At last we landed in the subject of design research and prototyping, a very diverse area with multiple ways to follow. As I previously wrote I had a bit of experience of this, this is part of what I want to work with in the future. My first "real" experience of this (real as in my first account with design research and prototyping in KTH) came when I started my bachelor in HCI and could dive into the world of user testing and design. It is fun and interesting to gain new knowledge about how people interact with each other and or with computers and different designs but it is never quite so simple as you would want it to be.
When I and my bachelor partner created the vocabulary exercise program for kids at age 10 we had a number of tests involved. First we had an idea we wanted to make real, when gathering research to do this we had to change the idea a bit. We put the idea and research together and brainstormed forth what kinds of functions and aspects we would include in our final prototype (because we wouldn't have time to do a full fledged program including all aspects of learning a language). We decided on vocabulary exercise and made a paper prototype to show the responsible teachers in our first focus group/interview. The told us about how they traditionally teach English and what kinds of functions they would want to include in a vocabulary exercise prototype. After this we showed them the paper prototype so they could try to interact with it and see the basic functions. The big win with using a paper prototype as a first step is that it is easy to make, you only concentrate on the basic functions rather than tiny detailed questions about the design. Often if you do a too elaborate prototype as a first the critics don't feel right to question the functionality as it seams so "finished".
Afterwards we did a new prototype with graphics and the functions available on the internet to test on three groups of children. We compared how they did at a test where they practised in the traditional way and one where they practised through our prototype. After this we had interviews with the teachers to gain the children's experience and so forth. All in all We used mixed methods when it came to evaluating the prototype. The important thing is that you consider the cons and pros of using different types of tests and research, what do you want to know? How can you best gain this information. Ok I didn't really have the space to write about this more thoroughly but I hope you all get some idea of that it is good to use an iterative design process sometimes and that paper prototypes are a great way to, from the start, get on the right track.
29.11.12
23.11.12
Theme 5
Hi there! Welcome to theme 5 - Design Research!
Some may ask, what is design research, well basically it is research conducted via development of a prototype or a certain technology and the evaluation of this specific thing. I have, in a number of courses, had the chance to develop and evaluate prototypes of varying degrees. My greatest experience of this comes from my bachelor thesis. In my bachelor thesis I and my bachelor-partner developed a vocabulary exercise program which used game theories to motivate the users (who in this case where children around the age of 10) to practice more. You can read more about that in the reflection coming up.
The characteristics of developing a prototype is almost always as following; You dig up the background and development of similar or aligning aspects of the prototype during the years before your own development, you analyze this and start with the different phases of developing the actual prototype and afterwards you do different user tests and evaluate it's performance.
A prototype can be anything ranging from an interface on paper (you draw the actual screen which will be interacted with and various ways to interact with it), an interface where the test participants click on the screen and you show the next interaction step by switching to the following picture or a high functioning prototype where the user interacts on her/his own getting feedback and appropriate malfunction messages when needed, this high functioning prototype often do not have all the functions it should have when being a real program. Limitations of prototypes is that it often has to be revised a number of times, because it often is a compromise of how the finished product actually will work and look like. This may generate a high cost when developing, but if you would ignore developing a prototype and you may get a program who does not work properly or who does not have the appropriate functions. In the worst case you can get a product who works perfectly but who nobody uses because it is not built for the right audience. One other thing is that you often have to produce different levels of functioning prototypes, i.e use iterating development of prototypes, which could take time but will be beneficial in the long run.
In conclusion you do get a lot of perks by using prototyping during a development, you can early on change aspects who does not work so well by just using a basic paper prototype.
