Final blog post!

The field of research methodology is extremely complex. To produce research work with high quality it’s very important to have a clear understanding of what research methodologies really involve and its value for academic research. 

People see and understand the world through their perceptions, however their perception are affected of the world around them. People interpret a situation in a way that can be referred as a problem; they become awareness of a problem. Which is a starting point for an investigation. An appropriate problem in research is extremely important for producing knowledge and innovative solutions. To find right solution to the wrong problem would not be effective. Problem formulations are about identify and conceptualize the research opportunity (Sein at el. 2011). From examine a problem the researcher can formulate a research question. On a basis of the problem formulation and research question development of an appropriate research methodology can be formed. Different methodologies are used according to the researchers aim (Dresch et al, 2015). A methodology is about which rout a research take, a map, a logical order for reaching the results. The methodology and the method will influence the final research design (Bartjan & Pennink 2010). So to make it clear, what I have learned from going through lots of literature, methodology is the discussion of methods, it’s explains the reason for using different methods and techniques (finalization of methods). These steps above are fundamental to conducting research work and to answer complex phenomena.

From reading different research paper within media technology and listen to the guest lectures I have gain an understanding of how complex it’s to structure research and to combine different methods in order to find the perfect research design and a “solution” to the identified problem. To answer complex research question it can have some value to combine different methods, but combining methods are difficult, because paradigms (as social, natural and design science) have different wives of how to conduct a research. But still they can be complementary because it can capitalize respective approaches strengths. For example qualitative studies usually lack of quantifications and few observations, to combine the research with quantitative method it can benefit the study. Mixed methods can help to assist in constructing complex concepts and capture the whole complexity. (Creswell & Clark 2007) Therefore is not uncommon to blend qualitative and quantitative methods. Methods can be blended on different levels. Mixed methods can be used only in the method stage of a study orin several stages of the study (Cameron 2014). 

The most common way to blend methods is to use more than one methodology with its own method in order to answer the complexity of a phenomenon as a multi methodology which is a blend of different methods from different paradigms (Mingers 1997). If using a multimethodlogy, the methodologies can be integrated in different ways, for example it can be an iterative dynamic processes between the methodologies or each methodologies differences can be highlight to understand the complex phenomena. (Cameron 2014). Combines methods can be used in a larger research program or in a single study. In a research program the methods serves as complementary to inform the research question, so usually each methods has its own methodology. This kind of research program are often both transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary.

An example of a study with blended methods is A car-free year. It is a qualitative case study but to understand and answer the problem formulation, how a car-free year changes the families’ everyday practice, they needed to add quantitative observations to their studies. In this case I believe combined methods helped to highlight different aspects of the investigated phenomena, for example observations of the family’s movement pattern helped to understand why the families in some cases where unhappy or complaining during the interviews. The quantitative data provided a basis for collection of qualitative data. The qualitative method was given a much higher priority, quantitative data was just complementary. Overall they used a design research methodology. The research “Differentiated driving ranges” aim was to understand the relationship between factors related to driving and the estimated driving range, and then come up with a solution (with support of existing knowledge) that could be develop or used in future research. To gain all relevant data, Lundström was required to use a variety of methods  (only at the method stage) the overarching methodology was a design-oriented research (as in a car-free year). This two examples are just samples of how combining different methods assist to understand very complex phenomena. I believe mixed methods are especially valuable when a broader perspective is needed. At the same time I believe it is very important that the purpose of mixing different method is clear.

In a bigger perspective I don’t believe that a theory to a complex phenomena belong to any individual study. Theory is about the connection between phenomena explaining why, how and what circumstances. When a theory is tested and accepted by a majority of experts in a particular field it can be regarded as true (Dahlberg L, 2016). For knowledge to advance and answer to complex phenomena, research has to be made, the findings have to be tested and be conformed by other researcher. In this way theory building and knowledge production are very complex and build on many different studies whit different methodologies, the supporting studies can consist of different methods. This type of mixed models would be more like expansions of results, it’s a blend of methods from different paradigms where the results is being presented side by side in order to support the theory.

No research approach will be perfect, because even if combining different methods everything has a weakness and strength. To advance knowledge and for science to move forward research work must be done. It can either be to conform or propose solutions to problems with either blended methodologies or not.  

References: 

Creswell J and Plano Clark V (2007) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Dahlberg L (2016) Theme 3 Research & Theory, lecture slide. Retrieved from <https://www.kth.se/social/files/57e02bf9f2765415ebb2a658/DM2572%20HT16%20Lecture%204.pdf>

Dresch Aline & Valle Antunes, José (2015). Design Science Research: A Method for Science and Technology Advancement. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. 

Jonker, J., & Pennink, B. J. W. (2010). Essence of research methodology: A concise guide for master and phd students in management science. Heidelberg: Springer.

Mingers J (1997) ‘Multi-paradigm multimethodolgy’ in Mingers J & Gill A (Eds) Multimethodology: The theory and practice of combining management science methodologies. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons 

M Sein, O Henfridsson, S Purao, M Rossi, R Lindgren (2011) Action design research. Tillgänglig:<http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/ifi/INF9930/v12/undervisningsmateriale/Sein_et_al_2011.pdf.> 2016-10-28

Roslyn Cameron (2009) A sequential mixed model research design: Design, analytical and display issues, International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3:2 

Comments theme 6: 

Hello! Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I think you miss a really important part of case studies: it does not need to be a qualitative study; it’s not uncommon that combined methods (both qualitative and quantitative data) are used within case studies. For example in my selected case study “Who's Watching Whom?” the researcher collected numeric data from observations but also data from interviews, therefore he used a combination of qualitative and quantitative method. As you wrote case studies are theory building, the flexible form to combine different methods and the iterative process is a main key to generate these new theories. Also in comparison with qualitative studies a case study is not hypothesis-testing it usually begins with data collection and than observations. Anyway good job with all your blog post, it has been enlightening to follow your thoughts throughout the course. 

http://omg-dm2572.blogspot.se

Hi! Thanks for summarizing case study and qualitative methods very well.

