We started off this course by studying the philosophical and epistemological background of research science. We then progressed to the importance of media studies from a historical perspective, which increased my understanding of this field of conducts role in society at large. A central part that was highlighted during the theme was the need to be critical and to question not only society, but research as a part of it. My viewpoint after this course is that a study should not be considered to be an ultimate truth, but rather a piece of a complex puzzle. This patchwork of knowledge is created when research using different methods and approaches have been compared to each other and evaluated. This tiny piece of knowledge that derives from a specific research adds to the knowledge of the field as a whole – and when new knowledge arises the old belief, what we considered to be true is questioned. This is a never ending reciprocal process, where theories are constantly developed and challenged. To me, this shows on a macro-level how mixed methods are employed to build upon the knowledge with a subject at large.
During the progression of this course, we focused on examining the pros and cons of different research methods. They all have their distinguished benefits and limitations. The quantitative and qualitative approach could be seen as each others counterparts. A quantitative approach uses quantifiable data to test a hypothesis and perform complex data analysis to see if there is a correlation between variables. The approach uses deductive reasoning and the method is built upon a hard sciences perspective. A quantitative approach on the other hand focuses not on numbers, but rather on words, during the collection and analysis of data. The approach uses inductive reasoning and focuses in depth on the attitudes, feelings and behaviours among the participants of the study (a posteriori). A mixed methods approach means that the research within the same study uses several research methods to answer the research question. The definition can somewhat simplified be concluded as a study that combines the collection and analysis of both quantitative and a qualitative data using triangulation. The aim of using a mixed methods approach is to add a different, more all-embracing perspective, compared to the result that would have derived if only one method would have been employed. The cross-checking of data is central to the approach, as well as examining the same area within a defined field of conduct.
The result from a quantitative study might be easier to generalize due to a greater selection of participants, but could lack an explanation of why a certain relationship between variables exist. The result from a qualitative study would to a greater extent explain the underlying factors of a certain behaviour but could lack generalizability and be more affected by the researcher's own agenda. By combining the two methods, one would in the best of worlds get the benefits with using both methods and reduce the limitations. One examples would be using a quantitative approach such as an experiment and dependent on the answers examine the result more in depth with a narrower qualitative study. By combining methods, the results would either validate or invalidate each other. The study Drumming in immersive virtual reality – The body shapes the way we play could as an examples have been complemented with a qualitative approach to examine why the relationship between variables occurred. The order could also be reversed; a series of in-depth interviews could be conducted to get a greater understanding of what to actually measure using a quantitative method. The researchers behind the study A car free year could have employed a questionnaire not only to recruit participants but also to examine what it would take for other families to minimize car usage.
This course has not only focused on the theoretical backgrounds of these different research methods, but much focus has been put into the practical concerns of taking on a specific approach. The negative aspects of using a mixed methods approach include potential increased costs, a heavier workload and difficulties with analysing a result that could be both contrarious and ambiguous. Difficulties with analysing the material and to draw conclusions from data that differs are the main obstacles that I have encountered when employing a mixed methods approach when conducting "research" on a bachelor's level.
The methodologies that we have discussed in depth during this course includes design research and case study research. A case study research aims at studying a phenomenon in a real life setting by studying specific cases. The method often combines qualitative and quantitative methods. This method is ideal for quickly creating a better understanding for a subject matter and to evoke questions that could result in further research. In a design research study, both qualitative and quantitative methods can be applied. This method is characterized by the use of prototypes and the operational, physical and practical manner that impregnates how the research is conducted. The aim is often to come up with practical solutions or recommendations that can be further built upon – either in other research or in a different setting. However, to conclude this course I would like to go back to what I see as the foundation of research – the researcher. The knowledge producer is only human and as humans our background, culture, social heritage and upbringing influence how we perceive and conceive the world. I think one of the reasons research methods and their respective guidelines have been developed is to overcome this notion.
THE END
Theme 1
1) Thanks for commenting on my blogpost! I believe that Kant’s theories can be applied to many different subjects, media just being one of them. There might be a more obvious connection to criticize media in Adorno and Horkheimers text, but I think that the texts main focus lies on different things. If Kants' focus is on how we perceive the world, my opinion is that Adorno and Horkheimer focus more on the implications it has in a specific time and context. What I was trying to highlight with my text was the process of how we conceptualize and process these images that we are exposed to. However, I really like how you contributed by talking about the necessity to invent our own ”concepts”, such as defining criteria’s for judging reliable information. I also liked how you in your comment addressed the question of laws and their subjectivity. I recognize your thoughts on biology, sociology and the forming’s of societies from the book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harar, which might be of interest to you. But, if individuals have to obey the rules imposed by the majority or leave, why do we have methods of governing in our society today were the majority does not have a say and how does this connect to the subjectivity of the legal systems? In your reflection, you wrote about how education affects perception, but I don’t agree that higher education automatically leads to a person being more open minded. Even if a piece written by a journalist contains arguments from the different parties involved in the conflict as well as experts, I agree with you that it don’t necessarily needs to be true. The agenda-setting theory by McCombs and Shaw shows for example how news media has the ability to influence the salience of topics on the public agenda.
