The presentation of the research study evaluating the value of a documentary as a key medium to communicate design research. It presents information from the evaluation of a second screen application using video as well as a scientific paper, in order to assess how the efficacy and usefulness of using such a documentary for science communication is perceived when compared to a scientific paper. Techniques of a method called Design Documentary, developed to inspire design research teams through video, combined with science journalism were the basis of the production. Twelve researchers and students were shown the documentary and asked to read the paper in counter-balanced order. A w

1. A Video is Worth a Million Words?
Comparing a Documentary with a Scientific Paper to
Communicate Design Research
marlene moura
pedro almeida
david geerts
university of aveiro
TQLDMWorkshop| Centeris 2016

2.  “The video is emotionally resonant and
commanding of attention in a way that
academic text seldom is” (de Valck et al., 2009)
 We live in the era of video and easily
interact ‘audio-visually’ (Killander, 2014)
 Great potential for science communication
(Quintela, 2011)
 Videos are already used in research in
conferences.
Research Problem
 Clinging to traditional formats
 Video neglected as a means for
research communication
 Usually not admitted for ‘peer
review’

3. research question
“What is the perceived efficiency of a documentary as a means of
scientific communication when compared to a research paper?”

4. Projects Finalities and Goals
To develop a video documentary to communicate the scientific value
of the evaluation of a second screen application (TV-Ring project).
A combination of techniques based on:
1. Design Documentaries (Raijmakers, 2007);
2. Journalistic techniques (Ferradaz, 2001);
3. Researchers’ participation as guides (Raijmakers, 2007);
4. The filmmaker’s perspective (Rabiger, 2004).
To evaluate its perceived efficiency vs the paper

5. European project - aim is to develop and test innovative
applications and infrastructures for television, with innovative
content.
Context

6. Research structure
Development
of the
documentary
Literature
review
Analysis of
the data
Data
collection
Conclusions
Results and
Discussion

7. scene from «Design &Thinking» trailer (2012)
Videos help building an understanding of design (Ylirisku & Buur, 2007)
framework

8. But scientific results…
 published in papers in scientific journals
 An established peer review system
Smith, 2006)
 A structured format (University of Illinois, 2015)
Design Documentaries appropriated three
ideas for research:
 "film is like reality”;
 “film is like a language”;
 “film is like a conversation” .
(Raijmakers, 2007)
theoretical framework

9. sections
Research Paper

11. “The User Experience Evaluation
of a Multi-Screen TV Show”

12. Structure
Followed the main sections of the paper: abstract, introduction, methodology, results and
conclusion.
Includes 3 main interviews, and follows the researchers on their way to do field research as well
as their everyday activities in the lab
~13 minutes long
Documentary

13. Evaluation methodology
 Qualitative research
 Method: Semi-structured interviews – organised around a set of predetermined open-
ended questions, with other questions emerging from the dialogue between interviewer
and interviewees (Berg, 2001);
 Participants: Students and Researchers of KU-Leuven

14. Interviews
 Recruitment process: Google form
 Environment: Usability lab - space decorated as an ordinary
living room, with a television and computer area
 Instruments of data collection: audio recordings and
observation tables
 2 sessions ~15 minutes each
 Interviews transcribed and coded - NVivo 10
 12 participants
Methodology
Group 1 Group 2

15.  “I look for videos on YouTube to find helpful
tutorials for a brief explanation” (P03);
Habits
Overall- usually search for papers complemented
with other sources of information (videos, books,
etc.)
Results & Discussion
 “It is interesting to see how people interact with
the prototype” and “to have the opinion of people
in their own voices in the context” (P08);
 The paper “is good for details” (P09) and you
always find “the expected information” (P010).
Preferences
Students – Video – see how an interview is
conducted, to learn more
Researchers – Paper, easier to find “sources to
enrich” their “own research”
(info) recall
Group II remembered more than Group I in
the first interview
Both groups considered that paper and video are
incomplete and complementary
 “Combining both documents would be better, both
have advantages” (P02, Group I);

16. STRENGHTS STRENGHS
 Visual resources to rely on
 Dynamic
 Attractive
 Shows body language
 Sound and tune
 Possible to add textual guides
 Provides context
 Suited to peer review
 To mark and add notes
 Sources and references
 Structured format
 Clear to everybody
 Detailed expected information
 Easy to locate info
Results & Discussion

17. WEAKNESSES WEAKNESSES
 No indicators to find more information
 Has distracting info
 Too long
 Missing details
 Cannot reproduce interviews
 Difficult to show creative work with words
 Old fashioned in a technology era
Results & Discussion

18. Video: features that are an advantage
 The video helps to remember more information and details
 An asset in design studies – provides the concept of a second screen
 Shows context and how people interact with the app
 Presents the way how to conduct an interview, including participants on it
 An important educational tool for students
 The video makes people use more senses
 More entertaining and attractive
Conclusions

19. Video: limitations as a means of communication when compared to the paper
 The methodological info was incomplete
 There was no index in the video, so it makes it harder to locate information
 Need to watch all the video to find a specific part
 The video is admitted in conferences, but it is not suited to peer review
 The documentary takes too long to watch comparing to the time the paper takes to read
 It has distracting information
 There are no references and sources described on it
Conclusions

20. Video more resourceful than the paper as a means of scientific communication
for the design research.
But… limitations foster it to be used as a complement.
Conclusions