The paper I have chosen this time is "Values at Play: Design Tradeoffs in Socially-Oriented Game Design" by M. Flanagan et. al., published 2005. It is about creating a networked game environment which will teach middle-school girls about programming. The study is conducted over three years with multiple people involved. The game play is in my opinion questionable about only attracting girls, but nevertheless it takes place in a world between two rivaling groups, who battles through dance routines. By using simple code to create the various routines the target group will learn about programming in the same time as seeing a cool result. Methods used in this paper is mainly design research methods (prototype) and literary research to develop this prototype in question. They used "throw-away" prototypes in which they developed a scenario in the game to test and in an iterative process build a high function prototype or product. To evaluate this they used user-tests. The iterative process is described quite good but the actual feedback is hard to find other than by reading between the lines of the iterative process. It is rather a question concerning the report but it is something that I think will be beneficial for researchers to think about, if you do not write out the feedback from the test participants in the report or paper, then you should submit it as a supplement.
Some may ask, what is design research, well basically it is research conducted via development of a prototype or a certain technology and the evaluation of this specific thing. I have, in a number of courses, had the chance to develop and evaluate prototypes of varying degrees. My greatest experience of this comes from my bachelor thesis. In my bachelor thesis I and my bachelor-partner developed a vocabulary exercise program which used game theories to motivate the users (who in this case where children around the age of 10) to practice more. You can read more about that in the reflection coming up.
The characteristics of developing a prototype is almost always as following; You dig up the background and development of similar or aligning aspects of the prototype during the years before your own development, you analyze this and start with the different phases of developing the actual prototype and afterwards you do different user tests and evaluate it's performance.
A prototype can be anything ranging from an interface on paper (you draw the actual screen which will be interacted with and various ways to interact with it), an interface where the test participants click on the screen and you show the next interaction step by switching to the following picture or a high functioning prototype where the user interacts on her/his own getting feedback and appropriate malfunction messages when needed, this high functioning prototype often do not have all the functions it should have when being a real program. Limitations of prototypes is that it often has to be revised a number of times, because it often is a compromise of how the finished product actually will work and look like. This may generate a high cost when developing, but if you would ignore developing a prototype and you may get a program who does not work properly or who does not have the appropriate functions. In the worst case you can get a product who works perfectly but who nobody uses because it is not built for the right audience. One other thing is that you often have to produce different levels of functioning prototypes, i.e use iterating development of prototypes, which could take time but will be beneficial in the long run.
In conclusion you do get a lot of perks by using prototyping during a development, you can early on change aspects who does not work so well by just using a basic paper prototype.
The paper I have chosen this time is "Values at Play: Design Tradeoffs in Socially-Oriented Game Design" by M. Flanagan et. al., published 2005. It is about creating a networked game environment which will teach middle-school girls about programming. The study is conducted over three years with multiple people involved. The game play is in my opinion questionable about only attracting girls, but nevertheless it takes place in a world between two rivaling groups, who battles through dance routines. By using simple code to create the various routines the target group will learn about programming in the same time as seeing a cool result. Methods used in this paper is mainly design research methods (prototype) and literary research to develop this prototype in question. They used "throw-away" prototypes in which they developed a scenario in the game to test and in an iterative process build a high function prototype or product. To evaluate this they used user-tests. The iterative process is described quite good but the actual feedback is hard to find other than by reading between the lines of the iterative process. It is rather a question concerning the report but it is something that I think will be beneficial for researchers to think about, if you do not write out the feedback from the test participants in the report or paper, then you should submit it as a supplement.
22.11.12
Week 4 - Reflection
Hello there people of the world! The theme this week has been qualitative methods, many of us may have learned new aspects about qualitative methods such as what it is, how it can be used, limitations and what kind of different opportunities it presents.
In the beginning of the week I thought that I wouldn't gain any new knowledge about this theme in this short period of time. I knew that there would be more information out there for me about the subject that is qualitative methods, but it wouldn't be as easy to obtain as the basic knowledge I already had stored. I already knew what qualitative methods where, I knew basic ways of how to use it. I did know much of the pros and cons of using it alone or combined with other qualitative and/or quantitative methods. So yes, my "picture" of it all wasn't complete (can it ever be? - I'm doubtful about that) but basic and useful enough.
