Comments

Qualitative and case study research

·         Gustav Boström 

17 december 2013 11:35

Hej Gustav!

I liked the way you described how the methodology used in your paper is a bottom up approach, meaning that we go from data to theory building.

I would have to say that for me the first seminar was useful because I realized that narratives is, as you say, a slightly different qualitative methodology (than interviews). Before the seminar I would categorize as an open-ended interview. So, the seminar was useful in understanding the importance of using stories as a source of information for a specific research topic, as well as the benefits and limitations of narratives. I am not sure that I agree with the critique on narratives not being theoretical enough. What do you think?

·         Adam Rosén  

17 december 2013 02:59

Hej Adam!

I find the first paper that you chose to be really interesting! Indeed cyberbullying is a growing phenomenon, therefore research on it is necessary in order to better understand it and its implications. As we discussed in the first seminar, this research topic was poorly examined in previous literature. So this study-even though it has limitations, e.g. the overpresentation of victims- is valuable because it touches upon an interesting topic and it serves as a starting point for further research.

I also prefer semi-structured interviews (instead of structured and open-ended) because I feel that having some structure will allow you to keep the discussion within the researched topic and its focus, while at the same time there is room for personal expression and creativity.

·         Mårten Cederman 

17 december 2013 03:22

Hej Mårten!

I like the way you discuss about the trend in researches to combine qualitative and quantitative methodologies. As you say, research papers are not black or white. I also discussed (in previous blog posts), that choosing the methodology used in a paper depends on the research question and the aims of the research. All methodologies have both benefits and limitations. But as peer of us noted, combining methodologies doesn't only mean getting the benefits of the methodologies used; we should take into consideration of their limitations. Do you agree with that?

·         Reply to Adam Rosén’s commenton my blog post 

Adam Rosén, 16 December 2013 15:46

Hey Katerina-Ioanna!

Interesting subjects indeed. Regarding your first paper concerning breast cancer, do I believe that the metrology "Narratives" can be really interesting. My first though is how this paper would be different if the authors conducted another method, one of the more "normal" ones. Do you believe that the results and conclusions would be "better" if that were to be the case?

ReplyDelete

Katerina-Ioanna Kourti, 17 December 2013 13:12

Hej Adam!

Indeed, narratives can be really interesting and useful in getting meaningful information by the participants. The participants are able to express themselves in ways that are meaningful to them.

Taking into consideration that in this paper they explore the utilization of internet as means of health information consumption among young women who had breast cancer and who were known to be Internet users, I think that methodology used was the appropriate one. I say that in the sense that the research question was pretty narrow. Additionally, cancer is a sensitive topic and therefore the participants might feel more relaxed and it might be easier for them be able to open up by narratizing about their experience.

Having said that, I would like to note that other methodologies could also be useful and appropriate. I was also thinking of what would happen had the researchers used another qualitative methodology. To answer your question I believe that using face-to-face open-ended interviews, online questionnaires, or even diaries could provide different results and conclusions. But we cannot be sure about it. And even if the results and conclusions were quite different, I don't know if we could characterize them as "better" .

·         Edvard Ahlsén 

December 17, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Hej Edvard!

I like the way that you critically reflect on the research paper that you chose. You note that is was an exercise of affirming a hypothesis in a rather weak way. How would you suggest that the researchers would test it in a better way? Do you think that more qualitative data would be enough? Or is it by the combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies, as you discuss in your reflection?

Regarding your comment on sample sizes being small, I would like to say that I have the same feeling about many case studies. But on the other hand I understand that it is difficult, time consuming and confusing to examine and evaluate the findings of large samples. Furthermore, most of the qualitative methodologies that we discussed during the first seminar were criticized for the same reason-small sample sizes.

·         Carl Ahrsjö 

17 december 2013 21:20

Hej Carl!

It was nice to read your reflection because in my seminar group we did not discuss that much about focus groups. You discuss about the inspiration that you can get by other participants in focus groups and that it might be easier for a person to speak freely in individual interviews. I believe that other factors play an important role in a participant speaking freely, e.g. the personality of the participant, the dynamics of the focus group and as you discussed the moderators ability to moderate the discussion. I would like to note that I agree with your comment about the moderator playing an important role when it comes to focus groups.

·         Comment to Filip Erlandsson 

Filip Erlandsson17 december 2013 13:51

Hi Carl, i see that you also talked a lot about focus groups and interviews on your seminar. I totally agree with your conclusions about it being easier to speak freely in interviews but that discussion with other might create more thoughts. What we discussed in our seminar around focus groups was that we believed it could be a good complement to other methods. None of us wanted to use it as a standalone method. We also discussed about the role of the moderator being very important, for example to get everyone to speak.

The narrative and diary methods seems to be very interesting but i have no experience of them. They seem to be very time efficient methods, with the participating subjects doing much of the work themselves without interuption by the researcher. Do you agree?

Svar

Katerina-Ioanna Kourti, 17 december 2013 21:41

Hej Filip,

In my seminar group we discussed the narrative methodology. As my group wrote on the course wiki, the general idea is to see a story as a source of information for a specific research. Indeed, I find it really interesting and useful because the researchers can get valuable information based on the participants' narratives. Narratizing about their experiences and thoughts allows the participants to express themselves in ways that are meaningful to them.

