Brief Hiaitus - the Christmas edition

Just wanted to let readers and friends know that I won't be posting again until after the holidays. Christmas vacation started early this year (yay!), but I'll be back with a new post before the New Year. Merry Christmas and/or happy holidays to you and your loved ones...hope it's a good one!!!
Sara

(via Geeksugar)

Habbo Reveals the Depth of Corporate Surveillance in VWs

Via Emily Claire Afan at Kidscreen online, news this week that Sulake is expanding its already impressive data mining services to advertisers and third-party data collectors, by enabling companies to "track" how, when and why certain topics come up in the everyday "in-world" conversations of players of teen-targeted virtual world Habbo Hotel. The company calls the service "Habble," and describes it as a new "brand measurement tool". What it really does is allow companies to buy access to players' thoughts and peer interactions, through an ongoing and highly context-sensitive tracking of "brand names, slogans or key phrases" in player-to-player chat. The data is then mapped out to enable identification of peaks and drops in the rate at which the word/brand/phrase features as a topic of conversation. The client companies can also contrast these fluctuations with other events, promotional initiatives (either in-game or IRL), measurement variables, players' plans for the coming weekend, etc., etc. As Afan writes:

More than 155 million registered avatars controlled by users 19 and younger are part of the global Habbo community and Habble will enable marketers to measure brand names, slogans or key phrases used over a defined period. Data is updated daily, displayed and analyzed in a chart that maps activity peaks. The tool does not grant access to personal info of Habbo users, but monitors the level of brand mentions and then cross-references them with other measurement data.

As Afan -- and the Sulake press release -- points out, the tool doesn't grant access to the players' personal info...but then again, it doesn't have to to be effective. The fact that the company already knows so much about its players, along with the very flexible ability client companies are given to cross-reference with other measurement data, makes a lack of "personally identifiable info" almost irrelevant. You don't need to know someone's name or address when what you're aiming to find out is whether a particular brand strategy is more or less likely to work on girls aged 12-14 living in the suburbs who spend time in Habbo talking about how much they like both Vampire Weekend and Red Bull. And isn't most market research "anonymous" in this respect anyway? Tracking trends among demographics - groups of people with similar characteristics and/or interests - isn't exactly dependent on individual names and phone numbers.

The tool has already gone through a trial run, back in September, in partnership with MTV International - wherein it was used to track a campaign promoting the MTV European Music Awards. According to the Sulake press release, "After the campaign commenced in September, Habble showed that conversations around the awards were up by 371% in the UK and 762% in the Netherlands." As the press release makes quite clear, however, ad effectiveness is not the only thing companies will be able to measure:

Brands not directly engaging within the virtual world can also use Habble to analyse teen perceptions amongst product categories. This allows brands to see conversation levels related to messages targeted at young people, which could help shape future marketing plans.

Sulake describes Habble as "fly on the wall marketing insight into the hard to reach under-18’s demographic." This is a somewhat innocuous way of portraying what actually amounts to 24-7 corporate surveillance -- spying on players and recording their conversations, all in the aim of finding out more about their preferences, daily habits, and how to more effectively exploit their deepest desires.

Of course, the language used in the corporate materials is much more flippant, calling kids "media savvy" and highlighting their presumably vast ability to identify online marketing. At one point, they describe:

Teens today expect to engage with brands online and are aware of online marketing and advertising campaigns. Habbo research shows that 75% of users accept advertising promotions in Habbo and 56% tell their friends about promotions they have seen; 17% say they do this often.

Note that there is absolutely nothing in there about teens being aware or okay with having their conversations recorded and analyzed to "help shape future marketing plans." And note that the generalization about "teen awareness" ignores much of the research on kids' and teens' online literacy, which can be awesome in some areas, but poor in others -- especially about things like data mining and copyright, which they mostly "learn about" from companies rather than objective third parties. The Sulake argument ignores well circulated studies, such as Turow's research showing that both kids and adults often assume that the mere presence of a privacy policy means that their info will be protected.

Not to mention the clear evidence that the depth and breadth of current data mining practices are misunderstood by even the most digitally literate adults. Which leads me to wonder if we'll hear even half as much about Habbo's new initiative as we do about Facebook selling their (adult) users' information.