I think one of the most important differences between a case study and a qualitative study is that case study is not hypothesis testing as Eisenhardt wrote. Theory begins with data collection, then it’s a ongoing continuous comparison between the collected data and theory, a iterative process. You wrote “He has also another intention than in a qualitative study. In a case study the researcher wants to understand something we don‘t know anything or enough about yet”.  I agree to some degree, it’s common to use case studies in new topics areas but I think the main intention whit case study are to build theories, that’s way case studies typically starts with data and not theory. Anyway thanks for all you interesting post throughout the course. God job.

http://u1eqtjc8.blogspot.se

Hello!

It seems like your grasp the last week’s theme very well. I agree, I believe "A car-free year” is a case study, because of its combined methods, the study is not hypothesis testing but theory building. The study also tries to understand phenomena (how a car-free year changes the families’ everyday practice) deep in its real context. I think this was a really intresting project where I learned a lot of case studies. I was fascinating about how much data they collected and how messy the whole process where, and I guess that’s also typical for a case research. As you wrote in your first blog post of theme 6, the limitation with case studies are the difficulties to generalizes the finding to a bigger population, however it would be interesting to do a similar case study and compare to "A car-free year”, would the new sample keep the car or sale it, as the families did in "A car-free year”? To compere different case can help to understand if the results could be representative for a larger population. Anyway thanks for all you post throughout the course, well done!

http://u1eqtjc8.blogspot.se/2016/10/theme-6-reflection.html#comment-form

Yes, it was interesting with Hanna’s reflection of the difficulties to anonymize data. However I think it is really important to ensure that the data will be anonym so the participants can feel secure. In that way the participants might be more willing to share important and private information. I think it was particular hard for Hanna and the other researcher because their sample was so small. To understand how a car-free year changes the families’ everyday practice, they needed to combine methods (still their main focus was qualitative data), in that way they ensured that particular information they need where gathered. Studying this huge and complex phenomena it’s easy to be overwhelmed of all the data, however I think they handle it very well in a car-free year, it seems like they focused on “right thing”. What’s also typical for case studying is that the hypothesis is formulated during the iterative processes.  The aim is not to test a hypothesis rather to build theories however car-free year also have a design perspective in their study which relate to the theme with design-oriented research. Anyway thanks for all you interesting post throughout the course. God job.

https://u1bauz11.blogspot.se/2016/10/theme-6-reflection.html?showComment=1477129257287

Hi!

To confirm something you don’t know is theory building I guess. And as I understand, the aim of case study is just to build theories and theory constructions. That’s also the reason why case researches its not hypothesis-testing like a qualitative study. The study start with collecting data, then observation and hypothesis-building, it is the analysis in itself (from the iterative processes) that generates a base for hypothesis construction. The strong links with real data and the ability to construct new theories, I believe is the main advantages for case studies. Therefor case study is particularly appropriate if the researcher aim to answer how and why. Like you I also enjoyed this week lecture and seminar.  I think it was good to hear about a car-free year because it helped med to grasp how different case studies can bee, and how much data you can get from this type of method. Thanks for all you interesting blog posta, I also enjoyed this week and seminar.

https://u1gixy4z.blogspot.se/2016/10/after-theme-6-qualitative-and-case.html?showComment=1477168537138

Hello!

I agree that case study is hypothesis building rather then testing hypothesis, however I don’t agree that the reason for not testing hypothesis is because of lack of the researchers familiarity with the phenomenon. It’s true that case studies are appropriate for new topics area however to build theory is central to shape hypothesis throughout the process and not before the data collection. It’s always the research question that determines the method. So the first step to get started with a research is to define a research question which will guide you where and what to focus. Anyway thanks for sharing some interesting thoughts!

https://scarsickbg.blogspot.se/2016/10/theme-6-blog-post-2-qualitative-and.html?showComment=1477328998903

Hello!

I was also reflecting about the challenges of generality within in case studies. How can the researcher possible know if the sample of 3 families (in the car-free year research) is representative for a larger population? But after doing some research in different journals and reading the article ”Building theories from case study research” again I understood that the aim of case studies is not usually to test theory it’s to develop and build new theories. To conform the findings in a case study you can either compare with other cases or within the case. Thanks for sharing some interesting thoughts!

https://u1cq6h0z.blogspot.se/2016/10/theme-6-reflection-on-qualitative-and.html?showComment=1477330213210

Thanks for a nice summary.

Like you,  I find it interesting when Ilias described case studies as a “meta-method”. I guess a case study is more like a research-strategy therefor you can use for example different methods as quantitative or qualitative. An adequate research strategy should make sure that the investigation will provide an answer to the research question, and if the researcher seeks a deep understanding of a complex phenomenon in its real context, then a case study might fit as strategy. An example of another research strategy would be action research, which in contrast to case study, observations is important and takes an active and bigger role in the investigations. Anyway thanks for sharing some nice and interesting thoughts.

https://u10o7oqf.blogspot.se/2016/10/theme-6-reflection.html?showComment=1477331850560

I also enjoyed Hanna’s lecture about her research “A-car free year”. They really explored the subject in-depth as you mention. They could really explore and investigate how this experiment changes the families’ everyday practices in a real context. The research was designed and formed at the same time it was being done. Which I think is really interesting. They gained a lot of insight of the families and how their life changes, and the data was used to produce knowledge. As I understand their study was also an action-research (it says in their research paper), however the literature discuses case study and action research as two different research strategies. I guess there are a lot of different formulation of both case study and action research. One similarity with this two research designs are that they covering and combine many form of different research  (inductive, deductive, quantitative, qualitative, design-oriented etc.). But I still think it is hard to grasp if a study can use both an action and case research strategy? Anyway thanks for your interesting thoughts.

https://u1h4muxc.blogspot.se/2016/10/theme-62-reflection.html?showComment=1477413508412

Hello!

