Over the past month The Exergame Network has been working on a new concept, to take Exergaming research out of the journals and put it in front of the public. The project has been the subject of two TEN Skype calls so far and work has begun on TEN's Wiki.
The first call started with the brief; Build an evidence base of exergaming research and define studies that are missing
On the first call we had exergame manufacturers and distributors put forward "wish-lists" that they would like to see covered by the research community. The purpose being to give prospective users of exergaming an applicable evidence base of what would work well form them.
The researchers explained some of the difficulties around copyright, non-disclosure and funding to people on the call. They also explained some of the limitations that create the gap between what is required and what is possible at the moment, as well as the skills gap in exergaming experience.
During the call it became obvious that there was not only a need to build an evidence base for exergaming users, but also put together a resource of key exergaming studies that would inform and lead future research projects. It was decided to use the TEN Wiki as the method of collaboration in the first instance.
Projects that TEN undertake are open and transparent, which is an important consideration to give subsequent media releases credibility and satisfy the public's desire for unbiased and uncompromising information. Of course, projects that are open in nature tend to take a little longer, but we think that's worth it!
The Researchers Resource is being built on the Wiki at http://exergaming.pbworks.com/Exergaming-Evidence-Base for everyone to see. The key aspects of the research lists here are to show both good and poor research methods to give not just what's worth building on, but also to show what errors to avoid. At this stage it was noted that the TEN Rating System (TRS) will become a more and more useful resource for researchers in choosing appropriate exergames for the populations being studied.
This list will form the basis of the studies put forwards to the public as keynote research forming evidence for the best practices and best value outcomes. The public list itself was defined with the ais of being simple, clear and unclutter from academic jargon. The list is underway on TEN's Wiki at http://exergaming.pbworks.com/Helena. Clearly this is a working title!
The first call started with the brief; Build an evidence base of exergaming research and define studies that are missing
On the first call we had exergame manufacturers and distributors put forward "wish-lists" that they would like to see covered by the research community. The purpose being to give prospective users of exergaming an applicable evidence base of what would work well form them.
The researchers explained some of the difficulties around copyright, non-disclosure and funding to people on the call. They also explained some of the limitations that create the gap between what is required and what is possible at the moment, as well as the skills gap in exergaming experience.
During the call it became obvious that there was not only a need to build an evidence base for exergaming users, but also put together a resource of key exergaming studies that would inform and lead future research projects. It was decided to use the TEN Wiki as the method of collaboration in the first instance.
Projects that TEN undertake are open and transparent, which is an important consideration to give subsequent media releases credibility and satisfy the public's desire for unbiased and uncompromising information. Of course, projects that are open in nature tend to take a little longer, but we think that's worth it!
The Researchers Resource is being built on the Wiki at http://exergaming.pbworks.com/Exergaming-Evidence-Base for everyone to see. The key aspects of the research lists here are to show both good and poor research methods to give not just what's worth building on, but also to show what errors to avoid. At this stage it was noted that the TEN Rating System (TRS) will become a more and more useful resource for researchers in choosing appropriate exergames for the populations being studied.
This list will form the basis of the studies put forwards to the public as keynote research forming evidence for the best practices and best value outcomes. The public list itself was defined with the ais of being simple, clear and unclutter from academic jargon. The list is underway on TEN's Wiki at http://exergaming.pbworks.com/Helena. Clearly this is a working title!
The second skype call on the project focused more on getting some examples into the public list, and deciding on how to put this message across. The call was very much about "doing" rather than "talking" and members of the call started eagerly editing the wiki with ideas and information.
It was clear that the public facing list of exergaming research has some challenges ahead. On the call we talked about how to reference the studies, something very important in the academic world, but not of interest to the vast majority of the readers. We defined the target audience further, being anyone in the public domain that would not get this information from journals. This also includes members of the media, that often misreport research abstracts, typically with inappropriate headlines.
We also talked about referencing the actual exergame used, as this is a key factor in "making it real" for the reader, and for them to be able to take ideas forwards. This concept was universally accepted by commercial people and the academics on the call.
It was not all plain sailing, happy agreement though. The ideas around how to report (in the public list) the energy expenditures was a hot topic. One camp argued for the straight reporting right out of the research publication, while the other camp argued that this information needs to be simplified (as it is in public health promotion). There';s still some ground to cover on this subject!
Lastly, the call failed to conclude on who's studies / who's exergames should be reported in the public list. Of course in an ideal world, no one would be left out, but for an information piece we are trying to be concise while giving all the information relevant. This will be the subject of the next call this Friday, along with many more worked examples into the pubic list and plenty of "active discussion"!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment