Josh's Class Lit/Media Review Presentation

For my media and literature review I will link some project examples and some discourse in the journalism and new media realm that discuss the advantages of multimedia content presentation over traditional silos of content dissemination. Please visit these links and be sure to interact with the projects to be able to discuss further in class.

_____________

There are two key examples of interactive documentary media that incited my desire to create my thesis project. Until I did further digging I did not realize that the two projects were put together by the same photojournalist, Zach Wise.

The first was a piece done at the Las Vegas Sun called "Thirst in the Mojave."

It is as Wise states on his blog post about the project, an "attempt at making video interactive and contextualizing its content. Video on the web is great but it lacks many web-centric features or enhancements." Wise also points out the ability for users to take advantage of time-shift in watching online video content as opposed to the trappings of traditional video outlets such as broadcast television. A user can pick ans choose what portion of the video they would like to watch first, second or whenever in this presentation. But this is only the beginning of the advantages of this multimedia project.

The Mojave project incorporates several unique web-based abilities that are not available to traditional media platforms, but yet are not being embraced by many news outlets in their web portals – for several reasons such as cutbacks and lack of vision by management. One element is the ability to geo-tag video content as it is played and drive an interactive map in the same window to help guide a user through the experience of an issue of water use. The complex water system which is constructed by geographic limitations as well as man-made intervention can be depicted with this very informative tool alongside the informative video. Other smaller elements of the project are additional informational blocks that update as the video plays to provide backstory or fill-in the user that may be pertinent but could slow down the overall narrative of the video. Meaning, if the user desires more information, it is available but the overall delivery of the piece is still concise. One minor component of the project that could potentially have great impact is the simple countdown clock at the top of the window, winding down to the possible day of reckoning with the vanishing element of water. Though there are several other elements of this complete package of information, one final piece I would like to highlight is the water usage map that was created for users to enter their address into and learn about how much of an impact on the complex issue of water usage. This portion of the piece, though it is placed as a footnote to the overall presentation, took an intense amount of research and design to create for a complete interactive experience for a user.

The second documentary project that became somewhat of an inspiration to me was the Soul of Athens annual project in Athens, Ohio, through the Ohio University's School of Visual Communication and E.W. Scripps School of Journalism program. The first year of the Soul of Athens project was 2007, which Wise was the executive producer for. There was a 2008 version of the site as well as the current 2009 version. All three hold on to the notion of deploying storytellers out into the community of Athens as well as inviting community members to submit content for the site in the quest to find the "Soul of Athens." To simplify the lens in which to examine this project, I will focus mainly on the 2009 version of the site, because I feel it is the best of the lot due to the third iteration of development and application of newer technology in developing the site.

The Soul of Athens project is a unique social examination of a community to gain a better understanding of the people that make up the community. The site is a collection of videos and audio slide shows that illustrate who makes up this blend of all kinds around the area of Athens. The portal allows the user to decide what video looks interesting to view based on the title or the thumbnail of the link to the content, allowing the user to dictate what they would like to learn about rather than being told to "sit back and watch." The ability to have a user "lean forward" and participate is the key to interactive media as Carolyn Handler Miller states in her book "Digital Storytelling: A Creator's Guide to Interactive Entrainment." By engaging the user into the content by allowing them the opportunity to drive the content, they will ultimately learn more and gain more from the presentation. Then there are related links at the bottom of the window for the user to find other stories to learn about. The main aspect of the site is the diversity of the people that make up the community of Athens. Though, I feel that there are a few weaknesses in the presentation that are not utilized like the Mojave project, such as interactive maps or better joining of the various types of media and content. All of which I intend to address in my own thesis project.

To illustrate older conventions of media use and presentation I would like to share with you "Ian Fisher: American Soldier." This was a 27 month reportage by a mentor of mine at the Denver Post, Craig Walker. Walker is an amazing photojournalist, but the production of the project was done by others in the newspaper's photo department and I do not know the extent of involvement by Walker in the final production. The presentation is very simple and quite literally silos.

