Final post

It's now time for the very last posting, the one that's going to conclude this blog and the DM2572 course, for me. As a closure, we're going to look back to what we've learned: if we were to think about methods to answer a complex research question - what would we come up with? 

"I know one thing : that I know nothing" - Socrates

Much like everything else in this world, as Kant has made us realize in the preface to his Critique of Pure Reason, complexity is relative. Objectivity, or perception of the world through an unbiased an absolute point of view, can not be attained by mankind, leading us to learn to accept and embrace our flaws, all the while keeping critical towards our findings.

This idea, that was introduced from the very first theme of the course, is the one that has sticked with me throughout the whole process of learning about theory and methods for research in DM2572, and that I hope will never disappear - as it is central to the methodology of research, and should never be forgotten. 

Keeping that in mind, we'll have to take more time to define properly the research question. Indeed, in research much like in any other field where an answer is needed, the methodology has to be kickstarted by an effective, clear, and precise delimitation of the issue at hand. Indispensable to research design, problem definition is needed in scholarly research of course, but also in research and development for the industry. Indeed, one could think that R&D is, just like what we've been taught in classes through our numerous years of scientific education, merely a way to answer questions already defined by the needs of an user. This could have been true in the past - but today, it seems we're having innovations that we didn't even know we needed before they were here ! Look at Facebook, Instagram, Twitter … They're the result of a problem definition that goes beyond the point of simple needs - they're an answer to a well-crafted design research, and show that problem definition can be the incubator of great and revolutionary ideas so we'll make sure to brainstorm and take the time to examine the issue under various angles. 

Now that we've defined our problem - it's time to design our response, the methodology with which we're going to answer the issue. We've learned a lot about quantitative and qualitative methods - it's not really the point of this posting to define them again. To put it simply and in a very short way, quantitative methods rely on mathematical and algorithmic processing of raw data to produce statistics, numeric data that we can use; while qualitative methods involve human processing of the meaning and objectives conveyed by raw data in order to collect and sort the information in a more precise way. We've learned about numerous strategies belonging to both categories - all of which are effective and useful in their own way. So how do we decide which to pick, which to discard? There's no "one is better than the other" - and if there even were, we'd be incapable to choose given the fact that we are, let's say it again, completely biased and with a relative point of view. 

Rather than the intuitive idea of choosing beforehand which of those we'd go for, we've learned how much more effective it is to think backwards - about the results we want, the type of theory we want to craft. What do we want to to analyze? What are we answering to? What do we want to shed light on? Given the hypotheses, we want to find the logical link between the different entities at hand, and we're searching for a methodology in order to do so. There are different types of data, each of which is more adapted to collect either through quantitative or through qualitative method. In that sense, the decision of which collection method we're going to use comes parallel to the designing process, that we can thankfully reshape and remodel if we realize mistakes made along the way - with testing, concept-proofing, etc. All the pieces of our handiwork come together at the same time, under a carefully thought-through supervision.

As you'd expect - there is no secret recipe to produce a relevant and robust theory to answer a research question, much less if said research question can be considered as complex, or as a wicked problem. If the area you're exploring is new to you, something foreign and not completely understandable to you, it might even be hard to formulate a hypothesis. Case studies can be seen as a strategy to start - to familiarize yourself with your research topic, and begin working effectively. Indeed, that alone doesn't cut it, and has to be followed by the process aforementioned.

After tremendous efforts and thoughts, we can manage to arrive to a point where we've gone through the design, the crafting and the research itself. Now, what comes next? We've learned about the importance of prototyping, not only for research in the industry but even in a scholar environment. Evaluation is a step we can't just skip, as it is the final validation through which we can evaluate our model.

Of course, the above reflexion is just a rough draft of what I've learned - nothing comes out if there's no practice, and I'm sure that I'll add a lot more to this once I've eventually settled in my master's thesis. This is only the starting point, and I'm glad to have understood so many things that were, to me at least, not that easy to access at the beginning.
The lectures and literatures brought me closer to practice, with structured and precise cases where I could see the research design, and evaluate it with a critical point of view - all the while learning about the upsides and downsides of it. On the other hand, the seminars were a way for me to understand what was not clear at the beginning, to share thoughts and to learn through other people's thoughts - it was of course very inspiring and enriching, and I'm thankful for having been part of such an enticing experience !