After the seminar I gained more knowledge about qualitative methods, but not so much about the traditional methods such as interviews face-to-face or through telephone, focus groups, case studies etc. but of how to use a variation of them combined with today's technology. In my paper they used interviews through mail conversations and instant messaging conversations and as a positive effect they reached a large group of participants who had time to think about the semi-structured topics and questions before answering them which could give a better summation of the key points than if you would have done them in a much more limited time face-to-face or through telephone/Skype. Yes of course it has some negative effects, but not as tangible as the positives. In the study concerned it was a good option to use as they got a larger target group and did gain much information through each interview.
In conclusion, when you are going to use a method in a certain study (whether it's qualitative or quantitative - or BOTH!) do not only think of the traditional/regular ways of carrying them out, think outside the box and use the technology we do have available to carry out the study in an even better way! Think more freely and brainstorm the **** out of the traditional ways if it will benefit the study.
And the closure is dedicated to physical programming! Keep up the spirit and investigate further!
In the beginning of the week I thought that I wouldn't gain any new knowledge about this theme in this short period of time. I knew that there would be more information out there for me about the subject that is qualitative methods, but it wouldn't be as easy to obtain as the basic knowledge I already had stored. I already knew what qualitative methods where, I knew basic ways of how to use it. I did know much of the pros and cons of using it alone or combined with other qualitative and/or quantitative methods. So yes, my "picture" of it all wasn't complete (can it ever be? - I'm doubtful about that) but basic and useful enough.
After the seminar I gained more knowledge about qualitative methods, but not so much about the traditional methods such as interviews face-to-face or through telephone, focus groups, case studies etc. but of how to use a variation of them combined with today's technology. In my paper they used interviews through mail conversations and instant messaging conversations and as a positive effect they reached a large group of participants who had time to think about the semi-structured topics and questions before answering them which could give a better summation of the key points than if you would have done them in a much more limited time face-to-face or through telephone/Skype. Yes of course it has some negative effects, but not as tangible as the positives. In the study concerned it was a good option to use as they got a larger target group and did gain much information through each interview.
In conclusion, when you are going to use a method in a certain study (whether it's qualitative or quantitative - or BOTH!) do not only think of the traditional/regular ways of carrying them out, think outside the box and use the technology we do have available to carry out the study in an even better way! Think more freely and brainstorm the **** out of the traditional ways if it will benefit the study.
And the closure is dedicated to physical programming! Keep up the spirit and investigate further!
16.11.12
Theme 4
The article I have chosen is 'The Attitudes, Feelings and Experiences of Online Gamers: A Qualitative Analysis' by Zaheer Hussain and Mark D. Griffiths published 2009 in CyberPsychology & Behavior, vol 12, nr 6. It is about MMORPGs, i.e massive multiplayer online role-playing games, and their effect on gamers attitudes, feelings and experiences. A large part of the participants where mainly playing the MMORPG World of Warcraft (released 2004 by Blizzard Entertainment, furthermore known as Activision Blizzard).
One qualitative method is used throughout the study, namely semi structured interviews. A semi structured interview focuses on topics of choice rather than straight forward and already decided questions. During the interviews the interviewers (i.e the authors) let the participants speak/write freely about their experiences without interrupting excluding the authors influence. The interviews where conducted using either MSN Messenger or e-mail conversations. The gamers where divided into three different groups, group one consisting of casual gamers (playing less than 15 hours a week), group two of regular gamers (playing between 15 and 30 hours a week) and group three of excessive gamers (playing more than 30 hours a week). The gamers where between 18 to 54 years old and where from all around the globe, 52 where male and 19 female. The gamers reached a mean of 4,7 years experience from MMORPGs.
