Final reflection

Throughout the content of this course I’ve been faced with numerous researchers’ definitions of theory and method-related concepts, exemplified in several different interesting articles. The course contents varied between the themes from very abstract discussions on topics of epistemological philosophy, to the very concrete field of research methods such as qualitative, quantitative methods, and case studies. Therefore it’s been an interesting and thought-provoking experience to venture through these 6 themes in search for the understanding of research and how one should go about it, as a media technology student.

First off, I bet many of the course participants (at least from what I’ve been able to extract from seminar discussions) were quite confused when standing in the face of academic philosophy, although fundamental. Many of us had previously never really come across the school of epistemology and Kant’s and Plato’s work within this. Thus, it certainly posed for great seminar discussions where one not only were discussing concepts and their definition, but also the outlook one had on knowledge creation - and life itself. The subjects on a priori and a posteriori knowledge, and synthetic/analytical judgements were, for me, very hard to grasp at first - but once I did they were basically present in every other thought the following days. These almost obvious, yet fundamental and deeply perplexing concepts are very much central to someone venturing into the world of engineering. Be it as a researcher of some sort, or as someone working in a business context, the creation of knowledge will more often than not be central to the work at hand. It has also been personally developing, to find out our/my view of the world and how one defines concepts, and thereby creates knowledge, through learning about epistemology.

Furthermore, the following themes 2 and 3 continued in the wake of theme 1 yet ventured towards more modern philosophy and towards defining more practical problems and opportunities of our research culture, and the fundamentals behind what empirical research is. For instance, the enlightenment and concepts surrounding it, as well as concepts relating to its critique, were the basis for theme 2’s discussion where Benjamin’s and Adorno & Horkheimer’s texts provided the frame within which the seminars took place. During this theme we delved deeper into the philosophical issues from the previous week in a more practical advancement. The lecturer Håkan went at the definition of nominalism and realism through explaining Plato’s allegory of the cave, which lead us up to the discussion of if the nominalistic Vs. realistic point of view has actually had great impact on the revolutionary potential of culture. The fact that it does points towards that, since media technology often is in close correlation with culture, media technology has a great impact on society and can therefore alter it significantly through innovation.

In theme 3 we built upon these prerequisites of knowledge gained from the past 2 themes and started studying theory, and what theory and its related concepts mean in high-level research. The most important aspects I bring with me from this theme is that there is no such thing as an objective truth. Based on the philosophical arguments of Kant and Plato, and further embraced by Benjamin and Adorno & Horkheimer, I’ve learned that the idea that us humans can create a truth of some sort is simply absurd since our view of what is and what isn’t differs from individual to individual based on physical and mental characteristics. However, we as students at a technological university are more or less brought up with the notion that empirically based theories are true until proven otherwise - an idea which in itself may seem harmless, but which can in the long run damage our perception of what is truth and what is theory. This I believe is especially true when faced with people/students of some other school (for instance philosophy) where basically nothing is true and yet everything is (since one often times work under the assumption that everything obeys to Kant’s forms of intuition). So, for us as engineering students to excel at our own work, and at the same time invite for people of other cultural academic backgrounds to do the same, this is important to be aware of.

The lectures and themes 4-6 where a lot more practical and bore a lot more resemblance to what I had previously done during my 4 years on the program of media technology. However, this time, it wasn’t just the understanding of the concepts design research, quantitative/qualitative methods, and case studies in practice this time - it was the fundamental understanding of how and why they work, accompanied by the discussion of in which scenarios which are more applicable than others. For instance, during Haibo’s lecture on design research he spoke of a more business oriented view, although he did start off with describing the fundamentals to doing great research: spend a lot more time on defining the problem than you think (often times a lot more time than actually coming up with a solution) and when you finally get to defining a solution, make it as easy as was every possible. Even though this is something one might have come across before (the notion of the easiest solution always being the best one), the fact that problem definitions requires so much effort for research to be great was indeed interesting. Also, choosing between quantitative and qualitative methods is of course also part of this definition. Sadly, from what we’ve learned throughout the course, there is no formula as to which one to use where and why. However, it could be extrapolated from seminars and lecturers, that the symbiosis between the two methods often derive the greatest, most in-depth, and most generalizable results. For instance, case studies (another part of the course I found most interesting) are often times great examples of ground-breaking research that include both of these methods.