2) It is interesting that you also talked about the relation between mental illness and how one perceives the world, as we did in our seminar group. Our view was, however, more linked to conception rather than perception. You mention that people suffering from depression, a couple of decades ago were considered hypersensitive. I did not comprehend from your text whether you were talking about Sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) which is a personally trait characterised by high social, emotional and physical sensitivity or just hypersensitive in a more general meaning? I don’t think one can generalize and say that only because someone perceives something stronger, it automatically leads to someone also conceptualising it in a more thorough way. In another comment on your post, JaPaHe writes that highly sensitive people would not only consider the negative sides, but also the positive sides. This made me think about bipolar disorder and how people with it perceive the world as either fantastic or miserable, with no middle ground. I think it would have been interesting if you in the last paragraph about God, would have included something about ontological argumentation.
3) Thanks for commenting on my blog! I agree with you that it is important to be critical and use our judgment when exposed to ads, but I am afraid that we subconsciously can start to perceive these images that we, with such a frequency, are exposed to, as ”the truth”. I also liked how you in your comment connected my text to theme 2, by adding the concept of mythology. Regarding your post, I think your connection to modern science as well as the insights in how fluctuating the idea of ”knowledge” is, show that you have a very clear understanding of the concepts. I don’t agree with the thought that things loose their meaning without human perception. In Kantian terms I would approach the subject by saying, ”Lets us climb down from us pretending to be gods”. What indicates that meaning arise from a human interacting and perceiving an object? It might create meaning to you, but I think there is a big difference.
4) I found the concept of the ”seven billion worlds” very thought provoking. If we perceived our fellow human beings as carrying their own small universe we might have greater understanding for our differences. However, I am not sure that the more knowledge we acquire by sharing information ultimately leads to us questioning our set of opinions. As we today can access more information than previously, do you believe that there is a risk of choosing to see/read ideas that conform to ones own? Your last paragraph also made me think about what questions we are talking about in the western society today. Are we discussing questions that matter or are we trying to isolate from the more difficult questions by escaping into imaginary worlds such as Game of Thrones?
5) I like how you structure your reasoning by clearly dividing your different approaches. It makes your reasoning easy to follow and in some sense reminded me of the teleological arguing for god’s existence, even though your arguments clearly raise standpoints that contrast each other. In your text, you reflect whether happiness is the ultimate goal. If I contribute to the breakdown of the organization my life constitutes of, do you think it possible that something even better might arise from the ashes? What if we change our perspective into something else rather than happiness being the ultimate goal, such as transcending the world to a better place? Is it even possible to find out what a better place is, since we perceive the world subjectively? Your initial reasoning also made me think about how we value different kinds of knowledge in different social settings. For examples it is considered more valuable as a master’s student to have strong reasoning and analytical skills, and the ability to apply the theories as you have done in your text, rather than just memorizing facts.
6) I like how you in your post talks about your previous knowledge and that you have a very forgiving and open approach towards learning something new. If you’re afraid of failing, that could hinder you in acquiring knowledge in an area that is new to many of us. You have been very ambitious using a lot of additional literature. It would have been interesting if you had gone more into depth in describing if these different text books helped you grasping the concepts in a more comprehensive way or if they just added an extra complex element to the learning process. I also found the quote about perception and conception working together to form a whole to be very useful when understanding the relationship between the concepts.
7) Your thoughts on the positive effects of us being different was refreshing! I agree with you that the different nuances make the world a more diverse and colourful place. But if we don’t interact, then how will we get the advantages of us being different? Not only do we choose what kind of news sources we expose ourselves to, but my view is that we also are drawn to people that share our set of beliefs, resulting in us confirming rather than challenging these. This arises a question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are we drawn to people that share our sets of beliefs and lifestyle, or do we form each other into adaptation and thinking the same as we interact as an evolutionary strategy? This is a scenario were dialectic reasoning as a method could be used so that we are hindered to continue reproducing our opinions and perpetuating our view of our truth being the truest.
8) In the comments student u1j8du7c talks about how our backgrounds does not affect how we interpret e.g. math. I don’t agree with that statement. Even if math is linked to analytical, a priori judgements, we still conceptualize the subject ”math”. Have our parents showed positive or negative feelings towards math? Have you been encouraged in school to learn math? It affects your motivation towards the subject. Even if the subject is based on facts, we are still humans and interpret the ”facts". I appreciated how you applied the theories into discussing rules, values and norms in the world and the difficulties of conforming to one set of ”universal norms” as the human rights could be considered. I don’t agree with body images not being that much of a big deal throughout history. I just think there are different norms now, and that we to a greater extent are exposed to images. If people just perceived each other as they were and accepted that, I don't see why we have had wars and controversies throughout the history?
9) It is interesting how you connected Plato’s and Kant’s texts in your reflection and connected it to empiricism. It would be interesting to hear, as several others have pointed out, how you would apply the concepts to a modern context. My view was that Kant wished he had called it formal or critical idealism so that he would have not been misinterpreted as a sceptical or empirical idealist, as the sceptical idealism is formulated from the god’s point of view, which Kant distanced himself from.
