Social, ethical, digital: issues in 3D worlds research

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)


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


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


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


Issues with VW interviewing

● Drawing on reflections of Sheila’s students who

interviewed in SL

● Some further points from the second study


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)


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


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


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


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


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

https://www.interdisciplinarypress.net/

Sheila Webber

Information School

University of Sheffield

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

Twitter @mafrado

SL: Pancha Enzyme

Orcid ID 0000-0002-5151-1252

Pictures by Sheila Webber and Marshall Dozier 2014

Education

Social, ethical, digital: issues in 3D worlds research