The Possibility to Clean and Buy Stuff Shop

Via the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) and Advertising Age magazine, news (well, Thanksgiving-leftover news) of the recent online launch of Disney's newest kids' program The Possibility Shop. Described by AdAge as Disney's "First Branded-Entertainment Program," The Possibility Shop is a DIY Craft show for kids and "moms" (according to the official "About" description) staring Courtney Watkins, an author/TV personality who specializes in crafts and "Creative Adventures" (i.e. crafts and games). More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that the program is also:

[A] web video series at Disney.com/PossibilityShop produced with the Jim Henson Co. and exclusively sponsored by Clorox. The series was customized in part to promote Clorox brands, including Clorox disinfecting wipes, toilet-bowl cleaners and the new Clorox 2 laundry pre-treater, but the episodes will not feature any use of the products themselves. Instead, each episode will be accompanied by a Clorox-branded vignette showcasing how each brand can help clean up the home, a common task among the characters in "The Possibility Shop."

Yikes, yikes, yikes, on so many levels. First, there's the blatant and clearly over-reaching commercialization, which surely pushes (I would say exceeds) the limits of existing regulations around advertising to kids. But second, and no less disturbing, are the archaic gender discourses that arise from a craft show, most likely targeted to girls and already explicitly targeted to women ("moms"), that is not only sponsored by cleaning products but "commonly" features cleaning as a key theme of the show itself. I'll delve a little deeper into the gender implications after addressing the commercial/regulatory issues. But first, a brief synopsis of The Possibility Shop pilot webisode.

Episode One: Thanksgiving
The first webisode is quite brief. The first segment lasts 3min 26sec, and starts with an introduction of the show and its mission statement by Courtney Watkins, focusing on the current holiday episode and the surrounding web features, which include plenty of ads and links for Clorox products. Following the intro (which just features Courtney talking directly to the audience from a white sound stage) and a short title sequence, is a short episode about finding something to do at the kids' table during Thanksgiving dinner. The activity is presented as a solution to a problem a "girl guide"-like child friend of The Possibility Shop, Ivy, presents to Courtney. The idea is that she'll get a new Thanksgiving-themed badge for creating table "the best Thanksgiving Kids' Table ever." Courtney suggests a game that facilitates turn-based storytelling, which she calls "Fascinating Factoids". A third character, Mix, is involved throughout the exchange, contributing funny quips and some physical comedy. His job at the shop is undefined, but for now he appears to be Courtney's assistant. After demonstrating how the game works, Courtney and Ivy get to work on preparing the game at the crafts table. The camera pans to a "hand puppet" housed in a picture frame on the wall, who gives further instructions and advises the viewer to visit the Family Fun website.

This is followed by a 90 second ad for Clorox, featuring Courtney and Mix, and set within a back room of The Possibility Shop with a large bookcase full of Clorox bleach/laundry detergent and other cleaning products. Mix has some spaghetti sauce on his shirt, which Courtney sees and suggests that he recycle the shirt as fabric for a quilt. As soon as she walks away to do some "Possibility Shopping", Mix hears a disembodied voice from above - "Mother Knowsbest" - who advises him that with the power of Clorox he can save the shirt. She then talks him through a step-by-step spot cleaning session using Clorox, which she describes using the same ever glowing terms featured in Clorox ads and slogans.

The ad segment is followed by another, shorter segment of original content that lasts 1 min 14 sec. This includes a 40 second follow up with Ivy (who tells us the game was a big success), and then a separate segment set in the white sound stage from the introduction, where Courtney suggests using the extra pieces from incomplete puzzles as the basis for a drawing. Just look at it until you're inspired.

The webisode ends with a straight up 30 second ad for the same Clorox laundry detergent featured in the earlier ad segment, featuring a group of young moms touring a Clorox "test lab". The screen then resets back to the first segment.

Neither of the ad segments can be fast forwarded, paused or skipped. If you click on the ad segment while it's playing, a new browser window opens up to a Clorox website. Both ads carry a subtitle-style text warning that the content in question is an advertisement and that the program will resume in x number of seconds (counting down as the ad runs its course). Significantly, when I watched through the entire program a second time, the ad warning was gone. The ability to skip the ad was not.

Possibility Shopping
AdAge hints that while the show may not meet television ad standards, "slightly different rules apply on the web." However, while it's true that slightly different rules apply to the web, I'm doubtful that the show as is meets the FTC- FCC's web standards either, especially in regards to "Host Selling". According to the FCC definition, Host Selling includes "any character endorsement that has the effect of confusing a child viewer from distinguishing between program and non-program material." And as far as web content goes:

The FCC’s rules permit the sale of merchandise featuring a program-related character in parts of a related Web site that are sufficiently separated from the program to mitigate the impact of host selling.

There is certainly very little in terms of "look and feel" to distinguish the Clorox ads from the rest of the content. The setting simply looks like another room in the Possibility Shop, a conclusion supported by Courtney's movements through the scene. The characters are the same ones that appear in the program content, playing the same roles, referring to the same themes (quilting, Possibility Shop, etc.). Even the editing fails to provide a definitive cue that the segments are ads, seeing as the regular content is also broken up into sections, for e.g. switching between the white sound stage and the Possibility Shop. Although there is a text warning that the ads are "advertisements," the warning disappears with repeat viewings. I highly doubt that the show meets the criteria outlined above, even if it is online instead of televised.

