Reflection post

After six weeks worth of themes, lectures, seminars, reflections and discussions, there are various things I have taken away with regards to the different methods that exist to conduct research. More specifically, I've learned that although they're often primarily associated with a very diverse range of research and academic traditions, they are not exclusive to one another in the way that I had previously assumed.

To give some background; my bachelors degree was in Media and Culture at the University of Amsterdam, a programme belonging to the Faculty of Humanities that had all but no overlap with technical fields of study. Through Foucault, Butler, Saïd, McLuhan, Kant and many others, schools such as postmodernism, post-structuralism, orientalism, metaphysics and third-wave feminism rather explicitly represented, whereas, among others, natural sciences and other more empirically oriented fields of study where for the far majority ignored.

In line with this, the methods commonly employed by myself and my fellow students were rather one-sided as well, with content analysis of film, literature, series or video game texts being by far the most common. In some cases, this would be complemented by reception analysis through surveys or (unstructured) interviews, though even these were quite rare.

It was rather interesting, then, to not only consider six different approaches to the subject of theory and methods for media technology, but also to discuss those with fellow students coming from a wide variety of academic backgrounds. In some cases, this has led me to confirm my own convictions by finding confirmation in other people's opinions, whereas in other cases I instead found entirely new ways of looking at academic research; applying specific methods; placing my own research in a context or many other situations.

The one concept that I found especially powerful, and that resonated with me significantly more than anything else discussed within the past six weeks, was the concept of dialectic, as opposed to the debate that I long considered to be without alternative. For me, approaching research, knowledge-gathering and philosophical debate as a means of together finding the truth, rather than rigidly trying to convince others to come closer to your standpoint, is for me at the core of academic and personal development.

To me, allowing yourself to be convinced by opinions or arguments that give you cause to reconsider is a quality that is often greatly underestimated, and might even be considered a sign of weakness in social context. To me, though, it is at least as important, if not significantly more so, to being able to defend your standpoint if you believe it should justify doing so. I would even go as far as calling it a prerequisite to excelling academically, being entirely independent of methods, fields of study or petty rivalries between the various schools of philosophy. It is, however, not only true in performing research, studying academic texts or having philosophical debates, but just as well in matters of everyday social issues, personal relationships and even pedagogy.

Another field that I thought was interesting was the case study, which I've also quite extensively discussed in my comments on other people's blogs. To me, before this course, a case study was a way of using a (or multiple) single instances of a research subject, and then to a certain extent generalizing it to describe all other instances. What I hadn't considered until the seminar - even after reading the texts - was the idea that it could also be done without already having a research (or at least a research question) at hand, but instead going into it open-minded hoping that something scientifically relevant might reveal itself.

This, to some extent, coincides with the change in mindset that I experienced shifting from debate to dialectic, in allowing for the possibility that rather than one of the answers (or, in this case, research questions) being right, it might be the case that it has as of yet not been formulated. To then dedicated yourself to it regardless, informed by the mere possibility of something significant being revealed, to me signifies an entirely new level of passion and dedication, and thereby the true foundation for groundbreaking research.

I've tried, throughout my comments for the week, to apply this transition in my approach of other people's blog posts and interpretations, offering my own takes on the subjects discussed or questions that I fostered in reading their posts, rather than focusing on semantic confusion or irrelevant chit-chat. Admittedly, this was significantly easier for some weeks than others, especially seeing as some weeks entirely lacked seminars and lectures were canceled.

One I specifically recall was regarding the virtual reality drums simulation, where the blogger expressed contempt that the dark-skinned avatar was dressed in a hoodie whereas the light-skinned equivalent was dressed in formal attire. While I did, to some extent see the impulse and underlying frustration - i.e. 'why is it considered natural for an Afro-European to be sloppily dressed, whereas a Caucasian is considered natural when well-groomed?'- it went beyond the reasoning within the research context. Being Afro-European and casually dressed both, individually, were considered natural for the context of playing this specific drum, the instrument being West-African originally and the activity of playing music usually taking placing in a casual setting.

This, to me, went to show what is probably the biggest take away after these past few weeks: that whatever choices you make as a researchers; however you choose to combine theories and methods: clearly justifying your choices can make all the difference. It is tempting to assume all others come from the same backgrounds and academic fields as you do, but it has been proven to me that is rather hard to imagine the assumptions they may implicitly or explicitly make.

Comments

Theme 1

It's an interesting hypothesis you pose regarding the interpretative meaning of can of Coca Cola in an isolated tribe. As far as I understood from what was discussed during the lecture and seminar, Kant referred to this idea as a God's View - that is to say, it is by definition unattainable by mankind, seeing as there is no way to free ourselves from the tainting by our senses and general tendency of value appropriation.

