Minecraft as a Modern fantasy - great fun and deeply problematic?

A specter is haunting the internets - the specter of Minecraft. If you have not yet encountered it, chances are it will be near you soon. Minecraft is a so-called indie game that has made it big, with 4 million purchases so far (and counting), even though the game is still in beta. On YouTube, fan-made Minecraft videos such as this one easily attract hundreds of thousands of viewers.

How come this success? Minecraft certainly does not impress with spectacular graphics nor sophisticated narratives. Basically, Minecraft is about mining. After a tiny Java-program is installed on your desktop, it generates a vast 3D world, complete with oceans, continents, weather above and caves below. As a player you are then free to explore and exploit this world after your liking - typically through mining of various ores and crafting of items (hence the name of the game). The only stress factor is that during nighttime, monsters spawn out of dark spots on the map, which in effect is anywhere that you as a player has not yet lit up with torches. Thus, there is a clear incentive to put a cosy little house together rather quickly, or arm yourself for battle until dawn breaks.

The way I'm currently thinking about explaining the succes of Minecraft - which is also a personal issue, since I'm under its spell - is that the game stages a meeting between the dangerous but resourceful Nature and the vulnerable but rational Man that appeals to the Robinson Crusoe that many of us have somewhere inside. In a sense, Minecraft epitomizes the deeply Modern fantasy of the powerfully rational Human Individual, dropped from the sky (literally, in the game) to manipulate Nature by cutting it up into cubes for easy handling (mining), combining them to achieve higher complexity (crafting) and an increase of power (tools) for further manipulation. No wonder Minecraft is intriguing for anyone enrolled in this Modern narrative of the state of things.

However, in this Modern fantasy lie problems that are rapidly becoming more and more obvious. As humans collectively struggle with grasping the consequences of climate change, we try to locate a particular human actor to blame for the misery, but find only historical contingency and delicate ecosystems. Nature is not simply our endless resource, it turns out, and there is serious backlash to our 'rational' exploitation of it. Furthermore, we might have to design a new politics to divide resources between us, since they are finite. These limitations are absent in Minecraft, which is why it comes across as highly Modern, great fun to play (for people like me, who grew up Modern), and potentially deeply problematic if taken in without a dose of reflexivity.

How might Minecraft approach the Nature-Culture divide differently? One place to start might be to generate maps that have finite resources and a fully destructible world. This would add a whole new tension to the game, as players in multiplayer worlds might have to negotiate how to use the sparse land that has been generated for them. As it is now, multiplayer worlds end with a layer of indestructible 'bedrock' - a game feature that might also be seen as a metaphor for the Modern belief in a bedrock of facts that Man can reach if he is rational enough to cut through chaotic Nature.

Another idea could be to make worlds in which players cannot survive when dropped from the sky, but have to grow as part of a larger ecosystem, dependent on other beings. Obviously none of this would overcome the Nature-Culture divide, as should be the ultimate ambition, but then again - that might diminish the fun of the game for Moderns like us.

STS Walk-Talks

In order to go full social media circle, here is a brief post on what has already been mentioned through other outlets: I'm guest-blogging on the STS at Oxford blog about yesterday's Talk-Walk on the theme of 'Visualising - what is it to visualise?'. Sub-themes include the plural meanings and widespread metaphorical use of terms that relate to the visual, the slippy concept of affordances, and the scientific and narrative powers of visualisations. This is a nice follow-up to my earlier post on the animating of lectures.

But what on earth is an STS Talk-Walk in the first place? I first encountered the concept here in Oxford where it has been initiated and described by Malte Ziewitz. As mentioned by Malte, the idea first came about in Amsterdam where Annemarie Mol took her PhD students out walking. Rumour has it that the Dutch walk considerably longer than we do here in Oxford. On the other hand, we have been able to accommodate an interesting mix of people from different departments and with different academic pursuits at the two hour long Friday afternoon talk-walks here. The phenomenon has apparently been copied at several more STS departments, and I think it is for the better - I certainly found the talk-walk format an inviting and informal way to engage with a new place and an interesting group of people.

As Malte quotes Annemarie Mol for stating, "talking-while-walking can enhance thinking in ways not attainable behind a desk or in a seminar sitting down.”

Official statistics: 51% of 16-74 year old Danes use Facebook

In making a case for why my MSc dissertation here at the Oxford Internet Institute should be concerned with something as hyped and mundane as Facebook, I've been looking for numbers on the Danish social media landscape.

On the English-language web, the commercial SocialBakers Facebook statistics suggest that 49% of the Danish population are on Facebook.

