I commented on my first Massively article today. They were talking about the fact that noone seems to know where SL is going. It's part of my lit review at the moment. So I wrote (impulsively and without thought though I never do leave comments or hardly evern in any case):
Virtual Worlds are nascent. Fancy word for new. Not all of them. True. But the Linden Lab vision is. The reason Linden don't know where it is going is because it is up to the users themselves. They are the customer. Linden responds (well, in theory at least). A world imagined and created by its residents. Each interest group within SL imagines the future of the platform in their own way based on the meaning Second Life has for them. Based on how it helps them to meet their goals. The future of Second Life then is contingent upon those who create it and the ways in which they imagine its future will unfold. That's what makes it. Well, that's my two cents anyway...
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
12 August - Conceptual Framework, research objective
Research objective "to investigate the social construction of virtual worlds and its implications for virtual worlds development, adoption and usage"
Was
"to explore the role of social factors in virtual worlds usage and development" [in the sense that people's perceptions are the product of their social interactions plus what they tell their own personal 'selves'] or (better I think) "to explore virtual worlds adoption and continued use in organizational contexts"
"to explore individual perceptions of virtual worlds, their social and experiential antecedents and their impact on virtual worlds development practices in organizational contexts"
"to explore the formation of individual perceptions/attitudes/beliefs regarding online VLEs in virtual worlds, the evolution of those perceptions/attitudes/beliefs over time and their impact on online VLE usage"
Was
"to explore the role of social factors in virtual worlds usage and development" [in the sense that people's perceptions are the product of their social interactions plus what they tell their own personal 'selves'] or (better I think) "to explore virtual worlds adoption and continued use in organizational contexts"
"to explore individual perceptions of virtual worlds, their social and experiential antecedents and their impact on virtual worlds development practices in organizational contexts"
"to explore the formation of individual perceptions/attitudes/beliefs regarding online VLEs in virtual worlds, the evolution of those perceptions/attitudes/beliefs over time and their impact on online VLE usage"
Monday, August 11, 2008
11 August - conceptual framework
- Interviews etc only tell you waht people think which is what you were telling them in the first place. Historicity.
Time
Form/function
Bevhaioural intention
Research objective: "to explore the role of social factors in virtual worlds usage and development" [in the sense that people's perceptions are the product of their social interactions plus what they tell their own personal 'selves'] or (better I think) "to explore virtual worlds adoption and continued use in organizational contexts"
I like that. But it may not be specific enough. I'm playing with 2 questions to match it. Freddy suggests a third question that deals with the results I hope to get.
Research objective was: "to explore individual perceptions of virtual worlds, their social and experiential antecedents and their impact on virtual worlds development practices in organizational contexts"
And before that: "to explore the formation of individual perceptions/attitudes/beliefs regarding online VLEs in virtual worlds, the evolution of those perceptions/attitudes/beliefs over time and their impact on online VLE usage."
Time
Form/function
Bevhaioural intention
Research objective: "to explore the role of social factors in virtual worlds usage and development" [in the sense that people's perceptions are the product of their social interactions plus what they tell their own personal 'selves'] or (better I think) "to explore virtual worlds adoption and continued use in organizational contexts"
I like that. But it may not be specific enough. I'm playing with 2 questions to match it. Freddy suggests a third question that deals with the results I hope to get.
Research objective was: "to explore individual perceptions of virtual worlds, their social and experiential antecedents and their impact on virtual worlds development practices in organizational contexts"
And before that: "to explore the formation of individual perceptions/attitudes/beliefs regarding online VLEs in virtual worlds, the evolution of those perceptions/attitudes/beliefs over time and their impact on online VLE usage."
Friday, August 08, 2008
8 August 2008 - Research Objective
I'm going to try for a one-a-day approach here.
I had: "to explore the formation of individual perceptions/attitudes/beliefs regarding online VLEs in virtual worlds, the evolution of those perceptions/attitudes/beliefs over time and their impact on online VLE usage."
Today I have made: "to explore individual perceptions of virtual worlds, their social and experiential antecedents and their impact on virtual worlds development practices in organizational contexts"
I had: "to explore the formation of individual perceptions/attitudes/beliefs regarding online VLEs in virtual worlds, the evolution of those perceptions/attitudes/beliefs over time and their impact on online VLE usage."
