onsdag 30 september 2015
Pre-seminar reflection 5
- How can media technologies be evaluated?
Since media technologies is such a broad term and envelops everything from advertising to product design, it’s hard to come up with an absolute truth of how to evaluate it. However, starting from the read paper by Rehman, Sun, Liu, and Li (2008), one method of evaluating could be to do so performing tests on a mockup of a telephone (which in this case was used to simulate a football’s whereabouts on a soccer field). Thus, performing user-tests on media technological products is a way of evaluating that type of media technology. Furthermore, the authors speak of certain parameters which are to be measured to generate data on how well a particular product performs what is needed: effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. Using these parameters is a specific way of evaluating a certain product through a quantitative method, through which the authors can extrapolate statistical data which can be used to draw larger conclusions.
- What role will prototypes play in research?
Since prototypes generate a large amount of the data that is to be evaluated in media technology through user tests, they are of great importance. In this particular project the authors used the prototype of a mobile phone with a built-in vibration system connected through a PSB board to induce the feeling of a ball being kicked when the ball was kicked on a real field. Thus, had there not been a prototype one couldn’t have conducted any research which was to be based on user interaction with a device of that kind.
- Why could it be necessary to develop a proof of concept prototype?
Developing a POC prototype can help you, at an early stage, figure out whether or not the intended prototype fills its intended purpose successfully or if it lacks in any department. Thus, developing such a prototype can quickly help you realize any flaws in design or technology in the prototyped product.
- What are characteristics and limitations of prototypes?
In the nature of prototypes rests that it is developed at an early stage in order to distance the final product from both technical and design related problems. Thus, a prototype generally contains certain faults and bugs, which is a natural part of its existence since it’s entire life-cycle is intended for flushing out problems so that the end result doesn’t contain any faults whatsoever. Also, the advantage of having a prototype do this is that it can be changed based on feedback during the iterative design process.
- How can design research be communicated/presented?
Design research can of course be presented in the form of papers containing vast amounts of empirical information. However, a possibly more interesting way of communicating the research is through presenting its prototype - either through an actual high-fidelity device, or through a low-fi paper-based model of the intended device (even though the first example probably resonates the best with users).
- What is the 'empirical data' in these two papers?
Empirical data’s definition is based on Kant’s concept of a posteriori knowledge, i.e. “knowledge learned from the senses”. According to this definition, in the article by Fernaeus and Tholander (2006) the empirical data is the data retrieved from their qualitative method. The qualitative data gathered is the recorded observations by the authors of the users when they utilize their prototype. Thus, the empirical data is the recorded children’s usage of the interface.
The Lundström article from 2014 uses many different methods which yield empirical data. First off, the article introduces a State of the Art Analysis to map out the existing landscape of power consumption visualization in electric vehicles - and people’s attitudes towards these. After this, they go through an entire iterative design process which yields empirical data - that in turn yields works as basis for their final prototype.
- Can practical design work in itself be considered a 'knowledge contribution'?
I would argue that it can be considered knowledge contribution since practical design work at some points creates some form of cognitive or creative information based on the creator’s knowledge. However, it would be considered rather strange to conduct design work without implementing feedback from user studies, since the entire notion of design is based on users interacting with the object developed. Also, even though the design process doesn’t include user feedback doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t of importance for future design studies on the subject - it might still be of use, even though one can’t extrapolate empirical data from that particular project.
- Are there any differences in design intentions within a research project, compared to design in general?
One could imagine that design within research is more aimed at answering a certain research question, whereas design in general (e.g. for commercial purpose) is more intended to create value with the consumer through aesthetically pleasing design and usability. However, both of these extremes can of course overlap and most probably do that on most occasions.
- 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?
Yes of course. Technologically based research must be replicable due to its constant development. Also, in order for following design projects on the same topic to not become redundant, information on time/historical setting, designer skills, tools, etc must be accounted for.
- Are there any important differences with design driven research compared to other research practices?
The design driven research often has to be based on qualitative measurements, which means that the method must be thoroughly worked through (more so than many quantitative methods) in order for the results to be interesting. That may be a reason as to why design research has so many framework methods such as wizard-of-oz as opposed to other fields of research.
Post-seminar reflection 4
During this week I’ve read the article “Internet addiction in students: Prevalence and risk factors” (2013) and “Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality: The Body Shapes the Way We Play” to get an in-depth understanding of research methods - in specific: the quantitative research method.
