Rigor and relevance in interaction design research

Rigor and relevance in interaction design research is a good find by @nicolasnova from the Near Future Laboratory. As Nicolas describes:

It addresses the problem of ‘disciplinary anxiety’ that is often felt by people in this field and the inherent discussion about what constitutes ‘good research’ in terms of rigor and relevance.

The paper by Daniel Fallman and Erik Stolterman makes the argument “that the only way to discuss and examine rigor and relevance for interaction design research is to do it in relation to the three forms of research and to their particular purposes.”

I had similar problems when writing my PhD on interactivity and play. I had to put in several caveats at the beginning to be sure that it would be read in the right context. Discipline anxiety indeed.

Podcasting is Broadcasting

podcaster_logo.jpg

There’s an interesting paper called The Politics of Podcasting by Jonathan Sterne, Jeremy Morris, Michael Brendan Baker and Ariana Moscote Freire over at the new issue of the Fibreculture Journal.

It’s basically a thorough history of podcasting (including the coining of the word) and a look at it in relation to what we normally consider broadcasting. The conclusion sums up what I think many have been thinking for some time:

If we free the term broadcasting from its corporate connotations and remember its longer history, then podcasting is not simply an outgrowth of blogger culture, but rather part of a much longer history of dissemination. Podcasting is not an alternative to broadcasting, but a realisation of broadcasting that ought to exist alongside and compete with other models. If broadcasting were a more generally available term, then perhaps we could begin to speak of our own broadcasts without sounding grandiose or pretentious.