social, ethical, digital: issues in 3d worlds research
DESCRIPTION
This presentation was given by Sheila Webber (Sheffield University Information School) and Marshall Dozier (University of Edinburgh) on 15 October 2014 at the Methodological Challenges seminar organised by the faculty of Social Sciences, University of Sheffield. The venue for the seminar was Sheffield, UK, but the presentation was made in the virtual world, Second Life, and livestreamed via skype.TRANSCRIPT
Social, ethical, digital: issues in
3D worlds research
October 2014
Sheila Webber /
Sheila Yoshikawa
Marshall Dozier /
Pancha Enzyme
Outline
● Our practice in working together
● Three studies we draw on for this presentation
● Demonstration of tools used in a Second Life focus
group
● Using a combination of VW and physical world
networks and tools
● Issues arising from our experience
● Final thoughts
Webber and Dozier 2014 Second Life is a trademark of Linden Lab
[03:31] Sheila Yoshikawa: also you will see i have put something on the "anonymity" slide [03:31] Pancha Enzyme: just mulling categories - agreed good idea. [03:31] Pancha Enzyme: looking at anon slide [03:32] Sheila Yoshikawa: i just changed it to emphasise 2 angles I [03:32] Sheila Yoshikawa: there are others e.g. no point anonymising text if the unanonymised version avaibale there on the web? [03:33] Pancha Enzyme: I wonder if those points about anonymity extend to research more generally? [03:33] Pancha Enzyme: i mean not just VW research [03:33] Sheila Yoshikawa: yes, I think they do
Use of Google
Drive to save
chatlogs of
meetings and draft
presentation,
including working
on it during
meetings - small
amount of use of
chat feature
Chatlog extract
Meetings to
discuss this
presentation
took place in
Second Life
SL chat and now and
then voice used in
combo with Email,
GoogleDrive, PPT
Our practice in working on this presentation
“Pancha Enzyme: I love
a meeting when giant
pink flamingo is
included”
Tried some
other tools
before deciding
on Drive Webber and Dozier 2014
Studies: 1. Investigating Information Behaviour in SL
● RQs included: What is the information behaviour (IB)
of people when seeking information about a SL
activity?
● 91 interviews carried out by Sheila’s 1st year students,
over period of 4 years
● Interviews in SL, critical incident technique, text chat
used and logged
● Students reflected on interview process
● See also Webber (2013); Webber (2010)
Webber and Dozier 2014
2. Evaluation of a student event
● Study of participants’ experience of an event in SL
(dissertation festival for Masters students)
● Data: mainly follow-up interviews (by email), chat
transcripts (SL), photos of event (SL)
● See O’Shea and Dozier (2014)
Webber and Dozier 2014
3. Case study of a Journal club ● RQ1: What are the motivations, expectations,
experiences and outcomes for participants in a SL journal
club?
● RQ2: What research methods and techniques can be
used to illuminate the experience of a SL journal club?
● Case = A journal club on information literacy taking place
in SL monthly since August 2010: we are the organisers
● Data: chatlogs of JC meetings;
photos; videos; field notes;
documents; focus groups;
questionnaires
Webber and Dozier 2014
Demonstration of data gathering tools for a
focus group
Platform constructed in the sky by the researchers.
The boards and opinionator used in the next slides were existing tools, created by others
Webber and Dozier 2014
Initially focus group members each went to a board where they could record thoughts on what
motivated them to participate in Journal Club Webber and Dozier 2014
The boards were drawn to the centre of the platform, each person explained their
points and a new large board was used to list the key points that the members agreed
on as motives Webber and Dozier 2014
The opinionator was used to stimulate discussion on how and why Journal Club had or had not had an impact
This had been below the platform: when it was needed the boards were lowered out of sight and this brought up
Records of the focus group were the boards, photos of the opinionator, text chatlog, selective videos
● Pre-research for learning about the culture
● Recruitment
● Data collection
● Research meetings before and during the project
● Dissemination
● Researcher development
Using a combination of VW and physical world
networks and tools in the research process
Webber and Dozier 2014
Issues with VW interviewing
● Drawing on reflections of Sheila’s students who
interviewed in SL
● Some further points from the second study
Webber and Dozier 2014
Interviews: Adjusting to technical
intermediation
● Preparedness for technical issues - for interviewer,
interviewee or VW systems
● Difficulty in differentiating between pauses for thought
& crashing out
● Difficulties typing (where interviews are conducted
using text and not voice)
Webber and Dozier 2014
Interviews: Having familiarity with with the VW
● Creating an appropriate research or interview
setting
● Level of VW skills - for interviewer and
interviewee
● Language informality or VW
conventions - may be
advantage or disadvantage
Webber and Dozier 2014
Interviews: Affordances & constraints of VW
● Flexibility in designing the spaces for research
● 3D environment gives opportunity for socialisation chat,
although still need to create rapport pre-interview
● Lack of physical world body language - but for those with
experience in SL, there is SL body language
● Difficulty in telling when someone has more to say
● Interviewee may be distracted - both by physical world and
virtual world
● If using text chat; automatic transcript and video and picture-
taking also may be easier than in physical world
Webber and Dozier 2014
Are there ethical concerns about avatar vs. “real life”
identities? ● Do we know a person’s “real life” identity and does it matter to the
research project?
● Complexity of demographic data (RL and VW demographics may
differ, adding richness but also
complexity)
● Those new to VWs might assume that
VW names were de facto anonymous:
problematic!
● Understanding whether the interviewee
is ‘vulnerable’ in any way that could be
affected by the project
Webber and Dozier 2014
Anonymity: still desirable and possible?
● Interviewees may not want to be anonymous
● Interviewers may find THEIR confidentiality breached
● Example of the interviewee blogger
● Sheila’s own experience as participant in a PhD
student’s study
● Interviewees may want to reuse data
Webber and Dozier 2014
Final Thoughts
● Enhanced opportunities for remote research collaboration
● SL is a place where research can be, and is being, done
● Research need not be about VW: environment for
planning; implementing; disseminating research in any
subject
● Requires researchers’ comfort with multimodalities o specifically, need familiarity with SL to research in SL
● Avatar representations have deepened
thinking around issues of identity and notions
of anonymity
P.S. It’s fun Webber and Dozier 2014
References and further sources
● O’Shea, C. and Dozier, M. (2014) ‘That ever-ephemeral sense of
“being” somewhere’: Reflections on a Dissertation Festival in
Second Life. In: DeCoursey C, and Garrett S, eds. Teaching and
Learning in Virtual Worlds. Oxford, England: Interdisciplinary Press.
(pre-print available from http://tinyurl.com/pbp2juq)
● Webber, S. (2013). Blended information behaviour in Second Life.
Journal of information science, 39(1), 85–100
● Webber, S. (2010). Investigating modes of student inquiry in Second
Life as part of a blended approach. International Journal of Virtual
and Personal Learning Environments, 1 (3), 55-70.
● Webber, S. (2011) Presenting and exploring research findings in
Second Life. (video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoQ-
tYEXvGg
Sheila Webber
Information School
University of Sheffield
SL: Sheila Yoshikawa
Twitter @sheilayoshikawa
http://information-literacy.blogspot.com/
http://www.slideshare.net/sheilawebber/
Orcid ID 0000-0002-2280-9519
Marshall Dozier
Information Services
University of Edinburgh
Twitter @mafrado
SL: Pancha Enzyme
Orcid ID 0000-0002-5151-1252
Pictures by Sheila Webber and Marshall Dozier 2014