To summarize, I believe this course has given me great methods for creating, conducting, analyzing, and reflecting on research - both in an organisational and academic context. It’s been interesting to read up on research relevant to my education as well as historical documents on theoretical concepts that have taken us where we are today. Thank you for reading my blog!

All comments

Theme 1:

http://remarkableathenianyouth.blogspot.se/2015/09/wrap-up-on-theory-of-knowledge-or-where.html#comment-form

Hi!
Thanks for an interesting read in your posts for this theme. I believe you express something which was rather common among us students when you state that this week was confusing - but intriguing. I thoroughly congratulate you for having had the time and engagement to delve deeper into the subject, since I agree with you that it is quite thought-provoking and developing for oneself. It might also have been, as you mentioned, the fact that there was little discussion during the lecture and seminar on the Plato text, and a larger focus on Kant’s, which lead to many of us not getting quite the grasp of Plato as we had of Kant. Also, as you mention, the Kant text does refer to a lot more different concepts of psychology-related manner, which makes it probably more in need of a pedagogical approach (as was seen in the lecture and seminar).

As for the a priori judgements made synthetically, I don’t necessarily think it is something one must “get” in order to move on with the discussion. The way I see it, the question you ask yourself on how it’s possible to know things a priori is basically answered by coming to terms with the fact that there is no “world” without our perception. The concept of “the world” is simply something we’ve constructed, and thus, it obeys the forms and categories Kant lays down in his text. Furthermore, as you discussed during your seminar, the table which can only be seen as a table if the concept “table” is known to all is the same thing as the world. For the world to exist, there needs to be an agreement on what the world is and means - otherwise there would be no such thing as “the world”. I realize now as I’m writing this that I speak of this as if it was some sort of truth, though what I mean is that this is how I thought of the discussion you put forth - I’m not certain as to whether it’s “right” or “wrong”, if there is such a thing in this area…

http://reb2572.blogspot.se/2015/09/post-theme-1.html#comment-form

Hi!
Thank you for an interesting read on an interesting subject. I agree with you that the discussion of the world and our existence was the most intriguing one this week. Also, as you describe, the notion of us people understanding the world through the categorization of concepts we ourselves created, is an engaging subject which one could discuss for ages. As you mention, however, the texts themselves weren’t easily overcome - though it seems that you managed to get a great sense of the theme from other areas (both other sources and during the lecture/seminar) - great job!

I found it interesting where you discuss the notion of objectivity not being so in itself, which is an idea that I guess we all can agree on. Anything else, for instance there existing a “true” objectivity, would - as mentioned in the lecture - have to mean that there exists a being of higher intellect of some sort, which has the ability to see things without having established connotations and ideas a priori. In order to see things objectively, people would therefore have to elevate themselves above the rest of the human species and thereby walk seamlessly past Kant’s concepts of categorization - which I guess is an idea not befitting a society in which all people are treated equally. Great text and interesting ideas, keep up the good work!

http://theoandmeth.blogspot.se/2015/09/reflection-of-theme-1.html#comment-form

Hi!

You provide an interesting read on the first week’s theme in your two blog posts! It was especially interesting to follow your thought process on the discussion of objective knowledge, and whether or not human babies have a more objective view of things than us grown-ups with a larger base of connotations attached to things. The way I understand it, what you’re saying in your argumentation is that even though we don’t share the same forms of intuition and categories of perception with young babies, they still have a framework of categories with which they perceive the world. I believe I agree with you on this notion! Since there is no thing as objective knowledge from a human perspective (it would require the viewpoint of a deity) not even a newborn baby is free of forms of intuition since they have to associate things they experience to either intuitions or previous experiences. However, I agree with you that there should exist objective knowledge, it is simply not (as you already stated) something we humans can conceive.

