DM2572 - Teori och Metod för Medieteknik: 2015

fredag 30 oktober 2015

Final Blog Post

In my final blog post I am suppose to reflect about different ways of combining different methods in order to answer complex research questions. I think this task will summarize this course rather well since a lot of the treated subjects in his course involved in-depth reflection of the methods of conducting research and analyze of research concepts like knowledge and theory.

Going into this course, I wasn’t really sure what to expect. My best guess would be that the course material would consist of only analyzing recent papers in the field of Media Technology. This has of course been a vital part of the course, especially the latter weeks of the course where we discussed different research methods and design, but I was very surprised by the topics of the first three themes. To begin by reading Plato and Kant was far from what I had in mind and I questioned this at first, thinking in terms of; what is there to learn from these old philosophers? But now I understand that we had to get to the core of what knowledge is and isn’t before moving on to the rest of the themes and learning how we can achieve knowledge. I think theme 1 laid a foundation for the rest of the course as it was always applicable on the other themes in one way or the other. I also find it very interesting now in retrospect and I learned a lot about philosophical reasoning, different concepts and perspectives in philosophy and how you can question pretty much everything. Knowledge is a concept that every field in science is producing and it is produced by analyzing and interpreting data obtained from different methods. So before discussing research methods and research questions one must discuss and question the concept of knowledge. The same goes for the topic of theme 3: theory. Theory is a word that I before this course thought I understood. Now I know that theory is a complex concept that goes far beyond what I initially thought. Theory is about explaining why something occurs. It’s about somehow observing the world and trying to grasp it, to understand it. Theories describes the world which can lead to knowledge - which of course connects to theme 1.

In theme 2 we read and discussed nominalism and the enlightenment. I was very unfamiliar to some of these topics so the theme felt difficult at first. But now i retrospect I understand that the theme was about culture and technology, how they are connected and how they influence each other. Terms like aura questions what is lost in a reproduction and how does that affect our surrounding. Similar topic has come up several times during other courses, questions like does society control the advancements in technology or is it the other way around, but this time it had a more philosophical and theoretical approach with written material from those who witnessed major changes in society and media.

The three latter themes treated the topics I was expecting this course to be about; research methods. I found design research to be the most interesting one since I had not encountered it before, at least not at this theoretical level. Design research is something that I think is really important for us media technology students. To test and evaluate our technical solutions through for example a prototype is something that a lot of us will do in the future. The main reason of making an evaluation is to gain knowledge, which once again connects with theme 1. The knowledge one gains depends on how you designed your prototype and conducted the evaluation. The different research methods were discussed very intensely in this course. Their actual methods and the output data have been compared and analyzed. What I have learned is that in order to chose what method is the best for a given question you must know what kind of answer you are looking for. It is very important to know what answer you are looking for, otherwise the selected research method can output data that is not compatible with the question. There are different advantages and disadvantages with qualitative and quantitative research methods. With a quantitative research method it is easier to generalize and compare your findings. There are statistical and analytical tools to utilize to present your findings in an understandable way. The drawback is that you don’t take everything into account. Qualitative research methods can take a lot more into account (reasons behind the whatever you’re are examining or consequences) but it takes more work, is not as replicable and it’s hard to avoid being bias.

Something I will take with me from this course is something Haibo Li said in his lecture about research in the field of media technology, and that is to focus on defining the problem rather than solving it. This is something that I in retrospect should have applied in my bachelor thesis. Almost all energy and effort was put into solving the problem instead of defining it which made it hard to chose the best method and to conduct a good research. I will also take with me the great tool that is case studies. A case study looks at something specific and asks what sticks out. It is a great way of looking if something is worth researching and it can spark ideas.

This course has combined abstract and complex philosophical and scientific concepts with the more hands-on work an engineer does. It has also pretty much questioned a lot of things we take for granted which has been kind of eye opening and interesting. I have enjoyed the diversity in the lectures. We have had the pleasure to listen to interesting talks from different perspectives, especially regarding design research. I will definitely have this course in the back of my mind when I write and conduct my master's thesis

torsdag 29 oktober 2015

All Comments

Theme 6

1)Hello Ellinor! Just like you I also had a hard time figuring out what a "case study" exactly meant what properties it had. You have some sort of picture in your head of what a case study is, mine was similar to yours. But I learned that a case study means researching something in a field were little is known and is often used to learn what questions to ask in a later study. This is something that has occurred multiple times in this course. We learn about a scientific concept that we think we understand but then we learn that our understanding is very limited, like the concept of "theory" for example.

2) Greetings Anton!Seems like you learned a lot about case studies this week! You mention that case studies should investigate a small and narrow field. I think that this is what defines a case study. Do describe case studies as "organic" is very spot on. While I have never conducted a case study, I would take a wild guess and say that case studies probably often takes unexpected turns. And if the case study shows something interesting it might be worth looking into with a proper thorough research.

3) Hello!Great reflection! It is well written and it is easy to follow your thoughts. From my seminar I learned that a case study is not meant to be approached with a hypothesis but I was not certain why. But after reading your reflection it is clear to me that this is because there isn't enough knowledge in the field for a hypothesis to be formulated. This alone says a lot about case studies - there is so little known in the field that the approach is nothing more than a simple question - "what is this?". If the findings are of any interest then a proper investigation can be motivated based on the findings from the case study.

4) Hello Marcus!You mention something very interesting in your reflection that made me go "aha!". What you mention is why case studies are conducted in fields where very little is known and why you do not want to formulate any hypothesis in advance. Your answer is that you want an open mind looking in to whatever your case study is investigating. A hypothesis or some knowledge in the field might affect the study which I believe is something that you do not want. I think an open mind is crucial for conducting a successful case study.

5) Hello Oscar! I think you had some really interesting discussions during your seminar. I think the main reason for avoiding hypotheses in case studies is that you want an open mind when investigating a case. But with a hypothesis or a theory in mind then the result will probably be affected by this. I also started thinking why one would even conduct a case study if one cannot draw any general conclusions and I believe the main reason is to conduct future research. A case study is a way of looking into something that might be of interest. And if it happens to be then it can motivate a proper research.

6) Hello Rasmus!I understand what you mean by qualitative studies having a "social aspect". I think this is very hard to avoid since the usual methods of a qualitative study involves some sort of social interaction with people. On the one hand this means it's hard to have an objective perspective but it also allows research to involve perspectives that are hard to quantify, like feelings and intuition. Sometimes a story is the better way of presenting a study than a table.

7) Hello Arvid!An interestning reflection indeed. I think your thoughts on case studies are spot on. The important thing is to isolate the case and look at a specific detail. It is also important to not have any hypothesis or similar before going into the case study. But if the study is about something new and unexplored then a hypothesis is difficult to formulate. Byebye!