Not that this is all that surprising, but the webisode also fails to provide any meaningful content in between its promotions of Clorox. Is it just me, or is there a shocking lack of crafting & creativity? The "Fascinating Factoids" game sounds fun and all, but it doesn't exactly scream craft skills or DIY. Even here, there is little time dedicated to showing kids how to prepare their own versions of the game. The note-sized construction paper cut-outs are already prepared in advance, neatly contained in a fish bowl before Ivy even steps into the room. And just as they're about the show Courtney and Ivy writing out their personal factoids on the paper cut-outs, the camera pans over to a "hand puppet" who gives some brief instruction about asking a parent to write your factoid for you if you can't write clearly enough (which seems wrong somehow, bypassing an opportunity for young writers to practice their craft), and then just promotes the Disney Family Fun website. The game is so simple that it might not need much detailed instruction (although you can download these from another page on the Possibility Shop website), but the lack of any substantial guidance or instruction - both for the factoid game and for the "puzzle piece" idea - just makes the enormous emphasis placed on spot cleaning all the more noticeable.

It also looks as though The Possibility Shop is not the only branded property Disney is trying to build these days. The AdAge article goes on to interview Brad Davis, Disney Online's VP-advertising sales, who describes that:

Disney sites have gotten more flexible in partnering with advertisers in recent months. A partnership with Walmart called "Rock Out Your Zone" made its debut in June on Disney.com and promoted Walmart's teen-targeted furniture line, Your Zone.

"Everything we've created before that has been Disney-driven. Now we've flipped that model where in our case we're creating the product with the advertiser's needs in mind and with the [online] guest's benefit," Mr. Davis said.

As for Clorox, they maintain in the article that the "intended audience is moms, but Ms. Liu [a representative from Clorox's digital media arm] said she expects they will view the webisodes with their kids." Clearly, the tone and mode of address taken in the Thanksgiving webisode is aimed at children - you don't tell a mom to ask her parents to help her write out a factoid. But this does highlight a pretty strange facet of the show - the nature of the sponsor product itself. Laundry detergent with bleach isn't exactly something you want kids getting into, and since there's very little in the program to either indicate that the product placement/host selling is aimed at selling a product OR that it is intended only for adult viewers, this particular nuance seems more like a PR attempt to hide the glaring contradictions of a very iffy marketing strategy.

The AdAge article doesn't comment too much on this, but they do admit that "Products such as toilet-bowl cleaners may seem like a stretch for integration with Muppets." And a bit of a stretch for a kids' show, no?

Craft and Clean
A deeper consideration of the product itself brings me back to my second point, which is the gender politics of a show that tries to integrate play & crafts with cleaning at all, but particularly in a show that seems to be so clearly targeted to girls. In follow up to my post a couple of weeks ago, there is a long history of problematic links between girls' "craft" toys and domesticity, the implications of which seem to be epitomized in a craft show that so heavily emphasizes cleaning and laundry. This includes implications in terms of the continued instrumentalization of girls' play -- play that emphasizes productive outcomes rather than fun and enjoyment -- along with the ongoing emphasis found within girls' culture on activities that work to reproduce and reinforce traditional ideals of "femininity" and "domesticity".

Despite the fact that the cleaning scene depicted in this particular webisode features a man as the one actually doing the cleaning, the associations are much clearer here than in most of what I've seen so far in the commercial construction of "kids craft culture" (by which I mean media and products aimed at commercializing arts & craft....not to be confused with the cultural practice itself). First, Mix cleans under the instructions of the disembodied female voice of "Mother Knowsbest" (a strategy often used in television ads for cleaning products as well, wherein the man doesn't know how to clean and a woman or voiceover shows him how). Second, in positioning itself toward a predominantly female audience (though we'll have to wait and see the ads, etc., to draw any final conclusions about the demographics of the child component of the target audience), its underlying message of play and cleaning as a) intertwined and b) appropriate activities must also be seen as necessarily aimed at female viewers.

Of course, many would say that learning to clean up after oneself is a key lesson that all kids should learn, one that stands in stark contrast to the larger commercial culture's promotion of hedonism, waste and ephemera. But the messages being communicated in Possibility Shop must be seen within the larger historical & social contexts specific to girls' culture, wherein cleaning, care taking and home making are not only prevalent but often hegemonic - squeezing out alternatives until you're left with a bright pink girls' toy aisle that could serve as a diorama of western gender stereotypes. For example:



This is hardly the only Disney initiative that contributes to this regressive approach found throughout girls' culture. But it is a particularly sad missed opportunity to make some of those links between crafting and empowerment discussed in my previous post on this topic.

