On Friday, December first, I attended an Ethnography workshop at Wesleyan University where some strategies for the study of how individuals use the resources in their environments were presented. These strategies included the creation of photograph slideshows, maps of locations visited, and the drawing of an "idealized space" to be used for study and collaborative work. For the slideshow activity, students were asked to take approximately 12 photos using a disposable camera provided to them. The students are given a list of things (favorite footwear, favorite place to study, place you feel lost, etc) to photograph. The group then uses PowerPoint to organize the photos with the correct label. This process seemed a little problematic, as many presentations seemed to have the wrong label associated with certain photographs. Perhaps a video camera would be better, so the student could state what label should apply to the associated image, and possibly even discuss its significance briefly. The map activity, though easier and quicker to complete, was less popular with the students. For this activity, students were provided with a printed map of the campus and asked to trace the route that they walk for one day. The results seemed to indicate that students tend to walk a fairly consistent path between their dorm and on-campus resources such as the library. This activity was followed with a video-recorded interview of the student to gather details of what they did at the locations that they visited. The last activity was the creation of a hand-drawn idealized layout for a new study area using a room that currently houses stacks of books. A brainstorming session was held in the afternoon part of the workshop to tally the features that seemed important to students. Most notably, all students wanted areas intended for group study, preferably with large flat tables. Important characteristics of the room seemed to be that it allowed for oscillation between high activity (study, collaboration) and relaxation. Items that created a "nature" setting, such as trees, fish tanks, and windows overlooking the campus were frequently requested. Another very popular request was a 24 hour coffee and snack bar. After the brainstorming session, the ensuing discussion addressed the potential conflict involved in choosing between features that students wanted and features that matched the intended purpose of the space as defined by the university.

The session ended with a discussion with Elijah Huge, an architecture professor at Wesleyan, who articulated ways to approach a project like this and included suggestions on how to select the right firm with which to to work and what the entire process might look like. His suggestions included matching the size of the project to the size of the architecture firm and resolving any potential disagreements before presenting to the architect.

During the breaks I also had the opportunity to speak with one of the facilitators, Eric Gordon, Assistant Professor on the Department of Visual and Media Arts at Emerson College. Eric had presented a very interesting workshop on social software at the University of Massachusetts that I attended two weeks ago. I took this opportunity to ask Eric a question that I have been wrestling with lately relating to the relationship of online community activities and "real" in-person activities. My question was whether virtual meeting spaces were displacing the real ones. Eric articulated the position that they were, in fact, not displacing them. Rather, they were enabling them. This seemed to reflect much of what he said at his presentation where he provided examples of users in My Space using the technology simply to arrange locations and times to meet with their friends. We discussed the continuum of virtual to real further. I suggested that the virtual and the real were fairly distinct, and saw the juxtaposition between the two as relatively undeveloped. Eric saw it much differently, where the majority of all interaction is a combination of virtual and real, each supporting the other, and the two extremes of "purely" virtual or real were the exception rather than the rule. See images below for a visual clarification.

My initial perception of the continuum between virtual and real

Eric's description of the continuum between virtual and real

I find Eric's perception much more useful, since it reinforces not only the potential for cooperation between technology and "live" experiences, but also that this is how people want and expect to use social technologies.

There's quite a bit more information I took from the workshop, but this post is already too long, so I'll end here with a "thank you" to Eric, NITLE, Donna Moore, Michael Roy and the other workshop facilitators for an extremely interesting and informative day.

-Carl