10) I think it is interesting that you mention how the faculties of knowledge might need to be updated. How is that done? During our seminar we also discussed about updating the twelve categories. I think it would have been interesting to learn more during this theme about how these categories are applied to real world concepts. I have experience a situation that forced me to update my faculty of knowledge. It was when my perception did not correspond to my conception during a sleep paralysis. It is a transitional state between being awake and sleeping where your mind is present, but you cannot move my body and often experiences hallucinations. It was a very strange feeling, where I perceived things I could not conceptualize.
Theme 2
1) Your reflective thoughts on how standardization and generalization oppresses people instead of making them free can also be applied to modern society. The dialectic between an increased production of media and the increased passivity from the audiences to take in the information, would be interesting to study further. I could really identify with what Aleksandra wrote in her comment above, referencing Adorno and Horkheimer about the ”escape from everyday drudgery”. When working full-time I did not have the energy when arriving home after work to consume media that required a lot of thought and cognitive capacity. I rather watched Lyxfällan, which is interesting, because it is fleeing into a world were people have problems, which ultimately are solved. It is a classic narrative technique, and I guess that’s is also to be considered a false escape. I liked how you referred to enlightenment as an ideology, which according to Marx is a set of ideas imposed by the bourgeoisie to justify that there are class inequalities. I am sure diving into how this concept applies to neo-marxism in the globalized world and looking at the world from dialectic materialistic standpoint would raise some interesting questions. To conclude I liked that you mentioned the time and circumstance surrounding the texts, that you wrote about the sub- and superstructure in a modern context and the democratic potentials of media.https://u1j8du7c.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-22.html?showComment=1474873995541
2) You have done a great job in describing the different concepts and explaining how your view of these has changed throughout the progression of the theme. You have covered a wide array of different subjects in a clear and concise way. By describing the enlightenment, the dialectic concepts used in Benjamin’s texts, the ontological view and how it connects to the concepts of thesis/antithesis, nominalism, myth and the revolutionary potentials of culture, you manage to describe the core concepts of these texts, which is impressing. I find the description of hierarchy of dominance to be of particular interest, especially how you connect it to the LGBT-community and the hierarchy of dominance in nature. I agree with you that popular culture can create ”false needs”, but you mention that this is particularly true for popular culture. Do you think that is also true for what is considered fine art? And what can be done to truly empower the people and give them authority to make an impact?
3) In the last paragraph you connect the concepts of sub- and superstructure to modern society, in a very comprehensible manner. This is an interesting dilemma, we think we are free to express ourselves freely, when in fact, we are not. So if looking at this problem from a critical theory perspective, how can we be liberated from the circumstances that enslave us? The answer according to Adorno and Horkheimer was to create a vision, that aims at making society better. One alternate way is to change the substructure, but does it have to account for society as a whole or just media technology as a integral? One last questions that emerged from reading the text was the role of media and public service today, and how the term ”tyranny of the majority”, a concept popularized by the liberal democracy-advocate John Stuart Mills, can be a backlash if media would be socialized.
4) I agree that putting the texts in a societal and historical context provided extra depth to the readings and added new perspectives. While Adorno and Horkheimer focused on the US capitalistic model, Benjamin focused on how fascism introduced aesthetics into political life. During the lecture another perspective was mentioned when Henrik talked about the rise of futurism in Italy and Mussolini's influences from Freud when enhancing that the ground from which the new society should be rebuilt upon was on emotions, rather than rationality. Looking back at history reminds us about the importance of not repeating the same mistakes again. Looking at news reports today, which often alludes to emotions, medias current role in society can be questioned. What about rationality?
5) The way you use Plato's cave allegory to describe nominalism is really helpful, a concept that can also be linked to perception and conception as discussed in theme one. You ask whether change in society really is possible – but since the texts were written, a lot has happened. The main question in my opinion is, whether positive change is possible or if we are doomed to stupidity, laziness and passivity. Instead of using culture to reproduce societal structures, we need to question the big picture, ultimately by looking at the small components that they constitute of. It is easy to feel overwhelmed, which adds to passivity, but I am definite that it is possible to make a change. The big question is what change to make. I am not sure about revolutions being the right way to pursue societal changes, but rather moving baby-steps towards the direction you perceive to be right. By interacting and using the Socratic method or dialectic, I am sure that we increase our understanding of each other, which I believe is one way to change society in a positive manner. But as nominalism denies categorization as it could result in social oppression, I am not sure that Adorno and Horkheimer would agree with my standpoint.
6) I think the Kanye West reference was very thought-provoking, a good example of how we are chasing superficial illusions (could they be considered as myths as well?), something I guess derives from our wish to find our place in the world. When we reach our goal, we are still not satisfied. Are we lacking an overall goal in the Western society today? As JaHaPe mentioned, when we realize we are chasing an illusion, we just find a different one to chase. So how do we overcome this problem? Is the overall goal to be free? If we by revolutionary means would erase our modern society – what would replace it? You are mentioning how Benjamin raises how everyone in society today can influence the substructure – but does it really matter if the superstructure is still controlled by such a small fraction of society (according to Oxfam the richest 62 persons are as wealthy as half of worlds population).