But I wouldn't necessarily characterize the diary and the narratives as time efficient methodologies. On the contrary, I think that keeping a diary is a time consuming method. Additionally, I would characterize the analysis of the collected information in both these methodologies as time consuming. It might also be difficult and the researchers might need to spend a lot of time to select only the relevant information according to their research questions.

·         Johannes Hörnfeldt Nordström 

17 december 2013 13:05

Hej Johannes!

I think that the first paper that you chose had an interesting topic. I wanted to ask you if you consider the sample as representative. I am also wondering (as Zahra does) on whether the participants were chosen from one website. If yes, then the generalization of the results and the conclusions might be problematic.

I agree with your comment about the limitation of this study being that they only interviewed each individual once. I think that it would be more interesting and more helpful to have follow up interviews with the same participants.

·         Zahra Al Houaidy 

17 december 2013 22:30

Hej Zahra!

I find the topic of the paper "Publicly Private and Privately Public: Social Networking on YouTube” really interesting. And I agree with Jenny's comment-it does seem to be a well conducted study, with a good combination of three qualitative methodologies!

I really liked how you discussed the methodologies used in this study, their benefits and limitations.

Since we did not discuss content analysis methodology in my seminar group, I especially liked reading your reflections about this methodology. I also consider the collection of data and the analysis time consuming.

Conducting the interviews in different ways- by phone, mail etc- might be useful in collecting information that the researcher needs and because it he is able to reach a broader target. But I would have to say that I agree more with your previous comment about "the limitations to interviews are the possibility of the respondents to choose what information to disclose and the varying possibilities of reflection to the different ways of conducting the interview".

·         Jenny Sillén 

17 december 2013 14:19

Hej Jenny!

Your selected paper "Technology for health: A qualitative study on barriers to using the iPad for diet change" seems interesting.

I like how you critically reflect upon the methodology used. I think that focus groups can provide us with explanations on phenomena and deeper understanding. As all research methods, focus group methodology has both benefits and limitations. I agree with your comment on the limitations of using a homogeneous group-in this case college students who are probably comfortable with digital information and apps.

As you mention, another limitation is that some participants might be affected by others' opinions, or that they might feel embarrassed to open up. Therefore, I believe that the moderator plays an important role in enabling everybody to express their point of view and keep the discussion going on and within the research topic-focus.

You note that individual interviews might also be constructive. So, I was wondering on whether you agree with a comment that I read on another blog post about focus groups being more of a complementary methodology. To be more specific, Filip discussed that he would not want to use it as a standalone method. Do you believe that focus groups should be used in combination with other methodologies?

Design Research

·         Reply to Simon Schmitz’s comment on my blog post 

Simon Schmitz, 11 December 2013 19:15

Hej Kat, I liked how you related your description of design research to Gregors understanding of it. But I think that his characterization of design research as "how to do something" a bit vage and unclear after we had the lectures about this topic. I found it interesting how Ylva pointed out that design research also consists of analyzing, building on existing theories and Li mentioned that evaluation and validation also has to be taken into account. It seems as if Gregor wanted design research to be more broad since it "can" cover lots of different approaches. What do you think?

Replies

Katerina-Ioanna Kourti, 11 December 2013 19:54

I agree with you that Gregor's characterization could be a little vague and broad, especially after having attended this week's lectures. I only used this as a starting point because I wanted to note that design research is considered as theory type and as research by the scientific community.

I also found interesting what Ylva discussed in the lecture-as all types of theories and research, so does design research need to be grounded to previous literature. As you say it builds on existing theories, it consists of analysis and it can provide deeper understanding.

·         Johannes Hörnfeldt Nordström 

11 december 2013 11:36

Hej Johannnes!

I agree with you that Haibos lecture had a different focus- on how ideas could be turned into commercial product. We did discuss about addressing to a real problem that appeals to a big enough market, about business mind and exploitation of ideas, about timing, tips for innovation, profits, patents and IP rights. So, I wanted to ask your opinion on the commercialization of scientific research. I have read concerns that ptenting activity from Universities might harm the open science culture-ideas, theories and findings are articulated freely between the scientific community so that everybody have access to it- which characterized Universities and academia. Do you agree with that?

• Carl Ahrsjö 

11 december 2013 20:54

Hej Carl!

Indeed, it was an eye opener that qualitative methods are not limited to interviews and focus groups, but that they also include observations on design concepts. I agree with the notion that it is research since it presented something new and since it was based on previous research and grounded on previous literature.

I also found Haibo's lecture influential in the sence that the most critical choice for a scientist is what problems to work on. But the main point that I take with me from this lecture is the technical communication of the idea. Selling your research to investors is not an easy task. It is important to develop entrepreneurial spirit so that we are able to communicate our knowledge and projects.

·         Reply to Filip Erlandsson’s comment on my blog post 

Filip Erlandsson, 11 December 2013 20:10

Hi, i did not have the chance to be present at Ylvas lecture so it is interesting to read what it was about. It would have been interesting to go by reading what you have written about the differences between design research and research. I agree with you that Haibos lecture was focused much on commercialization of an idea. There were clear examples of that i think, for example that a great idea was in the billion dollar segment i think and a good idea in the million dollar segment or something like that. Another example was when talking about how design research can be communicated and he mentioned an elevator pitch. That feels very much like business oriented. I would have imagined something else like presenting it at a conference or show casing your prototype.