This rather non-transparent number can now be compared with a recent report by Statistics Denmark, suggesting that 51% of 16-74 year old Danes have a Facebook account. The second-largest online social network service in Denmark, LinkedIn, is trailing far behind at 8%. Most surprisingly perhaps, a mere 3% of the surveyed age cohort use Twitter.

As such, there are compelling quantitative reasons for choosing Facebook over e.g. Twitter for a case study of how social media reflect life in Denmark. Another recent survey produced for a Danish daily confirms this: A tiny elite of the 319 most active Twitter users in Denmark write half of all Danish tweets! The total number of Twitter users in Denmark is estimated as 28.000, whereas the number of Facebook users are an impressive 2.6 million.

This latter survey also indicates that the numbers might be hard to estimate in any precise way: It concludes that 70% of Danes have Facebook accounts, while 6% have Twitter accounts, which amounts to a quite strong overestimation of social media penetration in Denmark when compared to the Statistics Denmark report. Here, it is worth noting that according to SocialBakers, 9% of the Danish Facebook users are in the 13-15 years age group, leaving them out of the official statistics.

Apart from giving us an idea about the sheer number of social media users in Denmark, the most interesting finding in the Statistics Denmark report seems to be that one fifth of all online social network users have no idea how to change their privacy settings. This is especially true for older users.

Mapping the Mapping

As a follow-up to the Mapping Controversies project on the Danish 'Tax Wars' described last year on this blog, one group member - Emil Urhammer - has taken a more reflexive stance on a new website entitled Mapping the Mapping.

The two main contributions are a philosophical essay on what it might mean to do (meta) mapping of controversies and a short inquiry, using qualitative survey and interview methods, into the reception and future potential of the original Tax Wars project. I found both reads highly stimulating. For example, Emil suggests that a 'Chamber of Closure' is added to mappings of controversies in order to facilitate not only the opening of the field of actors and arguments, but also the speed of opinion construction that is so crucial under the current circumstances, according to Latour.

The apt name notwithstanding, I also find the chamber of closure idea very useful for making explicit to the reader that a visit to a mapping controversies is never innocent, but rather a means of achieving one form of closure over another,  in a (hopefully) slightly more transparent way. Such a chamber does, however, force the cartographer of controversies to face the fundamental dilemma of whether to take on the role of mapper or designer - and wonder whether these roles can be separated at all?

Online interviews 4: Temporality and turn taking

In this final installation of the mini series of blog posts on performing qualitative research interviews online, the issue of temporality is emphasized.

A basic distinction can be made between synchronous and asynchronous interviews. Synchronous interviews, typically in variations of an online chat format, seem to have advantages over asynchronous email interviews. First, chat allows for more spontaneity, minimizing socially desirable answers. Second, the interviewer can show attention more easily by sending encouraging comments. Thirdly, chat makes it easier to guide or adapt to respondent behaviour by rephrasing questions along the way.

These advantages all highlight potential threats to the validity of asynchronous email interviews. This  format makes it very hard to simulate face-to-face interaction and the trusting relationship that is needed in a qualitative interview. Furthermore, Walther (1996:33) makes it easier for the interviewee to present herself from carefully selected angles.

A related threat is that a prolonged, time-consuming e-mail conversation might lead to interviewee drop out (Kivits, 2005) This is potentially damaging for purposeful sampling.

On the other hand, the longitudinal qualities of email interviews might increase understanding of the field, since interviewees have the opportunity to comment and reflect at later stages. This includes the chance to validate tentative findings by showing them to respondents, something that shorter synchronous interviews cannot offer.

Interviews can sometimes be a very rewarding experience for the interviewee. But can this strength be replicated online? What happens to the moment of mutual trust after a successful interview, where interviewees confide further in the interviewer (Warren, et al., 2003)? These moments might be lost in synchronous online interviews. But in fact, lengthy email interviews have been found very rewarding by respondents, who sometimes find it hard to let go when the research relationship is over (Kivits, 2005).

Equally, the famous “uncomfortable silences” of conventional interviews (Berg, 2009:141) can take on various meanings online. This threatens to leave out important clues. It also gives the respondent time to construct more “socially desirable” answers. However, early pilot studies showed that respondents in synchronous interviews tend to reply faster online than offline.

On a final note, platform convergence might blur the distinction between synchronous and asynchronous interviews.  Some chat protocols resemble e-mail in allowing users to review before letting go of a statement. Others provide contextualising information such as status updates and pictures, while others again integrate chat and email completely. It is key to be aware of the characteristics of the medium before conducting interviews.

References

Berg, B. L. (2009). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston: Pearson Education.

Kivits, J. (2005). Online Interviewing and the Research Relationship. In C. H. (ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet (pp. 35-50). Oxford: Berg.

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication : Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction. Communication Research , 23 (1), 3-43.

