Theme 5: Design research

Research paper about: Turning Your Mobile Into the Ball, Rendering Live Football Game Using Vibration

1. How can media technologies be evaluated?

Based on last week's subject of quantitative research, I would say that media technology has to be evaluated both in a quantitative and qualitative way. This is because media technology is based on both numbers, prototypes, and technicalities but also the human interaction with these elements. In Haibo Lee’s paper he evaluates based on three aspects: effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction. These are both quantitative and qualitative.

2. What role will prototypes play in research?

Most theories or inventions can look good on paper, but more often than not there is need for some kind of empirical data to be collected to figure out if there is true potential. A prototype is a great way to quickly recognize flaws and improvements that could be made, making it easier for test subjects to get into the same mindset as the researcher.

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

When explaining the product to investors they might need a proof of concept to be truly convinced of the idea. Also as mentioned above, it is easier to find faults in a prototype compared to loosely based theory.

4. What are characteristics and limitations of prototypes?

The limitations of prototypes mostly boils down to time and effort, sometimes a lot has to be put into it. A prototype also might not have the full functionality of the real product which might hamper the testing phase. There is also risk of getting stuck in the mindset of the current prototype because the researcher has spent so much effort on it.

5. How can design research be communicated/presented?

If it is through a research paper, I suggest pictures, sketches and/or videos as the main component in explaining how it works. Having a clear understanding about the product is crucial to gain insightful critique and opinions on it. For a presentation, a prototype/live demo would give the most rewarding experience for the audience, I believe. With Haibo Lee’s vibrating phone, an app (prototype) could be sent out to the audience’s phones, while Haibo kicks around a ball.

Research papers about: Finding design qualities in a tangible programming space & Differentiated Driving Range

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

In the paper about programing space by Ylva F. & Jakob T. they had staged activities for children to play and test their prototype about programming in the real world through drag & drop. They are using the difficulties the children faced as a discussion point but there is no real data displayed, ergo no empirical data. The other one about showing the remaining capacity in an electric car is using state-of-the-art-analysis and interviews to gain insight into the subject. I am unsure if this counts as empirical data.

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

Because design work involves human interaction as a main staple. I think the knowledge contribution could be subjective, like historically determined perception - in our current stage of time, a function such as drag & drop might be more popular than a roll-down menu. It might be an absolute fact of the human mind or just a trend within our current society, it is very context sensitive. If more people work within the same subject, closely related - they could of course learn from these design works, gaining knowledge. But all in all, I’m a bit on the fence here.

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

While design out in the market is about being mostly appealing but also functional. I think design intentions in a research project should strive towards usability as its main goal. It should be apparent from the start what the purpose of the prototype is and how it is used.

4. 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?

I think it depends on the complexity of the research and the simplicity of the product, who is the target group and how do you test it on them? I think it is at least replicable to a certain degree, you could use the same type of prototype but as mentioned above, the trend of drag & drop might have passed, creating a different result.

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

Design driven research is mostly about refinement, iterating over many steps to create something that is great for the user, a solution for their needs. In design I would say that the user is in focus, while in other research sectors it is more about creating new knowledge, independent of the satisfaction of the user.

Theme 2: Comments

Links:

http://thetheoryandmethodofeverything.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-2-reflections.html?showComment=1443197013187

http://ixxzw.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-2-after-seminar.html?showComment=1443197410918#c6507445690573053726

http://tamfmtol.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-2-post-critical-media-studies.html?showComment=1443197819513#c8025190370197543402

http://cliodile.blogspot.se/2015/09/after-theme-2-critical-media-studies.html?showComment=1443198145511#c796015869769608924

http://mashasthoughts123.blogspot.se/2015/09/seminar-2-reflection.html?showComment=1443198687032#c4221185926562756512

http://amlinden.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-2-reflection.html?showComment=1443199176723#c9097455786895486531

Theme 3: Reflection

This week was all about the concept of theory, how it is commonly used and how it is supposed to be used. There were two accompanying text this time: Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems and Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B. M. (1995). What Theory is Not.

Theory seems to be something almost ungraspable, there is no easy way to explain it. You almost have to enter some kind of context for it to make sense. I thought I had a rough understanding of theory as a concept but apparently I had woefully misinterpreted it. Here are some things I learned from the lecture and seminar that didn’t quite stick while only reading the texts:

Theory is often a misused word, especially in the common world. Out there it has the connotation of something speculative something you predict, which is actually closer related to the word “Hypothesis”. The word hypothesis refers to a prediction which should be testable, something you can prove. The two words do however share some bonds and are often used like a compliment to each other.

When observing an event, you try to make sense of it - by taking a step back and observing the event from a different angle, you could come up with a theory about that event. You can try to identify if the theory is strong by creating different hypothesis around it and testing your proposition. There is no such thing as a true theory, something absolute. If the theory is strong enough scientists agree that it should be taken as “true” but it can of course still be disproven. Theory should be thought of as a tool to describe, explain and enhance our understanding of the world.

