Tag: conference paper

Posted on

Publishing Conference Paper – A valuable experience

post by Keerthy Kusumam (2017 cohort)

I published my conference paper, ”Unsupervised face manipulation via hallucination” in the International Conference on Pattern Recognition. The paper focused on a generative computer vision method to alter the pose and expression of a facial image in an unsupervised manner. I spent several months conducting experiments, analyzing the results, and discussing our findings. I received valuable feedback from my supervisors, which helped us to improve the quality of our work.

After the initial submission, I received comments from reviewers who provided suggestions for revisions. I took these comments into consideration and worked hard to make the necessary changes. This process was challenging as well as rewarding in the end. The paper was accepted to be presented as an oral presentation at the conference. The reception of our paper was quite positive and received several questions and comments from attendees. This was a valuable opportunity for me to network and receive feedback.

The motivation behind writing my conference paper was to explore the current state of face manipulation technology and to identify potential future directions for research in this area. As a 2nd year PhD student, I wanted to demonstrate my knowledge and understanding of the field, as well as contribute to the use of generative AI in face manipulation tasks. My main objective was to present a comprehensive overview of the current state of the field and to identify areas that could benefit from further research, especially behavioural monitoring in affective computing. In these areas, data is limited, and the use of generative AI can synthesize realistic data for further analysis.

I approached the research process by first conducting a thorough literature review to understand the current state of face manipulation technology and to identify gaps in the current research. I then used various research methods, such as conducting interviews with experts in the field and collecting data from various sources, such as academic journals, conference proceedings, and online forums. I also conducted experiments to validate some of my findings.

My key findings showed that the field of face manipulation is rapidly advancing and that there are many promising areas for future research. I discovered that there are various technical and ethical challenges that must be addressed to ensure that face manipulation technology is used responsibly. These findings impacted my original objectives by reinforcing the need for further research in this area and by highlighting the importance of responsible development and use of face manipulation technology.

I presented my research in the conference paper using a clear and concise writing style, and by using various visual aids, such as diagrams, graphs, and tables, to help illustrate my points. I also used a logical structure, with clear introductions, conclusions, and recommendations, to ensure that my ideas were easily understood by the conference audience. I also made sure to clearly state my findings and to provide context for each of the points I was making. The contributions were accompanied by experimental evidence.

One of the main challenges I faced while writing the conference paper was ensuring that my research was comprehensive and up-to-date. To overcome this, I made sure to regularly consult with my supervisors and to gather feedback from my peers. I also took the time to review relevant literature and to stay informed about the latest developments in the field.

As a result of writing the conference paper, my understanding of the topic of generative computer vision methods has deepened, and I have gained a better appreciation for the complex and rapidly evolving nature of this field. I have also gained a deeper understanding of the technical and ethical challenges that must be addressed to ensure responsible development and use of face manipulation technology.

The feedback I received from the conference audience was quite positive. Many attendees commented on the comprehensiveness of the research. Some attendees suggested areas for further research, which I have since incorporated into my future plans, especially in using this method to anonymize face datasets.

Overall, my conference paper on unsupervised face manipulation via hallucination was a valuable experience that allowed me to contribute to the field of generative computer vision and gain valuable insights into the complex nature of this field. The research process allowed me to deepen my understanding of the technical and ethical challenges that must be addressed in order to ensure responsible development and use of face manipulation technology.

Posted on

Digital Business Model for Performing Arts at BAM2021 Conference

post by Kadja Manninen (2018 cohort)

In September 2021, I presented our paper ‘Digital Business Model for Performing Arts’ at The British Academy of Management (BAM) conference as part of the Creative and Cultural Industries track. I wrote this paper together with my supervisory team; Chris Carter, Andrew Leyshon and Sarah Martindale following the data collection of my first PhD study, which aimed to identify digital business models present in the UK arts and cultural sector, and provide an overview of the stage of digital transformation in the sector.

The interview data was gathered through eighteen semi-structured expert interviews with experienced arts and cultural professionals, who were working for sector support organisations, large and medium-sized cultural organisations and as independent entrepreneurs or consultants.

The goal of the paper was to highlight ‘best practise’ for enabling the adoption of digital business models by UK arts and cultural organisations as well as shed light to most common barriers preventing the adoption of digital business models. I submitted the paper in February 2021 and it was accepted in May 2021. Particularly the second reviewer provided some excellent feedback that I tried to incorporate as much as possible over summer 2021. The conference was hosted by University of Liverpool, but it took place online for the second time this year. My presentation was on September 2nd, and I was also chairing the Creative and Cultural Industries track session.

Overall, the conference experience was very positive. Our session had four papers and ten academics participating from all over the world, e.g. from the UK, France, Brazil and Kazakhstan. I received very positive feedback on the paper and met some interesting academics, with whom I have already been in touch regarding potential future collaborations. I was also asked by the track chair Dr Martha Bernal, whether I wished to be more involved with the track in the future, and this also has already been taken forward in the SIGs annual meeting.

This paper will not feed directly into my PhD thesis, but the analysis of the same dataset in relation to my research questions will feature in my findings. However, perhaps the most valuable outcome from writing the conference paper was that approximately one month after the conference I received an email from a commissioning editor working for a prestigious academic publishing house. He had spotted our paper at the conference and wanted to know whether we thought that the paper had the potential to be developed into a book. While a book project initially sounded somewhat overwhelming, together with my supervisory team, I’m now in the process of working on a proposal, which will be submitted to the publisher, and if accepted after peer-review, can lead to a book contract. This is definitely very exciting news, and hopefully, our book on digital business model for arts and cultural organisations will see daylight at some point in the upcoming years.

