3:3 Comments: Research and theory

1. Kristina Nyberg3 October 2016 at 15:47 (https://scarsickbg.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-3-blog-post-2-research-and-theory.html?showComment=1475502433460&m=1#c6615836473548281969) 

The discussion about how we sometimes take "facts" at face value and equaling with "the truth" was useful both in class and in your blog. I also valued the additional discussion in the comments regarding potential linguistic differences that come into play. 

The difference between "a theory" (= hypothesis) and "theory", I felt that you either didn't grasp fully or if you did, better could have contrasted these two meanings to verify that you did.

2. Kristina Nyberg3 oktober 2016 06:57 (https://u1wdx0i7.blogspot.se/2016/09/post-theme-3.html?showComment=1475503072549&m=1#c3213153893767174652)

Nice explanation of the difference of hypothesis and theory, as well as the reflection on how theory cannot be proven.

Also, the impact factor has been new to me. The "popularity factor" is also something that could be criticised - especially because of the fact that we learned that peer process can take years. Within media technology, I find that length of time unacceptable considering how time is of the essence in an industry where turbulence and changes is at such a high rate. 

To get back to your discussion on theory, the fact (pun intended) that theory can only be disproven but never proven could be argued to benefit sceptics in a sense of focusing on problems rather than solutions. So it could be argued to fit a certain belief system and how those people view the world, but not others. Could be interesting to discuss theory from a perspective that would be from a different standpoint.

3. Kristina Nyberg3 October 2016 at 07:03 (https://pgd7117.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-3-reflection.html?showComment=1475503433714&m=1#c4619825713359002609)

The purpose with differentiating "fact" with "theory" was according to my understanding to question how we sometimes may take "a fact" as a truth and never questioning it. 

Also, theory could never be proven but only disproven, which means that there is actually no "facts" or add you could call them "absolute truths". 

I've also learned by reading other blogs that linguistically these words are used differently and sometimes may not even exist. Possibly that could add additional confusion.

4. Kristina Nyberg3 oktober 2016 07:09 (https://u1mv5a16.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-3-second-blog-post.html?showComment=1475503785374&m=1#c2025710416819421280)

That you state the production of new knowledge as central in theory, rather than reproducing existing knowledge proves your understanding of the concept. I also like that you have explained the process of reaching your conclusions, especially the part of what theory is not; clarifying potential confusions for those that still didn't grasp the concept.

5. Kristina Nyberg3 oktober 2016 07:15 (https://u1kq1ay0.blogspot.se/2016/09/second-blog-post-theme-3-research-and.html?showComment=1475504150270&m=1#c5615726683593472092)

Your reasoning about scientific theories being more reliable than philosophical theories is flawed. You argue that human beings and their ideas are a reason for uncertainty and complexity. But scientific theories are seen through human beings and interpreted by them. What would be the purpose of these theories unless they were interpreted and communicated by people?

6. Kristina Nyberg3 October 2016 at 07:20 (https://u1cq6h0z.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-3reflection-research-and-theory.html?showComment=1475504443993&m=1#c2479531950091568781)

Great that you emphasized that disproven theory is still (potentially valid) theory! This was new to me as well. The contrast mentioned between various definitions you found also helps to explain potential confusions someone that isn't familiar with the concept of theory might have.

7. Kristina Nyberg3 oktober 2016 07:24 (https://u1j8du7c.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-32.html?showComment=1475504651590&m=1#c9050482174925667790)

Your definition of theory is reasonable, but it is also good that you have analysed your own bias on glorifying theory formed within an institution.

8. Kristina NybergOctober 3, 2016 at 7:29 AM (https://u1818rgq.blogspot.se/2016/09/research-and-theory-post-2.html?showComment=1475504944815&m=1#c699297924720901995)

Nice addition with the discussion about differences between philosophical and scientific studies, pinpointing that regardless if content there is always need for interpretation. Nevertheless, I disagree with your use of the word "logic" in this context about scientific studies as it gives the impression of being more valid than philosophical ones. But overall, a nice reflection for being new in the topic. Seems like you have learned a lot.

9. Kristina Nyberg3. lokakuuta 2016 klo 3.34 (https://u10o7oqf.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-3-part-2-reflections.html?showComment=1475505274679&m=1#c5607787807343198840)

Although I think we concluded in class that theory remains valid after being disproven and you either missed it out attended another seminar that me, I appreciate that you added a discussion on who is behind theory and what/who adds validity to theory. The "messenger" communicating theory is a key factor that sometimes is forgotten. Thanks for bringing it up!