The benefits of using interviews conducted online as a method is that it is a fairly easy way of gaining participants, you have a much bigger group to recruit from. All of the participants in the study had chosen themselves to be a part of the study so you get participants who is more willing to explain their experiences etc. Another benefit of using a qualitative method as this is that you get lots of qualitative material that you can analyze and easy sort into different categories. The limitations is that qualitative methods as this often only use a small amount of the total sum of gamers playing MMORPGs. For example World of Warcraft has about ten million users. Therefore asking 71 gamers about their experiences might not generate a general picture applicable towards the whole mass. Although 71 participants in a qualitative study is quite a high number and should be sufficient for drawing out the main points.
I did not learn so many new aspects about qualitative research actually, I do not know if I would have done it by choosing another article either. I have already learned quite a bit about it in earlier courses like "Evaluation methods", "Introduction to HCI" and from the bachelor thesis. I have learned more from these and using trial and error than reading one single article alone.
The use of the method could have been improved by firstly including a larger number of participants to make the study more valid (apply to online gamers in general) rather than just reliable (the answers are pointing out a few key points that come up consistently throughout the interviews) as it is in this moment. Secondly alternative methods could have been applied such as questionnaires or focus groups etc. I do not think a questionnaire would have given as good results though, the number of participants is quite high in the study and the discussions in the interviews have more data to analyze and more depth to them. Focus groups could have been a supplementary method to get the gamers to inspire each other to even more insights. Thirdly it would be interesting to see if these key points also are applicable to other MMORPGs or are unique to World of Warcraft?
One qualitative method is used throughout the study, namely semi structured interviews. A semi structured interview focuses on topics of choice rather than straight forward and already decided questions. During the interviews the interviewers (i.e the authors) let the participants speak/write freely about their experiences without interrupting excluding the authors influence. The interviews where conducted using either MSN Messenger or e-mail conversations. The gamers where divided into three different groups, group one consisting of casual gamers (playing less than 15 hours a week), group two of regular gamers (playing between 15 and 30 hours a week) and group three of excessive gamers (playing more than 30 hours a week). The gamers where between 18 to 54 years old and where from all around the globe, 52 where male and 19 female. The gamers reached a mean of 4,7 years experience from MMORPGs.
The benefits of using interviews conducted online as a method is that it is a fairly easy way of gaining participants, you have a much bigger group to recruit from. All of the participants in the study had chosen themselves to be a part of the study so you get participants who is more willing to explain their experiences etc. Another benefit of using a qualitative method as this is that you get lots of qualitative material that you can analyze and easy sort into different categories. The limitations is that qualitative methods as this often only use a small amount of the total sum of gamers playing MMORPGs. For example World of Warcraft has about ten million users. Therefore asking 71 gamers about their experiences might not generate a general picture applicable towards the whole mass. Although 71 participants in a qualitative study is quite a high number and should be sufficient for drawing out the main points.
I did not learn so many new aspects about qualitative research actually, I do not know if I would have done it by choosing another article either. I have already learned quite a bit about it in earlier courses like "Evaluation methods", "Introduction to HCI" and from the bachelor thesis. I have learned more from these and using trial and error than reading one single article alone.
The use of the method could have been improved by firstly including a larger number of participants to make the study more valid (apply to online gamers in general) rather than just reliable (the answers are pointing out a few key points that come up consistently throughout the interviews) as it is in this moment. Secondly alternative methods could have been applied such as questionnaires or focus groups etc. I do not think a questionnaire would have given as good results though, the number of participants is quite high in the study and the discussions in the interviews have more data to analyze and more depth to them. Focus groups could have been a supplementary method to get the gamers to inspire each other to even more insights. Thirdly it would be interesting to see if these key points also are applicable to other MMORPGs or are unique to World of Warcraft?
15.11.12
Week 3 - Reflection
This week has been a bit weird. I haven't really had the time I've wanted to put on the courses I'm taking at this moment. So the reflection this week will be a bit poor as a consequence. Well, the theme was mixed research methods and since last time I wrote I haven't gained so much new knowledge about mixed research methods in particular, but here it goes. Single method equals OK but not thorough data. Mixed methods, i.e using quantitative and qualitative methods, on the other hand gives you a more precise and thorough picture of the truth.
