Week 8 (Research & Activity) - Before researching the weekly material, I started by participating in the spark forum. In this Spark activity, you will need to place yourself in the shoes of the Ethics Review Committee. Read the case studies below, then share your answers to the discussion points in the forum below. Please take no longer than 15 minutes on each case study.
Case Study 1:
"Tyrone wants to study the impact of violent games on people’s attitudes toward violence in real life. He plans to test 14-16 yr. olds because he believes they are still young enough to be highly impressionable. He will solicit volunteers to come after school. Half will be assigned to play one hour of a violent game while the other half will play an hour of a game that involves no violence. After the hour, all participants will fill out a questionnaire about their attitudes toward violence."
Additional Information Needed:
The personality traits of the chosen participants.
What age rating is the "violent game" for the experiment?
Consent from a legal guardian of the willing participant.
What level of violence does Tyrone expect to show?
Review of the questionnaire, such as what questions Tyrone plans to ask.
How many willing participants does Tyrone require?
What prior knowledge of violent games/gaming do the participants already possess?
Benefits | Potential Harms |
|
|
Recommendation:
I feel like the proposal in its current state is seriously flawed. With additional information and a few amendments, I could see it being granted, however. Although, I suggest Tyrone researches the implications from previous studies, as this topic has been widely investigated before. As it stands, with the potential of psychologically damaging participants, I would deny this study.
Case Study 2:
"Charlotte wants to research the effect of labelling students (gifted vs struggling) on their achievement in the first year of HE. She proposes that students be divided into reading groups in which ability levels are evenly mixed. One group will be told they are gifted readers, another group will be told that they are struggling readers, and a third group will be told nothing at all. Charlotte’s hypothesis states that by the end of the year, the students in the ‘gifted’ level group will outperform those in the ‘struggling’ group on the same reading test."
Additional Information Needed:
Are participants aware of being in the study?
Consent from participants.
How many participants does Charlotte require for each group?
The study is too broad.
How can you accurately define a 'gifted' pupil based solely on first-year results?
Has Charlotte accounted for learning difficulties/disabilities among participants?
Do subjects differ among participants?
Benefits | Potential Harms |
|
|
Recommendation:
I believe this study will tamper with student welfare and risk affecting grades at a critical stage of their life. Not to mention, if they are unaware of being participants, this is extremely deceitful as they have willingly paid tuition based on receiving an honest education. Furthermore, the study may negatively affect students in later life as they enter professional careers. As it stands, I would deny this study.
User & Audience Research
This week's lecture is about user and audience research by Erik Geelhoed. Geelhoed begins by discussing various methodologies for conducting audience research that can be categorized as either qualitative or quantitative.
Qualitative | Quantitative |
|
|
Former teacher and marketing director, Christina Garnett of learnHub.com describes audience research as "[determining] pain points, preferred keywords and buying [into] behaviours" (Garnett, 2019). Garnett states it is crucial to understand who you are talking to, which further illustrates Geelhoed's point of knowing your target audience before designing a product. Therefore, conducting thorough audience research will determine whether your product is successful. There are many approaches an individual may take to ensure they understand their chosen target audience.
Audience Research in Rapid Ideation Events
I believe the methods outlined by Erik Geelhoed range in complexity. Few are somewhat more advanced than others, for example, psycho-physical testing sounds intimidating as it delves into the realm of the psychology of the senses. I would be more inclined to use tried and tested methods such as questionnaires, interviews and focus groups, using sites such as SurveyMonkey.com to create the former. Although, I wonder how significant the results would be from conducting cognitive walkthroughs or recording physiological measurements such as heart-rate or blood pressure. Geelhoed states that the latter can help in game design as it can be used to measure the level of attention. This method could help assist one of my SMART goals if I were to implement it for an upcoming project or rapid ideation event.
Integrity, Ethics and Policy
The second lecture is about integrity, ethics and policy by Alcwyn Parker. Parker discusses the differences between 'good' and 'bad' research and highlights topics that must be considered when conducting any research. Such as ethical dilemmas, consent, vulnerable participants (children or people with cultural differences), privacy and deception.
Ethics in Rapid Ideation Events
I believe ethics in rapid ideation events should come into question when you begin to prototype concepts and eventually look to others to playtest. For example, questionnaires could be used to identify popular features in your game. However, if you start to design models to generate in-game revenue, then I would believe this to be a 'high risk' scenario. There have been many instances where triple-A companies have designed predatory models, such as loot boxes, to generate absurd amounts of in-game revenue (Figure 1).