7) Reading your text, I have a hard time understanding what you mean by writing that the enlightenment offered the world a certain domination over the other species. What species are you referring to? Man being more dominant than an animal? I think that has been the case since way before the enlightenment. Regarding myths you write that we can start ”the correct science”, what do you perceive to be correct in this case? Is there incorrect science? You also write that what drives humankind is the need to understand the world and prove the real truth about it. Even though I wish this was true, I don’t necessarily think it is the case. I think that a lot of people just want to confirm the things they already know, rather than understanding were the real ”truth” lies. You are connecting the thoughts on the sub- and superstructure to religion, a concept I find interesting. If looking at Sweden, one of the worlds most secularized countries, only one in five express that they don’t believe in anything at all, which I think is a small amount of people. A majority in Sweden says they believe in something, which I think could be a way of showing that faith is something I as an individual has chosen, rather than something that has been imposed upon me by the superstructure.
8) I think the way you incorporate a modern concept (the phone) into you text and applying the theories to it shows that you have grasped the concept of sub- and superstructure. One theory that came to mind when reading your text was ”The media is the message” by McLuhan. This is a theory were one looks at the societal impact a new technology has. So you mention how our behaviour change by using this device, but looking at it from a holistic, long-term standpoint, it can also change the structure of our brain and our cognition resulting in societal impact in areas that we might not think of directly. I also liked how you wrote about historically determined perception, and the example with Jesus wearing
Swedish folklore was very suggestive.
9) In your text you are clearly highlighting both the pros and the cons of media technology. You manage to connect these ideas to the 21st century and provide the reader with different clarifying examples. In your text you mention that media is used to spread propaganda in Russian and North Korea. This is interesting because there, media is to a higher degree connected to the state, compared to Swedish media. Looking at the substructure of media technology, we need to look at the sources of income, which to a high extent is advertising. This means that the news paper must create content that caters to the great mass in order to maximize their revenue. So could one say that media in Sweden is used for propaganda as well? There are reports that say that as much as 80 percent of the content in news papers derives from press releases and with only a few dominating media conglomerates dominating a country could result in the bourgeoisie interests being represented in media, a theory that is expressed in Noam Chomsky’s book Manufactured Consent.
10) After reading a few other blogposts I know that you are not the only one that had problem grasping the concepts before the lecture, myself included. In your text you describe the relation between enlightenment, myth and mimesis in a clear manner. It is ultimately about our human longing for understanding the world in which we live. Looking at what we perceive to be right today, does not necessary means that it will still be right looking back at it. We can not know what is right, but we can try to act instead of being passive and aim at more than just having a descriptive version of status quo.
Theme 3
1) I like how you looked into the different definitions for the commonly use of the word, the scientific use and the social science use. In your text you described how theories are developed. The process that starts with a hypothesis, deriving from deductive reasoning (other theories?), and then testing the hypothesis by observing the world, by inductive reasoning. The quote ‘Science advances one funeral at a time’, is an expressive saying that will help me remember the dynamics of theory evolvement. During the seminar I attended, we did not talk much about the theory for analyzing but we spent some time discussing the theory of explaining and predicting, theory for explaining and theory for design and action. Therefor, your conclusions added a different perspective for me. But what are the benefits of using that specific theoretical framework?
2) I also connected this theme to Kant and the terms perception and conception. We have slightly differing views, but I think they are complementary to each other. You say that theory without a concept of explanation is not a theory, while I connected research and theory to the concepts of perception and conception saying: Research without theory is empty; theory without research is blind. I find it interesting how we both made the connection to Kant, and I think it shows that we truly learned something from that theme that still sticks in our minds.
I agree that the small discussions during the lecture was a good way of showing how one could work with developing theories. The way your group worked with different associations shed light on how theories can be contradicting to each other, which was helpful for me to increase my understanding of the subject. In my group we worked with different thesis and antithesis such as the following:
One theory might be that man is defined by the ability to think and reason.
Thesis: Man has a mind.
Antithesis: Is a man in coma not a man?
Using those statements, we concluded the following, which obviously is also influenced by Kant and the insights from the previous themes: Man is a mortal physical mass, with extension, having a presence in time and space.
I like how you conclude your post by going into depths on the benefits and limitations of the EP-theory. Good job!
3) I like the grand approach to describing theories and putting them in the big picture by defining them as a tool to help the world to evolve, and raising the question of what the ultimate purpose of using theories are. You show insight by saying that theories are not only for gaining new knowledge but also to add different perspective and ultimately to get tools to actually address the problems that surrounds us in the world.
You describe theory in a holistic way, putting it into a historical context. Your text also made me reflect upon how theories that we today perceive to be true, might in the future be proven invalid. You also raise the question of the relation between applied and basic research, as theories now also derives from commercial researchers. Interesting point! My opinion too, is that this raises the importance of peer reviewing as well as creates a need for clear distinguishing. Having read other blogposts, I know that you are not the only one that was confused with the common terminology of theories and hypotheses. The theory to your examples would be an explanatory framework explaining why there is a bug in the system. You have done a great job!