8) Heyo Måns!It was interesting to hear stuff from your seminar. We did not discuss documentaries at all so that was news to me. I had no idea that a documentary can be viewed as a researched methods. I understand that it is hard for a documentary to be objective, but I think that is also the case in a qualitative study.You mention that a case study looks at something unique and therefor cannot be used to confirm a theory. I agree. The point of conducting a case study is to explore a entirely new area and see if there is something of interest in it to motivate a future study.

9) Hi Rebecka!Interesting thoughts on this week's theme! I like your view on case studies which contains what was said during my seminar. I think one should be careful when comparing case studies and qualitative/quantitative studies since their applications are very different. A case study is not conducted to confirm a theory, rather to show if there is a possibility that a theory can even be hypothesized.

10) Hello Isabella!Great reflection! I also had a hard time understanding what a case study was before Ilias explained it during my seminar. I think that just looking up and reading a case study was not the best way of understanding the concept so it was good that he gave us his own explanation. I agree that the topics of quantitative and qualitative methods should have been discussed during the same week since it is so easy to compare them when discussing them.

Theme 5

1) Hey Ducky!Seems like you enjoyed this weeks lectures and learned a thing or two. It would be interesting if you compared the two lectures. I thought that Haibo's lecture was more practical, just as you pointed out, and more connected to the real world. While the second lecture talked about design research from an academic point of view. I think that both perspectives are equally important.

2) Dear Emil. Sure seems like you gained some knowledge this week! I think you especially presented a fine reflection of the second lecture. A prototype really is a tool that provides us with (hopefully) useful knowledge that help us realize an idea. The fact that the data that comes from a prototype and the design research around it is so called "artificial" is very interesting. Since it's something that we don't just observe but create ourselves I think it's hard to be objective. Looking forward to your final blogposts!

3) Dear Arvid!I think you've done a great job summarizing this weeks theme. You present the lectures in a good and easy readable way. It seems that Haibo Lee's lecture did a bigger impact on you. I think Haibo said some great things about ideas and entrepreneurship. Like how you should present your idea in the right way. It differed a lot from everything else we've read so far in this course but I think it was very useful to hear as a future engineer. It seems like you also liked that perspective of the lecture.

4) Hey Björn!I think you have written a great reflection. Your writing makes it easy to follow your trail of thoughts. Too bad you felt like you couldn't fully appreciate Haibo's lecture because you didn't have an idea of your own. Maybe the day that idea pops in your head what Haibo said will make much more sense. What I think is important from that lecture is the importance of defining an idea before attempting to solve it, the idea of proof-of-concept and how one presents the proof-of-concept in the best way.

5) Hi! You have made a good reflection that is easy to follow and contains great thoughts and facts about this theme. You say something very interesting that I fully support by stating that it is analysis that turns something into research. Just as you say the method only defines the data. But I also believe that the choice of method also dictates what kind of answer you will get.

6) Hi! Well summarized and good writing! I think you mention something very simple but true regarding prototypes: that a prototype allows you to explore the concept with you senses. This makes it so much easier to understand how the people behind the idea are thinking. I do not believe this has been said in the course so far, maybe it is implicit. You also mention the importance of evaluation, which is something very common in media technology. It gives us insight on for example user experience.

7) Hello Rasmus,You express very interesting thoughts in this blog post. We have learned that the concept of design is very complex but your attempt of presenting your own view on it made me understand how others might view it. I would like to hear what you thought of the second lecture where the lecturer talked about the academic view of design and prototypes, although you write interesting things about prototypes and their purpose in a satisfying way.

8) Hello Ellinor! I really enjoy how you connect this theme with previous themes and also even previous courses. I never linked some of the course content from the Human-Computer Interaction course but after reading your blog post it makes total sense! Your definition of design research (=designed problem solving) was very clever and agree with you on that one.

9) Hello Rickard! Great blog post! While I agree that being able to sell your idea is important, it's maybe not always the best measure of success. Success can mean a lot of things apart from making profit. Scientific contribution, sustainable development, increased well-being etc. Although Haibo did mention that a great idea is worth "billions of dollars" I think there is more to it than that.

10) Hello Marcus! I agree that Haibo's lecture was a bit shallow without much detail information. While success in the shape of financial success can in some way dictate if an idea is good or not, it shouldn't be the only factor in play. Success can be measured in many ways. Today many of our biggest companies in ICT are still not making a single dollar in profit (Spotify for example). Are they not successful?

Theme 4

1) Dear Emil!Let me just start up by congratulating you on a great blog post. I was familiar with the topic before this theme just like you. It seems that you learned a thing or two. I found it interesting when you mentioned that not only qualitative but also quantitative data collection methods (in the form of Big Data) can be used when looking in "uncharted territory". I hadn't thought of that before. Still one has to know what kind of answer one is looking for in order to choose method.

2) Greetings Arvid!I recognized myself in a lot of your thoughts. I also found this theme to be more straightforward since I knew about the different research methods before. Before the seminar I also had a difficult time interpreting qualitative results. One must see and interpret the results in a different way than the results from a quantitative study since the participants of a qualitative research can have totally different views on the subject, just as you say. Keep up the good work!

3) Hello!Great blog post! You seem to have drawn almost the same conclusions as me regarding what characterizes qualitative and quantitative research. But I also believe that a lot also has to do with what kind of answer one is after. In some situations it might be relevant to present opinions or feelings with quantitative data, because of the answer one is after (although that it unusual.

4) Hello!You present some very interesting thoughts in this reflection, like your reflection regarding qualitative research and how it can lead to loss of data and generalizations. I had never really thought about that and it wasn't mentioned in our seminar so I'm glad I got to hear it from you. The debate about whether quantitative methods is a must in scientific research research was also interesting. I would have to say that I don't believe that one always needs quantitative research methods, I think a lot depends on the question and what kind of answer you are looking for.

5) Hello!I find the discussions from your seminar very interesting. Especially in what types of studies it is relevant to use both a qualitative and a quantitative research method. I believe it all depends on what kind of answer you are looking for. If you want a model that considers both forms of data then use both. I got curious to how you came up with the conclusion that both methods are useful when studying perceived use versus actual use.

6) Hey Björn! Interesting thoughts about Illias' paper about VR and virtual body ownership. I did think about it while I was reading it but I never discussed it during my seminar. Maybe a qualitative research method had showed something else. As we have learned during this theme, the method one chooses depends on what kind of questions one is after. Just as you say, most of has had already some knowledge regarding this topic but it's good that you still managed to obtain some interesting insight.

7) Hey!Great reflection! You cover this theme in a very good and easily understandable way. Your thoughts on questionnaires are very interesting and made me think about how to design the best possible questionnaires, and how do you possible know when it is the best? After conducting the data collection?

8) Hello!I also had prior knowledge regarding this theme so it didn't feel as new and complex as previous themes. But I still believe that there are other interesting things to pick up from this theme, like the paper by Ilias and his colleges about virtual body ownership that I also found very interesting. I found their approach and research method very interesting since I would say, without knowing which research method they used, that a qualitative method would be to prefer. But in this case, based on the answer they were looking for, a quantitative method was the most reasonable.