Read More

Final Post - Comments

Here are the different comments I've posted throughout the course :

THEME 1

1. I like the structure of your essay, it makes it easier for the reader to grasp the introduced notions ! Your explanation on Kant is very clever as well, you slowly build up the theory and eventually bring the reader to understand its core: two models of knowledge, a posteriori and a priori, and how it intertwines according to Kant. I agree with your statement that "understanding has a determined shape and it doesn't keep ideas without modifying them", and that "fundamental conceptions of understanding are a priori conceptions": I guess that's how you understand Kant when he says that "objects must conform to our cognition".
2. I like your explanation of "Perception without conception is blind. Conception without perception is empty". With the example of the radio, it's very easy to understand what Kant meant by this quote ! With the Table of Categories, we can apprehend the world and gain a posteriori knowledge. But how do you think we, as humans, construct this (a priori) Table of Categories in our minds? In our seminar, we discussed this question and came up with the answer that even though we are not born with the Table of Categories already built in our brain, the categories are so basic and instinctual that we know the concept without having to experience it. We know what time is, what space is, without having to experience it. That's why more complex categories are not a priori - such as race, social group, colors… They depend on linguistic and cultural values that we need to experience in order to understand it.
3. I'm glad my post made the concepts of a priori and a posteriori a little clearer for you. I agree with you, and I believe analytic judgement, where you don't actually have to verify this judgement, is linked to a priori knowledge, whereas synthetic judgement, which requires investigation for said judgement, is related to a posteriori knowledge. As for the Table of Categories : the way I understood it, the twelve categories are a priori knowledge which we use in order to process the knowledge we get from our perception - that is to say, to build our a posteriori knowledge. In a sense, the categories are concepts that are inherent to our before-experience understanding (thus, our a priori knowledge), and they structure our a posteriori knowledge because we have to resort to them to process our perceptions into understanding.
4. I had the same feeling of confusion before attending the lecture and seminar - did I really understand what Kant and Plato meant to say? I'm glad I'm not the only one for whom the lecture and the seminar cleared up a few foggy parts of the text. As for your first point, I definitely agree that Plato and Kant share a somehow similar view on knowledge, though formulated differently. However, it seems to me that Plato is focusing a little more on a posteriori understanding rather than a posteriori, and that's why both theories feel complimentary to me. Your second point is quite interesting as well : it's true we seldom find time to reflect upon such issues. Often more than not, we take for granted our capacity of conceptualization and reflexion. Now, upon having tried the virtual mind experience, proposed by Johan, of waking up completely disoriented, without any conceptualization skills and a priori knowledge whatsoever, I could really feel the example differentiating between seeing "with our eyes" and "through our eyes". I completely agree with your statements in regards to that matter!
5. I also felt after the lecture there were a few points I didn't understand, so don't worry you're not the only one :-) As far as I know, I think a priori knowledge relies on analytic judgement in that it doesn't require any experience beforehand : for example, when you say "All bodies have extension", the predicate of extension is included in the concept of body, so you don't have to verify it to know that. It's different from synthetic judgement where you have to investigate the world to verify it, and that's why this relates to a posteriori judgement. Now in regards to what you said about the "world in itself", I agree with what you said: only God can have an unbiased understanding of it, and because of that I believe we can't really relate to anything "in itself". We can't transcend our position in the world, and thus I believe there's no point in discussing concepts "in themselves". I like the fact that you raised the question of the 12 categories in your seminar groups : it's a really interesting discussion, and I'd love to hear more about it ! According to Johan, these categories are quite basic ones, so we don't really have to experience them to know them (so they're a priori), I wonder if there are any other categories he hasn't thought about and that are a priori as well!
