This is actually 3 different entries but I thought I would combine and try and focus each of them. It began on Buzz as a note to myself about methodology. My typical chosen method is that of content analysis. I have always enjoyed looking at products after the fact to see what cultural messages were being communicated.
This is where I begin: Methodology. A thing social science is concerned with is methodology and method. To define these similar terms, I offer this quote:
"Research is a coherent, systematic set of activities (methodology), using a set of techniques (methods) to gather evidence for producing new knowledge (epistemology). This set of activities is interlinked through an approach of how these research activities should proceed = methodology. To get data/info, specific techniques - methods are used."
Moving a little bit backwards. Methodology is formed by previous research (epistemology) that used method to discern something. So, all new research is based on old research. Herein things get complicated.
New research is produced based on the matters of concern within the old research. To put it plainly, new research is based on rectifying old research "gaps" or epistemological errors. As research moves further into the depths of an issue, matters of concern transform into matters of fact. Or, scientific fact. In the "hard sciences" matters of fact resemble things like "gravity." In social science, matters of fact are more akin to things like "dependency" or "Us/Them" or "Tokenism." And so on and so forth.
The issue herein is not that the gaps are filled but if the gaps were incorrectly filled and are then reused. To use a metaphor, social science has spent ages building things with what we now recognize as toxic substances. In recognition of this and the impending study I have to conduct as part of my program, the methodology I want to use is not in favor.
Programs are built on the same social science material. The fact that it is toxic does not stop its being useful. After all, Asbestos is still around. It is up to new students to recognize this and to begin to take steps to remove or replace it.
In terms of this wording. The Matters of Fact social science is based on are in question as they should never have been matters of fact to begin with.
Why?
The easiest answer to this question is, "we assign meaning to action based on the meaning we know exists." In the words of another, "We are the only science in which our subject does not "act".
This ends post 1
At this point, the second post begins. Actor-Netowrk-Theory. Actor-Network Theory (4 words, Actor, Network, Actor-Network, Theory) assumes the roll of (appropos), a blind ant. We continue down a path, the starting point is that of a controversy. Before I begin on discussion, this post is going to be a series of logical steps in the form of definitions:
Terms
The Social: "A stabalized set of affairs, a bundle of ties that, later, may be modilized to account for some other phenomenon." Basically, a house, a company, a group of people at a concert. This definition begins with no assumptions about the construction of this 'set of affairs.' The Group will enjoy what they are assembled for, the house will continue being a house, a company will change internally but will still be that company. This is an important distinction as the term, 'social construction' confounds further attempts to explain the formation and makeup of things. ANT is meant to aid in this. (1).
Actant: Something that acts or to which activity is granted by others
Generic Actors: While this term refers to the construction of a "generic type" it mostly refers to the gap between the generic idealized type and the individualized actor (Reassemble 205)
Inscription: the way technical objects embody patterns of use: technical objects thus simultaneously embody and measure a set of relations between heterogeneous elements
Translation: rests on the idea that actors within a network will try to enroll (manipulate or force) the other actors into positions that suit their purposes (this idea is perhaps the crux of the importance of ANT)
Network: A seamless web of technical and non-technical objects
Centers of Calculation: networks through which flows of materials, practices, and knowledges are gathered and compared.
Controversy: This is best defined here in the ambiance of, "Like all sciences, sociology begins in wonder. The commotion might be registered in many different ways but it's always the paradoxical presence of something at once invisible yet tangible, taken for granted yet surprising, mundane but of baffling subtlety that triggers a passionate attept to tame the wild beast of the social."
END Definitions
This series of definitions is supposed to mark a reorganization of methodology, of the production of epistemology. The ontological building blocks of methodology. It is here that I am currently trying to focus my understanding. Now to apply this to video games.
This ends post number 2.
A quote I saw the other day from Akrich the other day was, "When studying the use of technological artifacts one necessarily shifts back and forth 'between the designers projected user (this could also be another term - generic type) and the real user' in order to describe this dynamic negotiation process of design."
In terms of video games, there is a relationship between the intent of the designer and the ability of the designer (or programmers). This relationship pulls from the socialization of that programmer through interpretation of the generic type of who would play the game along with the designer's understanding of how that programmed environment can act or could act in this case. The actual user (player) of that game then has to interpret that before them given a whole slew of other factors but is constrained by the generic type the game was intended for. Subjectivity within a game is limited and distorted by this fact. The problem with analysis of video game, as the quote from Akrich suggests, is that when we talk about video games we are switching carelessly between actual and generic. The thing I want to study for my thesis is strictly the generic user. Namely, the formation of a generic user as translated by culture of origin.
How can I define this generic user? Or, am I simply studying my actual reaction to the generic intent?
I picture the path of this sort of like:
user network> designer > console > generic user > design process> game > marketing > marketplace > user network > actual user responses
underlying and circulating ideas are generic actants in the form of design for and played by.
I'm interested in what it means, what it looks like throughout the processes of translation for each of these steps.
The tough part is that on either side of that relationship, both sides will not claim that negotiation and typically fight against the idea of it. Both sides will claim simultaneously power and complete lack of power (market forces, buying power). The interesting thing is what they will claim. This is where the power of ANT allows me to exist in both worlds by allowing the products constructed to tell me about the history of development.
ANT gets a ton of flack because while it is an attempt to redefine the basic backbone of social theory, it does so by tearing the current backbone...and everything built on that backbone, to shreds. Feminist scholars, having recently gained odious amounts of power, often do their best to fight against ANT because it has no place for the intersection of gender, race, education, and the various power struggles that exist within them. I keep thinking that this assumption is wrong. ANT sees power struggles differently, but I imagine they still exist. For ANT, not being part of that chain of inscription within a chain of translations means a general lack of voice. Within gender and race studies, this is a central concern of each of them.
The university i work for demands equal representation of ethnic groups in photography being generated by the departments within. Specifically, we are seeking to gain a greater hispanic population. This is a trend within a larger group of people who understand that in order to solve a problem, those with the problem need to be part of the solution. This translates to educating a historically under-educated population so that they can identify their own problems and own solutions. This is empowerment. We try to create generic actants through our communication. If television, media, even text books are meant to eradicate chance for equity and equality then we must do our best to fight that generic type. It is a war over a philosophical space, metaphyisical space.
Recently (E3), we saw the creation of two different generic types. The generic type that is maintained by Nintendo and that of Sony.
Nintendo: "We want our games to appeal to everyone, everywhere."
Sony: "We all serve one King, and his name... is gaming. FOREVER MAY HE REIGN."
Meanwhile, Microsoft is trying to appeal to both. Social games are another generic type altogether. The battle we are entering is one of generic types.
Further confounding this is a multi-cultural approach. Does the process of translation differ between a Japanese design team trying to imagine a group of users in America playing their game. How would Microsoft design their products had Japan not done it first?
This is where my methodology begins.