It was an interesting take on the articles we read applying them to media technology, because as you stated, on first impression it all seems rather abstract and far from direct application to everyday life. Still, the distinction between a priori and a posteriori is one that I have found to not only be relevant within an academic context, but also in more practical professional application - that is, it forces us to consider where and how we have obtained the knowledge that we so often take for granted.

I like how you've focused on - or at least used as an example - the role of Copernicus within the conceptualisation of a priori and a posteriori knowledge, seeing as 'copernican' has sort of become a synonym for being world-changing and revolutionary in our perception of things. It's an easy relevance to miss, seeing as the supposed lack of similarity between celestial science and philosophical concepts, but you're one of the few in my sample that has so explicitly discussed it.

Your final paragraph especially resonates with me, seeing as it was similar to what I felt when taught about the distinction between a debate and a dialectic. The goal of obtaining knowledge isn't always about finding the one objective answer to objectively answerable questions, but instead about finding depth in further discussions or elaboration about subject matter that at first hand seems self-explanatory. Also, on an unrelated note, way to go on the blog address. You had me giggle.

It seems good you touched on nominalism, because for my own part that was the concept in the second theme's text that I least understood - or at least that was least applicable to my experience of academic pursuit in the past few years. I would be interested to know how that relates to Plato and Kant's text, and the various concepts introduced therein.

I didn't catch on to the close relation between Kant and Plato as far as their views on perception and experience, neither in the texts nor the seminars/lectures, so that's certainly an interesting point of view. The concepts of a priori and a posteriori always seem to pose a problem for most people, especially when combined with the somewhat similar concept of synthetic and analytical knowledge. Still, I too thought the idea of E.T. landing on earth and trying to describe a rabbit was a helpful way of illustrating that very hypothetical idea, as well as being a moderately amusing mental image.

What interests is me is the idea that we could, somehow, 'choose' a point of view from which to look at things when we look at the world, as a substitute from the impossible transcending into the God's point of view. I would imagine making such a decision, be it consciously of subconsciously, would require us to not only be well aware of the fact that we are by definition tainted by our perception, but also of the faculties of knowledge in which we operate. However - and I'm confusing myself here - such awareness would itself be tainted by our perception of our own perception, thus itself requiring an 'impossible objective view' to be achieved. The furthest I got is that we can acknowledge both our faculties of knowledge, and the fact that we can never quite comprehend the extent to which our perception is colored by what you so eloquently describe as the "organized character of our souls."

You were one of the few ones to mention the quote about conception without perception being blind, which I too thought was a somewhat thought-provoking statement. It seems like a rather obvious direct attack on the entire field of metaphysics, and seems to indirectly propose the possibility of synthetic a priori knowledge.

It seems your seminar discussed rather different subjects than mine did, which always posed interesting new perspectives on supposedly similar subjects. The entire idea that philosophy leads the way for science is something that I find particularly well-put, even going as far as justifying the relevance of the entire subject of this course. With the ideal of objectivity so often putting natural science on a higher academic level of prestige, it is especially important to define the need for the more philosophical themes that are at the base of all fields of studies.

Let me begin by conveying my profound appreciation of the puppy of the day atop your blog. As far as your post goes, I too agree that the seminars are generally significantly more helpful than the lecture, which so far seems to be most people's experience. This, to me, is a direct result from the seminar's set-up being one that is open to discussion and dialectic, as opposed to a one-sided stream of information that suggests there is such a thing as objective answers in philosophy.

Theme 2

Thanks for further elaborating on the Allegory of the Cave; even though I've had that in my bachelor's as well, it never quite resonated with me as clearly as I would've liked to. If I understand correctly, a nominalist denies the existence of the world 'outside' of the cave, relying only on that which can be seen in the mirror - i.e. anything beyond the instances which can be observed. I think it paints a clearer image of a somewhat unworldy scope, which is at the base of the fascist views you describe can can therefore lead to a rather un-enlightened outcome.

Interesting point of view! Both due to the scope of my bachelor's degree and personal interest, I've always had a bit of a positive predisposition towards the idea that mass media create implicit role models that are either inescapable or very deeply rooted in society. The implicitness of this process for me is a kind of at odds with the idea of enlightenment, seeing as their not being easily discernible makes it significantly harder to critically evaluate the values they impose.

I thought there was an interesting contrast between Benjamin's concept of an aura being related to authenticity, and Andy Warhol's art completely doing away with the entire concept of an original - thus being both entirely authentic and not authentic at all. I think today, with digital forms of art similarly completely doing away with the original, we might be in need of a different definition of the aura.