During this week’s lecture and seminar we delved deeper into the concept of quantitative research methods in a quest to extrapolate which features that defines this type of research, why it’s useful, and also why it’s problematic. However, since this theme was the first theme within this course where I felt like I really had a fundamental understanding of the central concepts, I can’t really say I’ve learned a lot of new information other than the emphasis of the importance of thoroughly developing and choosing the right scientific method when conducting experiments and tests.
At the lecture Ilias described quantitative methods are numerical measurements based on quantitative data - leading to a result which can be used in statistical analysis. This is opposed to the qualitative research method where results are not data which can be statistically analyzed. Furthermore, I understood to a larger extent the value of designing your method before implementing it. For instance, during the lecture Ilias spoke of formulating questionnaires and that it was important to think of every aspect of the test and its fundamental research question before sending it out - and also to test the questionnaire to make sure it fills its intended purpose before letting it roam.
The seminar was interesting in the sense that we got to discuss everyone’s overview of the entire theme. Even though it proved rather broad and abstract we discussed what the uses of each method were, since none of us could find a qualitative study within neither Ilias’ nor our personally chosen articles. We ended up discussing the notion of and absolute truth not existing, and that neither scientific method could be seen as “better” than the other - only more usable in certain types of experiments. Our conclusion was that the research question decides whether or not it is more suitable to perform a quantitative or a qualitative method. Furthermore, the way I see it, quantitative methods can generally be seen as yielding results which can be more easily generalized over, than results from qualitative methods. For instance, having a questionnaire as the main source of data from thousands of people gives the authors a position in which they can more easily generalize as opposed to having data from a dozen interviews - even though the interviews give a lot more depth for the 12 interviewees than the thousands of questionnaire answers give on the thousands of respondents. Thus, the importance of choosing the correct method for your particular research is highlighted.
måndag 28 september 2015
torsdag 24 september 2015
Pre-seminar reflection 4
The article I’ve chosen is “Internet addiction in students: Prevalence and risk factors” (2013) authored by Daria J. Kuss, Mark D. Griffiths, Jens F. Binder from Journal of Computers in Human Behaviour (Impact factor: 2.489). The article investigates the newly arisen mental health issues related to internet usage amongst students and what it comes from. The article tries to, through a central quantitative method, decide how many - and what personality traits people have - that can be seen as addicted to the internet, and why this is.
- Which quantitative method or methods are used in the paper? Which are the benefits and limitations of using these methods?
The entire method is carried out using a questionnaire sent to thousands of students via mail (yielding data from 2257 of them), a method which is called cross-sectional online data gathering. The questionnaire was 120 questions on the subject, and took approximately 15 minutes to complete, including information on their age and gender.
The benefits from using this type of quantitative method is that it yields vasts amounts of quantitative data at the cost of virtually little to no expense for either the authors or the test-subjects. Thus, having it online and easily accessed probably lead to the authors receiving more data than if they had distributed papers. However, seeing as the study was to learn of students’ behaviour on the internet and thereby deduce whether or not they were addicted or not (based also on personality traits) a lot was asked from the test-subject. Potentially, studying a smaller amount of students’ through data gathering their daily habits instead of asking them questions on the subject could have yielded a narrower yet more precise result - since people often times might not reveal the entire picture when asked to explain habits of this sort.
- What did you learn about quantitative methods from reading the paper?
Quantitative research and methods was already a concept I had come across (both in the bachelor’s thesis and other project courses) from having sent out google spreadsheets across Facebook and other social media platforms. However I had not yet come across the notion of cross-sectional online data gathering, even though the definition proved to be quite what I’ve always thought of an internet-based survey questionnaire: “A cross-sectional survey collects data to make inferences about a population of interest (universe) at one point in time”.
- Which are the main methodological problems of the study? How could the use of the quantitative method or methods have been improved?
Apart from the fact I’ve already mentioned on the case of the questionnaire potentially, in this case, leading to other results than if they would have tracked the test-subjects’ internet usage, the authors themselves state a few limitations with their investigation. For instance, the results drawn from their method don’t take into consideration any culturally inherited behaviour - therefore the article’s result can not be implemented anywhere but specifically on english university students. Also, since their particular model didn’t suggest any differences between the genders, this discussion has also been overlooked - even though it might have an impact on other questions that those stated in their particular questionnaire. Furthermore, it would’ve been interesting to see a copy of the questionnaire to be able to criticize their method more in depth, unfortunately this was not provided.