10. Kristina NybergOctober 3, 2016 at 7:49 AM (https://u12vkokq.blogspot.se/2016/09/reflections-on-theme-3-research-and.html?showComment=1475506152888&m=1#c557390927827611231)

"We have learned what constitutes them, how we construct them, and perhaps most importantly, what they are good for." 

This part about theory, claiming that the most important part being what they are good for is questionable. Do you mean practical appliance, usefulness in general or something else? Either way I disagree slightly with this view as I see theory as a framework to use, but the definition is as concluded anyways more or less subjective in any case.

Positive note is that your discussion regarding peer review already had me thinking; due to the conflict in turbulent changes in the environment (certainly within media technology) balanced with the quality check that peer review offers, maybe this system needs to change. 

Commerical institutes offering theory can be as valid as any other produced theory. However, it is always worth to question the intent behind a study and in this case another question becomes "Is there anyone profiting of results?"

Some examples of problematic commercially based research from the past is the bra (sponsored by bra companies making us think there is any physiological function why to use it, when it is purely cosmetical) and car companies such as Volkswagen and Ford that produce high emissions and questionable vehicles disguised behind the umbrella of research. Not to mention Nestlé and their campaign to promote supplement before breastfeeding babies in third world countries. So the validity of commercial research is in my opinion for these reasons slightly lower than other theory. But then again, one can always question the intent, regardless of origin.

4:2 Quantitative research: reflection

About quantitative research, I had several learning points from the lecture.

"Your results come out of an argument, not just measuring something." the lecturer said and this was food for thought. My impression prior to class was indeed measuring data as a core part of quantitative research, which is only on the surface of quantitative research. The argument is the skeleton and the measurement merely part of the body. So the “why” which I mentioned in the previous post on quantitative research is present in quantitative research as well.

To discuss the particular study about drumming in virtual reality further, my impression originally was that research methods were mixed, but during the lecture learned they were solely quantitative. Qualitative methods were used to control the sample, but it didn't contribute to the hypothesis and result therefore not considered - this was new to me.

In my initial post, I criticised several aspects of using an additional avatar. However, the avatar was chosen also to serve purpose as an audience to affect the person so it was a conscious and strategic decision. Considering that, I can better understand that choice.

Research question was: “Do people behave differently under a body ownership illusion? Does the body shape our behavior and illusion?” 

Knowing this, the study did draw some new conclusions to answer this. 

VR can be used to transform sense of place. The body shapes the way we play, and can also transform the self.

One thing I wondered was why specifically Caucasians were selected. The reason was simple; Caucasians were easy to recruit, no conscious choice was made selecting this group. 

Asking whether or not the study could have been improved, the researcher would use the same hardware but better software and graphics card to speed up the process. Expensive equipment was used where it cost 2M SEK only for one small piece of equipment. Considering how much time has passed, surprisingly little had changed with VR technology. 

A problem with research especially where technology is involved discussed was peer review. The process can take several years; way more extensive than expected. Quality and recency are both important factors to consider, therefore this ”bottleneck” is crucial to take into consideration when planning a study, especially within Media management and technology fields where changes happen quickly. This is something where potential solutions can be discussed for all type of research, perhaps to further be discussed in the topic of Research through Design.

5:3 Design research comments

1. Kristina Nyberg16 October 2016 at 12:05

Like you, I didn't know about RtD prior to this theme, so there was much to learn. Reading your post, you've summarized the contrast to other research methods well. Additionally, the menstruation simulator was a creative example that highlighted how RtD can work in practice. The video at the end was also hilarious, had a good laugh. Thanks for sharing!

2. Kristina Nyberg16 oktober 2016 04:06

That design research can produce knowledge contribution we agree on. But what you write about it not being relevant after a couple of years. You made it seem as if the knowledge contribution produced from design keeps its relevance for a shorter time than others as a rule. Even though design research is bound to a certain point in time in one sense, the process and analysis don't have to be. So I disagree on that one.

3.
Kristina Nyberg16. Oktober 2016 um 04:14

Although I think that you highlighted some relevant complications with regards to the human element within research, I wish you would've gone more into the topic of design research.

4.
Kristina Nyberg16 October 2016 at 05:06

It was hard to read this because your text lacked a sense of structure. I also think you can better practice caution with using superlatives as it can give you a (in this case mostly unjustified) impression of exaggeration and not being honest. 

Nevertheless, content wise, you brought up some important aspects. I like that you mention technology in context with research, as well as your comparison between design research and others. Conclusions made about design research, such as being tied to a historical point, shows that you've grasped the concept. With interaction design, why did you choose that as example? It would have been interesting to see a practical example applying the theory and that you would continue a little further on why interaction design was mentioned.