In short quantitative methods give you the variables and how they act and qualitative methods give you the reason why the variables act as they do. That's why it is so important to mix these methods to get a good quality of data for analyzing.
On to the lecture given by Martha Cleveland-Innes (henceforth referred to as CI). CI concludes that the + for quantitative methods is that they, properly used, apply to a significant part of the society and that they thankfully are so easy to divide up in visual charts, diagrams and so forth to get a easier understanding of the data. An interesting part of the lecture given by CI was about validity and reliability of data. Validity of data refers to what extent the data reflects the particular given research problem while the term reliability refers to how consistent data measurements are.
My conclusion so far in this course is that it fills up the pre-existing gaps of knowledge (...of description) of conducting research and research methods. Each week fills another gap of knowledge and this is like upgrading the research tool created sometime and somewhere in the past. Beside gaining knowledge of good reliable research methods I've also gained good sources for these methods. It is a very theoretical heavy course at this point but I look forward to the seminars each week because they are, in my opinion, the best source for gaining a higher knowledge and reflection about research work amongst other things.
I haven't had much time to try the SPSS program, but will look into it soon, hoping that it will give me a good tool to supplement the other tools in my toolbox, gathered during my time in school.
In short quantitative methods give you the variables and how they act and qualitative methods give you the reason why the variables act as they do. That's why it is so important to mix these methods to get a good quality of data for analyzing.
On to the lecture given by Martha Cleveland-Innes (henceforth referred to as CI). CI concludes that the + for quantitative methods is that they, properly used, apply to a significant part of the society and that they thankfully are so easy to divide up in visual charts, diagrams and so forth to get a easier understanding of the data. An interesting part of the lecture given by CI was about validity and reliability of data. Validity of data refers to what extent the data reflects the particular given research problem while the term reliability refers to how consistent data measurements are.
My conclusion so far in this course is that it fills up the pre-existing gaps of knowledge (...of description) of conducting research and research methods. Each week fills another gap of knowledge and this is like upgrading the research tool created sometime and somewhere in the past. Beside gaining knowledge of good reliable research methods I've also gained good sources for these methods. It is a very theoretical heavy course at this point but I look forward to the seminars each week because they are, in my opinion, the best source for gaining a higher knowledge and reflection about research work amongst other things.
I haven't had much time to try the SPSS program, but will look into it soon, hoping that it will give me a good tool to supplement the other tools in my toolbox, gathered during my time in school.
9.11.12
Theme 3
First paper
The paper 'Mixed research and online learning: Strategies for improvement' by Lowenthal and Leech argues that the major problem when doing research on online learning is that the researchers often only apply one type of research method when analyzing it. Using only one type of research method can almost never find all important and groundbreaking nuances in using online learning tools. Most research done only applies either comparison research between said online learning and traditional face-to-face learning or content analysis which refers to analyzing the online discourse or dialog. Each method type provides results but research using only one method is often classified as low quality research because of the unwillingness to use mixed methods who could provide a more thorough and true answer.
The approach of using either quantitative or qualitative methods has been referred to as the paradigm wars throughout the years. Researchers on both sides argues which gives the truest answers, which in my opinion is rather ignorant considering using both can make you understand each types results better. This view that I adopt is commonly known as the pragmatic paradigm and it is basically using each method type when it is appropriate, which is known as using mixed methods.
The hardships of using mixed methods is that you have to integrate both quantitative and qualitative aspects in the research question outlining the frame and body of the research study. Lowenthal and Leech gives an example of a view voiced by the same Leech and another researches named Onwuegbuzie that good qualitative research should give you the variables and groups of variables concerned in the research while the quantitative research should provide the description of these. Other than this the paper continues to delve into the major problems of using either research method and how to eliminate these. The conclusion of the paper states that while you should use mixed methods for a better and higher classified research it is no small matter because that it is such a new reproach.
