have finally narrowed down my ideas to something which may work for me though. I knew that I wanted to focus on the concept of the public library as a means for social change. So from there, I think the direction which might work well for me is exploring some of the core values of the public library (I think I will focus on Toronto, but maybe not) specifically with issues surrounding equity, diversity and participation, and what the limitations might be for librarians in terms of maintaining those values. I also thought that a good way to narrow that down would be to focus on newcomers to Canada… So in terms of methods, I suppose I might be relying largely on interviews, since I would be drawing a lot from people's (librarians') direct experiences.

Caitilín

Reflection of Lego Serious Play

I found David Gauntlett's research project on "creative explorations" very interesting and relevant to my interest in mental health. Visual techniques such as drawing and painting are already used in psychologists' offices to help people uncover and express their emotions. This is especially the case in offices that work with children.

Gauntlett explains that it can be difficult for people to synthesize their knowledge, thoughts, and feelings when put on the spot. In the traditional interview setting, people are often asked a question that they have to respond to immediately. Due to social norms, people can be uncomfortable asking for "time to think." This exercise solves this problem because thinking time is built in.

Participants can also use their products to cue themselves as they tell their stories. I think that this could be very useful for people who have difficulty speaking to unfamiliar people, such as those with Social Anxiety Disorder. It is very difficult to interview this segment of the population because their inherent fear of people makes them 1) unlikely to volunteer to be interviewed, 2) so charged with anxiety and other negative emotions that they often have difficulty communicating even when they want to.

I plan to explore Art Lab further and will also look into getting a copy of Gauntlett's book, "Creative Play."

Focus Groups and Reliability (or do you mean validity?)

Lunt and Livingston suggest that a focus group “...acts as a context that challenges, asks for elaboration, and demands examples of claims that people make. In rhetorical terms, the group acts as if conducting an inquiry, and there are, therefore, reliability checks in the operation of pragmatic norms for communication in groups” (93).

This is interesting on a number of levels. The authors appropriate the idea of focus group participants as agents of reliability. Assuming reliability is the accurate reproduction of findings in duplicate research then perhaps the authors meant to say validity, or more specifically, construct validity. Validity can be understood as a measure of representativeness of research findings outside of a controlled environment.

In this context, the authors compare focus groups to surveys, wherein it is mentioned that surveys can not provide for the same checks of reliability. How is it possible for any form of lightly structured interviewing technique to produce any form of significant reliability? It is clear that this becomes an issue of semantics, which in this case is quite apparent. It also appears to be apparent that the authors may have meant something different than they communicated.

Lunt and Livingston suggest that there “...are no such checks in survey research, which may be seen rhetorically as a highly reduced dialogue between researcher and researched” (93). If the claim relates to the truth value in participant responses, as the authors suggest, then there are indeed methods for controlling inaccurate, false, or misleading responses. Occasionally, the researcher may want to ask the same question, but reword it. This functions as a sort of double-checking, wherein respondents are tested on their focus during the survey. It is not as effective as face-to-face interrogation; however it is certainly possible.

Construction and Conveyance of Meaning

I was at an academic/social event the other day, and upon being introduced as someone studying "information" and consequently having to explain what I am "interested" in, I had a curious exchange that, I think, is relevant to topics coming up in both Lunt/Livingstone and Luker. While (mostly) blathering endlessly about my varied interests in the history of information architecture, the confluence of information and human-computer interaction, and the materiality of wearable computers, I managed to spark my listener's interest by bringing up something that was... surprise... topical! I had read, earlier that day, that a team of Japanese physicists have managed to create an information heat engine, capable of converting information into energy. Of course, when I tried to explain how this heat engine would work, and what was the relevance to 1) my research interests and 2) the study of information, I immediately stumbled, trying to draw constellations of disconnected ideas together in an attempt to seem as if I knew what I was talking about. I assumed that I kind of did when I brought the topic up, but I am not a physicist, or an information architecture professional, or a nanoengineer.
Anyway, upon later reflection I realized that, instead of making myself (and my research goals) seem interesting, I probably had the opposite effect. Luker referred to synthesizing research and preparing your "material" so that it would be presentable to your smartest, harshest critics and colleagues. Paraphrasing Lunt and Livingstone, "The audience is seen, not as an aggregate of atomized opinions or attitudes, but as individuals located in concrete social groups who construct meaningful social action partly through the discursive interrogation of texts." (Lunt and Livingstone, page 85)
This is, of course, referring to a television audience in a completely different context. But reading this description has prompted me to think about my "audience" and how I convey meaning that I have haphazardly constructed. When I describe my research interests, I get a lot of blank stares. I suppose I need to think about whether this is a result of trying to fuse disjointed ideas and cultures of knowing on my part. I also need to decide whether the "audience" I'm speaking with has ever come across what I'm discussing, and whether it might be relevant to their interests. Finally, I need to situate my presentation - because, make no mistake, that's what this is - in something concrete and tangible. I imagine the latter will come as a result of taking a careful look at how I derive meaning from the themes I am interested in.  

