This is my final blog post for the course DM2572. The final assignment for me is to compile and summarize what I have written and learned throughout the course and I will also reflect about ways of combining different methods in order to answer complex research questions. Through six separate themes, this course have touched upon the whole process of conducting scientific research and writing a report about it.
The introductory theme was very philosophic and dealt with thoughts such as “what is knowledge?” and other rather abstract perspectives. I found this week to be very interesting and at the same time confusing, but most importantly i had a hard time understanding why these subjects were included in a course called theory and method. I thought that reading Kant and Plato was intriguing but it felt misplaced for this type of education. Later on in the course I started piecing things together and I realized that the idea of perception is that we all have different experiences which shapes us in different ways. As a researcher and as an engineer it is important to know that not all people perceive things the same way and in our trade we must be able to adapt and adjust to different audiences. For the second theme there were mentions of enlightenment and the subject of perception remained as a topic. As these first two themes were complex I noticed that the discussions that came up in the comments sections of all our blog posts easily drifted away a little from the original topic!
As the weeks passed the themes became less abstract and more applicable to the process of research. I particularly valued the theme about research and theory. When conducting research studies, theoretical analysis becomes an essential ingredient for successful results. This theme gave me a more solid knowledge about the different theory types. One thing that stuck to me was the argument that studies are controlled by their theories and that the more developed a theory is, the easier it becomes to do a valuable study. This is something I can relate to from my previous research studies. I think that theory can be seen as the foundation and prep work of a study, and if you don't have a proper foundation you cannot get a steady house.
The last three themes related to different methods of conducting research studies. When addressing complex research questions it is especially important to consider which methods to use. When it comes to quantitative and qualitative study methods, both are valuable in their respective areas. For example; quantitative methods, such as questionnaires, allows the researcher to collect a lot of data in a short period of time. The method also makes it easy for the test subjects since the test items often wants yes/no answers or just a brief commentary. A negative aspect of quantitative methods is that it is difficult to get any insight in the target group and the results will perhaps be generic. Qualitative methods, on the other hand, are beneficial because they provide inclusive data and the researcher gets to go in depth during, for example, an interview and ask questions that a form could not ask. Another good thing about qualitative methods is the fact that the answers are real and not some sort of average of the target group. However, a drawback from using these methods is that the result will be valid only for the specific case that provided the data and may not properly represent the complete research.
The fifth theme gave me a good understanding of creating prototypes and design research. This theme was very relevant for Media Technology as this area often revolves around prototypes and having them tested. Enhancing the experience is key for developing new ideas. Technology is evolving fast today and in order to keep that experience I believe that a functioning prototype and having the ability to test the usability are essential for proper evaluation. The key objective of prototypes is to test research hypotheses. This theme really established for me how important it is to conduct advanced user tests and interviews that can be analyzed in order to gain an understanding of the users and how they react and respond to a prototype.
Finally we learned about case studies, how they are defined and how to validate them. There are different steps that should be followed in order for a case study to be properly conducted. However the rules are not always applied and this was something that made me consider having an additional theme for this course: bad examples. That would perhaps keep students from at least repeating the mistakes that others have made and only make original ones!
In this myriad of different research methods, how can we decide which method to use for more complex research scenarios?
A returning characteristic of the discussions was about combining several types of methods to minimize negative aspects and to collect all the positives from different kinds of sources. Is combination the golden word in all situations? Well perhaps not but I think that in many cases adding a method (if possible) can give a refreshing perspective and help the researchers to achieve a more refined result in their research. Perhaps it is sometimes even possible to combine a collaborative and a single-user setting, maybe have one part of the users work alone with the given task and have another part work in groups. By doing this it might be possible to minimize the negative aspects of the different settings. Combinations of qualitative and quantitative methods are often used and both empirical and theoretical theories are taken into account for the analysis. Additional use of observational studies can be conducted in a collaborative setting by using prototype studies.
torsdag 30 oktober 2014
Comments on fellow students' reflections
This post is a compilation of all the comments I have made on my fellow student's blogs during the course. I have written a total of 35 comments (ten on the first theme and five on each of the following themes). Writing these comments have really helped me to understand the different themes and I have gained other perspectives thanks to my classmates' commentary. This part of the course have worked a bit as an additional seminar where we have gotten the chance to analyze each others' work further which I think is very educative.
For convenience I have collected all the comments in a .pdf file that can be accessed here: http://bit.ly/1FYZtDs
Comments for theme 1:
1.
I find your statement about humans and their organs to be interesting. You say that we don’t have any organs for perception of being, identity etc., but that only our souls can understand this. Can we perhaps say that the soul could be considered an “organ”? People sometimes talk about a “sixth sense”. Maybe our soul or our mind is a way of describing that sixth sense of knowledge (or we could call it an additional organ)?
2.
Answer to: “Actually I was trying to ask some questions during the seminar, but I was afraid that my question is so stupid that they would waste the time of all students. I think you are right, I should ask because everyone is beginner in philosophy area. I will try to join the discussion in the seminar. Thank you!”
