Notes from Meeting at Reading University 13th January

Present: Peter, Janet, Rachael, Fraser

Reviewing Video of the Pilot Study

The meeting started by looking the film that Peter had collected the day before. The general feeling was that this was very good quality film, and the four cameras gave a very good sense of what was going on. The audio quality wad disappointing and it was agreed that a separate audio tape would need to be collected in order to transcribe the discussion. With a transcription it was felt that audio quality wasn't quite such a key issue (although that does depend on the transcription being relatively complete).

The issue of permission, ethics, and confidentiality was discussed. This project is unique in that the data will be distributed widely and so there can be no promise of it never being shown externally. Participants need to be aware of how the data will be used, and should sign a release form indicating both that they understand the nature of the research project and that they give permission to be filmed. There are a number of clearances that need to be obtained. Clearance from the respective university ethics committees, clearance from the collaborating organisation / project, and clearance from the individuals concerned. Rachael has already encountered these problems to some extent and will forward information and sample material. Rachael also reminded us to re-read the opening chapter of the original Delft Protocols workshop to get a feel for the type of decisions that were made for selecting data.

Response to the Book Proposal

Janet had received a positive reaction from Taylor Francis about the publication of the book. T&F sent the figures that would make the book economically viable for them. They would require us to purchase 100 copies of any book. The cost of a 300 page book with a two colour hard cover would work out at £35. All agreed that this was a good price. Peter remarked that T&F seemed to be treating the book as a conference proceedings - basically charging us to produce the book. He would like to see more commitment from the publisher (possibly in the form of royalties) and to explain to them that this book, though based on a conference, will definitely *not* be a conference proceedings. Janet will liase further with the Taylor & Francis.

Project Proposal

After the protracted process of obtaining full economic costs Peter has still not sent the proposal to the AHRB. It is now near its final form and a draft was circulated for final comments which were given. The timetable has been squeezed a bit, but still looks realistic. The costs will not stretch to cover an administrative assistant, so activities like web development, DVD production, and transcription have been allocated to 'Other Costs'.

Administrative Assistant

Peter has spoken to Judith Jansch who was recommended by Petra Badke-Shaub and is currently completing a PhD in behavioural science at Darmstadt University. Having read about the project she is interested in coming over to London for a few months this Spring/Summer to help out with the conference organisation. There was a brief discussion about what she could do but All agreed this was a good idea. Peter will contact Judith again and ask her to come over to London to discuss possibilities.

Letters

The next few months are crucial to the project with various parties needing to be approached (prospective participants in the research and prospective participants for the conference). To help this proposal it will be helpful to have the outline text of letters to send. Draft texts of letters will be discussed at the next meeting in March.

Date of Next Meeting

24th March at Reading University


Actions arising:

Rachael: Forward confidentiality and permission forms to all

Janet: Liase with Taylor and Francis about the book

Peter: Complete project proposal and send in to AHRB

Peter: Contact Judith Jansch re: coming to London this Spring / Summer

All: Make a list of contacts and organizations for potential collaboration and send to Peter. Peter will maintain a central list.

All: Search for participants.

?: Outline text of a letter for potential collaborating organisations

?: Outline text of a letter for potential collaborating researchers

First Filming of Architects

12th January. After following the Hazely school project over the course of a few meetings I was finally allowed to film a meeting in progress. The cameras we had ordered had arrived 10 days before, hard disk recording JVC Everio cameras, so this was the first opportunity to test the cameras in situ.

The meeting was to discuss how the Phase 2 development of the school could get a 'good' assessment by fulfilling a certain number of criteria laid down by BREEAM (not too sure what the acronym means). This involved basically going through a checklist to work out what was already included in the plan, what could be included relatively easily, and what wasn't included. The consultant with the checklist, guidelines and spreadsheet was a guy called Daniel Lash from Exeter University. With the two architects, the external consultant, mechanical services representative, electrical services representative, and accounting person the meeting was larger than I'd expected with six people, but proved useful all the same.

The room was a purpose-designed meeting room about 10 metres by 4 metres. It was largely wood panelled but had plenty of glass around to position the cameras with suckers. I basically put a camera high in each corner of the room and zoomed one camera so we had a view of what was on the table. It took me about 20 minutes to set everything up and get the cameras recording. The Cameras ended up being quite a long way away from the table - good for the lack of intrusion, but not so good for audio quality.

With the cameras recording, the meeting basically went ahead as normal. There were some comments about people giving permission for being filmed, but no major protest. Initially I think people were aware of the cameras, but after a while most seemed to relax. After I'd stopped the cameras the general feeling was that they hadn't really noticed after the first 10 minutes.

These were the thoughts that occurred to me as I was sitting observing the meeting (at the end of the table, slightly removed from the 'action').
• All meeting participants should sign a permission form before the meeting takes place (for ethical reasons, for possible legal reasons, and for good research practice).
• Get people to take their shoes off to make them feel more comfortable?
• Cushions to protect the cameras in case they come unstuck (one did, but luckily survived the tumble)
• Show the tape counter on screen for playback and synchronisation purposes
• Get still images or copies of all documents discussed or present. This might be difficult as people have personal notebooks, and there was a computer with documents on. How important is it to get every peice of documentation as opposed to having a general feeling for where the focus of attention is at any one point.
• Should I be in the room or not? It seemed to me that I was a constant reminder of the filming taking place. So even if people had forgotten about the cameras, one look at me meant that they were suddenly reminded. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean people are keeping a check on what they are saying. If I wasn't there 'forgetting' the cameras might mean that the discussion might be a bit freer, but by the same token are we taking advantage of people's 'forgetting'?

Back at the office I transferred the film onto my computer which took about 10 minutes per camera. (At the highest quality setting the camera uses about 4GB per hour of filming.) The basic quality was good. It is possible to make out the drawings, and see roughly what is being attended to. The four separate camera angles also give a very complete picture of the meeting.

In terms of the meeting content, it wasn't as boring as I'd expected. Without a transcription it is difficult to say but there was plenty of interest for analysis.