final reflection

What is knowledge? That is a question I still have a hard time answering, but after this course I must say that I am much closer to finding the answer. In this course we have talked about a lot of different scientific methods and what type of questions they can answer. We have also talked about different research methods and what their characteristics are and what the advantages with the specific method are. We have also discussed more philosophical topics and different ways to see and perceive the world. All this combined have led med to a better understanding of how to make a research that we can gain new knowledge from.

When doing research it is important to always remember to distance yourself from the subject to be as objective as possible. Though it is important to remember that we can not be truly objective. Just the very basic thing that we are humans makes us look and interpret the world in a specific way that we probably can not change. We can not look at the world from “God’s point of view” which is a world without any experiences intervening with the perception of it. Kant said “Perception without conception is blind and conception without perception is empty” which means that we must interpret the world in some way for it to make any sense. If we only look at the world as it is and never abstract and generalise we can not question it, thus making us slaves to it.

I think the most important thing during research is to always stay open to the fact that anything can happen. We have to be as open minded and objective as humanly possible. When doing research, we often build upon earlier knowledge and theories. This is necessary since if we did not we would never be able to advance and gain new knowledge. But how do we know that these theories are true? It is very hard to say that something is true, we can only call a priori knowledge to be true. An example that I felt came up a lot during this course is when we discovered that the sun does not revolve around earth, and that in fact it is the opposite. That is an example of a paradigm shift. When a theory or something we take for granted is proven to be false, everything that is built upon that theory is probably also false. That is why we always have to be open minded to changes since everything we know only is true in our current paradigm.

During the second half of this course we left the more philosophical topics and talked more about different ways to research and methods to use in that research. Quantitative and qualitative methods are very common to use in a lot of different researches. Quantitative data can be calculated and measured while qualitative data is more open and complex. Both of these methods gives us data and it is up to us as researchers to analyse it and make new knowledge of it. Before this course, I did not really get what was useful with qualitative data and how you analyse it to be something useful. Quantitative data was much easier for me to understand since it feels more scientific, numbers do not lie and so on. I thought that qualitative data only was useful when analysed quantitatively, e.g. how many answered like this and so on. But after this course I understand that qualitative research is very useful when trying to answer complex question with no easy answer. Questions that are so complex and full with variables that we can not answer them with quantitative data. These questions does not end in a definite answer that is a couple of sentences long, rather it ends in an artefact that contains new knowledge.

When trying to come up with an answer to a really complex question or problem it is very important to define it carefully. The more time you spend on understanding and defining a question, the easier it gets to answer it in a correct way. Think more about the problem than the solution, because the solution can make you blind. It can be hard to see the simpler and better solution if you already are set on one answer. When you have defined the question you can probably clearly see what kind of method you have to use to collect the data. I have written in detail about when and why the different kinds of methods are used in different situations in my earlier blog posts. In some cases it is beneficial to mix different types of method, e.g. yes and no questions with some semi structured interviews. It can also be a good idea to just focus on one method, since I think that it sometimes can be hard time to analyse lots of different data and see how it fit together. In some cases it can also be beneficial to not follow any specific methods, instead use logic and reason to come up with an answer. The important thing is not how you collect data, it is how you analyse the data. It is when you analyse the data that it becomes research and we can gain new knowledge.

During this course I feel that I have gained a lot of insight of how to make good research, and it is something I wish I knew when I wrote my bachelor thesis. One thing I learnt is that the method of how you gain data is not the most important part of a research. It is how you analyse the data, and what conclusions you can draw. We gain new knowledge through a rational and open mind to the universe.

Comments

Theme 1

1. I felt the same as you when we started reading about this theme and the seminar also helped me a lot to understand the concepts. Your example with the baby being brought up by dogs is really interesting and I think it is a really clear example of how important it is for us to interpret what we observe. Otherwise, like you are saying, it would not have any meaning. Even though you are saying that you still feel lost and that philosophy is scary, I feel that you have a pretty good grasp of it and can explain what you mean in a way that is easy to understand. Keep it up!
2. I also felt that it was hard to understand what the theme really was about before the lecture and seminar, and frankly I think most of us did. You wrote one thing about a priori knowledge that I feel really made me understand it fully. That a theory is a priori if we can verify it by thinking. That really made it clear to me what a priori really means. 
It would be nice to hear a little bit more about what your thoughts are on the different topics discussed on the seminar and lecture. 
Also, there are several programs were you can comment directly in the pdf on the computer. For example adobe reader. Just a little tip! 
Good job!
3. Really interesting to read your explanation of what a priori and a posteriori knowledge is, and it really makes sense that a priori knowledge should not be able to exist without a posteriori knowledge. Because, like I just read in another blog, a theory is a priori only if we can verify it by thinking. And without the a posteriori knowledge we would not be able to think about anything really. 
Great post! I feel like for every post I read I understand the topic a little bit more.
4. I liked the idea of listening to the podcast before reading the text since it was, at least for me, really hard to dive straight into the text. I can really see that it would be easier to ease in to it by listening to someone else's thoughts first. I feel that you have understood the most important concepts and were able to explain them in a way that is easy to understand. Good job!
5. You say that "A priori means naturalism such as mathematics formulas" which I guess is right. But what I think is an easy way of thinking about what a priori knowledge is that if you can verify a theory by thinking, then it's a priori. An example from the lecture was that all objects takes up space. If you know what an object is you can verify that statement. 
Great post! Keep it up!

