Theme 5: Design Research

What is the 'empirical data' in these two papers?

Empirical data can be understood as the information and knowledge that is being acquired by means of experimentation, observation or experience.

The empirical data in the paper written by Fernaeus and Tholander was gathered by using a prototype in which they collected qualitative data. By observing and documenting how people from their target group, in this case kids, interacted with the prototype, the authors could draw conclusions based on the qualitative data that was collected. The empirical data in the paper written by Lundström was also gathered by developing and analyzing a prototype, as well as collecting data by interviews and testing the available electric cars on the market.

Can practical design work in itself be considered a 'knowledge contribution'?

According to Lundström, a design oriented research process is an effective method of generating knowledge since the process of developing, testing and analyzing the proof-of-concept leads to discovering and realizing different unknown factors. I think a practical design work is a good way to visualize a problem as well as a possible solution which I think can lead to a deeper understanding of it since it becomes more “real”. A deeper understanding of a problem or solution very much helps when facing different problems or questions. I also think by visualizing the problem, and solution for that matter, often emphasizes new perspectives of a project which can result in new information and knowledge.

Are there any differences in design intentions within a research project, compared to design in general?

Yes, I would argue that there are quite many differences in design intentions within a research project compared to design in general. Design within a research project is a tool for gaining knowledge about a specific topic or issue that is being investigated. Visualize a problem is a possible use for design within this field. It could also be about gaining knowledge about a certain design process with the intention to improve it. When talking about design in general, for example designing a new product or service, I would say that there is more focus on the functionality and optimizing the product or service rather than the process. In contrast to design within a research project where the aim is to gain knowledge and insights about an issue, design in general is more about the development of a product. The aesthetics and functionality is emphasized.

Is research in tech domains such as these ever replicable? How may we account for aspects such as time/historical setting, skills of the designers, available tools, etc?

I think research in tech domains is replicable, to some extent. However, what is important to take into account when talking about the field of technology is that technology develops continuously as we speak with a great speed. Therefore, especially the aspects of time and historical setting is of great importance within tech domains. You could of course replicate the same research after a period of time, but the outcome might vary due to the technology development. New and more efficient ways for compiling research is daily presented and with them also the conditions. It is therefore important to bear in mind the time and historical setting for the research, i.e. under which conditions the research was compiled. To sum up, the ever-growing development in the technology field will affect the possibility to replicate research in such domains.

Are there any important differences with design driven research compared to other research practices?

Compared to other research practices, the main intention of design driven research is to understand and improve a specific process or design practice in itself rather than gaining a deeper knowledge about a specific issue within a certain domain which often is the focus of other research practices. Another difference is that the method used within a design driven research is usually qualitative since it often includes some form of user observation to collect the required empirical data. Other research practices are not as restricted to use qualitative methods but could instead choose to use quantitative methods in order to collect data that is relevant for the study.

Post Reflection: Theme 3

The theme for this week has been Research and Theory with the assignment to read The Nature of Theory in Information Systems by Shirley Gregor as well as What Theory is Not written by Robert I. Sutton and Barry M. Staw. Furthermore, we selected a research paper that was relevant for media technology research and studied its theoretical framing and the theory/theories used in the paper. When writing the first blogpost for this theme I gave the explanation that theory is the answer to why phenomenon happen. I still agree with this definition of what theory is but would like to add a few things since I have gained a little bit more deeper understanding of the concept theory after the lecture and seminar. During the seminar we all agreed that theory provides an explanatory framework for an observation, and that framework can either be verified or falsified. In my group we talked about how a theory is true until it is proven wrong. For example, a theory states that all bears are either black or brown. The theory is true until someone discover the white bear which makes the previous theory false. The new theory is instead, all bears are either black, brown or white. This example goes in line with the previous mentioned definition that theory provides an explanatory framework for an observation. However, a theory does not need a new observation to conform as a theory. It can also be a new frame of thought, that is, using the same data but with a new outcome. I directly connect this to our previous reading about Copernicus and how he proved the theory that the sun revolved around the earth wrong and instead proved that the it is the earth that revolve around the sun. Leif Dahlberg mentioned during the lecture that theory is also about making generalizations, which is another argument that theory does not need a new observation to conform as a theory. For example if you see a lot of trees, a forest, in a picture, you assume that there is more trees outside the borders of the picture.

