Bergson & the machine...

On Monday I went to the gym and decided to read while I was on the treadmill. I saw other people doing it - reading that is - and I only walk on the treadmill because I need to do some moderate intensity exercise every other day.  Anyway, other people read magazines and newspapers, but I have no time for those. I had started the Bergson, but had not gotten very far. The Kindle version of Matter and Memory is not particularly well formatted which meant that some parts were often difficult to read, but on the whole, I think the reading/exercise thing worked out. I managed to read about 16% of the book (that is how Kindle does pages) and be thoroughly bombarded with information that was at the same time interesting and complex. Some of the most interesting things I took away from this book so far (and 16% is not much) is that perception is acknowledged by what we have known before (as symbols and memories). 

"With the immediate and present data of our senses we mingle a thousand details out of our past experience".  

There also seemed to some other logic going on concerned with perception without memory, but it is not in my notes and not in my tired brain right now. I really loved how Bergson talked about representation and it being virtual and I will have to look more closely at that in relation to my research. As well as Foucault's book on Bergson. 

The other thing I wanted to mention is a small hooray that I have nearly finished all my transcribing of interviews. I cannot believe it actually. I am still struggling with one particularly hard interview where the audio recording was SO bad it makes it very frustrating to listen to. I have even contacted some previous participants and asked them follow up questions related to the new transcriptions. 

Tomorrow and Friday I will be focussing on writing. I am behind in this matter a little, although most of what I have to do is re-arranging the content I have. I wanted to get done before Feb 8th the literature review chapter and the concepts chapter. The concepts chapter is where I talk in more detail about the reasons for doing this research project - following on from the impetus contained in the literature review chapter. The concepts is about exploring ideas such as complexity in research, complexity in Archival Science, complexity in social phenomenon and where that has taken this research into a journey about exploring sense-making and reflexivity in the social media website, YouTube. 

I had a major analytical breakthrough the other day in relation to the theory about digital recordkeeping, digital archiving, digital storage - particularly with reference to capturing or collecting cultural materials. I cannot write too much about it in this blog as it is a major outcome of my research, but it really has to do with understanding containers of data. Hopefully I will write something about it in the future - maybe a paper. 

I had to get back to transcribing - I am not completely finished, the hooray was only small after all. 

Yeah but...

I wrote an article in 2007 about indie film makers and how their work was highly perishable. Well, the article was not about digital formats, rather, that indie film often does not get included in mainstream institutions. In Australia we have the National Film and Sound Archive, who will collect indie works, so long as they are significant, whatever that means. The issue I sought to address in my article was that these institutions were focussed on content as being the 'object' for collection, rather than thinking about anything else. What else might there be? Well, my research project goes some way to addressing this (and now I realise I did not add this context to the introduction I thought I finished yesterday - damn). But when the focus is on content above anything else - take for example the recent Variety article I found through a friend on Facebook - it becomes an issue of preservation of master copies of a film. Is working with/collecting/researching/analysing/understanding digital film and processes of digital film making actually about preserving master copies as if they were reels in canisters? In the Variety article it talks about digital workflow - now that might be interesting to keep for posterity. Why? Why aren't institutions asking people what they would like to have kept? Who are the researchers of the future? When might the future come? What about using digital film for use to create new things? I know we love our copyright legislation, but who knows what might be the creative process and standards for 'copying' in the future? This is what my research is about - how to go about asking people what they want? Who do you ask? What questions might archivists want to ask people now to anticipate for the future? Is the collection policy an outdated tool for developing collections? Are the institutions we have now actually collecting what is useful for the future? It took film archives ages to start collecting scripts and all the rest of the so-called, ephemera (grrr. this term makes me cross) because people are interested in context. What is the context of digital? These questions have been asked plenty before, but I think that some research and recordkeepers think they can answer this question with their own intelligence/learning and not by asking the communities that would like to see digital film captured and retained as evidence of culture. 

And now I realise that there is something else I need to add to my introduction. 

How to define complexity...

I have been writing the introduction to my thesis over the last week or so and I think it is looking good. One of the issues I have come up against is how to describe and explain the concept of complexity. Its complex right? I think I have written before in this blog about not being able to figuring out that the primary theme of the research was about complexity. This is well and good, but how can complexity be described? Over summer I have been reading the book by Norman, that I have also mentioned in another blog post, about complexity and this book has been quite useful in helping to understand it, but how can I apply it to my context? I realised when I was writing the introduction that I need to adapt and explain concepts so that they are applicable and useful in an Archival Science (research) context. Hence my issues with complexity. 