Theme 2

1. Hey! Very good job explaining what the differences are between nominalism and realism are. I feel like (and I think you agree) that none of these ways to see the world is going to work on its own. There has to be a mix between them in order for us to truly understand the world and interpret it in a way that leads us to a brighter future.
2. Hello. It is ok to not really understand the concepts before the lecture and seminar. A lot of us got the concepts wrong. I think that nominalism per se is not negative but it can have consequences if that is the only way we see the world. I think that it is important that we mix realism with nominalism in order for us to strive for a better future.
3. Hey! Good job on summarising the concepts in a clear and understandable way. It feels like you really grasped and understand it. Like you said, platonic realism is the opposite of nominalism and I think it is important to be able to interpret the world in both ways for us to go towards a better future. 
Great job!
4. Hello. The differences in time that you bring up is really important. It's interesting how different Benjamin and A&H thinks just because they wrote their texts in different times and cultures. You also decided to focus on other things as opposed to other blog posts, which was interesting to read. Good job!
5. Hello. 
Thank you for the explanation regarding myths and enlightenment. I also had a hard time understanding that and your explanation made it a bit clearer for me. I feel like you have a very good understanding of the concepts. Good job!

Theme 3

1. Hello. 
The discovery of how earth revolve around the sun is a really good example of a paradigm shift which we also talked about on the seminar. That paradigm shift made a lot of theories, that were considered true, false at once. Like you are saying, it is hard to know what truth is, since the paradigm can shift. Maybe a priori knowledge is the only knowledge that can be considered absolutely true. 
Cheerio!
2. Hello.
 Nice summary of what characterises a theory. I agree with your statement that theories should be verifiable, but they can not always be seen as truth. Like you are saying, a theory is only true in our framework or 'paradigm'. When a paradigm shift occurs a lot of theories can all of a sudden be considered false. It is important to always bear that in mind. I also like how you are saying that data is always filtered and subjective, which means that data is useless without a theory. This theme has really made me understand the importance of a well thought out and logical theory to back up your research with. 
Good job!
3. Hello. 
Great summary of the theme! You say that this week's theme was not about theories that tries to explain how things work. But that is exactly what I thought it was about? A theory is something that explains why. I did not spend much time writing about the five different kinds of theories in my blog post so that was interesting to read about and hear your thoughts. 
Great job!
4. Hello. 
First of all, I agree that this theme was much easier to grasp and understand than before. In my opinion that also means that it is harder to write something about it since it just is what it is. It would be nice if you could explain an develop your thoughts a little bit more. It may seem obvious that the theory of God is weak, but I think that you should try to explain why since it would help you and everyone that reads your post to understand exactly what you are talking about. 
Other than that. It feels like you understood this theme. Good job!
5. Hello. 
I don't really agree with the statement that a theory is true when enough people regard it as the truth. Scientific evidence and theories (in the more hard core science) should not be up for discussion and be decided true or not by people and perception. It is also hard to talk about truth. We are always in a framework called a paradigm that more or less decides if a theory can be considered valid or not. There could always be a paradigm shift that falsifies a lot of theories at the same time. An example of a paradigm shift is when we discovered that we evolve around the sun. So it is hard to talk about theories as truth.
I also think that it would be interesting if you talked and reflected a little bit more about what you have learned from the texts, lecture and seminar during this theme.

Theme 4

1. Hello! 
As always, an excellent reflection that is easy to understand. 
I do not think there is an answer to the question: which method is the best, qualitative or quantitative? Just like you are saying, quantitative methods works for simpler questions that needs a simple answer. Qualitative methods are used for the 'wicked problems' that are more complex and can not possibly be answered with yes or no. Quantitative and qualitative are just different methods and are both very good in their respective area.
2. Hello.
 Excellent summary and description of this weeks theme. You explained the differences between quantitative and qualitative research in a way that is easy to understand. It was also interesting to read about how important it is to really think about how you design the questionnaire. It would be nice to hear more about what you think about the different topics, what are your reflections?
 Good job!
3. Hello.
 I also agree that this week's theme was very easy to understand compared to previous themes. Though in my seminar we had some interesting discussions about when and how both qualitative and quantitative methods could be used, like that qualitative methods can be used to design a quantitative method. We also talked about 'wicked problems' and how one analyses data from qualitative methods, something that I was not very familiar with before the seminar.
4. Hello. 
I also found this theme to be easier to understand since it was not so abstract and I already had knowledge about it prior to this week. Just like you are saying I also do not think that one method is better than the other, it totally depends on the problem/question that we a trying to solve/answer. It is very important to choose the method that you know will be able to answer the question. Very complex questions for example could possibly only be answered with a qualitative method. 
Good job on the reflections!
5. Hello.
 A lot of people feel that they did not learn anything new during this theme, and I agree to some extent. I feel that it is really important to prepare for a research and have a really good base to stand on. I do not really know what you mean by that it is ok for us to not be as accurate when creating new questionnaires? Why would not the way we gather data matter just as much as in other fields? That is what we build our theories and analyses on. 
Anyway, good job!