Interesting discussion about the evolution of the superstructure; I hadn't considered that with the ascent and growing ubiquity of media technologies such as the internet, new forms would arise within Marx' otherwise fairly consistent model. It does seem to me though that this is a bit less one-sided, with 'the people' having a much larger role in shaping the internet than they had in, for example, newspapers or radio.

I think whether media does or does not fail to exhibit the values of enlightenment depends on which specific media you're referring to. There's something to be said - although this is by definition a value judgement and thus subjective - that mass media have failed in this regards, being structured thusly to speak to as large an audience as possible, and thus never really take a controversial stance in questioning that which we perceive in the world. For the internet, though, which in theory has as many outlets as there are users, it would be an entirely different situation, and the allegory falls somewhat short.

You (that is to say: your seminar group) seems to be one of the few that have gone very far beyond merely discussing the concept of nominalism, which made it particularly thought-provoking to read. I think in an historical context, enlightenment has usually been marked as a turning point for the better within the field of science, marking the start of a rational form of decision making a doing away with all pseudo-scientific and religious influences from the outside world. Your comments on the negative side that accompany this were therefore an interesting take on the matter, although I wouldn't per se say that the 'sense of fantasy' abolished with enlightenment is the same as the scientific curiosity that could still lead to new discoveries.

I like how you mentioned the importance of the different backgrounds of Walter Benjamin and the Horkheimer & Adorno, seeing as I to was very impressed in what different light I saw the text after both (their stories as well as their relations to each other) had been told. Of course I knew that to some extend you should take cultural, societal and historical into account when reading texts, but for such an extreme background as that of Benjamin's to come to light in such a vivid manner, really opened up a new way of looking at his writings for me.

The horseshoes to me were interesting because it shows that the initial nominalist view - the naked eye perception of there being moments were neither touched the ground - was proven wrong by another, technology induced view, which proposed an alternative version of horse movement. This, to me, goes to show that for all it's idealism of merely basing itself on concrete instances of an object rather than universalisms, a nominal view does not in itself guarantee an accurate or objective interpretation.

It's impressive that you admit to misinterpreting parts of the texts, because from most blogs so far I felt tat I was the only one. Especially the part on Adorno and Horkheimer's stance on cinema was interesting, because to my mind cinema is one of the most potentially revolutionary forms of media, seeing as to how it can induce an emotional response to societal issues that might otherwise not be entirely fathomed by those unaffected by it.

I was very interested in your notion of the almost inherent contradiction that lies in, on one hand, the aura as a sign of authenticity and on the other hand on the lack of auro (through mechanical contradiction) as a form of liberation of art. I think that very well summarized the dillema that Benjamin too was facing on the matter, and wasn't something that I had entirely grasped myself.

Theme 3

It's interesting that you thought the "theory is about seeing" quote was so clear, because I thought it was rather confusing. Sure, as compared to the 'doing' in practical experiments you could argue it's true, but if there's one defining verb surrounding theory I'd say it's reasoning, rather than seeing.

I actually thought Leif's lecture was one of the least sensical we'd had so far, especially as compared to the excellent one the week before. In any case, the discussion about the difference between hypothesis and theory was by far the most though-provoking to me, especially because prior to the seminar I would've probably categorized religion as a theory as well - despite it being non-verifiable.

It's good that you actually went into what a theory is; most of the others (including, admittedly, myself) mostly went into what a theory is not, similar to one of the two texts we've read. It seems quite self-explanatory at first, but in reality I've found that there are many prerequisites to consider. The fact that a theory had to be verifiable, as we discussed in our seminar, was not one that I would've brought up myself - I would've said religion was a theory, for example.

Interesting reflection! I don't know that I agree Gregor contradicts Sutton & Law's statement, though; I think they say diagrams and figures seldom constitute a theory, meaning they, by themselves, are not a theory. What Gregor argues, and I agree, is that theory can be based on diagrams and theory, but it needs to use that data as a base to form a type of academic reasoning, rather than just take it in bare.

We didn't discuss the distinction between practice as applied theory and theory as abstracted practice; I thought that was a very interesting way of looking at it that I wish we'd had the opportunity to discuss in our seminar. I'm a bit torn to whether this theme was, as you so eloquently phrase it, 'up my alley'; on one hand I thought it was something that I had more experience with during my previous research, on the other hand I don't know that it - and especially the discussion - added so much to that knowledge.

Well done on your reflection! I thought it was interesting how the concept of a paradigm shift returned from the first week, despite the supposed rather major differences between the two weeks' topics. Really goes to show that there is a lot of cross-pollination between the differents fields of philosophy, even if it doesn't seem apparent in the beginning.

