Defense Ates Gursimsek Mutlimodal Semiotics and Collaborative Design
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Defense Ates Gursimsek Mutlimodal Semiotics and Collaborative Design

on

  • 3,154 views

These are the slides that the PhD Grading Committee used to structure the PhD Defense discussion.

These are the slides that the PhD Grading Committee used to structure the PhD Defense discussion.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,154
Views on SlideShare
938
Embed Views
2,216

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
9
Comments
0

7 Embeds 2,216

http://nordicworlds.net 2180
http://abtasty.com 25
http://www.linkedin.com 3
https://www.linkedin.com 3
http://www.nordicworlds.net. 2
http://djp3k05 2
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Develop more – internal/external - >
  • Jim asks this? http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/number_of_virtual_world_users_breaks_the_1_billion.phpWhat are the 5 phases of a Hype Cycle?1. "Technology Trigger"The first phase of a Hype Cycle is the "technology trigger" or breakthrough, product launch or other event that generates significant press and interest. 2. "Peak of Inflated Expectations"In the next phase, a frenzy of publicity typically generates over-enthusiasm and unrealistic expectations. There may be some successful applications of a technology, but there are typically more failures. 3. "Trough of Disillusionment"Technologies enter the "trough of disillusionment" because they fail to meet expectations and quickly become unfashionable. Consequently, the press usually abandons the topic and the technology. 4. "Slope of Enlightenment"Although the press may have stopped covering the technology, some businesses continue through the "slope of enlightenment" and experiment to understand the benefits and practical application of the technology. 5. "Plateau of Productivity"A technology reaches the "plateau of productivity" as the benefits of it become widely demonstrated and accepted. The technology becomes increasingly stable and evolves in second and third generations. The final height of the plateau varies according to whether the technology is broadly applicable or benefits only a niche market.Virtual worlds have reached a stage where new users continue to build, even though the media has moved on to fan the fires of Facebook and Twitter, says Douglas Thompson, CEO of Remedy Communications, a Toronto marketing firm. Second Life says the time spent on the site by users increased 21 percent in 2009. Most paying customers on Second Life are purely social, but it still boasts 1,400 business-related organizations as users. Thompson says traffic on Metanomics, his company’s Second Life video presence, has picked up in the past year, with 50 percent of new users coming from small or medium-size companies. “People no longer ask what an avatar is,” says Thompson. “We can thank Jim Cameron for that.”Read more: Entrepreneurs Doing Business by Avatar - Personal Finance - Employment - SmartMoney.comhttp://www.smartmoney.com/Personal-Finance/Employment/Entrepreneurs-Doing-Business-by-Avatar/#ixzz0pp1H6D7N
  • Relationship of role-player to chosen role especially in terms of boundary between being in character (IC) and as such removed from reality and the move to being out of character (OOC), which instead highlights negotiations of social, sometime make-belief roles. Interested in digital arenas for free play…why free play vs scripted worlds? How does it matter to the RQ?Is it role-play in a new realm or is it the interplay of primary interest?What do we know about this interplay in offline context?Focus is interplay between mv and mf or interaction between players? – p. 52: performance studies investigate interaction that is performed between players, animate as well as inanimate, How people explore and negotiate boundary between being IC and OCC. P. 35 – then why not use identity as lens?But why is this interplay of interest?Specific focus? Grandmother…
  • Relationship of role-player to chosen role especially in terms of boundary between being in character (IC) and as such removed from reality and the move to being out of character (OOC), which instead highlights negotiations of social, sometime make-belief roles. Interested in digital arenas for free play…why free play vs scripted worlds? How does it matter to the RQ?Is it role-play in a new realm or is it the interplay of primary interest?What do we know about this interplay in offline context?Focus is interplay between mv and mf or interaction between players? – p. 52: performance studies investigate interaction that is performed between players, animate as well as inanimate, How people explore and negotiate boundary between being IC and OCC. P. 35 – then why not use identity as lens?But why is this interplay of interest?Specific focus? Grandmother…
  • Francesco – space, place, virtual
  • FL & RT
  • Generalizability?
  • Relationship of role-player to chosen role especially in terms of boundary between being in character (IC) and as such removed from reality and the move to being out of character (OOC), which instead highlights negotiations of social, sometime make-belief roles. Interested in digital arenas for free play…why free play vs scripted worlds? How does it matter to the RQ?Is it role-play in a new realm or is it the interplay of primary interest?What do we know about this interplay in offline context?Focus is interplay between mv and mf or interaction between players? – p. 52: performance studies investigate interaction that is performed between players, animate as well as inanimate, How people explore and negotiate boundary between being IC and OCC. P. 35 – then why not use identity as lens?But why is this interplay of interest?Specific focus? Grandmother…
  • Develop more – internal/external - >

