L.F marts: Etnografiske metoder og børns mediekultur. Oplæg om interviews som etnografisk arbejde. Diskussion om børn og etik. Elevoplæg Det kvalitative interview. Om brugen af interview i forbindelse med kvalitative og kvantitative metoder i undersøgelses-arbejdet. (pause) Projektopgaven. Problemformulering af miniprojekt- er alle i projektgrupper? Gruppearbejde: Diskussion og valg af projektopgave. Forsøg på problemformulering, operationalisering og metodevalg. Forberedelse af interview.

L.F.2 Etnografiske metoder og børns mediekultur Literatur Et børnekulturelt perspektiv- eller hvordan kan voksne forske i børn? Olesen, Birgitte Ravn (2000), s Fra: ”Børn i en digital kultur. Forskningsperspektiver”, Holm Sørensen, Birgitte og Olesen, Birgitte Ravn (red.) Gads Forlag, København Activity of Innovation, Druin, Allison, s Fra: ”Designing Multimedia Environments for Children” Druin, Allison og Solomon, Cynthia (1996) John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York Flygtigt: Indledning, Danmark og de andre, Medier i børnehøjde, Drotner, Kirsten (2001), s Fra: ”Medier for Fremtiden: Børn, unge og det nye medielandskab” Høst & Søns Forlag, København

L.F.3 eth·nog·ra·phy The branch of anthropology that deals with the scientific description of specific human cultures.

L.F.4 Et børnekulturelt perspektiv Voksencentrisme- i forbindelse med etnografisk forskning er det at være ”etnocentrisk” noget af det værste man kan beskyldes for! Ref. Til etnografisk grundbog af Hastrup og Ovesen- om at bedømme andre kulturer på sin egen kulturs betingelser, eller overse at den fremmed kultur kan have- ”begreber for fænomener og sammenhænge som bryder fundamentalt med ens egen kulturelle baggrund- og at man ikke er i stand til at forestille sig dem.” (Olesen s.125)

L.F.5 Voksencentrisme- barriere Konsekvens af voksencentrisme er at man ”ikke opnår at se børnene som børn, men i stedet ser dem som voksnes børn” tolket udfra vores dominerende voksenkultur uden at søge at forstå den mening, handlinger tillægges i den underordnede kultur (ref. Sociologen Mackay i Olesen )

L.F.6 Antagelser om børn Børns hverdagsliv, kultur, erfaringer, oplevelser og tanker er ud fra et voksenperspektiv ”det fremmede” Gælder specielt på området brug af medier, fordi børn idag er vokset op med den teknologiske udvikling der har ført til selvfølgelig i brug af mange slags (nye) medier. Eks. Børns brug af internet, chat, mobiltlf, computerspil, adgang til video, mange TV kanaler, internettet, laver egne multimedieproduktion osv (Olesen)

L.F.7 Børnekulturelt perspektiv - praksis Grounded theory- vægt på teorigenerering fremfor verificering, kobling af induktiv og deduktiv analyse Sammenholde egne teoretiske antagelser med de empiriske iagttagelser, og udvikle kategorier og betydningssammenhænge til uddybet forståelse af det fænomen, vi udforsker Eksplorativ fase (lit.studier, observationer, interviews) danner (åbent) analyse grundlag Kvalitative metoder- dybden (S , Olesen)

L.F.8 Optik- børnekultur Olesen mm arbejder med to optikker: 1.Børnekultur- defineret af Mouritzen (1996) som ”de kulturelle udtryk, børn frembringer i deres egne netværk”. Nævner børns eksplicit brug af medier som redskaber for deres egen udtryk - eller genstand i forum for samvær. Overlevering fra børn til børn. Carsten Jessen forsker også udfra dette grundlag.

L.F.9 Optik - mediekultur 2. Medieetnografi- ref. Kirsten Drotner ”et etnografisk perspektiv implicerer, at man tager udgangspunkt i en konkret gruppe menneskers sociale interaktion, hvor oplevelsen og bearbejdningen af mediebaseret kommunikation kun udgør en blandt mange kulturelle processer.” (Er forskellig fra receptionsanalysen med fokus på modtagerens betydningsdannelse i afkodning af mediet, idet har et helhedssyn.) (Olesen)

L.F.10 Validitet Validitet- den interne validitet af en undersøgelse forsøger at opnå ved at arbejde med forskellige former for triangulering (ref. Denzin, 1987) Måler undersøgelsen det, den har til hensigt at måle? Relevante resultater? Er tolkninger sandsynlige og mange-facetterede?

L.F.11 Triangulering af metoder Metode- anvendelse af gruppeinterviews og enkelt interviews med (iscenesatte) observationssituationer. Data- forskellige kontekster: tre sociale der er centrale i hverdagslivet (skole, fritidsinstitution, hjem) Teori- udpeget række teoretiske felter, og tværfaglig forskere som har forskellige syn på processen og dens resultater. Forsker- i praksis implicerer dette at forskellige forskere er i kontakt med de samme børn. Ulempen er kontakt skal genetableres. (Derfor brug bevidst) Aktør- skolebørn i forskellige sociale og geografiske områder og som har mere/ mindre interesse i brug af computere. (Olesen, s )

L.F.12 What is the role of the ethnographer ? The role of the ethnographer is to draw a detailed picture of the social experience of people. Interpretative ethnographers are "more interested in problems of cultural meaning than in social action" (Marcus and Fisher, 1986, cited in Gitlin et, al, 1989:242). In other words, they try to take a 'snapshot' of cultural practices rather than change them. Ethnography can be situated within a politically conservative tradition... characterised by a researcher who adopts the stance of a "disinterested researcher" (Smith, et al 1993). -Michael Campbell,

L.F.13 Critical ethnography Vandra Maseman (1982) tried to define critical ethnography when she wrote: [it] refers to studies which use a basically anthropological, qualitative, participant-observer methodology but which (relies) for their theoretical formulation on a body of theory deriving from critical sociology and philosophy (Maseman, 1982:1). Maseman, V L (1982). 'Critical Ethnography in the Study of Comparative Education'. Comparative Education Review, Volume 26, pages 1-15.

