Last week produced some interesting points. The action research workshop went well. There were some issues raised about the ethics of action research, or rather the process required to get clearance through ethical committees to get to do action research. AR is an interesting blend of social science and natural science. Experimental but also interpretivist. Good to see it catching on.
I also got to meet two students from Said Business School who are doing some research for Linden Labs on experience of Second Life. Hopefully I sounded intelligent enough when answering their questions. It’ll be interesting to see the results of their survey.
Thursday was the RSC’s virtual worlds forum. It was an excellent event, just the right mix of planned and ad hoc. I don;t need to say anything more about it since Kevin Brace has already blogged about it at http://kev-brace.blogspot.com/2008/07/muvle.html
Also last week I finally took the time to get my head round Activity Theory. It was a lot simpler than I first thought - I’d been put off mainly by all those triangles and arrows. Thanks to my colleague Sue passing a paper my way I got it - and found that it really brings together the stuff that had previously been quite fragmented on my PhD. I’ve come up with a blend of my conceptual framework and activity theory which is on my eportfolio at http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wie/courses/degrees/docs/who/students/edrfap/research/framework/activitytheory2/
I also learnt to build in second life in order to recreate the framework in 3D. I did OK on the building but unfortunately my geometry let me down. Bizarrely I expected all three sides of a right-angled triangle to be the same length.
Another colleague (Marina) has suggested a collaboration on a paper at just the time when I felt all fired up from watching this video http://blip.tv/file/855937 Watch this - if it scares you, you’re in the wrong profession.
Interesting sidenote though - this and the Mike Welsch videos are inspiring lectures about web 2.0. Really good lectures. They’re so good that they partially undermine the point theyre making, which is that the future is all about participation and experiential learning and all that.