Just as Marshall McLuhan's theory of "the media is the message," the main entry of the Fisher project has bins of photos, videos, a story and the "extras" that didn't fit into the already bulging silos of the primary content. Navigating between these various bins limits the user's ability to get a complete picture of the story and intentions of the journalism. The disconnection of the masterful photos Walker captured of emotion and life from the written perspectives of three different reporters ruins the user's ability to garner the breadth of the story at large. Even the difficult interactive way of "turning the pages" of the story creates barriers and communication noise for a potential user of the project portal. A fellow photojournalist, Chuck Fadely of the Miami Herald, offered a scathing review of the project that reminds multimedia producers to design platforms with intelligence rather than with techno-wizardry.

For if a project is effective and engaging for users they will inevitably share their findings with others and as the infection of this quality becomes "viral" the message will spread to others. Brian Storm, creator of MediaStorm.org, has been producing multimedia videos and interactive sites for more than 15 years. In an interview Storm talks about how a 21-minute online video gets a 65 percent completion view rating, despite the notions of a YouTube attention span and social media grazing. (Another posting discussing long-form quality journalism can be read here.) His argument is that because the content is all about quality and completeness, people know what to expect and are willing to invest the time to learn about the story.

All of the examples given here are considered award winning projects in a few different judging contexts, save for the Fisher soldier story. It is understood that contests are varied and may have different values or criteria, but when the same project wins several different contests from a diverse set of judges the argument of a solid piece of work is fairly simple.

Finally, Dan Blank offers some simple guidelines for serendipity in digital media. More traction can be gained by allowing for a user to generate new connections of interest and understanding in a digital multimedia project.

Creating a quality project with multiple forms of media that are interactive while being effective is a tall order. But when that lofty goal is met with logic and strategy, the results are unmistakable.

_____________

If you are interested in a couple other very informative yet strongly presented multimedia projects have a look at some of these:

"A Gamble in the Sand" - an in-depth interactive history of the Las Vegas Strip
"Driving Detriot" - driving around 2,700 miles of Detroit streets to get a true view of the city.
"Water Life" - a very unique and massive look at the water system of the Great Lakes and impacts on the region.

Question 5

How Can Qualitative Researchers Produce Work That is Meaningful Across Time, Space, and Culture?

Markham says that "the product of our research is several times removed from experience" and that "our theory about how the world works is bounded by invisible frames" that we can not control or ever really grasp and define.

She argues against the question of the chapter, that it's not really possible to do given the invisible frames.

Markham offers reflexivity as a way to offset these frames. Researchers should think about where they are coming from in order to interpret other information, even going so far as "othering" themselves.

Defining the term "global" is important because it is an all encompassing term.

She says that "any study of communication will be both local and global (glocal), but the power of qualitative approaches is most aptly realized at the local level." Meaning you cannot really think globally until you think locally, then apply that knowledge to a global context.


Basically, think about who you are, why you have the views that you do about the research you are conducting, about all the categories of human you fall under, class, nationality, gender, sex, marital status, omnivore, vegetarian, age, etc. before you start to think about what all of it might mean. Talking to people, peers, mentors, research subjects, and conducting writing exercises might help. It could confuse you more and change your questions, but you need to embrace change and just go for it.

Questions:

1. What do you think, is it pointless to really try to do research globally, even if you do try to define "global?"

2. What do you think about "glocal?" Is the internet breaking down enough walls to have this hybrid.

Question 5 Discussion Post

Question 5: How Can Qualitative Researchers Produce Work That Is Meaningful Across Time, Space, And Culture

---

Markham reiterates the chapters question: “Is it posible to make one’s research more global and meaningful across time and cultural boundaries? […] should this be a primary goal?”

• Markham purports that global scope and universal mutual understanding are impossible.

• The author argues that no matter what, our research is grounded in cultural frameworks, invisible to us.

• Global scale does not entail global understanding.


