Hot Summer Days: Update #729

The first thing that pops into my head is a cheesy ’80’s song New Girl Now …click and laugh if you must, but do not judge – it was 1984 afterall!

The last few days have been scorching hot (30 c + / 80 f + ); and there is at least another week of it to come. I know at the beginning of the summer I had complained that we had barely seen the sun and that  an onslaught of rainy days ruined my holiday. Technically, I should be grateful for such balmy summer weather in the heart of August. The only trouble is – my vacation finished almost 2 weeks ago. I think mother nature got my order backwards this year – who do I complain to? So instead of sipping fruity drinks on a deck by a pool, I am inside (and sometimes outside on my balcony) trying to chip away at my to-do list and pretend I can’t see / feel the hot weather.

I have been getting some work done. Mainly stuff for my play test moderating gig, but also getting a chunk done on our presentation for DiGRA. We are looking at girls and videogames, something I have always shied away from. But at this point, it seems like not only the logical thing to look at, but the right thing (I have two girls, 13 & 17…). While they love to play videogames, and have access to half an EB Games store between my partner and I alone, what they choose to play, and purchase themselves has been provocative. Coupled with what marketing and industry claims girls like / want to play – it is easy to see a few gaps.  While there is alot of work out there on girls videogame preferences and the imbalance between market availability etc, I think what we have been working on brings something to the discussion worth adding. I must say though, digging through the sea of literature on girls and videogames has been eye opening on alot of levels.

I am also working on bits and pieces for an upcoming encyclopedia of video games (will post link when available). I always find encyclopedic / history entries interesting things to write. They take so much time to collect information, check and triple check references and timelines and in the end, after what feels like forever, you write 500 – 1000 words, trying to give the most straightforward and concise information possible without (much) bias or opinion. Of course, as I wrote somewhere on here before, history is indeed socially constructed; the choices an author has to make about what gets in their text and what is omitted is significant. I could ramble on about this, but then, I would never actually get any work done.

Full Circle

Sometimes the research and the writing process has nothing to do with actually reading and writing, but rather, letting things stew in the back of your mind while you do other things. This is a hard process to accept – especially in the world of deadlines and other people’s schedules. However, I am happy to say that my indexicality paper has finally come full circle, and, while a tad late on the delivery, is ready to be taken seriously, and written. Essentially, I had to completely abandon the original text to even get back to it. I had torn it apart to its bare bones, barely recognizable to its original source, but after etching out a whole new outline, doing some more reading on (what was originally) peripheral topics, I realize the whole problem that I was having was that I was trying to work with someone else’s words, and not wholly my own ideas; using the wrong literature really. Once I realized this, I had come to the conclusion that in doing so, I was actually approaching my whole research question wrong; I was thinking about indexicality as something concrete – related to the materiality of the object; when in actuality (for the overall argument I was trying to make in the first place), it is really about its referentiality. Thinking of it this way makes more sense to what I am trying to say (will share that at a later date, since its all still in the writing stage), and helps me move away from concepts of indexicality traditionally used in film studies (often to make a case against digital media).

So – while it took longer than I wanted it to – I am happy to say that the “thought process” did it’s job. Now for the tediousness of writing it again!

Back to Indexicality

I have been working on my secondary comprehensive exam paper/topic again . Again might not be the right word. It started out as a paper on figural meaning and its relationship to indexicality through the process of one’s imaginary museum (Lefebvre), but for the allocated length of the paper, it was way too much. I had tried to simply cut out the section on the imaginary museum – which left me with a paper on figural meaning and its relationship to the indexical, but then I was left with a conceptual gaping hole. After a meeting with my advisor, we both agreed that the section on the figural felt tacked on and incomplete. So, we decided to nix the figural altogether, and reinsert the section on the imaginary museum. However, after trying to rewrite sufficient transitions to make the paper the least bit comprehensive (ha!), I realized that the imaginary museum made little sense in my overall argument without the backbone (weak as it may have been) of the figural.

So It was time to go back to the outline writing stage again (thnx Shan) even though I already have over 8k words written, chopped to bits and reassembled multiple times…; in the end, I am left with a paper on the shifting (conceptual) boundaries of indexicality across medium (photo/film/videogames). While the idea of meaning making and memory is completely lost (will save it for another time), for the first time in a few months, I actually feel pretty good about the direction it is heading and the readings I have (re)selected. Now, here’s to crossing my fingers that I get a legible draft done by Saturday (advisor imposed deadline)!

Random Dissertation Thoughts

I had my first full-on thesis proposal/comprehensive exam meeting on Thursday. All in all, it went relatively well. Ok – to be honest, it was a lot better than I had expected, and only have some minor tweaking on my actual proposal, and a decent-sized (but very doable) edit on my secondary comp paper. One of the things I thought I had squared away was my ‘research method’, as methods is something that I have an interest in; probably drilled into me by all my methods courses [and a few others] that always challenged us on why the methods we are choosing are necessarily the best ones to get the research task at hand done. Justification of method indeed.