The Bedraggled Daisy vs. The PhD Dent

Did anyone else see the "Illustrated Guide to a Ph.D." meme that made its way around the internet a few weeks ago? If not, I invite you see it here: http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/.

Luker's "Bedraggled Daisy" immediately brought this to mind. I think (hope?) that the author of the Ph.D. Dent may have had his tongue planted firmly in his cheek when writing it, the thoroughly demoralizing line "keep pushing" in particular. Still, it seems that the Ph.D. Dent may serve as an accurate representation of Luker's conception of canonical research and a contrast to the image of her Bedraggled Daisy.

I'm happy to see that the Bedraggled Daisy is working for some of you: I've been dutifully following the exercises that Luker provides at the end of each chapter though, to be honest, I haven't much benefitted from them -- the Bedraggled Daisy included -- despite my best intentions. Like Gabby I'm a natural inter-disciplinarian (or multi-disciplinarian, though these are slightly distinct in my mind but that's a post in itself) though I do value time spent in deep focus on a single subject: I wrote a thesis on a very specific subject as an undergrad (a particular image that Nietzsche used discretely throughout his writing) and it turned out to be one of my greatest accomplishments. Regardless, I'm finding it difficult to find that focus this time around and I've found that the Bedraggled Daisy has only compounded the problem.

Of all the exercises that Luker has proposed, her insistence on establishing a research question has been the most helpful for me. I don't normally frame research projects in terms of a guiding question but, at Luker's insistence, I'm attempting to do so this time around. And though it hasn't been a clear success just yet, the contortions that I'm forcing my mind to go through feel like good exercise. I've been asking myself questions like: how do things like contracts and agreements inhibit or constrain creativity, innovation, and rational behaviour? Is the info-glut phenomenon compromising our capacity for meaning-making? Is our ability to engage in productive, creative play being inhibited in the 'Information Age'?

Each of these questions reflects some aspect of my research interests (interpretation, meaning-making, play, and the contemporary limitation thereof) but none adequately encapsulates all of these interests. Still, I feel like this line of questioning is circling around something and that I'm getting closer to articulating a strong research question. That said, I'm sceptical that I'll be able to find a single, stable question that will guide my research from beginning to end, though I don't think Luker is necessarily advocating such a question. Is anyone else struggling with the research question?

Refer to the Goodies

It is really useful to look at how others have done to win the SSHRC so as to give myself a clue on how to write my own proposal. The SSHRC Number 2 ( musical knowledge) is a well organized example, so I would use the following reviews as a reminder for my own SSHRC proposal:

1. Program of Study Statement
In this section,the applicant has stated his/her personal live long endeavor in the research interest on music. The statement here has connected the writer's undergrad background with the current MI post-grad program. In this way, readers can at least ensure that the applicant is not researching on an alien field.

2. Context
The applicant has smartly framed his/her research method course as "a fruitful collaboration" with the course instructor, who is a specialist in ethnographic research. In this way, the applicant tries to give an impression that he/she has teamed up with the professor. Personally I don't like such claim, but apparently the SSHRC buys it.

The applicant also clearly identify the research needs, which is to fill the current research gaps.

3. Objectives
This is the part for the case study. The applicant has chosen a hot and sexy topic: flamenco guita. Even though I don't have a musical background, the flamenco guita at least sounds fascinating. Moreover, the research target is an RCM professor's studio, the students and the professor. The academic background of the research targets also sound like strengths of the research topic.

