Starting from March 22nd I will be writing up my notes from meetings to track them and compare what new things have some from them.
This meeting was with Greg to go over my ethics application. We started at the top and if I had any questions or what I specifically wanted help with.
I started with the beginning, I had no updated/improved title and research question that correlated with the changes that have been made since the last time it had been changed (six months prior). The answer was that it could be plain as it can/will change over time.
- I was asked in a general manner, "Where does the content derive from?"
It mainly comes from family and received narratives.
- Because this is a process of discovery I can write that it is one.
I had the idea of bringing it back to the family; so, because I wanted playtesters, I thought a good idea could be to take it back to my family to see what they thought. This almost means that the research reaches back out to the community I had chosen, which was my family. An outcome of this would be the reception and then my reflection on its reception. My summary would then include taking interviews and showing it to my family.
- My target audience needs further articulation and refinement as currently, I don't have a specific target.
- For section B.9. I need to figure out what my key outcomes, research questions, etc. are and write that down. One of them could be that I am exploring the possibilities of narrative in VR. I can put my aims into this, that it is an immersive experience, and then the motivation behind it. I can acknowledge Māori storytelling in digital spaces.
- Moving on to B.10. I need to figure out the reciprocal relationship between myself, my interviewees, and then, say as an example, my family as the wider community.
- Am unsure where this note fits in between the previous and the next note but: Person Creation levels and how is it telling content(?).
- B.11. The frameworks/methodologies I am currently using are Pūrākau and the Iterative Design Process, which has been mentioned before.
- B.12. Information will be gathered via recording the interview, so the data will be collected by me and then transcribed. For this (B.13.), I should look into the narrative analysis methodology.
- Looking at the General Project Details section (C), everything under C.2. needs to be filled out, this is mainly where the interviews are taking place. The country and city will be New Zealand and Rotorua. Exactly where will be at my Uncle's house most likely, or potentially my Nan's house (but that is TBD and less likely to be there). Data analysis will still be in NZ but up in Auckland. The data collection will be the next time I am able to see them, so it is also TBD at the moment.
- C.3. Participants include my Uncle and probably only him as he is the one who knows the most about this particular Pūrākau. This basically fills out this section of C. C.3.5. details the recruitment process, this will predominantly be done in person but may be contacted in advance via social media messaging.
- Now to section D. There was only one note written down for this section and it makes the question for D.1. a little easier to understand and that is "How does it protect that relationship?"
We briefly scrubbed through the rest of the document quickly ticking yes or no for some of the Y/N questions. But around the section I mark is where we stopped completely. Things that popped up that I should look into or look back at are Pūrākau as a Pedagogy, Maree Sheehan and her audio portraits, and I must go through and add to my Literature Review as it is sorely out of date. Other pointers were that the research question can have layers, so the first layer could be about VR/te ao Māori/Pūrākau, the second layer about the consultation, and the third as "Giving it back", as an example. The other thing was that Methodologies can be short as it can/will come through in the documentation.
Comments