So, for my doctoral research, I am working with a theoretical framework that I developed in my MA which attempts to define the necessary relationships that occur in order for a “hybrid” identity to be formed (an identity that belongs neither wholly to the player, nor the player-character on screen, but an identity that exists between them that is developed through the gameplay and other elements). I am now using this framework as a template to evaluate the process of identity construction in various genres of video games that are necessarily distinct from MMO’s. One of the goals here is to evaluate in which ways my framework (developped through mmorpg play/study) changes based on the type of game being played (and all the things that go with it), which ultimately leads to varying processes and forms of identity. I will not get into the “why” just yet, but that being said, I had chosen my research methods quite stringently, based on my sociological training of course.

Since my work relies heavily on my pre-existing framework, the analysis will be based on both the framework and personal gameplay experience (of character development, player choices etc) along with more technical elements (game design elements). One thing I never thought of though, coming out of sociology – is to record all of my gameplay. However, my advisor (from a cinema department) uses recorded gameplay extensively – and it makes sense for the research/work that he does. I just never thought about using it myself. At first, I could not imagine what use it would be other than to document the fact that I did it, and on some levels, the “play experience” analysis will not be ‘obvious’ through the recording. However, the more I think about it – the more I am thinking about anthropology and not film studies [perhaps a mental block ... perhaps lack knowing any better]; the more I think that it could be an interesting project on a personal level to record my gameplay, to track the development of expertise through gameplay, and how that influences my framework (something I hadn’t even thought of as part of my overall project).

To be honest, the more I think about it, the more excited I am! If only I can get through the next week (conference prep, out of town company and a heavy workload at EA), I am really excited to start working on this!! (Always a good thing when it comes to your dissertation ).

Oh – and for my colleagues who already record their gameplay, any equipment suggestions (brand, etc.) I know I need a dvd recorder, but any suggestions from those in the know would be great!

Rethinking, Restructuring, Rewriting

I am in the process of rewriting a paper that I had written last semester for a course. The final paper wasn’t my best work, although it fulfill the course’s requirements. There are a few nuggets worth saving though, and this is where the work really begins. It is one thing to edit a paper, to cut irrelevant or dangling bits out here and there; to fix grammar and reword sentences, but in this case, I need to cut out over half of the paper (for reasons I will not get into here today). The challenge, as I see it, is that the way I originally wrote the paper (perhaps the way we all write papers), the core argument of the paper flows from the introduction onwards. Each section feels necessary to make my point. In the end, I have to completely rethink what it is I am (was) trying to say and restructure it so that it makes sense with 50% of the argument missing. The task is proving alot harder than I originally thought, and am now completely simply starting again, one fresh, blank screens. This whole addition by substraction thing is drving me crazy!One piece of advice that was given to me by a colleague yesterday was to simply cut out the bits of words (sentences, paragraphs) that I like – regardless of the overall structure and work from there. So onward and out, that is my task today before heading off to work tonight.

Professional Identity

I have been working on the same stream of research on identity and video games over the last five years. My argument has been relatively consistent over the years, with a few flaws here and there as to be expected. Regardless, my goal has always been the same – to decentralize the concept of identity as a “result” or thing that belongs to the individual player and move towards thinking about identity as a process that occurs throughout game play instead. There is a lot more to it – of course – and you can read all about it when my dissertation is finished

That being said, I have had a few side-streams of research over the years as well, mostly concerned with how people (young people, and often girls) integrate technology into their every day lives and discussing the pros and cons of the increasing use of web spaces (forums, blogs, university hosted sites etc) for university classes. Over the last year, while I have been thinking about the details of my dissertation, I have been working  on these side projects (publication/conferences etc).

What has been worrying me is that it has been a year and a half since I presented at a conference, and it was not on my “primary” research. I have been becoming increasingly worried about my “professional” identity as a scholar of X or Y topic. Is this line of worry even necessary? Is it better to be known as a scholar of X topic or a scholar that researches a broader scope of issues that surround a particular topic or technology? I have many interests, and enjoy working on several things at once with different people, but my question is – does it damage my “professional” identity – do I even have one yet?! Perhaps it is a silly thing to worry about – but as I sit here working on conference papers and abstracts, I wonder how far from my ‘primary’ research is too far – or is that even a question to be asking myself/worried about?

That Sinking Feeling

A feeling that, as an academic, happens every once in a while when you are scouring the literature on your research topic, when you stumble upon that title that both excites you and makes your heart sink. The title that says “hi kelly, your thesis has already been written by somebody else, move along”. I think everyone that I know has had this feeling at least once. For me, it has happened a few times – video games and identity (to be fair) isn’t exactly the most unique research topic out there in terms of ‘key words’.  Today, I found this book, due out in May. On the one hand, I am really excited to read it, on the other hand, I am scared that it will say everything I have been working on over the last few years, making my research a moot point. Mind you, I had a similar shiver when I saw I, Avatar (and a few other titles)

To be fair, I know that more than likely I am panicking for nothing. My work is about the process of identity construction in video games (generally speaking), not the psychological influence of avatars on “real -world players”, I am not using Gee’s work as a theoretical foundation, and other than the “recommendations of terminology for future identity researchers”, which could really be useful in the long run, I have different experiences, ground my work in a different literature and (more than likely – or … hopefully) have something different to say and/or contribute something different to the world.

