These are the slides that the PhD Grading Committee used to structure the PhD Defense discussion.

2. Word cloud of thesis
http://www.tagxedo.com/app.html

3. Summary
 Academic pioneer!
− Very timely and relevant research area!
− Interesting research question!
 Comprehensive theoretical background
− Comprehensive and systemic overview of relevant theories and
concepts
− Touches on other relevant concepts/theories as well
 Noteworthy methodology
− Use of multiple data sources and multiple perspectives in data
analysis is noteworthy
− In-depth view of collaboration in virtual spaces
 Fascinating and rich findings and implications
− Fascinating insights into design of virtual world places
− Implications for many areas both theoretical and practical

4. Today’s discussion
Motivation
Theoretical background
Research question
Methodology
Analysis
Findings and implications
Summary

5. Today’s discussion
Motivation
Theoretical background
Research question
Methodology
Analysis
Findings and implications
Summary

6. Isn’t Second Life dead?
May 2006
July 2007
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1447613

7. Research Question
 “How do the VW users co-produce multimodal
meaning potentials in virtual places and artifacts
through collaborative design, as exemplified by the
social semiotic analysis of the three case studies in
SL?”

8. Research Question
 “How do the VW users co-produce multimodal
meaning potentials in virtual places and artifacts
through collaborative design, as exemplified by the
social semiotic analysis of the three case studies in
SL?”
But how would you
explain this to your
grandmother?

9. Today’s discussion
Motivation
Theoretical background
Research question
Methodology
Analysis
Findings and implications
Summary

10. Theoretical background
 Virtual Worlds
 Social Semiotics
 Design Research
Research gap?

11. Theoretical background
 Virtual Worlds
 Social Semiotics
 Design Research
Why not….
 Affordances?
 Power?
 Group theory
 Organizational behavior?

12. Research question revisited
“How do the VW users co-produce multimodal meaning
potentials in virtual places and artifacts through collaborative
design, as exemplified by the social semiotic analysis of the
three case studies in SL?”
 What is the level of analysis?
− The group of co-producers?
− The co-production/collaboration process among individuals?
−?
 What is the focus of analysis?
− Interplay among individuals co-producing?
− Interplay among co-producing group, places, and practices?
− Nexus of multimodal meaning potentials?
− The actual texts and objects co-produced?
− Affordances and constraints of SL: Experiential, Interpersonal,
Textual?
− Power relations and division of tasks?

13. Your approach
 In order to study the co-production of meaning
potentials in SL, I use the multimodal social
semiotic approach to communication, and a
methodological blend of multimodal analysis with
the methods borrowed from socio-cultural analysis
of mediated social action. (p.6)
 Why do you use this approach?
− Why not Social psychology, Organizational behavior,
Innovation studies, other?

14. Today’s discussion
Motivation
Theoretical background
Research question
Methodology
Analysis
Findings and implications
Summary

15. Methodology
Grounded Theory and Abductive
Case Studies
1. Metrotropia project and interdisciplinary
collaboration in the design of a virtual
laboratory
2. Pop Art Lab and the role of inworld relations in
collaborative design teams, Power relations
and the division of tasks in the Metrotopia
project
3. The virtual world workshop and learning
through collaborative design

16. Methodology
 Grounded Theory and Abductive
− Why grounded theory?
− What else did you consider?

17. Methodology
 Case Studies
− Why all in SL?
− Why these three?
− Overview of data collection?
− Which data did you really use in your analysis?
− Why did you decide to bring in power relations
and division of tasks?
− What about avatar design?

18. Analysis
1. Social actors and power relations in groups
2. Meditational means and affordances for co-design
3. Collaborative processes in and with SL
4. Multimodal semiotics and design of virtual places

19. Today’s discussion
Motivation
Theoretical background
Research question
Methodology
Analysis
Findings and implications
Summary

20. Findings
 A complex nexus in co-production practices, and a
semiotic flux in the social negotiations of meta-
functions, as well as identities, places, tools,
affordances and methods, which are also co-
produced along the process. (p.244)

21. Findings
1. The implications of analyzing virtual worlds as
places
2. The methodological and conclusions on combining
the analysis of multimodal place-making with the
nexus analysis framework
3. Social semiotics of design as construction of a
sense of place
4. Affordances as meaning and action potentials
5. Implications for platform and content developers
6. Implications for designers

22. Three kinds of affordances
X
Gaver, W. 1991. Technology affordances. Proceedings of the CHI 1991, ACM Press: New York, 79 – 84.

23. How would your findings differ if you had
studied co-production in a physical setting?

24. Figure 9.1 Framing of RQ after empirical analysis

25. Theoretical contributions?
Concept Concept
?
A B

26. Theoretical contributions?
Can you draw a model of your findings?
Actors Affordances
Avatars Practices
Semiotic
resources
Places Collaboration
process
Task
division Experiential Power
function
Objects/
Texts/ Interpersonal
Scripts Textual
function
function

27. What is your most
surprising finding?

28. What do your findings mean…..
 Methodologically
− For VW researchers? Other researchers?
 Theoretically
− For communication research?
− For design research ?
− For co-creation research?
− For other research?
 Practically
− For designers/producers of virtual world spaces?
− For platform providers, eg Linden Lab?
− For designers of physical spaces?

29. Limitations?
Generalizability?

30. Today’s discussion
Motivation
Theoretical background
Research question
Methodology
Analysis
Findings and implications
Summary

31. What is your headline?
 RQ: “How do the VW users co-produce multimodal
meaning potentials in virtual places and artifacts
through collaborative design, as exemplified by the
social semiotic analysis of the three case studies in
SL?”
http://www.recycledminds.com/2009/08/insert-your-headline-here.html

32. Summary
 Academic pioneer!
− Very timely and relevant research area!
− Interesting research question!
 Comprehensive theoretical background
− Comprehensive and systemic overview of relevant theories and
concepts
− Touches on other relevant concepts/theories as well
 Noteworthy methodology
− Use of multiple data sources and multiple perspectives in data
analysis is noteworthy
− In-depth view of collaboration in virtual spaces
 Fascinating and rich findings and implications
− Fascinating insights into design of virtual world places
− Implications for many areas both theoretical and practical

33. Overall
Major strength of the thesis
−Provides a very insightful (and most likely
the first) picture of the complex socio-
cultural dynamics that emerge in the
mediation and co-production of virtual
places and artifacts.
It achieved its goal!