5.
Kristina Nyberg16 October 2016 at 14:13

When you say that replication isn't possible within social sciences, do you mean specifically design research within social sciences? In that case, why would it be more replicable with "hard sciences" if you are only referring to design research? It seems like you could've clarified this in your text, as well as what exactly is contained within "hard sciences".

6.
Kristina NybergOctober 16, 2016 at 5:21 AM

You have a lot of sloppy typos in this text such as "knowledge will be use" where it should be "used". So I think you can work on reviewing your text before submitting it.

However, I do think you captured the core of what design research is about. Especially liked "the journey is more important than the destination" recap and how you describe ways to manipulate the research, why one would do so and how it's relevant in design research. So you get a minus for delivery but a plus for content.

7.
Kristina Nyberg16 October 2016 at 05:30

The fact that you're honest about your own judgement and that you correct yourself is a nice addition to this reflection of your learning process.

I also had an idea about knowledge contribution from design research that changed after seminar and lecture.

Your text is well structured and nice to read. If there's something to pinpoint, I think you did a particularly good job in highlighting how important planning as well as goals with (design) research are.

8.
Kristina Nyberg16 oktober 2016 05:48

Kudos for your connection of theory to practical context. I've struggled to follow what some other classmates wrote about how "hard sciences" would be regarded differently than social sciences. What you explain about math vs the complexity of the human elements clarified a lot. However, a human element is always involved in interpreting research which also goes for "hard sciences" imo. But that's a topic we could discuss further some other time.

Although the example in itself explains technological changes, I'd like to criticise that you mention iPad specifically. Some kids probably grew up with other tablets and Apple promotion took down the impression of your text a notch. But overall, it's nevertheless a very well written text.

On topic on interdisciplinary, I think we got some clarification after you wrote this post. It's rather concerning the researchers than the research itself in defining this - if I understood correctly. I've also mixed up these various concepts, but to think of the researchers as a happy group of people with different colored hats helped somewhat. In a multidisciplinary research, they all have colored dots and in interdisciplinary each researcher have their expertise and stick to it; one color (field) per hat. My five cents, hope it helps!

9.
Kristina Nyberg16 oktober 2016 05:59

Totally agree on the "journey" metaphor. Disagree on design research as not possible to combine with commercial intent. I think design research revolves more around planning and formulating the research question than other research (I think we're on the same page there). But the question for a researcher which also always is relevant is "who will fund this study?". In some cases, a university will, in others a business. And design research remains design research, its only difference here is the sponsor (and probably its goals, as a result of sponsors having various input). I hope you followed my line of thought. 

Other than that, nice contribution. I also liked that you identified the importance of how research can create important foundation for future research - especially important when the world is changing faster. I think we could be looking at a future with smaller pieces of research done at the time to shorten peer review process - especially within design research where the historic snapshot is as most relevant. Then this way of thinking becomes even more important; setting ground for continued work.

10.
Kristina Nyberg16 oktober 2016 06:08

I don't think you can say there is an opposite to empirical data. Maybe a simple way of thinking about it is as the core of research. In design research, as you highlight very neatly, the process is much less structured than in other types of research which means sometimes you insert the empirical data in the results section and sometimes in other parts of the paper (as Ylva mentioned, in their paper it was different).

When you mention social vs hard sciences, I question whether or not you mean this specifically within design research? Because it you'd compare for example math in a quantitative research study with the study Ylva did with the children, then I get your point. But if you would take math into a design research perspective, I don't see why this would be more or less replicable as a rule.

11.
Kristina NybergOctober 16, 2016 at 6:16 AM

It's great to see the spark of enthusiasm in your post! I also had a "aha moment" as I didn't hear about this type of research method before - totally opened my eyes. I also think some benefits with this way of working is that, although you tie the outcome to a certain point in time, you can keep the focus current by modifying the research as you go, according to needs that may not have been known at the beginning of the project. In this way, I think it's less vulnerable to technological or societal changes that may affect the study. 

With regards to the value of design research, I think you'll get a different answer from the academic world vs the commerical world. I also think here it's important to consider which target group you want to capture with your work.

12. Kristina Nyberg16. lokakuuta 2016 klo 2.23

As yourself, I was unfamiliar to this research method prior to the theme but became enthusiastic whilst learning more.

Great reminder about the 4D:S; "Discover (insight into the problem), Define (the area to focus upon), Develop (potential solutions), Deliver (solutions that work)"

This description even more makes me think that design research many times can be a useful tool to use in business context, also due to the adaptability of design research studies. 

Another valuable mention was differentiation of collecting data and performing research.

13.

5:1 Design research

After reading the texts Finding design qualities in a tangible programming space - Fernaeus & Tholander and Differentiated Driving Range - Lundström I have some thoughts on Design research. These will be published in form of answering some questions related to the texts and how design research differs from other research.

