Plato the Platypus

måndag 28 september 2015

söndag 27 september 2015

This week focused around the concept of scientific theory. When starting out this week’s reading I had a completely different view of what theory meant, to me it was the more casual definition which is more or less synonymous with hypotheses. To me a theory was something one thought could be true. But as I read I realized that scientific theory was concerned with why things are, more explanatory than a hypothesis. I enjoyed the way Sutton and Saw went about explaining what theory is by discussing what theory is not, this in combination with Gregor’s text where theory in the field of information systems was divided into five different categories with different attributes gave a good overview of theory during the reading!

I also chose a paper of my own to read and discuss on my blog. I felt it was rewarding to actually apply the theory categories on an actual work, it was also a bit tricky to identifty the theories and the categories they could belong to! It gave me a new way of thinking about papers when reading them which was interesting.

I unfortunately missed the lecture this week due to work, this made me appreciate how much going to the lectures actually does for the learning process during the theme. This week when going to the seminar I felt like I had not got to hear someone else’s view on theory, I had just my own thoughts, unlike previous weeks when the lecture had provided me with new perspectives before the seminar.

During the seminar I asked other members of my group for a small recap of the lecture, we also discussed how all of us had interpreted scientific theory. Previous to this I had felt this was a really straight forward theme, however discussing it in a group made me realize that we all still had a bit differing view on exactly what theory is. We talked a great deal about practice vs. theory, how one can see practice as applied theory and theory as abstracted practice.

All in all I felt this theme was more up my alley, so to speak, than the previous ones. I do feel more comfortable discussing theory than I did knowledge during theme 1. I believe that is because theory as a concept felt more tangible and definable than knowledge even though it too is somewhat abstract. Or perhaps I feel that way because this course already has made me more comfortable with thinking about and discussing abstract concepts.

fredag 25 september 2015

Theme 4 - Pre Seminar

I have chosen to discuss the paper Information, expression, participation: How involvement in user-generated content relates to democratic engagement among young people, published in 2012 by Johan Östman in the journal New Media & Society which has an impact factor of 2.007.

1. Which quantitative method or methods are used in the paper? Which are the benefits and limitations of using these methods?

This paper uses a quantitative questionnaire. It contains multiple-choice questions where the researcher assigns numerical values to the answers in order to perform statistical calculations on the results.

For example the question: “How often do you watch the following types on programs on TV?” presents the participant with several types of programs where the response options for each ranged from: “Never” which is assigned the numerical value 1, through “A few times a week” = 3, to “Daily” = 5. This type of question was asked about various types of media use as well as similar ones regarding time spent on the Internet and political participation online and offline.

The questionnaire also contained factual questions about politics where a correct answer was assigned 1 and a false one 0.

The main benefit I can identify is that this method provides numerical data on which statistical measurements and calculations can be made in order to show its validity. It is to some extent also more objective than the closest alternative, which would be a qualitative questionnaire where participants are allowed to formulate their own free text answers to the questions. This type of questionnaire would require much more subjective analysis from the researcher, such as deciding which answers are relevant and how to link together the answers from different participants in order to observe patterns.

The main limitation is that while the analysis of the results may become more objective in a sense using quantitative questionnaires the questions are harder to formulate in order to account for all the variations the participants might answer. In this paper this could for example be in the question regarding user-generated content (UGC) participation; the researcher has decided to use these alternatives of UGC: “Produce videos”, “Publish own music or videos on e.g. MySpace, YouTube”, “Share music, film or video files” and “Write personal blog”. These are just a few activities among all the different variations of UGC available online, if the questionnaire instead had been based on free text answers there might have been more users answering that they take part in UGC.

2. What did you learn about quantitative methods from reading the paper?

In the Degree Project in Media Technology, First Cycle, me and my partner used both quantitative and qualitative questionnaires, so I did have some knowledge regarding this specific method. The part of the use of the method in this paper that I will mainly take with me would be the use of factual questions that could be right or wrong and assigning correct answers 1 and incorrect ones as 0 for statistical reasons. While this might be a bit obvious from programming where 1=True and 0=False I had not thought about it in a questionnaire situation before.

3. Which are the main methodological problems of the study? How could the use of the quantitative method or methods have been improved?

I believe the main methodological problem of this study is the lack of variation in the alternatives both in the types of media being used and the political activities offered as alternatives in the questionnaire. I believe the researcher could have provided a few more alternatives, such as sharing illustrations on DeviantArt, and still have kept the questionnaire qualitative. There could also have been some sort of qualitative method as a complement to the questionnaires.

Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality

This was a really interesting paper which feels very relevant considering the growth of VR technology. The result showing that body ownership illusion can be affected by the appearance of the body can surely be used in many interesting ways! I have myself tried a VR headset and played a game where the goal was to try and make me move my hands off a keyboard by having things happening to the VR hands; even though this game lacked the sensory parts I still did not manage to keep my own hands on the keyboard through the entire game but removed them reflectively when a knife fell down into the VR-hand. So I have experienced some sort of body ownership illusion myself and feel intrigued by the result of this study!

Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative and qualitative methods respectively?

By using a qualitative method one can in many cases as previously mentioned obtain a wider, more detailed image of the subject in question. It also requires fewer participants since no statistics is being produced, but the lack of statistical data is also a limitation. It is also not possible to generalise results on a group outside of your participants.

Quantitative methods on the other hand has the great benefit of producing data which can be statistically examined and results can therefore be generalised on a larger group. It is also faster and easier to obtain more data through qualitative methods. As previously mentioned in more depth one of the largest limitations of qualitative data is that the result is limited to the specific data the researcher provide the participants with so to speak.

Östman, J. (2012). Information, expression, participation: How involvement in usergenerated content relates to democratic engagement among young people New Media & Society September 2012 vol. 14 no. 6 1004-1021

Kilteni, K., Bergstrom, I., & Slater, M. (2013). Drumming in immersive virtual reality: the body shapes the way we play. Visualization and Computer Graphics, IEEE Transactions on, 19(4), 597-605.

http://www.ehow.co.uk/info_8179604_pros-cons-qualitative-quantitative-research.html [obtained on September 25]

https://www.researchoptimus.com/blog/qualitative-vs-quantitative-research/ [obtained on September 25]

söndag 20 september 2015

Theme 1 - Comments

Theme 2 - Post Reflection

This week's theme was Critical Media Study, a theme which was more familiar to me than the one touched upon in Theme 1. The reading, consisting of Benjamin and Adorno and Horkheimer, was interesting but difficult at times. Benjamin's text felt all over the place at times and Adorno and Horkheimer's was a little hard to grasp at the first reading and therefore required a thorough second reading for me. The reading touched upon many new concepts for me, such as dialectic, nominalism, super- and substructure an many more! My experience of this theme has been very centred around learning about new concepts.

At the lecture the texts were put in a historical context, I had not during my reading given that much thought to the fact that Benjamin published his text in Germany in 1939 and Adorno Horkheimer published their in 1944. Their views on the importance, and revolutionary value, of culture got even more interesting when they were put in a historical perspective. I am going to start thinking more about this when reading texts for themes in the future!

During the seminar we discussed several of the questions, in my group we had interpreted certain things in different ways and it was interesting to hear differing views on certain concepts! The most interesting discussion in my group was definitely on the meaning of nominalism versus realism and what was meant by universals and particulars. One member in our group found it difficult to grasp the concept of universals, but got it when we used the colour pink as an example of a universal and gathered three pink items describing that a realist would find the "pinkness" of these things meaning that they have something in common as objects. A nominalist sees instead three unique things, the universal that they are all pink means nothing to a nominalist. I think we contributed to her understanding of the concept in a good way!

As mentioned above this theme has been entered around many new concepts for me, a lot of googling in order to try and make sense of new things. The theme was a bit easier to grasp than the previous one, but was still a bit outside my comfort zone and has been very interesting.

fredag 18 september 2015

Theme 3 - Pre Seminar

The scientific journal I have chosen is Information and Software Technology [1]. It has an impact factor of 1.046 and publishes papers which somehow improves the practice of software development. Many articles are relevant for a media technology student, as well as some more directed towards those studying computer science.

The paper I have chosen was published in Information and Software Technology 61 in 2015. Exploring principles of user-centered agile software development: A literature review was written by Manuel Brhel, Hendrik Meth, Alexander Maedche and Karl Werder. The paper looks into studies conducted in the field of user-centered agile software development (UCASD), a hybrid of agile software development and user-centerer design. Agile software development is characterised by the velocity and flexibility of its work while user-centered design always puts the user’s needs at the centre of its process (Brhel et al. 2015).

This hybrid approach has not existed for a very long time, but is gaining in popularity. The fact that it is such a new field makes this kind of literary review difficult to conduct, as there are not a large amount of literature out there, Brhel et al. do go in to great detail of how they took what was out there and tried to make sure the papers were relevant and well conducted. This selection of papers is always a weak point in literary reviews as it is necessary for someone to decide which papers to include and which not to, there will always be a subjective part in this selection.

