Comments Summary
Theme 6
You have summarized your reflection very nicely. I was not so familiar with case studies either. A case study is not a research method in itself. In a case study you can combine different methods and from that case or cases build a theory. The conclusion is hopefully a conceptual framework/concept. It can also just be replacement of an existing theory. And as you said the motivation of choosing a method is quite important. I think it is quite fundamental to have a good motivation to all the parts that you have been selected in a research.
Interesting summary of the topic. I found it hard to find a pure qualitative study in the first place especially in the media technology area. It was easier to find an case study, because in a case study you can use a combination of methods. Then you can build a theory upon those cases. I did not know about case studies before, so the iterative process that starts with collecting data was quite unusual for me.
I find it very strange that he already had assumptions in the area he wanted to investigate, when a case study is something that you use when you know very little about a phenomenon. And also in theory-building research it is supposed to be important to not have a theory under consideration to avoid subjectivity.
You have interesting thoughts. It was a good summary of the topic. The first paragraph of the case study was very clear on how to approach that type of study. And of course as you said, there is not a limit on how many or few participants that should be included in a qualitative study. It is about the type and quality of data and how it has been generated.
You have a summerized your reflection very clearly. And I can understand why many think this is confusing. Some papers are quite hard to interpret. A case study is not a research method in itself, it uses qualitative or quantitative methods or a combination. It is something that you use when you know very little about a phenomenon and can be applied when you don’t know or expect anything and there is a possibility that anything can be found in the research. But the aim is to have found a concept or conceptual framework rather than posing questions?
The summary was very nicely written. I had similar understanding of a case study that has, If I comprehend you right, the aim to produce a conceptual framework/concept. And later on we can use this framework in other researches. And the data we collect should be richer because we use an iterative process.
Very well summarized. You mentioned in your text that a researcher does not need to be an expert in the topic and is exploring in the case study to guarantee the unbiased, fresh perspective at the issues. This I found very interesting myself, even though there are no guarantees of an unbiased analyses. A case study approach differ in many ways from a traditional research form. But as I comprehend it, a case study is something that you use when you know very little or nothing about a phenomenon in general. And you build a theory upon that case(s).
But I guess you are trying to say that in theory-building research it is important to not have no hypotheses to test because this might be a factor that would contribute to subjectivity.
Theme 5
We also discussed the importance of replication of methods to test the validity of a study. I agree, when it comes to studies in fields such as humanities we have to encounter the space and time complexity in another way than in natural sciences. Our society evolves fast and it is difficult to replicate a method when you have a different context to work with. But we can try to find patterns that will make it easier or help us a bit on the way in our search for new knowledge.
I agree it is hard to get data that is objective. When I reflect up on truth and objectivity it seems to raise a lot of protests and people get quite provoked. My interpretation of objective data, could answer questions such as - how many times do you use this device a day? The number of counts, for me is objective data. I am also curious what you mean by objective data though.
It was a well written summary. It must be quite difficult to motivate why you want to replicate a study even though a replication of a study can fulfill different aims. But I guess it is good that people are doing replication of studies to validate and confirm what has been brought to the surface before even though it doesn’t contribute to new knowledge.
It was an interesting reflection. I had a similar understanding in some of your points. The time aspect and the fact that the setting and tools are changing it would not be surprising if a replicated research resulted in new results as you said. Though in the hard sciences we can not exclude that some elements have been missed out or not thought through during earlier studies because of the lack of advanced tools we have today, but it is more evident that the attitudes and behaviour of people changes with time in social studies.
You had a pretty well summary of design research. I think this type of research is very interesting. Because of the long and messy process. I think the pre study in the research is a great way of collecting empirical data and to see if the intention with the design research is relevant or not. The iterative process during the research is also a good way to come across new knowledge.
It was an interesting reflection and I liked one analogy comment you received. Indeed, a process in itself is knowledge contributing. The saying learn from your mistakes, can also be a way of reflecting upon an iterative process and the incremental build model as a method. And as I understood it a design research is a long and messy iterative process.
Theme 4
I agree, when combining different methods you should be more certain that your result will cover most of the research than with just with one method. It was an interesting seminar with Olle on how to design the questionnaires in a study. It is also interesting how the media that is used during an investigation may affect the validity of the collected data. Internet surveys and questionnaires may not always reflect the reality in quantitative measurements. People are surely not taken some surveys seriously. That is why it must be important to compute with margins and do an analysis of possible faulty.