I agree qualitative studies are flexible because it allows the researcher to design the study at the same time it is being done. As in my selected qualitative paper, the researcher come up with questions during the interview session that was not planned. The study was divided into two parts, and the second part was formed throughout the process, in this way, because of the flexibility they gained new insight that was not expected. Going back to your first blog post of theme 6, it seems like your selected qualitative paper “A very popular blog: The internet and the possibilities of publicity” also gained new insights and was quit flexible. After reading more about qualitative and case study it feels like my selected paper lack of a clear focus and the goals where not explicit enough. So I agree it is a less strict method, as you mention! Anyway good job with your blog post.

https://u11zdo9t.blogspot.se/2016/10/theme-6-post-2.html?showComment=1477415100705

Theme 5 comments: 

I also discussed replication in design-oriented research in my second blog for theme 5. I agree with our teacher that replication may not be the cornerstone in HCI, for example it’s more important with relevance than validity in the research, however I believe replication can create some relevance even in HCI.  It’s important to discuses findings in contradiction of earlier works. Replication attempts to conform a previous study’s result and make the findings more valid.  If replicating a study it can be just a conceptual replication where you investigate earlier result but use different measurements or strict replications where you attempt to reproduce the study as close as possible.  Anyway thanks for some good thoughts.

https://dm2572-16.blogspot.se/2016/10/theme-52.html?showComment=1476686969386

Thanks for interesting thoughts about design-oriented research. Design-oriented researcher tries to grasp the complex interaction of human beings, society and technology. Knowledge are usually gained from studying the process of human behavior rather then from the artifacts itself.  The knowledge that is generated through the process contributes to building new artifacts or products.  The process is the important in design-oriented research.  Therefor compared to researcher-oriented research where the result is the most important I believe it’s different types of knowledge contribution. Design-oriented researcher may create knowledge contribution that is more abstract than more traditional disciplines.

https://omg-dm2572.blogspot.se/2016/10/after-theme-5.html?showComment=1476689750706

I also think A. Lundtröm did some good point about his researcher paper. He explained that one thing that differ design-oriented research is the analysis and conclusion, design research want their outcome and knowledge to be used and move into products and artifacts, the ability to build on the result and move the result into future design problem. The analysis in A. Lundströms paper tries to enable solution to practical problem (understanding driving-range), in this way he tries to understand how things should be.Therefor relevance is more important than validity in design-oriented research. Therefor its also important to discuses the important and values of replications I design-oriented processes. God job with you blog post I like how you link everything together.

https://u1h4muxc.blogspot.se/2016/10/theme-52-reflection-empty.html?showComment=1476691281277

Thanks for interesting and good reflections. You wrote in the lecture “it was pointed out that in this research method the research intention is to form and identify design” I think it’s an interesting way to put it. I understood it in a similar manner that the main purpose in design-oriented research is to produce or develop new or existing systems and through this innovation “change” how the world works, compared to more science-oriented research that use theories to understand observations of the world. 

In your first blog post of theme 5 you wrote “design in a research context means the framework that you giving your research to get to a desired outcome” when answering the questions what differ from design in general and in research project. I believe (correct me if I’m wrong because it was a really vague question) no matter of your research method your purpose within a research project is in somehow to create reusable knowledge it could be in different manners as building knowledge to move in to future products or as in theory building but design in general mean to create something new.

https://u1eqtjc8.blogspot.se/2016/10/theme-5-reflection.html?showComment=1476720028742

I agree with you that design research intention is to solve problem. Or through the research processes answering on the problems that exist in real world, the main objective will therefor be to gain new knowledge.

Yes in natural science replications is very important as well generalization. But replications are not the main value in design-oriented research neither is generalizability the main value in a case study for example. It’s important to know each research’s method or research design’s limitations and strengths to be able to understand which method fits your purpose best. If your main objective is to make a study that is replicable you should probably not use a design-oriented research. If you are aware of a problem that you want to solve and want the result to be reusable in other context, design oriented research may fit you very well. However thanks for interesting reflections.

https://u11873yx.blogspot.se/2016/10/theme-5-design-research-second-post.html?showComment=1476723544363

We also discussed the differences in commercial design and design research; in my mind it’s a huge distinction in commercial design and academic design. On a commercial basis the researcher works to create new but also for money, the result does not need a scientific relevance. Maybe it would be better to call design-oriented research, design science research? What I understand from reading papers and the discussion at the seminar design-oriented research is not as widely accepted as other more traditional disciplines, however it's getting more and more accepted. I believe it's good that design research is being more and more accepted because traditional science is not the only source of building knowledge. Replication is less important in design-oriented research however its still have relevance and value for theory building; it’s a problem with the “replication crisis”. Thanks for your thoughts and reflections.

https://u1bauz11.blogspot.se/2016/10/theme-5-reflection.html?showComment=1476725917439