Theme 5

1. Hello.
 Interesting reflections! I also think that both the example with Johnny English and the bear in the forest shows that a problem and solution is not always what it seams to be. I also liked that you linked your reflections to what we learned in a previous course. I agree with you on that one, I am also not sure that 'Genius design' is such a smart idea anymore. Researching and gather different people's thoughts seems like a better but more time consuming idea.
2. Hello.
 Great reflections on the first lecture. I also thought that what Haibo said about defining the problem versus solving the problem was interesting. Though, I think it is a bit misleading to say that we should spend 90% on defining the problem and then 10% solving it. What I mean is that when we are defining the problem we are also trying to solve it. A very good definition of a problem will also give an answer more easy.
3. Hello. 
I also think that the lack of a seminar was not good. Though, I must say that I enjoyed the second lecture, and it almost functioned like a seminar because of the open discussions we had during it. So I do not think it is that bad. I think that the thing Haibo Li said about 90% defining problem and 10% solving is interesting. But are we not solving the problem when we are defining the problem? A really well defined problem are easier to find an answer to.
4. Hello. 
I think the example with the bear, professor and the student is really interesting. You say that the real problem is to outrun the professor. Event though that may be the easiest solution it will end in the professor getting eaten, which is not very nice! I think it is important to search for the easiest solution and the real problem, but that does not mean that it always is the best solution. We also have to think about what is morally right and what everyone benefits from the most.
5. Hello.
 I felt exactly the same as you when we started this theme, that I did not know how much there was to know about design research, it was really interesting. Regarding the thing about defining the problem for 90% of the time and solve it during the remaining 10%. For me, defining the problem is also solving it. The remaining 10% is just picking out the and finding the answer from your really well defined and already solved problem. If that makes any sense…

Theme 6

1. Hello.
 I also thought that the lecture would have made for a better discussion at the seminar since we then would have the necessary basics of the topic. Like you are saying, a case study is more a type of research than a method. Qualitative and quantitative methods can be used in a case study, but it is important to point out that it is possible to use any other methods as well. We are not constrained to any specific guidelines in this area, since case studies mostly is about observing something new and gather knew knowledge. Great reflection, good luck with the last part of the course!
2. Hello. 
I agree with you that the seminars are more thought provoking than the lectures. But in out group that meant that we spent a lot of time on figuring out what a case study is instead of discussing the different aspects of it. We could have gotten the basic information from the lecture beforehand and have a better discussion at the seminar. 
I think you have a very good explanation of what a case study is and I really liked the definition you came up with. I think that a case study does not have to follow any specific guidelines or methods as long as it is logical. The important part is that we are gathering new knowledge of whatever it is that we are observing and studying. Great reflection!
3. Hello. 
I also feel that case studies was more interesting to discuss since we already had a pretty good understanding of what qualitative methods are. 
I do not really understand what you mean with that a case study stops being a case study when there are more objects to study than one? From what I understood, a case study is not at all based on how many subjects you are studying. A case study is more of a type of research. In a case study you can use qualitative and quantitative methods if necessary but it is more about observing and isolating a specific case which you hopefully can gain new knowledge and craft new theories from. 
The number of people in a research does not decide what type of study it is. What it can do is making the study more or less trustworthy. A qualitative method can be built upon just one person, but depending on what the study is about it might not be a very good study.
4. Hello.
 A agree with you that you can mix qualitative and quantitative methods in a research. But I think that it sometimes can make it hard to analyse and compare the different data you get. Like you are saying, a case study is not a method but more a guideline and a tool on how to observe and study a specific case. It does not even have to use a quantitative or qualitative method, the important thing is that it is logical and new knowledge comes from it.
Really nice reflection, good luck on the last part of this course!
5. Hello.
 I have never thought about that a case study does not have a hypothesis, that is interesting. Could that be because you do not want to skew the results you get and be as unbiased as possible? I think that it is really important to not have any presumptions when starting a case study since like you are saying it could end anywhere. I think that it is very free and anything goes as long as it is logical and rational.
Thanks for your thoughts and good luck with the rest of the course!

Theme 6: Comments

1. http://ninopmedia.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-6-reflection-this-theme-is-more.html?showComment=1445866872432
2. http://pargman420.blogspot.se/2015/10/post-seminar-reflection-6.html?showComment=1445868392892#c437066653184291856
3. http://dm2572lisa.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-6-reflection-post.html?showComment=1445871398900#c8946014278629077237
4. http://capitalmyboy.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-6-post-theme-post.html?showComment=1445873011419#c5537446347857400640
5. http://securepathofscience.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-6-qualitative-and-case-study_18.html?showComment=1445873681030#c4810405240223278965

Theme 5: Comments

1. http://butlikewhyisit.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-5-reflection.html?showComment=1445345274530#c2987291582375368225
2. http://fromplatotocasestudies.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-5-reflections.html?showComment=1445345825541#c3585389664393685256
3. http://lard-have-mercy.blogspot.se/2015/10/post-theme-5-design-research.html?showComment=1445346749663#c8350499266392448728
4. http://mawnzblog.blogspot.se/2015/10/reflections-post-theme-5.html?showComment=1445347138572#c1803478213608868591
5. http://theoryandmethodmediatechnology.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-5-design-research-after-two.html?showComment=1445348373037#c5705188469242143006

Theme 6: Post seminar

For this seminar we had two topics to discuss, qualitative studies and case studies. I feel that I already had a pretty good grasp of what qualitative studies are and what it means. Qualitative studies are often used to gain understanding of an underlying issue. The data is often gathered through interviews and observations in a semi or non-structured way. To make any sense of the data it is later analysed and hopefully results in an answer to the complex question.
During the seminar we did not discuss qualitative research and studies for long, since we all new what it was. Case studies was more interesting. I had heard about the term case studies before but did not really understand it and never thought about it as something different from other types of research methods.
A case study is not defined by the method it is using. I.e. it does not matter if the research is using a qualitative or a quantitative method or something else in order for it to be a case study. In a case study you look at a specific object or subject. I think it is important to really isolate the object you are researching in order to really concentrate on just the characteristics and look at what is unique with your study. This is important in order to come up with new theories which is the really strong benefit of using case studies.
Case studies are really useful when you want to do a first study on something that is weird and new. It can be a good start to come up with a theory and a plan on how to continue study the subject. Illias had a funny example for this that if our kids would start wearing all purple and wearing head mounted displays, bumping into each other. We should study this phenomena by isolating it and look at the different characteristics that could provoke this specific behaviour. It is important to sometimes just look at the subject we are interested in to know more about it. We do not always have to follow a specific method in order to come up with new knowledge. For example, Copernicus wanted to prove the we revolve around the sun. In order for him to do this, he did not follow a specific method, instead he made his reasons and arguments through logic, which I think is important.

