Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Defense Ates Gursimsek Mutlimodal Semiotics and Collaborative Design

3,368 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to comment

Defense Ates Gursimsek Mutlimodal Semiotics and Collaborative Design

  1. 1. Word cloud of thesishttp://www.tagxedo.com/app.html
  2. 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. 3. Today’s discussionMotivationTheoretical backgroundResearch questionMethodologyAnalysisFindings and implicationsSummary
  4. 4. Today’s discussionMotivationTheoretical backgroundResearch questionMethodologyAnalysisFindings and implicationsSummary
  5. 5. Isn’t Second Life dead? May 2006 July 2007http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1447613
  6. 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. 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. 8. Today’s discussionMotivationTheoretical backgroundResearch questionMethodologyAnalysisFindings and implicationsSummary
  9. 9. Theoretical background Virtual Worlds Social Semiotics Design Research Research gap?
  10. 10. Theoretical background Virtual Worlds Social Semiotics Design ResearchWhy not…. Affordances? Power? Group theory Organizational behavior?
  11. 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. 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. 13. Today’s discussionMotivationTheoretical backgroundResearch questionMethodologyAnalysisFindings and implicationsSummary
  14. 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. 15. Methodology Grounded Theory and Abductive − Why grounded theory? − What else did you consider?
  16. 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. 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. 18. Today’s discussionMotivationTheoretical backgroundResearch questionMethodologyAnalysisFindings and implicationsSummary
  19. 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. 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. 21. Three kinds of affordances XGaver, W. 1991. Technology affordances. Proceedings of the CHI 1991, ACM Press: New York, 79 – 84.
  22. 22. How would your findings differ if you hadstudied co-production in a physical setting?
  23. 23. Figure 9.1 Framing of RQ after empirical analysis
  24. 24. Theoretical contributions?Concept Concept ? A B
  25. 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. 26. What is your mostsurprising finding?
  27. 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. 28. Limitations? Generalizability?
  29. 29. Today’s discussionMotivationTheoretical backgroundResearch questionMethodologyAnalysisFindings and implicationsSummary
  30. 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. 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. 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!

×