Thinking: The Hidden Work

As I sit here, trying to work through yet another draft of my PhD Proposal, I have been struck with a sense of guilt that I hadn’t “done” anything all day. But when I stop and take a minute to think about what I have been doing, I realize that I haven’t done “nothing”, but that I have spent most of my day “thinking”. There is just very little outward signs to show that this is what I have been doing. Nothing scribbled down, nothing to “show” for the last 4 hours of sitting here with my cup of coffee – looking out the window at the dreary gray damp sky. No “product”. But somehow, after spending the last 4 hours doing seemingly nothing, I come out refreshed, and ready to work. Addition by subtraction is the motto today – I just deleted a portion of my proposal that has been bugging me (it felt forced and out of place). After cutting and pasting, renaming and filing in a separate “bits & pieces” folder for safe keeping, I feel that I have accomplished something big. But to the outside world … not so much. From this little choice, I am opened up again, to another blank slate of possibilities. It feels better – even if there is nothing actually on that page at the moment.

My partner is not in academia. He works long hours working on airplanes. His work is very manual intensive – with an end product in mind, and progress is visible every step of the way. We have had long talks (and even arguments) about the ‘work’ that I do. While he does not wish to ever trade places with me, as he knows that what I do is challenging in its own right, he has a hard time grasping the fact that by the time I am writing – actively producing a written product – most of my “work” has been done. He has a hard time understanding that sometimes, when I am sitting on the balcony with coffee/wine/beer in hand (depending on the weather and time of day) and seemingly staring into nothingness (which is hard to do when you live in a lego kinda world,  surrounded by apartment buildings and 50 other balconies overlooking the same alleyway), I am actually doing the hardest part of my work – the thinking part. The part where you talk to yourself in your head, contemplating paths of inquiry, potential literature to support or tear down your ideas, possible methods and case studies…this is the part – for me – where it all comes together. By the time I am at my desk, I am ‘ready’ to write. Not as much “thinking” as going through the process at this point. Admittedly, this thinking process doesn’t always pan out – especially when I am working with an imposed framework and timeline (comprehensive exams, funding reports, conference deadlines, etc.). You can’t rush the thinking – it is just something you have to work through (at least for me).

That being said – I guess it’s time to put some of those thoughts on paper – to materialize some of these ideas, and to validate the hours of ‘thinking’.

Plagiarism and Patents

Throughout my academic career, the question of plagiarism has always been at the forefront of my mind. Many conversations have been had over the years about what constitutes an “original” idea, and what ideas are merely a result of some form of intellectual ‘mash-up’ of books read, stories heard and other intellectual conversations. It has been argued that there isn’t really any “new” ideas out there anymore, with the bombardment of media forms (etc) we are filled with external information from the get-go. When writing papers for my undergrad, a colleague and I used to discuss to what extent our paper was at all orignal (since the primary form of paper writing at that stage is synthesis writing …). Even now, my ideas are a combination of what I have read, what I have thought about and what I believe in (all influenced by some ‘external’ source or another at some point).

So, as an academic we learn the boundaries of (and ways to reference) original thought, quoted material, and speaking/writing generally about ideas that have been previously written about by multiple authors (even if their ideas are contradictory, as long as the ‘topic’ has been discussed).

All this to say – I don’t quite understand how patenting works. How can one person say they thought of something independently of everything else, and they, therefore, own it, and all of the profits that can possibly come from it? The general idea of a virtual world is of no exception. It is a vague concept – that can embody MANY types of online spaces – yet, after reading this article, I am amazed that this is even legal at all. I mean, I might have come to learn about identity through the works of many theorists, but I don’t think anyone can patent the general idea of “identity” and profit when anyone else uses the word…at least I hope not.

Writing Rituals

So, I have been sitting in front of my laptop for the last few days, working on my thesis proposal, typing a word here, a phrase there (I am about 1/4 of a way through being finished …). I have been trying to think of ways to get myself into that super-fiend-work-mode that I find myself in when confronted with a hard deadline and being three steps behind. I am trying to avoid that ulcer inducing work mode (that got me this far, but still, I don’t think I can sustain it for my PhD), so i got to thinkin’ – what work rituals do I usually perform to get it going? I know that good conversations with colleagues always gets me motivated to work (however, the bus ride home usually takes a bit of wind out of my sails); sometimes going over my reading notes that I took to prepare for the particular project helps and I usually have to clean my office so all is neat and tidy (since my ideas are messy and all over the place). But what I would like to know is, what other rituals do people have to get themselves deep into work mode? I cannot imagine (or at least hope) that not everyone is naturally motivated and inspired 24/7 as needed – so please – share any tips or tricks you might have.