At the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS) about 25 experts in the field of gaming gathered for a two-day workshop to share their experiences concerning the use of digital games in contexts that empower its players.

The goal of the workshop was to learn from previous projects and initiatives regarding the use of digital games and their ‘serious’ applications. The participants represented different voices in society (e.g. academia, gaming industry, grass roots initiatives, public institutions) which allowed for a diverse scope of experiences. We were brought up to speed by An Jacobs and Jan van Looy from IBBT (Belgium) who presented the State of The Art in research on this topic so far. After this everyone was given the opportunity to comment and provide further information. This was done by short case-based presentations which allowed a first collection of best practices. Subsequently, it also served as an entry point for the second day; a brainstorming session to inform EU policy with regard to how games can support social inclusion and empowerment.

All cases were interesting and informative, but for me those that emphasized the importance of a collaborative creative effort between an expert and the group of interest were of particular interest. Scott Colfer from Media for Development in the UK, for example, discussed a project where he co-designed digital spaces with and for young dads (i.e. youngdads.tv). Via participatory media workshops these young dads were given a voice by learning to make –and subsequently share– short films about things that matter to them while at the same time promoting a positive image of young, active fathers. This practice empowered participants mainly by giving them the tools to create, communicate and inspire.

Another case that specifically focused on the value of co-creation was brought forward by Rilla Khaled from the IT University of Copenhagen. She talked about the Girl Game Workshop, which she and her colleagues organized in Denmark. Without prior knowledge or experience in game design, ten girls were asked to design and create a game within three days time. With this in mind a participatory design approach was chosen to structure the workshop. Participatory design is build around the premise of equality among the different stakeholders. This equality assumption, however, sometimes prevents empowerment of participants. As Khaled concludes in an article based on this case:

Empowerment is about the act of giving or delegating power or authority, whereas equality is about parity and sameness, thus not granting anyone more power than anyone else. So, while equality of perspectives may seem like a means of empowerment, equality-centric methods may not be the best avenue for  supporting empowerment, especially if the context of use is one in which egalitarianism is not the norm.

Concluding our two days Ewan McIntosh from NoTosh (based in Scotland) elegantly summarized the main insights of the workshop. Perhaps most important was the notion that playing digital games is not a sole endeavor but embedded in other areas of life. The future should then arguably be best approached by making sure that digital games –or any initiatives for that matter– become part of the network of daily life. This entails making sure all stakeholders see the benefits and opportunities that games (or game-like environments) might have to offer.

Further research, especially longitudinal research, is needed to provide evidence of and insight in the situations where digital games can be used for social inclusion and empowerment and where they cannot. And while the voices heard during this workshop were diverse and covered a broad cross section of society, one voice was not heard; that of the potential beneficiaries of these games and game-like environments. In my opinion, it would be very insightful to hear from the identified at risk groups themselves and ask them what stance they have concerning the use of digital games to include and empower them. Hopefully, the opportunity to talk with rather than about these groups will be taken as well, as this would constitute a first step in the right direction concerning social inclusion and empowerment.

The Influence Machine - Brooke Gladstone on the Media

Brooke Gladstone , co-host of NPR’s On The Media, visited the Harvard Book Store in Cambridge, MA to discuss her new book: The Influencing Machine. The book, co-authored with Josh Neuman, is a graphic nonfiction that guides the reader through two millennia of media history-from the newspapers in Caesar’s Rome to the penny press of the American Revolution and the manipulations of contemporary journalism- while in the process trying to persuade its readers to be smart, savvy, informed consumers who are aware they themselves are also shapers of the media.

Gladstone argues that every time there is a new technology, somebody gets hysterical about its effects on human beings. While this fear might be grounded to some extent in the current day and age, the future always seems to more forgiving. Looking back, however, we always seem to have found beneficial uses for these new technologies enhancing our experiences as we go. The real fear, Gladstone states, comes from the reflection media offer us on ourselves and current society: ”the media are mirrors and what we fear is not the machine but the reflection.”

While this might be true, it is certainly not a new insight as it has been had and described many times before. However, the format in which Gladstone presents her argument is powerful and elegant. The collaboration with Josh Neuman has resulted in a concise yet engaging visualization in which both authors complement each other: Gladstone’s characteristic voice is almost tangible on the pages when the structured story line unfolds. The choice for the this specific medium was a deliberate one Gladstone shared:

“[The graphic nonfiction] is the most like the radio format, which I know how to do and which is how I have communicated over the last decades. I needed to communicate in bubbles to obtain the intimate relationship achieved only in the medium of radio.”

She also wanted to steer clear from getting trapped in an either utopian or dystopian paradigma, but rather find some middle ground and does so by acknowledging that, yes, we will be changed by the media, but the media will also be changed by us. And in the end, Gladstone argues, we will get the media we deserve.

Watch a nice animated intro by Benjamin Arthur on the book here.

One overarching theme of the day dealt with defining privacy and how this has changed over time. From a rather static concept –where privacy was mainly linked to a place or ‘being indoors or inside’ or – it is during recent years more considered to be a practice, as something that you do. Furthermore, in these earlier times where people were ‘private by default and public by effort’, today it is rather the opposite; people are rather ‘public by default and private by effort’, so claims danah boyd. The act of being private, in other words, must be intentionally undertaken agrees Paul Dourish. This is especially true in the omnipresence digital world of today.