Reply Delete

Katerina-Ioanna Kourti, 11 December 2013 21:25

Hi there!

Since you were not able to attend the first lecture, I would like to add that Ylva also critically reflected on the paper. Among other things she discussed that the design might have been different if the study was conducted today and that even though questionnaires and interviews might help us in validating a research, validation does not depend only on these two. We also discussed on whether statistics would make the study better.

Regarding the second lecture, I do believe that Haibo's lecture was business oriented and I found that really interesting! Especially the elevator pitch and the technical communication of the idea. I do believe that it is important for us to be able to communicate our research and knowledge. And as I said, I find it helpful that some universities have innovation training. After all, we should be prepared for the business field.

·         Andreas Sylvan 

11 december 2013 21:49

Hej Andreas!

I liked how you presented the main points of the lectures!

What I will get from both lectures is the importance of being able to communicate your knowledge, in sharing it, in getting others to take notice.

I also believe that the definition of the problem is more important than finding the solution. Therefore, we should focus more on defining the right problem.

·         Stefan Etoh 

11 december 2013 22:11

Hej Stefan!

I find it really interesting that you chose to end with this phrase: "I don't have to outrun the bear, I only have to outrun you"! I believe that going one step behind and looking at the situation from a different perspective enables us to redefine the problem and thus to find the right solution.

I will also keep from Haibo's lecture that we cannot always trust ourselves and the related notion of Tunel Vision-how we cannot see the problem if it is outside our vision.

·         Lucy Armelin 

11 December 2013 13:42

Hi Lucy!

I really liked how you reflected upon the design research and how by have as a starting point something like fashion can provide new valuable insight and ways to examine a phenomenon. I find it interesting that this design concept can be applied to nearly anything and can be used for different options, such as commercial. But as I discussed in my blog post, what I got from this lecture is that design research is not always about commercialization of ideas.

Plus, something that I didn't really think before this week was that qualitative methodologies can be used in design research.

·         Matteo Campostrini 

11 December 2013 14:00

Hej Teo!

I really like how you critically discuss the use of qualitative and quantitative methodologies on design research! It was surprising for me, as it was for you, that design research can take advantage of qualitative methodologies.

What I will keep from Haibo's lecture is the importance of business thinking in order to be able to judge if your idea is a breakthrough and the ability to sell your researchers to investors. As you say, a successful idea doesn't have to be a truly innovative idea. But you need to be able to identify the gap in the market and combine different ideas and technologies in order to fill in that gap.

·         Ragnar Schön 

11 december 2013 23:16

Hej Ragnar!

I understood what Ylva meant by saying that this project was made into research because it presented something new based on what was presented in existing literature and on existing research, but I have to note that I agreed with your comment on that being in a research paper and on scientific conferences makes something into research. And I really liked how you explained that the definition of research depends on the pragmatic criterion.

·         Simon Schmitz 

December 11, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Hej Simon!

As usual, I find your comments and reflections to be really interesting! I specifically liked how you discuss the limitations of design research and how you connected the challenge of having a good idea, but not having the right tools to implement it, with the real life scenario of Cameron waiting 20 years for the technology to advance in order to be able to shoot the movie!

I would have to say that I agree with you in that the main limitation of design research is that it depends too much on technologies. This is the reason why a design research can quickly become outdated. Therefore I believe that prototypes are crucial in design research

Quantitative Research

·         Havva Göcmenoglu  

4 december 2013 02:13

Hej Havva!

I find your selected paper, the use of interactive media among today’s youth, really interesting! 
You mentioned that quantitative methods do not answer the question why. As you say, explanations of why something happens enable us to have a deeper understanding. Would you say that this is the case with all quantitative methods or with the quantitative methods used for this specific paper? For example, if the questionnaire included questions asking the participants why they used interactive media, would we then have an explanation? 
I would say that it all depends on the focus of a study and on the way the quantitative methods are designed; on the questions that are asked and on how the data are analyzed and interpreted by the researchers. The results of a paper also depend on the context and on the participants of the survey. As you noted for the “Physical Activity, stress, and self-reported Upper respiratory tract infection” paper, results might be different if we did the same survey in a different time or place.

·         Simon Schmitz 

December 4, 2013 at 2:39 AM

Hej Simon!

Your selected paper examined a really interesting question. I guess that a lot of people would like to know if Facebook- and social media in general- use affects their studies.

I find it good that you mentioned that among the limitations of this survey are the misuse of sampling or weighing. I consider them as imporant factors of reliability and validity of a survey's results.

After reading many papers and discussing in the seminars, I believe that all methodologies have their limitations. Do you agree with that?

And since we are discussing the limitations of both quantitative and qualitative methods, is it safe to assume that a combination would provide a better understanding of something?

·         Johannes Hörnfeldt Nordström 

 4 december 2013 09:34

Hi Johannes!

It is good that you mentioned that analysis of data in qualitative methods is time consuming! 

Regarding your thoughts on quantitative methods, I agree with you in that results and conclusions of a survey depend on the the collection, use and interpretation of data. As we have seen and discussed about some researches, the method used for collection of data might provide specific data and results that don't represent the whole image. Exclusion of some data might lead to a limited or distorted view of something.