9) Hello!Great reflection on this theme. Your comment about the order of the questions makes a lot of sense. Just as you I knew some of the material in this theme from before which made the whole theme feel less complex this week. Your discussion about when to use both research methods was interesting. I agree with you that the situation decides what is more suitable.

10) Hey Anton!Sure seems like you had a fruitful seminar. Your discussions about qualitative and quantitative research and data are well formulated and inspiring. You give great explanations on the difference between qualitative and quantitative studies; differences in how one analyze the data, choose which method, interpret the results etc. I learned a thing or two! Keep up the good work!

Theme 3

1) Hello Måns!Too bad the lecture didn't feel so interesting but I'm glad the seminar sparked some thoughts. I agree with you that this theme was a bit different than the previous in the sense that the approach to the subject wasn't as philosophical. I find it interesting that your group in the seminar found the texts contradicting, it would be interesting to know in what way. My understanding of theory is that presenting data is not enough to have a theory acknowledged, you also need logical reasoning.

2) Hi!Your take on theory is very interesting. You write about mathematics and if they are theory. You conclude that math is based on a priori knowledge and can therefore not be theory but then you mention that there exist mathematical theories. If they are not theories, then what are they? I liked your conclusion regarding theory and knowledge , theory itself is not knowledge but that it can lead to knowledge and to other theories.

3) Hello!You have managed to cover the major parts of this theme in a well formulated way. You mention the difference between a philosophical theory and a scientific theory in a satisfying way, I can't help but wonder however, if you cannot test a philosophical theory through research or observation, can you ever test it and what is its purpose? You make a great summary of the lecture by Dahlberg about theory and it's properties. One can tell that your understanding of the concept has expanded and just like you I will remember that truth is relative, especially when it comes to theory.
Good job!

4) Hi Rebecka!Just as you I found it odd to suddenly hear that theories are not complete. They cannot actually prove something completely. But when you think about it, there is always the possibility that all tests of a theory are random exceptions. We are also limited in our perception of the world. I liked your ending of this blogpost and agree that theory might not in itself be knowledge, but it can lead to knowledge.

5) Hi! You have written a good summary of this theme. Good job. I enjoyed your mentioning of paradigm. In physics we have great examples of paradigms (like your mentioning of the quantum)- how suddenly the world as we thought we knew it changes and our theories are not applicable to everything. This is very interesting since those "old" theories gave us knowledge. But I believe that knowledge is still relevant, we just have to think of it in a new way.

6) Hello!I agree with you that this theme wasn't as abstract as the previous and not as philosophical. We have all come across theories before but now we got to expand our knowledge about theory. I can't really think of a situation were a diagram can support an entire theory. It can probably be a big part of the theory, but it also needs logical reasoning and often other theories to be accepted as a theory by a majority.

7) Hello! I think that your blogpost summarizes this theme in a very satisfying way. I agree with you that the terms theory and hypothesis are often mixed up or viewed as synonyms. But at least we know the difference and can teach others. I like your explanation of the difference between theory and hypothesis. Theory needs logical argumentation besides something observed/studied.

8) Hello!Great blog post! I especially enjoyed reading the last part of your text, about how truth is relative. If I understood you correctly you say that just as we once thought earth was flat, today we might regard things as the truth that will one day maybe be regarded as silly as the earth being flat. Just as you say, truth is tied to time and space. I also believe that it is also tied to our limited perception of the world through our senses

9) Dear Anton!The part of your text where you discuss the relation between truth and theory was very well formulated and interesting. You also wove in a bit of Kant it seems (I would guess it was intentional) which made me connect our first theme with this theme much better. Your groups discussion about Mathematics was thought provoking and made me think about the fundamentals of math. It would be interesting to learn more about that, it is probably a very discussed subject.
Good job!

10) Dear Arvid.I enjoyed reading your explanation of a weak and a strong theory. The subject didn't come up during my discussion at the seminar so thank you for explaining. You mentioned the following phrase: "correlation does not imply causation". I believe this is vital to know. I remember this from my statistic class and how dangerous it can be to instantly assume that a correlation means a causation.

Theme 2

1) Hey Anton! Great reflection. I can see that we attended to the same seminar only by reading your text. We seem to have very similar opinions and understanding about theme 2! Something you brought up, which I didn't, was whether there is something as "good art" or "bad art". It's not the easiest to fully understand Benjamin's opinion but reading your reflection helped!

2) Dear Arvid! Great blogpost! I like how you explain why Adorno and Horkheimer thinks that nominalism can be dangerous and why media can affect society. Looking forward to reading your blog next week!

3) Dear Emil! Great blog post! I really enjoyed your explanation of the difference between nominalism and platonic realism. The example with the apple helped me understand the difference between them much better. I think the platonic realist's opinion that there is a "true apple" is interesting but not something i personally believe in.

4) Hi Marcus! You start your blog post by stating that you didn't understand the authors situation (place and time). I think this goes for all of us. It's hard for us to fully understand what the text are referring to since we cannot relate to that period in time. But by studying not only texts but also the authors or what events might have affected the texts. I enjoyed your explanation of the term aura with the hat and the rocker, it's a very relevant explanation today.

5) Hi! A great blog post that really captured the essence of theme 2. I agree with you that context is crucial for understanding these texts. The first time I read Benjamin's text I had no idea about who he really was, what events that formed his text or his tragic faith. After learning all this during the lecture I understood them much better. Keep up the good work!

6) Hi Rebecka! Great blog post! I like your way of explaining the concepts of this weeks theme. I like that you involve your own personal opinion by saying that no one today questions the great influence of media. I totally agree with you that Benjamin seems to have made a better prediction of the future than Horkheimer and Adorno

7) Hey Calle! I like the part of your text where you write about how cultural production affects the actual culture and that it takes time for changes to happen in superstructures. I also like your hypothesis of why Adorno and Horkheimer didn't realize the revolutionary potential within media - their amount of media-channels weren't big enough

8) Hi! Great blog post! You mention the current events and era that formed both Benjamin's and Adorno & Horkheimers texts. That really made me think about the fact that these two texts writes about a common subject but from two completely different backgrounds. Benjamin writes with Germany in the 30's as starting point while Adorno & Horkheimer were in America a decade later. I think you really captured this weeks theme in a well-written way!

9) Hi! I also had difficulties grasping the term "aura". I think that was because the examples that Benjamin presents in his text are a but out of context today. Your example with an art piece at a museum is more suitable today!

10) Hi! Great blog post! I think you mentioned everything relevant from this theme. I really liked your last paragraph where you mention the view on media today. Since the access of technology that could "capture culture" was so limited during the 30's and 40's, the government really had a big influence in culture. But today were the technology needed is available we are all creators of culture.