Thoughts on the article “Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality: The Body Shapes the Way We Play”:
Before reading the article I had no idea that the effects IVR could have on a person could be so great. It is established in the article that through IVR, the user could potentially feel as if the body which they inhabit within the VR is at truth their own - with its social properties. However, I find it quite strange that the article doesn’t speak of how and why the authors have chosen to include the CD and the FL-bodies in any depth. It is as if they assume that everyone’s view of people with dark skin is that they’re better drummers than those with white skin - without stating that, and without discussing the consequences of performing an entire study based upon this prejudice.
- Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative methods?
Quantitative methods usually contribute through the collection of vast amounts of data on a subject important to the research. The data is however often times of a lower quality than if one had gone for e.g. a qualitative approach instead. The statistical analysis which can be performed on quantitative results may yield data which opens up for evaluation and conclusion on certain subjects. It is best used when the method is used to collect a very pre-set number of variables, since the qualitative method yields focused and narrowed results on certain research questions. However, this means that the results are limited since responses are confined within a set framework. A notion which has proof in the article I’d chosen where the resulting questions gave the authors too little insight in gender and cultural differences for them to draw any conclusions on that particular subject.
- Which are the benefits and limitations of using qualitative methods?
A qualitative method may yield more realistic results than a quantitative one, but it demands a lot more from the authors to be able to carry out the method, and to extrapolate the information which is useful to the investigation. For instance, having a qualitative method may use up more of the author’s time since some results may become redundant and irrelevant to the research - which then needs to be critically examined and potentially stripped off.
Post-seminar reflection 3
During the week’s lecture Leif went deeper into the definition of theory and research. Thus, I learned that there’s a lot more to theory than the definition I tried explaining in the previous post. For instance, within the concept of theory one can find various definitions depending on which field in which it is implemented. Scientific theory is based on empirical data and is believed to be true until proven otherwise using more empirical data from scientific models approved by the scientific community. Philosophical theory, however, is basically theories which are based on the minds’ thoughts of a certain philosopher. For instance, the theory of epistemology as defined by Kant (discussed in theme 1) isn’t based on data acquired empirically, but rather the thoughts and argument laid out by Kant in his texts. The question I ask myself is whether or not this is a better/more objective view of theory than that of the sciences. At least with the Kant version of theory we don’t fool ourselves that there’s some objective truth to what is stated, as it is with scientific theories. However, perhaps humanity wouldn’t be able to develop technical gadgets and revolutionary objects had we not perceived scientific theory as truth until proven otherwise. This doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with Sutton & Staw or Gregor’s definition, described in my previous post, on that theory is for e.g the answers to the question of why or contemplation - but rather that there exists another layer as to what theory means for different areas of application. A notion that was eye-opening which was discussed during both the lecture and seminar, in association with this fact, was that us at KTH are squeezed through the mold which is scientific theory - and we therefore don’t even consider theory as something which could be of any other form than based on empirical data.
Difference between theory and hypothesis was something which was discussed greatly during the seminar. Even though I previously had an idea of what defined the two concepts, seeing as I’ve used them when writing the KEx-essay, it turned out it was a lot harder to define that I had assumed. The definition discussed was that hypothesis is ideas (often based on theory) that can be tested through some theoretic framework. For instance, the Big Bang theory could be tested from the hypothetical notion that an explosion forces objects to continuously spread out over space and time, and that there was a Big Bang since this means that the theory of the universe’s continuous expansion is explained. Furthermore, based on what is written in the texts that theory is hard (if not impossible) to generalize over different application, our concept of theory is basically personal and can will differ dependent on which area of application we use.
söndag 20 september 2015
fredag 18 september 2015
Pre-seminar reflection 3
Journal: Computers in Human Behaviour
Impact Factor: 2.489
This journal addresses the empirical studies of computer usage from a psychological perspective. Thus, the computer is only discussed as a medium and not as a technological device as such. Therefore, the articles in the journal handle problems related to humans’ behaviour when using computers and their different softwares.
I’ve chosen the article “Who interacts on the web?: The intersection of users’ personality and social media use”, written by Correa, Hinsley, & de Zuniga for the journal Computers in Human Behaviour . The article was published on the 26’th of October 2009.
The article tries to map users’ behaviour, from a group of US adults (varying in age), in social media - and what factors, from an existing literature-based framework, work as motivators for this particular behaviour. The factors researched were: extraversion (to what extent the user seeks interaction with others), emotional stability (whether the user has mental problems of any kind), and openness to experience (if the user is welcoming to new experiences or not). Thus, from these factors the authors of the article tried to pinpoint what kind of attributes lead to what kind of social media behaviour.