·         Matteo Campostrini 

 4 December 2013 09:17

Hi Teo!

In your blog post you discuss that a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods might be more adequate is some researches. I was also thinking that a combination of methodologies could provide deeper insights, since we are combining the benefits of the two methodologies types. So, I would say that it depends on the focus of the research. Maybe the focus is narrow, so a quantitative methodology measuring specific things and relationships between phenomena is more appropriate. And as you say qualitative methodologies are more useful when we focus on why a phenomenon occurs.

·         Ekaterina Sakharova 

 4 December 2013 09:54

Hi Ekaterina!

I agree with your point that qualitative research enable us to understand and explain something that was poorly researched before, while quantitative research enable us to test and prove hypotheses.

I wanted to ask you if you consider the results of quantitative research more objective. Because for me the statistical data and the results depend on the method used for the collection of data. If the method examined only on a specific community, e.g. internet users, and excluded some parts of the population then the results are not representative.

I believe that the tables you provided are really helpful! Thanks!

·         Jenny Sillen 

 4 december 2013 10:05

There is an interesting conversation going on here and I plan to take part in it!

I have to admit that in the beginning I was not sure on whether observation could be considered as a quantitative method. But as you say through observation they collected statistical data and numbers. So, I would argue that in this study there are quantitative measurements. Or maybe, that a combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies were used.

·         Zahra Al Houaidy’s comment (discussion on Jenny Sillens blog post)

Zahra A, 4 december 2013 08:38

Hi Jenny!

The used method in your chosen paper was an interesting idea that I don't think I have thought of before, letting the students do the observation themselves by taking note of a friend. That way it could eliminate the risk of the observer having an influence on how the study object behaves. With a friend that they know and are comfortable with, they would likely be able to behave (somewhat?) more "normally", as you wrote.

On the other hand you mentioned that there's no guarantee that the notes are correct. The students aren't experienced observers. I would feel doubtful leaving it up to them. They could have excluded an activity for example.

Observations is a good method to use when analyzing behaviours, but I think that as long as the respondents are aware of them being observed, the results will be doubtful. I think observations might be best suited for observations from a distance and "secretly", for example how the general public behave on the public transportation, out on the streets, in stores, etc.Though thinking about the other different methods (interviews, questionnaires, etc), there's never a guarantee of the accuracy of any delivered data.

Svar

Katerina-Ioanna Kourti, 4 december 2013 10:24

Hej Zahra!

You made a valid point when discussing the limitations of observation. Observation always involves the risk of influenced results, even if the observer is a friend. If the subject of observation is aware that it is being observed, it might behave differently. And since our conclusions are based on collected data, it could be said that the results are doubtful.

You propose that secret observation might provide us with accurate results. But since some of the participants were not adults, I guess that secret observation might lead to legal issues. Regardless of the age, I would have to say that even though I accept the importance of secret observation, I would not feel comfortable using this method. If I was a subject of research, I would like to be aware that I was being observed.

·         Andreas Sylvan 

 4 december 2013 20:00

Hej Andreas!

I enjoyed reading your blog post, especially the part where you mention the different interpretations of the same papers and how you are not satisfied with the flowcharts. I find it intriguing when there are different interpretations of the same paper. As you said, this might lead to interesting discussions and deeper understanding and insights. Or it could lead to further confusion... In any case, it is the discussion that matters.

I also think that the tips on designing questionnaires were worth-mentioned. From my personal experience, designing a questionnaire is a demanding process. After having done some errors, I would have to say it is necessary to test a questionnaire. It might take more time to test it, understand the mistakes and fix them than actually writing down the questions. Sometimes when you work with a questionnaire and trying to formulate questions, you cannot understand if a question is ambiguous. What is easily understandable for you,might not be for others.

·         Filip Erlandsson 

Katerina-Ioanna Kourti, 5 december 2013 16:07

Hej Filip!

I agree with you: making the chart for the first seminar was a hard task, especially since we are not used into doing this. But it somehow it helped us in understanding the role and importance of quantitative methods and that in papers like that we can usually find significant correlations between phenomena. In the beginning, neither was I completely satisfied with our chart, but I believe that the structure could not be simpler because our paper was a complex one. A lot of variables were examined.

I also agree that the discussion-competition that we had at the second seminar on advantages and disadvantages of quantitative and qualitative methods was really interesting. It helped me in understanding that some types of methodologies could be more appropriate for specific type of researches.Having said that, I need to underline that I don't believe that there is one best methodology. As I discuss in my post, I think that it depends on focus and aims of a specific research.

Even though I found this competition helpful, as you noted, I feel that the situation went out of hand at some point. I disagreed with some students' behavior. The concept was to discuss, debate and argue-not only talk, but also listen to other people's opinions. In the end the goal- to get a better understanding regarding advantages and disadvantages of different methodologies- was achieved.

·         Simon Schmitz 

 December 5, 2013 at 7:29 AM

Hi Simon!