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

The studies examined data by observing people and learning; acquiring knowledge through this specific form.

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

Yes, because it is just one way of many to get knowledge; not worse nor better than others. Knowledge and how to obtain it is also individual and there are different ways of seeing it. 

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

Within a research project the goals may be different depending on the research. Design intentions rely on the aim regardless of whether it is research based or not. But often, there are additional factors to consider such as physical resources that may be limiting to a greater extent than if you would do academic (e.g. analytical) research.

- 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?

Possibly replicable to some extent. But the exact replica of it is difficult as you rarely would have the exact same resources. The same code could easily be replicated from a software program, but the same people with the same cultural background would be harder. You could always try to make the design of the study less dependent on time, but in the study with children their personal creativity would be hard to rely on for the same outcome in a new study.

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

It is practical in a sense that it is more applicable in real life and in business settings where academic research is conceptual and not tested in the same way.

3:1 Research and theory

Selection of journal and paper

This journal "Information technology and libraries" contains sub topics especially relevant to media management such as usability, identity management, intellectual property rights, emerging technologies, technical standards and digital humanities.

Although the journal is American, I chose it partly on basis of the information being applicable and/or relevant globally. Partly, because I have a particular expertise within SEO, social networking and mobile services which are also included in the scope. From the same journal, I chose to analyze the paper “Digital collections are a sprint, not a marathon: Adapting Scrum project management techniques to library digital initiatives”.

Critical examination of study

This exploratory, qualitative, predictive case study uses applied research to explore how digital collections of data can benefit from using Scrum. Scrum, known as an agile project management tool, is here used in context of updating digital collections.

The aim with the study was for librarians to publish large collections quicker and to more effectively multitask production of multiple high priority collections. One team member identified the opportunity to enhance how large projects were handled by using Scrum at a conference.

In the paper, Scrum is first described. Main emphasis is placed on its focus on communication over documentation, offering a potentially new perspective for librarians. Other important concepts within Scrum are sprints; focused team work on one project at the time, Scrum master (facilitator) and Scrum product owner (team lead).

Second, Scrum as chosen project management tool is motivated by describing the team and their current setup. The study supports the fact that Scrum is successfully used as a project management tool within programming (200+ studies).

Three members were involved in the case study to avoid disruption to organisational structures; digital initiatives librarian, metadata librarian and digitization manager. The team only adopted aspects of Scrum deemed most likely to improve outcomes at the pilot stage. Daily meetings were excluded. Sprint periods were shortened to two weeks.

Applying Scrum resulted in increased team spirit and individual accountability, ability to publish large collections incrementally and flexibility with planning/managing large or small projects.

Although Scrum supports the team size (3-9), it could be argued that the study is potentially biased. It is mentioned that one member motivated Scrum, but not whether or not other team members had a say. The fact that one team member may have written the research or influenced it is not addressed.

It could be criticised that the study is weaker proof of Scrum being successful in other fields than programming, because the team did not apply basic Scrum techniques. The role of the Scrum master is to ensure that the Scrum rules are followed; it seems like no Scrum master (nor product owner) was appointed. The hybrid they created of Scrum planning and review seemed like a result of not being supplied with proper resources and avoiding hindrances to complete sprints. This would also be the responsibility of the Scrum master.

Further, the paper could have benefited of more supportive sources. Especially arguing for removal of certain Scrum rules; the reason given was "too many other distractions" rather than "source A suggests that a hybrid solution is more effective, because...". There was in other words no valid argument to cut out the techniques.

Despite weaknesses in the study, the results points to the increased communication and flexibility which is at the core of what Scrum is about. It has an indication of Scrum being applicable to other fields than programming, but this study has too many pitfalls to support that in itself.

If I would design the study differently, a crucial point for validity would be to plan for and adhere to basic Scrum roles such as Scrum master and product owner as well as using daily meetings.

Questions

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

References, data, variables, diagrams and hypothesis are not theory. They do not, on their own, argue, explain or describe why this information leads to a new or unanswered theoretical question. Although there is no consensus on what theory is, in contrast to the above it is commonly said that theory answers the question "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? Which are the benefits and limitations of using the selected theory or theories?

The predictive theory in the paper is limited as the author already had a mindset from the start, expecting the outcome. This could miss out on learning from other potential outcomes. An advantage with the setup is that it is possible to highly target it, which may not be as easy for applied research where ROI needs to be motivated for.