Well that is all I got, bye bye.

Theme 4: comments

1. http://butlikewhyisit.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-4-reflection.html?showComment=1444653413315#c7161985179127157217 
2. http://ninopmedia.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-4-reflection-0-false-18-pt-18-pt.html?showComment=1444655588506
3. http://gamlagreker.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-4-reflection.html?showComment=1444656421250
4. http://pargman420.blogspot.se/2015/09/post-seminar-reflection-4.html?showComment=1444658317752#c4362896565030773696
5. http://capitalmyboy.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-4-post-theme-post.html?showComment=1444658770588#c1692088154064857190

Theme 5: post seminar

Haibo li
Haibo talked about what he thought was important when making a design research. He divided the research in to five different questions or problems to solve in order to write a good paper. First you have to come up with an idea. It is really important to during the first stages of your research that you define the problem very carefully. It is easy to complicate a task that in fact could be really simple. Therefore it is important to really think about all the aspects of the task in hand to be sure that you simplify the problem as much as possible. Think more about the problem than the solution since the solution could make you blind, and not let you think about other solutions that could be simpler. He illustrated this by showing us how they came up with the idea to track head-movement by placing the web camera on the head instead of on the screen in front of you. I think that was a clear example of how they thought more about what was the actual problem and how could we fix it in the simplest possible way. The more we define and think through our ideas, the less time we have to devote to solving the problem.
After you have come up with the ideas you should filter trough them. There should be a technical evaluation on what will work good and what will not work and so on. According to Haibo we should look for a “breakthrough technique” and have a business mind when doing this. A great idea is worth billions of dollar. Personally I do not think it is that simple since a very bad idea in some ares, for example the environment, could still be worth a lot of money. So I do not really know what he meant with this, it can not be that simple.
Then you should validate your idea and build some kind of proof of concept. It could be something really simple just to test that your idea will work at all. When you have built and tested the proof of concept it is a good time to build a prototype and evaluate your idea and later on communicate it to the rest of the world.

Haibo’s lecture give me some new thoughts to think about when making research. Even though I already knew that it is important to really define your problem before starting to solve it, it was nice to see clear examples of when it really paid of and ended in a better solution.

Anders Lundström
This lecture was harder to follow and understand since I did not feel that there was a clear path and goal of it. I understand that Anders did not have time to prepare a lecture since he did not know about it in time, but still, that is how it is. Instead we had a discussion about what Anders thought was the point of a design research.

Through design, we shape a prototype that answers a particular question. In other words, the whole point of design research is to come up with a way that will give you new knowledge. The empirical data that comes from design research is artificial since it does no exist in the “real” world. This data is useless on its own. Therefore it is really important to analyse it thoroughly, since only then it becomes research and we can gain new knowledge. Anders defined new knowledge as the attention to something that has not been thought about before.

Even though I thought this last lecture did not have any structure, I feel like I understood the point of design research. It was maybe a bit more abstract than it had to be. But like Anders said, design research is a relatively new method in science and it could be hard to exactly define what it is.

Theme 6: Qualitative and case study research

Qualitative study
The paper I chose that is using a qualitative method is “Publicly Private and Privately Public: Social Networking on YouTube” written by Patricia G. Lange1. The goal of this paper is to explore how youth and young adults use Youtube and how they share and give access of the videos to friends. They use an ethnographic research method in the paper, among others it consists of semi-structured interviews and field-notes on observations on Youtube. The interviews and questions were adapted accordingly to every participants own interests and background based on their Youtube channel. The big benefit of using a method like semi-constructed interviews are that you will get all sorts of data that could be hard to know about before doing the research. It could also be data that is very hard to quantify like individual and complex answers to question like ‘why’ and ‘how’. I think that the limitation of this method is that you could en up with a lot of very individual answers that is really hard to see connections in and make logical sense of.
I am having a hard time understanding the scientific value in a bunch of interviews and answers from individual persons that do not connect to each other. At least, that is what it feels to me sometime. I am not saying that is how it is, I am just saying that I do not understand. For me it almost feel like a research prior to the real research that would consist of better and more precise questions were ‘real’ conclusions could be drawn. The analyse of the interviews are that persons personal interpretation of the participants personal answers and I feel like that is just to narrow to make any substantial conclusions. But, I guess that is not the point of qualitative research. The point is to find answers to complex questions. Questions that can not be answered with yes or no in two sentences. We also have to remember that everything is always an interpretation and we can probably never be truly objective. We are in a paradigm and we do our best with the knowledge we have right now.

Case study
A case study is a detailed and in-depth study of a subject. Different aspects of the subject are studied and analysed. Case studies are often used to develop new theories that are testable and empirically valid.
I have chosen to read “Treating small animal phobias using a projective-augmented reality system: A single-case study”2. In the article they are investigating how we can improve the effectiveness of augmented reality systems to “cure” small animal phobias. They start of by giving a good background of what virtual and augmented reality already does in this field. They then narrow the goal of the paper down to evaluating one new specific technics in this area. To collect data they have four participants with a phobia of cockroaches to study. Four participants seems low to me but the study can still contribute with (like they are saying in the text) new phenomenas and documenting of the efficacy of these new ideas. In the study, all the participants received the same treatment. They were exposed of cockroaches in projected augmented reality while they rated their stress level and talked about how they felt. The treatments function was to ease the participants into getting accustomed to the cockroaches and do not be afraid. The results show that a reduction in fear could be seen, even during the follow ups that occurred 3 and 12 months after the initial study. I think they did a good job of showing that the treatment worked but there is no explanation to why this treatment worked. I would have liked to read a bit more about the thoughts on what exactly in the treatment made it work. I would like to have a theory which there was no attempt at formulating. Also, they did not compare their data to other case studies which I think would have helped in order for them to value the impact and effectiveness of their own method.
I also think that they should have continued the study for longer, and iterate the process to make it more efficient. Now they just stopped after showing that this technique worked without trying to make it better. I feel that there was no real closure in the study and that they could have taken it much further.

