The presentation of the research study evaluating the value of a documentary as a key medium to communicate design research. It presents information from the evaluation of a second screen application using video as well as a scientific paper, in order to assess how the efficacy and usefulness of using such a documentary for science communication is perceived when compared to a scientific paper. Techniques of a method called Design Documentary, developed to inspire design research teams through video, combined with science journalism were the basis of the production. Twelve researchers and students were shown the documentary and asked to read the paper in counter-balanced order.
A w
Escorts Service Nagavara ☎ 7737669865☎ Book Your One night Stand (Bangalore)
A Video is Worth a Million Words? Comparing a Documentary with a Scientific Paper to Communicate Design Research
1. A Video is Worth a Million Words?
Comparing a Documentary with a Scientific Paper to
Communicate Design Research
marlene moura
pedro almeida
david geerts
university of aveiro
TQLDMWorkshop| Centeris 2016
2. “The video is emotionally resonant and
commanding of attention in a way that
academic text seldom is” (de Valck et al., 2009)
We live in the era of video and easily
interact ‘audio-visually’ (Killander, 2014)
Great potential for science communication
(Quintela, 2011)
Videos are already used in research in
conferences.
Research Problem
Clinging to traditional formats
Video neglected as a means for
research communication
Usually not admitted for ‘peer
review’
3. research question
“What is the perceived efficiency of a documentary as a means of
scientific communication when compared to a research paper?”
4. Projects Finalities and Goals
To develop a video documentary to communicate the scientific value
of the evaluation of a second screen application (TV-Ring project).
A combination of techniques based on:
1. Design Documentaries (Raijmakers, 2007);
2. Journalistic techniques (Ferradaz, 2001);
3. Researchers’ participation as guides (Raijmakers, 2007);
4. The filmmaker’s perspective (Rabiger, 2004).
To evaluate its perceived efficiency vs the paper
5. European project - aim is to develop and test innovative
applications and infrastructures for television, with innovative
content.
Context
7. scene from «Design &Thinking» trailer (2012)
Videos help building an understanding of design (Ylirisku & Buur, 2007)
framework
8. But scientific results…
published in papers in scientific journals
An established peer review system
Smith, 2006)
A structured format (University of Illinois, 2015)
Design Documentaries appropriated three
ideas for research:
"film is like reality”;
“film is like a language”;
“film is like a conversation” .
(Raijmakers, 2007)
theoretical framework
12. Structure
Followed the main sections of the paper: abstract, introduction, methodology, results and
conclusion.
Includes 3 main interviews, and follows the researchers on their way to do field research as well
as their everyday activities in the lab
~13 minutes long
Documentary
13. Evaluation methodology
Qualitative research
Method: Semi-structured interviews – organised around a set of predetermined open-
ended questions, with other questions emerging from the dialogue between interviewer
and interviewees (Berg, 2001);
Participants: Students and Researchers of KU-Leuven
14. Interviews
Recruitment process: Google form
Environment: Usability lab - space decorated as an ordinary
living room, with a television and computer area
Instruments of data collection: audio recordings and
observation tables
2 sessions ~15 minutes each
Interviews transcribed and coded - NVivo 10
12 participants
Methodology
Group 1 Group 2
15. “I look for videos on YouTube to find helpful
tutorials for a brief explanation” (P03);
Habits
Overall- usually search for papers complemented
with other sources of information (videos, books,
etc.)
Results & Discussion
“It is interesting to see how people interact with
the prototype” and “to have the opinion of people
in their own voices in the context” (P08);
The paper “is good for details” (P09) and you
always find “the expected information” (P010).
Preferences
Students – Video – see how an interview is
conducted, to learn more
Researchers – Paper, easier to find “sources to
enrich” their “own research”
(info) recall
Group II remembered more than Group I in
the first interview
Both groups considered that paper and video are
incomplete and complementary
“Combining both documents would be better, both
have advantages” (P02, Group I);
16. STRENGHTS STRENGHS
Visual resources to rely on
Dynamic
Attractive
Shows body language
Sound and tune
Possible to add textual guides
Provides context
Suited to peer review
To mark and add notes
Sources and references
Structured format
Clear to everybody
Detailed expected information
Easy to locate info
Results & Discussion
17. WEAKNESSES WEAKNESSES
No indicators to find more information
Has distracting info
Too long
Missing details
Cannot reproduce interviews
Difficult to show creative work with words
Old fashioned in a technology era
Results & Discussion
18. Video: features that are an advantage
The video helps to remember more information and details
An asset in design studies – provides the concept of a second screen
Shows context and how people interact with the app
Presents the way how to conduct an interview, including participants on it
An important educational tool for students
The video makes people use more senses
More entertaining and attractive
Conclusions
19. Video: limitations as a means of communication when compared to the paper
The methodological info was incomplete
There was no index in the video, so it makes it harder to locate information
Need to watch all the video to find a specific part
The video is admitted in conferences, but it is not suited to peer review
The documentary takes too long to watch comparing to the time the paper takes to read
It has distracting information
There are no references and sources described on it
Conclusions
20. Video more resourceful than the paper as a means of scientific communication
for the design research.
