This week
started off with a seminar regarding qualitative methods and was then followed
by a lecture in “Qualitative
methods based on concepting, tinkering and critique” by Ylva Ferneaus, whom was
also one of the writers of the article that we read this week.
During the
seminar we mainly discussed the qualitative methods that were used in the
article that we chose by ourselves. The most common method, amongst the
articles that were chosen by the people in my group, was conducting interviews
or having focus groups, but other methods such as observation, experimental and
content analysis were also quite common.
We also had a small discussion about the differences between content analysis and data analysis and why it’s important to
separate the two.
As mentioned
above we also had a lecture by Ylva Ferneaus who is a researcher in human-machine
interaction. The first half
of the lecture she talked more deeply about her article, and her background as
a researcher. She explained the importance of semiotics in her work and why
signs and symbols are interesting.
Since I had
some troubles really grasping the article this was very helpful in
understanding what the paper was actually about in a deeper sense. However, I
still don’t really feel that I completely understand the motivation and purpose
of the paper. It’s for sure an interesting topic but what are the expected
results and goals with this type of product?
During the
second half of the lecture we did have more of a dialog where we discussed some
questions relevant to the paper. Some of the questions that we discussed were:
· What was qualitative with the method
(was there even a method)?
· Was there any kind of empirical data?
· Would statistics help in improving
the article?
· Is there a problem that no user
study was conducted?
In this case we
got to be more critical towards the papers approach and methods that were used.
This at least helped me bit on the way of fully understanding the purpose and
goal of the paper.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar