https://u1cq6h0z.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-3reflection-research-and-theory.html?showComment=1475477624542
https://u1gixy4z.blogspot.se/2016/09/after-theme-3-research-and-theory.html?showComment=1475478759928
https://u12vkokq.blogspot.se/2016/09/reflections-on-theme-3-research-and.html?showComment=1475480069333
https://u1kq1ay0.blogspot.se/2016/09/second-blog-post-theme-3-research-and.html?showComment=1475481027131
https://u1mv5a16.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-3-second-blog-post.html?showComment=1475501600409
https://scarsickbg.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-3-blog-post-2-research-and-theory.html?showComment=1475502542764
https://u1h4muxc.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-32-reflection.html?showComment=1475508487174
https://u1j8du7c.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-32.html?showComment=1475510695332
https://u1eqtjc8.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-3-reflection.html?showComment=1475511500348
https://u1bauz11.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-3-reflection.html?showComment=1475516346055
fredag 30 september 2016
Reflection on theme 4: Quantitative research
As the seminars for this week’s theme were cancelled, this reflection will be based only on the lecture held by Ilias Bergström. From the lecture I understood that the seminar would centre around questionnaries, with a practical focus. During the lecture, Ilias spoke about qualitative research methods, and highlighted the statistical tests. What surprised me during the lecture was the perspective of the researcher interpreting the numbers and therefor qualitative research is not always so unbiased as one might think.
I think one of the major pros with using a quantitative method is the way the output can be easily analysed and visualized. I interpret that data deriving from quantitative research such as focus groups, qualitative interviews or field research is harder to both analyse and present in a clear manner. During the lecture the question was brought up what the results would have been if the casually dark skinned character instead would have worn formal clothing. Ilias then talked about the lack of interest in the research community to reproduce research originally conducted by others, as well as the problems of getting funding for that kind of research. This increased my understanding of the importance of a researchers’ reputation and how the impact factor of the paper that publishes the research influence that reputation.
I wish that Ilias would have raised the question of why the study was conducted, and why the results occurred in order for me to get a deeper understanding of why the relationship between the variables occurred. Looking at another paper with different theory-building could have contributed to enhance this differentiation. Compared to the previous themes, I feel that the knowledge gained during this week’s theme had a more superficial nature, which could be due to the cancelled seminar.
The previous themes really made me question knowledge in a wide sense, and throughout the course I feel that we are progressing towards knowledge production in a narrower sense. I however appreciated the the opportunity to apply the concept of theory to the readings.
I think one of the major pros with using a quantitative method is the way the output can be easily analysed and visualized. I interpret that data deriving from quantitative research such as focus groups, qualitative interviews or field research is harder to both analyse and present in a clear manner. During the lecture the question was brought up what the results would have been if the casually dark skinned character instead would have worn formal clothing. Ilias then talked about the lack of interest in the research community to reproduce research originally conducted by others, as well as the problems of getting funding for that kind of research. This increased my understanding of the importance of a researchers’ reputation and how the impact factor of the paper that publishes the research influence that reputation.
I wish that Ilias would have raised the question of why the study was conducted, and why the results occurred in order for me to get a deeper understanding of why the relationship between the variables occurred. Looking at another paper with different theory-building could have contributed to enhance this differentiation. Compared to the previous themes, I feel that the knowledge gained during this week’s theme had a more superficial nature, which could be due to the cancelled seminar.
The previous themes really made me question knowledge in a wide sense, and throughout the course I feel that we are progressing towards knowledge production in a narrower sense. I however appreciated the the opportunity to apply the concept of theory to the readings.
Theme 5: Design Research
What is the 'empirical data' in these two papers?
The paper ”Differentiated Driving Range” aims at creating a better way to illustrate how much further an electrical car can drive by improving how the data is presented and showing how different factors (such as climate control and speed) affects the remaining driving range. A pre-study was conducted in order to get insights on the issue. The pre-study included:
• A state-of-the-art analysis which investigated the current user interface in different electric cars
• An analysis of discourse and attitudes in online forums
• A series of interviews
When information regarding the problem had been collected an explorative design process was carried out. An early hi-fi prototype was developed. In my opinion empirical data was created when the prototype was tested during the first ride. The data was then processed and incorporated into a different interface design. This prototype was then tested during five days, were additional empirical data were gathered.
The paper ”Finding Design Qualities in a Tangible Programming Space” looks at the use of experimental design to create a deeper understanding for the properties of new programming materials focusing on children. The empirical data in the paper have been generated using qualitative analysis of design prototypes and of footage showing children interacting with these prototypes partaking in staged activities. The empirical data showed how the children were interacting with the system, and the video footage was later analysed in order to improve the design of the artefact and its interface, as well as the researchers getting a better understanding of the subject.
