report_draft 15_14_janmaster_final

Virtual Conferencing Technologies: A survey of users

Report of a survey on the use of Access Grid technologies across tertiary based participants

David ThornsMary Allan

Bindy BarclayGina Chamberlain

Roslyn KerrJenna Scott

Social Science Research CentreUniversity of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand

[email protected]://www.ssrc.canterbury.ac.nz/index.shtml

SSRC Director: Professor David [email protected]

Page 2 of 91

http://www.ssrc.canterbury.ac.nz/index.shtml

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the contribution made by those who responded to the invitation to participate in the survey and also to those who participated in the piloting & testing stages of the survey. Gratitude is expressed towards members of the BRCSS College for their support. We would also like to thank our funders who enabled the research to take place – the BRCSS Network, REANNZ and the Social Science Research Centre, which provided two summer studentships

of 91

ContentsAcknowledgements...................................................................................2Contents.....................................................................................................3List of Figures...........................................................................................6List of Tables.............................................................................................7Executive Summary..................................................................................8Introduction............................................................................................12

Rationale.......................................................................................................14Methodology.................................................................................................14

Design of Questionnaire.......................................................................................15Question Design...................................................................................................15Piloting and Testing.............................................................................................16Sample Identification...........................................................................................16Data Collection and Recruitment.........................................................................16

Analysis.........................................................................................................17Demographic Characteristics................................................................19

Age and Gender....................................................................................................19Institution and Location.......................................................................................20Academic Discipline and Role.............................................................................21BRCSS Membership............................................................................................23Access Grid Nodes...............................................................................................23Attendance of Access Grid Sessions....................................................................24Number of Access Grid Sessions Attended.........................................................24

Findings and Analysis............................................................................25Using the Access Grid for Collaboration...................................................25Respondent’s Definition of Collaboration...............................................................25Perceptions of the Potential of the Access Grid for Enabling Collaboration................................................................................................25

Access Grid as a Communication Tool................................................................25Interaction and Networking using the Access Grid.............................................26Overcoming Geographical Distances...................................................................27Domestic and International Collaboration using Access Grid.............................27Sharing of Information and Knowledge...............................................................28Encouraging Interdisciplinary Research..............................................................28

Expectations and Reflections about the Use of Access Grid....................29Positive Aspects of the Access Grid Environment...............................................29Cost and Time Saving Aspects of the Access Grid..............................................29Carbon Footprint..................................................................................................30Perceptions of Limitations of Access Grid..........................................................31

Practices........................................................................................................32Types of Access Grid Sessions Attended.............................................................32Reasons for attendance in Access Grid Sessions.................................................32Contributing to Access Grid Sessions..................................................................33Forms of Contribution..........................................................................................34Information and Knowledge Gained from Access Grid Sessions........................35Interacting Using the Access Grid.......................................................................36The Nature of Interaction During Access Grid Sessions.....................................37

of 91

The Nature of the Atmosphere During Access Grid Sessions.............................37Simulation / Non-simulation of Face-to-face Interaction.........................39Aspects of Similarity with Face-to-face Interaction................................................41

Body Language....................................................................................................41Aspects of Difference from Face-to-face Interaction...............................................42

Interactive Style....................................................................................................42Body Language....................................................................................................43Level of Formality................................................................................................44Informal Chat after a Face-to-Face Meeting........................................................45

Influencing Factors...................................................................................................45Prior relationship with other participants.............................................................45

Protocols........................................................................................................46Facilitation................................................................................................................46Room Set-Up............................................................................................................47Time and Information...............................................................................................50Socio-Technical Spaces................................................................................52Interacting with Others in your Node.......................................................................52Screen Placement and Overload...............................................................................53Who is ‘the Group’?.................................................................................................55How to Use the Grid.................................................................................................56Camera Positioning..................................................................................................56Rooms.......................................................................................................................56Comfort Levels with Technology............................................................................57Use of Other Media Conferencing Tools.................................................................58

Recommendations...................................................................................60Future Research......................................................................................62References...............................................................................................63Appendices..............................................................................................64

Survey............................................................................................................65Letter of invitation to BRCSS College:......................................................86Letter of invitation to BRCSS List:............................................................87Project Information Cover Sheet...............................................................88Access Grid Calendar..................................................................................90

of 91

List of Figures

Figure 1: Age of Participant.......................................................................................18Figure 2: Gender Distribution of Participants............................................................19Figure 3: Type of Institution Participant Associates with..........................................19Figure 4: Role of Survey Respondents......................................................................21Figure 5: BRCSS Membership..................................................................................22Figure 6: Does your Institution/Workplace have a node for Access Grid Sessions? 22Figure 7: Number of Access Grid Sessions Attended................................................23Figure 8: Expectations for Outcomes of the Access Grid Sessions...........................29Figure 9: Type of Access Grid Session Attended......................................................31Figure 10: Reasons for Choosing to Attend a Particular Access Grid Session............32Figure 11: Did you Contribute to the Access Grid Session.........................................32Figure 12: Reasons for not Contributing.....................................................................33Figure 13: What Participants Took Away From the Access Grid Session..................34Figure 14: Interactions Between the Partcipants in Access Grid Sessions were:........36Figure 15: Atmosphere During an Access Grid Session..............................................37Figure 16: "It is possible to participate in Access Grid sessions in the same way as

you would in a face-to-face session”..........................................................38Figure 17: "Meeting on the Access Grid changed the way people interacted in the

session compared with a face-to-face meeting”.........................................39Figure 18: "The Nature of the Access Grid Session was Sociable".............................40Figure 19: The Nature of the Interactions Between Participants in an Access Grid

Session was Formal/Informal.....................................................................43Figure 20: The Facilitation/Chairing of the Session Resulted in the Following

Outcomes:...................................................................................................45Figure 21: Feelings About Seeing Own Image............................................................48Figure 22: How did you feel about seeing the other people in your physical node over

the Access Grid?.........................................................................................48Figure 23: BRCSS Meetings are Usually Scheduled for Two Hours. Is this:.............49Figure 24: Node Image Displayed in Session..............................................................51Figure 25: Size of Presenter/Facilitator Image Relative to other Node Images...........52Figure 26: Size of the Power Point Presentation Relative to the Node Images...........53Figure 27: Amount of Movement of Displayed Images During the Session...............53Figure 28: Who is Considered Part of the Group in a Session....................................54Figure 29: Have you Used Other Media Conferencing Tools?...................................58

of 91

List of Tables

Table 1: Location of Institution Participant Associates with.......................................20Table 2: Discipline of Participant.................................................................................21Table 3: Reason for Choosing to Attend a Particular Access Grid Session.................31Table 4: Forms of Contribution....................................................................................34Table 5: Other Media Conferencing Tools Used.........................................................58

of 91

Executive Summary

Introduction

A survey to gauge experiences of the use of the Access Grid video conferencing technology within the BRCSS1 network was undertaken as part of a collaborative interdisciplinary research project between social scientists from the Social Science Research Centre, and human computer interaction scientists from the HIT Lab2 NZ Ltd. Both groups are based at the University of Canterbury and the project is funded by BRCSS and the Capability Build Fund of REANNZ3. The survey is part of The Role of Virtual Technologies in Creating New Forms of Knowledge project, which explores new research methods and analytic tools designed for computer-based information distribution, such as Advanced Video Conferencing and high-speed internet connectivity.

Methodology

The survey was designed to provide quantitative and qualitative data. Multi-choice questions were intended to provide descriptive information. Open-ended questions were intended to provide reflective and interpretive responses. The survey was initially distributed to 180 members of the BRCCS Research College community and received a 37.8% response rate. A second invitation was sent to 274 members of the wider BRCSS network, and resulted in a 25.2% response rate. Various computer software programmes including SurveyMonkey, TextSTAT, and Microsoft Excel were used in the analysis of the data. The quantitative data was processed using Survey Monkey’s analysis tools, together with Excel spreadsheet functions. Using the Quantitative Content Analysis (QCA) method, the research team categorised all of the qualitative responses, first around the four research themes used in the design of the survey: collaboration, socio technical environment as simulating face-to-face, socio technical spaces, and protocols. The second tier of the categorisation followed a grounded analysis of the data revealing six further categories; cultural aspects; familiarity and comfort levels in relation to the technology; technical issues - usage, and faults; comparison of Access Grid to other teleconferencing platforms; importance of content of sessions; miscellaneous. Both quantitative and qualitative data from the survey was incorporated to produce this report.

1 Building Research Capabilities in the Social Sciences2 The Human Interface Technology Laboratory New Zealand3 Research and Education Advanced Network New Zealand

of 91

Key Findings

Demographics

The majority of respondents (78.9%) were between the ages of 26–55. A larger number of females (65.7%) than males (34.3%) completed the survey. The majority (90.5%) of the respondents associated themselves with a university

institution and 97% were from a New Zealand institution. 85.2% were associated with institutions located in the North Island compared with

23.3% of respondents from the South Island. The most commonly reported discipline was geography with 23.4% of respondents,

followed by sociology with 16.1% and psychology with 9.5%. 41.6% described themselves as researchers, followed by 36.5% as lecturers. 80.3% stated that they were a member of BRCSS, while only 8.0% said that they

were not a member. 79.6% stated that their institution or workplace had a node for Access Grid

sessions. 81% had attended at least one Access Grid session. Almost a third of the survey respondents (31.5%) stated they had attended 1-2

Access Grid sessions, 28.8% had attended 6 or more sessions and 27.0% stated they had attended 3-4 sessions.

Collaboration

Respondents defined collaboration as meeting with other researchers and colleagues in order to exchange ideas and information.

The three most commonly selected outcomes of the Access Grid sessions were to listen to the lecture, listen to the presenter and to discuss or exchange ideas.

Collaboration and interaction with other researchers was seen as the main advantage of using the Access Grid. Many of the respondents saw the Access Grid as enabling frequent communication with colleagues and other researchers. Other respondents suggested that there was the potential for the Access Grid to be used for stakeholder dialogue sessions in multiple sites.

The Access Grid was seen as being of benefit to collaborative projects with other researchers who were based at different locations.

The technology was seen as being “better” for the environment as it did not require extended travel in order to see, or participate in, the presentations, which subsequently affected the “carbon footprint.”

The most frequent forms of contribution within sessions included sharing views (80.3%), asking questions (78.9%), and the discussion of ideas (55.3%).

The majority of respondents took away new information (73.6%) or new understanding (67.0%) from their Access Grid session/s.