• Markham suggests that key “global” ethnographies advocate work that is local in scale, and global in sensibility not scope.


• She asserts that the best we can hope for in our research is similar shared experience transcending audience and trans-cultural compatibility.

Markham advocates a deeply reflexive research process that locates the self in research, and searches for incompatibilities with other audiences.

• She argues that Internet research involves what is always intrinsically a local socio-cultural phenomenon. She continues that local contexts illuminate larger contexts.


• Internet Research:

Local Social Phenomenon vs. Research with global sensibilities

• Research reflexivity includes an understanding of what “global operation” one is hoping to achieve. (See the muddy list of global operationalizations on p. 137-138)


• The author also proposes praxis of othering one’s self (and locale) to gain clarity on personal location.


• Reflexivity as a defining force methodologically and rhetorically includes:
  
  
  1. Make the object of research situated in relation to other people places and things.
  
  
  2. Make work as accessible and meaningful to other cultures and locations as possible knowing that complete trans-cultural understanding is impossible


• Markham spends the rest of the chapter laying out valuable questions to help frame your research reflexibly with global sensibility.

Lally’s Response:

• We need to find rhetorical “tricks” to bring our preconceptions to the foreground


• Research is a creative process

Srinivasan’s Response:

• The personage of the researcher embodies a meaning, which is culturally and contextually created outside and in lieu of research


• Internet research must maintain its trans-nationality (global quantity) without sacrificing local reflexivity.


• We should consider trans-national 3rd spaces, social networks, and virtual worlds as part of the Internet global and local to understand the cultural context of phenomena.


• Srinivasan proposes that some aspects of research method building be participatory with users/audiences.

Discussion Questions:


1. What does global sensibility vs. global scope mean or entail in research?


2. How would one go about othering one’s own approach and locale?


3. How does creativity factor into research outside of pure methodology? (i.e. not simply what tools to use for research)


4. What would participatory research method construction look like? How would this be implemented? How would this refine the researcher’s perception of self, local(e) and global?

Question 3: Privacy

QUESTION 3: HOW DO VARIOUS NOTIONS OF PRIVACY INFLUENCE DECISIONS IN QUALITATIVE INTERNET RESEARCH -Malin Sveningsson Elm

The issue of privacy in qualitative research is more than just informed consent. The author breaks it down into public and private as a continuum but also states “it depends” on the research being conducted.

Public and Private as a Continuum, Not a Dichotomy
There are different variations of public and private online.

• PUBLIC ENVIRONMENT- requires no registration, available for everyone (open chat rooms)

• SEMI-PUBLIC- available for most people. It requires membership and registration.

• SEMI-PRIVATE- only available to some people or organization. Has formal requirements for registration.

• PRIVATE- creator of content invites guests. Sender of content specifies who is allowed to see it.

Elm goes on to examine whether or not the Internet is public or private and comes to the conclusion: public and private is a perception, not a fact. And although someone posts information online, it does not guarantee that they want a researcher to use that information.

Researchers need to think about how easily information is accessed through particular sites as well as the user’s understanding of their information as private or public. Since information posted online could be considered sensitive or not sensitive. There are different degrees of privacy within the Internet along with how the user views his/her privacy.


Questions:

• Can a researcher truly be sensitive to privacy information on the Internet and using ethics when what is considered private differs based on the individual? What determines if information is sensitive if posted online?

• Should a creator of content online be notified if a researcher decides to use information?

• Who is considered a public or private person on the Internet? Is it easier to violate someone’s privacy online?

• What role does audience play online in regards to Privacy? Should information be used if the user did not expect a researcher to be the actual audience?

Question 2: Online & Offline Data Issues

Shani Orgad responded to the question of how researchers can make sense of the issues involved with the collection and interpretation of data from online and offline constructs.