I agree the design processe is very important for the research. Through the processes the researcher seeks to produce knowledge that can be used in problem-solving od real problem. New knowledge can help to solve and improve existing systems. The aim is to solve problem with knowledge that you gain through the research processes. Design research is solution focused. This findings or solutions can be (perhaps) applied in various contexts. I enjoyed reading your post, well done!

https://u17fpbu5.blogspot.se/2016/10/post-theme-5-design-research.html?showComment=1476727164213

Hello, thanks for interesting thoughts.  Well done! I was also a little bit confused in the beginning if design research was a method or if was more of a foundation for designing the research project. I read an article which mention; to introduce the concept of design research you can briefly explain it as research is the area and deign is the mean. Which I think is a good way to put, it also makes it easier to understand how different a design research is from a traditional quantitative study.  I think knowledge contribution is a really important part of design research because through the processes we seek to produce new knowledge by activities in the process. This gained knowledge can be used or moved in too future problems or products. Reveling new knowledge can be seen as one of the main objective, new knowledge in a research is of course also knowledge contribution.

https://u1gixy4z.blogspot.se/2016/10/after-theme-5-design-research.html?showComment=1476771896420

Thanks for your thoughts! 

I think you explain the different between a research project and design in general very well. In a process you will gain knowledge, which is one of the main objective within design-oriented research. Through the research processes the researcher want to build scientific knowledge that can implicates into future work. And as you put it, design in general is about creating new, it does not need to understand the world. You wrote, “I think it’s interesting how you can do one research to identify a problem and use that research to do a follow-up testing the solution”, I believe this is the one of the main aim, to create reusable knowledge, design researcher wants their findings to be put into future project or products. God job with you blog post!

https://u1dn0y6t.blogspot.se/2016/10/post-reflection-theme-5.html?showComment=1476773331854

Hello! Thanks for sharing you thoughts.

I disagree with you; data can also be previous findings that you investigate. I agree with you that the produced knowledge throughout the explorative processes is the main objective with a design research. Replications is about replicating other studies findings, which I think is important in design research even if its not the cornerstone and does not have the same value as in more traditional disciplines. In your post 1 for theme 5, you wrote that research project have different purpose than commercial products, I total agree with that. Research is about knowledge production, and creating reusable knowledge commercial product is much more driven by money. Well done with your post.

https://u11zdo9t.blogspot.se/2016/10/theme-5-post-2.html?showComment=1476774152430

Theme 4: 

I agree with you, qualitative and quantitative methods were not new for any of us (and should not be). But it’s always good with repetition. Analyzing methods in research paper because it lets us use and implicate our knowledge. In your first blog post for theme 4 you wrote, “The biggest benefit of quantitative methods that I see is without a doubt that the data is easy to visualize”, I did not think of this benefit before, but of course it is a good advantage. It’s a good point, graphs and other visualizations tools helps people to understand the research and the context in a fast and easy way. It’s also an easy way to highlight key facts in your study. Anyway good job with your both blog post for theme 4, you make some god conclusions!

https://dm2572-16.blogspot.se/2016/10/theme-42.html?showComment=1476079669018

I think you summarize theme 4 quiet well. Comparing and analyzing quantitative and qualitative research method was a big part of my bachelor as well, but I was talking with some people in my class, and actually not everyone needed to write a thesis. You wrote that you got some analytical practice when reading Immersive virtual reality, I agree. This was a different type of research topic applying quantitative method in a new way for me. In your first blog post (theme 4) you wrote that one of the larges benefits with quantitative data is that when using large enough data sets, we can generalize the results to fit an entire population. I wrote the opposite, the limitation of Immersive virtual reality was that the sample was to small, which make the study less generalizable. But when I reflect again after reading your blog post, maybe it’s enough with a large data set, the sample doesn’t necessary need to be large.

https://omg-dm2572.blogspot.se/2016/10/after-theme-4.html?showComment=1476081813592

Thanks for interesting reflections. Replication seems to be a well-discussed topic in the scientific world. I agree with you, even if it’s hard to be publishing when replicating study it’s a huge meaning of doing it. Researcher has to replicate studies to test validity to increase the result’s generalizability. To build new theories it’s necessary to confirm earlier studies findings. If findings can be repeated it will increase confidence in its validity. Also, many research’s results cannot be validated by itself; they need other studies to conform their result. This, the reproducibility of experiment is a core to making science cumulative. But also I understand that journals are more interested in publishing new research. It’s an issue.

https://u1eqtjc8.blogspot.se/2016/10/theme-4-reflection.html?showComment=1476084475276

I agree with you with a quantitative method its possible to find correlations between variables. The researcher is trying to determine if it’s any relationship between 2 or more variables. It’s used to describe and test relationship with a goal to understand complex phenomena. I would say that the functions of using questionnaires as data collection is to gain knowledge how things are and try to justify why they are just this way. Selected research method should be the most adequate to the type of investigation. Thanks four sharing your thoughts.

https://u11873yx.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-3-second-post.html?showComment=1476086983483

Thanks for your reflections and first post of theme 4. In your first post for theme 4, you wrote is not clear how they guarantee the randomness of the sample group. It would be interesting to know how they have defined work method and their sample method criteria. Maybe the sample (even if just students) was sufficient to represent the population depending on the research goal. Maybe for the aim of the study the sample size was of bigger importance because it has a direct influence on the significance. What I mean, for this aim the size might be more important but of course the sample also have to be representative for the population. However you don’t mention the population, just that the sample is not representative but if the population were university students the sample would be representative.

https://u1bauz11.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-4-reflection.html?showComment=1476089332983

Thank you for your reflections and some interesting thoughts!