We were probably not at the same seminar, but I think for the next time you should dare to ask. There are no stupid questions! ;)
3.
Answer to: “Hej Anna Maria,
Interesting thoughts, especielly the way you thinking about Kants theories. I never thought about his arguments in that kind of way. Don't you think he is, exactly like Sorates, tried to sort out wether we perceive things different or understands the meaning of a moment in differently just because of we got individual experience and history?”
I'm not sure, but that is (more or less) the feeling I got from reading his text. It is also the way I see things, and I guess most people agree on this today, but at that time it must have been a revolutionary way of thinking. Although only reading this one chapter isn't nearly enough to understand Kant, I am intrigued by what he has to say and by the way he argues and discusses the subjects.
4.
It is interesting that we think to have a basic understanding of the texts only to have that tiny, tiny amount of confidence ripped to pieces during the lecture! I completely agree that the seminar was a bit more helpful in clearing things up. You are mostly mentioning Kant and I guess his text is the most relevant and developed of the two, but I feel like Plato’s story helped me understand Kant because it is written in a simpler way but is still about similar theories.
5.
I think you have some very interesting reflections on this theme and I really like the way you write. It is hard to disagree with what you said about Kant's text being difficult to understand, but reading your text I feel like you have definitely gotten something out of the texts and the seminar.
One thing that I find interesting is when you talk about the absence of space. You say that you can't imagine the absence of space but our physicists argue that before the big bang there was nothing, hence the absence of space. So what does that mean? For me this inevitably leads to a theological discussion, rather than one of philosophy or natural science. I find that interesting because these are subjects that naturally aren't related to each other at all.
6.
I feel the same way as you about grasping the concepts but also the language, which differs a bit from modern English. Looking at this post and your first post, you seem to have learned a little from Kant which I personally think was hard to understand. He writes about things that doesn't come natural to a lot of people, especially not to those of us that are leaning towards the natural science side rather than the philosophical side of reasoning, and I think this was a good exercise for us engineer students!
7.
The discussion about colors was very intriguing to me! I often ponder about how people perceive colors, if they see them the same way I do, or if they are inverted or have some other color perception. We have the same definition on what green is, for example, because green is what we call the color of grass. But maybe someone see grass as the color pink without knowing it, because the only comparison they have is the grass (and other green things)?
8.
I love your comparison to engineers, it makes this text a little more relatable. It is indeed our previous experiences that help us define and interpret a certain context or concept and I think you are explaining this well. When I look at it this way I see why this theme was used for the course as it is important that engineers can respect and understand that not all people have the same experiences or knowledge about different things.
9.
It is interesting how all of us found Kant's text more difficult than Plato's considering that the former was written some 200 years ago while the latter was written 2000 years ago! Your quote about conception without perception being blind is something I got more understanding for after attending the seminar, and I find the core of that quote to be really relatable now.It doesn't matter if we receive a concept if we have no understanding of it, because then we cannot relate to it and make any sense out of it.
10.
I find your comments on the text to be engaging, you seem to have understood the subject well enough. You use the words "mind" and "soul" several times in your post. Are these terms interchangeable or do they mean separate things? To me the mind is rational whereas the soul may not always be, and I feel like you have similar definitions when you say that the mind perceives knowledge while the soul is an object of the senses. However in your last paragraph you seem to use them interchangeably, which confused me a little.
Comments for theme 2:
1.
I love that you referred to the Greek origin of the word dialectic, since I highly suspect that you are Greek! ;) It must be funny for you to be able to see connections like that to your own language whereas for me the word initially had no meaning. I wonder if this would be an advantage or disadvantage in general, since it could also be that people would perhaps expect a wider knowledge than the person may actually have.
2.
I think your comment on 2 b) is interesting, especially what you say about Benjamin having mixed feelings about the film medium. Film has been used as propaganda since its birth some 100 years ago, which can be seen as both good or bad, but it can also be a way of educating the world if done in a (somewhat) objective way. What are your thoughts on film as a tool for influencing people?
3.
I like your side note regarding myths and how they are still existing in today's society. It got me thinking about the future. We are getting access to so much knowledge today (more than we could possibly assimilate) and whenever we get stuck with a problem or wondering Google or some other tool is just around the corner providing a solution. So my question is: do you think that myths will ever disappear or are we forever going to be blinded by new findings/technologies/ideologies as they appear?
4.
Cool that the seminar helped you a lot, I felt the same way (as I'm sure most of us did). It's interesting that you by the end of the week realized that you had misunderstood some things prior to the lecture and seminar for this theme. I think that these texts, as you say, are really advanced and it would be hard to understand all of it without a professor (or correlative "expert") pointing out the main theories and what not. Thanks to your post I realize the relevance of having us students writing two posts for each theme. The post prior to the theme is good for preparing and makes it easier to grasp the following lecture and then we get to reflect upon what we have learned during the week. By writing only the one or the other I think we would miss out on some knowledge or revelations that we would receive from their combination.