References:
1: Patricia G. Lange, Publicly Private and Privately Public: Social Networking on YouTube, 2008

2: Wrzesien, M., Botella, C., Bretón-López, J., del Río González, E., Burkhardt, J.-M., Alcañiz, M., & Pérez-Ara, M. Á. (2015). Treating small animal phobias using a projective-augmented reality system: A single-case study, Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 343–353. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.065

Theme 3: comments

1. http://duckyduckyducky.blogspot.se/2015/09/post-seminar-3_28.html?showComment=1444051961511#c9111653868714163686 
2. http://mediatechmishmash.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-3-research-and-theory_23.html?showComment=1444053081201#c4506806621265147474
3. http://dm2572elvira.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-3-research-and-theory-post-seminar.html?showComment=1444053823754#c5690954590828377049
4. http://mawnzblog.blogspot.se/2015/09/reflections-post-theme-3.html?showComment=1444054464761#c6536839415118921396
5. http://vadfinnsegentligen.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-3-reflection.html?showComment=1444055371168#c6458900648499568356

Theme 4: post seminar

Last week, we talked about the differences between quantitative and qualitative research. We also discussed when one method is better to use than the other. I think this theme was very concrete and straightforward. The seminar was interesting and I learned some new stuff as per usual. But it felt more like a confirmation of what I already knew compared to earlier seminars were I felt like I came to new insights all the time. This means that I am not going to write in detail what quantitative and qualitative research are in this post, since I have done it earlier.

Basically, quantitative data can be calculated and measured while qualitative data is more open and complex. We talked a lot about how one analyses qualitative data in a scientific way. At first I thought that qualitative data could be analysed quantitatively. How many participants answered in a specific way and so on. It is true that the qualitative data can be used like this, but after we spoke to the seminar leader we understood that qualitative data and research really shine in complex studies that has no easy answers. The example that was brought up was heavy metal listeners and their political opinions. If they generally have a different view on politics the interesting thing to know is why. That answer is so complex and has so many variables that it can not be reduced and answered with quantitative data. This is called ‘wicked problems’ and is solved with design research that later produces an artefact that contains new knowledge (a book for example).

Quantitative data are better suited for studies were you do not care about context or the before and after. It is better when you need a simple and concrete answer. We talked about why Illias used a quantitative method in his paper that we had to read last week, and he told us that since they were dealing with the subconsciousness of people they could not be sure to get an honest and precise answer from the participants if they would straight up ask them. Therefore, by measuring their movement it was easier to see the differences between the different states. He also told us that they used a lot of design research to develop their method which was not included in the paper. Among others, they used qualitative methods to come up with the quantitative method they used in the paper. Just like I wrote in my earlier blog post about this theme I think that it is good to use qualitative researches when you do not exactly know how you want to do your quantitative research.

Theme 5: Design research

There are of course a lot of different ways that media technology can be evaluated since it is a big area. But, since questions about user experience and usability are predominant in media technology, I think that testing and an iterative design process often are really important. To let the people that are your target audience test your product for example is critical in order to make it user friendly. Prototypes are an excellent way to gather data from users without having to develop a full product. It saves a lot of time and lets the researchers easily modify and redesign their product and method in an easy way. If your theory or concept is complex or maybe never has been done before a proof of concept prototype could be used. This prototype’s purpose is not to simulate the look and feel of the final product but rather just to prove that the theory is feasible.

One obvious limitation of prototypes are the simplicity of them. Because they are not the final product, they will not work like the final product and that could generate misleading data. It is important to be very distinct in how you present changes in the design research. Changes should make sense and reconnect with what the participants in the user test were saying and thinking. It is important that everyone understands the design changes that are made.

For the second part of this theme we had to read two texts, “Finding design qualities in a tangible programming space - Fernaeus & Tholander” and “Differentiated Driving Range - Lundström”. They are both good examples of articles about a design research. The empirical data are the knowledge about what works and what does not work. Also, why something works and why something else does not work. The common denominator in all these texts are that they are trying to convey information in the easiest way possible and I would say that an iterative design process is an excellent choice of method for this. We have to bear in mind that all these design decisions are just one way to do it that worked. It is not to say that the final product is the best way to do it, it is just the way that this particular research ended with. I would say that it is very unlikely that the research could be replicated since the user test input, design choices etc. will probably not be the same. Even though the research starts with exactly the same conditions it could end in a totally different way.

Theme 2: Comments

1. http://elindm2572.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-2-reflection.html?showComment=1443446496781

2. http://rchcc.blogspot.se/2015/09/reflection-of-theme2.html?showComment=1443447383841

3. http://capitalmyboy.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-2-post-theme-post.html?showComment=1443448041840

4. http://ixxzw.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-2-after-seminar.html?showComment=1443449560603

5. http://tamfmtol.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-2-post-critical-media-studies.html?showComment=1443450074358

Theme 3: post seminar

This week we mainly talked and discussed about what a theory is. This topic was much easier to grasp and understand than previous themes, and less abstract and weird. Therefore I also found it harder to discuss since there was not as much to work with.

