Comments
When I compiled my comments to this post I corrected some misspellings otherwise they are copy pasted.
Theme 1 – Theory of knowledge and theory of science
I think your blogposts of the week have been interesting. I think Kant's categories are really interesting, because the claim is that everyone has it. But maybe not in the exactly same way I'm thinking about what you have written about 1+1=2 we know it for sure but when it comes to more difficult things everyone can't solve it in the same way but when we apply concepts we can solve it. In other words we in some way learn how to apply these categories.
Interesting post. I think it is interesting how we percept many concepts without any hesitation like the example you are mentioning with the pen. But sometimes I think these concepts can limit us to that’s a pen, even if it might be a bit different. As an example I have a touch pen but is it a pen? I can't write with it on paper.
I think your quote of Kant; “Perception without conception is blind. Conception without perception is empty.” is a really nice one. And your example is great. It is amazing how many concepts we "take for granted" everything is almost a conceptualization!
I think this post summarize what we learnt during the week. However there would have been fun to read more about what you have learnt during the week instead of a lot of concepts from this week. It could also have been interesting to go deeper into some parts. I think the part about objectivity is really interesting even if it might wake more questions than it solves. It is indeed something to have in mind when we do research.
Thanks for a great text! I think the part about infinity is most interesting. For us the existence of time is obvious. In our small group at the seminar we discussed the fact that newborns don't have grasped the concept of time, which is interesting and actually shows us that it is a concept that we experience.
Theme 2 – Critical media studies
I enjoyed reading your posts. I think the part about nominalism vs. realism is really intresting and I felt that the small "demo" during the seminar was a really good way of understanding. You have pointed out disadvantages about to strong nominalism, but I would also argue that if we extend realism too far it wouldn't be good. We need a balance between the two.
The revolutionary potential of mass media is indeed a really intresting part of the text and our future. After the lecture I think both Adorno & Horkheimer and Benjamin is affected by their surroundings. Where A&H have seen mass media that don't lived up to the potentials that Benjamin points out. However I think the mass media has changed since then and it is intresting to consider if today’s mass media have revolutionary potentials.
The revolutionary potential of mass media is indeed a really intresting part of the text and our future. After the lecture I think both Adorno & Horkheimer and Benjamin is affected by their surroundings. Where A&H have seen mass media that don't lived up to the potentials that Benjamin points out. However I think the mass media has changed since then and it is intresting to consider if today’s mass media have revolutionary potentials.
Good post! I think the discussion of nominalism vs. platonic realism is intresting. You mention disadvantages about to "strong" nominalism but I think it is the same with almost every ideology, at least with realism. We need some sort of balance. I agree with you that the understanding of nominalism and enlightenment was hard to grasp only through reading but became clear after the lecture and seminar.
I think the discussion of revolutionary potential of culture and mass media is the most intresting in this theme because I believe that it is in constant movement. We see small changes all the time and during the last decade the trend has been towards that everyone can produce content. What do you think of its potentials today?
I think the discussion of revolutionary potential of culture and mass media is the most intresting in this theme because I believe that it is in constant movement. We see small changes all the time and during the last decade the trend has been towards that everyone can produce content. What do you think of its potentials today?
I enjoyed reading you reflection. I think you summarized this week well. However I would like to see more of your own opinion. You mention that Benjamin and A&H has different opinions but what do you think? I think both text have good arguments for their point but culture have changed since then. It would have been intresting to hear what you thought of this. Your explanation of dialectic I really enjoyed. I had the same understanding as you before the week.
I think you made a summary of the theme. However I would have liked to dig deeper into some of the question like if culture have revolutionary potential which is really intresting. Especially if we consider that the culture has changed even after these two text was written. I liked the part you wrote about nominalism disarming the revolution and I think you could have written more about it to support your statement. I would have wrote something about the conditions during that time etc.
I really like your blogpost. I like that you focused on a few concepts from this theme. Your statement that how a way of thinking change society is really intresting. If we go further in this reasoning it would be intresting to analyze how this ways of thinking evolved. Why nominalism did came across in that time? An explanation I think come from the lecture was "the broken promises of the enlightenment". However your text made me start to think. Nice job!
Theme 3 – Research and theory
Thanks for a nice wrap up on this theme. I think the discussion of whether theories are true or false and to what extend we can consider them true is really intresting. As an example we have been forced to modify some theories in the physics to be valid in both space and in the Nano technology. Every theory, I would argue, have some limitations or will probably reach a limitation that isn't known yet. However we can say that it is the truth, if we consider truth as something that with a high possibility is correct. However as discussed in previous seminars I agree with you that we are limited in this because we percept the world and can't view it with total objectivity.