4) The point you are mentioning about how people in your group interpreted the definition the theories differently was thought-provoking. You draw the connection to them having chosen papers within the field of social research rather then in the discipline of information systems. Do you think that the theories from the paper could be applicable to general social science subjects as well? I found it interesting that the author of the paper, Shirley Gregor, is active in the school of accounting and business information systems and not at a computer science faculty. I think there is a need to apply philosophical theories and not only scientific theories to the field of for examples computer science. I think that applying different frameworks to the same subject helps to develop that particular field and evokes questions that further research can draw upon.
5) I think there is a difference between a hypotheses and a theory. My interpretation is that a hypothesis is a defined possible causal correlation between the variables that are measured and a theory being the explanation to why the causal correlation exists. I like how you mention how a theory can be bettered at any time, and that they are subjects to progress. But when a new theory emerges, what happens to the old one? Even if a theory is proven wrong, it still exists, and was part of the process of finding the theory that is currently seen as the accurate one. You also mention empirical data in your last paragraph. This evoke a question whether
I think there is a difference between a hypotheses and a theory. My interpretation is that a hypothesis is a defined possible causal correlation between the variables that are measured and a theory being the explanation to why the causal correlation exists. I like how you mention how a theory can be bettered at any time, and that they are subjects to progress. But when a new theory emerges, what happens to the old one? Even if a theory is proven wrong, it still exists, and was part of the process of finding the theory that is currently seen as the accurate one. You also mention empirical data in your last paragraph. This evoke a question whether the data has to come a posteriori in order for it to be able to confirm or disprove results from previous research? Do you think it is possible to test a theory by using knowledge a priori? One example being comparing two different theories.
6) I appreciate the way you wrote about the distinguishing factors between a hypothesis and a theory. In our seminar group we did not go into depth on this issue. We did however, talk about how theories, even if they are proven wrong, still remain theories. During our seminar, we discussed how a theories are strengthened when other researchers applies them to different areas and cases. Then all of a sudden, an undefined contradicting theory comes along and question this main theory that have been worked and expanded on during centuries. This is why old theories can prevail, what you might perceive as a new better theory. One could think that researchers always are unbiased and does not care about “worldly factors” such as money and fame. During this theme, I have gained a lot of insights in how researchers in that sense, are human too.
7) The way you came up with a definition for an alternate way of describing the term theory shows in a clear manner how your knowledge on the subject has progressed during the week. I also like how you connect theories to the production of knowledge and analysis. As you point out, I think one has to balance the research. It has to be concise and precise, but yet described in such detail so that the reader can get a somewhat detailed understanding of how the knowledge has been produced.
8) I like how you mention Kuhns and Feyerabends and how they highlighted the lack of structure when conducting research. It would be interesting if you had clarified how these theories actually are dependent on the field of research rather than just stating that it is the case. My view is that it is more dependent on whether you consider yourself as being a logical positivism or a interpretivist, rather than what field of research one is working in. Even if the theories varies, I think it is more interesting to look at how the process of choosing/dismissing theories works, but that is just me!
9) I like that you write about the paper you choose for this theme as well as your bachelor’s thesis. This is a way of connecting the questions of research and theory to a concrete concept. In your text you point out that this theme was less abstract compared to the two previous themes. I agree, but I also found the concept of theories getting more abstract as the theme progressed. I don’t think there is a limit to theories, as new knowledge emerge, new theories are needed as a framework to sort and facilitate the process of learning. In our group we also discussed the forming of new theories, and how people tend to await these theories to gain approval within the research community before they are used.
10) I also found the notion of the difference between knowledge production and knowledge reproduction enlightening. This was a clear way of connecting the field of theory to the changing demand of us as students. Going from memorizing and applying knowledge to different scenarios to actually produce new knowledge is indeed a fundamental shift. In your text you are writing that all knowledge that we obtain is not science. I feel that you could have elaborated a bit more on that topic. perhaps by mentioning the role of philosophical theories.
Theme 4
1) I like how you in your post highlight the importance of the theoretical background. What surprised me during the lecture was that the cost for questionnaires developed by others could be quite substantial. In one sense its only fair since I guess since there has been a lot of time and effort put on generating these.
I think what you write about you generating themes for your bachelor’s thesis shows how the deductive and the inductive approaches can be somewhat combined and an example of how iteration is used in research. You started of with some themes already decided, based on the previous literature but as you were working on the data, new themes emerged, which resulted in you redesigning the coding schedule. Good example!
2) You write that quantitative methods are about obvious data, but I do not agree. The research has to understand what data to look for and how to analyse it. Just collecting data is not research. To exemplify, SCB is an institute that collects data but they are not conducting research. You also write that quantitative methods focuses on generalizing and systematizing data rather than solving the problem or finding an answer.