A good example is the former theory about Earth as the center of the universe. As people saw this as the absolute truth, they conformed to it and therefore based other theories on this assumption. When Aristotle revealed our current vision , that the sun is the center of our solar system (triggering a paradigm shift) - all the theories built on the preceding became illogical, it was way easier to calculate the orbits of planets when they didn’t revolve around Earth.

“Theory is about the connections between phenomena, and explaining WHY, HOW and under WHAT circumstances acts, events, structures, and thoughts occur.” - Leif Dahlberg (2015).  This is now my new interpretation of the word “theory”, at least when discussed in a broad sense. Context is important for its interpretation though, so there are different kinds of theory within different fields like science or philosophy.

I also learned that theory can be contrasted with practice. It is basically the difference between observing and doing. We at the Royal Institute of Technology are more practical in our approach to learning, while orthodox universities often delve more into the theoretical aspects. We do have to consider though that all things practical have a theoretical dimension.

As a last note, I found this theme easier to read and work through, but almost as hard as the previous to fully understand. Learning to find reliable journals and research papers will surely come to great use in my future when exploring new horizons!

Theme 4: Quantitative research

For this theme I chose the paper: Emotion regulation, procrastination, and watching cat videos online: Who watches Internet cats, why, and to what effect? from the journal: Computers in Human Behavior. As the title implies it is about finding out why there is such a big fuss about cats, who is watching them, and how it affects the individual.

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

The method used for this paper was an online questionnaire (spread through Facebook and Twitter) which took approximately ten minutes to fill in. The questions were about the individual himself and his association with cats, his behaviour, and then to what extent the subject viewed cats online. Almost 7000 users answered the questionnaire. The several benefits with this method that I can think of are: The ease distributing these surveys, with the possibility of an exponential growth of test subjects (through sharing with friends/family). Since it is online and within a friendly setting such as Facebook or twitter, the users might feel more inclined to answer truthfully as to uphold their secondary internet persona. Because it’s a short and simple test, it is easier to accept - ergo more people will take it.

Some limitations could be: It is harder to get a definitive answer when only asking and not studying the users up close while they perform said act of watching cats. While they might answer in a certain way, there is no evident proof that the user really is affected as he describes. Furthermore there might not be enough options in the answers to give of an accurate answer.

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

I learned that quantitative methods are great for researching large groups of people, getting data that is easy to analyze and come to conclusions with. You can ask a broad range of questions that might correlate to one another, and then puzzle together which of them are truly connected, through statistical analysis. It is also easy to show for the reader, connecting the dots with numbers where quantitative analysis would have a hard time.

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

I do not see any great problems with the study, they set out to find the truth about cats online and I think their method is appropriate for the job. There could be the fact that, since the participants taking the test are volunteering (not being randomly chosen) the demographic might become skewed - giving of a false representation of the love for cats online. They do not however want to find the ratio of cat lovers to indifferent people and thus volunteering could still work. Rephrasing the abstract to include this fact is appropriate, telling us that we are mostly dealing with the effects on people already with an affection for internet cats.

Short reflection of IEEE VR 2012 - Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality

This paper seems like a nice blend of qualitative and quantitative methods, going both into depth with exploring the subjects emotions and perception while also retaining mathematical analysis of numerical data. There is a lot of attention to details in this experiment, rapporting every single instrument and method used. I do find it fascinating how fast we adapt to living in another body and I wonder how this ties into historically determined and natural perception. The fact that people could sense that different bodies were better for specific jobs is really interesting, like being the embodiment of a samurai when learning to fight with a katana.

1. Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative methods?

The way you answer is often simplified for the statistical purposes (yes/no or checkboxes), therefore participating in such a study will not demand much of the participant. Quantitative methods are best used when you want to gather a lot of raw data. By nature it is numerical and therefore easier to measure and reach conclusions with.

2. Which are the benefits and limitations of using qualitative methods?

When you want to study something in depth, qualitative methods offer a more cohesive analysis of each test subject. It does create a greater strain on the researcher as the information gathered might be harder to analyse. It could also be harder to come up with a definitive answer as the data is often from a smaller selection of people and interpreted by the researcher himself. A lot more theory could be involved when deciphering the extracted data.

References:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563215004343

Theme 1: Comments

Links:

http://thetheoryandmethodofeverything.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-1-reflections.html?showComment=1442768264526

http://suchapriori.blogspot.se/2015/09/post-theme-1-reflection.html?showComment=1442773949590#c946539388940016978

http://capitalmyboy.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-1-post-theme-post.html?showComment=1442774510095#c5387542277644038689

http://cloudsong223.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-1-after-theory-of-knowledge-and.html?showComment=1442774752264

http://theandme15.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and-theory.html?showComment=1442774987591#c7443972063667788472

Theme 2: Reflection - Postseminar

For this week we were asked to read two classical texts in critical theory: Walter Benjamin's essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity" (1936) and Adorno och Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944) (chapters "The Concept of Enlightenment" and "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception").

They were both interesting texts but before the seminar and lecture I was sorely confused - my mind did not realise that the author’s situation (place, time, etc.) was fundamental for understanding the context of the differing texts. Mainly that Benjamin was in Germany in a pre-war era. Adorno & Horkheimer fled to America and wrote their text towards the end of the war.