Can practical design work in itself be considered a 'knowledge contribution'?
Leif Dahlgren mentioned during a lecture that practical knowledge traditionally has been considered less important compared to theoretical knowledge. In contemporary knowledge construction, we have to overcome and undo this distinction between theoretical and practical knowledge. I am certain that practical design research should be considered a knowledge contribution, however not “in itself”. As the researcher undergoes the process of creating a prototype, testing it and improving it, knowledge about the problem is not only brought to the surface, but a possible solution (or contributing factors) to the problem is also often proposed. The big question is whether the knowledge that derives from the research can be applied to different subjects or research areas, or if it is only applicable to the specific system or interface that is being examined, which raises the question of applied or basic (fundamental) research. Where basic research aims at advancing fundamental knowledge about the world, applied research aims at solving concrete problems, with a direct and practical application.
Are there any differences in design intentions within a research project, compared to design in general?
If the research conducted by Lundström would have focused only on developing the “guess-o-meter” of a Nissan Leaf and he was paid by Nissan Motor Company to do it, the research would have been applied. If the purpose was only to develop the system, rather than studying the subject in a wider perspective or creating knowledge that others can build upon, my interpretation is that it would be a pure design project rather than a research project. In the paper, Lundström is creating new general knowledge that could be used or furthered processed by other researchers. Even though a research project with design intentions is process oriented, the main objective is to get a wider understanding of a particular subject matter using design as a method of attaining that knowledge. Design in that sense is only to be seen as a means to an end, rather than the mean itself, as is the case with design in general.
Is research in tech domains such as these ever replicable? How may we account for aspects such as time/historical setting, skills of the designers, available tools, etc?
Technology is a field that is currently developing in a very fast pace, therefore, the results deriving from design research within the field could quickly feel outdated. As the subject is undergoing these quick changes, problems could arise when trying to replicate the results using the same tools, as they might no longer be available. Both research papers from this week’s theme were using images to illustrate how the tangible objects were constructed. They did not, however, go much into depth describing how these systems/objects were actually developed. Hence, it could be hard for a researcher to reproduce the study, as the iteration is not described in great detail. The aim must therefore be to have a strongly rooted internal validity, rather than external validity, as the results from the papers could not be generalized to the population at large. It would be possible however, to use the result from the research and continue to build upon that knowledge in further studies.
Are there any important differences with design driven research compared to other research practices?
The similarities between the two papers that struck me were the focus on iteration, the importance of the process, the use of prototypes and the operational, physical and practical manner that impregnated how the research was conducted. The research derives from empiric observation, which means that the data is grounded on experience, or to use terms from the theme 2: a posteriori. Inductive reasoning is used in the research papers assigned for this theme, as conclusions is drawn deriving from the experience. Data is gathered, analysed and the lesson learnt from conducting the research is formulated.
The paper ”Differentiated Driving Range” aims at creating a better way to illustrate how much further an electrical car can drive by improving how the data is presented and showing how different factors (such as climate control and speed) affects the remaining driving range. A pre-study was conducted in order to get insights on the issue. The pre-study included:
• A state-of-the-art analysis which investigated the current user interface in different electric cars
• An analysis of discourse and attitudes in online forums
• A series of interviews
When information regarding the problem had been collected an explorative design process was carried out. An early hi-fi prototype was developed. In my opinion empirical data was created when the prototype was tested during the first ride. The data was then processed and incorporated into a different interface design. This prototype was then tested during five days, were additional empirical data were gathered.
The paper ”Finding Design Qualities in a Tangible Programming Space” looks at the use of experimental design to create a deeper understanding for the properties of new programming materials focusing on children. The empirical data in the paper have been generated using qualitative analysis of design prototypes and of footage showing children interacting with these prototypes partaking in staged activities. The empirical data showed how the children were interacting with the system, and the video footage was later analysed in order to improve the design of the artefact and its interface, as well as the researchers getting a better understanding of the subject.
Can practical design work in itself be considered a 'knowledge contribution'?
Leif Dahlgren mentioned during a lecture that practical knowledge traditionally has been considered less important compared to theoretical knowledge. In contemporary knowledge construction, we have to overcome and undo this distinction between theoretical and practical knowledge. I am certain that practical design research should be considered a knowledge contribution, however not “in itself”. As the researcher undergoes the process of creating a prototype, testing it and improving it, knowledge about the problem is not only brought to the surface, but a possible solution (or contributing factors) to the problem is also often proposed. The big question is whether the knowledge that derives from the research can be applied to different subjects or research areas, or if it is only applicable to the specific system or interface that is being examined, which raises the question of applied or basic (fundamental) research. Where basic research aims at advancing fundamental knowledge about the world, applied research aims at solving concrete problems, with a direct and practical application.