Great text and an interesting discussion, keep up the good work and I’m looking forward to reading your upcoming blog posts next week!

http://duckyduckyducky.blogspot.se/2015/09/post-seminar-theme-1.html#comment-form

Hi!
Great blog posts on the first theme, it’s been a real pleasure taking part in your thought process and development in the area! I agree with you that the best way to tackle this sort of philosophical subject, at least for me who’s a newbie, is to actively take part in real discussions (i.e. the seminar) as opposed to simply read texts. Thus I too learned most during this theme from the seminar. You provide a beautiful link between the two texts by Plato and Kant when you discuss Socrates’ statement of perceiving through the eyes rather than with them, and Kant’s notion of our faculties of knowledge limiting us from perceiving the world objectively. However, is it truly so that Kant believes that one can gain “objective knowledge” from understanding our faculties of knowledge? That surely depends on how one would define objectivity though I guess. Since we perceive everything through our faculties of knowledge, which we retrieve from experience, gaining “objective knowledge” would presume that it is objective with a standpoint in these faculties - and not “truly” objective in the sense that they have no a posteriori properties. For instance, to truly gain objective knowledge, one would need to elevate into some sort of deity which could surpass the faculties of knowledge and thereby have a truly uncluttered mind. This you mention in the conclusion of your second post on the theme, though I would’ve liked to see how you attach this reasoning to the notion of Kant’s belief that there exists objective knowledge amongst us humans!

Great text and a very interesting discussion! Keep up the good work.

http://theoatmeth.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-1-post-seminar.html

Hi!
I had the exact same problem as you with the texts initially, but just as you did, things got a great deal clearer after the lecture and seminar! You provide a great and insightful read with these two blog posts on this rather interesting yet hard-to-grasp subject. It seems as though you’ve understood everything with great depth and you provide for these ideas with a great written language and interesting arguments. Even though you state that you don’t quite grasp the concept of Kant’s faculties of knowledge, you seem to be able to explain them for me to understand them at least! The way I understand them is that, as you mention, they are a posteriori knowledge we’ve collected from experiences with society and environment. From that we then experience things through our faculties of knowledge to be able to conceive them correctly. Therefore we can generate a priori knowledge of the world since the world we inhabit is made up of things we previously experienced (through perception). Great description of your philosophical week thinking of what knowledge is. Keep up the good work!

Theme 2

http://remarkableathenianyouth.blogspot.se/2015/09/post-critical-media-studies-or-how-to.html#comment-form

As I guess everyone else have already commented or will comment, I felt the same way as you about not quite grasping the concepts for this theme right away! However, it seems as if you’ve come to understand each and everyone of them in a splendid way - drawing, as I’ve also done, from Plato’s allegory of the cave for instance. The discussion you had during the seminar and account for here in your post about exploring the extremes of nominalism and realism I find very interesting. We had a similar discussion where we put Adorno and Horkheimer’s views of the human society as basically non-changeable vs. Benjamin’s view of the ever changing and very easily manipulated human psyche and societal structure. Furthermore you seem to have understood the correlation between this discussion and that of mass media and its development where you implement this discussion in this practical problem. You provide an interesting read, keep up the great work!

http://reb2572.blogspot.se/2015/09/post-theme-2-critical-media-studies.html#comment-form

Hi!

It’s interesting to see that you now after the lecture and seminar define enlightenment somewhat differently than before. I as well assumed that it referred to it as the time when people basically started questioning non-empirically based beliefs, but thanks Adorno and Horkheimer we now know it’s a wider term than that. You also provide a concise description of what nominalism is and how it differs from realism, something I found almost the most troubling and hard to understand at first - but which was (for me) thoroughly explained through Plato’s allegory of the cave. I agree with you that Benjamin’s arguments for media’s revolutionary potential makes the most sense. However, I would argue that Adorno and Horkheimer’s arguments also have relevance. This, I believe, is mostly because of the fact that the two texts (Benjamin and A&H) were written and published during two very different time periods. Since mass production of mass media didn’t exist during Benjamin’s days, the notion of media not having revolutionary potential made a lot more sense when A&H published their article in Hollywood decades later. This is of course because, as something is mass produced, each individual item loses some of its value. However, I would still argue as you said - that Benjamin’s view is still fire.

http://theoandmeth.blogspot.se/2015/09/reflection-theme-2.html#comment-form

Hi!