Theme 1

1) Hi! Great blogpost! I think it is really good that you explore other sources to help you understand better, very cleaver. I think you and your seminare came to a really good conclusion when comparing Plato and Kant by saying that "Plato thinks that that means that we should try to eliminate the senses and their influence and use pure thought. Kant meanwhile is of the opinion that since we can’t ignore our senses we should use them instead, and experiment with the world as we perceive it". It made me understand their two different views a bit better :)

2) Hi Calle! Great post! I found your discussion about experience limiting our thinking as very interesting and something I have never thought about before. Your discussion about objective knowledge was similar to ours but we didn't discussed the concept of "truth" so that part of your post was interesting. I agree with you that since we cannot be sure that there is such a thing as objective knowledge then the same thing applies with truth.

3) Hey Emil!What a delightful read! I especially liked the part where you explain the purpose of Kant's twelve categories very methodically and easy understandable. I learned a thing or two!
Keep up the good work!

4) Hi Anton! Great blog post! I enjoyed how you linked Plato's Theaetetus and Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. I also liked your quote from Kant's perspective "Our faculties of knowledge limits us from perceiving the world objectively" - I think you great promise and that you understood the texts from theme 1. Looking forward to reading more blog posts from you!

5) Hi! Great blog post. You wrote that you initial understanding of some of Kant's thoughts about a priori and posteriori where not entirely true. I think this goes for most of us. I also find it difficult at first but the seminar helped me understand. You also wrote that Kant's main objective was to explain knowledge and perception and that a priori and posteriori are just ways of doing so - which I agree on! Kant's starting point is that there is lots of knowledge in the world, he never questions this. He wants to know HOW the knowledge is structured.

6) Hi! I like how you discussed differences and similarities between Kant and Plato - both are aware that our senses (perception) is between us and objective knowledge. A found your discussion in the seminar about truth interesting. We did not have that discussion unfortunately so it's good that you mentioned it!

7) Hi! I really enjoyed reading about Kant's ideal of objectivity and his categories. You explained it in a very good way. It's also very good that you went to an external source to understand it better, I will try to do so myself for next theme.

8) Hi Rebecka! Great blog post! I believe you really grasp Kant's theories and thoughts. You write the following: "Objectivity is not objectivity in itself since we have created the term and definition". This is something I never thought about or remember being mentioned at the lecture or seminar, so I find it really interesting. It shows that us human will always perceive knowledge and the world through our senses, there is no way around that.

9) Hi Arvid! I also had troubles understanding the texts but things cleared up slowly. You write about how we will never be able to see the world in a truly objective way and that our view differs from one human to another and that without context and earlier experiences nothing in the world makes sense anymore. I agree with you. Everything we experience goes through our senses and is compared to all previous experience. Although Kant says that we can in someway, It's hard be truly objective.

10) Hi! Great post. I also had a hard time understanding the texts but eventually things clear up. I find you discussion about Kant interesting but I would have liked some explanation to why according to you Kant believes we can have a truly objective view of the world.

måndag 26 oktober 2015

My Comments - Theme 6

måndag 19 oktober 2015

Theme 6 - Post Seminar

For the sixth and final seminar I have read Building Theories from Case Study Research by Eisenhardt, K. M. Unfortunately this week’s lecture was cancelled but we still managed to have a fruitful seminar with Ilias. In my small group during the seminar we started by presenting the papers we chose for the assignment. We had to analyze one qualitative study in a paper and one case study in a paper. We gave a brief summary and presented what strengths and weaknesses we had found in the papers. It was very interesting since you got to hear what paper others had chosen and what they thought. The method behind the qualitative study differed between our papers, some used semi-structured interviews while other used focus groups. We then did the same thing with our case studies. My understanding of what a case study actually is was quite limited before this seminar. But hearing others summarize their case studies helped my better understand the concept.

During the group discussion with everyone we started by discussing qualitative studies. We discussed what the least amount of participants a qualitative study can have. Ilias instantly answered “one” and gave us the example of a study regarding someone with a very unusual disease. Of course one could conduct a fruitful study just based on this person.

Then we went in to the subject of case studies. We arrived at the conclusion that a case study cannot be used to confirm a theory but rather to gain knowledge. A case study looks at something specific and asks what sticks out? It can also be used before conducting a study with multiple participants since a case study can show if there even exists something interesting to look further into and it can also give you ideas of what questions to ask.

Finally we discussed something that maybe wasn’t very related to this theme but it was a very interesting topic that I would like to share. We talked about scientific studies that challenges the scientific world and what is currently know, like Copernicus did. It’s difficult to present a lot of evidence at the beginning since it’s a new paradigm and others will not be easily convinced. To do so you need to build a strong logical argument for your case. The first evidence you find will not be enough to convince the rest but slowly as more evidence is presented the scientific world with shift towards the new discovery.

fredag 16 oktober 2015

My Comments - Theme 5

måndag 12 oktober 2015

My Comments - Theme 4

1. http://duckyduckyducky.blogspot.se/2015/10/post-seminar-4.html?showComment=1444226942506#c3908021280614335691

2. http://thetheoryabouteverything.blogspot.se/2015/10/post-theme-4-quantitative-research.html?showComment=1444252362875

3. http://theoatmeth.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-4-post-seminar.html?showComment=1444321574190#c6233772416515130391

4. http://reb2572.blogspot.se/2015/10/post-theme-4.html?showComment=1444651507043#c1494316357158904073

5. http://rickardsdm2572.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-4-post-seminar-reflections.html?showComment=1444653622858

6. http://denise-theoryandmethod.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-4-quantitative-research-22.html?showComment=1444654430777#c8958153271653270330

7. http://bjornsblogggg.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-4-post-reflection.html?showComment=1444662177293#c5893386007407042708

8. http://oscarlimback.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-4-quantitative-research-after.html?showComment=1444654832487#c6558153960308005992

9. http://gamlagreker.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-4-reflection.html?showComment=1444655204664#c4926936322035119137

10. http://lard-have-mercy.blogspot.se/2015/10/post-theme-4-quantitative-research.html?showComment=1444656209202#c6941319913846216475

Theme 5 - Post Seminar

For this week’s theme I have participated on two lectures. One lecture by Habio Lee and one lecture by Anders Lundström. Both lectures was on the topic design research, prototypes and evaluation within the field of media technology. I have also read the following articles:

Réhman, S., Sun, J., Liu, L., & Li, H. (2008). Turn Your Mobile Into the Ball: Rendering Live Football Game Using Vibration. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 10(6), 1022-1033
Fernaeus & Tholander Finding design qualities in a tangible programming space
Lundström Differentiated Driving Range

Lecture 1 - Haibo Lee
The main topic of Haibo Lee’s lecture was design research in Media Technology. His main points where the following:

How to come up with an problem
How to filter the idea
How to validate the idea
How to evaluate the idea
How to communicate the idea

He talked a lot about how crucial it is to define a problem properly before attempting to solve it. He even stated that the distribution between them is 90% defining the problem and 10% solving it. I do not know where he got these numbers from, but that’s not what’s important here. The important thing is that defining the problem is much more important and what you should divide more time to. He’s way of convincing us was by telling us about a problem in the field of face recognition. Webcameras that were mounted on top of computer screen had difficulties recognising faces and while some tried to solve this without questioning the position of the camera, Haibo’s solution was to mount the camera on the person instead.