I think the real danger with quantitative methods, is the possibility to find answers to easily. If I collect and analyse data that shows something, I can claim that it is the truth. But in fact, it is dependent on how I collect the data (how I ask the questions or find the secondary data) and what methods I use to analyze it. If I ask families if they wait until they get salery to buy big commodities, does that mean they are poor? This data can be used in press to raise awareness regarding certain questions for example.
As I unfortunately could not attend the seminar, I am thankful for your thorough description of what your learnt. I really sounded as a fruitful seminar with a practical focus.
3) You write that university students tend to be in one age group and have similar social views and habits. I don’t agree that students have similar social views and habits, but I agree that it is problematic since the result can not be applied to the population as a whole.
We have similar views on the Bergström et. al article and that it would be of great interest to see what the outcome would be if e.g. the dark skinned character would have worn formal clothing instead (decreasing the cultural prejudice). I also think it would be viable to have participants with a wider diversity range (i.e. not only Caucasian). Illias answer was though-provoking as I have not previously previously thought about the researcher’s reputation being that important before.
4) I think it is important to state that qualitative research does not only account for data collected through a questionnaire, but can also include e.g. controlled experiments and analyzing secondary data. I really like the part were you write about increasing validity treating participants in the same way during controlled experiments. Do you think that is possible? I think being aware of the influence one as a research has is the foundation, and using scripts could be one tool used.
You also write about having some sort of alibi to prove the validity of research – I think that the data should be published along with the paper to ensure that other scholars can expand upon the data and criticize it. Not only opponents. This would be a way of bringing research into the sharing economy.
5) I particularly find your reflection about generalizability to be of interest. I think this article regarding scientist trying to reproduce experiments within the fields of chemistry, biology, physics and engineering, medicine, earth and environment and other research fields is really thought-provoking. 51 percent of the 1 576 researchers that partook in the study, believes that there is a significant reproducibility crisis. The main factor contributing to irreproducible research is according to this article the selective reporting from researchers. The main factor put forward as a way for boosting reproducibility is increasing the understanding of the statistics. Interesting reading for sure: http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970
6) Your discussion about how common it is for researchers to have a hidden agenda is so interesting! I think we should devote a full week just covering that theme. I usually look at the ”Acknowledgement” in the papers to see if the researchers have been sponsored or received funding by any organization in particular. Comparing research to media, and newspaper’s in particular. I have read that up to 80 percent of the content in the news derives from PR-agencies. Hence using the press to promote the ideas of their clients.
7) Thanks for a reflection that shows your insights! You mention a lot of different interesting aspects for this week’s theme. The part where you write about the researcher expressing the aim of the study or not, is really strong! I also understood that the Djembe drum is attached to a certain culture – but I still wish that the authors had emphasised that relation in more precise manner in the research paper. I would like add something to the paragraph were you write about how time consuming research is. I was really surprised by the time and effort spent on building the virtual space. This is something I did not encounter for when just reading the article. Overall, a really nice reflection!
8) It is interesting to see that during this course, according to some peoples’ blog posts this is the first time they encounter and get familiar with the qualitative research method. For me, having several methods courses as part of my bachelor, I feel that this is a bit strange. The distinction between quantitative and qualitative research is according to me one of the most basic concepts.
It is an interesting idea to discuss the concept with people who read the course last year, I wish I had that opportunity! I agree that it is hard to be completely objective about data. Data has derived from some where, they do not exist in themselves. I also like the examples of categorizing data into Positive/Negative/Neutral. How do you determine that something is positive? What is it positive towards? The paradox of creating something that describes something in a thorough way, yet, has to be short enough for a great mass of people to actually take the time to read and reflect upon it, is interesting. I think one of the implications of internet and digital communication is that we want answer to the questions of why, quickly. I think infographics for example could be one way to adapt data to a modern context, making it quickly apprehensible for a great mass.
9) Even though the majority of the population in Barcelona is Catalan Spanish, I don’t think it is a valid explanation for not including any minority groups in the study. In my opinion, the selection should represent the city’s inhabitants at large. As ten percent of Barcelona’s inhabitants are ethnical minorities, why not include this group? As a research all choices need to be conscious. I find your reflection regarding the bottleneck effect interesting! You raise good point, what we find to be hot stuff today, might be considered yesterdays news when our study is finally accessible to the public.
10) This reflection shows in a clear manner how your knowledge regarding the subject has increased during the week. You manage to describe the controlled conditions for an experiment in a clear way.
One subject that we haven’t spent much time during this course to cover (except as a part of design research) is the mixed methods approach. This is a way of combining the qual- and quant approach with the aim of filling in the gaps for the data collected. One single questionnaire can for example collect data that is both qualitative (open ended questions) and quantitative (numeric scales). During this course, it has been interesting to see how I suddenly see papers regarding research everywhere. My theory is that it has to do with my selective perception in some way. If you can read in Swedish I would recommend this article, which was published two days ago about open science and the site PubPeer. http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/synen-pa-oppen-publicering-delar-forskarna/
Theme 5
1) I can tell that we have had a similar learning process during this theme. I really like how you stress the importance of using theory when conducting design research and connecting it too what design research is not. The comparison with understanding art was though-provoking and can be connected to the thoughts raised by Benjamin about historically determined perception. Bringing up the example of the menstruation machine was a clear example of how a physical artifact can shed light and increase the understanding on a topic to a specified group! Good job on your reflection!