The potential for collaboration that the Access Grid offers was confirmed by ‘collaborative’ being often used to describe the atmosphere with 52.8% agreeing that it was pleasant and 42.5% agreeing that it was friendly.

of 91

A large majority of participants (99.3%) highly agreed (64.5%), agreed (27.5%) or agreed to a limited extent (7.3%) that they attended sessions due to interest in the topic.

69.5% of respondents had used some form of other media conferencing tools. Overall, the majority of the respondents were positive regarding meeting and

talking to people through the Access Grids video screens and images.

Simulation / Non-Simulation of Face-to-Face Interaction

The survey found that in response to the statement “it is possible to participate in an Access Grid session in the same way as you would in a face-to-face session 82.4%, agreed with the statement to varying extent, while only 17.6% disagreed.

A total of 91.7% of respondents who had participated in an Advanced Video Conferencing session agreed to varying extent that meeting on the Access Grid changed the way people interacted in the session compared with a face-to-face meeting.

The most commonly reported aspect of similarity of Access Grid sessions compared to face-to-face interaction, was the ability to see participant’s body language and reactions to ideas. This comment places Access Grid as a technology enabling the simulation of face-to-face interaction.

Access Grid sessions were commonly described by those who discussed the differential aspects of the interaction compared to face to face as: “impersonal”, “artificial”, “distant”, “detached” and “un-engaging”.

A large number of the respondents regarded Access Grid sessions as requiring a different interactive style, and accordingly, a different style of conduct, or development of a different set of protocols for this.

Difficulties in discerning body language resulted in a feeling of the Access Grid session being more formal and lacking the sense of spontaneity that a face to face interaction may have. The formality of Access Grid sessions was the third most common theme derived from the data.

Protocols

Many respondents focused on facilitation as the key for improving sessions, suggesting that the chairing of sessions could be more effective. The largest number of comments focused on the difficulty in getting the facilitator’s attention and understanding who was being addressed.

Several respondents expressed a wish for sessions to begin with some form of introduction between participants to create a more comfortable atmosphere within the Grid.

Many respondents commented on the difficulties of co-ordinating the large numbers of people and technologies together into a working format. It was acknowledged that the particular assemblage of these technologies needed more specific and definite protocols to work to best effect.

The majority (65%) of respondents were positive, very positive or neutral about seeing the image of their own node on the screen, although respondents also noted

of 91

the difficulties interacting with participants in their own node owing to the set up of facing the viewing screen rather than each other.

A number of respondents also suggested that more definite protocols for booking and attending sessions would be useful.

The majority (65.1%) of respondents who had attended BRCCS meetings felt that the two hour time frame was about right for these meetings.

Socio -Technical Spaces

A common comment involved the difficulty of interacting with people within their own node owing to the placement of the chairs which were all facing the screens rather than each other.

Several respondents commented on a feeling of overload during an Access Grid session.

The large number of screens and people present potentially created confusion about who was part of the Access Grid session. Although 69.5% agreed that both the people in the room and all of the people seen on the screens were considered to be part of the group, there was not strong agreement about whether other people, such as technicians, should be considered part of the session.

There was considerable concern about the reliance on the skills of technicians for sessions to proceed effectively.

Many respondents commented on the strangeness of the camera being in a different place to the screens on the wall, giving an impression of no eye contact.

It was clear that the atmosphere of the room strongly influenced respondents’ overall experience of the Access Grid.

A strong theme that emerged was the way participants’ familiarity or comfort level with the technology influenced their view of the Access Grid and how they conducted themselves within sessions. There was almost unanimous agreement that there were certain aspects of the Access Grid, in particular the presence of the camera, which required some getting used to.

of 91

IntroductionResearch and education institutions in New Zealand are seeking to enhance their ability to collaborate and share knowledge and resources in order to compete in the global knowledge economy. ICT4 infrastructure such as KAREN, the New Zealand high speed internet, is devoted to the connection of New Zealand research facilities and institutions to support e-research projects (Ministry of Economic Development et al. 2004). The KAREN infrastructure enables New Zealand researchers to collaborate national and internationally using advanced video conferencing applications such as Access Grid, EVO, and LifeSize5. It is expected that through the use of these technologies, New Zealand researchers will be able to compete globally as equal partners in the Global Knowledge Economy.

The survey described in this report focussed on the study of the use of Access Grid technology. The Access Grid in New Zealand currently connects all of the country’s universities and research centres, and also allows for international communication, connecting to universities in the USA, Europe, and Australia. By connecting through the Access Grid people situated at different geographical locations can talk to each other as if they were sharing the same physical location. Using the technology, participants are able to share resources such as PowerPoint presentations, video clips, slide shows, and real time drawing.

The survey is part of The Role of Virtual Technologies in Creating New Forms of Knowledge project, which explores new research methods and analytic tools designed for computer-based information distribution, such as Advanced Video Conferencing and high-speed internet connectivity. The project, funded by the New Zealand social science research network BRCSS6, and REANZ7 - the KAREN8 Capability Building Fund, is part of a wider set of initiatives to build research capability. Both agencies work towards enhancing collaborative research networks, KAREN by providing the technological infrastructure and BRCSS by supporting links between researchers nationally and internationally.

Access Grid (AG) is a collection of resources assembled for the purpose of supporting collaboration across different locations. Because the Access Grid is based on the Grid9

infrastructure it has the potential to allow for sharing dimensions that were not available using previous technology. Access Grid provides a near-real face-to-face experience in which people can experience “being there” in a shared space with others without having to travel. Generally Access grid ‘nodes’ are specifically equipped rooms at each university. Desktop applications are also sometimes used where specifications allow this for individual users.

4 Information and Communication Technology5 Access Grid and EVO are open source software. Life Size is a proprietary product for high definition video collaboration. For more information see www.avcc.karen.net.nz 6 Building Research Capabilities in the social Sciences7 Research and Education Advanced Network New Zeeland8 Kiwi Advanced research and Education Network9 The Grid - a computing and data management infrastructure that provides electronic underpinning for a global society in all walks of life. Grids integrate networking, communication, computation and information to provide a virtual platform for computation and data management in the same way that the internet integrates resources to form a virtual platform for information (Berman, Fox, & Hey, 2003)

of 91

The Access Grid is an open source application which was introduced to New Zealand in 2005. At this time, BRCSS was searching for a way of creating a national research college, and to network universities and CRI across the country to enable more opportunities for collaborative research (Thorns, 2006). Initially the BRCSS network linked six of the universities and the Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit. This network operated on limited bandwidth but allowed experience to be built up prior to the Advanced Network being commissioned in February 2007. The increased bandwidth of the Advanced Network - KAREN supports a wider range of Access Grid applications, as well as providing more robust and stable connections. These advanced features are expected to increase the reliability of the technology and hence allow greater and wider use.

The Access Grid technologies are useful for:

Meetings between a large number of people Creating a fluent near-real life conversation Sharing large amounts of data and transferring it across the different

Access Grid sites (Nodes)

EVO is a desktop video conferencing technology allowing people to connect without leaving their office and with no requirement for expensive equipment. However it does require the large bandwidth of KAREN. In addition to the audio and visual transmission of people, video conferencing can be used to share documents, computer-displayed information, and whiteboards.

LifeSize attempts to create the feeling of a natural face-to-face meeting, using high definition video systems to provide high quality images and so enhance the immersive experience of communication across geographical distances.

Video conferencing is useful for:

Where live conversation is needed; Frequent meetings linking people separated by distance are needed; Where visual information is an important component of the conversation

The survey was designed to gauge experiences of the use of the Access Grid Video conferencing technology within the BRCSS network, and deepen the inquiry of some of the issues arising from the observations of Access Grid based BRCSS sessions made during 2006-2007.

The survey is part of the research into the practices and potential use of this relatively new technology. Its findings will contribute to the wider picture of the research project undertaken by this research team to explore ways of optimising the potential use of the technology as well as inform further developments to enhance usability and effectiveness.

The survey questions were reviewed and approved by the University of Canterbury Human Ethics Committee (Application 2007/82).

of 91

Rationale

The survey questions were designed to provide information around the following areas:

1. Do researchers collaborate using Access Grid networks?– How available is Access Grid, are researchers aware of it, are they using it,

how prevalent is the use of Access Grid, are researchers networking? Do they see potential for using Access Grid?

– What do researchers want to achieve through the Access Grid? How do they perceive collaboration in these networks? Are there emerging practices; are there differences between various communities of users?

2. How is the Access Grid environment perceived?– Simulated face-to-face? – What in the Access Grid environment is supporting those elements? – what

socio-technical networks are working?3. Is the Access Grid environment facilitating the creation of socio-technical spaces of

trustful exchanges of ideas and the emergence of environments conducive for new knowledge to emerge?

Methodology

This report is based on data gathered through an online survey hosted on www.surveymonkey.com. The online survey method enabled quick and convenient access, allowing participants to complete and submit the survey at a time most convenient to them. It was anticipated that the online option would increase response numbers. Surveymonkey.com facilitated good management of the data, and freed the research team from the time consuming data entry stage. Furthermore, Surveymonkey.com provided initial analysis and spreadsheet downloads for further data mining.

It was initially envisaged that the survey would be distributed as hard copy material to participants of Access Grid sessions across the various nodes up and down the country. Participants would have been required to devote approximately 20 minutes of their time to complete the questionnaire and hand it to the Node operators, who would then dispatch those to the researchers. This approach was to enable participants to report their feelings in proximity to their involvement in the Access Grid interactions. However, the implementation of this method involved a long chain of actions and consequently an increased risk of failure. A methodological compromise, the use of online survey methods, allowed for a simpler mode of dissemination of the questionnaire had to be made, and it was decided to invite participants to complete an online questionnaire.

The survey was designed to utilise quantitative and qualitative approaches. The incorporation of structured and unstructured responses enabled the construction of a more comprehensive data-set in which the quantitative inquiry generated descriptive data which provided some empiric information, whereas the qualitative inquiry provided reflective and interpretive data revealing aspects unobtainable through the structured multi-choice type questions. Through the use of open-ended questions, the qualitative sections were designed to capture unstructured

of 91

informal comments and ideas and allow for criteria, categories, issues, and questions arising from the participants.