I think this was an important theme to discuss since so many people (including me) confuse the word theory with hypothesis and think they mean the same. Just like they are saying in the text “What theory is not” it is very hard to pin down exactly what it is. But basically, the conclusion from our seminar is that theory is an attempt at an explanation of why something is.

We also discussed what the main differences between a weak and a strong theory is. I had no idea that a theory could be weak or strong before this theme. After this theme I found that it is very hard to draw the line where a theory goes from weak to strong. It is a subjective evaluation of the theory. Though, one should always strive for a strong theory since a strong theory is always better than a weak theory. An example of a weak theory from the seminar is that when more ice cream is sold at the beach, more people get attacked by sharks. It is a weak theory because even though it may be true, correlation does not imply causation. A stronger theory would be for example that more people at the beach makes for a greater risk of shark attacks.

During the seminar we also discussed if we can know that a theory tells the truth. The answer given was that it is very hard or maybe impossible to obtain truth. Truth is a priori knowledge, other than that it is hard to talk about. We are constantly in different paradigms that sets the standard for what is considered legitimate contributions to a science. Therefore when a paradigm shift is happening a lot of theories can become untrue. An example of a paradigm shift is how we started thinking differently when we discovered that earth is not the center of the universe and that we are in fact orbiting around the sun.

A theory is very important to have since all data is already filtered and not objective. Data without a theory is useless. I think that this knowledge about what a theory is and how important it is would have been nice to have before I wrote my bachelor thesis.

Theme 4: Quantitative research

For this assignment I chose the article “Channeling Science Information Seekers' Attention? A Content Analysis of Top-Ranked vs. Lower-Ranked Sites in Google”. The study examines search engines to see if they are biased towards showing certain types of links and information higher up in the list of results. In the paper they specifically targeted results from the queries regarding nanotechnology.

With an automatic program they collected data once every week, for 60 weeks, from the american version of Google (www.google.com) by submitting a search query including the word nanotechnology and a word representing different categories, e.g. “nanotechnology AND environment”. They then selected one week from every month at random and collected the first 32 links. The final database consisted of 9120 parent links and 224,987 child links. The program then tracked the frequencies of root words, e.g. “security”, “toxin”, “energy” etc., that then represented a theme. This is used to determine what the link was about.

The benefit of using an automatic process that collects the links and quantitative data is, of course, that it is easier to collect large amounts of data. Large amounts of unbiased data will often be more accurate and is therefore preferred. The limitation of this method is the control of the data that is collected. It’s hard to be certain that these themes and root words are accurate enough to represent reality. Though the sheer amount of data can often compensate for these inaccuracies. The method in this paper could always been more accurate by collecting more data and use more search queries and root words to divide the themes more finely. But somewhere we have to draw a line in order for something to be done.

IEEE VR 2012 - Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality
I feel that the authors of the article does a good job complementing the data from the scales in the questionnaire and the movement data. With this quantitative data they were able to rule out a lot of different interpretations and explain their main point in a logical and clear way. Even though they said that they had a semi-structured interview with every participant I could not find that they used it for anything important in the text. I think that since the article concerns a lot of stereotypes it was a smart move to lean towards using the quantitative data more. Since if the quantitative data is collected and interpreted in a good way it will show results in a very concrete and unbiased way.

Quantitative data is also a good tool for researchers to use if they want to take a step back from their own interpretation of the scene and just look at the numbers. Enough quantitative data therefore often allows for generalisations to an entire population. One disadvantage with quantitative data is that it does not tend to explain why something is done or why we perceive things in a certain way. Qualitative data is often much better when we want to understand how and why we feel, react and perceive something in a certain way. Qualitative data is also very good to use when we do not exactly know what we are looking for. Loose and descriptive answers could potentially lead to a bigger understanding of the underlying cause. One disadvantage of qualitative data is of course that it is very subjective and that must be taken into account when doing surveys that deals with this method.

References:
Channeling Science Information Seekers' Attention? A Content Analysis of Top-Ranked vs. Lower-Ranked Sites in Google

Theme 1 - Comments:

https://tmmkappa.wordpress.com - My comment is not showing up because of the admin-rights on the website.

http://mawnzblog.blogspot.se/2015/09/reflections-post-theme-1.html?showComment=1442837800559

http://theoryandmethodmediatechnology.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and-theory_9.html?showComment=1442838733401

http://amlinden.blogspot.se/2015/09/0-0-1-266-1411-kth-11-3-1674-14.html?showComment=1442839851304

http://theorymethodmediatech.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme1theory-of-knowledge-and-theory-of.html?showComment=1442841265713

Theme 2: Post seminar

Just like last week I feel that I have a much better understanding of what the theme really is about after going to the lecture and discuss the questions during the seminar.

Nominalism is a way to think about objects. It questions the idea of categorising objects in to pens, bottles and so on. Instead the focus lies on the properties and particularities of the object. For example a pen is an object that you can write with and the only thing that is real is the individual pen. It might be better to look at the properties of an object to understand it and not get lost in abstractness.

While nominalism at first sounds like a very logical and useful way of thinking, Adorno and Horkheimer are critical of it. If we only observe properties and objects that exists we can not question it, which means that we are slaves to it. In Italian fascism people believed that some people are born poor and some rich, that’s just the law of nature. If everything repeats, like nominalism is arguing, the working class will always be poor and the rich will always be rich. In order for us to have human rights we need a concept to strive for a better world and not just observe that there are people that starve, get abused and so on without thinking more about it because that’s just the way it is.

An example from the seminar was that, in film, secretaries were portrayed very traditionally. It’s a woman with a male boss. According to Adorno and Horkheimer this would only enforce the old values and take the edge of the growing frustration which does not lead to any changes. Benjamin is more positive and thinks there is a potential revolution in this. Thanks to industrial mass producing that removes the aura and the uniqueness from art and makes it available for the masses.