I now understand the that enlightenment is complemented by nominalism to only see the world as it is and not rely on concepts, theories or thoughts. When enlightenment takes over completely we get stuck in a mindset where potential for new ideas are crushed. Therefore a balance should be maintain where we try to see the world as it is but still remain open to our own interpretations.

In the seminar we discussed and learned the following:

Classic realism is the opposite of nominalism. While nominalism depicts all objects as true uncategorized objects and the world is only as we perceive it - classic realism is the theory that every single thing we experience is only a reflection of a true hidden object, for example, every chair I see is a partial reflection of one ultimate chair. These ultimate objects exist in the mind, within concepts and theories.

Another topic that ties into this is the differing opinions of Adorno & Horkheimer and Benjamin when it comes to mass media and culture. While Benjamin sees the potential in new technologies like cinema because it gives a sense of dignity to the bourgeois when they are depicted film. He also proves that there is more to discover with this new technology, like the camera for example, allowed us to realize how horses gallop. Therefore Benjamin thought these elements created revolutionary potential in media & culture.

Adorno & Horkheimer on the other hand argue that mass media is using nominalism to stabilize the world and depict it as an absolute. People see the world through cinema as it is outside - therefore they believe it is the absolute truth, everybody is bound to their roles. Adorno & Horkheimer believe that we should reintroduce a bit of the classic realism that lets us ponder on important questions, not just take the world as we experience it.

We also realized that historically determined perception is more or less contextually determined perception. The circumstances form and shape our perception.

Lastly aura is the uniqueness of an object, the circumstances in which it was used or created gives it aura. If a rockstar throws you his hat under a concert, that hat has aura since it was used by that famous rockstar - a copy of that hat has not experience the scalp of that rockstar, ergo it has less aura. Mass media allows everyone to experience that “hat” and therefore its uniqueness decays.

I would like to add as an end note that the professor who was giving the lecture and seminar performed fantastically. He was easy to understand and spoke well.

Theme 3: Research and theory - Preseminar

Computers in Human Behavior

A journal where the focus is aimed at understanding the correlation between psychology and computer interaction. How is a single individual, a group or a society affected mentally by this ever increasing usage of computers? The primary subject within this journal is human behaviour created by interaction with computers, not the computers themselves. The published works within are: Original theoretical works, research reports, literature reviews, software reviews, book reviews and announcements.

I do think this journal has a role in media technology - even though the technical aspects are undermined the information can still be of great use in further developing the design and interaction aspect.

Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory

This paper is researching social networking sites (SNS), trying to figure out the crucial factors that contribute to members initially joining, continued use and why there is growth within the network. To categorize and explain these factors the author is using motivation theory and network externalities. Motivation theory is divided into extrinsic motivation (usefulness) and intrinsic motivation (enjoyment). Network externalities is a term that refers to (in this case) a user's contribution to the increased or decreased growth of the network through the value and effect that they themselves generate - both directly and indirectly.

So in short, the different factors that would determine why people join a network is: Usefulness, enjoyment, amount of peers (friends/family), amount of members and perceived complementarity (indirect network externalities). The method used to gain this knowledge was through an online survey (based on questions) in the Taiwan version of Facebook. The findings showed that the most influential factors was enjoyment, followed by number of peers and then usefulness. The survey further showed that there was a difference between genders: the male demographic was less influenced by the number of both peers and members in the network. Which means they were less likely to stop using the network if some of the members and/or their peers dropped out. The goal of the paper was to give a reference point to operators of SNS, modifying their priorities.

The fact that the subject group was mostly people from Taiwan has me wondering if the results might be biased because of differing cultures and/or lifestyles. I have yet to read an article about internal cultures of social networks but my assumption is that they remain unaffected from a secondary life.

Lastly when discussing the theoretical background of the subject it was easily understandable as the author explained the context by which the citations were used. Seldom were citations randomly placed to increase the “value” of the paper.

Questions

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

Quotes by Sutton & Staw are: “Data are not theory” and “Theory is the answer to queries of why”. As such theory can be used to explain observations in a logical way; it can be built/created upon data, references or diagrams - but empirically collected information in itself is not theory.

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?

Two major theories are used to describe and explain the phenomena of joining social network sites are “Motivation theory” and “Network externalities” which both are described above in the summary. These theories are best suited to type II. “Explanation” because they are needed to formulate the questionnaire and are also used to clarify/simplify the main article’s subject.

The most fitting for the whole paper itself is theory type IV: “Explanation and Prediction” (EP), because the paper involves all the elements of “What is, how, why, when, where, and what will be.”.  It starts with something to aim for, predicts what will happen, shows the result and lastly explains and discusses said result.

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

The whole paper which is of the fourth type (EP) appear to me as a reader the most comprehensive with a structure as this. The other theories which are used to build a foundation for the the article make it easy to follow and understand because the theories use simple and few concepts. However, it might limit the scope of the article and make it a bit shallow, are the different categories too broad, limiting the facts that can be extracted from the paper?

References: 
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/computers-in-human-behavior/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563210003766