Important note - there are a couple of other things I noticed that are perhaps worth mentioning. Not only is Mix the one depicted cleaning the shirt, but Courtney actually proposes turning the stained shirt into a quilt rather than try to clean it. She also doesn't hear the voice of "Mother Knowsbest," and although she moves in and out of the ad segment compiling a "Possibility Shopping List," she doesn't engage with the Clorox products in any way. She doesn't even look at them. I'm not sure what this distancing is supposed to imply, but reading through Courtney Watkins' very non-commercial website, there may be a hint of tension here in terms of the different interests going into the show's production, or evidence of some underlying awareness of traditional gender roles/representation and the need to avoid going too far with the associations. I admit that this is perhaps wishful thinking on my part, and perhaps even part of the advertising strategy to avoid sullying Courtney's image with product shilling, but nonetheless worth keeping an eye on in the episodes to come. [**Note: I was waiting for today to post about this because the Possibility Shop site said there would be a new episode today, but there seems to be some sort of delay. I'll try to update this post once the next show becomes available]

The companies involved are treading on pretty tenuous ground with this one, so this particular show may not be around for much longer. Then again, it could also just as likely evolve into a full blown television series. Seeing as the FCC recently held a public consultation on product placement in kids media (check out Shaping Youth's filing here), the time seems pretty ripe for a crack down on these kinds of initiatives. But, of course, the precedence isn't all that good when it comes to extending media regulation these days. Either way, however, I'm dismayed to see Disney barreling down this particular trajectory.

Reimagining Learning Puts LittleBigPlanet in the (MacArthur) Spotlight

Earlier today, the MacArthur Foundation and the HASTAC Initiative announced the upcoming launch of the 2010 Digital Media and Learning Competition, on the theme "Reimagining Learning." The $2 million open competition officially starts on December 14, and seeks proposals that outline "creative ideas to transform learning using digital media." In particular, the competition description emphasizes project that link STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) curricula and other experiences to digital games. As per the competition description, this means "any game, especially but not limited to LittleBigPlanet™ on PlayStation®3." Proposals are furthermore sought in two different but deeply interrelated categories, one of which revolves almost entirely around LittleBigPlanet. The DMLC invites proposals from designers, inventors, entrepreneurs, researchers, and others engaged in building digital media experiences (what the organization is calling "the learning labs of the 21st Century") that aim specifically to "help young people interact, share, build, tinker, and explore in new and innovative ways." In addition to the obvious sponsorship of Sony and LittleBigPlanet, the competition is further supported by a grant to the University of California at Irvine. There are also some important political links to US President Obama's call for new efforts to reimagine and improve education in STEM subjects, and the competition was coordinated in partnership with National Lab Day.

A key focus of the competition, and of the MacArthur Foundation generally, is to identify and promote new ways of fostering participatory learning experiences for kids and teens. The organization defines participatory learning as "a form of learning connected to individual interests and passions, inherently social in nature, and occurring during hands-on, creative activities." As such, the competition will function as part of MacArthur’s ongoing "digital media and learning" initiative, which explores existing and potential ways in which digital technologies can be used to change how young people play, learn, socialize and engage in traditional and emerging forms of citizenship. For an example of some of the previous work done under this rubric, you might want to check out the "Kids' Informal Learning with Digital Media: An Ethnographic Investigation of Innovative Knowledge Cultures" project that wrapped up last year (a joint project carried out at the University of Southern California and University of California, Berkeley, that drew on the expertise of a number of key children's scholars, including Mimi Ito and Barrie Thorne, among equally notable others).

Anyway, here are the competition category descriptions as posted on the DMLC official competition website:

21st Century Learning Lab Designers
The 21st Century Learning Lab Designers category is aligned with National Lab Day. Winners will receive awards for learning environments and digital media-based experiences that allow young people to grapple with social challenges through activities based on the social nature, contexts, and ideas of science, technology, engineering and math. Digital media of any type (social networks, games, virtual worlds, mobile devices or others) may be used. Proposals are also encouraged for curricula or other experiences that link or connect to any game, especially but not limited to LittleBigPlanet™ on PlayStation®3 (PS3™).

