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!