You provide great insight in both the concepts of nominalism, enlightenment, realism, aura, and substructure/superstructure while portraying the discussion Benjamin and Adorno & Horkheimer provide on the subject of media and culture’s revolutionary potentials. I especially find it interesting that you bring up the notion of when the two texts were published as an argument as to why their thoughts on culture’s revolutionary potential differed so from Benjamin’s. Also, when one is introduced to the two sides these two texts provide, it is probably most common to choose Benjamin’s side - but you provide a great case for Adorno and Horkheimer as well. Thanks for a great read, keep up the good job!

http://duckyduckyducky.blogspot.se/2015/09/post-seminar-3.html#comment-form

Hi!

Great reflection and thought provoking fulfillments to your previous post on the theme. I too found the concepts of nominalism vs. platonic realism quite hard to grasp at first, but the way you describe it through the notion of universal’s existences learned from the seminar really shows you’ve understood the subject. Interesting that you should state the Adorno and Horkheimers view of nominalism being related to fascism. I understand what you’re getting at (the idea of positions being fixed) and I agree with you there, but the entire concept of being human transcends past the simple idea of nominalism where e.g. fascists have developed hatred towards a certain class or group due to some values and properties they have - which isn’t a nominalistic way of approaching others. Thanks for a good read and keep up the good job!

http://theoatmeth.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-2-post-seminar.html

Hi!

I agree with you that there are basically two sides to the concept of nominalism. The notion of not categorizing objects is positive in the sense that one doesn’t fall into prejudice but rather judge each object individually. However, as Adorno and Horkheimer state, it can also be related to fascism since the concept doesn’t leave it open for things to change - things are always as they’ve always been and always will be. Furthermore, you provide great explanations to the different concepts in your two posts on the theme, and it certainly seems like you’ve grasped the theme’s different concepts. Keep up the great work!

Theme 3

http://remarkableathenianyouth.blogspot.se/2015/09/post-research-and-theory-or-what-maketh.html

Hi!

I agree that this theme was probably the first one to which you could relate practical “real-life” issues one has come across in e.g. the k-ex and stuff. Furthermore I had the same reaction to the texts on what theory isn’t rather than what it is. The notion you bring of of “working within the paradigm”, isn’t that quite a dangerous territory for a researcher for instance? Imagine you’re at the frontier of some discipline in which you can potentially introduce ground breaking scientific ideas. Shouldn’t you be the one acting towards a paradigm-shift rather than working within it waiting for it to shift for itself? Great and thought provoking text, keep up the good work!

http://reb2572.blogspot.se/2015/09/post-theme-3.html?showComment=1443614638533#c8335627872933506882

Hi!

I agree with you that there’s some kind of discrepancy between what one believes to be theory, and that which is “real” theory. You describe this by mentioning the fact that “theory never proves anything completely”, which points towards the fact which (for me too) was quite thought provoking - that not even that which we deem “true” is in fact that. Furthermore it was interesting to take part in your entire discussion on this subject. The fact that we “make theories on assumptions we find credible” is basically the Kantian way of saying that we can only know that which is within the grasp of our forms of intuition and categories of knowledge. Thanks for a great post and keep up the great work!

http://theoandmeth.blogspot.se/2015/09/reflectioin-theme-3.html?showComment=1443615818951#c8292793612123651823

Hi!