Today I have made: "to explore individual perceptions of virtual worlds, their social and experiential antecedents and their impact on virtual worlds development practices in organizational contexts"
Thursday, August 07, 2008
7 August 2008 - Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic Interactionism (from Denzin)
- Born of american pragmatism (James, Dewey, Peirce, Mead)
- Also Cooley, Blumer
- Tortured history
- Many methods
"In its canonical form (Blumer 1969), it rests on three root assumptions: first, that 'human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that the things have for them' (p. 2); second, that the meanings of things arise out of the process of social interaction; and third, that meanings are modified through an interpretive process which involves self-reflective individuals symbolically itneracting with one another" - Denzin, p. xiv
Phil asks:
Niamh,
Can you tell us what the working research objective is and specifically what the purpose of the framework is?
Phil
The answer is:
the plot is:
* Development methodologies don’t work … Determinism, techno centric, rationalistic – lots of reasons… that’s not really the point… in the end they are "Not true" in a pragmatic sense - they don't work .
* They also wont work in light of cocreation, wisdom of crowds, move to open source etc - This democratization of innovation/creation… which is new and ill suited for existing methodologies and best seen in virtual worlds… the net is creating a new development/usage paradigm where usage comes before or with development … usage and development in parallel and distributed across communities
the argument is:
* what we know of usage, acceptance, adoption: (theory planned behaviour, reasoned action, TAM et al), all of these hint at a symbolic interactionist perspective [human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that the things have for them; the meanings of things arise out of the process of social interaction; meanings are modified through an interpretive process which involves self-reflective individuals symbolically interacting with one another - Denzin, p. xiv]
the study therefore:
* takes virtual worlds
* sees how they are constructed socially
* explores perceptions and usage and the relationship between the two [most beliefs research examines beliefs after adoption – this one maps the process]
* in order to inform development and design (something about the relationship between form, function and design)
* it uses educators because they have a longer than most history with these worlds and they see them as a solution to a problem and are very goal oriented making them interesting for this kind of study
how?:
* a survey is used to explore usage and development
* a classification is made
* archival analysis plus interview transcripts (from cases or field work or ethnography - not sure how to label this) etc are categorized using the classification and analyzed using grounded theory approach
this still fits loosely with:
RQ1 What are individual perceptions of virtual worlds, how do they change over time and what factors (e.g. human and technical) affect them? In particular, how do they relate to institutional perceptions?
RQ3 What is the nature of virtual world usage?
RQ4 What is the relationship between perceptions and usage?
As Phil pointed out, the research objective that I had was not sufficiently high level. I still haven’t come up with a new one. But I think you can see the idea… and that it means for now at least throwing out the institutional angle (RQ2)…
So why do I need a framework?
Pure grounded wouldn’t use one but this isn’t pure grounded. I need it to sensitize me for the discourse surrounding virtual worlds. I need something to structure the thesis itself and my own inquiry…
that's my stab
it changes daily
- another reason for a framework!
- Born of american pragmatism (James, Dewey, Peirce, Mead)
- Also Cooley, Blumer
- Tortured history
- Many methods
"In its canonical form (Blumer 1969), it rests on three root assumptions: first, that 'human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that the things have for them' (p. 2); second, that the meanings of things arise out of the process of social interaction; and third, that meanings are modified through an interpretive process which involves self-reflective individuals symbolically itneracting with one another" - Denzin, p. xiv
Phil asks:
Niamh,
Can you tell us what the working research objective is and specifically what the purpose of the framework is?
Phil
The answer is:
the plot is:
* Development methodologies don’t work … Determinism, techno centric, rationalistic – lots of reasons… that’s not really the point… in the end they are "Not true" in a pragmatic sense - they don't work .
* They also wont work in light of cocreation, wisdom of crowds, move to open source etc - This democratization of innovation/creation… which is new and ill suited for existing methodologies and best seen in virtual worlds… the net is creating a new development/usage paradigm where usage comes before or with development … usage and development in parallel and distributed across communities
the argument is:
* what we know of usage, acceptance, adoption: (theory planned behaviour, reasoned action, TAM et al), all of these hint at a symbolic interactionist perspective [human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that the things have for them; the meanings of things arise out of the process of social interaction; meanings are modified through an interpretive process which involves self-reflective individuals symbolically interacting with one another - Denzin, p. xiv]
the study therefore:
* takes virtual worlds
* sees how they are constructed socially
* explores perceptions and usage and the relationship between the two [most beliefs research examines beliefs after adoption – this one maps the process]
* in order to inform development and design (something about the relationship between form, function and design)
* it uses educators because they have a longer than most history with these worlds and they see them as a solution to a problem and are very goal oriented making them interesting for this kind of study
how?:
* a survey is used to explore usage and development
* a classification is made
* archival analysis plus interview transcripts (from cases or field work or ethnography - not sure how to label this) etc are categorized using the classification and analyzed using grounded theory approach
this still fits loosely with:
RQ1 What are individual perceptions of virtual worlds, how do they change over time and what factors (e.g. human and technical) affect them? In particular, how do they relate to institutional perceptions?