4:1 Quantitative research

Benefits of quantitative methods include cost-effectiveness, quick response rates, easily analysed, measurability. Suitable for studies with very specific hypothesis and a lot of prior knowledge. Limitations of quantitative methods include oversimplification. People’s behaviours can be more difficult to measure without additional explanations as one and the same question could be interpreted differently, thus generate different answers based on interpretation. Additionally, superficial information, no answers to “why”; opportunity cost of relevant information.
Benefits of using qualitative methods are ability to capture unexpected information, deeper analysis through open-ended questions, suitable for exploratory studies. Limitations of qualitative methods are time-consuming, costly.
The paper “The relationship between Kolb's experiential learning styles and Big Five personality traits in international managers” by M. Li and S. J. Armstrong uses several questionnaires to support their hypothesis that a correlation exist between said learning styles and personality traits.

269 international managers completed two questionnaires; NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) and Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (KLSI 3.1). Regression analyses indicated that extraverted managers have a “preference for learning by engaging in concrete experience rather than abstract conceptualization; to transform experience via active experimentation rather than reflective observation; and tend to have an accommodative learning style.” The study concluded that Kolb's experiential learning style construct is associated with personality, but also distinct from personality.
The benefit of using questionnaires in this study is that the hypothesis is very specific. A risk when testing personalities and learning styles using quantitative methods is that the complexity of people can get lost in between the data and analyses. Also, as mentioned by the authors; bias of social desirability, halo effects, and acquiescence are potential weaknesses of self reported data. Nevertheless, I found this an good study for the method used.

The researchers took into consideration to correct for potential additional factors such as gender, cultural background and exposure, work experience and education level. They also motivated their choice of method by backing it up with sources preferring this method before alternatives. An improvement could be to correct for seasonality or weather - would answers be different during winter compared to summer for example?
Although I already knew a lot about quantitative research, the study refreshed some terminology such as acquiescence. In reflection, the course “Theory and method for media technology” at KTH to a great extent up until the point of writing has focused on learning methods “abstract conceptualization” and “reflective observation” rather than concrete experience and active experimentation. It could be interesting to investigate whether, with support of the study, it could be proven that extrovert students of this course struggle more than introverts.



By reading “IEEE VR 2012 - Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality””, I learned more about how IVR affects people and their behaviour in certain situations. The study had as purpose to prove that differences exist between the real and a virtual body affected participants’ behaviours and attitudes. The hypothesis was that the body form would impact behaviour, following the idea of the Proteus effect. The text references previous studies to support its hypothesis, but foremost offers its own data.



Experimental design was used between groups- and participants. The study included 36 caucasian people drumming in IVR, where the participants first get acquainted with a particular African drumming style by watching a video where people from diverse cultural backgrounds demonstrate the drumming. In the next stage, IVR is introduced where all participants see two white hands that is thought to extend a virtual part of their body, facilitating practice of the drumming. In the next stage, either a caucasian formally dressed body is supplied or a dark skinned casually dressed. After the experiment, participants answered an 8-item questionnaire (quantitative) about the experience, then a short interview was recorded (qualitative), then they were asked to complete a demographic questionnaire (quantitative) and a personality test (quantitative).



The sample of 36 participants could be discussed. The recruitment of participants was done on “the university campus”. It could be argued that a majority of people with racial biases do not get a higher education. Therefore this, to some extent, invalidates the data. It would have been a stronger study with a more diverse group with regards to education background. It also did not specify why 2 samples were invalidated.



The additional Asian “supportive avatar” could also have some influence on the study and serve as distraction, which could have benefited of been avoided. They could have dressed the avatar so that their race would not be identified, for example, to avoid bias. Or they could have kept the sound but not had another avatar there.



It could also be criticized that the first part of the experiment offered white hands to all participants, in the next stage when half of them got the black body it is possible that some could have made a connection between what the study was about and therefore invalidated the study.



Nevertheless, the study has addressed and excluded a number of potential other factors which strengthens the hypothesis. It also strengthened the study that it combined quantitative with qualitative research.

2:3 Comments: Critical media studies

1. "For example that since nominalists see people as individuals, there is no grouping or categorizing (which usually have bad consequences), but they also recognize people’s natural characteristics, so if the stronger kills the weaker, it’s okay because that’s what they were meant to do."

With this, do you mean that nominalism equals individualism? I feel that the second part in this sentence is in line with nominalism, but it would have been clearer to give some examples.

Reading your text, it seems like you've spent a lot of time exploring new concepts and understanding them - kudos for taking the time to do so. However, some of this researching process could have been left out from your text to shorten it down.

2. Kristina Nyberg25 september 2016 09:31
Although politics is not what the theme was about, I think your example of dialectic emphasizes that you have grasped this concept very well and applied it into a concrete and relevant example - well done!

