Theme 3: Comments

Hello there! We too discussed the correlation between theory and hypothesis during our seminar and as you say there is not any consensus of what theory. That lack of consensus became pretty clear during our seminar since we had different interpretations and understandings of the concept. My standpoint aligns with the arguments you present here. Nevertheless, I do not agree with or fully comprehend what you mean that "it might not be relevant to get an overview of the concept Theory." Did you feel that this theme was excessive and unnecessary or just that the determination of what theory is hard to make? That it might be sufficient to have heard of the concept of theory but not to understand it to the core, due to the lack of consensus?

(link to comment on blogpost)

Theme 4: Quantitative methods - Post-reflection

The seminar for theme 4 on quantitative methods gave a better understanding of the distinction between quantitative and qualitative methods. Even though the basic difference is pretty clear, it is hard to draw the line where the transition occurs. A quantitative method is statistical and enables statistical analysis of some kind, often by using questionnaires. It is used to indicate a trend or generalisations within the field and done under uncontrolled conditions. Qualitative methods on the other hand is non-statistical and intended for deeper understanding of one specific topic.

During the seminar we discussed that qualitative methods are often conducted within psychology and humanistic fields since these topics are not as suited for collecting data and statistical analysis. Also how design problems often falls within the framework for qualitative methods. Ilias presented this as Wicked Problems; they can not really be answered quantitatively since they are often built on opinions. Thereby they are instead solved through design research. We discussed the example for designing a new mobile device. It is difficult to find new and innovative ideas through statistical analysis. You could find trend of what people do not buy but not what they need and want per se. Even if it could be possible it would be much more time consuming than a qualitative research method.

We also discussed how the project methods performed as a basis for his article were purely quantitative. Even though some of the preparations before the testing the simulated drumming experience where of qualitative measure, not mentioned in the article but acknowledged by Ilias, the actual tests and data collected was only quantitative. The reason for this was according to Ilias that they did not want to, or at least minimize, influence on their subjects during the tests which quantitative methods fulfill.

In contrast to the pure quantitative method of Ilias experiment we conversed about research questions that were mainly or solely qualitative. Generally, a topic of this kind would be any with non-statistical character and preferably consisting of interviews within an area that debates opinions. An example of a clear qualitative research question that one participant recalled from having heard the story before. The investigation of heavy metal listeners opinions concerning sexual-orientations.  

Theme 5: Design Research - Pre-reflection

1. How can media technologies be evaluated?

Media technologies is best evaluated by use of the users. Since they are developed for the user it is crucial that they meet the user’s needs. This means that usability is an important matter that needs close attention. Usability includes effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction as Haibo Li et. al. describe in their article. These key factors must be met for the media technology to succeed. To investigate how a new technology performs within these terms a common and well functioning way is to use interactive mockups that give the testers an idea of how the final product will work, how it will perform and how you interact with it.

2. What role will prototypes play in research?

Prototypes hold a very important role in research since they, as briefly described above, give the users an idea of what the product is to be. By presenting the basics of a new technology, the users will get insight and easier be constructive with what needs to be further developed and what needs to go. Prototypes can also be useful as you look back on your process and all the steps you took to reach the final goal.

3. Why could it be necessary to develop a proof of concept prototype?

The proof of concept, POC, prototype is constructed with the purpose to demonstrate and verify the concept and what it will become. This is to better present and understand how it will play in before launch which then tells you whether or not the technology is ready for the market. This prevents or at least decreases the risk for releasing a product too early.

4. What are characteristics and limitations of prototypes?

A prototype is a simplistic version of the final product. It is mainly used to give users an idea of what the final thing will be and simulate a function, or all, before it is all done. It enables for more discussion about what alterations should be done to constantly strive for best possible outcome. A limitation could be that the prototypes fails to replicate the final product, giving the users the wrong idea instead of enhancing it. This could both create confusion of what is really intended to develop as well as slow down the design process.

5. How can design research be communicated/presented?

The design research itself is used to show and investigate how the product is to be developed. It can be communicated through prototyping since this is an effective way of showing yor process and thoughts behind the project.

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

In the article Finding Design Qualities in a Tangible Programming Space by Ylva Fernaeus and Jakob Tholander, it is investigated on how design qualities can affect and be coordinated as a tangible programming space for children. The empirical data retrieved constituted of observations done during the children’s interaction with their predeveloped tangible programming space that allowed the children to collaboratively create a dynamic playful environment.