In your reflections post you wrote “we can't create our own questionnaires, they need to be approved by a greater instance. If you start a research you will most likely use standards ones..” I don’t necessary agree, we can construct our own questionnaires but they need to be tested before using them, constructing effective questionnaires is difficult and very complex. The questionnaires are the instruments for gathering data so it’s important that they are designed properly to satisfy the purpose. The questions have to be constructed in a way that they provide reliable and valid information. Therefore you always have to test and evaluate your question before using theme in you research. To provide proper data to your research you have to develop you own questionnaires, even if you can use some standard questions.

https://u17fpbu5.blogspot.se/2016/10/post-theme-4-research.html?showComment=1476091848163

Hello! Thanks for nice reflections. 

In contrast to you, having a business background I have had a lot of opportunities to come across quantitative methods, but never design-oriented research for instance.  I think you summarize the differences very well. The work method reveal on the chosen research method. Questionnaires are a common work method if using a quantitative research method, before choosing this technique you must considerate how and when the data can be found.  I also learned a lot about questionnaires from the seminar with Olle. Questionnaires are an important technique for gathering data, but its construction is very complex, you always have to test and evaluating the questions before using theme. Well-designed questionnaires take long time to develop and cannot be constructed in last or short time.

https://u1gixy4z.blogspot.com/2016/10/post-theme-4-quantitative-research.html?showComment=1476093543167#c8473614999141362835

Thanks for your thoughts! 

I agree one of the strengths with using quantitative method is the possibility to easily analyze and visualize. But also it has a lot of other strengths, for instance you can test hypothesis that are constructed before collecting data. Usually it’s also easier to generalize finding beyond the sample, if it has been replicated on a lot of different populations. Also it seems like data analyzing is less time consuming comparing to a qualitative method. I would say that a weakness is the ability of knowledge production; it might bee to abstract for application to individuals (for example). Anyway god job with your post!

https://u1h02pv3.blogspot.se/2016/09/reflection-on-theme-3-quantitative.html?showComment=1476108984368

Hello! Good job with your post. 

I think its good that you re-think and evaluate your previous thoughts.  The possibility to propose some relationship between variables and then find concrete data that confront the hypothesis is a major characteristic for quantitative research. However I believe variables in them self can be both quantitative and qualitative, it depends of how they are measured. If the variables in the research are measured on a numeric scale they are considerate as quantitative. Both statistical and experimental design is common approaches for identifying causal effects. I agree with you if your selected research wanted to explain why and how something occurs, they might use a qualitative method.

http://u1dn0y6t.blogspot.se/2016/10/post-reflection-theme-4.html

Thanks for your reflections. 

It is not uncommon that studies combine different method (especially in case studies) so your selected paper might use a mixture of quantitative and qualitative approach. To combine different methods can expand the scope and offset the weaknesses of either method. In order to describe an unexpected relationship additional qualitative information would benefit the research and might give key insight. Of course there are disadvantages with mixing methods as well. Anyway good job with your blog post!

https://u11zdo9t.blogspot.se/2016/10/theme-4-post-2.html?showComment=1476112890705

Theme 3 

I had never heard about journal impact factor before either, which is kind of weird because I have work a lot with this kind of research paper before. Anyway its good that we both know what it's now.

It was the same for me, at first I wrote what theory is not, then I realize (during the seminar) that I really have to understand what theory is. So I wrote about what theory is in my second blog post. I still find it hard to explain what theory is for someone that doesn’t know, even if I believe its much more clear for me now. I understood how complex theory is and that it’s an abstract entity that aims to understand the world. I agree with you when you wrote “hypotheses are formulated without scientific substantiation, whereas theories have to have some sort of proof before they are formed” when I read this phrase it hits me how important it’s to understand what theory is, if you don’t you can’t even understand a small quote like this.

Thanks for good reflections; your blog post was easy to follow and well structured.

https://dm2572-16.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-32.html?showComment=1475250069646

Your selected paper seems really interesting; it was good that you took your time to choose and instead focusing on finding something motivating. Afterword I believe I chose my paper way to fast, I wanted to start as soon as possible so I took the first best paper. Half way trough I realized that my paper was more about management then technology. I agree that people might not always know the terms needed to find what they search for. Is it the people searching for a specific subject that need get a better understanding or is it the information systems behind that need to bridge the gap? As you say it’s hard to find the right keywords. Thanks for good reflection!

https://omg-dm2572.blogspot.se/2016/09/after-theme-3.html?showComment=1475478075151

Hi. Thanks for a good blog post.

 I think it was good that you re-evaluated your theory type. It shows that you actually have learned something from the lecture and seminar. It seems like most of the paper that have been chosen on our class belong to the type of explanation and prediction. I agree with you that that the term of theory and hypothesis often gets mixed up in our everyday language. However a lot of terms are different used in everyday speech and in science, which can cause confusion as it did in our seminar.

https://u1h4muxc.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-32-reflection.html?showComment=1475480359377

Hello. 

I agree that this week theme was less abstract although theory is something abstract and I believe it’s actually quite hard to explain what theory is. My impression is that theory can mean a lot of different things depending on whom you ask, however a scientific theory is a framework for observations and facts. And a theory always starts with a hypothesis. As you wrote it could be quite hard to use some of the traditional academic disciplines in design research, because when you study media technology you want to explore more and create new rather then just explain phenomena. However I believe this type of research has become more common and accepted between reserachers.

https://u1eqtjc8.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-3-reflection.html?showComment=1475482127735

Hi!