I agree with you that this weeks material was (by far) the most valuable compared to the lectures and seminar. I suppose using your own articles not only makes for more interesting and relatable reading, but also poses more specific questions compared to those of other seminar members,

Hah, you went very meta in discussing the various theories on theories' definition - didn't think this course could get any more compicated ;-) On a more serious note, I was a bit confused about what Gregor mentioned too, but I what I think now after reading other blogs is that he doesn't say data and such are necessarily theories in themself, but that they can instead form the basis of further theory.

Hey, thanks for your reflection. The "nothing is so practical as good theory" was an interesting statement because at first sight it seems rather contradictory, but the way I interpret it is that a good theory can form a very solid base that comprises data, experiments and the like. In any case, good job!

You're one of the few bloggers that I've read so far that managed to reconnect this week's theme to the previous ones, so very well done on that front. The hypothesis and theory difference had me (and most others in my seminar) rather confused as well, but the way I understand it now is that a hypothesis is an assumption you make based on observation, whereas a theory is a way of using academic reasoning to come to an explanation of that observation, thus either confirming or rejecting the hypothesis.

Theme 4

It's good to see you've also reached the conclusion that neither qualitative nor quantative research is perfect, and that a combination of the two often proves the most succesful. To me, the discussion is more about in what degree you should utilize either one, and in which kind of topics one or the other should be dominant. Thanks for your post!

I felt the same way that you do about there being more to quantitative research then there seems to be at first sight, particularly because it's the kind that I haven't had so much experience with in my bachelor's degree. Then again, I do suppose that it is heavily favoured in fields other than my own (that is, very alpha studies), so it might just be a lack of experience rather than a lack of understanding. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!'

Our groups have very much come to the same conclusion regarding the use of qualitative and quantitative methods, in that they're not mutually exclusive but can serve to complement each other depending on the subject matter. Not so much to philosophize on that front; we mainly just based it on the fact that our past experiences have pointed overwhelmingly to this conclusion.

I see that we agree on the idea that neither qualitative nor quantative research is perfect, and that a combination of the two often proves the most succesful. To me, the discussion is more about in what degree you should utilize either one, and in which kind of topics one or the other should be dominant. Thanks for your post!

Hey, thanks for your well-written post! I think it becomes quite interesting when there a multiple dependent variables on one dependent one (i.e. how drunk I'd get as well as how bad I'd have to go to the toilet after drinking a certain amount of beers), or when dependent variables are themselves dependent on other dependent variables (i.e. how many cars I'd run into after getting a certain degree of drunk after drinking a certain amount of beers). I would have liked for the lecture to go a bit deeper into this.

I'm going to agree on the point that this week's lecture and seminar were not particularly enlightening, seeing as anyone's who's done a bachelor before has a pretty good grasp on the basic differentiation between qualitative and quantitative. Still, I think it did serve a purpose in the sense that some (including myself) may not have been used to working with either one of those on account of their previous education having a tendency one way or another, and thus getting accustomed to the possibilities and limitations could prove useful for the future.

Hey, really interesting discussion you had about whether or not all research was in the end quantitative, that train of thought had never even passed my mind in the first place. I've definitely done some qualitative research in the past that I wouldn't categorize as also being quantitative though - of course there are some quantitative aspects to it, but the sheer empirical value was still not what I drew my results from. Thanks for your post!

Hah, I can see how you were a bit put off by the attire of the dark-skinned casual person in the experiment - I was too. Still, after my initial reaction I concluded that there wasn't so much racial stereotype as a scientific reasoning behind that choice - the instrument being played was West-African, thus justifying the avatar's ethinicty, whereas the activity of 'playing music' would usually be way mroe suited for someone in a casual attire, rather than a business outfit. Thus, the reasoning wasn't that African-American men supposedly dress sloppily, but just that both factors were individually consistent within the context of the experiment.

Thanks for your post! It's good to see you focus mainly on the ideal form of questionnaires rather than the discussion between quantitative and qualitative methods, which I think very soon reached a consensus in most (if not all) seminar groups. If you, as a researcher, know what kind of information you're looking for, it can be hard not to try and steer your respondents in a direction - either consciously or subconsciously. Being aware of that is very important and I think you did a great job reflecting on it.

Hi, I too agree that there was not so much to add to the consensus that seemingly everyone reached within a blink of an eye, namely that a combination of both methods is almost always preferred. Still, it's interesting to see that people from different backgrounds and academic tradition agree so strongly on such a matter.