4. Methodology
Here the applicant refers back to the research method course instructor again. This time, it is not "collaboration". Instead, it is "under the supervision" so as to reassure the professionalism of the research methodology. Besides, the applicant has presented multi-layers and interdisciplinary research methods, which further ensure the plurality of the research project.

5. Contribution to the advancement of knowledge
This is the "why" section. The applicant mentioned that this research project can further inspire other researches on broader interdisciplinary fields such as "information science, ethnomusicology, music education and system design".

As learned from the Monday class, it matters the most on "framing" in the SSHRC proposal. The review on this music knowledge research proposal has reminded me one thing -- the SSHRC funders might know something about everything, but not necessarily aeverything about one thing. Therefore, the most important part in the proposal grant writing is the way that you frame your project, to make it relevant to the current and hot topics. Yet, do we have to do our own research project "under the supervision" of Sara?

Research woes

I admit I felt unsettled after reading the sample SSHRC proposal, which is intimidatingly organized and focused compared to my half-hearted attempt. My two passions are Islamic and information studies (my private fantasy is to achieve the impossible and become the first female librarian of Al Azhar's library, revolutionizing the entire collection to include liberal, revisionist views of Islam, and thus paving the way for reform in the Islamic world). Hey, I can dream!
The problem I am facing is developing a research question. The connection between interpretations of Islam and the dissemination of information, the monopolies of knowledge and intellectual freedom (or lack thereof) and censorship, Muslims' limited exposure to books versus their primary exposure to oral forms of communication (Friday prayer sermons, speeches and lectures by clerics) and the ensuing and corresponding mentalities / mindsets...these are all areas, not questions. And how do you study something so vast? Focus groups, one-on-one interviews, participatory research??
It's true that conducting research without a question is like groping in the dark; I have a lot of interests, but what am I really asking?

SSHRC Review

At the end of class on Monday we were asked to give our thoughts on a particular SSHRC proposal. The one that myself, Brian, Caitilin and 2 others from Group 4 received related to researching the people of the Stikine Plateau.

The author of this proposal clearly states the interest of study and it is clear that this person has a vested interest in the historical processes and development of the Stikine. Beyond geography, the author wants to take on recounting the historical process of colonialism and landscape change to the region. With limited research available on the topic and the region, it would appear the author has a vast amount of information to deal with and that the scope of this study seems enormous.

The method to be used is a review of literature available in the archives of British Columbia and in Ottawa. The author will also use personal papers of key individuals with connections to the Stikine throughout history which will be sourced at the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs Library and the Department of Indian Affairs RG 10 files which are housed at UBC Library. The author also cites references needed from Hudson's Bay Company, Archives in Winnipeg, the Alaska State Acrives in Juneau and the University of Washington Archives in Seattle. The author also plans on holding interviews in the region of the Stikine.

The author's intentions are clear: to contribute to the environmental history of Canada through the Stikine and make a significant contribution to Indigeneous-state/settler relations.

It doesn't appear that the author has left gaps, if anything it seems that the author has included every possible angle which may lead to some very confusing moments in the future as to what specific direction to follow. After reading this, not only do I feel that I have a lot more thinking to do about my own research project, but I want to be sure it will make a significant contribution to furthering the field.

Is it How or Why?

After the lecture on Monday and after reading both the article by Lunt and Livingstone on the use of focus groups in Media and Communications Research and Knight Chapter 3, I felt even more confused as to what "method" I should be using or proposing for my research proposal. So, I started by doing the following -- I took Eleanore's approach (through Luker) and created my research "flower". (see above). This has been really helpful in helping me to define the scope of what I'm interested in studying but now I'm left to ponder...do I have a "why" question which would call for more qualitatitive methods or a "how" question calling for more quantitative methods? I won't take you through the various iterations of my question, as I posed it on paper but I'm left with the following: How does the use of social networking sites, for children under the age of 13, affect their feelings of empathy toward their peers and the world? How do they understand the terms of use for the site and how do they perceive the open access of information that they are providing to their peers (among others)? I think I have a questionnaire in my future (and a whole lot of consent forms!)