5.
Answer to: "Interesting thought about the connection between politics and ideologies of the early 1900s and to how we need to know our history. I agree that these events are closely interrelated but the problem about making the same mistakes again, as you stated, remains. Perhaps we need stronger regulation and information spreading about facts in history that aren't to be repeated. I also think the second seminar had a better structure and that it invited us as participants to voice our opinions and reflections about this week's theme."
and:
"Hi! Interesting reclections around how we need to learn from our past in order to not make the same mistakes again. I guess you can relate to todays society, how people with Nazi backgrounds are gaining power in the swedish parlament. Even though i think we know more about our past today with the development of technologies such as internet etc, people seem to forget and ignore. Perhaps it is not about information spreading but rather about education and keeping an open mind toward society."
Thanks for your comments, Pontus and Oscar!
I'm afraid that how to keep history from repeating itself is a problem that will always remain. Sure the Internet gives us access to a lot of information but a problem, I believe, is that it is too much information and we won't really know what to think and who to trust. However, I think we should have some faith in humanity and maybe our society will become more open and welcome. Sorry for this becoming slightly off-topic ;)
Comments for theme 3:
1.
Answer to: “Hi, I agree that the taxonomy of theory types proposed by Gregor is connected to each order. For the example, in your reflection, you said that type 2 is based on type 1 with addition information about the explanation of the object. However, I think for type 5 is slightly different, because I think in this type they focus on concrete form about how design something.
I think theory can be a foundation to form a hypothesis, and based on this theory you can make an examination to challenge your hypothesis. But, a theory sometimes can be challenge by another theories. Because with advance of technology, human can get more new knowledge that can be used to renew or change the theory.”
Oh, that is interesting, I never really reflected over the fifth type being more separated from the other ones but you certainly have a good point.
Yes and technology is, as you say, useful to help science move forward in a faster pace and perhaps in a more accurate direction. I think that a lot thanks to technology and the possibilities to find related research with web tools, theories are being melted into each other. Sometimes they clash but sometimes they partly go together.
2.
Answer to: “I really like your comparison between theory and the foundation of a house! I really did not see it in that way when I wrote my bachelor thesis, I rather saw it as something I had to do, but did not want to do. I think this theme was really good as a preparation for our master exam thesis, but like you I also found this theme hard to fully understand (I don’t feel like I do it now either, but at least I understand the necessity about it).”
Yeah, maybe we would need to visit this theme once or twice again in order to grasp theory a little bit better! However I think that I know more about the "basis" of theory" now and I will hopefully be able to do proper research and find relevant theories when it is time for the master thesis. :)
3.
Answer to: "Like Sofie, I also liked the allegory of the foundation of the house. I think that the five types of theory are closely interrelated, and after the seminar I felt in some way more confused about which type belongs to which category. They all seem to depend on each other. I also have experience with theory and theses. I agree because in my case the theories were not well grounded and this, among other things, lead to a thesis work that, in hindsight, could have been better performed."
It's fascinating to hear that your paper didn't reach its max potential because of poor theory. That is something that is very useful to hear about in order to understand the essence of theory. It got me thinking that maybe this course should have a theme of "what not to do" with bad examples of how the different sections of a paper have been executed. Because I think that a lot of papers have flaws and if we never discuss these, how are we supposed to know that they are flaws?
4.
I also missed the lecture due to another course's seminar which was unfortunate because it is difficult to understand the subjects of this course. I think that seminars are very valuable but the lectures are helpful as well.
Your thoughts about broadening a theory and how they are ever-changing are very interesting to me. I haven't seen it as this before but rather that a theory is proven obsolete, but it can of course just be altered by the hypothesis! I think that your reflections on this theme, even though you missed the lecture, are fascinating and you seem to understand theory quite well!
5.
Interesting choice of article! Whenever I feel sick I love to go online and look up my symptoms (maybe not on the social networks though)! You seem to have a good understanding of theory and your explanation is well written and easy to understand. After attending the seminar with Dahlberg did your thoughts about the theory type change or do you still stand on the theory of the paper being type III? In my case I realized that I was being "too generous" but reading your comments in this post it sounds as if you could be right from the beginning!
Comments for theme 4:
1.
Answer to: “Hi Mia!
I also liked the seminar setup this week! Everyone got to be more engaged at the seminar and you received a lot of perspectives from different students, which I liked! I liked that Olle, in the beginning talked of the advatages and disadvatages with both qualitative and quantitative studies, but later on in the seminar, he focused more on the quantitative research. I also liked that he explanied for us how you are not supposed to construct a survey, because in earlier courses when you should apply a quantitative method, I have always wondered how a survey should be constructed, and get confused when people say different things about it too. But after this seminar it became more clear!