I also found the examples of formulating questions and preparing questionnaires to be really helpful. I agree with you that the results do depend on the formulation of the questions. The way you ask a question affects the anwers and even the response rate of your questionnaire. A poorly designed questionnaire might annoy respondents and make them drop out or answer the next questions falsely. On the other hand, as Bälter noted, providing personalized information and insights during the survey, having some kind of feedback and interaction might engage the respondents. It could also lead to higher response rates.

I would like to add the necessity of testing questionnaires so that we can understand possible mistakes and fix them on time.

I also concluded that both research methods are necessary for scientific research and that choosing a suitable methodology depends on the research question.

·         Matteo Campostrini, 

5 December 2013 07:49

Hi Teo!

You discuss that quantitative methods are particularly suitable for longitudinal studies and I agree with that. Could we argue that in some longitudinal studies it might be appropriate to use qualitative methods? What do you think?

I also find it interesting the critique against odd numbers, but I somehow understand the reasoning. Sometimes, the middle value is the right answer.

·         Reply to Simon Schmitz’s comment on my blog post

Simon Schmitz, 5 December 2013 16:55

Hej Kat! I really enjoyed reading your blog post as you always describe and reflect what you learned in a very detailed and understandable way. And then I suddenly stumbled upon my name which made me unbelievable proud :D I want to add a small thought on your last sentence where you stated that "the right methodology depends on the focus of the researched subject." I can agree with that but I believe that it is more important to choose your method depending on the purpose of your research rather than on the research subject. But maybe this is what you meant with "focus"? Because the origin of all research is a larger research question. When there is already existing data you could prove your hypothesis with quantitative research. But when you are generally asking the "why" question then the qualitative research would be the right method to choose.

ReplyDelete

Katerina-Ioanna Kourti, 5 December 2013 17:09

Yes, you got it right. What I meant is that the right methodology depends on the research question, on what the researchers want to focus on.  In this sense, what I meant is the purpose of the research.

 

Research and Theory

·         Reply to Jenny Sillen’s comment on my post 

Jenny Sillén, 23 November 2013 22:02

Well written and well explained! I have read several blog posts describing the same article and I thought you did a really good job! You also managed to describe the theory type, and it's pro's and con's in a very clear and definite way. Well done!

It might be easy to criticize a study for, like in this case, use only one community as test subjects, but on the other hand, which I am beginning to understand, if you try to study too much at once you cannot be sure of what your findings are, or how to interpret them as it can be clouded in too many variables. As this was one of the firsts studies on Facebook, it needs to set a small goal to start with.

ReplyDelete

Replies

Katerina-Ioanna Kourti, 26 November 2013 13:03

I agree with you! It is certainly easy to criticize studies for chosen methodologies and for possible limitations. And even if a study is characterized as a failure, it can still be beneficial for future theories and research methods. It can play a major role in the advancement of knowledge. By realizing the mistakes and highlighting them, you can avoid doing them in the future. It can lead in finding the right way of researching on something-if there is any!

What is important in this case is that this was one of the first studies on Facebook effects on social capital. Even though the findings at that time could not be generalized, the survey showed that Facebook usage can be beneficial for someone's social capital. And from what I read from Filip Erlandsson's comment, other studies confirmed that SNSs usage has a positive effect on social capital.

To conclude, for me analysis theory of course has its limitations, but I would not disregard it. Analysis theory is really important in the sense that it provides analysis on subjects that were unknown; it can build the foundations for further research and for the advancement of knowledge.

·         Reply to Filip Erlandsson’s comment on my post 

24 November 2013 12:31

Your paper, "The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites", is one that my paper (the one i read) refers to when talking about previous research. One limitation with your paper, as you say, is that only one community is examined in the study. My paper "Social Networking Sites: Their Users and Social Implications — A Longitudinal Study" have made use of various SNSs in relation to social capital during a longer period of three years. Just as your paper, they conclude that the usage of SNSs and social capital are strongly connected and that it has a positive effect on the social capital. It also categorizes different SNS user types and reflects on the effects on their social capital.

I think the topic is really interesting because of the common notion that the usage of SNSs is bad for your social capital. For example if you use Facebook then you won't meet as much face-to-face. More and more research seems to occur that state otherwise which i think is good.

ReplyDelete

Replies

Katerina-Ioanna Kourti, 26 November 2013 13:19

Indeed, it is an interesting topic and it is nice to read that SNS usage can be beneficial for individuals, especially because nowadays we use social media a lot.

On the one hand I agree with those who state that social media keep us further apart, that they isolate us, e.g. Turkle in her book "Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other" (2011). On the other hand- as I myself use social media- I believe that they are beneficial in some ways, for example keeping in touch with weak ties. In the end, it all depends on how someone uses social media.

·         Matteo Campostrini, 

27 November 2013 08:03

I liked how you critically reflected on the different types of theories proposed by Gregor. I was also thinking that it is not always easy and clear to define the type of theory is used in a paper.

I share your concern of turning theoritical knowledge into practice. Being Greek and having studied Journalism and Mass Media, I am used in theoritical studies.

Here in KTH emphasis is put on the practical part of knowledge, but I wouldn't generalize that. Do not take for granted that education here in Sweden is mainly practical. Studies in KTH are different from studies in SU.

PS: Keep in mind that the word theory has its origins in ancient Greek (θεωρία). The verb theoro (θεωρώ) could be defined as "to observe", "to explain", "to believe". Praxis (πρᾶξις) is considered to be the opposite meaning. The latter could be defined as doing, acting.

