fredag 28 oktober 2016

Final Reflection

In research you have the possibility to accomplish something that will make an impact and that will generate new knowledge. What is knowledge? It is a question worth to reflect upon in the start-up, in all different types of research.
Though there are frameworks and rules you have to conform to in order to make a valid research.
But there are also many different ways to accomplish a research. Depending what field and which subject you intend to investigate there are different theory frameworks and different methods suitable for that area. Or when we want to explore a phenomenon that is specific or one of a kind, we can apply a case study research and build theory upon that study.
A scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it becomes known as a theory in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
Every different method gives their own perspective. With this in mind it is also most possible to develop own theories and methods and combine the different standards if the aim is to cover the question you are examining. Methods can be considered as tools with properties of which we can use in order to conduct a research.

As a researcher it is important to distance yourself from the subject and not project your own prejudices and emotions on the subject of matter. Either you want to do a qualitative or a quantitative study or even a combination.
There are many elements that can influence a research such as social influences, cultural attitudes and behaviours. Both your own background and the participants, if you choose to include such in your study.
In studies that include human involvement it is important to keep in mind that perception is always subjective. The comprehension of a phenomenon is personal.
The complexity of time and space is always present but maybe more in social science studies. In qualitative studies you will get a deeper understanding of the phenomenon. While quantitative studies can provide data that can be generalizable. The data itself is not knowledge. It is the result of the analysis that will contribute to new knowledge. Different methods fulfill different aims. In combining them you can safe up to cover many perspectives. By working iterative and to be flexible facilitate fault finding in a research process.

When people have different educational backgrounds such as social science, communication or engineering the view on knowledge differ quite much. The integration of the abstract and the philosophical part with a more structured method and case studies are very important. Then we can learn to understand where everyone else are coming from what they mean and our communication with each other will improve.
The course has going through different concepts which has been developed through different historical epoques. All has been important in order to be able to understand method and theory on a more fundamental and deeper point of view. It all points towards what the human species has accomplished by research and testing. The nominalistic movement and the enlightenment shows how we as human try something out, an idea or thought and makes it to a practise until we find out that it was not as good as it was supposed to be, it actually became worse or did not make any impact at all. Then we revise, rethink and move on. We test our abilities and break boundaries.

What has been most significant to recognize is that media technology is a combination of the natural sciences and the social humanities. The systems that are build upon raw data and logic must be translated into understandable interfaces that are usable for humans and easy to maneuver.
This requires an understanding in how humans think and act. While systems themselves are complex and are optimized by iterative processes. Even though you won't get a desired result in the end of a research the process itself can generate new knowledge. Or it can be a foundation to further studies and research.

It is very enlightening to read other papers. To see and reflect on others mistakes and accomplishments you can more easily plan and design your own research.
In many cases the process itself is the knowledge generating part. Many time researchers fail to conclude an improvement or a solution. But the documented way to get there can display many other things that we have not reflected upon before.

Technology makes it both easier and more complex when we conduct a research. We are provided with a range of tools that hasn't been available earlier before. With the technological advancements we need to consider if we are using them right and if we understand what we are doing. When doing research in technology with technology makes it even more complex and this is a meta form which will evolve further during our time of  studies.

Knowledge is therefore a familiarity, awareness or understanding of an object. It can come in any form such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills and is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering or learning.

torsdag 27 oktober 2016

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.

söndag 16 oktober 2016

Second blog post - Theme 6: Qualitative and case study research

During the seminar we discussed case studies. With a case study you can obtain a deeper understanding of a phenomenon. You focus on one or a small amount of cases, though it is important to be aware of that the knowledge that you gain can be limited to be representative to that specific case. A case study is something that you use when you know very little about a phenomenon. After you build a theory upon that case. It can be applied when you don’t know or expect anything and there is a possibility that anything can be found in the research.
A case study is not a research method in itself. You can apply either a quantitative or a qualitative method or a combination. In theory-building research it is important to not have a theory under consideration and no hypotheses to test. Otherwise this might be a factor that would contribute to subjectivity and limit what we are trying to reach. Basically we should try to avoid to think about relationships between variables and theories.
Overlapping data analysis with collecting data gives you a good overview of the analysis and makes it possible to be more flexible. The possibility to make adjustments during the data collection process is apparently what characterize theory-building case research.
Within case analysis processes permits the unique patterns of each case to be revealed before researchers generalize patterns across cases. When you reach closure you stop adding cases and stop iterating between theory and data. The first means that the incremental learning is minimal. The second is that the iteration process stops when the incremental improvement to theory is minimal. The final product is hopefully a conceptual framework or a concept or it could just be a disappointment and replacement of an existing theory.

We also discussed semi-structured interviews. In order to be able to conduct valid semi-structured interviews it is important that the participants are at the right level of knowledge in the subject that is to be examined. If you want to examine a certain question that requires an expertise in that area you must target the participants otherwise you won't get accurate answers. Wrong answers will generate misleading results which in the end will not contribute to new knowledge. For instance in social science it can be an investigation of couples. Then it is crucial that the participant is in a relationship otherwise they do not have the knowledge in the area.
With semi-structured interviews you are using open ended questions which gives you the possibility to ask follow up questions which depends on the answers that the participants gives you. This type of method can generate a large amount of data which is time consuming to analyse. The benefit is that you can obtain knowledge that would not be possible to extract from closed interview questions.

söndag 9 oktober 2016

Theme 4: Comments






https://u1bauz11.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-4-reflection.html?showComment=1476037303662#c8380937640135372565
Second blog post - Theme 5: Qualitative and case study research


The lecture discussed how to define a method and research through design, what empirical data is, and analysis process. The process was divided into three parts studying interaction, design/judgement and implementing/testing.