RQ3 What is the nature of virtual world usage?
RQ4 What is the relationship between perceptions and usage?
As Phil pointed out, the research objective that I had was not sufficiently high level. I still haven’t come up with a new one. But I think you can see the idea… and that it means for now at least throwing out the institutional angle (RQ2)…
So why do I need a framework?
Pure grounded wouldn’t use one but this isn’t pure grounded. I need it to sensitize me for the discourse surrounding virtual worlds. I need something to structure the thesis itself and my own inquiry…
that's my stab
it changes daily
- another reason for a framework!
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
6 August 2008 - Social Construction of Reality
The Social Construction of Reality
Reality and knowledge... the man in the street takes these things for granted.
"specific agglomerations of 'reality' and 'knowledge' pertain to specific social contexts, and... these relationships will have to be included in an adequate sociological analysis of these contexts" p. 15
the SOK (sociology of knowledge) will have to "deal with... the processes by which any body of knowledge comes to be socially established as 'reality'" p. 15
Sheler coined SOK
It is "concerned with the relationship between human thought and the social context within which it arises... the sociology of knowledge constitutes the sociological focus of... the existential determination (Seingebundenheit) of thought as such" p. 16
The relationship between ideas and the social, ideas and the historical, ideas and the political...
Three main intellectual antecedents: marxism (that man's consciousness is determined by his social being; ideology or ideas serving as weapons for social interest; false consciousness or thought that is alienated from the real social being of the thinker; substructure and superstructure or human activity and the world produced by that activity), nietzschean (less explicit), historicist (overwhelming relativity)
"The SOK... is the procedure by which the socio-historical selection of ideational contents is to be studied, it being udnerstood that the contents themselves are independent of socio-historical causation and thus inaccessible to sociological analysis" p. 20
Scheler
Human knowledge is given in society as an a priori: a "relative natural world view"
Mannheim (English speaker)
"More into ideology... the object of thought becomes progressively clearer with this accumulation of different perspectives on it" p. 22
Geiger
Ideology as socially distorted thought
Stark
go beyond ideology and look at "the social conditions of knowledge as such"
The SOK should look at what passes as knowledge in society: not theories or ideas as such... it tries not to exxagerate the importance of theorizing for society...
Schutz
What should the theoretical aspects of the SOK look like?
Concentrated on the "structure of the common-sense world of everyday life"
He is into the social distribution of knowledge
Reality and knowledge... the man in the street takes these things for granted.
"specific agglomerations of 'reality' and 'knowledge' pertain to specific social contexts, and... these relationships will have to be included in an adequate sociological analysis of these contexts" p. 15
the SOK (sociology of knowledge) will have to "deal with... the processes by which any body of knowledge comes to be socially established as 'reality'" p. 15
Sheler coined SOK
It is "concerned with the relationship between human thought and the social context within which it arises... the sociology of knowledge constitutes the sociological focus of... the existential determination (Seingebundenheit) of thought as such" p. 16
The relationship between ideas and the social, ideas and the historical, ideas and the political...
Three main intellectual antecedents: marxism (that man's consciousness is determined by his social being; ideology or ideas serving as weapons for social interest; false consciousness or thought that is alienated from the real social being of the thinker; substructure and superstructure or human activity and the world produced by that activity), nietzschean (less explicit), historicist (overwhelming relativity)
"The SOK... is the procedure by which the socio-historical selection of ideational contents is to be studied, it being udnerstood that the contents themselves are independent of socio-historical causation and thus inaccessible to sociological analysis" p. 20
Scheler
Human knowledge is given in society as an a priori: a "relative natural world view"
Mannheim (English speaker)
"More into ideology... the object of thought becomes progressively clearer with this accumulation of different perspectives on it" p. 22
Geiger
Ideology as socially distorted thought
Stark
go beyond ideology and look at "the social conditions of knowledge as such"
The SOK should look at what passes as knowledge in society: not theories or ideas as such... it tries not to exxagerate the importance of theorizing for society...