You describe theories as something which can be both “true” and “false”. Are there really such a thing as an objective truth and false? I mean, you take the heliocentric model as an example of a theory which was proven wrong but was previously considered right. According to my understanding, this doesn’t mean that it was “true” until proven “false”, but rather that it was the most acceptable conclusion based on the data gathered at that time - or maybe I’ve got things on the backfoot as we say in Sweden? Furthermore it was interesting to read your thoughts on your personally selected article and its usage of theory! Keep up the good work.

http://duckyduckyducky.blogspot.se/2015/09/post-seminar-3_28.html#comment-form

Hi!
It seems as if there has been a certain interest for discussing the concept of “truth” in many (including my own) seminar groups. I agree with you that the notion of truth doesn’t necessarily have to have to word objectivity attached to it (as it has when one refers to theories as not being capable of being true due to the arguments you discuss), but that one can view theories as “true” until proven “false” - however I guess all of that is simply a small discourse within a field much greater than that. Furthermore it was interesting to follow your discussion on mathematics and how theories become proofs which then can be considered true - however the reason for this is simply a discourse-related one. Since people acting in the mathematical culture have agreed on that it is these terms that they use to go about their research, it has become household to use the term “truth” without it necessarily being connected to the objective truth which you discussed prior to that, perhaps? Thanks for a great read, keep up the good work!

http://theoatmeth.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-3-post-seminar.html

Hi!

I agree that the theme was harder in a sense to discuss since it was practical, and you already had an idea of the concepts already, as opposed to the previous - more philosophical themes. However, you’ve written an interesting post where you discuss everything from the conundrum of “truth” and theory, to the notion of weak and strong theories. Also, the quote “data without theory is useless”, which you’ve stated in the text, speaks volumes of the importance of theories in research - and I agree that it is something one would’ve wanted before writing the Bachelor’s thesis. However, now at least you’ll have it before the Master’s thesis! Great text, keep up the good job.

Theme 4:

http://remarkableathenianyouth.blogspot.se/2015/10/post-quantitative-research-or-there-is.html#comment-form

Hi!

You provide a great discussion on when to use quantitative vs. qualitative methods in research, and thus it seems as if you’ve fully grasped the concepts and their pros/cons. Furthermore, the notion you speak of when you mention quantitative data as being something up for criticism and not necessarily truth in definition, is interesting. I guess it sort of continues the discussion we had in theme 3 where the “truth” in theories were up for debate. However, it seems as if the concept of data is something that would have to be “true” for it to be defined as such, though as you mention it is all based on the means of acquiring and analysis of this data that defines whether or not it is relevant. Great text with concise and thoroughly worked through thoughts on quantitative methods and its uses, keep up the good work!

http://reb2572.blogspot.se/2015/10/post-theme-4.html#comment-form

Hi!
Even though I understand your point and agree with it, I don’t necessarily believe that it’s always impossible to explain people or feelings through quantitative data. For instance, one could find out there to be certain behavioural patterns from people with certain qualities. Now, in order for one to understand if this is true or not - one could perform a quantitative method that would yield statistical results which would say whether or not the initial hypothesis was true. However, if one wanted to understand why this behaviour exists, quantitative methods would simply not suffice. Thanks for a great read with concise thoughts on the theme, keep up the good work!

http://theoandmeth.blogspot.se/2015/10/post-blog-theme-4.html#comment-form

Hi!

I agree that the article on VR embodiment is a great example of reducing the number of analyzed variables through having a highly controlled test environment. It is interesting how fundamentally problematic it can be to utilize a quantitative method, since I before this week’s theme thought of it as something quite straightforward and easily implemented - however, this article surely shows that it is often much more difficult and requires much more effort than what I had previously assumed. You’ve provided a great presentation and discussion on the subject of quantitative methods and it seems as if you’ve mastered the concept. Keep up the good work!

http://duckyduckyducky.blogspot.se/2015/10/post-seminar-4.html#comment-form

Hi!