I agree it is hard to get data that is objective. When I reflect up on truth and objectivity it seems to raise a lot of protests and people get quite provoked. My interpretation of objective data, could answer questions such as - how many times do you use this device a day? The number of counts, for me is objective data. I am also curious what you mean by objective data though.
Interesting reflection and also the received comments. I appreciated the explanation of SPSS in the comment field. I work quite a lot with statistical analysis and use different tools and diagrams. And as you mentioned, you do not have to have strong mathematical skills. It is an advantage if you can think logically and understand the values.
I had the same reflection, regarding the data as an support for the researchers conclusion. It generate a result but the result must be analyzed and interpreted.
Interesting reflection on the topic of replication. The replication of methods should bring out more tight methods which will hopefully generate more accurate results. The discussion regarding The Body Shapes the Way We Play, I think most people act up on their prejudice subconsciously. We have been shaped by our cultural heritage and our society. I think that there are few people who do not.
You summarized the theme well. Interesting text on the hypothesis test. I think that a researcher must be are aware of that there are many ways of collecting data. We are getting many suggestions on how to perform tests and research and there are surely better ways than others depending what field we are investigating. But it feels like when we are getting all these opportunities it is up to one self to create something that is valid and trustworthy for that single examination.
I got a similar understanding. It would be interesting to replicate this research. And I would very much like to see the result of such research. Especially if there would be different test groups with different social and cultural background. The comparison of the cultural prejudices would be interesting to see.
Theme 3
The theme of this week was more straightforward than previous weeks. Discussing what theory is not, helped some people in our seminar group to get a more clear comprehension as well. Though when it comes to hypothesis I think you must have some sort of logic reasoning behind it before you start the research.
We did not discuss the impact factor and I appreciated your explanation very much. And I comprehend why you think it is difficult to see instantly which theories the authors have applied in some of the papers. It was a very pedagogic way of thinking when you used your own experience when trying to explain what theory is.
It is interesting when you evaluate a paper a second time and see it differently after you have obtained new knowledge. Some papers are more easy than others to pin point out the chosen framework.
I appreciated your direct way of explaining the definition of theory. I had a similar understanding (in our field of study).
Nice saved with your summary of your selected paper. You have a good point when it comes to the aspect of traditional theories that are applied in traditional sciences. And we will use them to conceptualize our world until we are presented with new ones that are more valid. With media technology as a relatively new field of research, there is a need of new approaches to the research.
I agree that it is a bit strange that you in a research have the aim to confirm or investigate a problem without explaining the impact of it or having any suggestion to a solution. Though I have not read your selected paper so I can not tell how their approach to the phenomenon are.
A theory is built upon tested and verified assumptions and hypotheses until it is proven wrong. While the testing to get the result is a crucial part in a research.
Your reflection was a bit confusing regarding the definition of theory. So you are saying that there are different definitions of theories? Or maybe you intentionally meant that you can apply different framework of theories depending on the field of research?
Interesting reflection. Your reflection was similar to mine, that a theory is built upon assumptions and hypotheses until it is proven wrong. And it is fascinating to think about how our world is conceptualized by our theories.
Very interesting reflection. I appreciate how you connect the question to deductive reasoning. I recognize from own experiences that I by default try to implement a structure in almost everything and of course this is applied by us when it comes to different frameworks of theory. It is important to take time and space into account regarding theory. Especially if it is applied in a human social context, that is reflecting our current culture and habits in a society. To have a framework to work with, will make our research process much easier.
Theme 2
It seems that you think that you have comprehended the text more clearly. That is a good progress. As mentioned above it would have been much easier to understand what you meant in the text about nominalism if you put it in the context that it was written. It seems that you did not discuss the subject in a wider perspective during your seminar and that you had not other questions regarding Benjamins or Platonic realism.
You seem to have gained a deeper understanding regarding dialectics and it is interesting when you gain knowledge in something and can apply it in another discourse.
I always find it interesting when discussions about God comes up and how the human kind relate to something abstract. Especially in scientific forums.
True, we are more exposed to media these days. We have access to information in another way than before. It is easy and it is fast. Though can we handle it and consume it the right way, is a big question. Apparently we are not as critical in our way of thinking. Because in our modern western society it seems as if everyone is living quite homogeneous and it is perhaps mostly because of the information and propaganda that is fed into our brains.
As mentioned above. The things we may think is right and true today maybe will be seen as something wrong and negative in the future. It is always hard to predict the consequences of our actions and decisions. That is also why we must remember our history to not make the same mistake again and again. The thoughts by Benjamin regarding the aura can also be applied in many industries that uses aura to remain unreachable for the masses. When you get a certain object you think you also gain a certain lifestyle that will automatically come with the object.