Second paper
Cleveland-Innes and Campbell states in their paper 'Emotional presence, learning and the online learning environment' the hypothesis that emotion as a sensation is a part in learning and that emotion therefore is going to be present in online learning tools and/or environments. They question if emotions at all are present in online learning environments of it they are what kinds of emotion they are.
One immediate concern of mine is that the major part of the investigation is mainly conducted using only quantitative methods. The target group involved (students) where asked to answer a questionnaire about their online learning experience, this way of getting results is quantitative yes, but without supplementing this by thorough qualitative methods (i.e using mixed methods when incorporating both qualitative and quantitative methods) like focus groups or interviews you do certainly get a lot less explanation about the variables given in the study and why they react as they do. Yes they used open ended questions after each finished course and that is classified as qualitative but it is not the most thorough type of qualitative method. They still loose the advantage of seeing the participants interact, dissect and analyze the subject further which could have been done using a more appropriate method of qualitative research.
In the end Cleveland-Innes and Campbell concludes that, yes, emotion is part of online learning. It can serve as a distraction if handled poorly but can also help in decision making etc. They do not define what kinds of emotions are present but encourages to further studies about this.
The paper 'Mixed research and online learning: Strategies for improvement' by Lowenthal and Leech argues that the major problem when doing research on online learning is that the researchers often only apply one type of research method when analyzing it. Using only one type of research method can almost never find all important and groundbreaking nuances in using online learning tools. Most research done only applies either comparison research between said online learning and traditional face-to-face learning or content analysis which refers to analyzing the online discourse or dialog. Each method type provides results but research using only one method is often classified as low quality research because of the unwillingness to use mixed methods who could provide a more thorough and true answer.
The approach of using either quantitative or qualitative methods has been referred to as the paradigm wars throughout the years. Researchers on both sides argues which gives the truest answers, which in my opinion is rather ignorant considering using both can make you understand each types results better. This view that I adopt is commonly known as the pragmatic paradigm and it is basically using each method type when it is appropriate, which is known as using mixed methods.
The hardships of using mixed methods is that you have to integrate both quantitative and qualitative aspects in the research question outlining the frame and body of the research study. Lowenthal and Leech gives an example of a view voiced by the same Leech and another researches named Onwuegbuzie that good qualitative research should give you the variables and groups of variables concerned in the research while the quantitative research should provide the description of these. Other than this the paper continues to delve into the major problems of using either research method and how to eliminate these. The conclusion of the paper states that while you should use mixed methods for a better and higher classified research it is no small matter because that it is such a new reproach.
Second paper
Cleveland-Innes and Campbell states in their paper 'Emotional presence, learning and the online learning environment' the hypothesis that emotion as a sensation is a part in learning and that emotion therefore is going to be present in online learning tools and/or environments. They question if emotions at all are present in online learning environments of it they are what kinds of emotion they are.
One immediate concern of mine is that the major part of the investigation is mainly conducted using only quantitative methods. The target group involved (students) where asked to answer a questionnaire about their online learning experience, this way of getting results is quantitative yes, but without supplementing this by thorough qualitative methods (i.e using mixed methods when incorporating both qualitative and quantitative methods) like focus groups or interviews you do certainly get a lot less explanation about the variables given in the study and why they react as they do. Yes they used open ended questions after each finished course and that is classified as qualitative but it is not the most thorough type of qualitative method. They still loose the advantage of seeing the participants interact, dissect and analyze the subject further which could have been done using a more appropriate method of qualitative research.
In the end Cleveland-Innes and Campbell concludes that, yes, emotion is part of online learning. It can serve as a distraction if handled poorly but can also help in decision making etc. They do not define what kinds of emotions are present but encourages to further studies about this.