He continued to talk about proof-of-concept, which I have prior to this lecture regarded as a way to show that an idea/project is realistic. Haibo said that a proof-of-concept is important to validate your idea, but how you present it is very important, you must know your audience. I found this very interesting. If you present it with too much technical details or with too much focus on revenue and prestige then it might backfire and appear like you do not know what you are presenting. Therefore to communicate your idea with a entrepreneur pitch is the best way, it’s like a middle ground between the two extremes.

Lecture 2 - Anders Lundström

The lecture by Anders Lundström was very improvised since he filled in for Ylva Fernaeus at the last second, resulting in a lecture that was quite hard to follow.

A big part of the lecture was about prototypes; what they are, their purpose, how one goes about designing one. I had some sort of understanding of this before this lecture but Anders clear some things up. According to Anders the main reason of making a prototype is to gain knowledge. The knowledge you (hopefully) gain depends on how you designed your prototype. According to Anders we can create a design for a prototype to get the answers to the research problem. This lead to the next topic: design method, which I must admit I did not fully understand. To gain knowledge and conduct research on a prototype one needs empirical data. According to Anders the empirical data is artificial since the empirical data is created by the researcher and not, for example, observed.

fredag 9 oktober 2015

Theme 6 - Pre Seminar

I have chosen to analyze the research article Social Practices Around iTunes by Amy Voida, Rebecca E. Grinter and Nicholas Ducheneaut from 2006. The article was published in Volume 35 of the series Computer Supported Cooperative Work pp 57-83. The article’s main objective is to investigate the practices surrounding music sharing by looking at the Apple’s music platform iTunes. The method for this investigation is a series of semi-structured interviews with users of the music platform iTunes. The interviews focused on specific examples of social aspects of iTunes use and their attitudes around sharing music through iTunes’ music sharing functions. All the interviewed (13 individuals) were employees of the same corporation. Semi-structured interviews means that the interviewer and respondents engage in a formal interview. The interviewer has a list of questions and topics that need to be covered during the conversation, usually in a particular order. The interviewer follows the list, but is able to follow topical trajectories in the conversation that may stray from the guide when he or she feels this is appropriate. The benefits of semi-structured interviews is that questions can be prepared ahead of time which allows the interviewer to prepared. Semi-structured interviews also allows the conductor of the interview to deviate from the prepared questions based on what the interviewee says. The limitations of semi-structured interviews is that, besides taking a lot of time and effort, it requires skills in the one conducting the interviews and the study is hard for others to replicate.

In my bachelor thesis a part of our study consisted of semi-structured interviews so I already had some experience of the method before. This paper did not unfortunately give much detail on how the interviews were conducted or structured. However, it bases the entire study on these interview which I found a bit odd at first. I would have thought some sort of quantitative study was made before and led to the qualitative study. In this case there was not quantitative study but there was a thorough literary study that led to the semi-structured interviews.

A methodological problem with this particular study is their chosen interviewees. The interviewees had to share the same network in order for this study to work, which is why they choose a group of people who worked together. However, there is no mention on why exactly they were chosen for this study. If general conclusions about iTunes user are meant to be drawn maybe the fact that they probably have a lot in common might affect the outcome.

Eisenhardt has this to say about a case study in his paper Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.

“The case study is a research strategy which focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings.” - Eisenhardt

A case study is a strategy that combine data collection methods such as interviews, and questionnaires. The evidence may be qualitative, quantitative or both. Case studies typically combine data collection methods such as archives, interviews, questionnaires, and observations. The evidence may be qualitative (e.g., words), quantitative (e.g numbers) or both. The actual case study is a study within a context where all the collected data is relevant to that context.

I have looked at the following paper containing a case study: Feng Gu, Gunilla Widén‐Wulff, (2011) "Scholarly communication and possible changes in the context of social media: A Finnish case study", The Electronic Library, Vol. 29 Iss: 6, pp.762 - 776

The paper investigates the influence of social media on scholarly communication. The aim is to provide an overview of researchers' use of a certain web technique (Web 2.0), and discuss a possible change of information behaviors in the context of scholarly communication.The authors writes the purpose of the paper and defines important concepts and expressions within the topic that is needed to understand the paper. It also has a literature review that presents what is know in the field, both in social media and scholarly communication. The authors select, based on the previous, the Åbo Akademi University as the subject for the study. The developed library system in Finland and the lifelong education system in universities are beneficial to the rapid development of new network technology and a new scholarly environment. The target population for the survey was university researcher and employees. The study consisted of a questionnaire The questions were divided into five groups: the basic characteristics of the participants, the information practices in social media, the application of Web 2.0 tools in research, teaching, and daily life, the attitude about the information quality and collective writing, and the expectations of library services. Based on the conclusion the authors draw, they presents how their findings could be implemented in scholarly communication and examples of future studies.

Sources:
Amy Voida, Rebecca E. Grinter and Nicholas Ducheneaut (2006) Social Practices Around iTunes Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Volume 35 pp 57-83.

Feng Gu, Gunilla Widén‐Wulff, (2011) "Scholarly communication and possible changes in the context of social media: A Finnish case study", The Electronic Library, Vol. 29 Iss: 6, pp.762 - 776

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). theme 6 Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1989.4308385

måndag 5 oktober 2015

My Comments - Theme 3

Theme 4 - Post Seminar

I have read two text for this week’s theme. Ilias Bergström and colleagues Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality and an paper I have chosen to analyze: “Social Networking Sites: Their Users and Social Implications — A Longitudinal Study ” by Petter Bae Brandtzæg. The article was published in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, volume 18, issue 4. The paper investigates the rapid adoption of social networking sites (SNSs) by looking at the social implications of their usage. I have also participated in a lecture held by Ilias himself that was mostly about his his paper about virtual reality and about the two main data collection methods.

We started the seminar by discussing within our small group about our experiences with qualitative and quantitative data before this course and our view of them. Most of us had done our bachelor thesis very recently so we had some understanding of the subject even before this theme. We could all agree that our understanding of the different methods of conducting research has since then expanded.

During the seminar we discussed and compared the two main forms of studies: qualitative studies and quantitative studies. In our group we started by listing the situations where one type of study form was better than the other. We concluded that a lot depends on the question one wants to answer and what type of answer you are after. In Ilias Bergström’s Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality they wanted to find out how their test persons behaved and acted subconsciously. Their study could be based on both qualitative and quantitative data. What form of study to conduct must therefore be answered by what answer they want from the study. Ilias explained during the seminar that they wanted the subconscious reason why a stronger body illusion has an effect on the performance. Since the test persons wouldn’t know the subconscious reasons behind the illusion not much would be gained by explaining it through a qualitative research. However, if the answer they were after was different, a qualitative research method could have been preferred. There are different advantages and disadvantages with qualitative and quantitative research methods. With a quantitative research method it is easier to generalize and compare your findings. There are statistical and analytical tools to utilize to present your findings in an understandable way. The drawback is that you don’t take everything into account. The underlying reasons can be lost since a quantitative research doesn’t care about the before or the after. Qualitative methods can take a lot more into account (reasons behind the whatever you’re are examining or consequences) but it takes more work, is not as replicable and it’s hard to avoid being bias.