Game Changers
Winners in the Game Changers category will receive awards for creative new games or for additions to Sony's LittleBigPlanet™. These games and game expansions should offer young people highly engaging game play experiences that incorporate principles of science, technology, engineering and math. One aim of the Game Changers category is to create new game play experiences using the existing popular video game, LittleBigPlanet™, winner of numerous "game of the year" awards in 2008. Sony Computer Entertainment of America (SCEA), in cooperation with ESA and ITIC, will team with MacArthur to support this component of the Competition. Sony Computer Entertainment of America will donate a significant number of PlayStation®3 (PS3™) consoles and copies of LittleBigPlanet™ to community-based organizations and libraries in low-income communities. They will also make the winning levels available to the game playing community at no cost. [****SMG: As described in the press release, Sony will also donate 1000 PlayStation 3 consoles and copies of LittleBigPlanet to libraries and community-based organizations in low-income communities across the US.]

Proposals submitted to either category will then be posted for public comment at three different stages of the selection process. According to the competition website, multiple awards will be given in each category (including People's Choice Awards for proposals that receive the most votes from the public at large), the winners of which will be announced this coming Spring 2010.

Seeing as I was planning on making LittleBigPlanet a key case study in my planned future investigation of UGC games and player-creator communities, this is a pretty exciting announcement. The profile raising, well-funded, wide-reaching nature of the competition will mean some pretty interesting things in terms of the evolution of the LBP community, the types of people involved, as well as some likely opportunities for investigations into the demographics of the competition entrants, and the thematic and formal features of the levels they submit (thinking specifically about the Game Changer category here, but of course the broader competition holds even more potential for new and exciting forms of content). On the one hand, of course, I can't ignore the underlying sponsorship and corporate branding dimensions of the competition. This is definitely a great PR move on Sony's part, coinciding as it does with the launch of the newest installment of what is fast becoming an LBP franchise. The question remains, how will the presence of "TM" (trademarks) limit & appropriate the creativity of the submissions?

That said, there are very few programs quite like LBP, both in terms of accessibility (by which I mean usability, affordability and access to the hardware requirements/platform) and in terms of playability. The game and its ever-growing community are fantastic examples of user-centred design. The game and level-builder are also highly accessible to children and novice users, and seem to be used by users of both genders (using anecdotal evidence and observations - some real examination of the demographics involved in these games would be immensely useful at this point), which only enhances the appeal and potential that the game carries for opening up these types of competitions to new voices, youth voices, etc.

My primary research questions will necessarily include a focus on the proprietary implications that arise whenever creativity is invited and facilitated under a system of corporate governance (which are almost always driven by profit and copyright concerns). However, in the case of the DMLC competition, it seems that the goal is to create and promote the submissions under some form of Creative Commons, as indicated by the stipulation that the game levels be offered to the player community free of charge. Admittedly, this might be wishful thinking on my part, but it's definitely one of the possibilities I'll be examining as I follow the developments and outcome of the competition over the next few months. I wish now that I had stuck with my original proposal for the upcoming DMLC conference, which was to talk about my research plans for LBP, Spore, Metaplace and Kodu (and now Playcrafter). *sigh* Oh well, there's always next time!

**Update: Though this wasn't mentioned in either of the press releases I read last week, it seems that the Joan Ganz Cooney Centre (the research arm of The Sesame Workshop) is also involved in this initiative. Here's an excerpt from their press release:

"ESA and ITI are also working with leading education stakeholders on the competition, including The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop, Games for Change, and E-Line Ventures. ESA, ITI and their partners will challenge America’s best and brightest, including children, to enter the competition with ideas that can be designed into web-executable, browser-based, STEM-related computer and video games in three age-based categories: 4 to 8 year olds, 8 to 12 year olds and 12 to 16 year olds. In addition to funding, ESA, ITI and their member companies will provide judges, mentorship, and technical expertise to the winning teams to maximize their utility, outreach and effectiveness."

Great to see the Cooney Center is involved with this - they do excellent work and have all the required expertise when it comes to merging high quality educational content with fun, as well as a great mandate when it comes to involving & addressing the needs of marginalized groups.

How to Prepare a Teaching Dossier

For those of you who are, like me, currently attempting to navigate the bewildering, intimidating and - unfortunately - often disheartening process of applying for a faculty position, this article by Adam Chapnick is definitely worth a read (and a bookmark!). It appeared in a Canadian online resource called University Affairs a couple of weeks ago, and provides a step-by-step guide to putting together a teaching dossier - which many applications ask for, without really explaining what the expectations are in terms of length, contents, etc. Chapnick goes into quite a bit of detail, and provides some great guidelines on things that may seem like small details, but end up being precisely the kind of issues that stump us the most as we scramble to tailor application packages, meet deadlines, and juggle reference letter requests. Here's a brief excerpt of Chapnick's article - be sure to check out the original for further elaboration about what each category of "evidence" actually entails.

