I've been working on a research strand for this year's International Clean Conference with Wendy Sullivan and we will soon be putting out a call for participants to take part in the strand - that we're calling a Clean Sandbox for Research.
A very good question that James Lawley has raised is where this metaphor of a sandbox comes from, and what it's definition or attributes might be.
My suggestion of the term comes from experience of the Pervasive Media Studio sandbox events and funding schemes, including one of the first media sandboxes, launched in December 2008 which Jane Harwood and I took part in having newly formed Strata Collective; theatre sandbox followed, and more recently DCRC's REACT Knowledge Exchange Hub at PMS has produced a number of sandbox schemes with focus on: heritage, books & print and future documentary.
Here are some of comments from those sites that, in my opinion, express the nature of a sandbox:
- explore pioneering ideas using new technologies
- research and develop new ideas
- As one of the participants from the scheme observed, “by the end of this process we might have the right questions, or the cleverer questions.”
- finding time and space to develop ... projects that explore the potential of new technologies...enables and supports ... who wish to integrate new tools into their practice.
- encourage collaboration
- support development of early stage ideas
- Supported by ... and a wider group of advisers... Sandbox cohort experimented, innovated, succeeded and failed (fast), creating not just a slate of new product prototypes, but also a knowledge bank of what worked or didn’t, what audiences liked or didn’t, and what the potentialities ... might or might not be....
[All acc'd 16/2/14]
In parallel to the above, I'm thinking of Clean Language and other clean methods and methodologies as technologies, and research findings in any field as not excluding 'products' (tried and tested 'things' that can be used, which might include processes and tools / methods just as much as a physical artefact, report, publication etc.) and 'audiences' as those interacting with the research(ers) at any point - including research interviewees, research participants, as well as people who will engage with the research outputs (read papers etc). In terms of cohort, I'm thinking of all the people currently using a clean approach within or as subject of their research, and of those interested in doing so who are still considering the hows and wherefores of doing this. 'Support and advisers' draws on the expertise of some of these people - putting them in dual or multiple roles - sharing their own experience and expertise whilst simultaneously exploring new possibilities. The emphasis in the above is, naturally given the context the comments are taken from, on pervasive media and creative technologies; however it's my experience that the open-thinking, collaborative and generosity of generating and sharing new ideas - taking the whole field forwards and supporting emergence and excellence whilst not constrained by fear of failure - are attributes in common between creative technology sandbox approaches and the Clean Community and nature of interaction at the three Clean Conferences which I have attended to date.
This interview with Matthew Woodward, senior designer at EVE Online developer CCP (published October 29, 2012 , by Kris Graft) I think, echoes the sense of what has made the PMS/REACT sandboxes so successful:
" "sandbox" is just a mindset in which his studio operates on a daily basis. "['Sandbox'] is really hard to define, because it's so ingrained in what we do, that we know what it is, but it's hard to put into words," he tells Gamasutra. But he offers up a pretty good definition anyhow. "Basically it's three things: being social, goal-driven and emergent -- making a game open, giving players control, essentially, and if you're making a multiplayer game, making it as social as possible, because that's why they're playing the game in the first place." Woodward posits that emergence is likely the most important aspect, and it's something to concentrate on whether you're making a single-player sandbox game or a multiplayer game. "
'Sandbox' is also used in software development as an isolated area within which to test scripts etc, so including an element of safety and security.
So... what might be a useful one liner to include in the conference call, to give a feel for the kind of sandbox that a Clean Sandbox for Research might be?
Here's my thoughts...
some of the most important elements:
supported, creative, social, goal-driven, emergent, developing practice
encourages collaboration and supports research and development of early stage ideas, tools and processes
My experience of Open Space and World Cafe (which could also be described in line with Woodward'ssocial, goal-driven and emergent) is that they are not necessarily about practical development, so that's another aspect of a sandbox that it could be about finding the right questions to ask going forwards, or about actually creating a practical output that could be further developed. Personally I'm not keen on Open Space, finding it's structure dissipates rather than develops knowledge and ideas, so I hope we can do something a little more useful than that with the Sandbox structure!
I think the software/games definition applies well but misses out on the sense of safe space and supported collaboration. Probably a sandbox is more hierarchical in that there are expert advisers and prescribed constraints, but within that I think there's a stronger sense of everyone working towards an emergent but common goal, adaptation, and of an equal valuing of experienced knowledge and new inspiration/insight.
No comments:
Post a Comment