An interesting discussion we had during the seminar was the difference between a hypotheses and a theory.  At first we had a hard time making the distinction between the two in their definitions but ended up in a somewhat clear distinction. Hypotheses are assumptions, i.e. unverified claims. Hypotheses are proposed theories or theories that are not proven or verified. From the hypothesis you build a theory by, for example, making observations or experiments. By that you could say that theories are confirmed or proved hypotheses. In other words, you form a hypothesis, try it, and if it proves successful you have formed a theory. However, as with the example with the bears, the theory can at any time be reconsidered or rejected if it happens to be proven wrong. I would say that theories never can be definitive verified.

I really enjoyed this theme because theory is something we have worked with continuously during our study, in one way or another. I can only speak for myself but I have never really thought about what theory actually means. Before this week I would have categorized data as theory but now I know that that is not the case, theory is much more advanced than that.

Theme 2: Comments

I commented on the following blogs:

http://u1wdx0i7.blogspot.se/2016/09/post-theme2-forpreparation-of-this.html#comment-form

https://u1mv5a16.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-2-second-blog-post.html#comment-form

http://u1kq1ay0.blogspot.se/2016/09/second-blogpost-theme-2-critical-media.html#comment-form

http://u1cq6h0z.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-2reflection-on-critical-media.html

http://u1ci4ejx.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-2-reflection.html#comment-form

Theme 4: Quantitative research

How Negative Becomes Less Negative”: Understanding the Effects of Comment Valence and Response Sidedness in Social Media

1. Which quantitative method or methods are used in the paper? Which are the benefits and limitations of using these methods?

I chose the article “How Negative Becomes Less Negative”: Understanding the Effects of Comment Valence and Response Sidedness in Social Media by Hyejoon Rim and Doori Song. The article presents a study that explores the influence of the public’s negative comments regarding a corporate social responsibility (CSR) campaign in social media and how to best respond to them. The quantitative research methods that were used in this article was an online survey as well as an online experiment with a total of 124 participants. When the participants had answered the online survey they were randomly assigned one of four experimental conditions; positive comments on a CSR-campaign by Coca-Cola in social media, negative comments on the CSR-campaign, a one-sided response from the responsible company (i.e. a response that emphasize the company’s sincere motives for investing resources for the sake of the society) and, lastly, a two-sided response from the responsible company (i.e. a response that acknowledge the company’s return on investments, such as publicity and profits by supporting the community). The experiment was however a stimuli and not an actual real case. A benefit of using online surveys as a research method is that the collected data is easy to compare and analyze, as well as the opportunity to collect much data in a short amount of time. One of the limitations, however, is the lack of a deeper understanding in why the participants answered in a particular way. The lack of follow-up and open-ended questions is also a limitation with this method.

2. Which are the main methodological problems of the study? How could the use of the quantitative method or methods have been improved?

One important methodological problem with this study, according to me, was that the participants were assigned a specific condition in which they were about to complete the experiment. Therefore the participant entered a role where they were either all positive or all negative. In reality it is rarely that black or white, comments are more often mixed and range from positive and negative. There is also different degrees of positivity and negativity which I think should have been taken into consideration in this study. I think it would have been better to let the participants decide themselves if they perceived the campaign in a positive or negative way. Or perhaps, maybe a qualitative method would have been better to use in this study, for example by interviewing people who actually have commented on a real CSR-campaign in social media, as well as interviewing the responsible company.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality:The Body Shapes the Way We Play

3. Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative methods?