Theme 5

I thought the first lecture was a bit... Well, goofy, mostly, in the sense that it sounded like some odd get-together for people in a mid-life crisis rather than anything supposed to instigate a philosophical debate. The entire thing to me was mostly pseudo-inspirational motivational quotes, some of which you mention in your post - the 'knowing who you are' and 'following your dreams even if you're not capable'. Barely any argumentation to it, and therefore nothing that really managed to resonate.

I'll agree with pretty much everyone else that most of the second lecture went over my head, and the lack of seminar (for both the first and the second) didn't help in the slightest. That was too bad, because I felt the prototype one could've been very interesting if it'd been a lot more structured. I did think the reassessment of the use of a prototype was a somewhat interesting take on the subject, but again, it should've gone in to it way further.

I thought the difference between prototypes in design research and in industries was pretty much the only interesting (and/or understandable) part of Anders' lecture, too. Still, I wished he either went into it way more detailedly, or alternatively allow for more discussion to be had on the topic. Neither happened, though, and with the absence of any seminars that was a major letdown.

Impressive post, I think you were one of the few to go into such depth for two lectures that no one really seemed to grasp very much. From myn experience and reading other people's blogs, I'd say the subject of the prototype was most thought-provoking for the majority of people, although the extent to which it was discussed by Anders was very limited. Still, the question of what it can be used for, and especially the distinction between industrial and research use, was something I hadn't really explicitly considered before, and was at least somewhat interesting.

Good reflection, probably one of the most extensive ones I've seen so far. The 'refocusing the question changes our lens'-quote was particularly good in summarizing what Haibo stated in his lecture as well, which I think was at the core of most of what he tried to say. I've had doubts about his statement that 90% of solving a problem is defining it, but the general idea behind it - that definition is usually underrated - is something I do agree with.

Loved the quote, it pretty much sums up my thoughts of Haibo's statement on the 90%/10% division. It's good that he tries to emphasize the importance of redefining the concept (although here I think he was referring to defining a problem, rather than an idea that may or may not solve a problem), as opposed to immediately trying to work on a solution.

Very short reflection, which sums up very well the amount of useful insights we gained this week: verging on none. I felt that the first one was very basic but at least somewhat relevant to our course, whereas the second - as you so clearly state - was completely useless (though I suppose the lecturer couldn't really be blamed on account of his having been a stand-in for the one that got canceled.)

I too liked the idea that an innovation based on technology is not necessarily a technological innovation, although I don't want to go as far as to say that both are mutually exclusive. The example given, Facebook, would seem to be both; on the one hand there's the concept of chronologically structured social networking through a newsfeed (and whatever other distinctions you can think of compared to a.o. MySpace); on the other hand there's the technological platform that allows for this kind of networking to happen. In that sense, it is as much a sociological innovation as it is a technical, seeing as both didn't exist in this way before.

I am going to jump on the bandwagon and agree that it's very confusing to keep track of what week correlates with what lecture and/or seminar, especially with so many changes and cancellations going on simultaneously. It's interesting that the way design research can be communicated and presented was the part that you remembered most vividly, since I feel that was one of the weaker points of the Wednesday lecture.

Theme 6

The SARS epidemic is an interesting example of a case, seeing as it can serve as such in multiple ways. Of course, individual patients with individual instances of the disease can themselves be a case, but on a macro scale all of them could also be considered one - that is, the epidemic itself serving as a case for the studies into subject pandemics or crisis management. I suppose the background of the researchers or their respective fields of study can make a major difference in terms of the light shed on the case itself. Thanks for your post!

It's an interesting discussion where the border between quantitative and qualitative methods lie, and especially whether and to what extent this is related to the number of participants or subjects. Theoretically, through cooperation by a number or research institutes and universities, a research with a large number of participants could still be qualitative, as long as the practical restrictions can be diminished (that is, by increased funding, capacity and/or research scale). Still, I would say that the intrinsic value of your results ultimately determines whether it should be considered qualitative or quantitative - that is, whether instances of results are valuable individually, or only in relation to a (large) number of other responses.

I like the point of view that a case study can serve as a proverbial 'entrance' into the research of a subject matter, i.e. be used as a way to determine what aspects warrant further research, what methods might be applicable and from what academic tradition research should be pursued. It's a possibility that I hadn't yet considered myself before the seminar, but that makes the concept of a case study so much more prominent.

It's interesting that you say a case study shows how something stands out and differs, because I've previously read some cases where the subjects were approached as being - to some extent - representative of the field as a whole, and therefore selected to be as none-outstanding as could be. Then again, it did in a way show how the instances it was related to stood out from instances that were entirely different, so I suppose it could work both ways.