Well written reflection! Good luck with the two last themes :) /Hannah”
Hannah, I agree completely that it was nice to hear about both qualitative and quantitative methods. He gave us a very good overview of them both and I think that it became easier to understand the latter when we had a comparison to the first one. I used to think that constructing surveys didn't require so much attention to details, but it turns out I was wrong so for the next time I’m doing a research paper I will definitely have this lecture/seminar in mind!
Good luck to you too :)
/Mia
2.
Hi Sofie!
What you mentioned about the survey answers that were filled in too fast being disregarded was quite fascinating! I have never heard about this before but I can see the advantages of doing so in order to only collect sincere answers. As the second survey seemed to focus on different kinds of involvement and considering the already mentioned selective process, do you think that surveys is a good or effective way to achieve qualitative or at least semi-qualitative results?
Good luck with the remaining part of this course!
3.
Answer to: "Great reflection! I think that the setup with only having points for things that are exclusive for your group was a very good exercise because isn't that how it works in real life? You have to oursmart your compeditor in order to win. Also it's a very efficient way of learning when you are challenged to reason and come up with knowledge "a priori" rather than being teached and writing it down and try to remember it. I read some litterature on best studying techniques and the best way to remember something is actually to find out how it relates to your previous knowledge. I think that Olle let us compete with each other for a reason."
True, indeed! After we graduate from KTH we won't get any praise for something that someone else already did. It is really challenging to try to understand how the other team is reasoning and you are right that this was a very good way to work on that kind of thinking.
That study technique sounds very interesting and reasonable! I have to try it for my next exam!
4.
You seem to have a good understanding of different methods and their pros and cons. I do think, though, that you should perhaps introduce your paper in the beginning. For me as a reader it is difficult to get a grasp of what the paper is really about and that makes it harder to follow the rest of your blog post.
Do you think that the researchers used methods that were well-suited for their purpose? Would it have been possible to use some qualitative methods and would that have affected the result somehow?
5.
I see that the things you learned from the paper were not necessarily about the methods themselves, but about aspects connected to them such as the importance of motivating your choices which I find refreshing. I think that the previous themes of this course have been a little abstract and this is the first time where the theme is not completely foreign. Therefore the basics about methods probably doesn't come as news to any of us media technology students. I also agree that defining and motivating are the most important aspects of writing a research paper in order to get the best results possible!
Comments for theme 5:
1.
Hi Ilona!
I agree with you that seminars are great ways to reflect and learn from and it is a pity that we don't have them for every theme. You are of course right when you say that the theme for this week wasn't as perplexing as for example the first two themes. However, at the same time I think that the seminar with Olle Bälter, which had a similar theme as this one, was very rewarding and I think that the lectures didn't give anything while a seminar could have opened up for ideas and some interesting revelations!
2.
Answer to: "Hi!
I also had a question prepared for the lecture, but decided to keep quiet just as everyone else when Sallnäs asked us about them. I feel just as you do, that it is kind of embarrassing that only one student decided to break the silence and ask a question.
I've read that some of us students that attended this lecture (including me) thought that it mostly was a repetition of Sallnäs' articles and that the lecture was to focused on her own research. In retrospect though, I feel like we didn't do much to make her talk about design research in general, or whatever we wanted her to talk about to make the lecture more interesting. I mean, if those of us who actually brought a question to the lecture would have spoken up and asked her the questions, the lecture could have been more rewarding for us students. So I realize now that it probably isn't legit to complain about her lecture when we didn't do anything to make it "better for us", which probably was Sallnäs' purpose when she asked us to bring questions.
I guess both of us have learned that it is best to speak up in these situations. Not only since you might miss the chance if you don't, as you said, but also to take the chance to steer the lecture in the direction that is most valuable for yourself and prevent the lecturer from thinking that she speaks in front of an ignorant bunch of students. ;)"
Hi Anna!
You have a really good point; it is of course up to us as students to get the information that we want and find useful. I guess that we are so used to feeling that we have to attend classes to pass courses and not to learn something. After all we are at KTH voluntarily and our education is meant to prepare us for "real life" and it is our responsibility to make something out of it for our own benefit. College is not supposed to be another road bump that we're just trying to pass by before we get to the freeway, but sometimes we treat it as just that.. So I guess that this is something that we've learned for the next time :)
3.
Answer to: "I think that you write really well about the role of design research in media technology and how prototypes should be used. I can tell from the text that this topic was exciting to you and that you have a great knowledge in this matter. You did well in proclaiming both the upsides and downsides of using prototypes and in how they should be shaped in order to keep the user tests representative."
Thank you! Although I would not agree that I have great knowledge on the subject, it is rather interesting to look at design research and its pros and cons. Prototyping is of course not applicable in all research but I think that, when possible, it should definitely be implemented. It is helpful for both the researcher and the user during a study to have an actual design to originate from in discussion and reflection.
4.
