Theme 5

This week’s assignment consisted of two design research papers. The first one was co-written by Haibo Li, our new Media technology professor, in 2008 – ”Turn Your Mobile Into the Ball: Rendering Live Football Game Using Vibration.” and the second one was a choice of our own. 

In the first paper the authors present a new way of assimilating football games on mobile devices. They use a mockup to conduct a user study where they test and evaluate their product. By conducting a user study to test out their system they can detect problems and issues at an early stage, which is really important when developing a product. In this case the product has a commercial value as well, this makes the user study even more important. It’s also necessary to think about what kind of people are involved in the user study and that they fit the target group the product is aiming for. 

When developing a new product, as in this case, it’s also important to ask questions whether the product is actually realizable and feasible. Using a proof of concept prototype could do this. The purpose of a proof of concept prototype is to verify that the idea, concept or theory is useful. The prototype is not intended to serve as an early version of the final product but can rather be quite small and may not even be complete. In the user study conducted in the paper the prototype is in one way a proof of concept prototype since they get feedback from the users regarding the usefulness of the product. By using this evaluation method they can verify whether their product is useful and has a customer base. 

The second article that I read was an article written by my bachelor thesis advisor Karrie Karahalios – ”Social Mirrors as Social Signals: Transforming Audio into Graphics” and was published in IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (impact factor: 1.411). The reason why I chose this article is because I find that it describes a design research project quite well.

A social mirror is a visualization using three specific properties. The visualization is shown from a third person perspective, showing changes in real-time and making patterns and trends visible in group conversations. The aim of the paper is to:

-       Visualize content creation within groups over time.

-       Create a better topic classifier for human conversation using human-computer dialogue.

In the paper the researchers present the results of a set of user studies that were conducted. Having a user group trying out the system helps in future research concerning how conversation visualizations can play a part in creative thinking, brainstorming, idea formation etc. To investigate what signals and cues are important in communication visualization the researchers base their knowledge on the social– signaling theory.

What I learned about design research from this paper was that even though you might have a hypothesis about the results of a design technology there might also be other results and applications for the product that weren’t considered to begin with.

Reflections on Theme 4 - Qualitative Methods

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.

Theme 4

 The article that I chose for this week’s assignment is ”Knowledge and networks: An experimental test of how network knowledge affects coordination” by Daniel Enemark, Mathew D. McCubbins, Nicholas Weller.

The motivation for the paper lies in a previous argument that adding connections to a network or changing the structure of existing connections in a network can support successful coordination. However, changing connections or network structure can also have negative effects and there is therefor a need to search for an alternative way to add connections when dealing with network coordination problems.

The article presents experimental evidence that a network doesn’t have to change structure to increase people’s knowledge and coordination, but that people quickly can coordinate over networks when they have the opportunity to observe the full network; a more complete view over the network leads to faster coordination.

By using an experimental method they are able to test how the design of a network affects the coordination and performance. Their study is built on two main theories – graph theory and game theory. One issue that is brought up is when performing experimental tasks there are obstacles to generalizability which means that no matter of how many tasks they run, they can’t be sure to demonstrate that the effects are universal. However, by using two different coordination forms and a broad range of network structures the range of environment helps in improving the generalization.

For this particular study the use of a experimental method is really helpful since the authors wants to observe how people interact and coordinate within certain networks. One thing that they didn’t consider in their study is the knowledge of different network structure that the subjects already possess. This may have an impact on the outcome of the study.

Qualitative methods are helpful when looking at certain behaviors, and in this case how people interact with a system. By only collecting data regarding how people for example think that they would act (a more quantitative method) would not only be less detailed but could also provide wrong information about what is really going on in the situation. What people think that they do and what they actually do are two completely different things.

For this week we also read the article “Comics, Robots, Fashion and Programming: outlining the concept of actDresses” by Fernaeus, Y and Jacobsson, M. The article presents ActDress which is a form of physical programming using physical markings to be attached directly to a digital artifact. Examples could be using physical labels, clothing or other accessories for controlling physically embodied systems.

The motivation and purpose of the ActDress concept is to provide the end-user with their own control and programming language when it comes to electronic devices.

A question that I would like to discuss for next time is whether qualitative or quantitative methods are becoming more important in our digitalized world?

Reflections on Theme 3 – Quantitative Methods

This week’s topic was about quantitative methods, more specifically what’s included within the concept and when to use it. We had a guest lecturer, Martha Cleveland-Innes, whom we also read an article by - “Emotional presence, learning and the online learning environment”. Martha brought up some really good points about quantitative methods in her lecture, since she has a background as a quantitative researcher her insight into the method was highly defined and well grounded.

Some of the key points during her presentation were: when to use a quantitative method, what the difference is between using a quantitative and a qualitative method and what questions should be asked when deciding what method to use. She also discussed when to use a “mixed method” which was also the topic of our second article for the week - “Mixed Research and Online Learning: Strategies for Improvement”. Martha also pointed out that since we are now living in a technical and digitalized world with more and more data it’s even more important to look into different options of what method to use when doing research. Not only sticking to what’s most convenient for the researcher and what the researcher is used to but to be creative and come use methods that fits the purpose of the study.

She also talked about using deductive and inductive principles when approaching a research area. Often it’s common that people think that one or the other is the best principle but Martha argues that they are both important and that it’s actually an iterative process between the two principles. Deductive means that you start with a more general principle and then go towards more specific goals, whilst the inductive principles starts by looking at the specific details and then goes on towards a more general view. 

