Qualitative methods identified from discussion with classmates confirmed what I wrote previously; interviews, diaries, observations. We went further into case studies than qualitative research due to a misunderstanding. But it was interesting to hear about a Pokémon case study and discuss why it was poor, as well as discussing weaknesses and strengths of our different selections of studies.
Why would one do a case study? You don't understand the topic well enough and the point is to gain understanding enough to formulate research questions that can be done subsequently. A case study additionally contains very little artificial intervention. Take an existing phenomenon and investigate it rather than creating new phenomena. Many different levels of analysis are also included.
In the lecture, we learned more about a particular case study with some clarification and some confusion. The researcher claimed research through design, despite including hypothesis "people will save money by not owning a car". This hypothesis was required for funding by Swedish energy authority. The researcher didn't mention it, but one way to "transform" this project into research through design would be to use a research question before hypothesis. We didn't dig further into that topic, but it was slightly confusing. I had the impression that the method used was rather qualitative than research through design.
The study was called "A car free year" wherein during 1 year, 3 families with children had 0 cars (with 24 exceptions). Sample selection was done cautiously. Target group showed interest in sustainability via Facebook. Subsequently, interviews were done to identify feasibility of the families managing the entire year, based on nearness to metro and some other criteria. Selected families were supplied (subsidized rentals) with several energy friendly vehicles as options to the car, such as bicycles, electric cars etc. Education for how to use these vehicles was provided by researchers. Facebook was used as promotion where families could share their experiences and sometimes frustrations with the public.
Findings included easy home delivery, where many companies gladly pay delivery costs, but difficulty to get pickup from the house. Overall I find this to be true, but where I just moved into a new apartment there was an advertising folder where a white goods company offered to bring away old goods if you wanted to buy new ones - maybe a positive trend.
Further findings included, unsurprisingly, more bicycling. Due to many hills in Stockholm, the electric bicycle got a good review. An idea presented following the study was "Förmånscykel". Amsterdam is a good example to view as they already have been doing this; companies offer subsidized bicycle purchase programs. I've had other ideas of my own to greenify infrastructure; one example is to replace drive-in (for cars) with bike-in. For example at a spot with many commuters by bike (T-centralen). It is for sure a subject with potential for improvements!
More public transport for children was another result, which freed up much time for parents. “Moves” app was used to analyze abnormalities in movement behavior through GPS; an interesting way of combining research methods.
A big problem was to anonymize data of participants. I think that if required to post publicly on social networks, it's already something the participants agreed to. But to not give away too much detailed information about one's home/location is in general a good idea, and due to how small the sample was, this was a vulnerable spot of the study.
We clarified during the lecture different structures; multidisciplinary (all members have their own field that they stick to), interdisciplinary (one person might work within other fields and use different hats), transdisciplinary (borders between disciplines are erased). We enlightened that group size might influence and I contributed that also prior knowledge might influence what this structure might look like.
Interesting reflection, I liked the way you linked the case study discussed on the lecture with your experience in Netherlands, and came up with your own ideas of more enviroment-friendly infrastructure.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you that the intervention of the researchers into the phenomena must be minimal, otherwise, if it is constructed by scientists, it becomes the controlled experiment. I was sure the car-free research was an experiment from the very beginning but then the realization that the participants (families) could do it by themselves without any influence from the outside has changed my mind.
Good post!
ReplyDeleteI liked how your reflection included a passage about trans- and inter disciplinary research(ers). As the media management program is highly interdisciplinary, I often think about what roles me and my classmates might end up with in research projects, and how different our "hats" might look. When working on group projects, may they even be tiny case studies, we hence constitute interdisciplinary teams due to our different backgrounds. I think this is a key to success, and hence I think the same applies for research teams.
I think this notion may relate to your comments on how case studies investigate existing phenomenas rather than creating new ones. If researchers wear hats that allow them to identify all the various data that they might encounter, I think that the case which they investigate is more likely to be fully understood. In conclusion, I really appreciate interdisciplinary research!
I like that you highlighted the lack of artificial intervention and that you shed light on the hypothesis of the case study that we examined during the seminar. This was something that I did not reflect on when writing my post – but it is indeed interesting since we in this theme have learnt that pre-defined hypothesis is not commonly used in case studies. I think the main concern of using case studies as a research method is that it could result in a lack of focus. When the outspoken aim is to investigate broadly – how do you stay focused? I think the answer can be found when looking at what is being investigated, a small fraction of the world. The selection of participants also evokes questions about generalizability and the practical implementation, would a family not interested in sustainability sign up for a study like this?
ReplyDeleteOy,
ReplyDeleteI hadn't added the different structures we could have had, multidisciplinary , interdisciplinary, transidisciplinary. I think they are a great distinctions to make in the researchs so we have a distinction in the sample.
I do think that prior knowledge makes the contribution more positive because we have the knowledge required to understand the result we get.
Thanks
Hi! Nicely reflected! You managed to combine many aspects of the theme and got them to interact with one another, which made the reading very enlightening and easy to follow. Your discussion about the study of a car free year was particularly interesting as you brought up your own ideas as well! The researchers combined various elements in the study, and adapting social media as a part of the study certainly brought new dimensions into picture. One could have conducted the study simply without the families' possibility to interaction with publics, and then reported the results of a car free year after the experiment. This case study (even if not stated as one in the paper) was truly an intriguing combination of long-term experiment with a rather small sample but multiple research methods included.
ReplyDeleteGreat job, thanks!
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI think you summarised this weeks theme pretty well! I wish you had discussed the anonymity a bit further, as I believe this was a rather w´big weakness in the study. As you say, the participants had agreed to participate, but this doesn’t eliminate the fact that they could have chosen to hold back on commenting on some experiences as they could have been easily identified.
It’s true how you point out that the small sample of participants made the study vulnerable, and it made me think whether this might be a common problem within case studies. After all, as case studies focuses on one particular phenomena, I believe it is rather common to focus on gathering as much various kinds of data and in-depth information as possible, on behalf of having a vide array of participants/study objects. I think this could the a reason for a lot of people to feel ”exposed”, even when there isn’t a big audience for the study.
In your first post you bring up the difference between case studies and qualitative methods, which in theory should be pretty obvious, but I understand that it can be confusing before one has grasped the two concepts completely. A case study is a kind of study and a strategy of how the study is structured in a bigger picture, whereas qualtitative studies refers to studies that use a certain method for collecting data, i.e. a qualitative methods. And as you said, case studies can use both qualitative and quantitative methods, but since they usually use qualitative methods I guess that's what confuses people.
ReplyDelete