Answer to: "Interesting discussion. I agree on your reflections and was disappointed of the setup of the lecture, but none of us took the chance to lead the lecture on the right direction, which isn't only the lecturers' responsibility. I also feel sometimes that the attendance requirement makes me less motivated to be on a lecture even if the lecture is interesting, but jobs also have attendance requirements but why do we feel that it is more rewarding to be at work than school? We students are also very used to being "served" knowledge so we are used to just sit passively and take it in. I think that it is very different from the real world when we will have to find information by ourselves, assess relevant sources for knowledge, and not just read some pointed out pages in the course literature. I wish that more courses had that setup, but this course lets us find our own research papers and that is a good exercise I think."
I guess one reason to why we actually make an effort at work is because we get paid for it. As I said to Anna, we have chosen to attend college but I think that the mentality of elementary school, where studying is something society forces upon us, lingers on and that's why we don't care as much.
The reward we get from doing well in school is getting good grades but being an active participant during a lecture won't directly help us achieve this therefore we just sit and barely listen. You are also right that we are used to being served information and there are probably so many other reasons to why we don't care. But yes, as you say, this course have had a setup where we need to become more active in some ways which is very good!
5.
You have made a very good and thorough post about design research, and you seem to have understood the subject well! I like that you post your sources in the end, I never thought about doing that myself.
I find it interesting to hear about your thoughts regarding a collaborative and a single user setting. Do you think that one or the other is preferable or does it depend on the situation? Perhaps it is sometimes possible to combine the two settings, maybe have one part of the users work alone with the given task and have another part work in groups. By doing this it might be possible to minimize the negative aspects of the different settings.
Comments for theme 6:
1.
First of all, good answers!
The issues of biased or non-similar multiple interviewers or the case of interviewees speaking in general terms are real problems, I can imagine. How would you suggest that we can solve these issues? I think that one way could be to perform pre-tests with different interviewers to determine the effect this difference has on results. A way to handle the case of generally speaking interviewees might be solved by asking specifically for their own opinion and really making sure the questions aren't leaning toward what's a relevant answer for society rather than what's relevant for the individuals themselves.
2.
Eye tracking is really cool and it seems like it is becoming a more common method for evaluation even though it is still probably a little unnatural for the test persons! You mentioned that a solution for this is to test the system before the actual user test which I think would be a great idea. I think, however, that there is always going to be an awareness of the eye tracking system which will slightly affect the user and which is difficult to completely eliminate. The same problem exists with all kinds of recording devices such as microphones or cameras which can cause users to behave in a certain way. To minimize this I think it is important to make the users as comfortable as possible to the situation and give them clear instructions.
3.
First of all I want to say that your post is easy to read and I especially like that you have used KTH's definition of what a case study is and that you posted an image of the table that we were to look at. Seeing the table that you've used is really helpful when reading about the strengths and weaknesses of the paper.
You seem to be of the opinion that the case study done in your second paper wasn't valid since there were only three cases. Would you say that it could be valid if the authors were to make a new research having this paper as basis and then adding one or two cases? Or would that be a way to "cheat" the validity issue?
4.
I agree with the previous poster that a gift card of $25 is a lot to receive for a study like this. Do you think that this was a good way to collect users to participate or could it be that a certain kind of people are attracted to the study, thus the result may be influenced (in a good or bad way) by this?
You are right that having a group session will cause the participants to be affected by each other which could be a bad thing. However, a discussion among users could also lead the topic into a direction that the users or researchers would not have discovered during a one on one session which could be beneficial for the current research or inspire a future research to be made.
5.
I like your comparison to real life and that we make small case studies all the time! That is a very good way of seeing it and of explaining what a case study actually is. It can sometimes be difficult to understand the difference between only using qualitative methods and doing a case study, as you mentioned, since the methodology of a case is often qualitative. One thing I would like to comment on, though, is that there can be a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods in a case study. Your example with the company having a problem is a great one! In that situation a questionnaire could be very useful together with observing the structure of the company in order to find a solution.
fredag 17 oktober 2014
Theme 6: Qualitative and Case Study Research - Reflection
As this was the final theme for this course it was fitting to have course leader Leif Dahlberg holding the last seminar. There was a lot of focus on case studies since we have touched upon quality methods previous weeks, and we ended by briefly discussing some questions that came up regarding the course layout.
The seminar started off with us students dividing into smaller groups to discuss the different texts. Then the whole group started discussing together and most of the seminar went to talking about what a case study is and how it differs from a user study or a conventional research with a proper hypothesis. An object being studied in its natural habitat seemed to be a useful definition and an important thing is that the researchers are to take advantage of an existing situation rather than creating a scenario by themselves. From that point different types of qualitative and quantitative methods are welcomed in the study. I had not really considered the possibility of a case study prior to this week and I find it to be an interesting type of research method. When I did my bachelor's thesis a little over a year ago we were studying the possibility of incorporating Twitter in a creative performance process. We had an existing "case" were a dance company was developing a performance based off of Twitter and we sent out a survey for the users collaborating in the process and held interviews with the choreographers. All our research methods were held after the creative process had finished, so I guess that our project was a case study even though we did not consider this or even had knowledge of this being a certain method at the time.