·         Ekaterina Sakharova 

27 November 2013 08:21

Hi Ekaterina!

I found it really interesting that you looked deeply into what theory is and what it is not.

As you say theory has its origins in ancient Greek and the verb θεωρώ could be defined as "to observe", "to think".

I would have to say that I agree with the Sutton and Staw-data and diagrams are not theory. They are useful in supporting theories, but they do not constitute theory. They are only tools used by researchers in order to explain something. The researcher has to make an argument.

·         Stefan Etoh 

27 november 2013 17:43

Hi Stefan!

I also found it difficult to explain what kind of theory was used in my paper . I have to admit that I find it a little bit annoying that the boundaries are not so clear.

I think that it is good that you mentioned the difference between social and natural sciences and that in social sciences the theories are more vague, that they can be revised.

·         Havva Göcmenoglu

27 november 2013 08:58 

I think that the paper you chose is really interesting! 

I liked how you explained the benefits of the analysis type theory. I wouldn't disregard it because it does not explain, predict or say how to do something. For me it is an important theory type because it analyzes something that we had little knowledge about. I would say that it builds the foundations for other theories and researches.

·         Martin Johansson 

27 november 2013 09:11

Hi Martin!

Since I chose the same paper, I was really interested in reading your blog post. I also argued that the theory type used in this paper is the analysis. But during the seminars we discussed that it is mainly analysis, and that it could also be explaining or prediction. Do you agree with that? Was it difficult for you to define what kind of theory type it was?

·         Reply to Simon Schmitz’s comment on my post 

Simon Schmitz 27 November 2013 18:03

Hej Kat! I liked how you described how theories have their limitations but still contribute in the achievement of knowledge. When I'm thinking of the fact that even the definition of the term theory has its limitations than I'm quite skeptical when we can call a theory a theory. But apart from that and even though there are limitations, our knowledge is also limited (in its definition and in its extent) as we learned in the previous seminars and I think we have to cope with the situation that there always will be limitations when it comes to explain why things in the world are the way how they are. What do you think?

Replies

Katerina-Ioanna Kourti, 27 November 2013 18:33

I was also skeptical on the definition of theory. For me, theory is a proposition trying to analyze and explain why and how a phenomenon occurs and it is based on observation and critical thinking. Theory can lead to knowledge. Do you agree on that? Would you define it differently? Because I think that it all depends on the way you define theory- and knowledge...

Since our knowledge is based on theories and how we perceive the world, I would argue that our knowledge is limited. I do not find it strange that theories can evolve over the years, that they can be revised according to conditions.

I think that in our journey of knowledge, we will many times have to change our way of thinking and what we considered as the valid explanation of something. I find this to be challenging, but necessary and refreshing at the same time!

·         Simon Schmitz 

November 27, 2013 at 10:02 AM

First of all I have to say your argument on theories and that our definitions and classifications of theory types may vary because they depend on our subjective interpretations is both really interesting and well written!

It is really important that you mentioned the reliability and validity of papers. I liked how you explained that collected data depend on the methodologies used and that this affects the reliability of a research.

After these seminars, I reached the conclusion that it is difficult to find a paper without limitations. Do agree on that?

I don't know if this helps, but my definition of theory is strongly affected by linguistics. The origins of the word can be found in ancient Greek- theoro (θεωρώ) could be defined as "to observe", "to believe", "to think" -and I could add- in a critical way. Thus, hypothesis cannot be considered as theory. Arguments are necessary in order to explain something.

·         Reply on comments/discussion on Matteo Campostrini’s blog  

Matteo Campostrini, 28 November 2013 05:56

Generalizing is always dangerous, I was just underlining some trends I know existing in "our" countries compared with countries like Sweden.

As student involved in the media sector I think it would be suitable to have the perfect balance between the "know-how", namely the practical knowledge on how to accomplish something, the “know-what” that is know facts, the “know-why” hence the casualties expressed by science and finally the “know-who” that is communication.

Reply

Simon Schmitz29 November 2013 01:01

There is an interesting discussion going on here which I want to take part in. I might have made the same experience than you Teo. When studying media economics in Germany we also went sometimes very deep into details and covered theories which are not applicable today anymore. The question arises why do we even have to deal with it? I believe that it is very important to see how and why people thought in the past or were trying to find an answer to a particular question. This gives us a starting point to critically reflect and makes us aware of the fact that a true belief can become outdated when the setting changes. When there would be a transfer of just "practical knowledge", which you defined as "know-how", than we would perfectly fit into the system we have right now, turning into slaves of mass consumption, serving products to the masses, which they actually don't necessarily need. Hearing out a bit of irony in your first comment, you might agree on that?

Reply

Katerina-Ioanna Kourti, 29 November 2013 01:23

I agree with you Simon in that it is important to see how and why people thought in the past because it enables to understand that beliefs can change and become outdated. Having a deeper understanding of what was considered before and why it changed, makes us critically think and decide how to better use the practical knowledge. The way I see it both types of knowledge-theoretical and practical-are important and it is their combination that will lead to the advancement of knowledge and sciences.