What is a dossier?
A teaching dossier is a professional document that provides evidence of your teaching beliefs, experiences and abilities. It is generally six to 12 pages long, plus appendices. It includes three types of evidence:

Personal materials
* a statement of your philosophy of teaching and learning [he adds that this usually consists of a 250- to 750-word statement that defines you as a teacher, and if you haven’t taught yet, you can replace this temporarily with a statement of teaching goals and ideas.]

* an account of your teaching experiences and related responsibilities [title of the course + one line description of its content + size of class + specific teaching responsibilities – lecturing, labs, marking, facilitation; a course outline as an appendix, if you designed the course yourself] [newer instructors might have to define experience broadly. Chapnick recommends that you consider other types of teaching experiences, listed in order of importance: course instructor; seminar facilitator or lab leader; marker (specify what kind of marking); guest lecturer; and guest workshop conductor.]

*a summary of your commitment to professional development [note whether you have given a talk or published an article on teaching and learning issues; subscribe to teaching-related listservs; attend departmental workshops or brownbag lunches on teaching and learning themes; have completed a teacher training course.]


Materials from others
*evidence of teaching effectiveness (evaluations; letters of support; nominations/awards received) [include a chart that summarizes any formal, numerical teaching evaluations you might have collected. Include an explanation of what the numbers on the scale mean. If you have access to departmental or institutional averages, include those for context.]

Products of teaching
* examples of teaching materials [vidence of pedagogical innovations (include a hand-out explaining a new assignment you have developed), complete copies of older teaching evaluations, solicited letters from colleagues or former students]

* course outlines [course outlines that you've designed yourself, or a model outline of your dream course]

[...] A teaching dossier always includes a statement of your philosophy of teaching and learning, is presented in narrative form, makes few explicit references to research, and typically includes a table of contents.

Chapnick also recommends that applicants check out the sample statements and guidelines provided on the Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching Effectiveness at the University of Saskatchewan website. Click on The Teaching Portfolio in the lefthand navigation bar; and then, The Parts of a Portfolio). If you've found any other guides or good advice online for getting through the job application process or for putting together good materials, please let me know!

Rethinking Domesticity in Girls' Lives and Play Cultures

This week I've been thinking a lot about the changing (and not so changing) role of "domesticity" (traditional notions of femininity, home/private sphere, keeping house, proper etiquette, gender roles, aesthetics, etc.) in the lives of girls and women, particularly within the realm of leisure. This is in large part due to the fact that my lecture this week was on "technologies of empowerment," looking at how women are using traditional and new technologies -- often in combination -- to challenge status quo, gender politics, and gender role expectations...as well as to construct new ways of engaging with social institutions (such as markets) and techno-politics. A key theme was how technologies (& technological practices) that have traditionally been designated as "feminine" and/or associated with women (such as looms and knitting needles) share many of the same formal characteristics as key digital technologies, including computer software and networks. While I feel optimistic and very enthusiastic about these developments, at the same time I can't help but be reminded of the very different ways many of these same traditionally feminine technologies have historically appeared within girls' play culture as modes of domestication and containment. Now I'm left wondering how these two areas might be reconciled -- on the one hand to add some perspective to the optimism that surrounds handmade/DIY feminist culture, and on the other hand to produce a more progressive approach to a tendency within girls' play culture that can otherwise seem quite regressive.

I think the best way to start this discussion is to first provide a better explanation of the contents of the above-mentioned lecture. As I may have mentioned here before (and as indicated in the sidebar), I'm currently teaching a fourth-year seminar course called "Women and New Information Technologies" at the School of Communication, SFU. This week, I presented some of the themes raised in Sadie Plant's "Future Looms: Weaving women and cybernetics" (here's a link to a GoogleBooks excerpt), by examining both the parallels between traditional women's craftwork (such as weaving, embroidery, knitting, etc.) and computing technologies, as well as the ways in which these traditional practices are currently being reclaimed and reinvented by young women as part of a variety of cultural practices, business ventures, and forms of feminist community-building and activism. Here are a couple of examples to illustrate what I mean by this:

Handmade Nation
A key example (in my lecture at least) is the Handmade/Arts and Crafts movement, which links with contemporary feminism in a variety of ways, not least of which is the potential the movement contains for alternative economic models. One of the sources we "looked at" (although I couldn't get a hold of a full licensed copy in time for a screening - it just came out 2 weeks ago!), was a new documentary by Faythe Levine called Handmade Nation, which chronicles the resurgence of traditional craft-making across North America. Levine also co-authored a companion piece with Cortney Heimerl last year entitled Handmade Nation: The Rise of DIY, Art, Craft, and Design, published with the Princeton Architectural Press. The film and book focus on interviews Levine conducted with crafters and artists across the US, the vast majority of whom are women who have combined traditional practices (albeit oftentimes with a very contemporary spin, e.g. skull and cross bone doilies) and new info technologies to establish both a new crafting community and burgeoning neo-artisan economy. As described on the publisher website:

Participants in this community share ideas and encouragement through websites, blogs, boutiques, galleries, and craft fairs. Together they have forged a new economy and lifestyle based on creativity, determination, and networking.