In summary her essay highlights the intertwined realm of the Internet in people's lives and the difficulty of deciding how to collect offline and online data for research and then sift through the collection to make structured and compelling arguments. Traditionally online has been viewed as a "virtual landscape" of less "authentic" or "truthful" experiences and data. Yet, platforms such as television and telephones are considered an offline landscape by those same traditional standards – save for Maria Bkardjieva’s argument of “on-page, on-screen, on-line and off.” As we move forward with innovation and technology, online and offline are merging in various ways to erase the silos of varying degrees of authenticity.

There are situations that call for just online data formulate answers to questions. There are situations that call for only offline data to formulate answers to questions. And there are situations that call for data to be collected from both areas to find answers. Yet, there will ultimately have to be a decision as to how any of the data helps to answer the root questions of research and study objectives.

Some study cases will present a situation that the notions of offline and online are one in the same. There will be others that will present situations that require the two notions are divided and may or may not influence the other. The complex issue of using online and offline data virtually boils down to a rather un-formulaic "it depends..."

How the study will be structured will be based mostly on the objective of the study as it relates to the subjects in the study. It would not be out of the question for a study to begin from one notion, offline or online, and migrate into the other in an effort to gain more validity and context of the data sets. Though there are difficulties moving from online to an offline environment without garnering the trust of the subjects or finding potential subjects “lurking” about the online landscape.

After sorting through the difficulties of performing research online and offline, there will be another juncture of difficulty of interpreting the data. Are the two realms separate? Are they intertwined as one? Does one only help to provide context to the other in an effort to understand the data better? Again, the study objectives will dictate the inclusion or exclusion of the corresponding data.

Then comes the problem of presenting the data in a fashion that reflects the nature of the study and objectives. Determining how to quantify between online and offline data sets again will have to be constructed around the goals of the research and how they effectively and accurately represent the findings.


In an effort to boil the chapter down and iron out the remaining elements: be aware of the objectives of your study and how the subjects’ integration of Internet elements effect each person’s “online” and “offline” lives as they relate to your questions. Not all situations will bare the same stipulations with regard to collecting and interpreting the data. Every situation could be different and will need to be analyzed to allow for the best research methods to be used.

∆********∆********∆

As a simple informal test of research, I posted a question to my Twitter and Facebook accounts to try and get a glimpse into what people who use social media think of social media as.

The question:

Do you consider social media a productive common communication tool like a phone or just a gadget/toy to play with?

The results:

191 Facebook friends - 13 responses
202 Followers - 3 responses

Responses:

Dana
I think for a lot of people, it has transformed from one into the other. I think many social networking sites were created to be gadgets/toys to play with and have kind of evolved into a useful tool. Ive made a few bucks here and there from marketing myself on social networking websites. Nothing wrong with that!

Barbara
For me, it's a productive communication tool. It helps get things done, you can learn from it, and connect to people when you couldn't do it ordinarily. Case in point, you're asking this question in a media based format to get the information you need to be productive.

Sandra
it's a communication tool. have you seen the recent harvard study on this? http://bit.ly/wh7wa

Stephen
it's a gadget, and either people will get tired of it or it'll start getting regulated. In my humble opinion.

chris_lawson
@joshualawton SM is useful. Not toy. It keeps me informed of stuff I am interested in via a format I can manage and use. Good 4 my needs.

Brittany
definitely use it as a tool. i met my roommate here and made a bunch of friends via facebook before coming to georgetown.

Brenda
Narcissistic / voyeuristic addictive time-consuming toy

Issac
Common tool for me.

Monica
gadget for the most part

Trevor
A tool that hasn't yet reached its potential. It's a great way to monitor what people are thinking/wondering about. It's less useful in finding story contacts.

Barbara Ford
@joshualawton It's a pair of brown shoes that go with everything. Functional and available.

Silvia
A combo of the above mentioned.

Mike
Drunken Monkeys Hoooo!!!!!

Richard
It helped me to save money on my AT&T bill via the 15% discount. (In ten years that will be $1500 in savings.) Crowdsourcing the info on what discounts my friends got helped me to get that 15% discount.