I hadn't considered the possibility of qualitative research 'requiring' a social aspect - it does seem something that characterizes qualitative research, but perhaps more serendipitous from the increased interaction with individual subjects than as a prerequisite for succesful research per se. In any case, it's a refreshing point of view and must've led to an interesting discussion in your seminar.

Finding a suitable case study was hard for me as well, because I wasn't entirely clear on the exact definition of a case - and I'm still not sure that Eisenhardt's description of it can be considered an objective measure. I ended up using the same article for both, seeing as it was a qualitative case study that would reveal interesting overlap between both subjects.

I'm going to jump on the bandwagon of appreciating your discussion of semi-structured interviews, which I feel are a very powerful tool in conducting qualitative research that sometimes seems to be somewhat overlooked. Admittedly, it is also one of the few that I have personal experience with, but to me it is a good way to not restrict your subjects too much while still keeping various instances relatively easily comparable. Thanks for your insights!

You're absolutely right that generalizing case studies can often be problematic - to me, that's probably one of the hardest parts in applying them to real-world research situations of my own. You can justify the position of your particular case within the relevant fields, but it's impossible to exactly pinpoint how it relates to all other possible cases - in the present, let alone in the future. Thanks for your post!

I commend you for getting so much out of this weeks theme - that's definitely more than I managed without a lecture. I thought focus groups are always a somewhat interesting way of conducting qualitative research, because the choice of focus group members is itself very subjective and informed by personal tendencies. Of course, the same can be said for interviewees, but the sheer scale of focus groups adds some extra weight to the perceived value of their responses, being considered to some extent representative of the whole rather than mere individual examples. In any case, interesting reflection!

Theme 6 comments

http://cscmediatechnologyassignment.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-6-reflection.html?showComment=1445880184367#c1107331803265728621

http://elindm2572.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-6-reflections.html?showComment=1445881053540#c7578205016767430201

http://dm2572lisa.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-6-reflection-post.html?showComment=1445881226529#c7012911735054852930

http://lard-have-mercy.blogspot.se/2015/10/post-theme-6-qualitative-and-case-study.html?showComment=1445882520539#c7936254490037122360

http://platotheplatypus.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-6-post-reflection.html?showComment=1445883201376#c3368066779900439829

http://dm2572rberggre.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-6-after.html?showComment=1445883397088#c1841050017094747588

http://vadfinnsegentligen.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-6-reflection.html?showComment=1445883536149#c6020992565573072608

http://bjornsblogggg.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-6-post-reflection.html?showComment=1445883833180#c6547047638575389608

http://theorymethodmediatech.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme6-qualitative-and-case-study_18.html?showComment=1445884004649#c3945425514750652282

http://dm2572elvira.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-6-qualitative-and-case-study_19.html?showComment=1445884216594#c1213902990859689629

Theme 5 comments

http://cscmediatechnologyassignment.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-5-reflection.html?showComment=1445335070339#c5617791636547495610

http://lard-have-mercy.blogspot.se/2015/10/post-theme-5-design-research.html?showComment=1445335645881#c8308462937628176696

http://platotheplatypus.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-5-post-reflection.html?showComment=1445341636129#c6057256991635838670

http://tianziwang.blogspot.se/2015/10/after-theme-5-design-research.html?showComment=1445342508447#c5171244513604040337

http://securepathofscience.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-5-design-research-reflection.html#comment-form

http://cliodile.blogspot.se/2015/10/after-theme-5-design-research.html?showComment=1445342887818#c802553632862992207

http://u1x5o721.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-5-reflections.html#comment-form
 
http://dm2572byen.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-5-design-research_10.html?showComment=1445352420978#c8374996291228411426

http://dm2572fan.blogspot.se/2015/10/post-theme-5.html?showComment=1445353816130#c4659981039138865980

Theme 6 in retrospect

If I'm going to be frank, I don't really know what to say about theme 6. Without the lecture, any mutual synergy there might've been between the lecturer's point of view and that of myself and my fellow students has disappeared, leading us to instead discuss our various interpretations of the texts read. While this led to some rather interesting discussions, specifically about the exact definition of a case study, I do feel very strongly that the theme would've been much more powerful if the lecturer hadn't forgotten to show up.

In any case, the exact definition of a case study seemed more complicated to define than it might've appeared on first hand, especially seeing as none of it had used it very exstinsively in our prior researches. One of the main defining qualities, to us, was the fact that it was something that occured or existed independent of the research for which it was a case study -  i.e. it wasn't an experiment or controlled environment designed to answer a research question.

More complicated was exactly how to define the relationship between the case at hand and the research. My initial thoughts were that researchers were looking for a specific type of outcome, and used a case to measure that outcome and/or see in what way it developed. If you're researching the productivity of older personnel at a company, for example, you might go to Company X and compare older and younger employees' productivity. From these observations, you might try to see how it can be generalized or applied to other situations. The company (or more specifically its staff) would then be the case study, whereas the productivity of staff by age would be the topic of research.