Schutz
What should the theoretical aspects of the SOK look like?
Concentrated on the "structure of the common-sense world of everyday life"
He is into the social distribution of knowledge
28 July 2008 - CFP
I found this fascinating. It's a hook for the phd that brings me more in line with Freddy's interests. It's sufficiently 'intellectual' and I just find it very compelling.
Journal of Information Sciences
"The optimal usage of distributed computing, data and knowledge resources has always been the means in order to tackle hard problems in fields, such as science, engineering and medicine. The SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, Berkeley, USA) project is one prominent example in this category followed by the Human Genome project. It is no surprise that projects like e-Science, as recently launched by the K government, and the GRID computing are meant to create a computing paradigm, where “the computer is the network”. In all these approaches, however, the problem seems to be well defined and no synergies across participants from different cultural and professional backgrounds are requested in order to create a solution…
with the rise of the Social and Semantic Web, however, the answer of “what is a network” has been relaxed by the inclusion of users and user communities, which form social networks via computerized means. Ecosystems of humans and machines have been created where the involvement of human beings as creators and consumers of data and knowledge as well as in problem solving and learning tasks has been of paramount importance. Clusters of computers have been enhanced by clusters of humans. Formation of social groups follows the same principles of social behaviour, common interests, e.g., studies, hobbies, games. Wikipedia has been a success story of a collaborative environment for knowledge creation and sharing. Facebook, MySpace, del.icio.us, Flickr have been further success stories of social networking with digital media…This special issue explores the notion of this human-machine model of Collective Intelligence (CI) and its potential to become a new computing paradigm for creating solutions or strategies to tackle difficult problems, where the synergistic interactions of a group of people with diverse cultural and professional backgrounds are requested. This issue aims at studying the move from (system-) collected knowledge and intelligence, to collective knowledge and intelligence and exploring the challenge of boosting the collective IQ of organizations and society where both human and machine contribute actively to the resulting intelligence with each doing best what they do best."
Journal of Information Sciences
"The optimal usage of distributed computing, data and knowledge resources has always been the means in order to tackle hard problems in fields, such as science, engineering and medicine. The SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, Berkeley, USA) project is one prominent example in this category followed by the Human Genome project. It is no surprise that projects like e-Science, as recently launched by the K government, and the GRID computing are meant to create a computing paradigm, where “the computer is the network”. In all these approaches, however, the problem seems to be well defined and no synergies across participants from different cultural and professional backgrounds are requested in order to create a solution…
with the rise of the Social and Semantic Web, however, the answer of “what is a network” has been relaxed by the inclusion of users and user communities, which form social networks via computerized means. Ecosystems of humans and machines have been created where the involvement of human beings as creators and consumers of data and knowledge as well as in problem solving and learning tasks has been of paramount importance. Clusters of computers have been enhanced by clusters of humans. Formation of social groups follows the same principles of social behaviour, common interests, e.g., studies, hobbies, games. Wikipedia has been a success story of a collaborative environment for knowledge creation and sharing. Facebook, MySpace, del.icio.us, Flickr have been further success stories of social networking with digital media…This special issue explores the notion of this human-machine model of Collective Intelligence (CI) and its potential to become a new computing paradigm for creating solutions or strategies to tackle difficult problems, where the synergistic interactions of a group of people with diverse cultural and professional backgrounds are requested. This issue aims at studying the move from (system-) collected knowledge and intelligence, to collective knowledge and intelligence and exploring the challenge of boosting the collective IQ of organizations and society where both human and machine contribute actively to the resulting intelligence with each doing best what they do best."
5 August 2008 - My So Called Life
My personal life is a shambles. Just went awol for a week. Again. Am contemplating going part time with the phd. Simply cannot tolerate being in this cell, box, cage. Solitary confinement. It isn't natural.
Quote
In real life, unlike in Shakespeare, the sweetness of the rose depends upon the name it bears. Things are not only what they are. They are, in very important respects, what they seem to be.
- Hubert H. Humphrey
Quote
"the world of seconds" - tb himself.. bet he's been cooking that up for months
Quote
In real life, unlike in Shakespeare, the sweetness of the rose depends upon the name it bears. Things are not only what they are. They are, in very important respects, what they seem to be.
- Hubert H. Humphrey
Quote
"the world of seconds" - tb himself.. bet he's been cooking that up for months
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)