L.F.14 Research with children and technology - Druin Kids Lab, U of Maryland Allison Druin, professor Model of participatory design Publications a mile long MIT Media Lab graduate Built up CHIkids program

L.F.15 Allison Druin - Theory Cooperative Inquiry: Developing New Technologies for Children with Children ftp://ftp.cs.umd.edu/pub/hcil/Reports-Abstracts-Bibliography/99-14html/99-14.html Cooperative inquiry is unique in some aspects due to child involvement, but ”grounded in HCI research and theories of cooperative design, participatory design, contextual inquiry, activity theory and situated action”...

L.F.16 Criticism of Druin´s methods Scaife, M. & Rogers, Y. (1998) Kids as informants: telling us what we didn't know or confirming what we knew already? In: A. Druin (ed.) The Design Of Children's Technology: How We Design, What We Design, And Why. Morgan Kaufman Participatory design methods, where adults are the user group, have a good track record of success but we ask 'is this methodology wholly extendable to children?' Some central issues here include: In what sense can we treat children like peers? Is it sensible to set up design teams where children are given equal responsibilities to those of adult designers? Can adults treat children like themselves whilst at the same time not being patronizing? Can children make effective contributions about the content and the way they should be taught - something which adults have always been responsible for?

L.F.17 Cooperative inquiry An approach to research that includes three aspects which reflect the HCI literature, and form a framework for research and design with children: (1)a multidisciplinary partnership with children; (2)field research that emphasizes understanding context, activities, and artifacts; (3)iterative low-tech and high-tech prototyping. Cooperative inquiry is based upon the belief that partnering with users is an important way to understand what is needed in developing new technologies.

L.F.18 Contextual Inquiry With contextual inquiry, a team of researchers observe and analyze the users’ environment for patterns of activity, communication, artifacts, and cultural relationships.

L.F.19 Contextual inquiry Diagrams and models are developed from field experiences that eventually may lead to the design of storyboards, prototypes and new technology [5]. (Druin) It is from this type of research inquiry (questioning, looking into) that the method "cooperative inquiry" gets its name. 5. Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: defining customer- centered systems. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

L.F.20 Contextual Inquiry - data gathering Druin concludes that methods for gathering data varies for children/adults Notes - The adults in our team saw the need to gather data by writing detailed text descriptions. But the child researchers could just not accomplish this... the children wanted to combine drawings with small amounts of text to create cartoon-like flow charts... adults developed their own note-taking forms and the children developed theirs.” Video- Our team does not find video cameras to be successful in capturing data for contextual inquiry purposes... We found that when children saw a video camera in the room, they tended to "perform" or to "freeze".

L.F.21 The goal of cooperative inquiry The goal in developing cooperative inquiry was to find techniques... ”to support intergenerational design teams in understanding what children as technology users do now... And what they envision for their future.” It is not easy for an adult to step into a child’s world, and likewise it is not easy for a child to step into an adult’s world. No single technique is useful- a combination of techniques has been adapted or developed that form the methodology of cooperative inquiry. (Druin)

L.F.22 Participatory Design Flow- Participatory design techniques do not have to follow contextual inquiry. But contextual inquiry enables exploration of numerous ideas through observation. During data visualization, focus on an area of interest to pursue in more depth with participatory design prototyping. For example, contextual inquiry observations led to an understanding that children wanted to be storytellers with technology. This insight was taken into a participatory design session where low-tech materials were used to design and prototype storytelling technologies.

L.F.23 Design + prototyping - age In general, children ages 7-10 years old make the most effective prototyping partners [10]. -are verbal and self-reflective enough to discuss what they are thinking. -can understand the abstract idea of designing something with low-tech protoyping tools that will be turned into future technologies. -don’t seem to be too heavily burdened with pre- conceived notions of the way things "are supposed to be", typically see this in children older than 10 years[10].

L.F.24 Iterative Low-tech and High- tech Prototyping The "low-tech prototyping" or "mock-ups" found in the cooperative design and participatory design literature [12, 21] inspiration. Inexpensive, yet quite effective in quickly brainstorming [10]. A concrete way to discuss ideas Low-tech prototyping gives equal footing to child and adult [10, 21]. Using basic art supplies comes naturally to the youngest and oldest design partners. (Druin) 10. Druin, A., Bederson, B., Boltman, A., Miura, A., Knotts-Callahan, D., & Platt, M. (1999). Children as our technology design partners. A. Druin (Ed.), The design of children's technology (pp ). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. 12. Ehn, P. (1993). Scandinavian design: On participation and skill. D. Schuler, & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp ). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 21. Muller, M. J., Wildman, D. M., & White, E. A. (1994). Participatory design through games and other techniques. CHI 94 Tutorial, ACM Press.

L.F.25 Technology Immersion This process grew out of a need to see how children use large amounts of technology over a concentrated period of time. If children are only observed with the technology resources they currently have, then what children might do in the future with better circumstances could be missed

L.F.26 Technology Immersion- on children´s terms child-centered critical that children are also decision- makers about what they do in that environment.

L.F.27 Comfort of child Context Young children, particularly from ages 3-7 have a difficult time abstractly describing what their technology needs and wants may be. When discussions take place in the context of a child’s home, school, or public play space, it is much easier for the child to express his/her ideas [10].

L.F.28 ACM- CHIkids at CHI CHI´98 eyeopener “Kids are natives in a world where we adults are immigrants”