However, another option that was mentioned was a case in which the type of outcome was unknown, which is to say that the researchers didn't know beforehand what type of results they were looking for. This was somewhat of a contra-intuitive concept to me, because researchers would then have to completely rely on either reasoning or instinct to decide that a certain case might prove interesting or useful for research. I am still not sure how common this kind of research is, but it's certainly an option I hadn't considered before.

Theme 4 comments

http://theorymethodmediatech.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme4-quantitative-research-after.html?showComment=1444673463633#c8616283811958133899

http://dm2572elvira.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-4-quantitative-research-post.html?showComment=1444673688711#c7526106623756944210

http://elindm2572.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-4-reflection.html?showComment=1444673791247#c4008658363831701557

http://lard-have-mercy.blogspot.se/2015/10/post-theme-4-quantitative-research.html?showComment=1444673988344#c397393167690064275

http://dm2572lisa.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-4-reflection-post.html?showComment=1444674164986#c3894663363021717127

http://platotheplatypus.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-4-post-reflection.html?showComment=1444674702111#c2055122039576411661

http://dm2572rberggre.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-4-after.html?showComment=1444675937312

http://vadfinnsegentligen.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-4-reflection.html#comment-form

http://cscmediatechnologyassignment.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-4-reflection.html?showComment=1444678057974#c7946908102177649167

http://gamlagreker.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-4-reflection.html?showComment=1444678211816

Theme 5 in retrospect

If I'm going to be completely honest, neither of the lectures that took place instead of the seminars were particularly revealing to me. This wasn't so much due to the subject matter, which I found at least moderately interesting, but instead due to the lack of quality and relevance of what was discussed. Especially in the first of the two, I found that the matters discussed were very basic indeed, offering no real further discussions or cause for further philosophical debate.

The only thing that really stuck with me out of both lectures was the example of the student and the bear out in the woods, which I thought was an interesting and amusing take on creative problem solving - but the underlying thought, to look beyond your assumptions on the actual problem, was hardly very new. Indeed, I felt that the suggestion that 90% of problems can be solved by defining the problem rather than the solution was incredibly overstated. I did agree that the problem-defining part of looking for a resolution is commonly overlooked, but to state that it would account for the far majority of the entire process was so superficial to my mind that it almost seemed populist.

Theme 6: Qualitative and case study research

For the first half of this post I have used the article Videojuegos trasladados al cine: análisis y caracterización de la narrativa audiovisual en ambos medios by Águeda Delgado Ponce and Francisco Granados García, which was published in the 10th edition of the Revista Comunicación (impact factor 1.102).

The paper mainly deals with the narrative consequences of the translations of videogames that have been adapted into movies, with a specific focus on the way that both platforms shape the content and the alterations that have had to be made as a consequence of that discrepancy. As such, the main qualitative method is content analysis, which in the case of the videogame texts is combined with a ludologist-/narratologist analysis as well as a methodologist background about the discussion whether those two can be strictly separated.

As with the article for last week's theme, the article doesn't strictly utilize qualitative methods, but instead opts for a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. The qualitative approach is used on a select number of objects, including the Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy and Resident Evil and their respective movie adaptations. Quantitative methods are then used to justify the choice for these objects as well as elaborate on to which degree they are representative of the videogame adaptations industry as a whole.

I have elected to use the same paper as an example of case study, seeing as it it serves simultaneously as both an example of qualitative studies and case study. These three game-movie couples qualify as case studies, being single instances of the greater concept (in this case, videogame adaptations) being studied. What this specific paper does well is that is has used some of the major titles in videogame adaptation history as it's casus, though diverse enough in terms of genre, audience demographic and both commercial and critical success. This is a particular help in analyzing the data, because it allows for a varied cross-case pattern search.

However, because the entire concept of videogame adaptations is a very young one, the fact that they are a relatively large amount of time apart makes it somewhat problematic to compare them to each other at the same time - seeing as the entire field has seen enormous development in the short timespan in between. As such, the shaping hypotheses and enfolding literature phases are more apparent, with the latter relying specifically on more established traditions such as those surrounding Henry Jenkins, specifically his work on transmediality. As such, it is not possible to automatically assume these three games as being representative for the current or future state of videogame adaptations.