I like your post. Especially the part about that theory differs between different faculties of knowledge. And as written in one (if not both) of the texts for this theme what can be considered to be theory in one field of study might not be it in another. However we are more practical than other schools I feel that in our field of study we need to implement what theories have put forward in a practical purpose. Otherwise why did we come up with the theory? However this question might be valid in parts of our field I believe that in other topics this is not as important. I think everything depends on what the knowledge should be used for. However I agree with you that we need both practical and theoretical approaches to do a great research
Your blog post summarized the theme in a good way. I find the part where you connect this theme to the previous ones. I would say that during the enlightenment they constructed a lot of theories when they made observations and at the same time they had the nominalist view that focused only on the observation. I think it is important for us to still sometimes go back to really observe phenomena’s as they occur and not always take for granted that other theories are correct. Even if building theories on top of other theories allows us to push forward science they will break if the theory behind it is proven wrong.
Nice blogpost! I liked the part where you explained what the differences of theory and hypothesis because I think it is more common today that theory get used instead of hypothesis in everyday life. I think the difference is mainly about the logical argument that theories need to have but also that we need to do some research or have knowledge when constructing a theory. You could do a hypothesis as you wrote straight out of your perception of the phenomena. However even theory is based on some kind of perception, even if it is aimed to be more objective. Keep up the good work.
Nice short summary! I think it is intresting that you bring up the theory of god as a theory and at the same time says "theory derives from a hypothesis along with data and logical reasoning". What kind of data do we have that can lead us to the conclusion with logical reasoning that god exists? I guess that you can percent phenomena’s as a signal from god if you believe in god. However if you don't you will percept it in another way. In this way we could sure get data. I think this has to do with that we as humans tend to try to find as easy theories as possible. It is easy to explain phenomena’s with something spiritual.
Theme 4 – Quantitative research
Hi!
Thanks for this week’s post. I think the part about that quantitative data is more objective than qualitative is intresting. Because as we have learnt in this course it is impossible to get any kind of information without our perception. Another thing you mentioned is that we tend to choose qualitative methods because we want short and easy answers. I would argue that this is a limitation of quantitative methods. Because we reduce a phenomena to things that is possible to measure. With qualitative methods we are investigating the phenomena without (at least not closed) frames. However some questions are more appropriate for one method and some can benefit from both, or at least you can confirm the data gathered with one of them with the other (as they did in the VR embodiment article)
Thanks for this week’s post. I think the part about that quantitative data is more objective than qualitative is intresting. Because as we have learnt in this course it is impossible to get any kind of information without our perception. Another thing you mentioned is that we tend to choose qualitative methods because we want short and easy answers. I would argue that this is a limitation of quantitative methods. Because we reduce a phenomena to things that is possible to measure. With qualitative methods we are investigating the phenomena without (at least not closed) frames. However some questions are more appropriate for one method and some can benefit from both, or at least you can confirm the data gathered with one of them with the other (as they did in the VR embodiment article)
Nice summary of the week. I find you part about how we can use both quantitate and qualitative methods is interesting. I agree with you on this regard, that we can use qualitative methods after quantitative when we want in depth knowledge/ opinions. However I would like to add that I think there could be a problem if we use the same participants when they could have been affected of the study (in some cases at least). So it could actually be a good idea to do them both during the study. We might discard the data if it didn't showed anything intresting but in this way we avoid the need to go back for more data.
Thanks for your post.
You have covered the topics for this week in a good way. I think your part about that most qualitative studies becomes quantitative at the end. I agree with you that it makes sense to try to summarize the findings. However I think it is hard to do this when the data wasn’t gathered in a way that was supposed to be analyzed in this way. We will lose part of the data when we analyze qualitative data in a quantitative way. However it is often the way that makes most sense. I think, as mentioned during this theme, that we often aim against an easy solution (theory) to the problem even if it a complex one might be more accurate.
You have covered the topics for this week in a good way. I think your part about that most qualitative studies becomes quantitative at the end. I agree with you that it makes sense to try to summarize the findings. However I think it is hard to do this when the data wasn’t gathered in a way that was supposed to be analyzed in this way. We will lose part of the data when we analyze qualitative data in a quantitative way. However it is often the way that makes most sense. I think, as mentioned during this theme, that we often aim against an easy solution (theory) to the problem even if it a complex one might be more accurate.