A range of computer software programmes including SurveyMonkey, TextSTAT, and Microsoft Excel were used in the analysis of the data. The quantitative data was processed using SurveyMonkey’s analysis tools, alongside Excel spreadsheet functions. Using the Quantitative Content Analysis (QCA) method, the research team categorised all of the qualitative responses first, around the four research themes used in the design of the survey: collaboration, socio technical environment as simulating face-to-face, socio technical spaces, and protocols. The second tier of the categorisation followed a grounded analysis of the data revealing further categories. Both quantitative and qualitative data from the survey was incorporated to produce this report

Design of Questionnaire

The survey was constructed using online survey software ‘SurveyMonkey’ (http://www.surveymonkey.com/Default.aspx). This software allows for comprehensive logics for both qualitative and quantitative questions.

A draft survey was imported from an MS Word document, using a basic template. The first section of the survey sought data about the respondent. The following sections asked respondents to convey their experience of the interactions, express their opinions about the Access Grid environment, including the physical and electronic aspects, share their perceptions, expectations, and the potential for further use of the technology, as well as describe the pitfall and limitations experienced .Where possible respondents were given the option to add qualitative opinion. Whenever a survey question inquired about a choice of action, the responses were partitioned according to their relevant content, for example respondents who attended Access Grid were partitioned differently from those who had not attended. Respondents who had attended at least one Access Grid session were asked to consider the most recent Access Grid session they attended when completing their response.

Question Design

The survey was designed to provide quantitative, descriptive information through the use of multi-choice questions alongside open-ended questions, which were intended to generate qualitative, reflective and interpretive responses. The multi choice questions were designed to construct a quantitative data set, which would enable the identification of some macro processes.The qualitative open-ended questions were constructed so that they would provide:

1. Contextual depth to the quantitative material,2. Micro level insight of individuals’ perceptions3. Feedback and critical evaluation of the experiences of the participants

The survey software allowed for a number of splits dependant on responses to previous questions. This allowed those who had not attended an Access Grid session to contribute their opinions.

of 91

Piloting and Testing

The online survey was pilot tested with eight university based social scientists and modified where appropriate as a result of their feedback. For one of those assisting at this stage, English was a second language, an important consideration for several of the communities in the network.

Sample Identification

The BRCSS network was the first to initiate an Access Grid connection across universities to enable the support of collaboration across researchers in New Zealand. It was only natural to begin our inquiry by investigating this pioneering network. Furthermore, although the community of users of the Access Grid has now grown beyond BRCSS, the relevancy of its network is still primary to this project, and its focus on the capability building briefs of BRCSS.

The BRCSS network is a collaboration of social scientists that began in mid 2004 and originally linked six New Zealand universities10 and a community organization11. Since that time it has grown to include all eight universities. (Otago and AUT were added). The network was built upon a collaboration that brought together a portfolio of research excellence from thirty-six already funded medium-term strategic research projects as a basis for building capability in existing areas of social science research, and for the development of new research areas and themes that contribute to the development, implementation and monitoring of research-grounded public and social policy. Over time this platform of research has grown to include 57 funded research programmes.

Data Collection and Recruitment

The survey was distributed via an email invitation.12 The initial mail out was to 180 individuals who had given consent to receive communications from the BRCSS College. Sixty-eight (37.8%) recipients of this mail-out responded and completed the survey.

To broaden the population of study, a second round of invitations was distributed to the whole of the BRCSS network mailing list, which included all those who had registered out of general interest in the Access Grid. Duplicates in the lists were eliminated and the final number of mail invitations came to a total of 454 invitations in both rounds. The second round produced an additional 69 (25.2%) responses, making the total number of survey responses 137, of which 128 (93.4%) were completed. The survey was also made available on the Social Science Research Centre web site. No respondents were collected from this source.

It was not possible to assess the extent to which emails may have been blocked by ‘spam’ filters. This is one disadvantage of using a survey tool that sends surveys from a remote server.

10 The universities involved were: Lincoln University, Massey University, University of Auckland, University of Canterbury, University of Waikato, Victoria University of Wellington.11 Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit12 See Appendices

of 91

Analysis

The initial steps of analysis involved the exploration of the SurveyMonkey platform to gain a broad overview of the general trends of the survey. Once this was completed, the full set of responses was downloaded as spreadsheets from SurveyMonkey for further analysis of the quantitative sections.

The quantitative data was downloaded from the SurveyMonkey site and tables and graphs were produced using Microsoft Excel. This process generated the overview of trends and highlighted specific areas for cross analysis. The filter tool on SurveyMonkey was used for the grouping of respondents and comparing responses across the various groups. For example, respondents from a similar discipline were grouped to highlight variance of the number of sessions attended and then crossed with level of participant contribution. Some of the filters available through the survey’s platform were of higher value than others; however, the overall process was particularly useful.

The qualitative sections presented the challenge of analysing a large amount of semi-structured data. In search of a way of making the data more accessible for analysis it was decided to apply text mining techniques. A Web search for a suitable mining tool was conducted and the Text-mining programme, TextSTAT, was located as a suitable tool for initial mining of the data. TextSTAT was used to measure word frequencies and recognised commonly used words or phrases for the purpose of identifying topics or issues arising from the comments made by the respondents. This process highlighted a number of key terms used by respondents. This initial sweep of the qualitative materials formed a preliminary level of analysis of the data, and created a broad brush outline of arising themes. This enabled the clustering of similar notions and concepts expressed by the respondent, although not always expressed in the same wording, but conveyed similar meaning that is beyond semantic similarities. The semantic mining enabled by TextSTAT contributed to a grounded approach in identifying emerging clusters, converging into emerging concepts. These were used for further developing the Quantitative Content Analysis (QCA) phase of the qualitative analysis.

QCA techniques were applied to structure the qualitative data around key concepts. The initial concepts were contrived through the design of the survey and additional ones were identified through the grounded work of the text mining process.

The following key concepts were developed through the design of the survey 1. Collaboration

a. trust2. Perceptions of the socio technical environment

a. Simulating face to face3. Protocols for the use of Access Grid Technologies4. Socio technical spaces in the Access Grid environment

The grounded analysis of the data revealed the following concepts:1. Cultural aspects2. Familiarity and comfort levels in relation to the technology3. Technical issues- usage, and faults13

13 While this research is mindful of the technical issues, this was not placed as a focus of the objectives of the survey. However, information collected from the survey regarding technical problems was distributed to the

of 91

4. Comparison of Access Grid to other teleconferencing platforms5. Importance of content of sessions6. Miscellaneous

The qualitative data was compiled into lists, printed, and then colour coded by the research team to highlight the content relating to each of these categories. Similarly coloured sections were then compiled into conceptual clusters constructing each of the key concepts identified.

This process proved an effective method as it allowed the research team to view the respondent’s comments in their original context, as well as identify emerging themes additional to those around which the questions were initially designed. It also allowed further insight not possible with the use of some software programmes.

A preliminary analysis of the data collected was presented to the Research College at the Meeting in November 2007. Survey findings will be used to assist in furthering the development and use of the technology within the BRCSS network.

relevant individuals, departments and technical support networks for their information.

of 91

Demographic Characteristics

Potential users of the Access Grid Technology were identified through the Social Science research network BRCSS (Building Research Capability in the Social Sciences). One hundred and thirty seven individuals completed the online survey on the topic of Advanced Video Conferencing and Access Grid technology as a collaborative tool for social science researchers. This section will detail the demographics of the study collated from the responses to the online survey.

Age and Gender

The age of the survey respondents was evenly distributed across three main categories. These age categories were 26-35 (26.3%), 36-45 (26.3%) and 46-55 (26.3%) years of age. Figure 1 illustrates that the majority (78.9%) of the respondents were aged between 26 and 55 years old. The 18-25 year age bracket was the least represented demographic group in the survey, with only 5.8% of respondents placing themselves in this category. 15.3% of the respondents were in the 55 and above category.

Figure 1: Age of Participant

of 91

There was a significantly higher number of female than male respondents. 34.3% were male, and 65.7% were female, almost double that of the male respondents.

Figure 2: Gender Distribution of Participants

Institution and Location

The majority (90.5%) of the respondents associated themselves with a university institution. The open ended component - “Other” was the next frequently chosen category with 8.0%. Most of the respondents who selected “Other” specified that they were associated with various government departments. The type of institution, which was the least represented in the survey, was polytechnics, which had only one respondent.

Figure 3: Type of Institution Participant Associates with

of 91

Over 97% of the respondents indicated that they were associated with institutions located within New Zealand. 2.1% of the respondents associated themselves with institutions overseas, namely UK, (Bristol), Singapore, and Fiji (Suva). Most of the respondents were located in Auckland with 29.9%. Wellington was next at 21.9%, followed by Christchurch with 20.4%. The locations of the institutions the respondents associated with were dispersed geographically throughout New Zealand. Further, more respondents were associated with institutions located in the North Island (85.2%) than in the South Island (23.3%).

Table 1: Location of Institution Participant Associates with

Academic Discipline and Role

Table 2 displays the academic disciplines of the respondents. The most visible discipline was geography with 23.4% of respondents, followed by sociology (16.1%), and psychology with 9.5%. Other disciplines with notable representations in the survey were anthropology (7.3%), social sciences (5.1%), economics (5.1%) and education (5.1%).

of 91

(N=137)

Table 2: Discipline of Participant

Respondents were asked to state their current role. As seen in Figure 4, 41.6% said that they were researchers, followed by 36.5% who were lecturers. A significant number of those surveyed (32.1%) were PhD and Masters Students. Those who regarded themselves as consultants and advisors also had a presence in the survey, at 6.6% and 8.0% respectively. Their roles were largely based within the private and public sector, such as government departments.

Figure 4: Role of Survey Respondents

of 91

BRCSS Membership

The survey shows that the majority of the respondents were members of the social science research network, BRCSS. 80.3% stated that they were a member of BRCSS, while only 8.0% said that they were not a member.

Figure 5: BRCSS Membership

Access Grid Nodes

79.6% of respondents stated that their institution or workplace had a node for Access Grid sessions. This showed that the majority of those who responded to the opt-in survey had access to Access Grid sessions. While 12.4% did not have access to an Access Grid node, 5.1% stated that they “Don’t know” whether there was an Access Grid node in their institution or workplace. A small number of respondents in the “Other” category (2.9%) specified that they had had to travel to another institution to use the Access Grid node, as there had not been one available in their institution or workplace.

Figure 6: Does your Institution/Workplace have a node for Access Grid Sessions?

of 91

(N=137)

(N=137)

Attendance of Access Grid Sessions

A large proportion of the respondents, 81% had attended an Access Grid session. 19% of the survey sample had not attended an Access Grid session.