Dahlberg also gave examples of "cases" being used in other situations, for example a police case or a medical case but also what is being used in economic studies: having a case, or a problem, that the student is supposed to solve. To wrap things up, I think that this week's theme was very interesting an I learned a lot about case studies and maybe a little bit about qualitative studies as well. It was a pleasant ending of this course and it was also good that we were able to ask some questions about the concluding blog post that is coming up after this one.
*We also had a postponed lecture with Haibo Li on Monday about design research and problem solutions. Li is a great lecturer (even though it can sometimes be somewhat difficult to understand) and I found his example from the film Johnny English to be different and a fun way to describe finding simple solutions. This lecture was a refreshing take on the process of defining, validating and evaluate your idea and the importance of defining your problem statement in order to find a solution.
The seminar started off with us students dividing into smaller groups to discuss the different texts. Then the whole group started discussing together and most of the seminar went to talking about what a case study is and how it differs from a user study or a conventional research with a proper hypothesis. An object being studied in its natural habitat seemed to be a useful definition and an important thing is that the researchers are to take advantage of an existing situation rather than creating a scenario by themselves. From that point different types of qualitative and quantitative methods are welcomed in the study. I had not really considered the possibility of a case study prior to this week and I find it to be an interesting type of research method. When I did my bachelor's thesis a little over a year ago we were studying the possibility of incorporating Twitter in a creative performance process. We had an existing "case" were a dance company was developing a performance based off of Twitter and we sent out a survey for the users collaborating in the process and held interviews with the choreographers. All our research methods were held after the creative process had finished, so I guess that our project was a case study even though we did not consider this or even had knowledge of this being a certain method at the time.
Dahlberg also gave examples of "cases" being used in other situations, for example a police case or a medical case but also what is being used in economic studies: having a case, or a problem, that the student is supposed to solve. To wrap things up, I think that this week's theme was very interesting an I learned a lot about case studies and maybe a little bit about qualitative studies as well. It was a pleasant ending of this course and it was also good that we were able to ask some questions about the concluding blog post that is coming up after this one.
*We also had a postponed lecture with Haibo Li on Monday about design research and problem solutions. Li is a great lecturer (even though it can sometimes be somewhat difficult to understand) and I found his example from the film Johnny English to be different and a fun way to describe finding simple solutions. This lecture was a refreshing take on the process of defining, validating and evaluate your idea and the importance of defining your problem statement in order to find a solution.
fredag 10 oktober 2014
Theme 6: Qualitative and Case Study Research
This is the last theme of the course and for this week I was to read three papers; two of my own choice that were using qualitative methods or the case study research method and one selected by the course teacher called Building Theories from Case Study Research by K.M. Eisenhardt. Aside from reading and reflecting on these papers and their methods I received the following tasks:
1. Briefly explain to a first year university student what a case study is.
2. Use the "Process of Building Theory from Case Study Research" (Eisenhardt, summarized in Table 1) to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of your selected paper.
Qualitative methods
I have chosen the article "Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences" written by Bernhard Debatin et al. It was published in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication in 2009 and discusses users' awareness of privacy issues on Facebook.They found that people associated the risks of privacy invasion to others rather than to themselves. They also understood that users reporting privacy invasion were more likely to change their privacy settings than those that had only heard about others’ privacy invasions and hadn't personally experienced this.
The authors started their research by sending out a quantitative online survey to 119 college students. As a result of the survey, 8 participants were chosen, based on their answers, for a qualitative and in-depth interview soon thereafter. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and then analyzed through a combination of tools such as qualitative content analysis and hermeneutical/rhetorical interpretation.
I find the selection method to be an interesting approach, but I feel that it can easily seem a little biased to choose the participants that are the most appropriate for the study. Of course this depends on what direction you would want to go regarding the research but I feel that to get the most honest result the interviewees should be randomized and their survey answers should not be reflected in the selection process. I think that this combination of qualitative and quantitative methods is very useful and it gives the researcher (and the reader) a wide foundation of results to base the conclusion on as it includes both general and specific findings. The analysis tools are things that I have no previous experience from and they sound very interesting to me. I was not aware that there are specific tools and methods for analyzing qualitative content and I thought that analyzing was something that the researchers had to do all by themselves without any guidelines. That is one of the most useful things I will bring from reading this paper and something I hope to have use of in my future studies.
Case study research
A case study can seem a lot like any research using qualitative methods on the first glance, but that is not necessarily the situation. When doing a case study one is observing an object in its natural habitat and analyzing real-life events. In order to do this combinations of qualitative and quantitative methods are often used and both empirical and theoretical theories are taken into account for the analysis.
For the case study research I have chosen to read the paper "Social media competitive analysis and text mining: A case study in the pizza industry" written by Wu He et al. It was published last year (2013) in the International Journal of Information Management. The paper takes a look on how pizza restaurants Pizza Hut, Domino's Pizza and Papa John's Pizza are using social media tools and how user-generated content can be used to their advantage. The writers of the paper are using a method called text mining to extract meaningful information from the user-generated data.
