[Patina] Re: questions about the field trial

Enrico Costanza ec at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Wed Mar 9 11:47:12 GMT 2011


Thanks Tom!
 
>
> I don’t think there are many PhD students who study osteo-archaeology
> (bones),
>
It's good that you are bringing this up -- do we have a preference or
need to work on osteo-archaeology? Or can we do ceramics?

I think it may be better to focus on one domain, so that we can get a
larger data set, rather than 2 small ones. However, does it matter which
domain we focus on? Thoughts?

Enrico

> so it may be the case that we want to approach masters students as well.
>
>  
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom.
>
>  
>
> *From:*patina-bounces at ecs.soton.ac.uk
> [mailto:patina-bounces at ecs.soton.ac.uk] *On Behalf Of *Enrico Costanza
> *Sent:* 09 March 2011 09:46
> *To:* Southampton-specific mailing list for PATINA project
> *Cc:* Southampton-specific mailing list for PATINA project
> *Subject:* [Patina] Re: questions about the field trial
>
>  
>
> Great!
>
>  
>
> Do you think it'd be possible to find PhD students who did their
> master here (doing a project of the kind that we want)?
>
>  
>
> Thanks,
>
> Enrico
>
> Sent from my phone, sorry about possible typos.
>
>
> On 9 Mar 2011, at 09:31, "Frankland T." <tf4e10 at soton.ac.uk
> <mailto:tf4e10 at soton.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Enrico,
>
>      
>
>     I think this sounds like a very good idea and valuable from my
>     perspective as well, and I would therefore definitely want to
>     include this in my analyses of the lab. From a personal point of
>     view, I think access to PhD students would be quite easy for
>     myself and Angeliki to arrange, however to chat with masters
>     students (whom I know less well on a personal basis), it would be
>     easier to go via Graeme and perhaps speak to their supervisor(s).
>     All of those times you suggest are fine by me so I would wait to
>     see if Angeliki and Graeme are free as well.
>
>
>     Cheers,
>
>
>     Tom.
>
>      
>
>     *From:*patina-bounces at ecs.soton.ac.uk
>     <mailto:patina-bounces at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>     [mailto:patina-bounces at ecs.soton.ac.uk] *On Behalf Of *Enrico Costanza
>     *Sent:* 09 March 2011 08:51
>     *To:* Southampton-specific mailing list for PATINA project
>     *Cc:* Southampton-specific mailing list for PATINA project
>     *Subject:* [Patina] Re: questions about the field trial
>
>      
>
>     Hello. 
>
>      
>
>     This is mostly for the Archeology team. 
>
>      
>
>     I would like to make progress on the trial/study organisation,
>     ideally before next Wednesday, when the next wiki iteration is
>     due. This is because I think that the organisation may influence
>     the intervention design, given that essentially we are designing a
>     "probe" -- as it kind-of emerged on Monday. 
>
>      
>
>     I would like to understand more about how master and doctoral
>     students work, to try and figure out how (including for how long)
>     to involve them in our trial without disrupting them to much, and
>     what kind of data we are likely to capture. 
>
>      
>
>     What do you think would be the best way to do this? Have a chat
>     (=interview) with some of them? Have a chat with some (1?) of
>     their supervisors? Or is this something that you know already, so
>     I could ask you directly?
>
>      
>
>     I understand that we will not work with Graeme students because
>     they do a different type of work, so do you already know who else
>     we might work?
>
>
>
>
>     As Graeme seems to be very busy these days, is this something that
>     Tom and Angeliki may push forward? Or do we need Graeme political
>     leverage to contact people?
>
>
>
>
>     Tom, as you said you are interested in the ethnographic and
>     qualitative research aspects of the project, do you want to treat
>     this more formally and make it part of your deliverable?
>
>
>
>
>     I am available to meet or interview people, in order of preference:
>
>     Monday after 3
>
>     Thursday after 4 (and potentially until 6:30)
>
>     Friday
>
>
>
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Enrico 
>
>
>
>
>
>     Sent from my phone, sorry about possible typos.
>
>
>     On 5 Mar 2011, at 12:17, Enrico Costanza <ec at ecs.soton.ac.uk
>     <mailto:ec at ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>         Hello.
>
>
>
>         So we have 3 related questions:
>         1. who are the users for the field trial and for how long
>         could they engage with the system?
>
>
>         The length of time is tricky. Clearly we can’t have too much
>         impact on their study time, whether or not they are paid for
>         their time. How long do you think is necessary, or is this an
>         impossible question to answer?
>
>         It depends.
>
>         If it's more of an exercise, where we ask them to do a task
>         that is relatively unrelated to their work, then it cannot be
>         more than 1 or 2 hours (including the time to explain them and
>         debrief them).
>
>         If it's something that integrates more directly in their work,
>         and ideally it does not impact much on their time, perhaps
>         they could try to use the system as a tool for their activity
>         over a longer period, such as a week? This would not be
>         continuous obviously. The idea would be to ask them to use our
>         system, at least for a week, to take their notes, rather than
>         using what they normally use (e.g. their notebook?). After (or
>         even during) this period, we would interview, to ask them how
>         it went, and if they would like to continue using the system
>         or revert to their normal tools.. The interviews will be
>         informed by log data that we automatically collect, and
>         perhaps we can also observe them while they work (Tom?).
>         This second option would be really ideal -- do you think
>         there's any chance it could work? Perhaps on a small group of
>         students?