Warren, C., Barnes-Brus, T., Burgess, H., Wiebold-Lippisch, L., Hackney, J., Harkness, G., et al. (2003). After the Interview. Qualitative Sociology , 26 (1).

Visualisation and Computerisation: Putting RSAnimate into perspective

How does visualisation enact a message or a lecture?

This question was posed by sociologist and ethnographer Steve Woolgar in his introductory keynote at the ongoing Visualisation in the Age of Computerisation Conference in Oxford. He provided one very entertaining example that deserves a replay. Contradicting the much-celebrated RSAnimate's visualisation of a Slavoj Zizek lecture (on 'cultural capitalism') with the more mundane video of Zizek delivering the lecture in person, Woolgar invited us to think about what it means to visualise.

While Woolgar would normally argue that maintaining an ethnographic distance to the phenomenon under study is key to making a valuable contribution, in this morning's keynote, he played with the thought that it might be possible to allow oneself be dragged in by the lure and coolness of the visuals if at the same time maintaining a reflexive irony.

In this spirit I would recommend the reader to expose herself to Woolgar's example. First, have a look at (at least) the first couple of minutes of Zizek's lecture:

Then, swap the video of a sweaty and slightly frantic Zizek with the visualisation (and indeed editing) of RSAnimate:

No wonder that RSAnimate has been celebrated for making abstract concepts and theories more accessible! Now, what does that tell us about the power of visualisation? Are we perhaps hard-wired to be more stimulated by animation than speech? Or is it that the animator contributed with a synchronous interpretation of Zizek's thoughts - a series of mental images that we would wish we had created ourselves?

To finish off with my own addition to Woolgar's cinematic remix (or perhaps deconstruction?), the most recent RSAnimate incidentally animates a lecture of Evgeny Morozov, whose new book The Net Delusion was recently pseudo-reviewed on this blog:

Feel free to compare the above with Morozov's actual lecture to further explore the role of visualisation by animation.

Online interviews 3: Being there through text

This third instalment in my mini series on performing research interviews online deals with the issue of communicating via text such as emails and chat, rather than speech.

Communicating through text is not trivial since it leaves out the use of facial expressions and intonations that support offline interaction. In general, online communication implies a loss of social cues. For example, the lack of body language means that the interviewer cannot take signs of discomfort or confusion into account as easily. In terms of reactions, the 'interviewer’s repertoire' of tools with which to encourage the respondent includes nonverbal responses. Limiting this repertoire might make it difficult to build rapport effectively.

Seen from the perspective of face-to-face standards of qualitative data validity, there is a risk that the interviewee will find it offensive or unserious that the interviewer is not physically present and listening actively. For the same reasons, one might fear that interviewees will find it easier to lie in an online interaction.

Indeed, Walther (1996) argues that a main feature of computer-mediated communication is that it allows us to manipulate how we come across. This might seem an obvious threat to the credibility of the research. In the case of sensitive topics, however, online interviews might actually make it easier for interviewees to participate. On the other hand, this could lead to an ‘Internet experience bias’, with adept Internet users being extraordinarily direct online, while inexperienced users hold back because they are in an unfamiliar environment.

Avoiding the relatively intimate setting of a face-to-face interview might also have an equalising effect and lower the impact of prejudice. But the loss of conventional characteristics, such as age, gender, race, and dress style, may remove important contextualising information. One way to compensate for this is to establish a bit of context before the actual interview. The researcher can start by posting a picture or bits of personal information online so that the interviewee has an idea of who s/he is interacting with. A short email exchange might help set the scene for a chat interview, maybe even encouraging interviewees to disclose a bit of information about themselves beforehand.

While these measures could compensate for the lack of physical presence, it might be problematic to compare speech and writing in the first place: Spoken language is highly context-sensitive, while a writer is more distanced from both the context and the text that is produced (Slaughter 1985). Using Benjamin’s (1970) terms, Slaughter (1985:117) notes how speech “experience” becomes written “information”. While one might instinctively see face-to-face interviews as the gold standard, the two modes of interviewing might simply not be comparable.

Assessing the overall value of online interviews for research validity, they seem to threaten context-sensitivity and thus credibility from the perspective of qualitative research standards. In a ‘detached information’-oriented paradigm, on the other side, text-based interviewing might actually be cast as an advantage.

In the final post the dimension of time is introduced, drawing up some of the primary differences between synchronous and asynchronous interviewing.

References:
Benjamin, W. (1970). The Story Teller. In W. Benjamin, Illuminations (pp. 84-91). London: Jonathan Cape.

Slaughter, M. M. (1985). Literacy and Society. International Journal of the Sociology of Language , 56, 113-139.

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication : Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction. Communication Research , 23 (1), 3-43.