Number of Access Grid Sessions Attended

The number of Access Grid sessions the respondents had attended varied from those who had attended 1-2 Access Grid sessions, 3-4 sessions and more than 6 sessions. Almost a third of the survey respondents (31.5%) stated they had attended 1-2 Access Grid sessions. The next most commonly stated amount was 6 or more sessions with 28.8% respondents saying that they had attended this amount. Thirty respondents (27.0%) stated they had attended 3-4 sessions. The least frequent number of Access Grid sessions attended was by those individuals who had attended 5-6 sessions, which received a 12.6% response rate.

Figure 7: Number of Access Grid Sessions Attended

of 91

Findings and Analysis

Using the Access Grid for Collaboration

Respondent’s Definition of Collaboration

The aggregated qualitative comments showed that the respondents defined collaboration as meeting with other researchers and colleagues for the purpose of exchanging ideas and information. Collaboration with other researchers was seen as assisting in the development of research.

Perceptions of the Potential of the Access Grid for Enabling Collaboration

Access Grid as a Communication Tool

One hundred and eleven (81.0%) respondents had used the Access Grid in order to participate in seminars, forums and presentations at different nodes across New Zealand. Of the forty respondents who commented on research interests that could be assisted through Access Grid technologies, 36 (90.0%) acknowledged the potential of the Access Grid as a communication tool, which could increase collaboration and assist research projects amongst social scientists within New Zealand. Twenty-five (62.5%) respondents stated that they were interested in how the Access Grid could assist them in communicating with fellow researchers and colleagues at other institutions both nationally and internationally.

One respondent stated that sharing social science research experiences with other colleagues would encourage them to attend the Access Grid sessions. The majority of respondents thought that the Access Grid has the potential to develop collaborative research efforts amongst social scientists using interactive sessions on the ‘Grid.’

The respondents showed interest in the potential of the Access Grid technology to increase collaboration with researchers and colleagues at other institutions, as well as developing cross site studies. The possibility for increasing networking opportunities with other researchers using the Access Grid was mentioned by several respondents. Respondents who were already involved in some teamwork saw the Access Grid as a technology that could enable team meetings across cities in New Zealand.

meeting with people who have a similar research interest. The national connections that are so difficult to make otherwise.

of 91

Those not yet involved in teams expressed an interest in using the Access Grid to meet with co-researchers to discuss joint projects, or collaborate with overseas colleagues.

Of those who commented on the potential of Access Grid technology, all of the respondents saw the Access Grid as being able to assist research projects through collaborating with colleagues in various locations and exchanging information and ideas through the sessions. 22.5% of respondents thought the Access Grid could be of assistance to their research in the form of meetings, presentations and seminars on research practice methodologies. One respondent suggested that there was the potential for the Access Grid to be used for stakeholder dialogue sessions in multiple sites.

The majority of respondents saw the Access Grid as a communication tool which could encourage collaboration between researchers, academics and wider research projects. Of the forty responses, eighteen (45%) discussed how the Access Grid could allow for the planning of collaborative research projects between colleagues at other New Zealand universities. The Access Grid was seen as benefiting collaborative projects with other researchers who were based at different locations.

Other mental health researchers are based in the North Island. If a future project involved cooperation with these researchers, the Access Grid could help.

Collaboration and interaction with other researchers was seen as one of the main advantages of using the Access Grid. Twenty-one respondents commented on what it was like meeting and talking to people over the Access Grid. Of these, 66.6% of respondents saw the Access Grid as enabling frequent communication with colleagues and other researchers. One respondent, who thought the Access Grid environment was collaborative, expressed interest in how the Access Grid could be used to “best support researchers to make the most of this environment for research collaboration.”

Several respondents discussed how the Access Grid increased the possibilities for collaboration with other colleagues and researchers.

AG does allow for multiple sites to feed into discussions in a way that would be not necessarily possible.

a good way to connect people that would be hard to duplicate.

One respondent who had been using the Access Grid regularly for their research project thought that it could be used to develop social sciences in New Zealand.

Interaction and Networking using the Access Grid

The majority of comments relating to the Access Grid environment were about the exchange of ideas and interaction between colleagues, researchers and students. Out of eighty-eight responses, forty-six (52.2%) respondents thought that the Access Grid could be used as a communication tool that could build networks, collaboration and comradeship amongst researchers, academics and students in New Zealand. Numerous responses commented on how

of 91

the Access Grid helped build “stronger links across institutions” and encouraged inter-disciplinary sharing and discovery of others interested in similar areas of speciality. The Access Grid environment was liked by some of the respondents because it allowed people from institutions around New Zealand to meet and discuss topics of interest more regularly than they would normally be able to. Many respondents discussed how the Access Grid provided networking opportunities, the chance to exchange ideas, and see what other social science research was being done in New Zealand. The Access Grid was seen as a communication and “networking tool”.

The potential for simultaneous connection and collaboration across geographical space and time zones is immense

One of the commonly reported positive aspects of Access Grid sessions was that the sessions expanded ideas and knowledge in academic disciplines, as well as being able to connect with other researchers at different geographical locations.

access to a broader range of research topics and methods, and to colleagues in other institutions.

sense of an academic community across the country.

Overcoming Geographical Distances

The overcoming of geographical boundaries and the ability to unite people across geographical space using technology was seen as a major benefit of the Access Grid.

provides a chance to interact with another/others that would otherwise not be possible because of distance and time.

It’s an easy way to keep in touch with people around the country.

great to have a session with an Auckland contributor that would not have otherwise been possible.

Linking other universities and accessing speakers was seen as a positive attribute of the Access Grid.

I think it is a fantastic tool for making important seminars/presentations that are taking place at other locations accessible to people around the country

Domestic and International Collaboration using Access Grid

The Access Grid was seen as a way of encouraging collaboration and interaction between colleagues and other researchers at different geographical locations. It was suggested that forums and discussions could take place both domestically and internationally using the Access Grid. The Access Grid was seen as saving travel costs, especially if researchers were based at different islands in New Zealand, or in different countries. A number of responses mentioned how the Access Grid could assist their research interests by linking them to international researchers and participants.

of 91

Respondents noted that the Access Grid could assist them in closing the geographical distance between themselves, and the other researchers on specific projects, or assist in liaisons with colleagues in other parts of the country. Others commented that the Access Grid could assist “international collaborative research” or international studies.

Sharing of Information and Knowledge

The results showed that the Access Grid was currently used for various projects and meetings with research collaborators at other institutions.

Many of the respondents saw the Access Grid as enabling the sharing of data and research with other colleagues, while saving “vast amounts of time and resources.” Participants were interested in using the technology to assist in the co-writing of papers, the saving and sharing of data, as well as presenting “findings and ideas to collaborators and networks beyond physical location – particularly overseas.”

A suggestion was made that visiting international academics could give a presentation and make it available to a wider audience via the Access Grid.

Students and participating staff created the environments by which people could work to create a safe forum for presenting, discussing, critiquing and responding to wide sets of cultural and academic issues.

Another respondent said that the Access Grid had given postgraduate students the opportunity to present their work to a larger number of people across different disciplines and institutions other than their own. A further idea would be for research supervision over the Access Grid.

One respondent thought that the Access Grid could be used to hold researcher and practitioner seminars that “facilitate the knowledge and sharing that this initiative entails.”

Encouraging Interdisciplinary Research

From the responses in the survey, there was interest in using the Access Grid to develop interdisciplinary research on a variety of topics. Respondents saw the Access Grid as providing networking opportunities with other researchers. When respondents were asked to detail what research interest could be assisted through Access Grid technology, some suggested that the Access Grid could hold discussions on trans-disciplinary research collaboration. In particular, one respondent thought that the Access Grid could “assist in collaborative work on museum studies with major universities and museums nationally, as well as aid in research projects with international museums.”

of 91

Expectations and Reflections about the Use of Access Grid

Positive Aspects of the Access Grid Environment

When the respondents described what they liked about the Access Grid environment, four themes emerged. Individuals liked how the Access Grid saved time and monetary expense; the Access Grid was seen as being ‘better’ for the environment as it did not require extended travel in order to see the presentations, and subsequently affected the ‘carbon footprint’; the exchange of ideas, networking; and overcoming geographical boundaries frequently occurred in the comments regarding what the respondents liked about the Access Grid environment.

Cost and Time Saving Aspects of the Access GridA theme that emerged from the responses was that the Access Grid technology was seen to save time and money. Not having to travel in order to interact with fellow researchers and colleagues at multiple sites was seen as being a major advantage of the Access Grid and was mentioned in thirty (34.0%) of the eighty-eight responses. When discussing what they liked about the Access Grid many respondents referred to the monetary expense it saved by not having to travel in order to participate in sessions.

people from different locales meet and talk with one another without having to pay high!

Overall, the respondents saw the advantage of the Access Grid as being able to collaborate with fellow researchers and colleagues without having to travel, thus saving resources such as “time” and “money”. This could include making international visitors more accessible and maintaining contact with them over time.

The specific convenience of not having to fly to locations in order to interact with colleagues was an aspect that was liked by many of the respondents, with 43% of respondents mentioning that it saved them from having to travel to locations in order to hear presentations. Respondents explained that the Access Grid enabled meetings and forums that would otherwise have not occurred “because of the expense of getting people together from different cities”.

Many respondents discussed how they liked how the Access Grid gave them access to new forms of information, relatively quickly. One particular respondent said they liked the fact that it gave students and researchers the opportunity to listen to presentations and seminars “without having to ship people around the country.”

A particular aspect of Access Grid sessions that was commonly enjoyed was the discussion between colleagues and researchers on various topics. The Access Grid was seen as a suitable alternative when face-to-face meetings were not an option due to restrictions such as time and money.

of 91

[we] were struggling to discuss complex issues via email…holding two Access Grid sessions enabled us to sort out these issues and get the application in one time; I do not believe that this would have happened without the Access Grid sessions.

Overall, the Access Grid sessions were seen to be an “efficient use of time” as it did not require the respondents to travel to different locales around New Zealand to be included. Many respondents liked the fact that communication over the Access Grid was “instant” and that they did not “have to fly everywhere”. The Access Grid was acknowledged by many respondents as being a “convenient” and “inexpensive” way to interact with other social science researchers in New Zealand.

Carbon FootprintThe extent to which the Access Grid could decrease the ‘carbon footprint’ emerged as an important factor in why the respondents liked the technology. Lowering the ‘carbon footprint’ was seen to be of importance to a number of respondents who were concerned with lowering carbon emissions from aircraft travel. Several respondents commented that a positive aspect of the Access Grid was that it was of benefit to the natural environment as it saved carbon dioxide emissions, as people did not need to travel far in order to attend meetings or presentations: “Fantastic CO2 savings by not travelling”.