6. Reading Kant was also quite the challenge for me, as you said, some parts I had to re-read a few times before even beginning to understand what his point was.. Even so, I really enjoyed the week as well: I haven't thought about discussing my own feelings like you did about the learning in my post-seminar blog post, and I really enjoyed reading yours. It's true this week was a real eye-opener for me too : regarding philosophical terms and concepts of course, but even more so concerning how to conduct a philosophical discussion, sharing open and honest opinions with others about a subject I'm not that confident in.. Thanks again for your honest posting!
7. Really enjoyed your explanation on the primary and secondary qualities, glad to have learnt something thanks to you ! I agree with your take on Kant's "pure judgement", the fact that we can't overlook our position on Earth to achieve what he calls "God's point of view", simply because we aren't god, and we're bound to our own place and location on earth, as biased as it is. However I'm not entirely convinced about your point on deductive and inductive reasoning: I don't think a priori can be as you said "one definition" of deductive reasoning, and a posteriori for inductive reasoning. Rather, I'd say deductive reasoning is built on a priori knowledge : indeed, deductive reasoning needs logics to be conducted. From one statement, you narrow it down using logics to the conclusion ("All men are mortal." and "Socrates is a man", therefore "Socrates is mortal"). The fact that logics is a priori knowledge makes deductive reasoning dependant on a priori. On the other hand, inductive reasoning is a way of extrapolating a fact, based on experience.. And thus, making it highly relatable to a posteriori ("All the birds I've seen in Paris are black." Based on that I formulate that "All the birds in Paris are probably black"). In that sense, I agree that deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are linked to a priori and a posteriori judgements, but they're not exactly definitions I believe. Nonetheless, it's really interesting to bring this up I believe, it's a good thing we're able to use what we've learned and apply it to other fields and scopes. Thanks for this interesting post !
8. Hello Stina, I really like your post, because it exposes in a very synthetic way what you've understood: it goes straight to the point, is clear, and well exemplified. I agree with your saying "the book is an investigation rather than a critique". At first, I thought his point was to denounce metaphysics and the fact that it wasn't a science because it was "empty". After the lecture and the seminar, I began to understand that it wasn't really the case: He's suggesting we change our point of view, like what happened in the Copernican revolution, to improve what's happening in Metaphysics, and hopefully correct the direction it's been taking. Thank you for your interesting and well thought post!
9. Same for me, understanding Kant was quite the hard task, especially in English. By re-reading the same sentence again and again, until I understood, it became clearer, and the lecture and seminar also helped a lot. Asking questions in the seminar helps a lot, for the group as well, because it's what makes us further our understanding of the matters at hand. I agree that what makes the particularity of the seminars is that we are able to communicate using "simpler words" on pretty difficult concepts, making it easier to understand what we once misunderstood. For example, your example on the bachelors is really clearing up any misconceptions in regards to a priori knowledge: because the predicate "single" is included in the concept of bachelor, so we don't have to investigate about that, whereas for a posteriori we have to experience it to know it. Thanks for your interesting post !
10. Really like how you exemplified everything to show your understanding of the concepts! One thing I'm not sure I completely agree with though is when you say that "experience and perception are always unreliable". I don't think it's "unreliable", rather I'd say it's not "pure"; in the sense that it's not something unbiased. As Kant states, we have always thought about an untainted, pure, knowledge; one that's acquired through "God's Point of View". But can there really be such a point of view? Knowing we can't elevate ourselves and bypass all perceptions from our own position in the world, it'd be irrelevant to think about such a thing as "the world in itself". We have to accept that there wouldn't be such a concept as "the world" if we weren't there. In this sense, experience and perception aren't unreliable to me, they're just acquired through our own points of view, and as a result of that, they're different for each and everyone of us, but that doesn't make them "unreliable" to me ! All in all, I really liked your post, because it made me reflect upon what I've heard and learnt.