Defense Ates Gursimsek Mutlimodal Semiotics and Collaborative Design Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Word cloud of thesishttp://www.tagxedo.com/app.html
  • 2. Summary Academic pioneer! − Very timely and relevant research area! − Interesting research question! Comprehensive theoretical background − Comprehensive and systemic overview of relevant theories and concepts − Touches on other relevant concepts/theories as well Noteworthy methodology − Use of multiple data sources and multiple perspectives in data analysis is noteworthy − In-depth view of collaboration in virtual spaces Fascinating and rich findings and implications − Fascinating insights into design of virtual world places − Implications for many areas both theoretical and practical
  • 3. Today’s discussionMotivationTheoretical backgroundResearch questionMethodologyAnalysisFindings and implicationsSummary
  • 4. Today’s discussionMotivationTheoretical backgroundResearch questionMethodologyAnalysisFindings and implicationsSummary
  • 5. Isn’t Second Life dead? May 2006 July 2007http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1447613
  • 6. Research Question “How do the VW users co-produce multimodal meaning potentials in virtual places and artifacts through collaborative design, as exemplified by the social semiotic analysis of the three case studies in SL?”
  • 7. Research Question “How do the VW users co-produce multimodal meaning potentials in virtual places and artifacts through collaborative design, as exemplified by the social semiotic analysis of the three case studies in SL?” But how would you explain this to your grandmother?
  • 8. Today’s discussionMotivationTheoretical backgroundResearch questionMethodologyAnalysisFindings and implicationsSummary
  • 9. Theoretical background Virtual Worlds Social Semiotics Design Research Research gap?
  • 10. Theoretical background Virtual Worlds Social Semiotics Design ResearchWhy not…. Affordances? Power? Group theory Organizational behavior?
  • 11. Research question revisited “How do the VW users co-produce multimodal meaning potentials in virtual places and artifacts through collaborative design, as exemplified by the social semiotic analysis of the three case studies in SL?” What is the level of analysis? − The group of co-producers? − The co-production/collaboration process among individuals? −? What is the focus of analysis? − Interplay among individuals co-producing? − Interplay among co-producing group, places, and practices? − Nexus of multimodal meaning potentials? − The actual texts and objects co-produced? − Affordances and constraints of SL: Experiential, Interpersonal, Textual? − Power relations and division of tasks?
  • 12. Your approach In order to study the co-production of meaning potentials in SL, I use the multimodal social semiotic approach to communication, and a methodological blend of multimodal analysis with the methods borrowed from socio-cultural analysis of mediated social action. (p.6) Why do you use this approach? − Why not Social psychology, Organizational behavior, Innovation studies, other?
  • 13. Today’s discussionMotivationTheoretical backgroundResearch questionMethodologyAnalysisFindings and implicationsSummary
  • 14. MethodologyGrounded Theory and AbductiveCase Studies 1. Metrotropia project and interdisciplinary collaboration in the design of a virtual laboratory 2. Pop Art Lab and the role of inworld relations in collaborative design teams, Power relations and the division of tasks in the Metrotopia project 3. The virtual world workshop and learning through collaborative design
  • 15. Methodology Grounded Theory and Abductive − Why grounded theory? − What else did you consider?
  • 16. Methodology Case Studies − Why all in SL? − Why these three? − Overview of data collection? − Which data did you really use in your analysis? − Why did you decide to bring in power relations and division of tasks? − What about avatar design?
  • 17. Analysis1. Social actors and power relations in groups2. Meditational means and affordances for co-design3. Collaborative processes in and with SL4. Multimodal semiotics and design of virtual places
  • 18. Today’s discussionMotivationTheoretical backgroundResearch questionMethodologyAnalysisFindings and implicationsSummary
  • 19. Findings A complex nexus in co-production practices, and a semiotic flux in the social negotiations of meta- functions, as well as identities, places, tools, affordances and methods, which are also co- produced along the process. (p.244)
  • 20. Findings1. The implications of analyzing virtual worlds as places2. The methodological and conclusions on combining the analysis of multimodal place-making with the nexus analysis framework3. Social semiotics of design as construction of a sense of place4. Affordances as meaning and action potentials5. Implications for platform and content developers6. Implications for designers
  • 21. Three kinds of affordances XGaver, W. 1991. Technology affordances. Proceedings of the CHI 1991, ACM Press: New York, 79 – 84.
  • 22. How would your findings differ if you hadstudied co-production in a physical setting?
  • 23. Figure 9.1 Framing of RQ after empirical analysis
  • 24. Theoretical contributions?Concept Concept ? A B
  • 25. Theoretical contributions? Can you draw a model of your findings? Actors AffordancesAvatars Practices Semiotic resources Places Collaboration process Task division Experiential Power function Objects/ Texts/ Interpersonal Scripts Textual function function
  • 26. What is your mostsurprising finding?
  • 27. What do your findings mean….. Methodologically − For VW researchers? Other researchers? Theoretically − For communication research? − For design research ? − For co-creation research? − For other research? Practically − For designers/producers of virtual world spaces? − For platform providers, eg Linden Lab? − For designers of physical spaces?
  • 28. Limitations? Generalizability?
  • 29. Today’s discussionMotivationTheoretical backgroundResearch questionMethodologyAnalysisFindings and implicationsSummary
  • 30. What is your headline?  RQ: “How do the VW users co-produce multimodal meaning potentials in virtual places and artifacts through collaborative design, as exemplified by the social semiotic analysis of the three case studies in SL?”http://www.recycledminds.com/2009/08/insert-your-headline-here.html
  • 31. Summary Academic pioneer! − Very timely and relevant research area! − Interesting research question! Comprehensive theoretical background − Comprehensive and systemic overview of relevant theories and concepts − Touches on other relevant concepts/theories as well Noteworthy methodology − Use of multiple data sources and multiple perspectives in data analysis is noteworthy − In-depth view of collaboration in virtual spaces Fascinating and rich findings and implications − Fascinating insights into design of virtual world places − Implications for many areas both theoretical and practical
  • 32. OverallMajor strength of the thesis −Provides a very insightful (and most likely the first) picture of the complex socio- cultural dynamics that emerge in the mediation and co-production of virtual places and artifacts. It achieved its goal!