I agree with you theories is something that does not exist itself. You wrote that it can take a long time to convince people that a new theory is valid and should replace the old theory. Its true, and perhaps it’s something good that it take some time to convince people that a new theory is true, for example if you find a cure for a disease you don’t want it to go to fast. Just look at KI and Macchiarini. Still, theories can be rejected or proven, like hypotheses. Theories are foundation for scientific knowledge and provide information for practical use.

Anyway thanks for good reflections and conclusions!

https://u11873yx.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-3-research-and-theory-second-post.html?showComment=1475484118583

Hello! 

I like you example about the bears. Theories are constantly getting rejected and new theories replaces old outdated ideas. Some of the most groundbreaking scientific discoveries have been replaced of new more reliable data. And it’s interesting that one researcher cannot create a theory, a theory is based upon proven hypotheses and has to be verified multiple times by different researchers, and therefore one researcher can only create a hypothesis. Good job with your second blog post!

https://u17fpbu5.blogspot.se/2016/09/post-theme-3-research-and-theory.html?showComment=1475506424297

Hello! 

I like your connection to Kant; theory without a concept of explanation is not a theory. I agree, a theory without explanation would be empty; it would no be a theory. A theory starts with a hypothesis or an idea that has not been proven yet, that hypothesis have to be strongly supported and tested multiple times of different researcher. When a scientific hypothesis has been confirmed it may become a theory, this theory is therefore an explanation for a broad set of observation.

Yes, it’s interesting in an historical perspective how many theories and old outdated ideas have been rejected and replaced of new theories, just think about all the theories about the earth that constantly have been rejected and proven wrong. Thanks for interesting thoughts and good conclusion.

https://u1gixy4z.blogspot.se/2016/09/after-theme-3-research-and-theory.html?showComment=1475509060597

Hi!

I also got a deeper understanding of what theory is after the lecture. A theory is true until it’s proven wrong, as you wrote in the example with the bear. My reflection from that is, that it’s impossible to know that a scientific theory is right. You will not know what someone discovery tomorrow or which evidence we will have in 100 years. As you mention we discussed the difference between theories and hypothesis, you had a hard time with the distinction before the seminar and lecture, me as well. My impression is that a lot of people understands theory incorrectly and mix theories with hypothesis; it’s a common mistake. I agree, its good to work with this kind of concepts because it’s useful for our future studies but also knowledgeable. Thanks for you thoughts!

https://u1dn0y6t.blogspot.se/2016/09/post-reflection-theme-3.html?showComment=1475516258495

Hello!

I think you made some good conclusions. I also think its important to point out that theories are build with help of other theories. This existing theories provides guidance to news ideas and hypothesis. This new hypothesis can bee tested, and if not rejected the researchers can come up with conclusions, if replicated multiple times and supported of different scientists, it can become a basis for a theory. The theory must have evidence and observations of specific phenomena. And as you wrote this leads to an always expanding theory. As well as new theories creates, the old ones are out of date and rejects.Good job with your blog post!

https://u11zdo9t.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-3-post-2.html?showComment=1475517681514

Good reflections. You made some interesting thoughts. You wrote, ”Even though something has been proven wrong or new theories has advanced from the original one, the original theory is still very much a theory”. I don’t necessarily agree with you, theories are constantly being replaced of new ones that are more reliable. We eliminate theories all the time by finding them incompatible with new observations. This is just my thought, I might be wrong. Anyway well done with you blog post.  

https://u1818rgq.blogspot.se/2016/09/research-and-theory-post-2.html?showComment=1475609867447

Theme 2: 

Thanks for a well structured reflections in your blog post. 

You wrote “Enlightenment is not only dominating nature but ourselves as well, as we are more or less voluntarily settling into those structures”. Adorno and Horkheimers theory about enlightenment us very interesting, how they reflect of enlightenment is a mythical fear radicalizations, and the idea of enlightenment as blind domination that contributed to the cultural industry's inherent totalitarian tendencies. Enlightenment leads to a dominant structure, strong vs weak, men vs. woman etc.  Enlightenment was not only about knowledge it’s a hierarchy of domination. It’s noteworthy how Adorno & Horkheimer connect all their theories to the cultural industry; even so with enlightenment and domination. 

http://u10o7oqf.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-2-critical-media-studies-part-2.html

What your wrote about art and mass production (it become available to the public not just to the rich) is the reason why Benjamin arguing that culture has revolutionary potentials, the possibility of reproducing art democratizes culture.  Modern technology also changed the way people learn and experience the world and which Benjamin believed had radical political implications, art could also restore experience that hade been lost in the modern society. You did a god job with you blog post, it was easy to read and fellow your thoughts. Well done. 

http://u1818rgq.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-2-critical-media-studies-post-2.html

You wrote, ”Enlightenment can be describes as an ideology with good intentions, but the greed and power of knowledge and development has created unequal conditions in the society”. Adorno & Horkheimer criticizes exactly this concept. Capitalism is highly unequal and causes a hierarchy structure; capitalism failed to treat people equally. The mechanical revolution and the mass production of art and popular culture caused passive satisfaction and lack of interest of the system. People care more about being rich, having a nice house and car then society. The media industry reproduces images, people tend to go to a movie and see the same thing as they already sees. Adorno & Horkheimer criticizes this social passivity, and lack of interest in overthrowing the capitalism.

https://u1j8du7c.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-22.html?showComment=1474877726588

Thanks for some interesting and good reflections. Your post is well structured and easy to read. 