The findings show that a high extraversion and openness to experiences lead to an increased amount of interaction in social media platforms, whereas a higher emotional stability lead to lower engagement. Although the results varied by age and gender, the findings mentioned were relatively general. However, for instance only men with a higher emotional instability were more frequent users, while extraversion in younger users increased social media usage more than with older users. Also, openness to experiences resulted in more engagement with mostly the older users.
- Briefly explain to a first year university student what theory is, and what theory is not.
Sutton & Staw (authors of “What Theory is Not”) define “theory” as “the answers to queries of why”, whereas Gregor (author of “The Nature of Theory in Information Systems”) states that it could for instance be “a mental view”, or a “contemplation”. Thus, I would describe theory as a solution, often based on practicalities, which is not practical but is accounted for from some form of empirical evidence and research. For instance, research data and statistics are not theory, but can be the basis for it. Also, as is mentioned by Sutton & Staw, theories are answers to why e.g. acts, events, and thoughts occur - they enhance our understanding of that which is around us.
- Describe the major theory or theories that are used in your selected paper. Which theory type (see Table 2 in Gregor) can the theory or theories be characterized as?
The theories used in the article correspond to what Gregor describes in his table of theories as #4: “Explanation and Prediction (EP)”. This is since the article, and entire journal for that matter, bases its theoretical approach on empirical data in psychology which points towards people’s behaviour. Thus, not only does the theory speak of what is, why, when, and where, but also what will be - since it’s connected to the psyche of user behaviour and its motivators in social media engagement.
- Which are the benefits and limitations of using the selected theory or theories?
The use of theories corresponding to Gregor’s definition of “Explanation and Prediction” simply gives the reader a vision of how a user will behave when confronting social media. Thus, the article doesn’t speak of potential designs social media platforms could use in order to conform to their user behavior (as it would had they used theories of Gregor’s “Design and Action” clausule). However, this use of theory leaves the reader with a framework for addressing the issue in the way they see fit. For instance, a software developer can now use this research to create better and more user friendly experiences in their solution.
Post-seminar reflection 2
During this week’s lecture and seminar, Henrik Åhman described the concepts and ideas discussed in my previous blog posts more in-depth, and thereby gave me a deeper understanding as to what they mean and meant for the age of enlightenment and its cultural development. As many others, I previously had a hard time grasping the concepts of nominalism and realism since they seemed rather similar while the texts’ authors described them as opposites. During the lecture, and seminar in particular, this was discussed and further described. The way I now understand realism, as per Plato’s description of Socrates’ Cave, is that it is a way of looking at objects and events with a knowledge of them having pre-assigned connotations based on what we know of them. The example discussed was that a realist saw a chair as a representation of the vision we have of a chair. Therefore, there exists such a thing as a “perfect chair” from which all other chairs stem, and from which all chairs receive their inherent properties. On the other hand, a nominalist would simply see the chair through the empirical senses and therefore not ascribe to it any properties other than it existing then and there. Furthermore, during the seminar, we discussed Benjamin’s notion of substructure and superstructure and how the concepts could be implemented at a societal level (as I’ve discussed in my pre-reflection), but also on a more objectal or practically conceptual level. For instance, we discussed that it is the substructure which is the most interchangeable, whereas the superstructure often takes a lot more time and effort to change - i.e. cultural patterns etc.
The way Benjamin and Adorno & Horkheimer differ in their view of culture having revolutionary potentials or not was also discussed, where Benjamin saw e.g. cinema as a cultural revolution for the common man since this was an opportunity for them to become depicted and thereby have an impact on society. However, Adorno & Horkheimer (being stationed in Hollywood) meant that this development where freedom of choice had emerged simply after a while lead people to ignore the fact that there were depictions of real people and events on the big screen, and rather saw it as just entertainment. Much like many of us in Sweden disregard our privilege when it comes to democratic voting, and simply chose not to vote. Since we’ve had it for such a long time and it’s become a regular custom, we tend not to append to it the same weight as it had when it was introduced (obviously). After having this discussion, as opposed to the discussion I had in the pre-reflection, I wasn’t as sure I only agreed with Benjamin anymore - since both sides were in the right in their own senses.
