A Video is Worth a Million Words?

Comparing a Documentary with a Scientific Paper to

Communicate Design Research

m a r l ene m o u r ap e d r o a l m e i d ad a v i d g e e r t s

university of aveiroTQLDM Workshop | Centeris 2016

“The video is emotionally resonant andcommanding of attention in a way thatacademic text seldom is” (de Valck et al., 2009)

We live in the era of video and easily

interact ‘audio-visually’ (Killander, 2014)

Great potential for science communication(Quintela, 2011)

Videos are already used in research in conferences.

Research Problem

Clinging to traditional formats

Video neglected as a means forresearch communication

Usually not admitted for ‘peerreview’

research question

“What is the perceived efficiency of a documentary as a means of

scientific communication when compared to a research paper?”

Projects Finalities and Goals

To develop a video documentary to communicate the scientific value

of the evaluation of a second screen application (TV-Ring project).

A combination of techniques based on:1. Design Documentaries (Raijmakers, 2007);

2. Journalistic techniques (Ferradaz, 2001);

3. Researchers’ participation as guides (Raijmakers, 2007);

4. The filmmaker’s perspective (Rabiger, 2004).

To evaluate its perceived efficiency vs the paper

European project - aim is to develop and test innovativeapplications and infrastructures for television, with innovativecontent.

Context

Research structure

Developmentof the

documentary

Literature review

Analysis of the data

Datacollection

Conclusions

Results and Discussion

scene from «Design &Thinking» trailer (2012)

Videos help building an understanding of design (Ylirisku & Buur, 2007)

framework

But scientific results…

published in papers in scientific journals

An established peer review systemSmith, 2006)

A structured format (University of Illinois, 2015)

Design Documentaries appropriated three ideas for research:

"film is like reality”;

“film is like a language”;

“film is like a conversation” .

(Raijmakers, 2007)

theoretical framework

sections

Research Paper

“The User Experience Evaluation

of a Multi-Screen TV Show”

Structure

Followed the main sections of the paper: abstract, introduction, methodology, results and conclusion.

Includes 3 main interviews, and follows the researchers on their way to do field research as well as their everyday activities in the lab

~13 minutes long

Documentary

Evaluation methodology

Qualitative research

Method: Semi-structured interviews – organised around a set of predetermined open-ended questions, with other questions emerging from the dialogue between interviewer and interviewees (Berg, 2001);

Participants: Students and Researchers of KU-Leuven

Interviews

Recruitment process: Google form

Environment: Usability lab - space decorated as an ordinaryliving room, with a television and computer area

Instruments of data collection: audio recordings andobservation tables

2 sessions ~15 minutes each

Interviews transcribed and coded - NVivo 10

12 participants

Methodology

Group 1 Group 2

“I look for videos on YouTube to find helpfultutorials for a brief explanation” (P03);

Habits

Overall- usually search for papers complementedwith other sources of information (videos, books,etc.)

Results & Discussion

“It is interesting to see how people interact with the prototype” and “to have the opinion of people in their own voices in the context” (P08);

The paper “is good for details” (P09) and you always find “the expected information” (P010).

Preferences

Students – Video – see how an interview isconducted, to learn more

Researchers – Paper, easier to find “sources toenrich” their “own research”

(info) recall

Group II remembered more than Group I inthe first interview

Both groups considered that paper and video areincomplete and complementary

“Combining both documents would be better, both have advantages” (P02, Group I);

STRENGHTS STRENGHS

Visual resources to rely on

Dynamic

Attractive

Shows body language

Sound and tune

Possible to add textual guides

Provides context

Suited to peer review

To mark and add notes

Sources and references

Structured format

Clear to everybody

Detailed expected information

Easy to locate info

Results & Discussion

WEAKNESSES WEAKNESSES

No indicators to find more information

Has distracting info

Too long

Missing details

Cannot reproduce interviews

Difficult to show creative work with words

Old fashioned in a technology era

Results & Discussion

Video: features that are an advantage

The video helps to remember more information and details

An asset in design studies – provides the concept of a second screen

Shows context and how people interact with the app

Presents the way how to conduct an interview, including participants on it

An important educational tool for students

The video makes people use more senses

More entertaining and attractive

Conclusions

Video: limitations as a means of communication when compared to the paper

The methodological info was incomplete

There was no index in the video, so it makes it harder to locate information

Need to watch all the video to find a specific part

The video is admitted in conferences, but it is not suited to peer review

The documentary takes too long to watch comparing to the time the paper takes to read

It has distracting information

There are no references and sources described on it

Conclusions

Video more resourceful than the paper as a means of scientific communication

for the design research.

But… limitations foster it to be used as a complement.

Conclusions