3. Kristina NybergSeptember 25, 2016 at 10:05 AM
Your thoughts are well structured and the reflections made proves that you have not only grasped the concepts historically and philosophically, but also applied them into current and future situations. I especially like how you have linked nominalism into different times, the concrete examples also makes the concept easy to understand for someone that is unfamiliar with it. It also contributes to the text that you reconnect what was discussed in lecture and seminar; the part where ideologies and the historical perspective are included from class clarified a lot for me as well. All in all, a well written text.

4. Kristina Nyberg26. September 2016 um 02:41
The correlation between myth, mimesis and Enlightenment is explained very well. You have some work to do with grammar, sometimes it seems like it is written in a rush but content wise you are doing great. It was also nice to see a film reference, the Matrix indeed has some interesting parallels!

5. Kristina Nyberg26 September 2016 at 02:49
The following made me doubt whether or not you fully grasped the concept of Enlightenment as observing regularities was a part in this process, but maybe I misunderstood you:
"Observe regularity is for the human intervention impossible"

You however explained well how myth links to Enlightenment and I could easily link many concepts explained to the lecture.

6. Kristina Nyberg26 September 2016 at 11:55
I particularly enjoyed reading your application of the substructure and superstructure theory into current technology. WhatsApp and other voice recording chat services indeed have had some influence on the behavior. Google forecasts that voice search will increase in popularity as well.

7. Kristina NybergSeptember 26, 2016 at 6:59 AM

The allegory of the cave was a good contribution in class, but what I really liked about your text was how you demonstrated your understanding of the topic by applying it to religion. You mention Atheism as a result of changed superstructres. I saw once in a Swedish museum that there was a link to financial status and belief in God. So that when people were poorer, they had a need to "outsource worries" more than in society today where people have more money overall. Your view adds another intersting dimension to this.

To add something to improve. I had the feeling some typos could be avoided with a spell check, such as the sentence " We had a need to find our limits, ours boundaries, the example of climbing moutains or working on solving technical problem (boat on water - Titanic) has been made." where it should be "our boundaries" and "mountains" for example. Overall, however, content shows that you grasped the topic and have applied your knowledge to some really interesting examples. Thanks for the read!

8. Kristina Nyberg26 September 2016 at 07:07

Overall it seems like you have grasped the most important concepts by reading about how you reconnect this to your own words and class. I like how you analyzed your own post and pinpointed where you have made some corrections. As other commented, despite this I had a feeling there were some concepts you may have slightly misunderstood such as thesis, antithesis and synthesis. I also think for future reflections, it could add an interesting dimension if you would try to apply the theory into your own real life examples - such as news items, technologies today etc. Overall it is clear that you spent much time and effort on learning though, kudos for that!

9. Kristina Nyberg26 september 2016 07:16

What I appreciated a lot with reading your text was your use of time therein. You have an invisible timeline when you write, it reads nicely mostly. There are some exceptions though. Introduction could have been better. You could have focused on your questions and how you misunderstood these at the end, in a reflection. I think the reflections added are solid and food for thought though. Theory is just one tool of many to make sense of the world we live in. It reconnects to knowledge which we discussed previously. The connection point with technology is also a good one to spin further on, and also when technology changes the substructure and not the superstructure? Overall, thanks for a nice read.

10. Kristina Nyberg26 september 2016 07:26

The historical aspect also helped me, especially with Benjamin that pre-second world war criticised fascism. Nominalism is indeed interesting as a concept to discuss. Another question is whether there is any meaning of life if you apply nominalism, and would there be any overlap with buddhism where you want to remove the "meaning of life" or other ideologies/religions.

The refugee link made me think of how human beings like to organize stuff into categories. When it happens with human beings, it rarely leads to anything good - take the second world war as example.

To recommend improvements, I think you could have added some more structure to your text. Tell them what you are going to tell them in the introduction, then tell them (body) and tell them what you told them (conclusion). Other than that, nice reflection points.

3:2 Reflection: Research and theory

What is theory? As described in my first post about research and theory, some conclusions could be drawn about what theory is not. It is harder to define what theory is as there is no absolute answer to this. In the lecture, this understanding was confirmed, but we also learned some more.

New information to me was that "theory" is different from "a theory" in that theory is, according to my understanding, a system of ideas that provides, explore, explain, or prescribes something you do not have prior knowledge about. New understanding. Theory is supported by institutions and offers argumentation about certain phenomenon. "A theory" is referring to a more narrow and existing understanding about a topic and can sometimes also be similar to the concept of “hypothesis”; in the sentence “I have  theory...” one is more inclined to mean “I have a hypothesis” than “I have a system of ideas”. We also discussed facts. "Facts can only be referred to a priori knowledge and nothing else.", the teacher said. This was interesting as hearing “it is a fact” could be questioned more often. We were recommended to read further literature on the topic; "Structure of scientific revolutions" and "An anarchist theory of knowledge".