I am not sure if I grasp what you mean with the phone as substructure and app as superstructure. Substructure is the economic foundation of society and superstructure are political, laws, religious and other intellectual institution.  Superstructure changes more slowly (is more resistant to change) then substructure however when substructure change (eg. by new technology) the superstructure has to change eventually. Technology has the power to cause a change in superstructure. In the context I belie it’s relevant because Benjamin analyzed the consequences capital production had on art, capitalism was a transformation of superstructure that had caused a change in conditions of production. Therefor Benjamin related this concept to art. 

https://u1cq6h0z.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-2reflection-on-critical-media.html?showComment=1474879867340

It seems like you grasp the contexts very well. It was interesting to read your blog post. 

Nominalism becomes much more clear for me as well after understanding Platos, allegory of the cave.Nominalism miss out that it is a differences and denies existents of abstract universals. According to nominalism; what we perceive is the truth, the world is the way it should be, it’s not such a thing as judgment, we should just observe. Adorno and Horkheimer are critical towards this passivity. We need to start question the current structure and system. We can't just maintain the way society is. 

You wrote that you did not really answer how Adorno & Horkheimer view on the revolutionary potential differed from Benjamin’s. Adorno & Horkheimer refer the cultural industry as standardization of products, art become commercialized, capitalism just make money of something that used to be culture. Benjamin on the other hand claimed mechanical reproduction of art also democratizes culture; it makes it available for everyone. 

https://u1bauz11.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-2-reflection.html?showComment=1474881730044

Hi!

Your blog post is well written. I appreciate how you put everything in a historical context; it helps to understand their philosophical thoughts better. I also think I grasp most of the concepts from reading the texts however correlation of mimesis was new to me as well, as you wrote myth it's a way to get into nature and change things through mimesis process. Human just tend to reproduce, which also leads to passivity. Myth is not about God, it is a strategy of, of rising the unknown, it’s a mechanism how we control the unknown. Enlightenment wanted to control the unknown and started out with something good, but it ended up as use for fascism. 

https://u1c051gg.blogspot.se/2016/09/reflection-critical-media-studies.html?showComment=1474883082489

 I agree with you that the concept dialect was quite hard to grasp in the beginning. If you put in a context and compare to other philosophes its easier to understand, it was originally used in the context of a debate between people with differing views using rational arguments to reach truth, for example Plato’s dialogues. Also Hegel and later Marx used dialect to describe the mechanism of metaphysical and material historical change.

Yes, it makes sense how enlightenment movement connects to movement of nominalism. Adorno & Horkheimer’s work is (in my perspective) dedicated to criticizing the thought paradigm of the enlightenment in which nominalism is a key feature.

I think your blog post is very well written, you reflect well on your knowledge and what you learned during the week. Good job. 

https://u1gixy4z.blogspot.se/2016/09/after-theme-2-critical-media-studies.html?showComment=1474898334885

I rely like you conclusion and reflections. It is interesting how you put it in a context of today. 

I agree it’s interesting to consider the historical context. Adorno & Horkheimer were highly effected of their time, and the fact that they where living in Hollywood when they wrote Dialect of Enlightenment. According to Adorno & Horkheimer the Cultural Revolution and the commercialization was a threat to human intellectuals and spiritual liberation, its leads to passivity. They believed people hade become blind in the capitalism society. 

A&H hade no purpose to prevent a solution, they post critic against things that did not work in the capitalism. Benjamin on the other hand wanted to inform the people. For Benjamin the mechanical revolution of art also democratizes culture. 

https://u1ci4ejx.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-2-reflection.html?showComment=1474899721966

Hi! Thanks for an interesting post, it seems like you got a deeper understanding for enlightenment after the lecture and seminar. 

Yes it is interesting how they connect enlightenment with (blind) domination. Adorno and Horkheimer, see enlightenment as a dialect between society and the domination of external nature. Enlightenment splits these spheres apart. Enlightenment was a strategy to control the unknown, and the people fear the unknown. Adorno & Horkheimer were skeptical towards mythical fear radicalization. They conclude that enlightenment and rationalism finally becomes only an instrument of domination. I believe this is a very interesting perspective of enlightenment. Anyway god job with your blog.

https://scarsickbg.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-2-blog-post-2-critical-media.html?showComment=1474901497498

I like your way of preparing! I think it’s good that you look for other sources in order to grasp the texts and context better. I do the same, especially when it’s harder reading as in theme 1 & 2. Plato’s, allegory of the cave, also helped me to understand nominalism, which is a key feature for Adorno and Horkheimer. It’s interesting how they criticize nominalism for missing the differences and denies the universal. They complain over the modern way of thinking, that we are in position where nothing can change. The extreme of nominalism just se categories, that the world it’s the way it should be, we should not change just observe, which leads passivity and lack of initiative to change things. 

https://u1wdx0i7.blogspot.se/2016/09/post-theme2-forpreparation-of-this.html?showComment=1474902592496

Theme 1:

I also find it interesting with the discussion about Kant’s theory and mental illness. Mental illness seems to undermine human rationality and raise problems for Kant’s theory. What happen with humans with a different cognitive structure, do human and non-human have the same cognitive structure? Even Kant mention that he can’t explain why human facility are created the why they are. 

I think it is good that you considered your knowledge before and after the lecture/seminar and that you learned something new.  I would like to now how you contribute to the class. Anyway, thanks for interesting reading. 

https://pgd7117.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-one.html?showComment=1473931935035

It seems like you put a lot of work into this week’s theme however I don’t share the view that Socrates (Plato) and Kant’s arguments are contrary, even though their arguments have differences. I believe Kant moved towards the same direction as Plato’s conception of mind as the source of understanding and knowledge. I believe Plato clarify a radical distinction between the sensible and the intelligible, the intelligible was the realm of reality. Kant on the other hand arguing that the knowledge we obtain of the world is knowledge of the world as it appears to us, our reason. This is a difference in their theories but it’s not contrary. However I think the author makes good reflections of Kant and Plato and it seems like the person has been active in the class and at the seminar. 

https://u1cq6h0z.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and-theory.html?showComment=1473939832877

I agree with you, the text was quite difficult. At first I think it was hard to know if I understood Kant correct or not, but I think it helped with all the discussions at the seminar.  I think your group had some genuinely interesting discussions, e.g. “if you educate your self in art you will no longer perceive Van Gogh paintings of the Mona Lisa the same was as you would have before”. It would be interesting to link this statement with Benjamin’s theory how people perceive the world and his discussion about the term aura.