Design research includes interaction criticism, research through design and studies of design practices.
There can be different focuses in a research. The interaction, people and the human aspects with implications of design focuses on how we feel, see, hear and senses things.
The usability and experience focuses on the methods and measurements such as observations, interviews, questionnaires, diaries and sensors.
When the data is collected we must interpret and analyze it with humanities and cultural studies as a foundation. The next step is to turn it into practice. The interest should be in how people do things. In some situation the laboratory studies are not enough and can not predict real use. What people tells us is not always the truth and we must study the reality. Thinking and doing can not be separated from social and physical reality. In real use practices the social and physical context plays an important role and sensory experience is more than just data. The data can be interpreted in many ways.


Human computer interaction reflects up on what people can do and focuses on context, mobility and physical environment. We discussed the appropriation, how people choose to use technology. It is more than the interface. It involves the databases the architecture, rules and manual support and the informational content.


A design approach as research comes with constructive activities as core methods of investigation. The materialization focuses on material and the technological approach and how it affects interaction. The design work and research connects the contexts.
We also got an insight of the structure in a design research paper. And research through design is not the same as design work. The intentions of research is to gain new knowledge. The artifact in itself is not explanatory. It is the process that is needed to shape ideas. And the text document will only conclude and bring the insights out in the open.


During the seminar we discussed the concrete idea that you want to investigate, how to think when to choose a method and the intentions with the design and how people will comprehend it. The actual process can bring you new insights and you can reshape the prototype during the process. It is a flexible and iterative process that can improve design and usability awareness.


The lecturer discussed his paper and the design process. Ilias gave more insights in research. In modern research the results often make a significant impact and it will indicate towards a pattern. Researchers avoid the word proof. We discussed how experiments was replicable and that it is an important tool for the validation of previous work and results. With replication we can also see how habits and social structure has changed over time. The replication of a method can therefore satisfy many purposes.

fredag 7 oktober 2016

Theme 6: Qualitative and case study research

I selected the paper Robustness Testing of Embedded Software Systems: An Industrial Interview Study by Syed Muhammad Ali Shah, Daniel Sundmark, Birgitta Lindström and Sten F. Andler. It is published in the Journal IEEE Access and has an impact factor 1.270.

The objective of the study was to understand the state of the practice of robustness testing of embedded software systems, and upon the collected data build empirical knowledge.
The designed an exploratory multiple case study with an exploratory research method to answer the research question.
The state-of-the-art knowledge was surveyed to understand the existing knowledge of robustness testing. They identified key areas and interview questions were developed by considering the main aspects of robustness testing found in scientific literature. The interview questions were developed in iterative fashion, exploiting the perceptions, opinions, experiences and beliefs of all the co-authors of the paper. One pilot interview was conducted. Some questions were open-ended to give an opportunity to ask follow-up questions and thereby encouraging exploratory discussions.
They selected interviewees from industrial contacts and from profiles of experts of robustness testing on LinkedIn. Twelve male and one female. They interviewees had experience of testing robustness testing of embedded software systems.

One thing I learnt is that it requires a lot of preparatory work regarding the interview questions.
The benefits of using qualitative methods are typically that they more flexible, they allow greater spontaneity and adaptation of the interaction between the researcher and the study participant. The questions are “open-ended” and not necessarily worded in exactly the same way with each participant. Participants have the opportunity to respond more elaborately and in greater detail.
Instruments use more flexible, iterative style of eliciting and categorizing responses to questions. Use semi-structured methods such as in-depth interviews, focus groups, and participant observation. Seek to explore phenomena.

Limitations in qualitative research, is that only a sample of a population is selected for any given study.
The study’s research objectives and the characteristics of the study population determine which and how many people to select.

It was a rather small sample group, but the research aim to investigate an area of expertise, therefore it must be harder to collect valid candidates.
A threat related to construct validity is that the interview is answered by guessing what the researcher has in mind rather than answering the question. To reduce this threat the open-ended questions, asked the interviewee explicitly to give their answers in terms of describing examples from their fields and made sure to not intervene during their answers.

A case study is a quantitative, qualitative, or combined method which is used to provide a deeper understanding of a certain phenomena or entity. According to “Building Theories from Case Study Research” it’s a research strategy from which data can be analyzed in order for theories to be created.

I choose the The Design Space of Bug Fixes and How Developers Navigate It by Emerson Murphy-Hill, Thomas Zimmermann, Christian Bird, and Nachiappan Nagappan. I is published in the Journal IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering and has an impact factor of 1,516.

The case study in my selected article was rather well executed since it followed the format of Eisenhardt’s table 1 quite accordingly. In the getting started phase, the problem which is to be investigated is defined through an explanation and a presentation of related work. They provide us with a motivation of the study. As for the selecting cases phase, the authors have chosen to go with different methods.
The paper examines alternative fixes to bugs and present an empirical study of how engineers make design choices about how to fix bugs. The case study is based on qualitative interviews with 40 engineers working on a variety of products, data from six bug triage meetings, and a survey filled out by 326 Microsoft engineers and 37 developers from other companies. The authors presents a number of factors, many of them non-technical, that influence how bugs are fixed and discuss implications for research and practice, including how to make bug prediction and localization more accurate.
The four research methods that was used was opportunistic interviews, firehouse interviews, triage meeting observations, a survey, and a replication of that survey. They triangulate the answers to improve their accuracy.
An important limitation is that of generalizability beyond the population that they studied (external validity), which they also stated in the paper.