In discussion groups, we were to describe the major theories used in our papers and potential pros and cons. The group found it tricky to pinpoint some papers; whether they purely analysed or also described or forecasted theory. It was an interesting dilemma, but in the end we concluded that some of our papers were of analysis type and others of design.

Benefits and limitations of papers were discussed where analysis cons were many questions to still explore, no causal relationships and impractical. Analysis pros were good basis for another researcher to continue, on a new topic it is valid information and ability to focus in depth on a particular subject; eliminate unnecessary information.

Design con was potentially scattered information. Design pros were practical application, prediction and relevant to businesses.

It was interesting to learn about how research methods were used in different ways in our papers, but also how there was some overlap in problems found with for example balancing resources and applying research in a professional setting. One paper was about how screens are scanned differently by human eyes depending on screen size. This was particularly interesting in the era of user experience that is becoming more relevant. The book “Information architecture for the world wide web” came to mind, warmly recommended for anyone interested to learn more about User experience design (UX).

This lesson made me connect back to the concept “knowledge” and how it is natural for human beings to organize information and knowledge to make sense of the world. Research papers organize data, hypotheses and theory. Information architecture organizes information. Carl von Linné (you know, the guy on Swedish 100 SEK bills) organized plants and when it went further, also human beings, introducing race biology way before Hitler. In this sense, theory becomes a tool for us to make sense of the world, but it is also merely one of many and not a necessary evil.

1:3 Comments: Theory of knowledge and theory of science

1. Kristina NybergSeptember 13, 2016 at 4:02 AM
   The text reads fairly easily. The feeling is that the author is engaged and somewhat enthousiast about the topic. The illustrative examples of tinted glasses for Kant and photo for Socrates were used in an effective way to help the reader in visualizing the theory.
   
   It was strange that the first text mentions Kant, the author, but Socrates which is a fictive character in the second text. Better would have been to name Plato, the author.
   
   It would also have been desirable to see the author go further in examining the topics outside of the texts at hand, linking to other sources to contrast.
   
   Stylistically I find the text at a good level; good vocabulary and aimed at the target group. One remark is that the author did an attempt in remaining gender neutral at one point where referring to "him or her". I would recommend to instead use "them" in a similar context.
   ReplyDelete
2. Kristina Nyberg13. syyskuuta 2016 klo 13.21
   Some improvement suggestions. Mainly, I had the feeling a lot of text could have easily been removed especially true for the part about Kant. The first paragraph could be removed. Additions such as "– weight being on the syllable re" do not add value. The language is sometimes as if spoken rather than written, this is something I recommend the author to think about. An example is "The dialogue actually reminds me of" where the word "actually" could better be removed in writing.
   
   Content wise there were some good points, especially about Plato, e.g. the allegory about the cave and how central subjectivism and filtering processes are in this text.
   VastaaPoista
3. Kristina NybergSeptember 13, 2016 at 4:41 AM
   The text is overall well written; compact and relevant. The author clearly knows how to formulate a text with a proper introduction, body and conclusion. Content is where it could be argued that the author could have done some more work, especially in the part about Kant. The synthetic and analytic judgement distinction is mentioned but not explained in the same way as a priori / posteriori knowledge is, for one. Adding reflection on having read other sources, if so only definitions of concepts, would have added value to the text as well.
   ReplyDelete
4. Kristina Nyberg13 september 2016 04:53
   Language could be improved, such as "standing points" which should be "stand points". The text was hard to read and it did not intrigue me. It feels like a bit of rambling and losing the "red thread" when one bit too many the author goes into mathematics. It was also not in balance to write that much about Plato and so little of Kant, in my opinion. It could also have enhanced the text to include sources (original texts and others). The introduction, however, was good.
   SvaraRadera
5. Kristina Nyberg13 september 2016 05:02
   Grammar check would improve the text, e.g. "experiment" seem like an evident typo. On other occasions I think vocabulary and/or grammar should be improved such as repetition in the sentence "Another explanation is that seeing and hearing is also an experience an experience that you get ‘through’ your senses and not ‘with’ them."
   