>         We could advertise it to the entire cohort and ask for
>         volunteers..
>
>
>
>         2. what kind of annotations could do they gather?
>
>         I think the on-going interpretation both of the specific
>         objects and their place in wider narratives would be good,
>         particularly as ideas change.
>
>
>
>
>
>         3. who could we get to look at this data later on? (this could
>         be the same people as in 1)
>
>         I think 1.
>
>
>
>
>         Other people looking at it would impact on the kind of data
>         gathered wouldn’t it?
>
>         Not sure I understand here, what do you mean?
>
>         What I have in mind is that the second part, the lab study,
>         would be more of an exercise, where participants should be
>         archaeologists, but may not necessarily work on the specific
>         topics that the data is about..
>
>
>         Certainly if supervisors or other staff had access as part of
>         the process.
>
>         Do you mean that it would be good to give access to them or
>         not? (so that students can use it "more freely"?)
>
>
>
>         Are there students (UG? MA? PhD?) in Archaeology during the
>         summer who we could involve?
>
>         Yes. MA and PhD definitely.
>
>         Are there classes? Are there projects? (e.g. master projects)
>         If there are master projects, how are they typically
>         organized? Individual? Group? How are topics assigned? How are
>         students supervised?
>
>         No classes. Masters projects are individual generally. There
>         may be some group activity if students are helping one another
>         but this would be rare. Topics are chosen by students, through
>         discussion with supervisors. Supervision is via regular
>         meetings and occasional hands-on involvement via staff e.g. to
>         assess developing methodology.
>
>         Useful information, thanks!
>
>
>
>         Regarding #2, should we get participants to annotate an
>         existing and organized collection? That would give us more
>         systematic data. Or shall we ask them to annotate the finds
>         that they normally work on? That would be more realistic.
>
>         I would propose both. As you know from your visit there are
>         some collections that are frequently used. The advantage of
>         using these is that we could go back to the same collection
>         next year potentially? I would also like to be able to see a
>         less structured observation i.e. as you say where the finds
>         are what the student is working on for their own project.
>
>         The potential problem is that asking them to annotate
>         collections would be "extra work" that does not really fit in
>         their normal flow -- right?
>
>         I agree that it would be good to have some key collections
>         digitized, for possible re-use. Moreover, doing both
>         structured and unstructured options would be good to have
>         redundancy, and increase the chances of getting some useful
>         data. Maybe we could work with 2 groups. Ask one group to
>         annotate a collection (it would have been ideal if this could
>         have been part of a class exercise, like we saw), and another
>         group to use the system in their normal work flow.
>         The downside is that we normally should compensate (=pay)
>         subjects for their participation in a study. This is not
>         strictly necessary, and I guess it should be discussed.
>
>
>
>         The more realistic option may be preferable, but how many
>         objects would these students normally work on?
>
>
>         In osteological and ceramic terms there will be collections of
>         hundreds of objects potentially.
>
>         Are these reference collections or new finds?
>
>
>
>         If we do go for the more realistic option, we may need to
>         pre-populate the system with some data, to make it more
>         useful. Is there existing data in digital format that we could
>         use? For example, are there available data sets in the CIDOC
>         CRM format that Graeme mentioned in the past? (
>         http://hypermedia.research.glam.ac.uk/kos/CRM/ )
>
>         We have linked data for the ceramic material from Portus? Leif
>         is already discussing access to this data with Luc’s student
>         so it might work well.
>
>         Is this material related to projects students work on?
>         Could either Leif or Luc (if he has that information already)
>         post this info on the wiki (e.g. the sparql endpoint)? So that
>         Mike J could perhaps start to have a look at it?
>
>         Thanks!
>         Enrico
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         -- 
>
>         Dr Enrico Costanza
>
>         Lecturer, Intelligence, Agents, Multimedia Group
>
>         School of Electronics and Computer Science
>
>         University of Southampton, UK, SO17 1BJ
>
>          
>
>         http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ec
>
>         http://d-touch.org
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Patina mailing list
>         Patina at ecs.soton.ac.uk <mailto:Patina at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>         http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/patina
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Patina mailing list
>     Patina at ecs.soton.ac.uk <mailto:Patina at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>     http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/patina
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Patina mailing list
> Patina at ecs.soton.ac.uk
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/patina


-- 
Dr Enrico Costanza
Lecturer, Intelligence, Agents, Multimedia Group
School of Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton, UK, SO17 1BJ

http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ec
http://d-touch.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/patina/attachments/20110309/0fb5f767/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Patina mailing list