The study maps UCASD practice as it is today, producing a coding system which illustrates how the process is carried out as well as guidelines for the practice of UCASD. These guidelines are presented in the form of five principles:

Separate product discovery and product creation
Iterative and incremental design and development
Parallel interwoven creation tracks
Continous stakeholder involvement
Artifact-mediated communication

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

Theory in the everyday sense may be a concept or a notion about something, but theory in scientific research is a bit more complex.

In science there is a lack of consensus on exactly what theory is (Sutton & Staw 1995). But in the broad sense theory can be viewed as an interpretation of facts, an answer to questions as of why things are [2]. Theories also differ between different disciplines, a theory in mathematics and one in psychology will not be built the same way (Gregor 2006). Theories can for example analyse, explain and predict in different combinations.

One of the easiest thing to do when conducting scientific research is to mix up theory with other concepts. In their essay “What Theory is Not.” Sutton & Staw point out the differences between theory and references, data, lists of variables or constructs, diagrams and hypotheses or predictions. Theory differ from these concepts in the way that it explains why events, acts, structure and thought occur while the others mainly involve themselves with what occurs or has previously occurred.

2. Describe the major theory or theories that are used in your selected paper. Which theory type (see Table 2 in Gregor) can the theory or theories be characterized as?

I would classify the theory in the paper I have chosen as number II and V in Gregorg’s text, Explanation and Design and action. With the coding system mentioned above they explain how UCASD works today and why it works like this, making it an Explanatory theory according to Gergor’s five types.

With the five principles produced in the paper Brhel et al. describe how work in UCASD can be done efficiently and by doing this produce a Design and action theory which describes how to do something, work using UCASD in this case.

3. Which are the benefits and limitations of using the selected theory or theories?

When using theory II and V one effectively describes what is, how it is, why it is and where it is and at the same time provides guidelines and says how to do it. These theories in other words produce a wide picture not only of the current state of things, but also how one might accomplish that thing in the best manner. I would say the broad picture this produces is the largest benefit of using theory II and V.

What this approach lacks is some sort of prediction, it does not provide any information in regards to what could happen in the future and does not provide any testable propositions. The Design and action theory is not testable, nor is the Explanation one, what they do is provide a wide picture of the current state, but not one which can be tested. This is in my opinion the largest limitations of using these theories.

[1] http://www.journals.elsevier.com/information-and-software-technology/

[2] http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html
Brhel, M., Meth, H., Maedche, A., & Werder, K. (2015). Exploring principles of user-centered agile software development: A. Information and Software Technology, 61, 163-181.

Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642.
Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B. M. (1995). What Theory is Not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371-384.

söndag 13 september 2015

Theme 1 - Post reflection

I do not consider myself a person who regularly gives a great deal of thought to the subjects touched upon during this week’s theme nor philosophy in general. It was therefore quite daunting to start reading Plato and Kant, Theaetetus and the preface to Critique of Pure Reason were not the easiest of text to get through either.

When I started reading I had a quite hard time wrapping my head around the material, especially Kant, and I read through the text more than once. I also participate in several discussions with other students taking this course; we discussed our own take on the texts and our own opinions on the question “What is knowledge?”. I also used the internet quite heavily during my readings do find out more about the concepts mentioned. I continued doing so even after the blogpost had been posted, I believe I had not quite digested the texts so to speak when I wrote my blog post before the theme started.

During the seminar we discussed the texts, similar to what I had done before the start of the theme. It was interesting to once again discuss the two texts, this time with different people. The group of four people I discussed with could most probably have discussed for longer than the allotted time during the seminar! Hearing different opinions as well as things others hade given thought to about the texts that I had not was very rewarding. Our group discussed for example objectivity and subjectivity to great lengths, a priori and a posteriori knowledge, when we start gaining knowledge and wether some knowledge is innate and how to try being subjective when trying to gain scientific knowledge. I felt like a good contributing factor in these discussions.

During this theme I actually feel like I have not only learnt about concepts as such, but also to some extent what it is to have a philosophical discussion. Sometimes it was frustrating to not actually find the “answer” to the issue discussed but instead simply gain knowledge from the discussion itself. For me this was a new way of learning! Reading philosophical texts is also something new to me that this theme has taught me. KTH is often about reading texts to learn about facts, but this reading was different to that. Besides this I also learnt about concepts, such as a priori and a posteriori, which I found very interesting. They made me think about knowledge in a whole new light as they made it clear that there are different kinds of knowledge.

Overall I think these theme has been a challenge, but one which has been rewarding.