Figure 8: Expectations for Outcomes of the Access Grid Sessions

of 91

Figure 8 shows that the three most commonly selected outcomes of the Access Grid sessions were to discuss or exchange ideas, (62.3%); listen to the lecture, (59.4%); listen to the presenter, (54.7%). The next set of frequencies of outcomes referred to networking with colleagues at other locations, (44.3%); and talking to people at other Access Grid nodes, (38.7%); are exclusive to Access Grid technology.

Perceptions of Limitations of Access Grid

When asked to describe what they did not like about the Access Grid environment, two respondents commented about the physical proximity of the nearest node’s location. One individual had to travel two hours in order to attend an Access Grid session at their nearest node. Other respondents commented on institutional difficulties, such as the bookings of the Access Grid room, reliance on technical support staff and ease of access to facilities. One individual commented that they felt isolated if they were the only person in their node attending an Access Grid session. The technological limitations of the Access Grid were seen as hindering the expansion of the network by one respondent, as they had to attend sessions at one of the core ‘Grid’ sites. One respondent thought that the level of interaction may “have to be toned down” but that the Access Grid was a good way to increase exposure to research and collaboration efforts around New Zealand.

While the majority of comments were positive regarding using the Access Grid to communicate, some respondents saw it as the next best option to face-to-face communication. In regards to collaboration, one respondent thought that the Access Grid was “better than nothing at all,” while another stated it was “ok when you can’t meet in the ‘real world.’”

Two respondents specifically commented on how they thought the Access Grid was “good for presentations and questions” as well as “Great for meetings,” but felt that it was not as effective for meetings and focus groups where “there is a need to get group interaction.”

Many of the respondents saw the Access Grid as providing the opportunity to interact with colleagues and researchers at other geographical locations. For many this outweighed the negative aspects of the Access Grid sessions.

of 91

Practices

Types of Access Grid Sessions Attended

Figure 9: Type of Access Grid Session Attended

The type of session most commonly attended on the Access Grid was a presentation, attended by 85.3%. All the respondents who attended a forum, and all but one who attended teaching sessions, had also attended another type of session.

Reasons for attendance in Access Grid Sessions

The most prominent consideration for attending an Access Grid session was the topic of the session. An overwhelming majority of participants (99.3%) highly agreed (64.5%), agreed (27.5%) or agreed to a limited extent (7.3%) that they attended sessions due to interest in the topic. Although there was some interest in attending sessions because they were on the Access Grid, most indicated interest in the topic which suggests that the mode of presentation and the technologies involved are far less significant than the topic being discussed.

Table 3: Reason for Choosing to Attend a Particular Access Grid Session

of 91

Figure 10: Reasons for Choosing to Attend a Particular Access Grid Session

Contributing to Access Grid Sessions

Figure 11: Did you Contribute to the Access Grid Session

of 91

For those who did not actively contribute in an Access Grid session, the most commonly reported reason was the uncertainty of knowledge on the topic discussed. However, this is not specific to Access Grid technology. Comments made in the “Other” category most frequently addressed the limited time frame allocated, followed by technical problems, which restrained contribution.

Figure 12: Reasons for not Contributing

Forms of Contribution

The survey highlighted the various forms of contribution in Access Grid sessions, the most frequent of which was ‘sharing views’ (80.3%), followed by ‘asking questions’ (78.9%) and ‘the discussion of ideas’ (55.3%). The overall response shows that participation in the form of challenging the presenter was the least frequent means of active participation, with only 5.3% engaging in this form of contribution.

of 91

Figure 13

Table 4: Forms of Contribution

Information and Knowledge Gained from Access Grid Sessions

The majority of respondents took away new information (73.6%) or new understanding (67%) from their Access Grid session. Responses in “Other” described specific individual highly focused sessions with a particular outcome, a demonstration session or sessions in which the technology did not work.

Figure 13: What Participants Took Away From the Access Grid Session

of 91

Interacting Using the Access Grid

Overall, the majority of the respondents were positive regarding meeting and talking to people through the Access Grid’s video screens and images. In the words of one respondent, the Access Grid was; “a very good way to meet, discuss, work with colleagues across the nation.”

The Access Grid was seen by many of the respondents as being a convenient and effective way to communicate, discuss, work, and meet with other social science researchers “without having to leave town.” Participants in the Access Grid could “pop into a local room and connect up to people many miles away”. When commenting on interacting with others over the Access Grid, many respondents found it “enjoyable” to see other people from other institutions and had gained new perspectives.

A large number of respondents thought that one of the benefits of the Access Grid was the communication and networking opportunities it provided.

a great way of communicating and meeting people

Comments were made about the “enjoyable” aspects of listening to other colleagues and researchers presentations and views on a variety of topics during the Access Grid sessions.

The survey showed that Access Grid sessions helped to foster collegiality amongst New Zealand social scientists.

The intimacy and collegiality of the sessions is adding to the richness of being in the social sciences in NZ

However, some comments showed that not everyone was getting the same level of interaction between participants from the Access Grid sessions. Responses indicated that the Access Grid was “another way of holding a meeting”. Another said that the setting worked well for functional activities such as meetings and conducting business.

The most positive comment from a respondent said that the Access Grid sessions were akin to seeing and hearing others “as if they were in the same room,” while others commented that the presentations from around the country were “rather flat” and “not highly debatable” and felt as if they were formalised.

In cases where there was no continuity and respondents participated in one-off seminars, the Access Grid environment was considered ‘more formal’, and that in order to cultivate relationships over the Access Grid people would have to meet in numerous ‘Grid’ sessions. A few respondents commented that they had not experienced collaboration and networking over the grid due to the formalised settings of the sessions that they had attended. Because of this, one respondent said that they had not “met anyone really.” Some respondents expressed that they felt the Access Grid sessions were too formalised and mediated, which often differed from face to face meetings with colleagues and fellow researchers.

Face-to-face meetings were described as being more informal than meeting people in the Access Grid sessions. Many of the respondents saw the Access Grid as an acceptable alternative to face-to-face meetings, as was stated in one comment “at least this way we don’t miss out.” (Refer to ‘Simulation / Non-Simulation of Face-to-face Interaction’ section for further discussion)

of 91

The Nature of Interaction During Access Grid Sessions

There was general agreement that the sessions tended to be informative, educational and cooperative. There was lack of agreement over whether sessions were formal or informal with similar numbers of participants arguing for each case. This suggests that there is a large amount of variety regarding the degree of formality between sessions. What respondents considered as a formal or informal session was not further elaborated. (For further discussion refer to ‘Level of Formality’ under the ‘Simulation / Non-Simulation of Face to face Interaction’ section). Figure 14: Interactions Between the Participants in Access Grid Sessions were:

The Nature of the Atmosphere During Access Grid Sessions

The potential for collaboration assumed to be offered through Access Grid was supported, and the notion of ‘collaboration’ was used by respondents to describe the atmosphere in the sessions by 56.6%. Furthermore, 52.8% agreed that it was ‘pleasant’, and 42.5% agreeing that it was ‘friendly’. The “Other” responses included a range of answers, some stating other variables such as topic or room arrangement as important, with two noting that familiarity with the Access Grid played a large part in the atmosphere.

of 91

Figure 15: Atmosphere During an Access Grid Session

of 91

Simulation / Non-simulation of Face-to-face Interaction

An objective of the survey was to discover if the Access Grid environment simulates face-to-face interaction. The frequency of comments reporting non-simulation of face-to-face interaction in the Access Grid environment was substantially higher than that of the comments reporting simulation, with 78.3% of total comments highlighting the differences. Reponses regarding the differences also tended to be longer and more in depth comments, compared to the short and concise comments regarding the similarities. However in response to the statement “it is possible to participate in an Access Grid session in the same way as you would in a face-to-face session”, a significant proportion of respondents, 82.4%, agreed with the statement to varying extents while only 17.6% disagreed. This result seemingly contradicts the comments made across the survey, where an overwhelmingly higher number of responses pointed the differences between face-to-face and Access Grid interactions rather than the similarities. It is possible that this may indicate a gap in the perceptions respondents have of the possibility for Access Grid interactions to occur in the same manner as face-to-face interactions, and the actual practice experienced at present. Some support for this assumption may lie in Figures 16 and 17.

Figure 16: "It is possible to participate in Access Grid sessions in the same way as you would in a face-to-face session”

of 91

(N=108)

Figure 17:"Meeting on the Access Grid changed the way people interacted in the session compared with a face-to-face meeting”

A total of 91.7% of respondents who had participated in an Access Grid session agreed to varying extents that meeting on the Access Grid changed the way people interacted in the session compared with a face-to-face meeting. Half, (50.0%) of the respondents said that they “Agree” with the statement that meeting on the Access Grid changed the way people interacted in the session compared with a face-to-face meeting, while 24.1% “Agree to a limited extent”. Less than 10% of those who had experienced an Access Grid session disagreed that meeting over the Access Grid had any influence on the interaction in comparison to a face-to-face meeting.

Figures 16 and 17 illustrate an interesting difference in the perception of Access Grid sessions as simulations of face-to-face interaction. While 82.4% of respondents agreed that it was possible for Access Grid interaction to occur in the same manner as face-to-face interaction, Figure 17 shows that almost all respondents, (91.7%), agreed that meeting on the Access Grid altered the way in which people interacted in the session when compared with meeting face-to-face. This finding may support our earlier assumption about a possible gap between perceptions of potential to actual experience. Or it may point to differences perceived by the respondents in their conceptualisation of face-to-face when transferred to the Access Grid environment.

of 91

(N=108)

Aspects of Similarity with Face-to-face Interaction

A number of comments were made regarding the Access Grid sessions being similar to face-to-face, some further describing the ‘naturalness’ of the interaction.

As a virtual meeting room the sense of interaction was more similar than dissimilar to a face-to-face meeting room

Figure 18: "The Nature of the Access Grid Session was Sociable"

Collected quantitative results illustrated a crucial factor of face-to-face interaction, sociability, as being a strong component of the nature of the interactions between participants in an Access Grid session. Of the respondents who had attended an Access Grid session, 44% agreed or highly agreed that the nature of the interaction in the session was sociable, with a further 42% agreeing to a limited extent. Only 14% thought the nature of interaction across the Access Grid technology was not sociable.