I find the paper to have more strengths than weaknesses and it follows the steps of Eisenhardt quite well. There are some research questions, but no hypothesis in order to retain the flexibility of the study. The selected cases are carefully chosen and the writers have a thorough enclosing comparison to other literature, both conflicting and agreeable. I think that the conclusion was short and sweet but I don't think that they found much other than that social media plays an important part in the relationship between restaurant and customer. I do however think that the study made a useful contribution for future research.
The authors started their research by sending out a quantitative online survey to 119 college students. As a result of the survey, 8 participants were chosen, based on their answers, for a qualitative and in-depth interview soon thereafter. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and then analyzed through a combination of tools such as qualitative content analysis and hermeneutical/rhetorical interpretation.
I find the selection method to be an interesting approach, but I feel that it can easily seem a little biased to choose the participants that are the most appropriate for the study. Of course this depends on what direction you would want to go regarding the research but I feel that to get the most honest result the interviewees should be randomized and their survey answers should not be reflected in the selection process. I think that this combination of qualitative and quantitative methods is very useful and it gives the researcher (and the reader) a wide foundation of results to base the conclusion on as it includes both general and specific findings. The analysis tools are things that I have no previous experience from and they sound very interesting to me. I was not aware that there are specific tools and methods for analyzing qualitative content and I thought that analyzing was something that the researchers had to do all by themselves without any guidelines. That is one of the most useful things I will bring from reading this paper and something I hope to have use of in my future studies.
Case study research
A case study can seem a lot like any research using qualitative methods on the first glance, but that is not necessarily the situation. When doing a case study one is observing an object in its natural habitat and analyzing real-life events. In order to do this combinations of qualitative and quantitative methods are often used and both empirical and theoretical theories are taken into account for the analysis.
For the case study research I have chosen to read the paper "Social media competitive analysis and text mining: A case study in the pizza industry" written by Wu He et al. It was published last year (2013) in the International Journal of Information Management. The paper takes a look on how pizza restaurants Pizza Hut, Domino's Pizza and Papa John's Pizza are using social media tools and how user-generated content can be used to their advantage. The writers of the paper are using a method called text mining to extract meaningful information from the user-generated data.
I find the paper to have more strengths than weaknesses and it follows the steps of Eisenhardt quite well. There are some research questions, but no hypothesis in order to retain the flexibility of the study. The selected cases are carefully chosen and the writers have a thorough enclosing comparison to other literature, both conflicting and agreeable. I think that the conclusion was short and sweet but I don't think that they found much other than that social media plays an important part in the relationship between restaurant and customer. I do however think that the study made a useful contribution for future research.
Theme 5: Design Research - Reflection
This week there were going to be two lectures with professors Haibo Li and Eva-Lotta Sallnäs, respectively. Unfortunately the first lecture was moved to the upcoming week instead and so I will only comment on the lecture with Sallnäs.
Sallnäs based the lecture on her own studies about haptics and how it can be implemented in different fields. I think that her intentions were that having an example of a certain research would make it easier for the students to get a grip on the general subject of design research but my takings of it was that it became a little too detailed and too much focus was put on Sallnäs' studies. Haptics is a very interesting subject and I think it could be used in many different areas other than educational purposes and medical research which seemed to be the more common areas for the moment. It could facilitate for global collaboration in many different perspectives and I find the development of augmented realities using responsive electronic tools to be intriguing.
The first thing Sallnäs did was was requesting the questions us students had prepared for the lecture. Only one student called out his question which I find disappointing. I do think, however, that the professor should have been more demanding that we all presented our questions because the initial silence was taken as us not having prepared for the lecture. I feel embarrased that I didn't call out my question which was "As there seem to be some research and guidelines regarding design research and qualitative methods, do researchers actually follow these guidelines?". The question was inspired by the previous theme as Olle Bälter mentioned that when it comes to quantitative methods the guidelines are not always followed. It would have been interesting to see a comparison of the two methods, but now I have learned that I must speak up in time or else I might miss my chance.
I'm looking forward to hear Li's lecture next monday which I hope to be interesting and informative!
Sallnäs based the lecture on her own studies about haptics and how it can be implemented in different fields. I think that her intentions were that having an example of a certain research would make it easier for the students to get a grip on the general subject of design research but my takings of it was that it became a little too detailed and too much focus was put on Sallnäs' studies. Haptics is a very interesting subject and I think it could be used in many different areas other than educational purposes and medical research which seemed to be the more common areas for the moment. It could facilitate for global collaboration in many different perspectives and I find the development of augmented realities using responsive electronic tools to be intriguing.
 |
| Peas on Earth. Sallnäs mentioned the fun "fact" that peace on earth is a common reason for doing research! :D |
I'm looking forward to hear Li's lecture next monday which I hope to be interesting and informative!
fredag 3 oktober 2014
Theme 5: Design Research
Part one of this theme was to read a paper by Haibo Li (et al) called Turn Your Mobile Into the Ball: Rendering Live Football Game Using Vibration and reflect on it with the help of some questions as follows:
1. How can media technologies be evaluated?
2. What role will prototypes play in research?
3. What are characteristics and limitations of prototypes?
4. How can design research be communicated/presented?
The second part included reading two texts co-penned by authors Eva-Lotta Sallnäs Pysander and Jonas Moll in 2013 and 2011 and reflect over the following questions:
5. How does a collaborative setting differ from a single user setting as regards methodology used and the results obtained?