7.11.12
Week 2 - Reflection
So this weeks theme was theory. What is theory, what is it not, what does it approach as a definition? This course could leave you feeling more confused as certain subjects we discuss sometimes do not have one clear defined solution or conclusion. But I think that you could think of it as broadening your senses and your view of the world as a whole, to not be so narrow minded and more accepting of different theories and views etc.
On that note, back to the theme in question: Theory. During todays seminar we came to a good generalized conclusion about what theory is, basically it should be something we humans construct and explain why and how something is and be testable. Also a majority of researchers should acknowledge this as true. These criterias can be supplemented by predictions. Of course it does not apply to each and every single one of the theories out there in cyberspace or in the real world, some theories is simply, at this state in time, to complex to confirm with the experiments or tests available today. One example discussed for this is the big bang theory. We cannot recreate this and test it by ourselves, but nevertheless it counts as one significant theory. I do not know if I really think it should be a mandatory criteria to be acknowledged by a majority of researchers for something being defined as a theory.
A few days ago I watched this program, Vetenskapens Värld (http://www.svtplay.se/video/367509/22-10-del-2-av-3). This episode was about a linguist who traveled to the Amazon to live with the Piraha-tribe. During his years living amongst them he discovered that they talk only in present tense, this was confirmed by some engineers who built a program to identify Piraha words and their tense. Although the linguist had good pointers about this and could speak their language perfectly the majority of linguists world wide thought of this as an abomination. This was due to a generally adopted theory of that all languages are recursive. If the Piraha tribes language was not recursive I.e only was spoken in the present tense, this would challenge this general theory of languages.
So yes, it could be a good criteria to weed out theories from hypothesis and so on. But it could also be a bad thing, eliminating potential theories or prolonging their waiting time for being acknowledged as theories.
On that note, back to the theme in question: Theory. During todays seminar we came to a good generalized conclusion about what theory is, basically it should be something we humans construct and explain why and how something is and be testable. Also a majority of researchers should acknowledge this as true. These criterias can be supplemented by predictions. Of course it does not apply to each and every single one of the theories out there in cyberspace or in the real world, some theories is simply, at this state in time, to complex to confirm with the experiments or tests available today. One example discussed for this is the big bang theory. We cannot recreate this and test it by ourselves, but nevertheless it counts as one significant theory. I do not know if I really think it should be a mandatory criteria to be acknowledged by a majority of researchers for something being defined as a theory.
A few days ago I watched this program, Vetenskapens Värld (http://www.svtplay.se/video/367509/22-10-del-2-av-3). This episode was about a linguist who traveled to the Amazon to live with the Piraha-tribe. During his years living amongst them he discovered that they talk only in present tense, this was confirmed by some engineers who built a program to identify Piraha words and their tense. Although the linguist had good pointers about this and could speak their language perfectly the majority of linguists world wide thought of this as an abomination. This was due to a generally adopted theory of that all languages are recursive. If the Piraha tribes language was not recursive I.e only was spoken in the present tense, this would challenge this general theory of languages.
So yes, it could be a good criteria to weed out theories from hypothesis and so on. But it could also be a bad thing, eliminating potential theories or prolonging their waiting time for being acknowledged as theories.
2.11.12
Theme 2
What
is theory and what is it not?
Well,
let's start with the former. Theory for scientific studies is
something that involves explanation of an action, construct etc.,
predictions about this and apart from this it should also be
testable. In a general sense theory, in it's core, is something we
humans construct to describe and explain our world,
to enchance our own understanding of this world we live in. These
criterias for something being a theory is often supplemended by the
ability to give predictions of future actions, events and so on. Is
'this-and this' a theory then? Does it explain why, give predictions
and is it testable? Then yes.
[1]
Theory
is not anything in the following types [2]:
- Theory is not references, references just relate to theories and does not explain. An example of this is 'this gives that'. This reference does not explain the logic of why 'this gives that' as an theory would have done.