One of the benefits of using quantitative methods in a study is that you can collect a large amount of data for statistical use. The collected data are often easy to measure and analyze, as well as the easiness to compare and categorize the answers among the participants. The end result of studies using quantitative methods is often developed models and theories based on the results. However, a limitation of using quantitative methods is the lack of including “the bigger picture” and the context of the study. A deeper understanding of the subject that was studied, for example secondary data and the participants followed-up comments on their answers, is hard to present in numbers and diagrams. Another limitation worth mentioning is the large sample of the population that needs to be studied in order to deliver as accurate result as possible. Quantitative methods are often used when the aim is to study questions of what, when and who.

4. Which are the benefits and limitations of using qualitative methods?
One of the benefits of using qualitative methods is that it is easier to include the context of the study as well as gaining a deeper understanding in why people think or feel in a specific way, for example by using followed-up questions. However, it is more difficult to compare the results among the participants and it is more time-consuming to collect large amount of data which limits the accuracy of the result. A challenge could also be that people might interpret the same question in different ways. Qualitative methods are often used when the aim is to study questions of how and why.

Rim, H. & Song, D. (2016) How Negative Becomes Less Negative”: Understanding the Effects of Comment Valence and Response Sidedness in Social Media. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.focus.lib.kth.se/doi/10.1111/jcom.12205/full

Post Reflection: Theme 2

This week the theme has been Critical Media Studies with the assignment to read The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity by Walter Benjamin as well as Dialectic of Enlightenment by Adorno and Horkheimer. I found these texts more easy to understand compared to the texts written by Kant and Plato since Benjamin and Adorno and Horkheimer were a bit more concrete in their reasonings. A lesson learned from last theme, for me, was to try to include the historical context in which the texts were written when I read them. I did not think about that during the previous theme but of course that has a major impact of the texts. The lecturer, Henrik Åhman, also stated the importance of including the historical context in which the texts were written and dedicated most part of the lecture describing this. I really appreciated the lecture for that reason but must say that the lecture did not resulted in me understanding the two texts more than before the lecture. However, the seminar did. By discussing the questions in class and listening to Henrik Åhman explaining the concepts in more depth gave me some “aha”-moments. I realized that I had only touched the surface of many of the questions. This week I did not had the time to discuss the questions with other students before the lecture or seminar, which I think was one of the reason why I got the “aha”-moments on the seminar. I think the key of gaining more depth in the understanding of the concepts we are talking about in this course is to discuss them with other people since it opens up to new perspectives.

I found that nominalism was a concept I had not completely grasped before the seminar. During the seminar we discussed how the nominalism sees every object as individual objects. Different objects can share same characteristics, universals, but the objects are not the same. For example, all trees are called trees even though they are all different. The nominalistic view would be that every tree is a different object. Henrik Åhman stated the questions What is swedish? and Are there specific characteristics that determine if we are swedish or not?. The nominalistic answer would be No, we are all individuals, which I think is a really good answer, especially today concerning the refugee-situation. I can see why nominalism was first seen as a liberating movement since it questioned for example the hierarchy in the society. Why should there be any differences between a poor and a rich person? They both have two arms and two legs, there are no biological differences between the poor and the rich. However, what Adorno and Horkheimer describes is that nominalism turned out to be a movement that just confirmed status quo and rather than working against the nature, nominalism only observe and repeat what is. For example, the fox kills the rabbit. It is just the way things are, it is nature. As mentioned before, instead of working against the nature, nominalism accepts things as they are by nature.

I got really fascinated by the concept nominalism, as you might understand since I dedicated half of this reflection to the concept. But it got me start thinking of what our world would look like if this view dominated the world. Would there be anything to strive for?