When approached through an architectural perspective similar trends are visible and were vividly discussed during the symposium. There was a clear focus on how to provide private space within the public domain, which shows that in architecture the default mode is gradually shifting to a more public rather than private default. The current challenge lies in creating a space where people can choose to be private while at the same time being public. Jeff Huang,  currently designing a new campus in Ras Al Khaimah, convincingly argued that there should be less necessity to design privacy if, and only if, ‘publicness’ is properly designed which entails that 1) no one owns the data; and 2) the data is accessible to everyone.

This then brings up the question of changing behaviors and shifting social norms that emerge when people are starting to navigate these new spaces. While often being (wrongfully) accused of not caring about privacy youth are discovering and finding ways to carry themselves in this environment. By using language and references to pop culture unknown to their parents they create digital boundaries and by doing so create a private space within a very public environment as danah boyd explained.

This environment then encapsulates both public and private which should be defined as part of a continuum rather than as a dichotomy as the connecting speakers Latanya Sweeney, Gerhard Buurman and Herbert Burkert also elaborated on. Unfortunately, this dichotomized perspective of private and public kept popping up during the day much to the frustration of many people in the audience as well as those following the symposium on Twitter. This shows that the discussion as such needs to take place more often (also, or even especially) in public spaces in order for it to move beyond the probably outdated dichotomized approach to private and public space, at least in the digital realm. 

The symposium was attended by much more than its 120 real life visitors as over 3000 tweets by more than 3200 unique twitterers* were thrown into the public arena hashtagged #hyperpublic. The conference was even briefly trending in the Boston area. And while there were many compliments concerning the quality of information provided from the most active tweeps, there was a shared concern –both on- as offline– that the discussion in the room focused more on privacy protection, than on designing public space. This was promptly exemplified when people noticed there was no live stream of the event.

The Wordle cloud of the symposium’s tweets gives a nice visual summary of the main debate showing that privacy (concerns) dominated the conversation online as well, followed closely by public versus private discussions and definitions. Interwoven in this were the connections many made between private and public versus data and people. Or rather the notion that all parties involved need to take up responsibility in creating, maintaining and (re)designing hyperpublic space as was also illustrated by Adam Greenfield, Betsy Masiello and Ethan Zuckerman for example. Governments and corporations should take responsibility concerning the protection of their citizens and customers and provide them with the tools to act publicly in (now) private domains as well. Citizens and customers should be aware that their changing behaviors in and use of hyperpublic space influences its very existence. The most retweeted comment, originally posted by Jonathan Zittrain, captures the friction that exists between the different domains eloquently: “if what you get online is for free, you’re not the customer – you’re the product”. Hopefully, though, this cycle will be broken by cooperation rather than coercion <link to talk Martin Nowak>.

In the end, Urs Gasser‘s call, with which he openend the conference, was taken up and a step in the right direction has been carefully made:

“In an environment where the lines between private and public spaces are blurring, technology is developing so rapidly, user behavior is in constant flux, complex feedback loops among technology, law, economics, and behavior exist, and where norms become increasingly contextual, fragmented, and ad hoc, our responsibility and challenge as designers – including law- and policy-makers as well as other professionals – should include the creation of advanced spaces for negotiation and conversation about privacy and its boundaries, the exploration of new types of interfaces among spheres and layers, and the creation of hybrid private/public spaces.”

*of who approximately 200 posted original messages, which formed the basis for this word cloud

Berkman Center for Internet & Society

I am working at the Youth and Media Project (YaM) with six other nice and creative Berkterns. My main focus will be on “content creation” in relation to media literacy/information literacy/civic engagement. This includes reading key literature, thinking about adequate measurement tools (interviews/focus groups etc), looking for collaboration opportunities with organisations such as The LAMP and think about curriculum development in relation to this (with Andres Lombana Bermudez aka vvva). Very exciting!

Next to this interns are spoiled with luncheons that they can attend (this week Nicole Ellison on Facebook and social capital) and a weekly ‘intern hour’ where staff give inspiring talks about their recent research and thoughts. Today Jonathan Zittrain gave a very inspiring talk on the history of the Internet explaining that simplicity is at the heart of its design whereby omitting any sense of identity of users of the network gives it its uniqueness. Since there was no commercial aim, the design of the Internet was affected accordingly he argued. He had us humming in accord, be it not very convincingly, when explaining the character of rough consensus practiced at the IETF. He also predicted that “Postal mail will be dead in 5 years, so enjoy it while it lasts”…

This Friday the YaM Berkterns (among others) will report on and document a symposium on designing privacy and public space in the connected world hosted by the Berkman Center. HyperPublic ”will bring together computer scientists, ethnographers, architects, historians, artists and legal scholars to discuss how design influences privacy and public space, how it shapes and is shaped by human behavior and experience, and how it can cultivate norms such as tolerance and diversity”. We are aiming to provide some creative output of the event, will keep you posted!

The conference started Thursday 26 May with a very fruitful day at Microsoft’s Research and Development Center with fellow PhD students at the Doctoral Consortium organized by CAT (Communication and Technology), a division of ICA. Our PhD proposals were discussed in small groups and we were provided with critical yet constructive feedback by faculty.

The conference then proceeded with regular sessions and plenary talks: most of them inspiring. On Sunday I gave my own presentation of the paper I have written with Prof.Dr. Jeroen Jansz and Prof.Dr. Ed Tan on motivations and gaming. The paper was rewarded the title of Top Paper in the Gaming Division. Very proud of that! The article is currently under review for publication.