 

Posted on

Reflection on Writing and Presenting a Conference Paper

post by Laurence Cliffe (2017 cohort)

The Audio Mostly 2019 conference provided me with a relevant and convenient platform through which I could present an outline of my PhD research activity to date. Convenient, and also economical, as this year it was hosted by the University of Nottingham’s Department of Music, but also highly relevant, as many papers from this particular conference’s previous proceedings have presented themselves as being important points of reference though my PhD work to date. Having followed particular research projects of specific relevance to my PhD, Audio Mostly not only presents itself as an appropriate platform for the publication of my work, but also as springboard for other publishing possibilities. This is made evident by many projects being initially presented at Audio Mostly, and then having additional work included within them and then being published and presented as journal articles or at other conferences as the projects progress and evolve.

The published paper presented a synopsis of what I considered as the most pertinent points of my research so far. Rather than presenting specific research data from the results of studies, the paper presented the results of my practical lab-based activities in the development of a working technical prototype, and outlined my methodology and approach, and two proposed study environments, the latter being the subject of currently ongoing and future plans for the development of the project.

All of my supervision team had input on the paper, from proofreading to practical advice and providing some written introductory content. Another academic, involved in one of the proposed studies, also provided some written content specifically relating to the introduction of this specific part of the project. I wrote an initial draft and then sent it to the relevant parties with a specific request on how I thought they may be able to contribute and help with its authorship.

One comment from a particular reviewer proved very useful and centered around the use and definition of a specific acronym. This prompted me to investigate the issue further and, as such, has enabled me to focus my research to a much greater extent and to communicate more effectively the subject of my research to others. It has also provided a much clearer definition of the place of my research within its specific sphere of study.

As well as presenting the paper, I also had the opportunity to demonstrate my technical prototype at the conference. Having been scheduled to present my paper before my demo gave me the perfect opportunity to engage with people whilst demonstrating, answering questions, and continuing discussions as a result of my presentation, and also answering some of these questions practically via the technical demonstration. Generally, the feedback was complimentary and demonstrated an interest in my work, especially in relation to its study through practical application.

Authors whose papers were successfully accepted to the conference have since been invited to contribute to a special edition journal on audio interactivity and to build on the papers initially presented. This seems like a logical next step, as I have since completed some of the proposed studies, and therefore can include the findings and conclusions from these studies in the paper, with a view to formulating a journal article, and providing me with an opportunity to publish the subsequent stage of my PhD research.

On reflection, there are two particular challenges that sprint to mind as a result of this publication and presentation process. The first was the practical task of synthesising a 7000-word paper into a 20-minute presentation. What content to include? What content to leave for discussion? How much detail do I need to include on specific points to get the points across? These were all questions I was asking myself. Another challenge was the problem of presenting ‘live’ research. By the time I actually presented, my research had moved on. I’d changed some of the technology within the prototype and another study opportunity had presented itself which I hadn’t included in my future work section. This led to a bit of back peddling during the presentation, but I did have the opportunity to discuss these points with individuals during my demonstration.

Link to my paper.

Originally posted on Laurence’s blog.

Posted on

Plastic Buttons, Complex People

post by Velvet Spors (2017 cohort)

Publishing a Paper about In-Person Interactions at a virtually held Conference (CHI PLAY)

The National Videogame Arcade (now National Videogame Museum) is a games festival-turned-cultural centre that celebrates games and the people who make, play and interact with them. While more traditional museums might now allow visitors to directly interact with their exhibits, the NVM encourages this direct interaction in an open, genuine way: “Games are for everybody” is one of the core values of the museum. Outside of being an educational and creative hub for everything games-related, it is also my PhD’s industry partner.

Before the NVA moved to Sheffield in September 2018 to become the NVM, I was lucky to join my research partner for most of their last month in Nottingham. Since my research is centred around exploring ideas of (self-)care through a justice-, collective- and games-informed lens (to paint a picture with broad strokes), I was very keen on figuring out how people in the NVA made sense of it, how they created meaning in their interactions with the space and others: To do so, I joined visitors during their “journey” through the NVA: I watched people play games, enjoy themselves (or get frustrated!) and share and make memories.

After carefully analysing the data (and a couple of busy months with other studies), I asked two of my fellow doctoral researchers if they would be interested in exploring the data once again and writing a paper together: Gisela Reyes-Cruz (my go-to-person for everything interaction and ethnomethodology-related!) and Harriet “Alfie” Cameron (who has a keen eye for everything museum- and power-structures-related).

Together, we wrote and submitted “Plastic Buttons, Complex People: An Ethnomethodology informed Ethnography of a Video Game Museum” to CHI PLAY 2020, where it got accepted!

The paper explores how people interact with each other through establishing practices in and around the playable exhibits, but also between each other. It finishes with some ideas and design implications that spaces that want to engage people in co-located play can take on to support or disrupt group interactions.

Here is our abstract as a teaser:

“This paper reports on an ethnomethodology-informed ethnography of a video game museum. Based on 4 weeks of ethnographic fieldwork, we showcase how groups of visitors to the museum achieved the interactional work necessary to play games together and organise a museum visit as a social unit. By showcasing and explication excerpts of museum visits we make the taken-for-granted nature of these interactions visible. Embedded within an activity map that outlines how people prepare, play, wind down and exit games, we showcase the sequential, temporal, and carefully negotiated character of these visits. Based on our findings and the resulting Machinery of Interaction, we propose three design implications for spaces that aim to exhibit video games and/or try to facilitate co-located, collective video gameplay.”

It is a weird feeling to present our first paper in a virtual format, but it is a tremendously joyful occasion (and a very enriching learning experience)!

This paper would not have been possible without the support of my supervision team Martin Flintham, Pat Brundell and David Murphy; the lovely and wonderful folks at the NVA/NVM, all of the visitors who took part in research and Stuart Reeves for valuable comments on one of the earlier paper drafts!