During the seminar we also discussed wicked problems - problems are so complex that can only be answer qualitative because there are too many factors in play. It would be impossible to answer a wicked problem purely qualitatively, it would be too much to try to squeeze in, in a quantitative stud. These types of problems are often seen in fields like humanistic or psychology.

fredag 2 oktober 2015

Theme 5 - Pre Lectures

I have read the paper Turn Your Mobile Into the Ball: Rendering Live Football Game Using Vibration. It’s about using the vibration technique to communicate what is happening in a live football game. I found this paper very interesting and appealing since I am very fond of football and because I have never heard of this way of communicating sports before. Imaging sitting in a lecture and knowing what is happening on a football field by the vibrations from your phone.

How can media technologies be evaluated?
Media technologies is, in one way or the other, about different forms of communications through time and/or space. The evaluation of media technology can of course differ from case to case but as far as I know media technology is often evaluated by observing how individuals without prior knowledge of the concept behave or perceive whatever is being tested. You chose these people because you want the evaluation to be from an outside perspective. It’s also important to successfully identify your target group (if you have one) and let someone from that group evaluate it. The actual evaluation often looks at user-friendliness, design or efficiency.

What role will prototypes play in research?
The reason for having a prototype is to have a mock-version of your intended product (or what ever you are designing) to evaluate its capabilities while you are still developing it. A prototype is a great way to make your research more realistic and more connected with what you are trying to develop and helps you figure out how to improve your concept.

Why could it be necessary to develop a proof of concept prototype?
A proof-of-content is evidence that the idea for a product, for example, is doable and realistic. A situation where this could be necessary is when trying to convince others that your vision of a product, innovation, etc is even possible.

What are characteristics and limitations of prototypes?
The first characteristic of a prototype that pops into my head is that a prototype is often very basic and “low-tech”. Of course this doesn’t have to be the case, a prototype can be an almost finished version of the final product. A software-prototype, like an app for instance, can appear to be a finished product but in reality it’s just a mock-version of the app. This is a great way of testing a prototype since you can come very close to a “real” version very easy. The limitations depends of course how good of a prototype you have. I would think that in the field of industrial design it’s quite hard to come close to what you imagine with a prototype.

I have also read Finding design qualities in a tangible programming space - Fernaeus & Tholander and Differentiated Driving Range - Lundström.

What is the 'empirical data' in these two papers?
The empirical data mainly comes from previous research, qualitative analyses through interviews with experts, early adopters etc and evaluations of prototypes. The quality of the prototypes is both early “low-fi” versions and highly functioning ones.

Can practical design work in itself be considered a 'knowledge contribution?
I believe that the process from an vision to a final product generates knowledge. One can never fully predict how something will behave or be received in the real world and by making the journey between theory and practice, new findings and discoveries will come along the way.

Are there any differences in design intentions within a research project, compared to design in general?
I think that design in a research project does a more thorough investigation that takes more aspects into consideration and the goal is to come to some sort of conclusion that (hopefully) will contribute to whatever field of science the project is about. Design in general focuses on making the design as good as possible based on the end-user and certain conditions.

Is research in tech domains such as these ever replicable? How may we account for aspects such as time/historical setting, skills of the designers, available tools, etc?
I think that research is never entirely replicable, especially in the tech domain like these papers. There are too many factors in play like the exact technology, and their chosen test persons. Aspects like time/historical setting, skills of the designers and available tools are things that are constantly under change.

Are there any important differences with design driven research compared to other research practices?
The main difference between design driven research to other research is that in design research there is always someone or something you are designing for. There is a clear objective with certain needs and conditions that need to be taken into account, when designing in the best possible way.

måndag 28 september 2015

Theme 3 - Post Seminar

For the third theme’s seminar I have read the following articles: Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems and Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B. M. (1995). What Theory is Not. I have also chosen a paper in the field of Media Technology and evaluated it critically.

The seminar for theme three was about one topic: theory. During the group discussions we agreed on that theory is about explaining why something occurs. It’s about somehow observing something and trying to grasp it, to understand it. We all felt that theory is something related to the previous themes; nominalism, enlightenment and knowledge. Theories describes the world which can lead to knowledge. We started discussing theories in relation to truth and came to the conclusion that it is dangerous to mention truth and theory in the same sentence. A theory doesn’t have to be “true” to be a theory. During the lecture we were taught that when a theory is tested and accepted by a majority of experts, it can be regarded as true. There are multiple theories or models today that we know are not entirely true but we still use them. Newton’s laws of motion is one example. They explain motion in a great way when velocities are within what we can relate to and observe in our world. But when velocities starts to reach the velocity of light, things depart and the theory can’t explain what is happening. So why do we use Newton’s laws if we know they are not entirely true? Because they are a simplification of something very complex. They help us explain the world around us. Even though we know the law is not universal with respect of velocity.

We also discussed that a theory doesn’t have to come from an observation or similar, it can also be based on another theory (which is almost always the case according to our seminar leader). In our group we talked about quantum physics and how there can be theories in that field when there is so little empiric data. Our hypothesis was that there must be theories build on entirely on other theories, which is rather interesting.

During the large discussion in the seminar we discussed what makes a theory good or bad. If you are not an expert in the field then it can be very hard to identify this, especially if the theory is “hidden” within big amounts of data and conclusion. In other words; it’s hard to define a good theory. A good logical argumentation might be one thing that makes a good theory, or that the area where the theory applies is well-defined might also be something to strive for.

My Comments - Theme 2

fredag 25 september 2015

Theme 4 - Pre Seminar

The quantitative paper i have chosen is “Social Networking Sites: Their Users and Social Implications — A Longitudinal Study ” by Petter Bae Brandtzæg. The article was published in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, volume 18, issue 4. The paper investigates the rapid adoption of social networking sites (SNSs) by looking at the social implications of their usage.

Which quantitative method or methods are used in the paper? Which are the benefits and limitations of using these methods?
The quantitative method the authors use is by using an online survey to determine how nonusers and SNS users differ in different social capital dimensions. The survey was sent to representatives of the online population in Norway in the 15- to 75-year age group, gender, and education. The survey was sent out using various means (including telephone, websites, newsletters, and face-to-face surveys). The study consisted of three “survey waves”, one per year. Meaning the same respondents were to participate once per year for three consecutive years. They started out with 2000 respondents, but the number that responded to all three surveys was only 35% of the total number of people. Apparently such a big amounts of drop-outs is expected is such surveys. Since they sent the surveys to representatives of the online population in Norway’s they could check if the drop-outs belonged to a certain group or if it could be regarded as a coincidence through statistics. Their conclusion is that it most likely doesn’t affect the results. The benefits of a online survey is that it’s easy to reach out to the respondents and it can collect results pretty quick (if the people taking the survey answers as soon as they can. However there are of course limitations. One can not be entirely sure that the person claiming to answering the survey actually is. Also the survey type could be more suitable to some groups than others.