·         Reply to Matteo Campostrini’s comment on my blog post 

MatteoCampostrini, 28 November 2013 16:04

I completely agree with your skepticism and I suggest you to take a look at my post to find some other points I wrote about: http://matcam2013tmmt.blogspot.se/

Moreover the fact that even incomplete theories contribute to build knowledge in some way reassures me, after all: "limits are made to be overstepped" -that could be a good sport brand slogan!!

Katerina-Ioanna Kourti, 29 November 2013 10:34

Hi Teo!

I did read your post and I will have to say that you influenced me. Before, I would say that all theories are important and valuable, but after this week's readings, seminars and discussions and after reading your reflections, I agree with you in that "a theory is nearly useless as long as nobody knows or uses it".

Critical Media Studies

·         Matteo Campostrini 

20 November 2013 07:36

It is really interesting that you mentioned the correlation between concumption and being. I agree with the phrase "you are what you eat". 

It is nice to read that you accept that there is some kind of art in media. While I agree with the authors on the mass production of culture, I see their point of view to be too strong and too limited. But this can be explained if we consider that they were part of the cultural elite and that they discarded anything not conforming to their way of thinking. 

When reading your comment on media and their role, I was wondering on your thoughts regarding the risks of the impossibility to reflect. According to you, how can we avoid that?

·         Lucy Armelin 

20 November 2013 08:02

Indeed, the difficulty in defining art and high art is frustrating! For me, and as I understand for you as well, the definition of art as "what exists in galleries" is not conforting. I would rather go with the notion (that was discussed in the seminar) that art should move you, that it is something intellectual. I find this closer to my understanding of art. Having said that, I was wondering on what constitutes high art for you.

PS: I also liked your discussion on individualism! I agree on that there is too much discussion about the "individual".

·         Gustav Boström 

20 november 2013 08:27

Hej Gustav!

Internet might allow us to interact and communicate in a different ways today.
Though it might not be possible for everybody to freely express themselves on internet (as Matteo suggested), it could be said that people do have a saying and they can express their opinion. But what impact can that have, if my voice is not heard? It might be out there, but the problem is that there is an overload of information. In this chaos, some voices that should be heard are lost. On the other hand, there is a dominance of some voices. In some cases I think that there is everything is the same. It feels like we keep reading the same ideas, and I guess that this is due to the fact that they are recycled. 

Concerning your question on the role of media in mass deception today, for me this deception is even stronger. As I said, overload of information available on internet makes it difficult to hear some voices. Plus, I feel that the power game today might seem to have changed, but the players are still the same. I am referring to conglomerates and their role in mind-shaping. So, for me mass deception is of a different form today, but it still there.

·         Simon Schmitz 

November 20, 2013 at 8:42 AM

Hi Simon!

I really liked reading your text. It was written in a good and understandable way!

I agree with you when you critically discuss the role of social media in indoctrinating people and in establishing uniformity today. Even though it might appear that we have more opportunities to communicate and we have access to more sources of information, we get lost in the chaos of information. The speed and the overload of information distract us. In 1940's people were distracted by films in movie theaters, now we are distracted in our own house, sitting comfortably in front of a laptop. Therefore, we do lose ourselves in the Social Web.

·         Havva Göcmenoglu 

20 november 2013 09:03

Hej Havva!

I liked how you described the standardization of culture products and how it leads to standardized consumers. As it was discussed in the seminar, "we are what we eat". 

I was wondering, though, on your point of view regarding cultural products that are mass produced. Are they all trash? 

Can you explain this sentence? "The cultural products that had a meaning lose their touch, affecting the individual". Do you mean the high art that Adorno and Horkheimer discussed? Or the cultural products that are mass produced? The way I understand it, both of them affect the individual-the first one in an intellectual way, while the second one by indoctrinating the individual.

·         Oscar Friberg

20 november 2013 18:14

Hi Oscar!

I find your discussion to be really interesting: Indeed, it is disturbing that we are contributing in creating and defining the mass culture that we consume. According to you, is there a way to avoid being used by companies and to prevent them from determining what culture is?

I agree that we cannot abolish mass culture and that there should be more room for more culture in mass media. But how could we achieve that? Do you think that big companies will go against their interests-which is profit?

·         Reply to Simon Schmitz ‘s comment on my post 

Simon Schmitz20 November 2013 19:25

Hey Kat, I liked your reflection about this week's reading. You made the point that contemporary means of communication like Social Media is isolating us. I truly agree with your opinion and wanted to add that already Adorno and Horkheimer mentioned in Dialectic of Enlightenment that "communication establishes uniformity among men by isolating them". When applying their critique to our modern society, Social Media can be seen as an instrument to create conformity although we are physically separated. Or in other words: it makes us “alone together” as Turkle titles. I'm wondering if there will be a shift in consuming media or different: will there be a scenario when everyone is communicating out of his cocoon or "Matrix" without ever being in physical contact anymore? Will critical reflection, as you said, change anything to good in future?

Replies

Katerina-Ioanna Kourti, 22 November 2013 09:34

Hi Simon!

I am glad you agree with me!

I guess that there will be a shift in consuming media in the future and the way I see it, it will probably further isolate us. But I still see some possibility in avoiding the Matrix society. For me proper education on technology, it's use and risks involved in it, in combination with critical reflection will enable the individual to avoid the Matrix society. So, to answer your question, I think that critical reflection can lead to a positive change.