Theme 1: Comments

I commented on the following blogs:

http://u1eqtjc8.blogspot.se/2016/09/reflection-of-theme-1.html#comment-form

http://u1bauz11.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-reflection.html#comment-form

http://u17fpbu5.blogspot.se/2016/09/post-theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and.html#comment-form

http://u12vkokq.blogspot.se/2016/09/reflections-on-theme-1-theory-of.html#comment-form

http://u1818rgq.blogspot.se/2016/09/post-2-theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and.html#comment-form

http://u1cq6h0z.blogspot.se/2016/09/reflection-on-theme-1theory-of.html#comment-form

https://u1mv5a16.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-second-blog-post.html#comment-form

http://scarsickbg.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-blog-post-2-reading-plato-and.html#comment-form

http://dm2572-16.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-12.html

http://omg-dm2572.blogspot.se/2016/09/after-theme-1.html#comment-form

Theme 3: Research and theory

1. Briefly explain to a first year university student what theory is, and what theory is not.

It is hard to give an exact definition of what theory is because of different views of the concept. Gregor argues that the core of a theory is the “abstraction and generalization about phenomenon, interactions, and causation”. In other words, theory is the answer to why phenomenon happen. According to Sutton and Staw data are not theory since data answers the question of which empirical patterns were observed, while theory need to answer the question of why these empirical patterns were observed. Other concepts that does not qualifies within the definition of theory are references, diagrams, list of variables and hypothesis. Even though these concepts can not constitute theory themselves, they can certainly provide useful support for a theory. By using these concepts as tools, theory is formed by the explanation of why the data emerged as well as the underlying processes of it.

To sum up, theory need to be able to answer questions of why.

2. Describe the major theory or theories that are used in your selected paper. Which theory type (see Table 2 in Gregor) can the theory or theories be characterized as?

The article I have chosen is “Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media” by Jan H. Kietzmann, Kristopher Hermkens, Ian P. McCarthy and Bruno S. Silvestre. The article was published 2011 in the journal “Business Horizons” with an impact factor of 1.008. The article is about the new communication landscape, that of social media, and addresses businesses and firms. Consumers today are increasingly utilising social platforms such as blogs, content sharing sites and social networking to share, create and discuss different content. The purpose of this article is to introduce firms and businesses to the phenomenon of social media and how they can, and should, develop strategies for understanding and taking advantage of social media activities. The authors present a framework that defines social media in terms of identity, conversations, sharing, presence, relationships, reputation and groups.

According to the table presented in Gregor’s article I would argue that the theories in this article are characterized as explanation and design and action. The reason why I think it includes theories of explanation is because the authors start the article by describing what social media is, how as well as when and where it is used and why it is important to know about today. In their framework, the authors explain where the opportunities and challenges lies within social media for firms and businesses. This theory is characterized as design and action since the authors describes how to do something.  

3. Which are the benefits and limitations of using the selected theory or theories?

According to Gregor, explanation is related to human understanding which could be mentioned as a benefit of this theory. The aim of explanation is to create a subjective state of understanding in an individual. One limitation that could be mentioned is that an explanatory theory risks presenting and relying on too much data which, according to Sutton and Staw, disqualifies as a theory.

Kietzmann, J., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I., Silvestre, B. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007681311000061

Post Reflection - Theme 1

The theme for this week was Theory of knowledge and theory of science and the assignment was to read Theaetetus by Plato and Critique of pure reason by Kant. I found it very hard to read and understand the texts. Unlike my previous courses on KTH, where most of them are based on theoretical facts, this theme was based on philosophy which I have never studied before. I think these kinds of texts require a new way of thinking compare to my previous courses and therefore it took me a while to really understand what they were all about. It helped a lot to talk about and discuss the texts with the other students because we helped each other with the difficult parts of the texts. The lecture and the seminar with Johan Eriksson were the last pieces of the puzzle that was needed to understand Plato and, especially, Kant’s theories.

For me, one of the most interesting part to think about and discuss this week was how we perceive the world and the fact that you can think about perception in many different ways. Kant talks about a priori and posteriori. I think many people, including myself, use the posteriori method to define and understand the world but just as Kant’s Copernican example shows, sometimes we need to look at things from another perspective in order to gain knowledge.