Body LanguageThe most commonly reported specific aspect of Access Grid sessions relating to the similarity of Access Grid sessions to face-to-face interactions was the ability to see participant’s body language and reactions to ideas. This distinguished Access Grid technology from forms of audio conferencing as being a closer simulation of face-to-face interaction.

Ability to see a person’s reactions help with making the sessions closer to face-to-face meetings

of 91

(N=106)

Aspects of Difference from Face-to-face Interaction

Several respondents indicated that the Access Grid was an excellent alternative to face-to-face interaction; however, several commented that it was not quite the same or as good. Many respondents still preferred face-to-face interaction.

an excellent alternative. still prefer face to face

It is not a natural experience, but it is getting closer to being the next best thing

Of those respondents who discussed the differential aspects the Access Grid sessions in comparison to face-to-face interaction, several commented that the Access Grid sessions were “impersonal”, “artificial”, “distant”, “detached” and “unengaging”.

The session was more formal, and less engaged/ connected

Detached is a good description

Formal and not real

I would liken it in a real face to face situation to somehow being able, in spite of social conventions, to crawl on all fours along the room viewing people’s sitting positions, watching for restless legs syndrome and watching people in the room talk to one another while the speaker talked ‘out front’.

Interactive StyleA large number of the comments made also regarded Access Grid sessions as requiring a different interactive style, and accordingly, a different style of conduct, or development of a different set of protocols for this (see protocols section for further discussion). The most commonly reported area, which needed more set forms of conduct, was in the area of speaking and protocols for turn-taking.

it is difficult for many people to act in the same way as they would in a face-2-face session

it requires a different interactive style than one would expect in a face to face meeting

It does require some adaptation to multiple sites and participants

Participants need to develop skills in listening in a multi site environment. Convenors need a new set of skills to maximise the pluses and minuses of the configuration

We were able to watch each other in ways I haven’t experienced before. Sort of like a security camera operator, just that the watched is also a watcher

It was also highlighted by some respondents that the “access grid requires exaggerated and more proactive participation – gestures, verbal and visual cues”.

of 91

Body LanguageThe most frequently reported theme to emerge in responses was that of the difficulty in reading body language and cues in Access Grid sessions when compared to face-to-face meetings.

Not as able to pick up visual cues to body language

In face to face encounters everyone knows her/his physical location in a social space and it is easier to observe conventions such as not staring at people, keeping a degree of physical space from others, the disinterested gaze etc. Inside the access grid space these conventions break down as lines of people … stare at a screen only to find … that the screen has lines of people inside windows staring back at you from strange angles

Within this category, the most commonly reported issue was around speaking and turn-taking. Many discussed it as being more difficult to gauge who is speaking, or who should speak next. The turn taking cues and keeping track of who was speaking at any time was considered a more difficult task when compared to face-to-face interactions.

It remains highly impersonal and the inability to read peoples body language, know who is talking and where from can be quite disconcerting

although everyone can see each other [sic] and contribute you don’t [sic] get the same body language cues when someone wants to speak

it can be somewhat more difficult to pick up turn-taking cues and, occasionally, keeping track of who is speaking

Another thread of this theme focussed on the inability of participants in the sessions to make eye contact. Often the gaze from other participants was reported as “staring back at you from strange angles”. This was the result of participants looking at the screen to speak to the audience rather than the cameras, which were often positioned at a different angle, and thus Access Grid interactions would lack the ‘real’ component of eye contact as in face-to-face interactions.

Just slightly miss the sense of being able to “look the audience in the eye” or meet the speaker’s gaze

When people spoke they looked at the screen (rather than the camera)- which is completely natural, but it looks like people aren’t speaking to each other

Comments were also made regarding body language and the number of participants and nodes in any one session. It was suggested that the larger the participant group, the more difficult reading body language becomes.

of 91

Level of FormalityDifficulties in discerning body language resulted in a feeling of the Access Grid sessions being more formal and lacking the sense of spontaneity that a face-to-face interaction may have. The formality of Access Grid sessions was the third most common theme derived from the data.

There are other, less formal, aspects of meetings that work face to face, but not online

Access Grid interactions are also quite impersonal and lack the warmth and spontaneity of face to face meetings

Some respondents attributed this heightened sense of formality to the general conduct of the session where only one person speaks at a time.

Only one person can talk at a time in the grid (not that this is a bad thing) but it does introduce and [sic] element of formalism to a grid meeting/presentation

Figure 19: The Nature of the Interactions Between Participants in an Access Grid Session was Formal/Informal

of 91

When comparing the comments with the quantitative data, a conclusion on the level of formality becomes unclear. Formality was a theme mentioned frequently in respondent’s comments, and Figure 19 shows that 75.5% of respondents agreed that the Access Grid session experienced was formal. However, varying levels of agreement to the interaction being informal was also selected by 66.0% of the study population.

Informal Chat after a Face-to-Face MeetingOften in face-to-face conferences and meetings, there is the opportunity for informal chat outside of the conference setting after a session. This does not occur in Access Grid sessions and was highlighted by a few respondents;

I usually find that after a face-2-face session people discuss a lot of issues informally-this is not possible witj [sic] access grid since time is limited and people are at diffrent [sic] places.

While not highlighted by a large number of respondents, this may be a significant factor effecting collaboration when comparing Access Grid sessions with face-to-face interactions (see Protocols section for further information).

Influencing Factors

Prior relationship with other participantsA significant contribution to the effectiveness of meetings in Access Grid sessions was whether or not participants had met face-to-face prior to the session. A number of respondents suggested from experience that they found the sessions to run more effectively if they had previously met the participants at other node locations in a face-to-face situation.

Having an existing relationship with some/all participants definitely helps to overcome any glitches

…better if you have met them face to face before- then it is much more informal and conversations flow easier

of 91

Protocols

There was strong agreement amongst all the respondents that their Access Grid experiences could have been improved through the introduction of more definite protocols.

Facilitation

Many respondents focused on facilitation as the main method for improving sessions. When asked about the chairing of their session, almost all of the respondents highly agreed, agreed or agreed to a limited extent that the chairing of the sessions led to ‘focused’ (93.4%) or ‘good’ (94.4%) discussion, as described in Figure 20.

Figure 20: The Facilitation/Chairing of the Session Resulted in the Following Outcomes:

Despite the predominantly positive feeling about the chairing, specific issues were raised concerning chairing along with suggestions for more effective chairing. Several respondents mentioned how various groups were overlooked unless the chair was particularly strong.

The sessions I attended were supposed to be post graduate sessions but were dominated in the discussions by senior academics

of 91

Access grid enables participation from more extroverted people. More difficult for introverted people to enter the conversation unless well facilitated.

These comments point to the need for facilitators to be aware of the aims of the sessions and the roles of those participating.

The largest number of comments focused on the difficulty in getting the facilitator’s attention and understanding who was being addressed. Respondents spoke about the need for “hand waving” to attract attention before speaking, and the way the Access Grid only allowed one person to speak at a time in a “turn taking” fashion, which limited discussion. Three respondents summarised how these issues needed to be addressed by the facilitator at the beginning of the session:

All sessions need an active facilitator [sic] who tells people at the beginning [sic] how to participate in that environment- hand up for signal to talk, wait till you are asked to speak to avoid speaking over the top, pause and make time for others who have not spoken.

My experience, however, was of confronting another set of 'protocols' to learn. I would have liked some introduction [sic] to those protocols and some transparent discussion about them.

best session I attended in terms of getting people to contribute was one where the presenter got everyone to introduce themselves at the beginning of the session and explicitly asked for comments/questions from each site when he had finished

Several respondents also expressed a wish for sessions to begin with some sort of “ice breaking” or introductions between participants to create a more comfortable atmosphere within the ‘Grid’. A few commented on how they found Access Grid interaction a lot easier if they were already acquainted with other participants.

A few respondents noted that it was not only the facilitators who needed to develop specific skills in the Access Grid, arguing that participants also needed to learn to act accordingly and “to develop skills in listening in a multi site environment.” Many respondents described various distracting practices by others on the Access Grid, which limited their ability to hear the discussion: “People feel free to have discussions as asides if they can't be heard. They wander in and out of the meeting.” This suggests that specific written protocols about how to run a session would be beneficial for both facilitators and participants.

Room Set-Up

Many respondents commented on the difficulties of co-ordinating the large numbers of people and technologies together into a working format. It was acknowledged that the particular assemblage of these technologies needed more specific and definite protocols to work to best effect.

The camera angles at all sites need to be coordinated to create virtual round table, if possible. The integration of the technology, camera angles, flags to

of 91

speak etc have to be managed alongside or WITH the usual meeting facilitation/chairing.

This respondent commented on the need for all parts of the assemblage to work together seamlessly in order for the session to flow more effectively. Another respondent suggested a very definite method to achieve this during a presentation session through using techniques developed for film:

A way to address this might be for the grid technicians and researchers to develop a template whereby there are agreed conventions regarding camera angles, screen sizes, foci, lighting, representation of ‘audience’, etc. Thus the technician is also a choreographer of sorts who assembles the encounter in a coherent way across all nodes so that the contrivance of the event becomes less so – and less distracting. one way of more naturally mimicking the experience of face to face interaction in spite of separate locations is to use the convention and metaphor of both the cinema and the film director. So we have multi-screen (windows) ‘establishing’ shots of the various locations and participants as well as audience for the first few minutes of a presentation while various sound and visual checks can be done etc. Then rather than ‘dimming the lights’ so as to represent the ‘audiences’ in their various locations fading out as the presentation begins, instead the screens /windows representing the audience, are reduced in size so that distracting detail is lost but there is still a sense of an audience out there. So we see groups of people’s faces ‘dimmed’ or subordinated by virtue of window/screen sizes but we know they are still there in the dynamic and we are authentically denied voyeuristic witness to scratching legs and the oversized mug of coffee which threaten to intrude. The main screen/windows now ‘zoom in’ on the speaker(s) and the PowerPoint presentation etc. so these two screens (or more as appropriate) are the overall focus with other screens now constrained to the periphery. I think the images/windows seen on the screen need to be choreographed and ‘directed’ so as to mimic more the perspective of presenter (dominant) and audience (passive but watching) during a presentation at least.

This detailed response offers a different but potentially effective way of running a presentation session, although different protocols would be necessary for running other types of sessions.