Open Source Embroidery
Another example I looked at in this lecture is a project/art collective called Open Source Embroidery. Founded in 2005 by postdoctoral researcher Ele Carpenter, the project was created to explore and support artists engaged in investigating the relationships between embroidery and programming. As the website describes, Open Source Embroidery is "based on the common characteristics of needlework crafts and open source computer programming: gendered obsessive attention to detail; shared social process of development; and a transparency of process and product." Very interesting. Here's an excerpt from an article in Wired about the project:

The movement brings together knitters, embroiderers and quilters who see parallels between the way they create their crafts and how open source software creators share their ideas. At the BildMuseet at Umeå University in Sweden, an exhibition — also called Open Source Embroidery — showcases artworks that use embroidery and code as a tool for participatory production and distribution.

“The idea of collaboration has been made cool by open source software,” says Carpenter, the curator of the exhibition. “But artists have been working like this for a long time.”

Even the differences between needlework crafts and open source software are alike, she says. Embroidery is largely dominated by women, while software is created mostly by men, she says. In embroidery, tiny stitches come together to create a pattern visible on the front of the fabric, while its system is revealed on the back. It’s similar to how software is created.

There is of course some argument about how "alternative" these practices really are, and some good feminist challenges to the purported empowerment and progressive politics (if any) that they ultimately bring about. But from what I've seen, they do indeed seem to represent an alternative to (rather than support of) the status quo, one that contrasts in important ways with the liberal feminist approach of making space for women within existing structures/institutions. By creating new spaces and new structures within which women and men can redefine workplace norms, opportunity, and expectations, and thereby challenge outdated (patriarchal) structures -- not from within, but rather on their own terms -- these practices do become political in ways that extend far beyond leisure or a nostalgia-laden aesthetic trend. As such, they could indeed represent a key facet of an emerging political movement.

And while Handmade Nation and sites like Etsy (and the surrounding debate about women and Etsy) and the like focus specifically on craft work, there are also a number of links between Arts&Crafts and various other forms of DIY and the hidden productive practices of women and girls -- from music and film production, to girl's bedroom culture, to open source and hacker cultures. There are also some very interesting overlaps between craft/DIY and women's lifestyle sports subcultures, particularly in sports that have traditionally been male-dominated, such as snowboarding (e.g. Holly Thorpe's article on female snowboarding "feminizing" their gear with hand-knitted toques and other customizations).

In giving some further consideration to these themes and ideas, however, I've become quite caught up in the paradox that emerges when the discourses of empowerment/feminism/community contained within much of the handmade/DIY movement are contrasted with feminist discussions of girls' play. Here, I'm thinking about all the research into girls' commercial culture and toy culture that reveals the enormous emphasis that has been placed on instrumental activities, domesticity and the development of traditionally feminine skills as the most "appropriate" use of girls' leisure time. Within girls' culture, the emphasis placed on tea parties, play kitchen sets, sewing and the like, all become examples of how girls play is shaped by an ethos of "domesticity", which operates both as a ideological justification for girls' confinement within the home (with indoor play & domestic themes portrayed as natural choices for girls' play), as well as the systematic instrumentalization of their play and leisure (play that is geared towards a purposive end (namely of training girls to be future mothers/wives) rather than "play for play's sake").

So my question has become - can these two areas be reconciled within a feminist theory of/approach to play, and if so how?

Starting Out Points
- Arts&Crafts is a key area of kids' toy/play culture, with girls' targeted with a plethora of sewing/stamping/beading/knitting games - ranging from plastic pretend kitchen sets and sewing machines, to semi-functional Easy-Bake ovens and very basic Singer sewing machines, to more-or-less fully functional embroidery sets and the like. While the marketing for these objects is often quite stereotypical, you do see quite a bit of them promoted as educational toys or "alternative" toys as well. Are there links between the current Arts&Crafts movement and the tradition of arts&crafts in kids' (and primarily girls') leisure? If so, where and how are these links promoted? How could girls' toys/leisure be more firmly incorporated into the discourses of empowerment enjoyed by the older girls and women who are engaged in this subculture?

- If purposive leisure is indeed a better conduit into the emerging structures of the "information society" - artisan markets, open source, immaterial labour, the blurring of traditional boundaries between play/work public/private - are we in fact seeing an expansion of traditions established within girls' play culture and women's "leisure" (always a contested category as women have historically enjoyed less leisure, engaged in more purposive leisure, and have more often multi-tasked chores and leisure) into the lives of boys and men?