I enjoyed reading you blogpost and it made my recall how important it is to design a questionnaire carefully. In my bachelor thesis we used questionnaires which we tested in some pilot studies before the actual study. I think this step was really important because we hadn't thought about many of the things you discussed in this blogpost. We actually had to go back and redo most of the question. I think the most important point in you text is to keep the research objective in mind when designing the questions and especially when you change them slightly to be easier to understand etcetera.
Hi!
I think your discussion about if quantitative or qualitative research is the best. And I agree with you that a mixture sounds like the best idea when it has the opportunity to give us in depth opinions/knowledge of a generalized result from the quantitative methods. If the quantitative methods gives us a result we can often only speculate in why we got it. If we then have more in depth data we can use that when trying to construct theory. However sometimes the participants might not be able to contribute with this kind of data. Something we always have to have in mind when designing a research is if the participants can actually answer our questions. As in the case “How would you go about designing a smartphone?" we will only get their opinion which might not lead to new insights of how to actually do it because of that they don't have the competence needed to contribute to the designing of new smartphones.
I think your discussion about if quantitative or qualitative research is the best. And I agree with you that a mixture sounds like the best idea when it has the opportunity to give us in depth opinions/knowledge of a generalized result from the quantitative methods. If the quantitative methods gives us a result we can often only speculate in why we got it. If we then have more in depth data we can use that when trying to construct theory. However sometimes the participants might not be able to contribute with this kind of data. Something we always have to have in mind when designing a research is if the participants can actually answer our questions. As in the case “How would you go about designing a smartphone?" we will only get their opinion which might not lead to new insights of how to actually do it because of that they don't have the competence needed to contribute to the designing of new smartphones.
Theme 5 – Design research
Hi!
Intresting blogpost. I find it really intresting what you are saying about sample population. And I agree that we sometimes might not need a big and random chosen population. However in some cases it might be beneficial. But sometimes I it might be good to actually have a small and homogenous population, it all depends on what you investigate. I think this connects to what the seminar leader said during the last seminar "Anything goes" and if you are aware of your studies weaknesses etc. I believe anything goes.
Intresting blogpost. I find it really intresting what you are saying about sample population. And I agree that we sometimes might not need a big and random chosen population. However in some cases it might be beneficial. But sometimes I it might be good to actually have a small and homogenous population, it all depends on what you investigate. I think this connects to what the seminar leader said during the last seminar "Anything goes" and if you are aware of your studies weaknesses etc. I believe anything goes.
I think it is really intresting that you in both lectures ends with almost the same thing "defining/finding the problem". However in Haibo’s lecture it was more in the shape of defining before prototyping and in Anders case prototyping can be used as a tool to see the real problems. I think both are important because before we start prototyping we have to conduct some research about how we should do the prototype. However we also need to evaluate the prototype and be open for configurations of it (iterative process). As a conclusion I think it is important to define the problem properly however we can see the design process and conducted test of the prototype/s as a part of this. The prototype/s don't need to be the final solution, instead it can serve us with valuable knowledge about what is needed and what can be done.
Hi!
And thanks for your post. I agree with you that this theme was a really intresting one. I think that is was good to get lectures that differed in viewpoint: business and research. I find it intresting that often we think of the prototypes as described in Haibo’s lecture and with Ciscos five criteria, when it could be used for more. Before the theme I thought that prototypes mainly could use knowledge already known, but now I understand that we can use prototypes and design to contribute to knowledge.
And thanks for your post. I agree with you that this theme was a really intresting one. I think that is was good to get lectures that differed in viewpoint: business and research. I find it intresting that often we think of the prototypes as described in Haibo’s lecture and with Ciscos five criteria, when it could be used for more. Before the theme I thought that prototypes mainly could use knowledge already known, but now I understand that we can use prototypes and design to contribute to knowledge.
Hi Måns!
I think it was unfortunate that you missed the second lecture of the week because I think that showed a big contrast to the approach to design research that Haibo presented. However I think you got the most important things from Haibo’s lecture: to really put a lot of effort into defining the problem and you will probably be able to find a straight forward solution.
I think you could have benefit from analyzing more about the articles you read in preparation for this theme to show what you learned during the week. Another thing you could have done is ask someone else if you could have got their notes from the second lecture. Even if you might not have been able to understand everything I think you will have gain something from it.