Are there any differences in design intentions within a research project, compared to design in general?
If the research conducted by Lundström would have focused only on developing the “guess-o-meter” of a Nissan Leaf and he was paid by Nissan Motor Company to do it, the research would have been applied. If the purpose was only to develop the system, rather than studying the subject in a wider perspective or creating knowledge that others can build upon, my interpretation is that it would be a pure design project rather than a research project. In the paper, Lundström is creating new general knowledge that could be used or furthered processed by other researchers. Even though a research project with design intentions is process oriented, the main objective is to get a wider understanding of a particular subject matter using design as a method of attaining that knowledge. Design in that sense is only to be seen as a means to an end, rather than the mean itself, as is the case with design in general.
Is research in tech domains such as these ever replicable? How may we account for aspects such as time/historical setting, skills of the designers, available tools, etc?
Technology is a field that is currently developing in a very fast pace, therefore, the results deriving from design research within the field could quickly feel outdated. As the subject is undergoing these quick changes, problems could arise when trying to replicate the results using the same tools, as they might no longer be available. Both research papers from this week’s theme were using images to illustrate how the tangible objects were constructed. They did not, however, go much into depth describing how these systems/objects were actually developed. Hence, it could be hard for a researcher to reproduce the study, as the iteration is not described in great detail. The aim must therefore be to have a strongly rooted internal validity, rather than external validity, as the results from the papers could not be generalized to the population at large. It would be possible however, to use the result from the research and continue to build upon that knowledge in further studies.
Are there any important differences with design driven research compared to other research practices?
The similarities between the two papers that struck me were the focus on iteration, the importance of the process, the use of prototypes and the operational, physical and practical manner that impregnated how the research was conducted. The research derives from empiric observation, which means that the data is grounded on experience, or to use terms from the theme 2: a posteriori. Inductive reasoning is used in the research papers assigned for this theme, as conclusions is drawn deriving from the experience. Data is gathered, analysed and the lesson learnt from conducting the research is formulated.
måndag 26 september 2016
Comments to 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?
https://scarsickbg.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-2-blog-post-2-critical-media.html?showComment=1474876467812
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.
https://u10o7oqf.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-2-critical-media-studies-part-2.html?showComment=1474879382842
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?
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?
https://scarsickbg.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-2-blog-post-2-critical-media.html?showComment=1474876467812
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.
https://u10o7oqf.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-2-critical-media-studies-part-2.html?showComment=1474879382842
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?
https://u1mv5a16.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-2-second-blog-post.html?showComment=1474880773956
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.
https://u1gixy4z.blogspot.se/2016/09/after-theme-2-critical-media-studies.html?showComment=1474882535526
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).
https://u1kq1ay0.blogspot.se/2016/09/second-blogpost-theme-2-critical-media.html?showComment=1474890183209
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.
https://u1bauz11.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-2-reflection.html?showComment=1474901749099
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.
https://u1h4muxc.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-22-reflection.html?showComment=1474920827267
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.
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.
https://u17fpbu5.blogspot.se/2016/09/post-theme-2-critical-media-studies.html?showComment=14749008387258) 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.
https://u1bauz11.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-2-reflection.html?showComment=1474901749099
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.
https://u1h4muxc.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-22-reflection.html?showComment=1474920827267
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.
https://u1eqtjc8.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-2-reflection.html?showComment=1474923511643
söndag 25 september 2016
Reflection on theme 3: Research and theory
After reading the articles for the theme and writing the first blog post I felt pretty confident about what theories are. After the lecture and the seminar, I felt that the concepts were more complicated than I had first thought.
In a sense, theories can be explained as speculative reason.
An example is during the lecture when Leif asked what the cause was for his voice sounding sore. The theory was that he had a cold. The saying ”I have a theory” in that sense is not directly related to scientific research, but it still aims at answering the question of why or providing an explanatory framework for an observation. This made me think about Ockham's razor, a problem solving principle which I apply, more often to my everyday life than I feel confident sharing online. The principle in short describes that when having two competing theories that make the same prediction, go for the simpler one. Or if you are facing several hypothesis, the one with least assumptions should be chosen. Or if using words that applies to my life on a personal level; if you have lost your keys/cell phone/wallet look in your pocket/bag/sofa first rather than panicking that they are lost forever.