It is quite interesting that one seems to almost intuitively understand the concept of quantitative methods, but at the same time have a lot harder time grasping the concept of qualitative methods. As you mention that your seminar group discussed qualitative methods a lot on a seminar on quantitative methods (so did mine as well), it seems that this hypothesis is somewhat confirmed - however, I wonder why? You provide great discussions on the concept of qualitative methods and its pros/cons. Keep up the good work!

http://theoatmeth.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-4-post-seminar.html#comment-form

Hi!

I agree with you that this week’s theme was somewhat of a confirmation of knowledge I already had, but I now feel like I have a deeper understanding of quantitative methods and its uses. It was also interesting to read the definition of a “wicked problem” which, based on your definition, often seems to be somewhat of a case study? As you mentioned in the beginning this week was more of a repetition for you than something entirely new. However, based on what you’ve written it seems as if you’ve learned quite a lot and gotten a deeper understanding of quantitative and qualitative research methods and when/why/where they should and shouldn’t be used. Keep up the good work!

Theme 5:

http://remarkableathenianyouth.blogspot.se/2015/10/post-design-research-or-how-to-define.html#comment-form

Hi!

I very much agree with you that a seminar would’ve been needed on this theme as well, especially when being faced with such a highly theoretical theme as design research. I also had the same type of relationship to design research as it seemed as you had before this week, a very unproblematic one. However, as you state in your post, things became a tac bit more complicated after realizing that designing research and researching design was far more theoretical and required far more effort than I had presumed. Something I found especially interesting, which you also mentioned, was the idea Haibo described as “Haibo’s theory”. This was the notion that the time spent on defining the research problem should be 90% whereas the time spent on coming up with a solution to said problem should be 10%. This might seem contra productive, but it certainly highlights the fact that the problem definition is extremely important for the research outcome. Great job with this week’s posts!

http://reb2572.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-5-design-research_12.html#comment-form

Hi!

I agree that there was a focus on having a great formulation of the research problem in the bachelor thesis. However, I doubt that any group went with Haibo’s 90/10 division, more like 20/80 - perhaps? I say this since basically the course is administered in a way that “forces” you to come up with a problem during the first couple of weeks in order to have the rest of the time for defining the solution. Though one might argue that the problem definition was changeable throughout the entire process, I still believe the fundamentals were there from like week 2. It was interesting to see you contemplate on the notion of prototype differences in industry and research. I believe most design-related processes differ quite a lot based on where they are implemented and to which end. Great post on, in my opinion, one of the harder themes to reflect upon - keep up the good job!

http://theoandmeth.blogspot.se/2015/10/post-theme-5.html#comment-form

Hi!

I agree that the 9:1 ratio Haibo spoke of seems a bit extreme when defining/solving problems, but I believe it to be have metaphorical values rather than a purely scientific one. The way I see it, “Haibo’s theory” exists to highlight and work against the fact that people who conduct research of some kind often times value the problem’s solution far more highly than the problem’s definition. I also agree that design can be viewed as knowledge, or at least that a design process is also a production of knowledge. Regardless of which situation it is in, business/research, results from a design process or design research are obviously usable to further research or work - otherwise, wouln’t the entire concept of design be rather redundant? You’ve managed to summarize the week’s theme in a great way even though we didn’t have a seminar in which we could discuss each an everybody’s different interpretation of design research. Keep up the good work!

http://duckyduckyducky.blogspot.se/2015/10/post-seminar-5.html#comment-form

Hi!

Even though the second lecturer wasn’t very well prepared because of the last minute rescheduling, the differences between the Haibo and his lecture were interesting and together they managed to cover different viewpoints on design research where Haibo focused on business and entrepreneurship, and Anders focused more on scientific design research for the sake of knowledge production. Even though the lectures were very different I realized that even though design research may differ based on what incentives the researcher have (extrinsic or intrinsic) the fundamentals are the same, and should be focused on problem definition, rather than problem solution. You provide a great reflective summary of the lectures and it seemed as if you’ve learned a lot on design research. Keep up the good work!

http://theoatmeth.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-5-post-seminar.html#comment-form

Hi!