I think it was unfortunate that you missed the second lecture of the week because I think that showed a big contrast to the approach to design research that Haibo presented. However I think you got the most important things from Haibo’s lecture: to really put a lot of effort into defining the problem and you will probably be able to find a straight forward solution.
I think you could have benefit from analyzing more about the articles you read in preparation for this theme to show what you learned during the week. Another thing you could have done is ask someone else if you could have got their notes from the second lecture. Even if you might not have been able to understand everything I think you will have gain something from it.
Hi!
I enjoyed reading your reflection. First of all I totally agree with you that a seminar would have made me at least more secure in writing about this theme and probably even made me learn more on this topic. I think the different views presented on the lectures on design research was intresting and it would have been really intresting to discuss them on a seminar. However I think both perspectives is important because we often need to apply for money to be able to conduct research and then we need at least some of the entrepreneur spirit from Haibo’s lecture at the same time as we need the research perspective presented by Anders.
I enjoyed reading your reflection. First of all I totally agree with you that a seminar would have made me at least more secure in writing about this theme and probably even made me learn more on this topic. I think the different views presented on the lectures on design research was intresting and it would have been really intresting to discuss them on a seminar. However I think both perspectives is important because we often need to apply for money to be able to conduct research and then we need at least some of the entrepreneur spirit from Haibo’s lecture at the same time as we need the research perspective presented by Anders.
Theme 6 – Qualitative and case study research
Hi!
I think it is always intresting to discuss about objectivity. I agree with you that it is really difficult to be objective when conducting interviews. But at the same time quantitative measurements can miss some important parts of the conducted experiments. Especially in fields like psychology. In other words if we it is also hard to be objective in the planning/creation of quantitative research.
I also agree with you that the line between case studies and other studies is a bit blurry. Because as you said almost all investigations is in some kind of settings that we investigate in.
Good work! Ochs njut av två lite lättare veckor nu!
I think it is always intresting to discuss about objectivity. I agree with you that it is really difficult to be objective when conducting interviews. But at the same time quantitative measurements can miss some important parts of the conducted experiments. Especially in fields like psychology. In other words if we it is also hard to be objective in the planning/creation of quantitative research.
I also agree with you that the line between case studies and other studies is a bit blurry. Because as you said almost all investigations is in some kind of settings that we investigate in.
Good work! Ochs njut av två lite lättare veckor nu!
Hi!
I found your post very intresting. I think that the quote "Anything goes" is a good one because we can always get something from studying something, even if the contribution might be small. I really liked that you put some effort in finding the source of the quote. I believe that we often apply to many "rules" which indeed can stop us from doing a better research/investigation into subjects.
Nice work!
I found your post very intresting. I think that the quote "Anything goes" is a good one because we can always get something from studying something, even if the contribution might be small. I really liked that you put some effort in finding the source of the quote. I believe that we often apply to many "rules" which indeed can stop us from doing a better research/investigation into subjects.
Nice work!
Hi!
Thanks for your reflection. The first thing that I come to think about is that your reflection is pretty short and didn't actually mention all key concepts that we discussed during this week. I think it is intresting that you bring up the concept "causality (i.e. cause and effect)" which I think is really important however I do not agree with you that qualitative and case studies can't investigate causality. And I think that they both can contribute with knowledge. Even if the methods themselves doesn’t contribute with knowledge analysis of the data gathered can.
Thanks for your reflection. The first thing that I come to think about is that your reflection is pretty short and didn't actually mention all key concepts that we discussed during this week. I think it is intresting that you bring up the concept "causality (i.e. cause and effect)" which I think is really important however I do not agree with you that qualitative and case studies can't investigate causality. And I think that they both can contribute with knowledge. Even if the methods themselves doesn’t contribute with knowledge analysis of the data gathered can.
Hi!
I agree with you that the seminars in this course have been thought provoking and good. I think your discussion about the definition of case studies is intresting. I also think that it is interesting to discuss how many cases you can have and still call it a case study. I think that the limit for this is a bit blurry because almost every investigation has some kind of special setting.
Good work!
I agree with you that the seminars in this course have been thought provoking and good. I think your discussion about the definition of case studies is intresting. I also think that it is interesting to discuss how many cases you can have and still call it a case study. I think that the limit for this is a bit blurry because almost every investigation has some kind of special setting.
Good work!
Hi!
And thanks for your reflection.
I agree with you that the number of participants doesn't define the type of method. However I believe that it is a lot easier to conduct interviews with fewer participants, due to the required time for analysis. However I think that the research question should decide with method that is most appropriate.