Mark Leffingwell It's a toy. Mostly people say what they are doing like "I'm riding my bike" or "at a movie". Nothing useful. Over Twitter (posted on both Facebook and Twitter in response)

∆********∆********∆

• What are some difficulties with the "research" with regard to collecting the data and then eventually interpreting the data?
• Would this be a valid online only research project?
• What elements of offline research would help contextualize the study?
• How should the final data set be presented?
• What do the number of responses in relation to the number of people polled mean? How would this effect a resulting study?

∆*****∆

One of the responses included information about two Harvard Business school studies – one about Twitter and one about social media users – as well as a link to a story in the Miami Herald about how social media and technology is altering the governance landscape. Both of these articles highlight the ever changing integration of digital media and the Internet into our lives, blurring that line of offline and online slightly more each day. How will this effect your studies?

Internet Inquiry Question One

How can qualitative internet researchers define the boundaries of their projects?

Synopsis

Christine Hine considers the boundaries of internet studies and proposes ways in which to construct internet research projects, focusing on the connection between theory and methodological choices. She stresses the importance of defining one's analytic approach. Her own theoretical framework is shaped by her background in science and technology studies, as well as ethnographic scholarship. She views ethnography as an effective method for understanding contemporary society and shaping the boundaries of projects because it takes an immersive approach that engages in relevant practices both online and offline. At the same time, she believes that the meaning of technologies is constructed differently within various cultural contexts and that research methods must remain flexible, as the research objects themselves are emergent, not predetermined. She views the development of technologies as a social process and believes that social dynamics are at the heart of new technologies. Furthermore, she sees technologies as having multiple identities and "interpretative flexibility" since different social groups view them differently. Therefore, research design must be a reflexive process that is re-evaluated every stage of a project.

Themes

• Boundaries: spatial (who, what, where to start and stop a study, physical and virtual locations), temporal (time spent), relational (relationships between researchers and people they study)
• Immersion: social phenomena not uniquely confined to online or offline sites; internet as both an imagined and architected place
  
• Cultural complexity: adjusting methods to suit; "the interfaces, the affinities, the confrontations, the interpenetrations and the flow-through, between clusters of meaning and ways of managing meaning" (Hannerz)

Websites

• 73UrbanJourneys.com
• TouchGraph Google Browser
  

Research Recommendations

• Deciding where to start (what to study) and when to stop (what to exclude) ensures that research questions are coherently addressed and adapted to the cultural landscape that emerges
• Working out methodologically the boundaries of a project is tied to where one feels a study should travel analytically
  
• The depth and breadth of a study must be decided within the parameters of a given disciplinary approach or theoretical framework
• Technology development and technology appropriation are well suited to ethnographic approaches
• Beginning by focusing on a culture, rather than rigid, narrowly defined questions, allows for practices, identity, and social dynamics to emerge organically
• Quality in research design relies on a good fit among question, phenomenon, and method
  

Discussion Questions

• In what ways does Hine address the various ethnographic strategies we've discussed, such as textual analysis, interviews, and policital ecenomy approach? What are some examples she gives?
  
• Hine states: "The social dynamics of production and use carve out boundaries between users and producers, create and sustain power relations and hierarchies, and define the sanctioned use of technologies." How does this challenge the contention that technologies are produced asocially?
• How does our understanding of cultural complexity challenge the traditional construction of ethnography as the study of a particular bounded field site?
  
• Further, how do concepts such as scapes (mediascapes, technoscapes, etc.), mobilities, networks, and trans-local connections offer new theoretical possibilities for ethnographic research?
• Hine believes ethnography is increasingly construed as the exploration and description of the practices of locating, connecting, siting, and bounding. How does this help us to understand the internet not only as a tool or place, but as a way of being?
• Hine presents various examples of innovative internet studies and addresses the issue of engagement. How active should ethnographers in virtual fields be in relation to the particular technologies that they study? What are the pros and cons?