But… limitations foster it to be used as a complement.
Conclusions
Notas do Editor
With neither just titles nor explanatory texts it is possible to "explain" evocative sounds or interaction.
Great potential for science communication - Film language has various aspects as to tell a story, to inform or to educate, among other possibilities.
TVX conference or CHI conference
HOWEVER…
Some conferences and journals allow to submit videos as accompaniment to a paper, or as a separate category for e.g. video demos, but not as a true replacement to convey scientific information.
Aim - To understand the value of a video documentary with scientific content when using a combination of Design documentary and journalistic techniques.
Filmmaker - makes the decisions more significant: what to shoot, how to film it, what to include in the movie and how to include it more effectively.
It is intend to understand the efficiency of a documentary film produced to communicate the evaluation of a design study.
To compare the video with the paper.
Dutch pilot - five months internship at the Centre for User Experience Research, a media lab located within the faculty of social sciences, in the Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium);
To present the evaluation phase of a second screen application for the Dutch reality TV show “De Rijdende Rechter”.
However, that does not mean it always represents reality as it is, but how it’s seen. Documentaries are a representation of the world that we already know, but they depend on the singular vision of who tells the story;
journalism is a reflection of everyday life, a large part of science consigns to science journalism a future full of interest.
Scientific discoveries have an impact on people’s world view and life habits, pushing the evolution of society.
Journalists are like mediators between researchers and general public, with the role of decoding a complex message and translating it to an accessible language
A study carried out in Brazil by Camargo et al. to find out if the preview of a documentary would increase prior knowledge about Aids, showed two videos to 2 groups - one of the videos focussed on a scientific approach and the other used a popular approach.
The Design Documentary genre differs from the concept of science documentary or documentaries about design in general, although the aim is to communicate design research.
"film is like reality” - showing the diversity and the ambiguity of the everyday life of researchers;
“film is like a language” - language and aesthetics of the film can express ambiguities and perspectives during the study;
“film is like a conversation” - is used, precisely, to create conversations in design research.
There is a growing interest in scientific dissemination. Education and research centres, publications have the common goal of promoting circulation of scientific results
Peer review - Papers in published scientific journals usually represent a reliable source of information, because each paper is peer-reviewed by at least two subject-specialists before being accepted for publication, so the possibility of information being wrong is considerably reduced. It is how grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won
A good way “to identify a refereed research article is by its format” – University of Illinois;
Not a trailer – compilation of most important parts of the video
Research - reading deliverables of the TV-Ring project; conversations with the researchers; watching science documentaries and Design Documentaries to define the aesthetic of the film;
Script - some parts of the script were previously prepared (like interviews with main researchers and NPO), but it was mostly built during the production and post-production phases, since the course of events was unpredictable;
Message and approach- to report the study carried out by the CUO team, focusing on the evaluation of the second screen application for the TV and following all the process and researchers, but setting a SCIENTIFIC TONE, using journalistic techniques;
Participants - three CUO-KU Leuven researchers: David Geerts, Jeroen Vanattenhoven and Rinze Leenheer. some respondents of their study and Susanne Heijstraten from NPO.
Target audience - students and researchers who do research on the topic
Each information source received an empirical reference (code name) for the description of the results. For example, if an excerpt is used from the interview of participant 1, the reference is P01 and for participant 2 would be P02, etc.
The call for participation was through a Google form which the link was sent by E-mail, with brief explanation about the study, to a database which included students of the courses Usability Design and Human-Computer Interaction, from several different degrees at KU Leuven University.
In total, 243 minutes of interview were audio recorded and then transcribed.
Participants are not restrained to papers.
Most of the respondents already looked for videos when doing research and recognize its vehicular capacity for scientific content.
The documentary presents significant skills for the current design research - the communication is more efficient if the prototype can be seen and explained with visual content and context; and to see people interacting with it is a very important feature;
None of the participants wanted to detach from the paper and preferred the combination of both