Socrates, however, argues that we use all of our senses together with our mind to perceive knowledge, which means that an experience can vary a lot among different people even though the people are watching the same picture or listens to the same song. One of the things my group discussed in the seminar was the question: Could you say that there are 7 billions worlds today since everyone on the planet might perceive the world differently? I think neither Kant nor Socrates would say that that is the case, because the world is in itself and there is not 7 billions of them. Still, I think the question has a good point in the interpretation and analysis of Socrates theory.

During this first week I have learned a lot, partly by forcing myself to think in different ways and trying to see things from different angles and perspective, and partly by discussing with and listen to my classmates and Johan Eriksson during the lectures. I enjoyed the first theme, even though it was a real challenge for me.

Theme 2: Critical Media Studies

Dialectic of Enlightenment

1. What is "Enlightenment"?

During the 18th century the intellectual movement Enlightenment dominated the world of ideas in Europe. The movement could be understood as the “advance of thought”, that is knowledge. The aim of enlightenment was to liberate human beings from fear and myth and instead emphasize the human being as masters of nature. Anything that could not be resolved into numbers must be viewed with suspicion, i.e. reason and science were the most important factors while factors like tradition and beliefs lost its power and influence. 

2. What is "Dialectic"?

Dialectic is a method of argument that is being used between two or more people with different opinions and minds about a certain subject. The intention of dialectic methods is to find out what it true by using reasoned and logical arguments. 

3. What is "Nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?

Nominalism is described as a metaphysical view of philosophy which denies the existence of abstract objects, that is objects that does not exist in time and space, and universals, that is for example courage and humanity. The only existing objects are physical objects that you can see and touch, however, some versions of this view admits that numbers (which is an abstract object) exist but only because they are needed in order to measure and count the physical objects.

The nominalism goes in line with most of the thoughts of the enlightenment and the dialectic methods, concerning the focus on science and what is “real” as well as the denial of abstract objects, beliefs and tradition. Therefore nominalism is an important concept in the text. 

4. What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?

Before the movement of Enlightenment entered the world stage, everything that could not be proved or explained in any way were explained through “myths” which are created by humans. According to Adorno and Horkheimer, the reason why people made the myths up were to protect us from fear and the unknown. During the Enlightenment, we started to explain the world through knowledge and science instead of myths.

"The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity"

1. In the beginning of the essay, Benjamin talks about the relation between "superstructure" and "substructure" in the capitalist order of production. What do the concepts "superstructure" and "substructure" mean in this context and what is the point of analyzing cultural production from a Marxist perspective?

According to my interpretations, the concepts substructure and superstructure are directly connected to each other. The superstructure is a result of the substructure and therefore develops much slower than substructures. One could say that the substructures are the actual productions in the society, for example theatres, paintings, sculptures and movies, while superstructures are the consequences of it, for example cultures, norms, art and religion. By changing the substructure you could change the superstructure. Benjamin mentions the example of the enormous changes which printing has brought about in literature where the mechanical reproduction of writing allows the society to take part of literature in a greater extension. From a Marxist perspective, which to some extent puts culture in the spotlight, the meanings of the above mentioned terms tells a lot about the society and how it works. If the substructure is good, the superstructure has good potential of being good as well, and if it is bad there is a risk that the superstructure will be bad as well.

2. Does culture have revolutionary potentials (according to Benjamin)? If so, describe these potentials. Does Benjamin's perspective differ from the perspective of Adorno & Horkheimer in this regard?

Yes, according to Benjamin, culture does have revolutionary potentials. Benjamin talks about how new technology can be used for this and especially highlights the camera and photography. The camera revolutionised the reproduction of objects which has changed our minds when it comes to, for example, art as of creating new ways of performing art. This is an evidence that there is revolutionary potentials of culture. However, Benjamin argues that this new technical and spreadable way of creating art destroys the beauty in art. In contrast to Adorno and Horkheimer who instead encourage technology that can spread knowledge. 