   Further, some terms in the text makes the author come off as insecure and not knowing their topic. For example "As far as I understand" I would recommend to think about this in future texts - show more confidence in your writing. My main recommendation for improvement is the writing style; although vocabulary could be expanded, content wise the author captures some of the topics in a simple way. I am however missing sources, both to the main text and to other definitions that would be relevant and enrich the text.
   BeantwoordenVerwijderen
6. Kristina Nyberg13 september 2016 05:09
   Additional note: "experiment" was no typo, it was just my senses that perceived a typo that did not exist.
   Verwijderen
7. Kristina Nyberg13 september 2016 05:16
   I think the author captured some of the main thoughts from the texts, which was the purpose with this post. Although I want to give a plus to the author for including sources, they can better be linked directly in the text rather than inserted below as non-clickable links - this is a blog post and there are tools for referencing within the text (s.k. hyperlinking).
   SvaraRadera
8. Kristina Nyberg13 september 2016 05:23
   Some improvements could be made as the text looks sloppy in some places, such as "Now Kants main field of interest is that of metaphysics, for which the methodology of study might seems less clear than for that of the natural sciences." where it should be "Kant's" and "seem".
   
   However, the author reached some valid conclusions. A favorite part of this was the sentence "Our perceptions are limited by the tools with which we perceive the world." which correlates with the discussion about faculties of knowledge and the loss of certain tools leads to insanity.
   SvaraRadera
9. Kristina Nyberg13 September 2016 at 05:31
   Some improvement suggestions for the text. For exampe, in the sentence "After reading "Theaetetus" we see that according to Socrates instead of trying to find out what knowledge is, it is much more easier to define what it is not." the expression "much more" could better be removed.
   
   Plus points for including sources, but in a blog post it is better to hyperlink them than stating them below the text as you would do in a report.
   
   Content-wise this felt a bit farfetched. It was in some parts difficult to grasp what the author wanted to say. I think it would be useful for the author to create some practical examples and shorten down some sentences to improve this.
   ReplyDelete
10. Kristina Nyberg13 септември 2016 г., 5:40
    First of all, the blog should better be structured so that it is easy to, in English, navigate to the correct blog post. At present there is no way except scrolling through all posts which will become tedious later on.
    
    Second, I think the questions were answered and sources hyperlinked within the text (which is enough, no need to list a bibliograpy after a post). Perhaps the post would have been improved with a short introduction.
    ОтговорИзтриване
11. Kristina Nyberg13 september 2016 05:44
    This blog reads easily and it is fairly easy to follow the line of thought. The Copernican evolution reference was an excellent way of explaining Kant. To give ideas for improvement, hyperlink the source within the text instead of adding it within brackets.
    SvaraRadera

2:2 Reflection: Critical media studies

The Critical media studies texts were put into historical context where it was described how capitalism, communism, futurism and fascism influenced the writers in different ways. Some key concepts were clarified.

Myth was described as strategy to erase the unknown; through mimesis process (imitation) get into nature to change it. Enlightenment observes regularity (where human intervention is impossible) to de-mystify the world. Realism argues that the truth is found in abstract ideas, Nominalism a particular object. Empiricism means that our world is the creation of our mind, whilst Rationalism argues thinking as reproducing existing results therefore deems it unnecessary - correlating it with the mimesis process. Most of these overlap with my previous impression, but the chronological order and correlation of mimesis was new to me.

Benjamin, as a Marxist Jew before and during the second world war, balanced dialectical concepts to find the golden middle ground of questioning art reproduction, as well as its revolutionary potential in what was not said, similar to “Lost in translation”. The fact that Benjamin promoted thinking between the lines would argue he was more of an empiricist than a rationalist. More importantly, Fascism was also criticized before the second world war took off.

Friends of Benjamin, Adorno and Horkheimer, emigrated to the U.S. Overwhelmed by its commercialism despite enlightenment, they questioned capitalism but also enlightenment itself and its role in society. Art was central in this discussion about potential societal change. In the same way Youtube predicts what you want to watch based on regularity, which caps your mind into a limited framework, Adorno and Horkheimer meant that observing regularity creates conformity and passivity. Enlightenment lacked the gap between the existing and the possible, promoting Realism before Nominalism.

Moving onto Futurism, reconnecting what Adorno and Horkheimer said about technology being the essence of enlightenment, one could argue there was an overlap with their line of thought and Marinetti, whom also mentions technology as central in his manifesto. In contrast to Marinetti, who foremost argued for technological advances, knowledge and the mind of people, Mussolini and Hitler understood (partly thanks to Freud) that convincing also needs to speak to people’s hearts. Rhetoric got an upswing.

Referring back to my initial thoughts on Critical media studies, I presented Dadaism as an example to explain the concept “Aura” in context of Benjamin, but since then we have also learned about how Cubism had an important role in deconstructing and reproducing objects (and people). This was also connected to Futurism, where tradition was removed and the new was established.

An interesting discussion point to expand on would be the potential connection between the economy, immigration and increased fascism.