Great summary of the lectures, you’ve really made up for the fact that there was no seminar to this theme through being active at the lectures. I agree that Haibo’s lecture gave further insight in how to go about when starting and going through a research project, but as you mention - most of us probably already had an idea of that which he spoke of. The same goes for Anders and his lecture, I guess. Even though, as you mention, his lecture was harder to follow since it wasn’t as prepared, I believe it did provide a good contrast to the business and entrepreneurship viewpoint of Haibo. It’s been interesting to follow your thoughts on the theme. Keep up the good job!

Theme 6

http://remarkableathenianyouth.blogspot.se/2015/10/post-qualitative-research-or-its-all-in.html#comment-form

Hi!

I agree that one lacked a theoretical base (apart from that gained from reading the texts) due to the lecture being cancelled. However, as you mentioned, the seminar helped a great deal with this, partly since it was more structured than before. Furthermore, I agree with your notion on that case studies are interesting. As you mention, I do also believe it’s usually a research study on something specific which is of novel character. Even though it might not be part of the concept’s definition, I would thoroughly argue that it is central to whether or not a case study is interesting. Therefore, often times, the results of a case study lead to new theories that can change a scientific landscape - or the results simply lead nowhere new. That may be why I find case studies slightly more interesting than regular research - due to it’s often potential “extreme” results.

http://reb2572.blogspot.se/2015/10/post-theme-6.html#comment-form

Hi!

It would be interesting to hear you elaborate more on what it was that you realized to state the notion that “qualitative data is often transferred into quantitative data”! I do see your point, but it would be interesting to see your train of thought for this statement. It certainly seems as if you’ve grasped the content of the past couple of week’s themes related to certain specifics of research. Furthermore, the example of studying someone with a rare disease as a case study is a great one. Not only does it point toward the facts you mention on what a case study is defined as - it also points toward the nature of case studies often being conducted on novel events. As with the case study on the person with a rare disease, researching said disease might yield conclusions which can be used to create theories of the human body that speak for not only those with that disease, but for all of us. Thanks for a great final post-reflection!

http://theoandmeth.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-6-reflection-qualitative-research.html#comment-form

Hi!

It’s funny that each group seems to have discussed qualitative methods during the quantitative themed week, and that this week’s seminar was mainly focused on case studies and the like. Also, it seems as if most of us have gotten a much better grasp of the concept of case studies after the seminar than before. As you mention, most of us have probably realized that there are better ways of describing the concept for someone who doesn’t know what it is, that the way we described in the week’s beginning. You provide great insight into the concept of case studies and it certainly seems as if you’ve broadened your research theoretical horizons from this week’s theme. Great job on the final post-reflection!

http://duckyduckyducky.blogspot.se/2015/10/post-seminar-6.html#comment-form

Hi!

I think most of us quite quickly moved on from the discussion of qualitative methods to the discussion of case studies on the seminar, since we - during the week of quantitative methods - already discussed most aspects of qualitative research. Your seminar discussion on the fact that case studies can generate knowledge applicable to a broader scientific scenario is an interesting aspect of the concept. As you mention, this is probably mostly thanks to case studies being conducted on something novel and interesting for the broader grouping. An interesting thought, for sure! Furthermore, you seem to have grasped the concepts of the theme beyond fully and you provide for this in a great way throughout the entire reflection. Great job on the last post-reflection!

http://theoatmeth.blogspot.se/2015/10/theme-6-post-seminar.html#comment-form

Hi!

I agree that case studies was something new and therefore more interesting than the already known concepts of quantitative and qualitative research. However, at first, like you mention, it was certainly harder to conceptualize than the previous concepts discussed. The fact that a case study is research conducted on some specific event or object, often times in order to generate new theories (due to it often being research conducted on novel events/objects), makes it very interesting. I agree that it was nice to hear that there are no real right or wrongs when it comes to designing research and conducting experiments, only more and less fruitful ways. There is no framework as to how one should do, it is all based on the study itself and its research questions. Thanks for a great final post-reflection!