Figure 1: The Rise & Fall of Loot Boxes (The Act Man, 2020)
Immoral Research Projects
Figure 2: 5 Psychology Experiments You Couldn't Do Today (Green, 2016)
Risks
Risk management is significant to any project. Risks must be identified and mitigated before projects begin in order to prevent it from failing (Perez, 2019). Risks can be categorized as 'low', 'medium' or 'high' depending on variety of instances. Below I have evaluated three scenarios and categorized them in line with the Falmouth University Integrity and Ethics policy.
Scenario Examples
Scenario 1:
"A researcher plans to interview eight artists / curators / designers for her thesis. She offers a letter of introduction about the project, gains written informed consent for the interview from each interviewee, later checks the contents of the transcription with each interviewee, allows the interviewee to withdraw comments / approve the interview record. The interviews will be used as attributed statements within the thesis. A recognised approach from oral history / social sciences / ethnography / art and design criticism and history is part of the methodology. The interviews will involve travel in the UK and abroad, the researcher has discussed her travel plans and personal safety with her supervisors."
Medium Risk - I believe this scenario to be categorized as 'medium risk' on the basis that it is research involving individuals, whereby the researcher has written consent from willing participants and they are aware of the study. Furthermore, participants have permission to withdraw comments and approve their interviews. Although, this study may include vulnerable participants with cultural differences as she states, "the interviews will involve travel in the UK and abroad". Moreover, I would need additional information about her thesis, however, if the study does not put the participants in harm's way, then I feel this does not warrant being 'high risk'.
Scenario 2:
"A researcher plans to interview around 30 producers of legitimate graffiti at the Southbank Undercroft. Participants were to be interviewed about their opinions and ideas regarding activities and future possibilities for the Undercroft, and also where relevant, their own graffiti habits and key trends in graffiti practices."
High Risk - I feel like this scenario is 'high risk' because graffiti could be considered unlawful material. Furthermore, I believe this to be a breach of privacy on behalf of the "producers". I presume the "producers" will not be made anonymous, because the researcher has asked for their personal opinions and habits. In addition, there is no mention of informed consent. This researcher would need to submit a full ethics review form.
Scenario 3:
"The research, for a practice-based PhD, involves engaging online presences in social networking sites under a pseudonym. It aims to explore the ways in which identity is constructed online. The research is such that it cannot be revealed in advance to those involved. The core of the research involves developing a community of online presences into a community of offline friends."
High Risk - This scenario is 'high risk' as it involves an extreme breach of privacy, with users unaware that they are part of a study. In its current form, the study is deceptive. It unnecessary risks sensitive information from being leaked. With no informed consent or prior knowledge of the experiment, users may experience psychological stress when they are eventually told the truth. As it stands, I believe this researcher would need to submit a full ethics review form.
Conclusion & Reflection
In conclusion, the lectures by Erik Geelhoed and Alcwyn Parker were helpful in regards to understanding the significance of audience research and ethics, respectively. The weekly challenges offered a chance to practise my findings. After that, I considered how to incorporate topics such as these into future rapid ideation events. Lastly, I researched ethics in the gaming industry as I was curious about how it applied to an industry tied to my studies.
Initially, I was intimidated by the notion of ethics and how one must be thorough when conducting research. However, I now feel better informed on the subject, and I am confident that I can obtain findings within the bounds of 'moral practice'.
References
Garnett, C., 2019. What Is Audience Research? (+How to Conduct It). [online] Learn.g2.com. Available at: <https://learn.g2.com/audience-research> [Accessed 28 March 2022].
Perez, L., 2019. Risk Management: What, Why and How. [online] Leonardperez.net. Available at: <https://leonardperez.net/risk-management-what-why-and-how/> [Accessed 29 March 2022].
Hodent, C., 2019. Ethics in the Videogame Industry: A Mythbusting and Scientific Approach. [online] Celia Hodent. Available at: <https://celiahodent.com/ethics-in-the-videogame-industry/> [Accessed 29 March 2022].
Green, H., 2016. 5 Psychology Experiments You Couldn't Do Today. [video] Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ3l1jgmYrY&ab_channel=SciShow> [Accessed 29 March 2022].
The Act Man, 2020. The Rise & Fall of Loot Boxes. [video] Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VFrbD1mhac&ab_channel=TheActMan> [Accessed 29 March 2022].
Comments