2) The way you start by defining the questions you hade before the lecture and the seminar is a really effective way to show what expectations you had. Even though the questions are complicated, I would have liked you to answered the questions that you raised in your text. It would have been interesting if you had expanded on the arguments raised by your group mates in how design work in itself can be seen as contributing to knowledge. I am definite design research can be considered knowledge production, for example Lundströms paper aimed at creating a better situation for drivers’ of electrical cars and the process did not only focus on the process in it self, but rather at the ”destination”. I don’t agree with you that replication is done for the researchers' own reasons and aims. I think it is in the research communities’ interests, to build upon research conducted by others as a way of assuring quality?
3) I like how you bring up that artifacts and pictures are not self explanatory. I think I would have a hard time reproducing the research based on the information given in the papers for this theme. I brought this questions up to discussion during the lecture and the researcher was positive that the research could be reproduced based on the facts given in the paper. I think there is a risk that you as a researcher could become so familiar with a topic that you have a harder time accounting for the information needed to reproduce a study in a valid way. You write that they the change of technology forced the researchers to change the experiment. I don’t agree with that. They were not forced, they simply adopted the study to a more modern context.
4) You begin your text by writing that you perceive design research to be unclear to the general public. It would have been interesting if you had expanded your thoughts on that topic. The part where you describe why design research is valid for testing new technology in real life settings is interesting. I also like that you bring up the lack of dynamic in lab environments. If adding something more to your definition of design research, it would also be the use of artefacts. I like your reasoning about design research being controlled or uncontrolled – it raised some thoughts about how much the researcher actually knows or plans what to look for – or just encounter these topics as they occur. I perceived Ylva’s study to be more controlled than Anders’s study, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on that subject.
5) The different focuses that you bring up in your post related to design research gives a nice overview of the subject. I like how it makes you shift the perspective depending on what is studied and what the aim of the research is. I also like how you describe the process of conducting research – but would like to add that its not always as linear as you depict it in the beginning of the text. You describe that what people tell you is not always the truth. I agree that answers can be biased by the artificial situation. But sensory experiences make data that is more complex to analysis, which I think increases the risk of jumping to conclusions to find something that agrees with your view. It is clear that you have a ICT-background when discussion human computer interaction – and the importance of adding the human perspective to information systems. It would have been nice if you had expanded on the topic of why researchers avoid the word proof. Good job!
6) Hi! I think you slightly contradict yourself in the text. First you write that it is important that the hard sciences are replicable, but question whether that is the case for social and behavioural science. Later in your text you write that all people react differently and no two people are alike. Does that apply to the “hard” sciences as well? If I would apply your reasoning to medicine for examples, this means that individuals react differently to medicines, therefor making replicability unnecessary. It would have been interesting to add the concept of historical materialism to you text and connect it to the topic of replicability. Your text evoked thoughts for sure!
7) The way you compare design research to other fields of research shows you insights on the topic. I also find it interesting how you you describe the process of conducting design research and how it relates to the result. It would have been good to read some extended literature describing this further. The fact that you went into depth describing the replication of the Fernaeus study differentiated your post from other students’. Thank you for your reflection!
8) I agree with you that it was hard answering the question on what constitutes the empirical data in the papers. I think empirical data is a good example, of something I perceived as pretty clear when reading about the concept, but when applying it to a real life situation I understood that the concept was more complex than I previously thought. I like how you bring in the economic perspective concerning design in general – but I would argue that researchers also are dependent on financing their studies, hence making them part of the economic system as well. The way you connect this theme to Marx’s thoughts on the sub- and superstructure shows that you have grasped the concept not only for this week but for theme two as well. I like to look at knowledge as a process as well – it evolves and changes! And as Aleksandra writes, can be seen as a snap shot of a particular time and place in history.
9) I am not sure that I understood your parable with infidelity right – I interpreted it as the philosophical thought experiment “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?”. If a researcher finds something new, but does not tell the world about the finding, does it matter? If there are no proof or data showing the finding, does it exist? The person seeing the infidelity is experiencing it with his/her senses, empirical data. The person that sees a text message, also experience it with his/her senses, but the experience might not be as strong and tactile. The video you posted was indeed out of the box research – and it would have been interesting if you had expanded your thoughts on how it relates to design research. Good job on your post!
10) Hi and thank you for an interesting reflection! In the beginning of this theme, I also viewed the process as the most important part of the research. But as the week progressed, I changed my mind. I think it was partly due to a conversation with Anders, where I asked him about the aim of the study conducted. He told me that the ultimate aim was to create a better situation for the driver of the electrical cars. Hence, for that particular research I would say that the destination is the goal, rather than the journey.