Another question raised was which screens should be shown on the wall to create an effective session. The survey included two open questions asking respondents to describe, in their own words, how they felt about seeing their own image and the image of their node on the screen. The majority of respondents gave very brief answers to this such as “ok” or “sweet as”, which could easily be categorised and graphed (see Figure 21).

of 91

Figure 21: Feelings About Seeing Own Image

There was more negativity towards seeing “your own image” in comparison to seeing other people, but interesting that 13.3% agreed that they were uncomfortable at first but soon became accustomed to seeing themselves. The majority (65%) of respondents were positive, very positive or neutral about seeing the image of their own node on the screen, with several comments about how this created a feeling on inclusiveness,

it would have been strange not to have seen our image on the screen as it puts you in context with the other sessions.

Figure 22: How did you feel about seeing the other people in your physical node over the Access Grid?

of 91

Respondents also noted the difficulties interacting with participants in their own node owing to the screen shot.

Most of the people at the session were at our node and seeing them only through the screen (we were at the front), while hearing them from behind, led to a feeling of being split. Attention was split, and disengagement resulted.

Suggestions to improve communications within the node tended to involve the rearrangement of their room, rather than the use of the screens: “Set up involved speaker facing away from audience in the room. Perhaps speaker and facilitator could sit at back of room, instead of at front?” This arrangement could potentially solve the feeling of disconnectedness that several respondents commented on towards those in their own node.

Time and Information

A number of respondents also commented that more definite protocols for booking and attending sessions would be useful. Several described problems with booking sessions while others identified concerns with knowing whom to contact for more information.

It's no easy to work out who to contact to rsvp your attendance [sic]

Other respondents indicated they would have liked more time for informal discussion: “when connection stopped, the whole meeting just stopped with no further or follow on discussion.” This was compared with physical meetings, which were described as often including informal discussion at the end. Several described how they would have liked to know how to contact the speaker to follow up on the session.

By contrast, the majority (65.1%) of respondents who attended BRCCS meetings felt that the two-hour time frame was about right for these meetings, with the next largest percentage (14.2%) feeling this was too long, as detailed in the graph below:

Figure 23: BRCSS Meetings are Usually Scheduled for Two Hours. Is this:

of 91

(N=106)

This suggests that although respondents who attended BRCSS meetings were generally happy with the time allocation, there are other types of sessions, which could be improved by including more discussion time.

of 91

Socio-Technical Spaces

Respondents described a range of factors regarding the set up of the camera and the physical room, which affected their experience of the Access Grid.

Interacting with Others in your Node

A common comment involved the difficulty with interacting with people within their own node. In several cases, this was attributed to the placement of the chairs, which were all facing the screens rather than each other thereby creating a sense of “people strung out in a line”. The placement of the cameras and the microphones also made this difficult. Comments included:

If anything it kinda just fails when the person u want to beat a point with is on the same side as u screen wise.

I found the fact that we faced away from people in the room highly disconcerting.

the set up in individual rooms varies but is designed for communication 'outwards' so it is hard to include the colleagues in the same room in an equally appropriate way

Responses indicated that the set up of the room with all participants facing the screen was not conducive to interaction with those within their own node, which was felt to be important. As Figure 24 shows, the majority of nodes (86.7%) displayed their own image:

Figure 24: Node Image Displayed in Session

However, although the majority (65%) of respondents were positive, very positive or neutral about seeing the image of their own node on the screen, (refer to ‘Room Set-up’ in the ‘Protocols’ section of this report for further discussion), this was not felt to be a solution to interacting with those in the room. This suggests that different room configurations could be explored to attempt to address this issue.

of 91

(N=105)

Screen Placement and Overload

Several respondents commented on a feeling of “overload” during an Access Grid session.

the difficulty of scanning all the nodes continuously seeing who is saying what and following conversation… Sometimes it makes me feel 'screen sick ' feels like travel sickness.

Survey responses indicated that potentially there could be up to 30 people at each of eight screens and a PowerPoint presentation to follow during a session. The most frequently reported group size in a single node was between two and ten people, with 76.2% of all respondents indicating the number of people present to fit within the categories 2-5 and 5-10. Across all nodes, 72.4% of respondents indicated there were between 10 – 30 people present, although 8.6% reported more than 30. The number of screens and people all on camera resulted in there being a lot to watch during sessions, much of which was not necessarily related to the session content. As one respondent described:

There were too many foci - desks, legs, laptop lids, distressed faces caught in a Bergmann-like eerie light (because of strange camera and light positioning), cup, people talking... etc

Comments such as this suggest a large number of potential distractions from the session content in addition to the possibility of feeling overwhelmed.

As well as the number of screens and people to follow, there was also variation in the size of the images displayed, which may have attributed to the “overload” feeling. Figures 25 and 26 describe the respondents’ views of the sizes of the images in relation to others.

Figure 25: Size of Presenter/Facilitator Image Relative to other Node Images

Figure 26: Size of the Power Point Presentation Relative to the Node Images

of 91

As displayed in Figure 27, over half the participants (57%) reported some or a lot of movement of images.

Figure 27: Amount of Movement of Displayed Images During the Session

In the “Other” comments it became apparent that some respondents were unsure what was meant by “movement” as some stated that there was no movement apart from the technician zooming while others considered the technician’s zooming as definitely movement. The 17% who replied “Don’t Know” also suggests that there could perhaps have been some uncertainty about what was meant by movement in this question. Nonetheless, there was a clear indication that in many cases, some form of movement of the images was experienced during the session.

of 91

(N=100)

Who is ‘the Group’?

The large number of screens and people present potentially created confusion about who was part of the Access Grid session. As the graph below indicates, although 69.5% agree that both the people in the room and all of the people seen on the screens are considered to be part of the group, there is not strong agreement about whether other people, such as technicians, should be considered part of the session.

Figure 28: Who is Considered Part of the Group in a Session

The status of the technician was particularly called into question. A number of respondents noted the dependence on the skills of the technician for ensuring they had a successful Access Grid session. 35% of respondents indicated that they considered the technicians at their locations to be a part of their Access Grid group, with 14.3% also considering technicians at other locations as part of the group. Several respondents described the unreliability of technicians as a reason for them not liking the Access Grid.

Too dependent on expertise of technical person present. They can spend their time re-arranging the pictures from each site all over the screen, while the participants have to try and make out what site in particular has gone where now!

There was considerable concern about the reliance on the skills of technicians for sessions to proceed effectively, with several comments describing the abilities of the technician to be their reason for preferring one node over another.

of 91

How to Use the Grid

The often unfamiliar assemblage of technologies in the Access Grid nodes also led to comments that revealed a lack of understanding about how the Access Grid worked and how to use it best. For example, there were several comments regarding the positioning of the microphone and the need for it to be closer to the speaker. Others also commented on the need for people to make less insignificant noise near the microphone, for example, “people are rustling papers near a mike”.

Similarly, there were some comments about an initial lack of clarity about what the images were and how they fit together.

it was not immediately obvious to me that two screens of differing sizes assembled in different areas of the large screen were in fact the same location seen from different angles. The mind had to work somewhat to piece together the experience, taking disparate aural and visual cues and somehow try to assemble them so as to recreate a sense of ambience and participation.

Camera Positioning

Another initially disconcerting factor was the placement of the camera. Many commented on the strangeness of the camera being in a different place to the wall, giving an impression of no eye contact.

When people spoke they looked at the screen (rather than the cameras)- which is completely natural, but it looks like people aren't speaking to each other.

there is still considerable discomfort for some users with the microphone/screen interface so some people tend to shout or crane toward the mic and /or look at the wall projections rather than the cameras

These components do become less significant as participants become more comfortable with the technologies.

Rooms

Related to camera position is the set up of the room. It was clear that the atmosphere of the room strongly influenced respondents’ overall experience of the Access Grid. For example, when asked what they liked about the Access Grid, one respondent reported, “The environment was quite nice. It was a nice room with nice facilities.” Further, when respondents were asked what they did not like about the Access Grid, several respondents commented that the room was problematic.

the rooms available are not big enough, they are not well shaped for the likely interactions

of 91

an uncomfortable and poorly fitted out room (poor seating, poor lighting, poor acoustics, poor projection wall, room subject to shaking from passing traffic)

the shocking 'lighting' in some of the sites that means that people look disembodied, seriously ill, or just ghostly is off putting

One respondent suggested that “If all the nodes were set-up so that the experiences was of a similar quality then it would be a lot closer to a natural experience and therefore would be brilliant.”

Comfort Levels with Technology

A significant theme that emerged from the survey was the way the respondents’ familiarity or comfort level with the technology influenced their view of the Access Grid and how they conducted themselves within sessions.

Once you’re used to the set up asking a question is no more or less difficult than in a face-to-face meeting providing the technology is working on the day.

This was confirmed by those who had attended many sessions, stating how they often forgot they were not simply interacting face to face.

Thinking of a particular paper writing meeting one of the things that surprised me was the speed with which I forgot that I wasn't actually face to face with the people I was working with - 5 minutes max!

When the technology is working well you forget that you are not in the immediate presence of others

There was almost unanimous agreement that there were certain aspects of the Access Grid, which required some “getting used to”. The most commonly mentioned was the camera, both in terms of seeing their own and others’ images. When asked how they felt about seeing their image and able to give any open response, 13.3% of respondents said they were at first uncomfortable seeing their image but soon got used to it, as these two respondents described:

A little bit uncomfortable, it felt like big brother was watching, but then when the session went ahead and the presentations begun i forgot all about it.

Initally [sic] critical of how I looked but as time went on it wasn't important - became invisible as I focussed on what others were saying/doing

Respondents focused on how their discomfort could extend from seeing themselves on camera.

“There was definitely an adjustment period as people got used to seeing themselves and one another on camera” or in terms of having to ‘talk to’ the camera.

Once people got over the fear of talking to a camera, they participated fully.

This suggests that people were more likely to contribute once they were familiar with the technology.

of 91

initially it is a little strange and interaction is stilted but this soon changes as people relax. From my observations this relaxation doesn't really occur until about 10 minutes [sic] into any given session and usually only for those who have been before. First timers tend to sit back and observe.

If people have not previously experienced video conferencing - they are a little more reluctant to enter the conversation vis a vis more experienced participants.

Some argued that the manner of the contributions also varied as participants became more comfortable, moving from politeness to discussion that was more detailed.

It has taken a while for people to become familiar with this new environment - thus it is only recently [sic] that more in depth, challenging and 'mature' -less 'polite' conversations are occurring.

One respondent compared the experience to a phone in the sense that although the phone has become a normalised feature of society, phone conversations deviate from face-to-face interactions even more than the Access Grid.

something to get 'used to' like talking to people on a phone. Phones are a very 'naturalised' way of communicating so we tend to factor in all the missing aspects - body language etc. my initial expectation of the access grid is that it would feel 'richer' and 'more normal' than phones (which I generally dislike).