6. How can qualitative and quantitative methods in the same study complement each other?
7. How can using both subjective and objective methods give a better understanding of a phenomenon?
My thoughts on the texts:
Part 1:
When it comes to media technologies, enhancing the experience is key word for developing new ideas. Technology is evolving fast today and in order to keep that experience I believe that a functioning prototype and having the ability to test the usability are essential for proper evaluation. That is also the focus in the report, which is about using vibrations to render live football games.
Prototypes are important for testing the hypothesis of the research. When it comes to media technology a large part of researching is built on developing new products and new ways of using media and testing a concept is crucial to get any kind of result and being able to move forward in your research. Without prototypes explaining the concept to the user the research ill be unattainable. The main advantage of using a prototype is that the user gets a sincere sense of how a potential final product would behave. By using questionnaires and other theoretical methods the user can imagine what the product would be like but there's always going to be a limitation compared to testing a working prototype. With a prototype the user might present "live" reactions that they would not have considered when imagining a theoretical scenario. It is critical to remember that a prototype is not a finished product, or even a beta product, and is not fully developed. Users might be unhappy with the design and may, for example, give the prototype a lower and unrepresentative rating during user tests. Thus, the researcher should be clear about the differences that may occur to not deceive users and avoid misunderstandings.
Part 2:
Having a collaborative setting has its differences compared to a single-user setting and it depends on the situation whether they are advantages or disadvantages. When you have several test persons working in a collaborative setting the emotional data is going to differ from the single-user since the group will work together and one users' input to a problem might wake something in another person's mind that would not have come up in the single setting. I think working in a group (with satisfying group dynamics) will lead to solving the task in a more efficient and resourceful way and the participants will form a companionship towards each other but it will be difficult for the researcher to evaluate each individual process. In a single setting the process becomes more apparent but it may also be a bit limiting as previously mentioned since the user cannot contrive ideas from any co-users.
For a refined result within media technology that is general and fitting for a large target group, but at the same time can be cognitively analyzed, both qualitative and quantitative methods should me used. Larger quantitative studies such as questionnaires or simpler user tests (perhaps even online tests) will give the study a width, but I would say that it is also important to have advanced user tests and interviews that ca be analyzed in order to gain an understanding of the users and how they react and respond to the prototype.
By looking objectively on a test person's attributes and their actions during a test and then combining this with subjective methods to learn about their experiences the researcher can gain more knowledge than by using only one or the other method. As mentioned in the previous section the combination is what will give the study a width and it will help the researcher to find a conclusion and find ideas for the development of the prototype.
Theme 4: Quantitative Research - Reflection
This week we only had a seminar held by Olle Bälter. The most interesting thing about the seminar was the set-up, which was a combination of some lecture slides and group activities. Bälter introduced a puzzle game called Boggle where the player is supposed to find as may words as possible by using a set of letters laid out in a matrix. Each word is worth one point, but only if your opponent hasn't found the same word. This form of playing was applied to the group challenges we received regarding quantitative research where we were to list as many advantages/weaknesses with, for example, quantitative methods or using web surveyes over paper surveys. We had three or four challenges and in the end the one group that had collected the most points was crowned the winner. I think this was a fun way to get our minds working and start thinking about the subject of different research metods and how they can be used. In the group I was in I feel that we tried really hard to achieve more points (and argue against the other groups getting their points!) but ultimately we landed only in third place out of four teams!
Bälter talked about how an optimal survey should be constructed. When asking a question where the answers ar scaled such as "agree completely, agree somewhat, disagree completely" there shoud always be an uneven number of alternatives so that there is always one neutral option such as "neither agree or disagree". Another tip wa that a statement should never include a subordinate clause that could negate the independent clause. An example of this is "some people play football, but I don't". the second clause is a neation and the test person may be confused on what they are supposed to answer to. The lecture about this subject were interesting. I have conducted a few questionnaires in previous courses but have not reflected on these things before other than trying to have as clear and understandable questions as possible. During this week's seminar I had a lot of fun, but I also learned a lot and obtained an understanding of quantative methods and their pros and cons. This theme as well as the last theme about theory I feel have been very useful in preparation for my upcoming master's thesis. While I thought the introductory themes were interesting I think that the course is taking a more relevant and concrete direction and I'm looking forward to the last two themes of the course.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)