I have come up with some ideas about how complexity can be understood in my research. Firstly, complexity is about movement, space and time. I talk about it unfolding as part of the research process. I also talk about it being concerned with multiple processes and inter-activities that take place between people and technology. My specific context is the digital and this is where the first point of complexity occurs. People may refer to social media as being part of the virtual or digital world, which often refers to the internet. But social media and the digital tools and outcomes for social media, such as video, is not just about the online world, but also about living in multiple worlds. People take photos and add it to their computer, or print them, or put them on Flickr or post them to Facebook or show them on their laptop or tablet to friends. The camera itself does not live in the digital world. It does not even live! 

I have explained complexity as about understanding or embracing contextuality or layers of context. This is about understanding identity and levels of identity as they are formed in communities, in families, in ourselves, in workplaces, in nations and so on. 

I have also explained complexity as being a theoretical construct, which is a kind of reference to complexity theory, which is used like a model to help people make sense of multiplicity. Particularly when it comes to the way people interact with communities and technology (and technologies and communities). 

I have also said that complexity in Archival Science is about researching something in the now - about researching the story as it is unfolding. With Youtube there is no real sense of its place in history - only speculation. Although I guess people can argue that history is speculation. 

Complexity is also investigation into something that is complex - such as social media. The inherent complexity of a phenomenon and a tool that is dynamic and multi-faceted. I guess this explanation is similar to the one above (more revising!)

At AERI in 2011 I presented a poster called, Engaging Complexity. This is what my research is about. I have to be clear about what the complexity actually is. 

Wikipedia calls it intricate, which I am not sure it is all the time. 

Others have suggested that complexity is about being complicated, which I would disagree with. 

This online paper about complexity seems to go in the right direction by explaining complexity as something where who or more components are required. There is also a theme in this paper that implies that complexity is about how it is viewed. I think about the remote control we have for the tv which has seems to be too much for me to learn. But if I talk about the intricacies of recordkeeping obligations, which can be quite complex and multi-layered, peoples eyes often glaze over. On second thought, maybe it is not the complexity, rather the subject that is boring. 

Complexity theory is where this all started for me. Well that is not entirely true - it was Chaos theory. Both are maths related. I think I have written a blog post before about chaos and fractals, which I adore. I could write some more about it today, but I am tired and its hot and I have done some awesome work again today and I think I need a rest. 

I think I am going to have to do some more reading to help me define this adequately for my thesis. Damn. 

Writing a thesis and living life...do they mix?

Last last year I had a plan to write 7000 words a week of my thesis, get the first draft done in 3 months and then re-write the entire thing over another 3 months. Needless to say, soon after I had this genius plan I went on intermission. The link between going on an extended holiday for 2 and a half months and coming up with a ridiculously outrageous goal for my thesis is not tenuous. I have calmed down somewhat and have realised this kind of pace would probably give me a heart attack, but I feel like the thesis is my life. 

Today. 

Today I got up at 7.30am to feed the demanding cats who had been trying to get me up since about 6.30am with the licking of the hair, the meowing and the other chirp like talking they do, as well as the regular growling when one cat gets too close to the other. I then checked my email and a few other things and started work on transcribing an interview (which I finished today - yeah!). I had breakfast at 10am and then started on writing at 10.30am. At 1pm I took a luxurious hour for lunch where I sat outside undercover and admired the magnificent 30 degree summer day and worried that my plants might wilt because I had not watered them the night before. At 2pm I started writing again and managed to write/edit about another 1000 words before getting ready and heading off to the gym at 4pm. I returned home and ate dinner till 7pm and then started again on the writing/editing. By the end of the day I had done 2,390 words. I started the day with about 1,200. I am now writing this blog and will be ready to relax in approximately 8 minutes from now. This happens four and a half days a week with one day with flexitime in case I need to go into uni for a meeting (which takes about 2 hours of travel time each way). 

Am I complaining?

No, but when do I get to do anything else? Except on Saturday nights and Sunday?

It looks like enough time to have a life on paper, but factor in things like we are supposed to be started assisted fertility in April, which will suck up my time (and money) and I am also supposed to be a teaching assistant this semester for Archival Systems again. Students are very demanding. 

I think I am complaining a little bit. 

As soon as this thesis is over I will be a very happy person. I have been working on this 'thing' since mid 2008 and I want it finished. This must be what it feels like when giving birth - get that thing out of me. 

I feel like I did some good work today. I am aware that I wanted to have two chapters written by the end of January and so far, 2,390 words in two weeks is not quite the pace I need. I do not need to be as hard core as 7000 words a week, but I need to focus on this thing. 

Puuuuuuuuuuuuuuussssssssssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...