The article Differentiated Driving Range: Exploring a Solution to the Problems with the “Guess-O-Meter” in Electric Cars has a standpoint that tries to

They began with conducting a state of the art analysis through searching the web for information of how different user interfaces were designed in different car models and also how these designs were discussed and reviewed on blog posts and videos. To elaborate these notions of views, they did an analysis of the discourse on online forums. Finally, an iterative design exploration was included to gain further insight in the problems. Through sketches and prototypes they were able to test and analyze interaction and draw conclusions.

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

In theory, one could work with a practical design process without any outer evaluation. Despite this lacking logic, not having any input during the design process but your own, it could be done. If that work would then be used and as a base for further development, with other and more participants and/or subjects aiding the process, it would be considered knowledge contribution.

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

Depending on your research question the intention will most likely be different. In a research project your goal is to answer a specific research question for further research or design alternatives. Imagine Apple, they have a research team looking for out of the box ideas for future implementation into their product line. That process requires a research project with a design goal in mind. Meanwhile, they also develop new products that have already been researched, hence not requiring that step, but merely just requires being developed and launched. Thereby, the design intentions differ.

- 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?

Without any doubt I’d say. Since tech, so far, never stops evolving and developing as well as that our interactions and engagement habits vary from day to day, any study that would be conducted once again would most likely give differents outputs. Even more so the longer time passes between the two studies.

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

The firstmost thought is that there is a significant difference between design driven research versus any other research practice. The reason being, similar to the question before, how our habits and routines constantly change. Interaction behaviours might come and go but are rarely very extant during each cycle. Furthermore, a design driven research is almost exclusively of qualitative manner. This is due to the research being of emotional values and within humanistic fields where opinions matters.

Theme 2: Comments

Hi!

I completly agree with you that there has to be a balance in how we view and percieve the world, otherwise it would really be kind of dull and static as you say! And yes, media is truly powerful. Often more so than governments, at least more influential. You have probably seen the clip but I must mention it anyhow. When Hans Rosling visits a Danish news studio and lectures him in how the world works. There he explicitly says that you cannot use media to learn about the world. Not to be blind and trust all that is said by the journalists and news anchors.
Regarding your last sentence, do you mean that a reproduction can serve the same purpose as an original? Would you say that reproductions indifferent substitues that fulfill the same need and feel despite loosing their "aura" as claimed in the texts? Might the aura only be lost to those who are truly educated and versed in art?

(link to comment)

Theme 4: Quantitative research - Pre-reflection

Chosen article:

An exploratory study of factors influencing repurchase behaviors toward game items: A field study
Lee, J., Lee, J., Lee, H., Lee, J., Computers in Human Behaviour 53 (2015) 13-23. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563215004574


This article studies what factors influence online game item purchases and especially repurchase behaviours. The intention is to understand what factors that trigger a repurchasing behaviour of online game items. To accomplish this the authors base their research on 2,060,685 observations of online game purchases made from a game company. The observations revealed various different factors that affected purchasing behaviours such as recency of purchase, purchase frequency and purchase cycle. These findings lead to the statement that “unconscious” purchase behaviours, immersion, impulse purchases and habits, should be further analyzed.


The main quantitative method used in this this article was, as briefly described above, the massive about of observations and statistics of online purchases acquired from the game company. By using this method, the paper gained a new perspective to the area of online game purchasing behaviours since this was the first time a highly statistical method was used. Similar and earlier studies had mainly used questionnaires or qualitative methods such as interviews. But due to the load of data that was collected, the authors were able to see other trends and draw new conclusions to how purchasing behaviours appear. The downside with questionnaire is that there is no guarantee that the subjects answer 100 % correct since their perception of their purchases might not actually concur with the actual purchase behaviour.


What limited this study was that the game company they received data from, actually had a database of 84,434,287 observations from online game purchases. That is more than 40 times more observations than what was actually used and there was no explanation why they had limited their study to only 2,060,685 observations. If the entire amount of observations had been used, the results had of course been more precise. The trends and conclusions the paper reached might even had looked different. It would also have been interesting to see statistics from another game company. By only using this one, the data was obviously quite narrow and thereby inclined the results.


Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality

The paper conducted a study of how react to and behave when exposed to and interacting with an Immersive Virtual Reality (IVR). That is, virtual reality taken one step further, giving the user a deeper experience through, in this case, a new personal body or bodily characteristics. This body replaces your and stimulates your own, real life body, as you interact in the virtual reality. All with the intention to create a higher sense of “being there”.


The key points of the paper was to investigate who this kind of interaction affects us. And more precisely, if our virtual representation of a body differs from our real body as well as if or when we interact with objects typically more associated with that new and varying body. Even though I’ve tried VR before and at one occasion even IVR with a simulated body I can not relate to feeling any substantial behavioural difference or even cognitive consequences as found in some cases of their study. At least not any variations that I was aware of. But after having read and thought about this experiment, I think that the next time I experience IVR, my awareness of what I am experiencing will be different and that my interaction might adapt to what I interacting with in the virtual reality.


Before choosing whether to use quantitative or qualitative methods for your research, you should investigate what you plan to achieve. A quantitative method constitutes of large numbers of data, often without any particular selection. It is used to generalize results from a sample of the entire dataset which is then used to construct a statistical analysis. That analysis can often indicate trends and thereby point towards a final course of action. Qualitative methods, are instead based on few but thorough investigations, often in the form of interviews. These methods are used to gain a deeper understanding for motives, thoughts and opinions. The findings are seldom conclusive and are not suitable to serve as a representation or generalization within the topic. Instead, the qualitative methods can be used to indicate the next step, what needs further investigation.

Theme 3: Research and theory - Post-reflection

During the lecture and followed up at our seminar discussions we identified different types of theories. The most common scientific theory that is well confirmed by the currently modern methods of science. It is motivated by consistency and can always be explained and measured. The other larger type of theory is philosophical theories, that is not based in empirical data but solely in people’s conviction; hence not being false until proven so, according to scientific measures.

Furthermore we discussed theories correlation to hypotheses and found it to be very close. Sometimes even hard to determine whether a topic, observation or experience is theory or hypothesis. The conclusion of our discussion, based on what we interpreted from the lecture, was that it is all objective and dependent on our presuppositions and previous experiences. For example we discussed the image of a frozen, snowy forest that Leif showed us during the lecture. In our context, in Sweden and where most of us if not all in that lecture hall are also brought up in Sweden, our first thought is that the image is of a frozen, snowy forest. The theory around that image is unified. On the other hand, if the image would have been shown in a classroom in Africa or a place on earth where snow never falls and the citizens have never experienced it, the interpretations would have differed. They might even have claimed that the trees and ground was painted in white. In that context, that would have been their theory. This comes down to our conclusion of our discussion that theories are hypotheses until scientifically proven, philosophically agreed upon which in itself takes us to our core thought: if enough people within a context are unified and convinced about a phenomena, it turns into theory for them.

However, during the group discussion with the entire class this distinction was not entirely agreed upon. Rather we said that a hypothesis is: concise formulation of a particular expectation that you then experiment within. Hypotheses need not build on a theory and can be tested and determined whether true or false. Also, theories are not necessarily divided into different types but something abstract we construct in order to enhance our understanding of the world. Nevertheless, Leif said during his lecture that “Theory is a coherent reasoning for explaining phenomena and is used until proven inapplicable by another theory. [...] it can take a long time to convince people that a new theory is valid and should replace the old theory.”, a statement that is in line with our initial reasoning. Leif also said that there are different views on what theory is, which could hence describe our varying opinions during the open class discussion.

The divergence we got round up in however, regarding what defined theory, when sitting in the smaller groups, was a mix up of theory and truth. While theory is as discussed above, truth is something a unified crowd believes in and is convinced about. Take religion as an example. Even though we have never been able to find any evidence or proof of a higher force or God, people still believe there is one. Yet they live by and consider religion as truth.

Theme 1: Comments

Hello,

I too, like you, had a clouded mind regarding the message Kant wanted to mediate with his Critique for Pure Reason prior to the seminar. But your reasoning shows that a week spent wondering and pondering at the lecture and seminar gave you a better understanding of the texts. That space and time comes inherently to each person does seem obvious and in line with Kant's reasoning. But an interesting thought to debate this with is: imagine an infant child being held in solitude from any outer stimuli, culture or upbringing, would this child still gain the same perception of space and time? Would the child learn to walk (a question we discussed during our seminar) or what skills would s/he develop? Would s/he inherit the same skills as any other child or would it differ due to the complete separation?

Link to commented blog post