The picture about what theories constitutes of became more complex when the distinction between philosophical and scientific theories were drawn up, a concept I did not fully grasp just by reading the advised articles. The distinction of philosophical theories are that the statements concerning the subject matter can not be scientifically tested using empirical observation. An example of a sub-branch of philosophical theory is critical theory, which was used in the texts from last weeks’ theme (Adorno, Horkheimer and Benjamin). Critical theory aims at critiquing the current state from a holistic, teleologic standpoint and focusing on the possibilities of change. Critical theory also aims at showing how knowledge is not neutral but charged with value as well as having an historical context (as could be seen in the texts). Reading about critical theory and how it connects to the readings gave me a better understanding of the overarching purpose of the texts “Dialect of Enlightenment” and “The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity". And I suppose that is what theories are for, enabling and easing the process of understanding the world by structuring and conceptualizing knowledge.
During the lecture the image of a theory as a constructed, abstract entity was articulated. When we compared our different answers to the question "What is man?", it became clear that the different answers contradicted each others, such as man being mortal and man being created in the images of god. There are tensions and contradictions, which resulted in me broadening the view of theory to also incorporate it as a thought process were you resolve and undo, get confused and watch how the clear distinctions becomes unclear.
This is also a question that we discussed further during the seminar, were I asked Illis about the process of finding a theory for your research and if the hypothesis actually is formed beforehand or if it could be articulated in retrospect. I connected the question to deductive reasoning (forming an hypothesis and finding a logical conclusion) and inductive reasoning (specific observations leading to broad generalizations), but I still feel that I could gain a deeper understanding about how theory building varies between these two different logics. To sum it up, theory is something we construct to understand the world. Looking at the statement, which we used during the seminar, "There are only black, brown and white bears because X", we see that X is true until it is proven inapplicable, which for examples would be the case if we find a pink bear running around in the forest. If that is the case, our statement is no longer a coherent reasoning for explaining the phenomena, but it is still a theory, even if it has been disproved.
Research without theory is empty; theory without research is blind.
An example is during the lecture when Leif asked what the cause was for his voice sounding sore. The theory was that he had a cold. The saying ”I have a theory” in that sense is not directly related to scientific research, but it still aims at answering the question of why or providing an explanatory framework for an observation. This made me think about Ockham's razor, a problem solving principle which I apply, more often to my everyday life than I feel confident sharing online. The principle in short describes that when having two competing theories that make the same prediction, go for the simpler one. Or if you are facing several hypothesis, the one with least assumptions should be chosen. Or if using words that applies to my life on a personal level; if you have lost your keys/cell phone/wallet look in your pocket/bag/sofa first rather than panicking that they are lost forever.
The picture about what theories constitutes of became more complex when the distinction between philosophical and scientific theories were drawn up, a concept I did not fully grasp just by reading the advised articles. The distinction of philosophical theories are that the statements concerning the subject matter can not be scientifically tested using empirical observation. An example of a sub-branch of philosophical theory is critical theory, which was used in the texts from last weeks’ theme (Adorno, Horkheimer and Benjamin). Critical theory aims at critiquing the current state from a holistic, teleologic standpoint and focusing on the possibilities of change. Critical theory also aims at showing how knowledge is not neutral but charged with value as well as having an historical context (as could be seen in the texts). Reading about critical theory and how it connects to the readings gave me a better understanding of the overarching purpose of the texts “Dialect of Enlightenment” and “The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity". And I suppose that is what theories are for, enabling and easing the process of understanding the world by structuring and conceptualizing knowledge.
During the lecture the image of a theory as a constructed, abstract entity was articulated. When we compared our different answers to the question "What is man?", it became clear that the different answers contradicted each others, such as man being mortal and man being created in the images of god. There are tensions and contradictions, which resulted in me broadening the view of theory to also incorporate it as a thought process were you resolve and undo, get confused and watch how the clear distinctions becomes unclear.
This is also a question that we discussed further during the seminar, were I asked Illis about the process of finding a theory for your research and if the hypothesis actually is formed beforehand or if it could be articulated in retrospect. I connected the question to deductive reasoning (forming an hypothesis and finding a logical conclusion) and inductive reasoning (specific observations leading to broad generalizations), but I still feel that I could gain a deeper understanding about how theory building varies between these two different logics. To sum it up, theory is something we construct to understand the world. Looking at the statement, which we used during the seminar, "There are only black, brown and white bears because X", we see that X is true until it is proven inapplicable, which for examples would be the case if we find a pink bear running around in the forest. If that is the case, our statement is no longer a coherent reasoning for explaining the phenomena, but it is still a theory, even if it has been disproved.
Research without theory is empty; theory without research is blind.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)