It was an interesting reflection. Would you choose the red or the blue pill. This question is inevitable.
I think it is interesting when religion is brought into the discussion. You say we used to have a number of atheist close to the 0%. Or can it be that people said they were religious to avoid reprimands from the higher institutions such as the church. But of course we have access to information in another way today. And we are more free today (or we think we are free). We were slaves of religion back then and now slaves to our smart phone apps. Coming from conspiracy theory thinking, there are always a back side to everything. "Religion is the opium of the people" K.Marx.
You summarize the discussions well and it is pretty clear that you gained new perspectives during the seminar.
Nominalism was considered to be a new and fascinating approach in the human society is pretty understandable. The idea to be a liberating movement during that period was revolutionary and as to seeing every object as unique. We need to categorize in some extent in our society to avoid chaos. It is fascinating to apply old concepts on crisis and events of today. But even if the intention of an idea is good, there are always ways to misinterpret it or misuse it.
I think we can see patterns in the human way of living through history. The fact that we access information about our history is a way for us to avoid to make the same mistakes again.
In general people think the access of information and all the new technology as a way to become a more democratic society. Though we don’t know where it will lead us to in the future. Can we process all this information in the right way and are we able to think critically to everything that is passing our minds?
With nominalism the idea was to liberate the human. Technology will probably change the substructure, but if it will be to the benefit of the human kind would be interesting to see.
It is interesting how a phenomenon can be viewed as either positive or negative depending the context it's in. Nominalism is one example.
I agree, some science have a mythological stamp on it and sometimes scientist and other professions uses the aura phenomenon to keep their field higher ranked than others. I guess the stock market is one example. It is mostly speculations and few who is not in the industry has an insight in the ruling parameters. And it seems like the industry wants to keep it this way.
Theme 1
It was interesting how you acknowledged Kants text in another context after the lecture with analytical and synthetic judgement.
You seem to have comprehended the main concept of Kant as if we humans only organize our impressions according our faculties and we can not comprehend anything beyond our reason. Than we could never gain knowledge outside our reason. Question is if we expand our reason. And if we can’t, that is a bit depressing.
I think your personal comprehension about knowledge is interesting. And how you figured out that knowledge is never pure and that we filter it through our previous experiences, through our language and cultural background. I interpret your reflection as you don’t believe in synthetic knowledge a priori at all. Do you believe that this can be applied in mathematics or logic? So it depends in what area you are seeking knowledge. In some areas is it not pure theoretical without sense perception involved? A number is a number even without space and time? Or doesn’t it exist if there is not anyone using it to solve a problem? Or it is rather that we experience or gain it differently but the result will be the same?
The analysis about the worlds was interesting. It is a big difference between 7 billion worlds and 7 billions perceptions of one world. And furthermore there is a difference between analytical and synthetic knowledge.
In some areas of study we perceive it differently but there will only be one correct answer.
Although we can interpret the answer differently too. But the interpretation of the answer can also be right or wrong.
You have managed to summarize the key points from Kant and Plato. I had a similar understanding of Kants theory of knowledge but you managed to communicate it very effective with the way humans categorize perceptions to process it into knowledge. And as mentioned above you managed to present a distinct connection between Kant and Plato. I interpret that you were quite consistent in your seminar group and that no other reflections or thoughts arose.
Your first and second blogpost was somewhat similar and your comprehension regarding Platos and Kants approach towards knowledge had not changed that much.
Sure a group is a construct made by man but the existing objects included in the group would still be there in its physical form, even if we would have changed the definition of it. But supposedly all humans have different comprehension regarding the definition as well, but only in the context of space and time.
It seems that you have gained a more clear comprehension regarding the Platos and Kants text. You point out the differences and definitions. Apparently you were quite consistent in your seminar group because it seems that you did not discuss the subjects further.
There are different human behaviours. Sure there are some who select the information in our technologies to confirm their own opinions. But there will be humans who will take the new information to evolve and develop new mindsets. And if it were not so, than we would have been stuck somewhere in the middle ages.
Though it is more democratic with all the information distributed through new technologies in the world, it is also harder to check the facts and avoid propaganda and false knowledge. (Wikipedia as an example)
Your reflection lacked thoughts and ideas about the Plato and Kant texts. It would have been interesting to see how the discussion went in your seminar group.
