Social Science Researchers

Initial team of investigators!

  • Deb Polson – Project Leader and PhD Candidate at the Queensland University of Technology (Design-Based Researcher)
  • Barbara Adkins – Associate Professor at the Queensland University of Technology
  • Eryn Grant – PhD Candidate at the Queensland University of Technology
  • Colleen Morgan – PhD Candidate at the Queensland University of Technology

This team of ethnographic and design researchers collaborated to observe and develop evaluation templates for both the ‘making of’ and the ‘playing with’ SCOOT artifacts and interactions. They were invited to observe the SCOOT Events in action and presented the initial findings regarding the various player dynamics at crew workshops. In the case of the largest SCOOT event to date (2006, the researchers traveled to Melbourne with me to observe and interview participants. The entire development team would meet with the ethnographers at the end of each day (the debriefing sessions) to discuss any interesting observations.

Often these observations inspired changes to the next days plans and even to the presentations of some of the key works. Significant improvements on the delivery and participant interactions were observed as a result. The researchers were also able to formulate and publish new models for evaluating certain design processes that the SCOOT Events provided.

In Particular, this team developed a framework for site analysis:

Site Analysis: This is a complex part of the process as any location for game play is made up of multiple dimensions to be considered. The game is intended to extend upon existing relationships and to create new kinds of interactions between people, places and artifacts. As such, the following ‘human dimensions matrix’ is recommended to identify key elements and relationships that may assist in focusing the observations and processes necessary for the design and facilitation of an LBG. This matrix was developed in collaboration with two ethnographers, Barbara Adkins and Eryn Grant as I invited them to analyse my design documentation and observe the events in action between 2005 and 2006. This matrix was applied to each location. The following example is taking the museum context (of the 2006 SCOOT Event) as an example and the family as the participating (visiting) group:

Relationships Dimensions Initial Questions
Social family/museum






Who are the participants of the sites?

What cultures, practices and ideas do they share?

What relationships develop with each other and the supporting faculty?

How do these relationships develop?

Pedagogical participants / artifacts


participants / activities

How do participants interact with artifacts, in particular how the aretfacts present concepts within the site? What activities are designed to help process these concepts?
Cultural visitor/visitor




What kinds of expectations do the participants have relating to the engagements with the site? How might they want to use the site as a means of engaging in creative activities?
Spatial family/museum

museum/surrounding locations

family/other locations

How do they currently relate to and move through the site?

Can other sites be linked to the home or other local sites?

How do they currently relate to the virtual space as a separated space from their occupational and learning environments?

Technical family/ICT


What relationships do they currently and potentially have with the technology and the interaction it can provide?

What support do the visitors/players require?

What may impede access or use of the technologies?

What expectations do the site managers and technicians have in regards to visitor access and interaction?

Temporal Mobility, Duration, Rhythm of Stay How long do visitors normally stay and why? Do they return and why?

How do they fit the various locations into their daily lives?

How much time do participants spend with the interactive space andwhy?

Related Docments

A Trial Report: Ethnographic analysis of the 2005 SCOOT Event In Melbourne, Australia.