3. Benjamin discusses how people perceive the world through the senses and argues that this perception can be both naturally and historically determined. What does this mean? Give some examples of historically determined perception (from Benjamin's essay and/or other contexts).

When Benjamin talks about natural perception he means the perception of the world that everyone experience through their own senses, which means that this perception of the world is individual. The historically determined perception, on the other hand, is the perception of the world that is determined by historical events and conditions, that is what we already know and have learned. According to Benjamin we use both the above-mentioned perceptions to collect our worldview. An example of a historically determined perception could be that of war and the consequences of war. 

4. What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?

The definition of the term aura given by Benjamin is “the unique phenomenon of distance, however close it may be”. My interpretation of the text and term aura in natural objects and art objects is that it differs in their meaning when it comes to how “real” the aura is. The aura of an art object, for example a painting, has its original and unique aura while the aura is lost, or at least somewhat different, in a photography of the exact same painting. The painting in itself could only hold the “real” aura when trying to reproduce it implies a very different aura.

Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science - Kant and Plato

1. In the preface to the second edition of "Critique of Pure Reason" (page B xvi) Kant says: "Thus far it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to objects. On that presupposition, however, all our attempts to establish something about them a priori, by means of concepts through which our cognition would be expanded, have come to nothing. Let us, therefore, try to find out by experiment whether we shall not make better progress in the problems of metaphysics if we assume that objects must conform to our cognition." How are we to understand this?

According to Kant, there are two different types of knowledge, one based on a priori way of collecting knowledge and another based on a posteriori way of collecting knowledge. The former, a priori, could be described as a knowledge that does not require any experience, i.e. an obvious knowledge that we just know is correct. While the latter, a posteriori, needs experience to confirm the knowledge.

The first part of Kant’s quotation states that for a long period of time it has been assumed that our cognition must conform to objects, meaning knowledge comes from experience, i.e. we must experience something to gain knowledge about it. In the second part of Kant’s quotation he puts on another angle and states that objects must conform to our cognition. According to my interpretations this means that in order to gain insight about an object, we need to use our knowledge, and by that try to tackle the object from a new perspective and be able to think outside the box. Kant mentions a great example of this in his text, that of Copernicus and the idea of celestial motion. Copernicus failed in trying to explain how the sun revolved around the earth which made him take on a new perspective and instead study the sun as the midpoint for the earth to revolve around. This is a great example of how we should not be restricted to the mindset that our cognition must conform the objects, but instead let the objects conform to our cognition.

In my opinion, a combination of the two above-mentioned mindsets would be the most effective way of describing knowledge. Sometimes I think we need to use our experience to collect new knowledge and sometimes it is better to put things in a wider perspective to really gain the knowledge.

2. At the end of the discussion of the definition "Knowledge is perception", Socrates argues that we do not see and hear "with" the eyes and the ears, but "through" the eyes and the ears. How are we to understand this? And in what way is it correct to say that Socrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?

Socrates argues that we do not see and hear with the eyes and the ears, but rather through the eyes and the ears. And by that, Socrates is trying to explain that the human senses are far more complex than we imagine them to be. The eyes and the ears are just instruments that our mind use in order to perceive our surroundings and gain experience and knowledge. Seeing with the eyes implies that the eyes function as glasses, while seeing through them is a synonym for being aware of how the construction and structure of the eyes and how they correspond to the mind, the other senses as well as previous experiences affects what we see and how we see it. For example, a picture contains way more information and knowledge than the naked eye can register at first sight.

Empiricism is a theory that emphasize sensory experience as base for our knowledge. As stated above, Socrates argues that the senses work closely together with each other and the mind to perceive knowledge which I think aligns with the ideas of empiricism. Socrates mentions that an experience could vary a lot among different people, even though the people are watching the same picture or listening to the same song.