·         Reply to Matteo Campostrini’s comment on my post

MatteoCampostrini, 20 November 2013 17:45

What is difficult, I would say impossible, in defining what art is is that we do not have a formula to apply to objects to know if they are art or not, we only have examples that show off it, the concept of art is previous any knowledge.

Thus thankfully, citing De Duve:

"We do not need a theory of woman to love a woman as we do not need a art theory to love art".

Replies

Katerina-Ioanna Kourti, 22 November 2013 09:53

Hi Teo!

I know that it is difficult and I agree with you on that you don't need a theory to love something. But that doesn't mean that you cannot try to define it and critically think about it. By extending on the Greek poet Kavafis and his poem "Ithaka" (an island), it is the journey that is important, not the reaching the goal. Because from this journey you can come out wiser and more mature.

Check out the links-I think that you would like to read that!

http://www.cavafy.com/poems/content.asp?cat=1&id=74

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_P._Cavafy

PS: Ithaka is a greek sland. In this poem, the inspiration from Homer's Odyssey is obvious.

Theory of Science

·         Jenny Sillen 

13 november 2013 12:02

It is clear that you understood the terms because explanations that you provided were written in a good way. I think that it was good that you mentioned that propositions and statements of facts require some kind of acquaintance with the object. 
In the end, I feel that the use of other sources helped you in understanding and explaining the literature. 

·         Vaidotas Urbanavicius 

13 November 2013, 21.35.

I think that you have understood and successfully discussed what was presented the literature. I enjoyed reading your post since it was a different approach on explaining in “The Problems of Philosophy”.

·         Lucy Armelin  
14 November 2013 15:14

Hi Lucy!

I also believe that you explained sense-data in a clear way. 
It is good that you discussed that there is a difference between knowledge and beliefs! It was one of Russell's main points and, at least for me, one of his most important (points).

·         Simon Schmitz 

November 14, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Hello Simon!

I found your post really helpful in my understanding of the reality of the object. I also understood that sensations depend on human perceptions, but I didn’t discuss that they may vary. It was good that you mentioned that.

It was also good that you discussed the ‘matter’.

I agree with your understanding that reality might be something that is not immediately present to our sensation. This is what I got from the from the book.

Lastly, I have to say that I enjoyed reading your examples about ambiguous and definite descriptions. Using Lisbeth Salander and ‘the girl with the dragon tattoo' to desrcibe definite description was certainly creative! 

·         Matteo Campostrini 

14 November 2013 15:49

When I was reading the book, I sometimes felt lost because I didn’t know what exactly the standpoint of other philosophers was and what they had discussed. So, reading your post enabled me to better understand some parts of “The Problems of Philosophy”. I think that you successfully used other sources when explaining the literature!

·         Ragnar Schön 

14 november 2013 16:20

It is quite interesting that you believe that nothing possesses a truthful essence. I find it intriguing that truths are ever-changing and I might disagree with you on that. On the other hand, I also believe that truths they may co-exist in contradiction to each other.

In general I found your answers to be clear and to the point. I liked that you explained how you interpret the literature and that you reflected upon that!

·         Ekaterina Karpukhina 

14 november 2013 г., 16:50

Hi Ekaterina! 
After having read your answer on definite description, I would like to say even though you didn't write that definite description has the form “the so-and-so” I understood that you implicitly discussed it. 

I have to say that this conversation (in the comments) is really interesting! 
I was also troubled when reading that propositions become statement of facts when the number of people who think that is true is increasing. As Ekaterina Sakharova, I was also wondering about manipulation.

·         Zahra Al Houaidy 

15 november 2013 09:18

Hi Zahra! 

I believe that you provided a really good explanation on propositions and statement of facts. I liked how you distinguished them-I might have missed that. Reading this answer really made it more clear for me!

Overall, I think that you understood and explained the literature in a good and clear way.

·         Nicholas Ojala 

15 november 2013 00:46

Your reflection and argument on the truth and on different interpretations by different people is really interesting! I liked how you discussed that media are trying to attract readers, not to spread the truth. So, you concluded that it is up to us, the readers and scientists to critically evaluate and reflect on things! Even though I didn't relate this to media, I also discussed the importance of doubting and the necessity of critical thinking in my reflection. I think that it is good that you did!

·         Response to LucyArmelin’s comment on my blog post

13 November 2013 17:36

I think you did an awesome job of explaining this text and the questions. You made it really clear and more importantly it made sense and was easy to read! Moving on to Teo's response, if Plato's vision entails poets being banned for imitating the world and not describing it how it is, then according to Russell text, on that basis philosophers should also be banned since the world is not the same for two people and each person sees it how he or she understands it! Which, if this were the case and philosophers were banned it would make my life much easier right now.

Replies

Katerina-Ioanna Kourti, 15 November 2013 09:57

Hi Lucy!
I somehow agree with you that our lives might have been easier without philosophers. But I cannot help to wonder: what about the truth and the chase of knowledge? I think that the most important think that you can get from philosophy is the critical evaluation of things. Without it we might have been happy in our ignorance, thinking that what we know is true and it is the same for all, not questioning what is given to us as knowledge. But is that what we want? Is that what we need?