Furthermore I got somewhat of an eye-opener when we discussed natural and historical perception. Much like the discussion we had in our first seminar on from where Kant’s faculties of knowledge had arisen, so landed the discussion on natural and historical perception. The way I see it, the only things we can perceive naturally (i.e. natural perception), without any experience from history or previous events, are basically the concepts of time and space. Even though we might see to for instance the wheel as an intuitive invention and a natural object, we had the exact same brain capacity before the wheel was invented as we have today ☺. Thus there is not a single event or object apart from those mentioned above that can be categorized under natural perception, they’re all historically perceived.
fredag 11 september 2015
Pre-seminar reflection 2
Dialectic of Enlightenment
- What is "Enlightenment"?
“The enlightenment” is a period in time in which people started taking interest in gaining knowledge about the world and happenings that take place within it. Before the age of enlightenment, the church was the main source of knowledge and information in the world. After which, philosophers like e.g. Aristotle, and Plato, and scientists like Galileo, and Copernicus, came and reinvented the notion of knowledge since they began questioning the non-scientifically proven religious beliefs. “Enlightenment” as a term could potentially then be defined as the concept of being filled with the thirst for scientific evidence and knowledge of the world around us and its inherent properties.
- What is "Dialectic"?
The concept of “Dialectic” is the predecessor to creation of knowledge. More precise, it is the notion of people conducting an argumentative discussion during which both sides come closer and closer to an agreement which then can be seen as knowledge on the subject discussed. Through discussing and using real functional arguments and remaining true to the task of knowledge creation, those discussing can come to a conclusion which brings both sides of the argument together in unison. Also, according to Horkheimer and Adorno, one can argue that the concept of “dialect” was the main source of knowledge during the age of enlightenment as discussed above. Potentially, introducing the concept of dialectic gave way to the development that would later be known as enlightenment.
- What is "Nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?
Nominalism is a philosophical and metaphysical term which contains the notion that various objects don’t share any properties (other than potentially their name). This means that, according to nominalism, that which is observable is the only real truth since knowledge is experience. For instance, the notion of a human, in nominalistic terms, is only the thing which we see (shape, size, etc), not the properties we would generally append a human (personality, looks, strength, etc).
The reason as to why it’s an important concept in the text is that it questions the being of objects and their qualities, which is a fundamental part of the dialectic discussion lead during the enlightenment. Abstract thoughts and concepts such as God, myths, and other religious concepts, are therefore not real since they cannot be seen (i.e. experienced), while real factual things in this world remain real due to us being able to perceive them.
- What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?
Myths are described by the authors as stories, not built upon real perceived facts or knowledge. According to enlightenment, anthropomorphism (the projection of subjective properties onto nature), have always been the basis of myth. All ideas of horrible mythical creatures can be derived from human’s fear of natural phenomena, and thus myths are born since the fear is projected onto these occurrences.
"The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity"
- In the beginning of the essay, Benjamin talks about the relation between "superstructure" and "substructure" in the capitalist order of production. What do the concepts "superstructure" and "substructure" mean in this context and what is the point of analyzing cultural production from a Marxist perspective?
According to Benjamin, Marx defines substructure as the existing economic structure of society (stretching from capitalism to socialism) which then defines the concept of superstructure. Superstructure is the concept within which a society’s values, norms, and institutions are determined - as mentioned based on the substructure (i.e. social economic structure). Thus, Benjamin describes the two definitions as cooperating in order to create a specific society and its inherent values and norms.
- Does culture have revolutionary potentials (according to Benjamin)? If so, describe these potentials. Does Benjamin's perspective differ from the perspective of Adorno & Horkheimer in this regard?
Since Benjamin refers to the development of photography as a technological and cultural advancement which has yielded great potential for revolutionary ideas and ideologies to spread, I would argue that Benjamin believes that culture has revolutionary potential. The development of photography lead to people being able to capture, both in moving and still pictures, the world around them - letting them tell powerful stories of society which in turn could create revolution through people’s engagement. Adorno & Horkheimer state that this development rather lets people on a different track than that of engaged activists and revolutionaries. Therefore, culture is, by them, defined as rather something counteractive in the sense of revolution.
- Benjamin discusses how people perceive the world through the senses and argues that this perception can be both naturally and historically determined. What does this mean? Give some examples of historically determined perception (from Benjamin's essay and/or other contexts).
Benjamin states that the Romans developed of a kind of perception different from the ancient Greeks’ through new emerging art forms. Since Romans developed a new kind of art, different from those art forms previously prefered, they also perceived it differently and thus created a new way of perception. Thus, one might argue that this is a type of historically determined perception, since Romans during this time created a new way of perceiving through historical and cultural development. Naturally determined perception is however how people perceive based on nothing but our senses.
- What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)