During the seminar we also talked about Platonic realism and used plato’s cave as an illustration for what it is. Basically what it says is that there is a, for example, perfect and original chair and all the other chairs that we see are shadows of that one. In nominalism every object is unique and is how we see it, in realism the object is part of its concept. When we observe the world it is important, like I stated earlier, to be able to see a different future and reality in order to make the world a better place. Therefore we can not only see the world and accept it like it is, we need to conceptualise what we see in order to think freely.

Theme 3: Research and theory

Briefly explain to a first year university student what theory is, and what theory is not.
A theory is the explanation of why a certain result was found in a study. The explanation should consist of facts and evidence that connects to each other. To have a strong theory you must explain why one fact leads to another fact that leads to the result you got. A theory is according to Robert Sutton and Barry Staw (1995) not references, data, variables, diagrams and hypothesis.

Journal: Computers in Human Behavior
This journal includes articles about the psychological impact of computers on humans. The journal addresses articles about how we use and can use computers for education, training, research and more. It also includes articles about how we can change behaviour, personality, learning and so on with the help of computers. The journal is only about the interaction between humans and the computer and not about the hardware the computer is made of.

Article from the journal: How gamification motivates visits and engagement for online academic dissemination  - An empiricial study (Ming-Shiou Kuo, Tsung-Yen Chuang, 2014)
Just like the title is suggesting this article is about gamification. Gamification is when you apply different game mechanics and elements to a non-game context with the intent to motivate and engage the user more.

The purpose of the article is to promote and disseminate academic content by applying gamification to a website called “Learning on Projects of United Promotion for Academia” (LOPUPA, http://lopupa.npust.edu.tw). They looked at what type of game designs were the most effective at achieving this by setting up an online platform for students to use. They then collected quantitative data with the help of Google Analytics and qualitative data with an optional survey.

I feel like throughout the whole article a lot of assumptions were made by Kuo and Chang with no source to back it up. Some of them might seem obvious but I still would like to see some backing of the assertion that “academic information is usually considered to be abstruse and uninteresting” for example, since that is what they are building the usefulness of gamification on.

Kuo and Chang concludes from their results that graphical virtual feedback (trophies, badges etc.), thematic activities and a discussion board are the three most important mechanics to use in gamification. They are trying to give a short explanation and theory of why they got these results but there are some missing links. The website they set up basically contains lots of different games which goals are to educate. Since these games focus on education in different subjects it’s entirely possible that a lot of people will like a game more because the subject interests them more, and not because they like that it has a leaderboard for example. This is not discussed in the article.

Another conclusion they are making is that their expectations of how their website would engage people was met. Even though they did not make any expectations in the text and they did not have any other website to compare it to. The only thing they had in their results was the statistics from Google Analytics on their website. Which I think makes for a poor argument that their expectations were met.

I would say that their main theory in this article is why some game mechanics are more suitable for gamification than others. Even though I don’t fully agree with the conclusion, they are giving us a clear answer to what mechanics are the most effective. However, as I said earlier, the explanation to why they came up with these results is lacking. I would say that this is a theory of type 3 - Prediction (Gregor S, 2006, p. 620, Table 2). Kuo and Chang are clearly showing that some particular game mechanics were more popular and made the students stay longer. But they are making, in my opinion, a very poor attempt explaining why these are related.

The good thing about this type of theory is of course that we can predict results. For example the prediction of weather (Gregor S, 2006, p. 626). The limitation of the theory is also pretty obvious. Correlations between two variables does not necessarily imply a casual relationship (Gregor S, 2006, p. 626).

References:
Gregor S, The Nature of Theory in Information Systems, 2006.

Sutton R. I. & Staw B. M, What Theory is Not, 1995.

Kuo M & Chuang T, How gamification motivates visits and engagement for online academic dissemination  - An empiricial study, 2014.

Theme 1: post seminar

I found both the dialogue between Socrates and Theaetetus and the preface to Kant’s Critique of pure reason very hard to understand when I read them. In an attempt to clarify I discussed them with some people from class. To my relieve/disappointment they understood about as much as I did about the meaning of the texts, but together we managed to sort out some of the concepts and ideas. The lecture about Kant and the seminar clarified it a bit further for me.

I think that the main thing Kant is saying is that we will never be able to look at the world in a completely objective way. Everyone will always have different perceptions of the world. Just the basic fact that we are humans makes us look at the world in a special way. Because of this we can not look at the world from “God’s point of view” which is a view of the world without any experiences intervening with the perception of it. Without context and earlier experiences nothing in the world makes sense anymore. The world where a thing exist is what makes that thing be that thing. A bottle is a bottle only in the world where people know what a bottle is.

Kant said that “Perception without conception is blind and conception without perception is empty”. This means that we can not know anything about the world in itself without seeing it in our conception. Everyone sees the world according to themselves and not from “God’s point of view”. The world is dependent of us interpreting it. An example from the lecture was that a tree is still there when no one is around to see it. Therefore it is “in itself” and some might argue that no one has to be there and see the tree for it to exist. But the concept “in itself” only exists because we came up with that concept and would not exist otherwise.

During the discussion at the seminar we were all a little bit confused about what a priori knowledge really meant. Here is a short explanation of what we came up with. Kant divides all the basic ways we perceive an object into 12 categories. These categories are characteristics we can know about an object before we examine it. Therefore it is a priori knowledge and that is what we use to get a posteriori knowledge. I feel that this is a really hard concept to grasp and I am still not sure that I get it.