What did you learn about quantitative methods from reading the paper?
From reading this paper I have learned that online surveys can have a substantial dropout rate but that even though the dropout rate is rather big, you can still draw conclusions by doing statistical analysis and cross-referencing with other studies.

Which are the main methodological problems of the study? How could the use of the quantitative method or methods have been improved?
I think the biggest problem, which I mention earlier, is that this study is suppose to cover Norway’s total demographic, but its method (online surveys that are sent through e-mail) of achieving this suits some groups better than others. This would mean that some groups become over represented. I doubt that the dropouts are completely random and that some groups are more likely to drop out than others. One could approach different groups differently and in a way that suits that particular group in a better way.

Read the following paper written by Ilias Bergström and colleagues. Reflect on the key points and what you learnt by reading the text. Also, briefly discuss the questions below.
I found the paper by Ilias and his colleagues very interesting. I found a bit odd actually that this paper is almost entirely based on quantitative data when the objective is to investigate behaviors and how we can perceive ourselves in a Virtual Reality - an investigation I would spontaneous think would be based on qualitative data. The paper does mention that they conducted semi-structured interviews after each test, but they are not used to support their discussion or conclusion. Instead focus lays on the quantitative data, such as the movement data and the post-experiment questionnaire. I understand if the authors made this choice to have as objective and measurable data as possible, but since they are investigating behavioral change it feels like there could have been more focus on qualitative data. Otherwise there is a chance that some of what the test persons experienced was lost in the quantitative data.

Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative/qualitative methods?
Quantitative methods are good to use when performing research were the number correspondents needed to investigate something is rather high. The output data is more measurable and can be compared much easier. One can also use statistical methods and see if there are patterns. The negative part is that important details can be left out.

Qualitative methods are good to use when the question one hopes to answer is complex. Methods can give you a deeper understanding and lead to interesting side tracks. However, qualitative methods requires more time and funds. It’s also much easier for the one conducting the experiment/test to stay objective during qualitative methods.

måndag 21 september 2015

My comments - Theme 1

Theme 2 - Post Seminar

For the second theme's seminar I have read two texts: Benjamin’s "The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity" (1936) and Adorno och Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944) (chapters "The Concept of Enlightenment" and "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception"). I have also participated on a lecture.

During the seminar the concept and view of nominalism came up for discussion. Before the seminar my view of nominalism was quite limited and restricted to the pure definition. The definition being that a nominalist rejects universal objects and sees objects in the world as individual and claims that two objects can't have anything in common besides the name we happen to give them.

The discussion was about nominalism versus platonic realism. While nominalists believe that there is no such thing as universal objects, a platonic realist believes that every object is a copy of the true object. One example being that a particular apple is a copy of the form of applehood and the apple's redness is an instance of the form of redness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_realism).

Nominalism also relates to the enlightenment. We discussed that it is a matter of perception. The enlightenment basically says to mankind: observe the world and what is happening in it, don't get stuck in rational arguments. It emphasizes physical matter. The nominalistic perception is about seeing objects as individuals and it is important for the enlightenment in the sense that we need to view objects as individuals in order to study them.

We also discussed how an extreme nominalist point of view can relate to fascism. Fascism believes in a feudal society and hierarchy and doesn't question this. This is similar to extreme nominalism which only acknowledges what is observable and also does not question this. According to Adorno and Horkheimer it is dangerous not to question things.

According the Adorno and Horkheimer mass media reflects the world as it is and that we conform to the image of society that is presented to us. They argue that picturing life in movies will mirror actual life and therefore show that life should be in a certain way. The mass media mirrors the everyday life and doesn’t show alternatives, therefore it does not have any revolutionary potential. Benjamin has a more positive point of view. For example, he liked the idea of presenting the working class on the white screen. This would give the working class a sense of belonging and purpose. Therefor Benjamin’s view is that culture does have revolutionary potential.

We also discussed substructure and superstructure. Substructure is what we produce in society, the tools and the actual production, while superstructures are big structures that consists of multiple substructures. We can often see rather quick changes in how we produce, but for changes to happen in the superstructure takes a lot of time. If the changes in the substructures last we will see changes in the superstructure. The example of gay marriage came up during the seminar. There have been a lot changes in different substructures regarding gay rights but to change the actual law has taken its time and effort and can be viewed as a superstructure.

fredag 18 september 2015

Theme 3 - Pre seminar

Briefly explain to a first year university student what theory is, and what theory is not.

To give “theory” a definition is a bit tricky. This quote from Sutton and Staw says it rather good: “Though there is conflict about what theory is and should be, there is more consensus about what theory is not”. So what is theory not? Sutton and Staw mentions several things that theory is not. Some are trivial while others are not.

According to Cambridge University’s dictionary the definition of theory is: “a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas that are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation”. (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theory?q=Theory)

An explanation from Sutton and Staw text that is referred to Kaplan and Merton is the following: theory is the answer to queries of why. This might be a bit vague and wide and can work for any question there is and a question itself doesn’t have to be a theory of course. Therefor a much better quote from the same text is: Theory is about the connections among phenomena, a story about why acts, events, structure, and thoughts occur. Theory emphasizes the nature of causal relationships, identifying what comes first as well as the timing of such events (Sutton and Staw). So it’s not only a question but it must also relate to a phenomenon or an event of some sort.

Write a short description of the journal and what kind of research it publishes.

I have chosen The Journal of Communication which is a bimonthly peer-reviewed academic journal that publishes articles and book reviews on a broad range of issues in communication theory and research (Wikipedia). From this journal I have chosen the following article: What Is Second Screening? Exploring Motivations of Second Screen Use and Its Effect on Online Political Participation.

Write a short summary of the paper and provide a critical examination of, for example, its aims, theoretical framing, research method, findings, analysis or implications.

The paper is about the topic second screens and investigates what effects the use second screens has in terms online political participation. The term second screen means that while a person is consuming media through a TV, he/she is receiving additional content through a smaller handheld screen (laptop, phone etc).

The authors of the chosen paper aim to show political outcomes of media by examining news media consumption, second screening and online political action. They have a hypothesis that second screening influences certain behaviours.

Their chosen method for the research is to use a national two-wave panel data. The chosen people were selected from a group who registered to participate in an online panel. According to an external source their number of participants that respondent falls within acceptable parameters for web-based surveys. With this survey data, they perform statistical analysis to determine whether their hypotheses can still be valid or have to be discarded. The authors also compare the demographics of the responders with the U.S population and mentions what minorities differ from the U.S population. I believe that the reason for this is that the authors wants to make conclusions based on the entire american population. The authors claim however that the differences in terms of demographics is within a standard.