- Read through the work done by Ludica - this group has done some fascinating work examining some of these themes, particularly in regards to girls' play, gendered relationships with space (domestic, public and digital) and digital games. For example, their article A Game of One's Own examines conceptions of play space from a female perspective.

All I have for now are some preliminary ideas - there are obvious overlaps and obvious starting points, as you can see from my rudimentary list above, but at a theoretical level the empowering dimensions of craft work do seem to trouble my emerging definition of "domesticization" as the form of social rationalization currently taking place within children's digital play (extending from girls' play traditions into boy's play as well through virtual worlds and transmedia intertexts that transform play into a form of consumption/affective labour). Perhaps it is within the vocational/non-alienated labour implications of women's craftwork that its potential emerges??? Perhaps it is the lack of alternatives within girls' commercial play culture (as it is constructed within commercial and social discourses only - I do not mean to ignore girls' and parents' very real ability to choose toys outside of the pink aisle) that makes the emphasis on purposive play so limiting??? More to come as I think these issues through a little more, and in the meantime I welcome any points of discussion or challenges in the comments section below that might be of use in making sense of these questions.

If this is of interest, you might also want to read a previous post I wrote on my "under construction" idea about domesticization as a parallel system of social rationality within modern society.

Here are some examples of the kinds of girl's toys I'm talking about:

The Hidden Playground: New Article in The Escapist

This week's issue of The Escapist is on the theme of "Healthy Living," and explores various ways that gaming can be a part of (rather than a detriment to) a healthy lifestyle. I'm happy to have my article on outdoor play, the free-range kids movement, and portable/ARG game hybrids included in what has turned out to be a fascinating issue that covers both a number of serious health issues (obesity, vitamin D deficiency) relevant to gamers & non-gamers alike, as well as a number of ways that games (e.g. exer-games, Wii, portable gaming devices, fitness games) can be used to promote fitness, physical therapy and outdoor play.

Here's an overview of the contents with direct links to the articles:

Editor's Note by Jordan Deam

The Hidden Playground by Yours Truly

Gamer-Size Me by Craig Owens

Step Into the Light by Chris LaVigne

Waggle Therapy by Lauren Admire

I mentioned awhile back that I was working on a longer article examining how an emerging game genre combining portable game devices, wifi and some of the traditions established within alternate reality games (ARGs) might be used to promote free-range and outdoor play...and this is it. In the article, I propose that while many parents and kids would like to reclaim urban and suburban space for outdoor and "free-range" play, decades of moral panics, housebound latchkey kids, sedentary bedroom culture, stranger danger and family unfriendly urban design have depleted the play opportunities available in many (most?) neighborhoods and city blocks. Of course, given enough time and freedom, kids will find ways to play almost anywhere. But for right now, lack of practice along with the enduring social construction of "public space" as unwelcoming to the kinds of shenanigans most conducive to free play, might combine to make that reclamation a bit trickier than some parents/kids might expect.

My article examines how games like The Hidden Park (for iPhone) and Treasure World (for the Nintendo DS) (while not a substitute for non-digitally-enhanced outdoor play) might be used as "seeing stones" through which public spaces can be "opened up" to play, and made available for those more imaginative and autonomous forms of play that kids enjoy and benefit from most. By breaking down existing definitions of what an urban or suburban landscape is, how it should be experienced and what kids are expected to do there, I argue that these types of games put forth "a direct challenge to the idea that public space is inappropriate and dangerous for kids." Once this space is opened up, so is the play potential.

I use the motif of the "seeing stone" in reference to a number of great fairy tales and kids' books that focus on adventure and the invisible magic that exists all around us, which also acts as fuel for imaginative make-believe play and games. Here's the description from the article:

Imagine this emerging genre as the digital equivalent of a "seeing stone." The seeing stone shows up in a number of modern fairytales, including Tony DiTerlizzi and Holly Black's The Spiderwick Chronicles and Neil Gaiman's Coraline. A primitively carved totem, its key feature is the eye-sized hole in its center. By looking through this hole, the children in these stories are able to see aspects of the world that are usually invisible to humans: magic, fairies, portals to other dimensions, ghosts and goblins and even other people's souls. The idea that the world around us is much more magical than it seems has clear links with childhood traditions of outdoor play and make-believe.

I also wanted to provide some links to some of the sources mentioned or that inspired the article, and here's as good a place as any:

Lenore Skenazy's FreeRange Kids

Michael Chabon's Manhood for Amateurs: The Wilderness of Childhood

Roger Ebert's Raising free-range kids

Henry Jenkins' Complete Freedom of Movement

Kotaku interview with Miyamoto

Hope you enjoy the article!