Analysing the responses of those who had attended five or more sessions in comparison with those who had attended less, those who had attended more tended to have a more positive attitude towards the Access Grid. They were aware of the technical issues but believed it would be possible to move beyond these, for example:

Still some IT issues I think as new It develops the culture [sic] and process for it has some growing pains, that’s [sic] all. I like the grid, i like that it can save me flying every where .. If anything it kinda just fails when the person u want to beat a point with is on the same side as u screen wise. Get the technology civilised and let us all have a go..

In contrast, those who had attended only a few sessions were more likely to be critical of the technology and focus on its limitations.

Beset with technical challenges - poor sound quality and, during the presentation, some hitches with the powerpoint presentation (ie., slides could only be seen by some nodes). Also too much background noise was distracting.

Use of Other Media Conferencing Tools

Another factor was not only familiarity with the Access Grid itself, but with other similar tools. As Figure 29 shows, 69.5% of respondents had used some form of other media conferencing tools.

of 91

Figure 29: Have you Used Other Media Conferencing Tools?

The tools used took on a variety of forms, with respondents invited to list the tools they had used in their own words. Some respondents described specific packages such as Evo or Skype however, the most common responses were vaguer, indicating an unnamed form of video or audio conferences.

Table 5: Other Media Conferencing Tools Used

When asked what they liked about the Access Grid, several respondents used their experience with other conferencing tools as a point of comparison. The main focus was on how the visual component made the Access Grid superior to standard teleconferencing.

Better for groups than telephone conferencing in some ways because of the visuals. Can see people's graphs/pics. It does give you some idea of how people look and this helped me connect names to faces

As discussed in more detail on pages 40 and 42, others mentioned the ability to see body language as an important component of the visual that was superior to the phone.

of 91

(N=128)

Recommendations

1. Information regarding what the ‘Access Grid’ and other advanced video conferencing tools are, how they operate, their relationship to KAREN technologies and the BRCSS goals needs to be more widely distributed.

Dissemination would be possible via the BRCSS and ACVCC websites.

Information about exactly where the nodes are in each location needs to be more accessible.

Session information needs to be more accessible and clear.

2. Session Protocols: the creation of a specific set of procedures to be followed throughout sessions across all nodes.

Respondents requested more clarification at the outset of each session regarding session protocols, introduction of nodes and participants present and reminder of guidelines for any general protocols and those particular to that session.

Protocols for the facilitator and other participants need to be explicit, for example, a method for gaining the facilitator’s attention in order to contribute.

Clarification of how camera positioning relates to the display of speakers and nodes needs to be provided.

Protocols may need to be developed specifically for formal and informal session types.

3. Spaces, Node Locations and Technologies would benefit from some refinements.

All nodes need to be clean, comfortable, pleasant spaces.

of 91

The microphone technologies need to be improved to include consistent sound throughout the room, preventing the need for participants to physically move to where the microphone can hear them.

In sessions that are specific presentations, the volume of the microphones in other nodes needs to dimmed or turned off to avoid distracting noises such as paper rustling.

The images of other nodes could also potentially be dimmed.

The technology needs to be stabilised across all sites.

Investigation should be made as to whether node displays at each location can be identically sized and ordered, thus reducing the ‘dislocation’ some respondents reported.

Technicians need a consistent standard of training and need to be present throughout all sessions.

Chairs/Facilitators need to take more active role in managing session protocols.

of 91

Future Research

1. The use of the Access Grid by different cultural groups and its ability to meet different needs.

2. The potential use of the Access Grid as a teaching device.

3. Further exploration into the ideal room set up and arrangement of chairs to create the most effective sessions.

4. Exploration of methods to include a component of informal chat following sessions and the linking with other VRE communication tools.

5. Further investigation into the types of sessions taking place on the Access Grid and their specific needs.

6. Comparison of the ease of implementation of recommendations between existing Access Grid technologies and High Definitions options.

7. Further research into the effect of the inability to have informal chat after the sessions on collaboration potential as this issue was highlighted by several respondents.

of 91

References

Berman, F., Fox, G. C., & Hey, A. J. G. (Eds.). (2003). Grid Computing Making the Global Infrastructure a Reality. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

e-Social Canterbury. (2007) accessed online: 18th December 2007. http://interact.canterbury.ac.nz.

Ministry of Economic Development, Department of Labour, Ministry of Education, New Zealand National Library, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, Ministry of Research and Science and Technology, Te Puni Kokiri, Ministry of Health, State Services Commission & Local Government New Zealand. (2004) Digital Strategy: A Draft New Zealand Digital Strategy for Consultation.

Thorns, D. (2006). Creating E-research Communities: the Aotearoa /New Zealand National Project Paper presented at the National Centre for E-Social Science, Manchester.

of 91

Appendices

of 91

Survey

of 91

Letter of invitation to BRCSS College:

We would like to invite you to take part in a web based survey that we are carrying out to gauge experiences of the use of the Access Grid Video conferencing technology within the BRCSS network.

To take part please log on to the survey site at:

An analysis of data collected will be presented to the Research College at the Meeting on the 28th and 29th of November this year and be used to assist in furthering the development and use of the technology within the BRCSS network.

For More information about the project see below or go to our research site at:

This is a collaborative interdisciplinary project, involving social scientists from the Social Science Research Centre at the School of Sociology and Anthropology, and Human Computer Interface scientists from the HIT Lab. Both groups based at the University of Canterbury and the project is funded by BRCSS and the Capability Build Fund of REANNZ.

Researchers involved in this project are:

Professor David Thorns – Director Social Science Research Centre, School of Sociology and Anthropology- UC

[email protected] Dr Mary Allan - Social Science Research Centre, School of Sociology and

Anthropology- UC [email protected] [email protected]

Dr Mark Billinghurst- Director Human Interface Technology (HIT Lab) New Zealand [email protected]

All will be pleased to discuss any concerns you may have about participation in the project.

This project has been reviewed and approved by the University of Canterbury Human Ethics Committee

We thank you for your participation in this project

David Thorns.

of 91

mailto:[email protected]



Letter of invitation to BRCSS List:

As someone who has expressed interest in the Access Grid meetings run by the BRCSS Network we would like to invite you to take part in a web based survey. It is part of research to gauge experiences of the use of the Access Grid Video conferencing technology. Even if you have not attended any meetings it would be useful to have your feedback.

The survey can be completed in 10 – 15 minutes or you may wish to take longer to detail the open responses.

Please consider the MOST RECENT Access Grid session you attended when answering questions 13 onwards.

To take part please log on to the survey site at:

An analysis of data collected will be presented to the Research College at the Meeting on the 28th and 29th of November this year and be used to assist in furthering the development and use of the technology within the BRCSS network.

This is a collaborative interdisciplinary project, involving social scientists from the Social Science Research Centre at the School of Sociology and Anthropology, and Human Computer Interface scientists from the HIT Lab. Both groups are based at the University of Canterbury and the project is funded by BRCSS and the Capability Build Fund of REANNZ.Researchers involved in this project are:


For More information about the project see below or go to our research site at: http://www.ssrc.canterbury.ac.nz/research/virtual/virtual_tech.shtmlWe thank you for your participation in this project

David Thorns.

Director SSRC

of 91

http://www.ssrc.canterbury.ac.nz/research/virtual/virtual_tech.shtml

Project Information Cover Sheet

The Role of Virtual Technologies in Creating New Forms of Knowledge

ICT infrastructure and powerful technologies such as the Access Grid connect New Zealand universities and research centres and open up opportunities for national and international collaboration. It is expected that this collaboration will enhance the ability of New Zealand researchers to compete globally In order to accomplish this expectation; New Zealand requires tools for evaluating the quality, productiveness, and effectiveness of the use of new ICT infrastructures such as the Access Grid.

The infrastructure of Access Grid allows for people located at different geographical locations to communicate and interact through a videos conferencing tool that connects universities and research centres across the whole of New Zealand, and also allows for international communication, connecting to universities in the USA, Europe, and Australia. The Access Grid allows people at different geographical locations to talk to each other as if they were sharing the same physical location. Using the technology participants are able to share resources such as PowerPoint presentations, video clips, slide show, etc.

The technology allows participants to share a space for communicating and exchanging information sources. It has the potential to support research, and learning across teams, or facilitate participants to access human resources such as experts in a particular field without having to travel great distances. Furthermore, the technology facilitates increased frequency of communication without increasing travel, saving time and expenses, while at the same time providing robust and extensive communicative networks.

The aim of this project is to explore models and uses for constructing supporting and sustaining AGN environments as collaborative cyber knowledge spaces.

We invite you to participate in this project and choose your preferred level of involvement:

Level one: Allowing us to record and analyse your interactions during Access Grid sessions, and fill out a questionnaire (estimated time of completion 20 minutes).

Level two:Participate in an online discussion forum that will discuss key issues relating to the use of technology in education and research, and the added value it may have for our economy.Should you consent to participate in this project, we will record and analyse your interactions in the Access Grid sessions of your group and ask you to contribute 20 minutes of your time to fill out a questionnaire at the end of the Access Grid session.

We would also appreciate if you would consider a level two participation and choose to take part in the online discussion forum, which will be advertised at your Access Grid session.

Any non- consenting participants appearing in the recording of the sessions will not be included in the data and their interactions will not be analysed.

of 91

You have the right to withdraw from the project at any time, including withdrawal of any information provided. Choosing not to participate will not affect in any way your course work or the evaluation of your assignments/dissertation/ thesis

This is a collaborative interdisciplinary project, involving social scientists from the Social Science Research Centre at the School of Sociology and Anthropology, and Human Computer Interface scientists from the HIT Lab. Both groups are based at the University of Canterbury

Researchers involved in this project are: Professor David Thorns – Director Social Science Research Centre, School of

Sociology and Anthropology- UC [email protected]

Dr Mary Allan - Social Science Research Centre, School of Sociology and Anthropology- UC

[email protected] Dr Mark Billinghurst- Director Human Interface Technology (HIT Lab) New Zealand

[email protected]

All will be pleased to discuss any concerns you may have about participation in the project.


of 91




Access Grid Calendar

The number of intended Access Grid Sessions as presented above is indicative only and intended only as a guide. For an up to date viewing of current bookings please refer to: http://avcc.karen.net.nz/wiki/Calendar.

of 91

http://avcc.karen.net.nz/wiki/Calendar

report_draft 15_14_janmaster_final

Documents