The results are backed up with a lot of statistics and everything is statistically analyzed. The authors also compare their results with their hypothesis for them to see whether they were on the right track before conducting the survey.

In order to make conclusions the authors combine the literary study with their results. They claim that second screening is motivated by information seeking and discussion and that users with a second screen in political context get more engaged in the debate. Their main points are rather clear.

Describe the major theory or theories that are used in your selected paper. Which theory type (see Table 2 in Gregor) can the theory or theories be characterized as?

The major theory in my selected paper is that how people use media (in this case second screen) that produces positive effects (in this case more information and discussion). According to the theory second screening provides users an opportunity to get more information, discuss, and elaborate on TV news which creates a path from TV news consumption to online political participation. Based on this I would say that the theory type falls on explanation which means that the theory what is, how, why, when and where. The author explains what second screen is, why and how it produces positive effects.

Which are the benefits and limitations of using the selected theory or theories?

The limitation is that is doesn’t give any prediction or testable propositions. The benefit of the theory is that is gives a clear explanation by answering how and why and the reader can make their own future predictions and applications, which is also a limitations since the reader can make wrong predictions.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Communication

GREGOR S. 2006. The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642.

SUTTON R I & STAW B M. 1995. What Theory is Not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371-384

ZUNIGA H et al. 2015 What is Second Screening? Exploring Motivations of Second Screen Use and its Effect on Online Political Participation,

måndag 14 september 2015

Theme 1 - Post seminar

During the first theme I have read two texts: Plato’s Theaetetus and the preface of the second edition of Immanuel Kant's A Critique of Pure Reason. I have also participated on a lecture that mostly was about about Kant's A Critique of Pure Reason.

I found A Critique of Pure Reason much more complex and harder to truly grasp. Before the seminar I read the two text rather briefly and tried to find the important parts. I also did some research about Kant on the Internet. But just reading the text wasn't enough for me to understand what Kant actually is saying. The lecture did straighten some question marks but also created a lot of questions. But when all groups in the seminare had a joint discussion somethings finally cleared.

During the seminar we discussed a lot about how we interpreted Socrates statement "we see through our eyes and ears, not with our eyes and hears". Within the group we all had a similar understanding to this statement; that knowledge does not consist in impressions of sense, but in reasoning about them. Our senses alone are not enough to achieve knowledge, we need to process and reason with the raw sense data that we obtain from the outside world. We also discussed Kant's A Critique of Pure Reason. I brought up the topic of Copernicus and why his scientific discovery that we live in a heliocentric world is such a good example of our objects conforming to our cognition (and not the other way around). Copernicus disregarded the current beliefs (conceptions of history, society etc) and conformed the objects (scientific data) to his cognition of a heliocentric view of the world.

Now according to Kant there is a lot of knowledge in the world, that is his starting point and he never questions this. He doesn't care where this knowledge comes from. His big question is: how is this knowledge structured? He does so by examining the most basic things in the world (time and
space etc). According to Kant we cannot be truly objective in our understanding of the world. It is impossible and regarded as God's point of view. To gain knowledge we need to see the objects according to us. This leads us to a priory - attributes that can be assigned to objects without empirical knowledge.

Kant's phrase perception without conception is blind was discussed in the seminar. The example of a pen came up. How do we define a "pen"? It is a physical object we write with. A pen is a common object so there exists a cultural context in the world that the pen lives in. But if you remove the world and the context - there is no such thing as a pen. There is an object with an extension in space. But the meaning “pen” is gone... Amazing.

fredag 11 september 2015

Theme 2 - Pre seminar

1) What is “Enlightenment”?

The enlightenment was an era when a wave of reason, logic and rationality swept through Europe during the 18th century. Instead of explaining the world with myths and made-up stories the followers of enlightenment tried to explain the world through reason and rationality. The grand idea is, according to Adorno och Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment to “liberate humans of fear and installing them as masters”.

2) What is “Dialectic”?

Dialectic a method of argument for resolving disagreement between two people that have different opinions about a certain subject or topic. The purpose of the method is to find out was is the truth and what isn’t.

3) What is “Nominalism” and why is it an important concept in the text?

Nominalism is a philosophical point of view that believes that abstract objects and universal objects (objects that do not exist in time and space) does not exist.This means that not all what we describe can be categorized by a recognized entity. I think it is an important concept in this text since the text is about the enlightenment which opposes a lot of metaphysical explanations that are not based on empiricism.

4) What is the meaning and function of “myth” in Adorno and Horkheimer’s argument?

According to the book Dialectic of Enlightenment myths as the projection of subjective properties onto nature. Meaning its purpose is to (without empirical evidence) explain nature in order for human to feel secure since not knowing is a state of mind we don’t want to find ourselves in.

1) 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 analyzing cultural production from a Marxist perspective?

In this concept I believe that substructure is things that are in direct correlation with production while superstructure are things that are more indirectly involved with production. The relation between them, as I understand them, is that a superstructure is made of multiple substructures. A superstructure is much more complicated than a substructure and takes more time to develop. The point of analyzing cultural production is that it can tell you which way our culture is heading.

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?
I believe that according to Benjamin culture does have potentials that can be regarded as revolutionary. Benjamin discusses technological advancements and how they change society and thereby culture. Benjamin discusses photography versus painting and discusses their major differences and if both can call themself “art”. Benjamin’s opinion is that a painter has a distance from reality and tries to interpret it while a photographer captures multiple fragments that he/she combines together. The cultural shift from painting to photography has therefore changed the impact on us. I like this quote from the text:

“I can no longer think what I want to think. My thoughts have been replaced by moving images”

I would say it is clear that Benjamin disapproves the cultural changes in artform since we no longer have to interpret and reflect over the artform, someone else does it for us. Benjamins opinion differs from Adorno and Horkheimer. I believe they saw technological advancements as new ways of dominating nature.

“What human beings seek to learn from nature is how to use it to dominate wholly both it and human beings. Nothing else counts.”

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).

A historically determined perception means that it is affected by the current society, politics and culture etc. A natural perception is one that is not affected by the current external circumstances but it’s a perception that is inherent in every human. One example is something that we discussed last theme: heliocentrism. Before Copernicus discovered that the earth orbits the sun the human perception was that earth was the centre of everything and therefore a geocentric worldview seems correct.

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

According to Benjamin, an aura is a property of an object or artform and when this object or artform is reproduced through mechanical reproduction its aura is lost. Aura is tied to presence and it itself cannot be copied. For example like a photograph of a painting, The photograph it makes the painting’s existence non-unique.

“...reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence.”

Benjamin discusses the aura of theater and film. His opinion is that aura is lost in the art form that is motion picture. Since aura is tied to presence I suppose he means that a play has a place in time and space while a motion picture will always be exactly the same and doesn’t have a place in time. I think there is a different kind of aura between a natural object and an art object.