We also had a lab exercise with Ester Appelgren, unfortunately the software crashed a lot in the previous group so we never conducted the actual lab. We did however get an introduction of the software that we were suppose to use for analyzing quantitative datasets.

Theme 3

-->

The articles for this week’s theme are connected to research and research quality on online learning environments. Since the rise of the digital age this topic has been highly discussed but the research regarding the matter has been pore and with low quality. With poorly conducted studies there has been a need to use mixed research to fully address the problems and issues related to the matter.

The first article "Emotional presence, learning and the online learning environment" by Martha Cleveland-Innes consists of two main phases which are separated by two main questions. The first questions is whether there is an emotion connected to an online learning environment, and the second phase consists of the reconsideration of the role of emotion in the conceptual model of online learning.

Emotions are an important factor for students’ success in the learning process in an online teaching environment. Research in negative and positive emotions indicate that people that experience stress and anger tend to make more inappropriate decisions than positive emotions.

The article presents the results of a quantitative user study which main target audience were graduate students participating in online courses. The first phase of the study resulted in a more deep understanding of when emotions play a part in online learning environments. The second phase showed that the expressed language in discussion forums lay far beyond the expression of social presence.

The second article “Mixed Research and Online Learning: Strategies for Improvement” by Patrick R. Lowenthal brings up the issues and complexities that arises with research on online learning communities. The article argues that the quantitative data set that has been collected in previous studies on online learning sites can hardly answer all research questions. Often the results have been directly compared to face-to-face learning environments and not looking deeply enough into the dynamics of online learning communities. The non-diversity in research methods has lead to a one-way understanding of the online media, while missing the important nuances that actually do exist.

The article therefor focuses on explaining the importance of using a mixed research processes to fully understand the complexity of online learning issues. The paper also defines and gives a background of what is included in the concept of mixed research and mixed research methods.

Mixed research consists of using both quantitative and qualitative approaches while conducting a study of some sort. Believers in this research argue that this is the best method to better understand the research problem. But formulating the right mixed research questions is hard, since the questions should not only be quantitatively or qualitatively formulated, and so the paper presents some guidelines for how this is done.

While reading these texts I learned differences in using quantitative and qualitative methods in research. I was pretty confident about what they meant before hand but now I have a better understanding of when to use them (at least when it comes to studies regarding online learning environment).

Reflections on Theme 2 – Theory

-->

During our second week, and third seminar, the theme was ”theory” and what is included and not included in the concept of theory.

Before going into this week’s theme I thought I had a pretty good idea of what theory was, but the more I read about it the more confused I got, or at least in the beginning. Even going into the seminar I wasn’t sure I’d fully understood the concept completely. I did however feel that I got a better understanding during the seminar when we were able to discuss it more deeply.

Something that I learned that I hadn’t considered before was what defines a “good” theory and what’s a “bad” theory.  I also realized that the view of what theory is that I had before was more of the common use of the word and not the research and academic definition. Meaning that when we use the word “theory” in our daily language it doesn’t correspond to the specific definition of what a theory is that is being used in the academia.

Theme 2

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

Theory can be defined in a lot of ways. According to the dictionary it could mean “a mental view” or “contemplation”, a “ conception or mental scheme of something to be done”, for “the method of doing something”. A normal view of theory is to see it as a way of providing explanations and predictions but also to be testable.  Theories can also be viewed as universal statements, where the statements are tested against observations of what happens in the real world. However theory itself is not to be confused or mixed with results, references or data of research. The word theory is often overused in a way that it’s sometimes almost becomes meaningless in its context. Since the description is so diverse there is a lack of consensus what theory really is and therefor how to use theory in a right and “strong” way. To have a strong theory it’s important to ask why curtain data occurred or why particular findings were important for the result.

As an example of showing where strong theory is needed I want you to look at this “Fanta commercial”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF5rMBvuJMM

Here is a great example of where the data collected would show that there is correlation between people drinking Fanta and having bad haircuts. However the data itself would not say anything about what is causing the other, therefor only using the data would possible come to the wrong conclusions. One conclusion could for example be that drinking Fanta leads to your hair falling off. Here there should be different kinds of theories applied. One theory could be that there are enzymes in Fanta that makes your hair fall off. Theories that are looking into more specifics of where the data came from and why, is in this case essential. In this case the explanation turns out to be dependent on a third part. There is a middle link connecting the two phenomena, which is an almost blind hairdresser who gives out free Fanta to everyone getting a haircut. Only collecting the data that “people with bad hair drink Fanta” would never in itself reveal the real reason for why this is true. Strong theory is grounded on underlying processes so as to understand systematic reasons for a particular occurrence or nonoccurrence.

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

I chose the article “Visual Methods for Analyzing Time-Oriented Data”. The article uses a design and action theory type according to Gregor’s definition of this theory type. The article analyzes different visual methods that have been used to previously visualize data but argues that the time aspect hasn’t been fully looked at and that this parameter has to be taken in account when developing new frameworks and methods. I found that the ground for their theory was well discussed and also why this was important to look at. The theory is also close connected to the EP theory which goes deeper into the understanding of when, why, how, where and what will be.

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

Dealing with a lot of theories, which I found was the case in my paper, it can become almost a bit to much theory based. A lot of the theories used are also based on previous research and their theories and this makes it even harder to distinguish what theories lead to other theories, especially for the design theory method which rely on “what is to become” more than “why something is becoming”.