I also find the discussion about the brown table interesting. To think about object in time and space in the way Kant puts it, was new for me. If you don’t have facility of knowledge you can’t know that the table is brown. Space, time and the 12 categories don’t belong to the world itself, but without this form (according to Kant), we would not have any knowledge about the world. 

I think it was easy to read your blog, it was well structured and you made some good reflections. 

https://u1wdx0i7.blogspot.se/2016/09/post-theme-1.html?showComment=1473942372688

Your blog post was good and easy to understand. I like the way you link Kant’s theory to the media industry; it shows that you think outside the box. I agree with you that the knowledge we gained from last week’s theme will be very useful as the course goes on; it’s important to understand what knowledge is and our method to acquiring knowledge. I think I learned quite at lot from Kant’s explanation of how we think and what knowledge is.

In our group we also discussed if there are any such things as pure objectivity. Is it possible determining the truth? I believe objectivity needs to have a standard to compere to, in that way you can judge more fairly. Or if you discuss in metaphysical terms something as pure objectivity would be the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s senses. 

https://u10o7oqf.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-pt-2.html?showComment=1474027850162

I like your way of explaining Kant’s and Socrates theories. In your post you wrote “we experience objects not just with one organ, but with our mind, that the color blue is not just a color, but a feeling”. I agree that we don’t experience color with just one organ, but I disagree that it is a feeling. Socrates believe color it’s not a quality in the object itself but a perception in your mind, color don’t belong to our reality, it is a part of how things appears to us. What Socrates means (from my view) is that we are not our senses but we perceive through our senses. We can’t rely on our senses as a source of knowledge. We perceive a different world through our mind, than through our senses. It would be interesting to discuses Kant’s and Socrates similarities and differences in their view of what color are. 

Anyway I think you did a great job with you first blog post, and you did some really god conclusions. 

http://u1818rgq.blogspot.se/2016/09/theory-of-knowledge-and-theory-of.html#comment-form

I think you explained, "Perception without conception is blind, conception without perception is empty." very well. As I understand, concept without a perceptional base is nothing. Perception can’t think, and understanding can’t perceive, they have to work together. It is through your mind that you can make sense of the world. To have any knowledge we have to organize our mind, knowledge is a product of both our senses and our understanding. 

I think it was easy to read you blog post. You did some god reflections and you gained some new knowledge and better understanding after the lecture and seminar. 

https://u1bauz11.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-reflection.html?showComment=1474180710221

I think you did a good summary; it was easy to understand your thoughts and to read you post. You point out some interesting conclusion in you second blog post, for example about God.  In your first blog post you wrote “so the similarities of the arguments stated by Socrates and Empiricism, is that they both consider knowledge as something we gain by using our senses”. I wrote similar conclusion, because modern empiricism states that knowledge comes from empirical evidence, observation and experimentation (sensor experiences). But I believe it’s some differences in their theory as well. What would you say is the different between Plato’s theory and modern empiricism?

http://u1kq1ay0.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-of-knowledge-and-theory-of_74.html#comment-form

I really like your introduction of the blog. I appreciate that you put Kant’s work in a context; it makes it easier to understand. I also think it is interesting that that Kant actually says that we can’t know anything that we don’t experience and organize in our mind. For example metaphysics, we will never know if our ideas about the world are true, for example if God exist or not. However as I understood Kant says that if a statement corresponds to the facts it’s true. And the facts exist no matter of our knowledge of theme. Can we know that our perceptions are correct? It’s interesting to analyze the limits and power of our mind and how we understand our world! Anyway I think you understood the text and concepts very well. Thanks for interesting reading. 

https://u11zdo9t.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-post-2.html?showComment=1474204069585

I like how you express your thoughts. In your blog post you wrote some good conclusions. After reading Kant, I will also (like you) be more receptive to different and new ideas. You hade some interesting discussion within you group, especially the conversation about law, the system of rules. According to your discussion laws are subjective, but in this case, what is subjective? If the same rules hold everyone, is it still subjective? And is it a difference between scientific and moral objectivity? If you have a standard to compere to, you can judge more fairly, and maybe objectively? It would be interesting to discuses further; maybe after reading Kant’s work The Metaphysics of Morals? Anyway well done with your first and second blog post. 

https://u1h02pv3.blogspot.se/2016/09/reflection-on-theme-1-theory-of.html?showComment=1474301083171

You wrote that Plato emphasized gender in what you found an irrelevant and sexist way. You I found this a primitive and outdated way of thinking. I think Plato’s attitude towards women has to be understood in the context of his environment. If you want to analyze Plato’s attitude towards women you first have to analyze the general Greek (in Plato’s time) attitude towards women. As far as I know from earlier courses Plato was quite progressive in his ideology and approach towards women. Anyway I think you blog was fairly easy to read, and your reflections difference from the other blog post I have been reading, which is good and stimulating. 

https://u1c051gg.blogspot.se/2016/09/reflection-theory-of-knowledge-and.html?showComment=1474306539008