Another thing that I found intresting is your definition that it isn't a case study when you have two identical cases. I would argue that it is but I also think that the difference between other studies and case studies is a bit blurry. I think my standpoint is that within a case study we can investigate more than one case, however this might be divided into two case studies?
And thanks for your reflection.
I agree with you that the number of participants doesn't define the type of method. However I believe that it is a lot easier to conduct interviews with fewer participants, due to the required time for analysis. However I think that the research question should decide with method that is most appropriate.
Another thing that I found intresting is your definition that it isn't a case study when you have two identical cases. I would argue that it is but I also think that the difference between other studies and case studies is a bit blurry. I think my standpoint is that within a case study we can investigate more than one case, however this might be divided into two case studies?
Commentary
In this course we have discussed many different methods both how they are performed, what kind of data they gather and what their benefits and limitations are. This is something that is important to reflect upon when we are planning and conducting research. However even if we apply a well-planned and well-reasoned method we have to remember what Plato said about that we percept everything and that we can’t be truly objective. However we should always try to be as objective as possible when conducting research. This might be seen as a restriction of all methods but at the same time it is the core of the goal that research tries to fulfill.
One thing that I think is really interesting when it comes to research is the fact that we often build our conclusion and theories on others work. This makes it easier to reach further in science, however if the theories we take for granted is proven wrong the theories build on that one need to be revised. I think it is interesting how we take many concepts for granted within different fields. Of course we can benefit from this if they are “true” however as discussed we can’t be truly objective and then we can never actually reach the “truth”. We can only say that it with a high probability is in a certain way. Because of this reason I think it is important to always stay open minded and sometimes question the fundamentals of each field. This can be compared to the nominalism line of thoughts during the Enlightenment. However even if it makes us to observe the world as it is I think that we need a balance between the nominalism and realism, because if we question every concept and tries to start over again we will be stuck at only observing the world and not trying to conceptualize our observations. According to Kant all knowledge is dependent on concepts. (Seminar 1) In the continuation of this text I will reflect about different ways that we can combine methods to answer complex research questions.
First of all I would like to emphasize the importance of the research question. Because it is the research question that should navigate the whole research process. It is the research question that should decide which methods that are most appropriate to choose in order to find an answer to the question. I think this is the most important thing to do even if you decide to combine different methods. Through usage of a combination of method I think that it is possible to raise both the validity and reliability of your research. This because you can make benefit from using the strength of the different methods. As an example we often see research articles that use both quantitative and qualitative methods this gives us both data to analyze to come up with generalized conclusions but also in-depth knowledge from the qualitative data.
Even if we can benefit from combining methods I think that we sometimes should concentrate on using one method and analyze it extensively, because as Anders Lundström said during his lecture, there is not the method that contribute to knowledge but the analyze of the gathered data. So even if usage of more than one method will give us more diversified data it doesn’t necessarily contribute more to knowledge. I think this is really important to think about because will more kinds of data help you in building theory? If the answer is yes I think you should combine methods if you are unsure you can start off with one method and then maybe follow up your research later with a different perspective. There is no need to use more method than necessary, some research question is simply more appropriate to answer with a single method.
The concept that was almost completely new for me in this course was case study. I had only heard a little about it before and I think it is really interesting because it offers a way to contribute to knowledge in areas that are unexplored or only exists in rare occasions. However they do not contribute with generalized knowledge even if the theories built in their specific cases might extend to be generalized, however we cannot know when we are only investigating one or a few cases. We need to conduct broader studies to determine if it is valid in general. One thing that I really see as a benefit in case studies is that we are forced to stay open-minded and does not affect easily of results within the same area, because there aren’t many. I think this is an important aspect to try to use more in other research because I often think that it limits us to fulfill the full potential of our research. We need to question some other research and maybe we reach the same conclusion or not however we have then test their theory once again which makes it more reliable than if we took it for granted.
Finally I would like to mention the quote “anything goes”. Because I think that it is valid. We can research about “anything” and always come to some new knowledge. It might not be something big but at least it can contribute with something. I think we often limit ourselves to only investigate something that is easy to investigate and that we hope comes to an easy conclusion and straight forward theory. However this makes it impossible to answer certain kind of research question that I believe can contribute with much new knowledge. We need to stop thinking about if it is easy or not and see the world as it is (or perceive it) and investigate it for more what it is and not what we want it to be.