Theme 6
1) The way you linked how case studies is often used when exploring topics that is unfamiliar to the researcher and how it relates to the formulation of a hypothesis was interesting. I wrote about it myself, but did not connect it the process of defining the research question. I like the way you connect and compare this theme with the previous one, design research. What I found to be of particular interest about your post was the paragraph about you discovering that the chosen paper was not a case study. You write that it lacks a theoretical framework – but is the lack really what determines that it is not a case study, or does is it just make it bad research? What do you think the researchers aims was with conducting the study? I would have liked to read more about your thoughts on the topic. Ilias gave me the advice during the seminar, to simply look for the word ”case study” in a research paper, when being uncertain if the strategy was used.
2) I like how you use the term rich data – I think that constitutes both the pro and the con with using the method. The method is also closely linked to a real life situation, not a constructed environment but a real one, which I also think is an interesting dimension. I like how you clarify with using the example brought up in class on neuroscience. That parable really gave me an understanding of how one single person’s condition can result in new knowledge – that can be applied in a much wider setting. But, to me it is obvious that the researcher need prior knowledge about neuroscience to conduct a case study like that. You mention that case studies simplify complex concepts, but during this theme, my understanding is that a case study also can complexify a seemingly simple subject. Thanks for an interesting reflection!
3) I agree that it gets harder as the course progresses to reflect on the topics – for the first two themes I misunderstood a lot of the different concepts, but these topics are both easier to grasp and I have a greater previous understanding of the subjects. I like how you to a great extent focus your reflection on describing the research conducted by Hasselqvist. The concern raised about ensuring the participants anonymity, is to me a good example of when the different worlds and demands of academia and the public collides. You want your research to be accessible, but you also want it to be valid, not letting the accessibility effect the outcome by participants holding back. If I were answering questions that I knew were going to get published, and I was going to be accountable for the answers vs. answering questions that I knew were only for a researcher’s eyes and the data was being anonymized – the outcome would be different.
4) Your text made me think how this method kind of forces the researcher to have an open mind-set – which minimizes the risk of defining a hypothesis to early. My viewpoint is that its an explorative method, were new topics of interest can emerge as the research process last. I think the discussion of what differentiates a case study from a purely quantitative study is interesting. This is a question that I would like to have discussed more in depth during this week as well as how to determine the level of analysis and how to define the finish point of the study. When is it done? When data saturation has been reached or at any other point?
5) I like how you raise the question of generalizability of case studies. One way of increasing the generalizability is to compare the concepts, theories and hypothesis with extant literature. It would have been interesting if you had expanded on the subject by including the concepts of grounded theory and triangulation. I would like to add to your description about iteration and the overlapping of data within a case study setting that this process should not exceed ten cases according to the article for this theme. I would also have liked some explanation on why you were discussing semi-structured interviews in relation to this theme.
6) Your discussion on selecting participants for research studies evoked two thoughts. Firstly, it made me think about subject one, were we discussed how we carry our experiences that shapes us into becoming who we are – which results in us perceiving and conceiving concepts differently. Secondly, it made me think about the recruiting for the study discussed in theme four. I think your conclusion that design research it seeks to explore a specific question in depth, even if the outset can be more general is spot on. Great reflection!
7) What I found to be of particular interest with your text was the attempt to define what distinguish design research from quantitative research in general. Your reasoning on how the teacher’s previous knowledge might have biased him, evokes questions on how much previous knowledge a researcher is allowed to have before entering a case study? Where do you draw the line of how much knowledge that is acceptable? I do not see it as realistic that a research should devote so much time and effort to a subject where he/she has no prior knowledge at all. I think that triangulation should be mentioned as a way to see if the results deriving from the different data collections contradict or support each other. By cross-checking the data, regularities can be found! I like the structure of your text and how you went back to the literature and models provided for this theme. Good job!
8) I like how you write about the potential use of case studies when conducting media technology research. If I were to conduct a study within that field – I think I would have started with a broader and more general research question. You shed light on a new topic when you discussed how the word case is used in different settings. It would have been interesting if you had gone more into depth in describing how you think the two words differ. You propose a definition for the educational/business environment – but not for the research environment one. What comes to my mind is that the term refers to the specific setting in the research environment too? It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the subject matter.
9) I like that you highlighted the lack of artificial intervention and that you shed light on the hypothesis of the case study that we examined during the seminar. This was something that I did not reflect on when writing my post – but it is indeed interesting since we in this theme have learnt that pre-defined hypothesis is not commonly used in case studies. I think the main concern of using case studies as a research method is that it could result in a lack of focus. When the outspoken aim is to investigate broadly – how do you stay focused? I think the answer can be found when looking at what is being investigated, a small fraction of the world. The selection of participants also evokes questions about generalizability and the practical implementation, would a family not interested in sustainability sign up for a study like this?
10) I like the narrative of your text, from a general overview regarding this week’s theme to a more specific description about how to distinguish between a case study and a purely quantitative study. I think the discussion that we had during the seminar on your paper shed light on many aspects of this theme. For me, the key insight was that the subject matter was in fact examined in depth, even though the outset were more general. We cover similar themes in our reflections, and I think that you frame and present them in a very nice way. You finish your text by thoroughly concluding the key aspects. Good job!