Theme 2: Critical media studies

Dialectic of Enlightenment

1. What is “Enlightenment"?


Broadly understood as the advancement of thought. 

“For enlightenment, anything which does not conform to the standard of calculability and utility must be viewed with suspicion.” - page 3

Enlightenment was an era were superstition and fate was no longer considered knowledge and no longer relevant in science. People start to think for themselves and are not just blindly following a religion or myth. Since according to Horkheimer and Adorno knowledge is power and therefore I think people embraced the enlightenment to get it.

2. What is “Dialectic"?

Dialectic is when you with reasoned arguments and counter arguments cancel out everything in a concept or idea that is false. This will eventually result in a conclusion and maybe new insights.

3. What is "Nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?

Nominalism rejects the idea of abstract objects or universals. Just because someone describes an object as small it does not mean that it is small compared to everything or perceived the same way for everyone. 

4. What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?

Myth was used to explain things that people did not understand. The fear of the unknown made people believe in these stories. Myth was also used to record the history. Myth is not built on logic or nature, it’s only a way to explain concepts in the world in a way that we can understand.

"The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity"

In the beginning of the essay, Benjamin talks about the relation between "superstructure" and "substructure" in the capitalist order of production. What do the concepts "superstructure" and "substructure" mean in this context and what is the point of analysing cultural production from a Marxist perspective?

Substructure comprehends everything that is about production. E.g. the tools that are used in production and the working conditions. The superstructure is everything that is not directly connected to production. E.g. culture, art, politics and religion. Benjamin talks about how the substructure is much faster to change than the superstructure and the superstructure adapts and eventually conforms to the substructure. The point of analysing this is to analyse the basic conditions of capitalistic production to foresee the future of capitalism.

2. Does culture have revolutionary potentials (according to Benjamin)? If so, describe these potentials. Does Benjamin's perspective differ from the perspective of Adorno & Horkheimer in this regard?

Film for example has no more revolutionary merit than promoting criticism of traditional concepts. But by promoting criticism a revolution could potentially happen. Since film can spread to a larger portion of the population than theatre more people will hear the message and be affected by it.

3. Benjamin discusses how people perceive the world through the senses and argues that this perception can be both naturally and historically determined. What does this mean? Give some examples of historically determined perception (from Benjamin's essay and/or other contexts).

Perception historically speaking is how we perceive the world differently because of culture and events that happened and so on. The enlightenment was an era that changed the thoughts and perception of unnatural things for many and therefore the perception was historically determined. Perception that is naturally determined is not affected by culture and other external circumstances but is more or less the same for everyone. 

4. What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?

The aura of an object is its uniqueness. A staty made by someone by hand has a strong aura because of its presence in time and uniqueness. There is no way that the artist could make an exact copy of that statue, therefore it’s completely unique. When a perfect reproduction of a piece of art is made it will loose its uniqueness and therefore its aura. The aura of a work of art also includes the tradition and culture that its surrounded with.

Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science

For this first theme I have read the preface of the second edition of “Critique of Pure Reason” by Immanuel Kant and Plato’s Theaetetus.

Kant is writing about how a science needs to follow guidelines and rules so that it’s clear how to proceed and always come to a conclusion of some sort. Kant calls this the secure path of a science. When a science follows its secure path it never has to backtrack and follow a new path to advance. Kant uses mathematics as an example of something that follows a straight path with no deviations. Every science wants to find this path because only then can you be sure to reach unanimity and a true conclusion.

"In the preface to the second edition of "Critique of Pure Reason" (page B xvi) Kant says: "Thus far it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to objects. On that presupposition, however, all our attempts to establish something about them a priori, by means of concepts through which our cognition would be expanded, have come to nothing. Let us, therefore, try to find out by experiment whether we shall not make better progress in the problems of metaphysics if we assume that objects must conform to our cognition." How are we to understand this?"

The idea behind this is that instead of finding objects to try to describe and explain, we should try to think and come up with an idea or conclusion and from that conclusion see if the object fits in that cognition. This way it can be easier to find out and learn new things about the universe for example, where it can be hard to discover objects if you have no idea what you’re looking for. 

To illustrate the concept of a priori (knowledge without experience) Kant writes about Copernicus who finally could explain how celestial bodys move in the universe. He did this by changing his view on the object and instead of trying to make sense of what he saw, he reasoned and came up with an idea which he later could confirm by observation.

Plato’s Theaetetus is for the most part a dialogue between Socrates and Theaetetus. Socrates says that what he does is a lot like what a midwife is doing. But instead of delivering babies he brings forward and tests ideas that the person he’s talking to has. By discussion and reasoned arguments Socrates tests the idea and decides if it’s true or false. Socrates says that he never has any opinions in the matter himself, instead he lets the person he is discussing with form his own.

"At the end of the discussion of the definition "Knowledge is perception", Socrates argues that we do not see and hear "with" the eyes and the ears, but "through" the eyes and the ears. How are we to understand this? And in what way is it correct to say that Socrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call “empiricism"?"

We see through the eyes and hear through the ears because ears and eyes are just the tools that help us collect the data that the mind then interpret and makes sense of. Depending on ourselves and our experiences we interpret things differently. This means that the perception of one person is with a high probability not the same as the perception of another person.

The theory of empiricism says that knowledge comes primarily from experience. Socrates says that the perception of a person is different from another, which means that knowledge is not perception. Therefore Socrates argument is directed against empiricism.

Both Kant and Socrates speaks highly of reasoned and rational arguments to determine the correctness of an assertion and that experience is not enough. Therefore they are both making arguments against empiricism, and I think they are making very good arguments. Experience is important but it’s far more important to remember that what appears to be clear and obvious might be interpreted differently by others.