Theme 4 in retrospect

The fourth theme, on quantative methods, led to some interesting discussions in the seminar, though admittedly not entirely on the supposed advantages of said methods above their qualitative counterparts. On my own part, I have mainy utilized the latter in my bachelor's researches, this decision being largely made from the conviction that for the area of content analysis if by far the most appropriate. This is caused mainly by the fact that such research - into a.o. film, tv series or videogames - featured only a very limited number of research objects, and therefore required a more detailed and less systematic approach. Quantative research, then, would play a large part in the reception analysis part of the same researches, adding a larger scope to put the established into a broader context, as well as shed light on the limitations of it.

Within my group, this was a consensus that was quickly agreed on, with all of us having previously used a combination of both in our academic work. The debate then turned to the subject of which of the two should have the major role in which kind of research, with the again near-immediate consensus being that quantative research worked well primarily in topics that required large-scale respondents and factual data, whereas qualitative researched was more appropriate for smaller scale research where motivations and reasoned arguments were more dominant.

Theme 3 comments

http://dm2572elvira.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-3-research-and-theory-post-seminar.html?showComment=1444069644805#c5783908007744037310

http://elindm2572.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-3-reflection.html?showComment=1444069855548#c5799226388471759612

http://dm2572lisa.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-3-refection-post.html?showComment=1444070038450#c7182142850362466012

http://lard-have-mercy.blogspot.se/2015/09/post-theme-3-research-and-theory.html?showComment=1444070194603#c91134866246990926

http://platotheplatypus.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-3-post-reflection.html?showComment=1444074482324#c1452440624724868410

http://dm2572rberggre.blogspot.se/2015/09/this-theme-was-about-understanding.html?showComment=1444074608323#c454512925792861168

http://vadfinnsegentligen.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-3-reflection.html?showComment=1444074729242#c5533958895652802826

http://bjornsblogggg.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-3-post-reflection.html?showComment=1444075025927#c8277336513989637278

http://theorymethodmediatech.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme3-research-and-theory-after.html?showComment=1444075150110#c7543102958012628959

http://cscmediatechnologyassignment.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-3-reflection.html?showComment=1444075387995#c6136133909050098421

Theme 5: design research

Media technologies can be reviewed depending on multiple factors. The most obvious one would be the perceived goal of said technology, and the degree to which it manages to achieve these goals. In extension to this, this level of achievement can be compared to alternative (technological and/or manual) means of achieving the same goal, taking into account relevant factors such as cost, social and cultural context, future durability and the like.

Third, perhaps somewhat less straightforward, is the serendipitous value of a technology, i.e. what other goals might also be achieved. One major example is the mobile phone, which initially existed primarily as a way of making phone calls and sending text messages, but has since evolved to become a near-ubiquitous device for anything ranging from fitness to music listening and from navigation to journalism.

The building of prototypes can be a major help in discovering this kind of hidden potential. The Oculus Rift, and similar virtual reality devices, were initially envisioned to be videogame devices in mainstream media, only to prove themself similarly useful for scientific research, military training and operations and medical applications.

The main goal of a prototype, however, remains serving as a proof of concept; being a tangible evidence that one or multiple of the perceived goals can actually be achieved within the perimeters considered necessary for success, including (but not limited to) cost, comfort and durability. Characteristically, however, such prototypes are limited to the bare technical necessities, meaning that matter such as aesthetic design and consumer appeal can not always be sufficiently tested. This can be rather problematic, seeing as these are often important questions to be answered in order to estimate long-term potential, and as such, justify financial and scientific investments. The design research, then, should fill this foid and clearly shed light on such prototype limitations, as well as attempt to articulate the possiblities and limitations through theoretical reasoning.

Theme 5: design research (p2)

The empirical data in both papers consists of the data collected during the observations of the childrens' actions while using the prototype; and participant interviews, analysis of online media such as forums and blogs and what is called 'state of the art analysis', respectively.

Its a somewhat interpretative question whether design work could be considered knowledge distribution, because it is inherently related to the question of what exactly constitutes knowledge. For my part, I would argue that it can be considered as such, primarily because the creators of the design put forward some of their ideas in their work, which could then in turn make the research lead to a further degree of development and thus 'contributing' to the knowledge.

Within the context of a research, design to my mind seems to be more formalized, having relatively specific goals to obtain in order to elude corresponding specific reactions from the subjects. It is then less 'open-ended', if you will, i.e. less involved with the general experience and more with a specific isolated part of that.

Research in tech domains may or may not be replicable, depending on whether aspects such as historicity, skills of the designers, available tools - or anything dependent thereon - are relevant variables within the context of the research.

Lastly, compared to other kinds of research, design research is less focused on contributing to knowledge in general, and more about adapting a specific kind of product or research to serve the needs or demands at that specific point at time. It is therefore less timeless and unchanging, but at the same time more related to the at that moment current everyday society.