- Data is not theory. Data gives a description of empirical patterns involved but it does not explain why theese are involved.Yes, data is an important part of theorizing but it is not the whole of a theory.
- From type three we derive that variables or constructs are not theory. As stated before theese kinds of parts are important part of theorizing, but because they do not, in themselves, give an explanation of why they exist or how they are connected they do not count as theory.
- Diagrams and figures are not theory. They may be helpful in visualisating parts of explanations but they do not explain theese parts.
- Hypotheses and/or predictions are not theory. They are basically statements about what we expect should happen and do not explain why this is expected.
Selected
paper and it's major theories
For
this theme I've chosen the paper Virtual
Interpersonal Touch: Expressing and Recognizing Emotions
Though Haptic Devices
by authors Jeremy N. Bailenson et al (2007). The paper brings up a
number of theories that is central to the paper, basically we can
divide them into three major theories.
Facial
expressions
During
the course of experiencing an emotion facial muscles move. These
movements are the effect of a number of biological changes causing
different facial muscles to work. (Type 4)
Voice
Different
emotions result in different usage of our own voice. Every emotion
has it's own range in pitch, rhythm, amplitude and duration causing
us to interpret the emotion correctly. (Type 4)
Touch
Touch in
it's general sense is a signal used to increase trust. Through touch
a person can interpret urgency, sincerity, significance etc. For
instance a handshake can transmit different kinds of emotions
depending on for example, dryness, firmness of grip, temperature etc.
(Type 4)
Benefits
and limitations
The
benefits of using these theories is that they create a fundamental
understanding of the basic emotional systems in human interaction.
This wide range of basic theory includes the most usable interaction
types when decodings different signals for specific emotions.
The
limitations of these theories is that, for example, the theory about
use of touch is a rather unexplored when it comes to interaction
between humans, person-through computer-to-person. The theories used
are quite many and could in extension split the researchers and
readers focus when it comes to making conclusions about their study.
- - -
[2]
Sutton,
R. I. & Staw, B. M. (1995), What
Theory is Not,
Administrative
Science Quarterly,
40(3), 371-384.
1.11.12
Week 1 - Reflection
The
course have been interesting so far, I'm getting a grip of it and what I can
gain from it. When we were asked what we thought about this course I said
'better late than never' and it's so true. I think that this course may give me
the framework for writing a good or great master thesis. I think it will help
me open my mind even more and think outside the box as an engineer, interaction
designer and in the extension as a human understanding the world better.
I
learned about impact factors, gained good sources for relevant scientific
information and most of all that knowledge is a different thing entirely
depending on who you ask. Impact factors is in it's simplest sense a
measurement of how important an academic journal is within it's own field. I.F gives
the mean of citations on articles from the journal.
Knowledge
is a different matter, I think that it's essentially easier to define what
knowledge isn't than what it is. Then again knowledge in a discipline is much
simpler to explain than knowledge overall - Take knowledge about math for
example, in math two plus two equals four, this we have knowledge about and can
prove. Which for me is what I for now define as true knowledge. In a way I am
more likely drawn to the theories of pragmatism than other views because I
think it is a way of proving something to be true and when it is true it is
knowledge.
Pragmatism
is in it's core a philosophical view where theory and action is in focus. An
action or theory is considered valid if it works. Experiments are essential to
discern what is true and false knowledge in pragmatism. In it's most basic form
pragmatism closes in on knowledge by looking at how an organism interacts with
it's setting and how it, by using ideas, keep the ones that work as true and
reject those that don't. This organization of experience, derived from
true ideas and theories which is gained through experiments, is what pragmatism
identifies as knowledge. One important aspect of this confirmation of knowledge
is that the method of deciding if it's true is open to the public to
confirm.
As
one known pragmatic, John Dewey, states, you learn by doing. On that note I
leave you to learn more about this by searching on.
Prenumerera på:
Kommentarer (Atom)