THEME 2

1. Hello ! I like how you've summarized everything in a way it's clear you've understood the key points and the links between them. You point out in a very precise way the differences between Adorno and Benjamin's views in regards to mass culture. Concerning historically determined perception, i agree with the fact that because the way we receive and perceive art is highly dependent on our historical context, there is no "good art". That's something we can tie with Fascism, he way it's branding their own art as "the best" when there's actually no way to compare art. Just another example of how both texts denounce fascism, and the consumers' society... Thank you for your interesting post !
2. Hello Agri, Regarding the link between nominalism and the Enlightenment: to me, the Enlightenment is failing in its promise to bring freedom to mankind partly because it is built on the concept of nominalism. Indeed, by basing itself on an observation of the world as we perceive it - in a way, that's what nominalism pushes us to do -, the Enlightenment leads us to reproduce a vision of what's already existent (dangerous especially in a world where fascism strives), without even having the opportunity to introduce something new because we don't have concepts like human rights, equity, etc. This is actually something I understood better thanks to the seminar, as it wasn't very clear to me even after the lecture!!
3. Hello, I've been reading your posts, and been meaning to tell you they're really interesting. Take your discussion on pushing philosophy to the extreme - it's incredibly insightful and makes people ponder on wether extrapolating this to everyday life would still be valid.. We talked about Plato's cave allegory as well - I like the fact that we could discuss realism in our seminars, because it wasn't something we had to think about in our pre seminar, when it's actually very important to know about it ! In regards to your take on Aura, I agree that Benjamin says mass production of art serves as somehow destroying it. But at the same time, I believe while he argues that it's important in our road to achieve class equity - because it enables the masses to access culture easier -, he still manifests a pinch of regret towards disparition of aura.
4. I like how detailed and honest your post is, showing how you’ve clearly well understood the key points of the theme and the links between them !! In regards to nominalism, I believe it’s mostly related to emphasis on an entity’s particularities, and how this entity is thus unique, making it irrelevant to link it to any other abstract concept. In this sense, it disregards abstract ideas, and we eventually only consider the world as we experience it. That’s contrary to the views of realism where the world as we perceive it is only a flawed representation of a conceptual, original world, made of ideas that are perfect. Plato’s cave allegory illustrates that difference really well. Thank you for your interesting and insightful post, keep up the great work
5. Hello! I like how you're using natural/artificial crystals to exemplify how natural objects have aura, as do art objects. This is an issue I didn't really think about during the seminar, and I thank you for bringing it up ! As Benjamin talked about how mountains could have aura, based on its unique localization at that space and time, I just accepted this without going deeper into it. As for your explanation on Enlightenment and how it's eventually reduced to mimesis again, I agree that it's mainly Adorno and Horkheimer's explanation in their first chapter : because we're products of nature, no matter how we try to distance ourselves from natural processes, we can't escape that we were biologically programmed.. And everything we do is mimesis, just like myth is. In regards to nominalism, I believe it rejects abstract concepts, and in that sense it only considers the word as we perceive it - our own representations. Thus, it's dangerous if pushed to the extreme, as in Fascism, because it makes us reproduce what's already here, without any abstract idea to compare, no possibility to see what's yet unseen. Thanks for your post !
6. Wow, thank you for such a well documented and insightful post ! I like how you've included references from your undergraduate thesis, making it all the more interesting. I agree with the opposition you depicted between Adorno and Benjamin's stands regarding mass culture, as I have underlined the same tendency. Maybe you could include a little bit about the concept of Aura, which I also failed to mention in my post, as its one core argument to Benjamin's work! Brecht's quote is really interesting, for it shows how powerful art is : revolutionary, for Benjamin, reactionary, for Adorno. I guess it's also important to think about how history has to be taken into account, because it's essential in our perception of art!
7. Hello, I like how you've structured your post - and taken into account the historical elements that we were given during the lecture. I think it's essential to think about the political context when reading these texts, it's something that undeniably shapes what the authors want to write, the audience they write it for. The effect they want it to have. Here, denouncing Fascism and the Consumers' Society seems to have been one goal they've achieved.
8. Hi, I really like how precisely you've summarized everything in this post. With this overview, once can easily understand what we've talked about during the seminars and lecture, it shows you've understood the key points of the arguments. I think the Enlightenment, because it was meant to first seek distance from nature and then failed, didn't lead us to freedom with engineering but eventually tied us again to mimesis by the same means.. Of course we can be thankful for all the great scientific progress we've made, but we have to view this with a certain point of view - one which doesn't make us idolize science in a way where we create different stands between humans.. Like what fascism could do.
9. Hello ! I think you cover the issue of Nominalism and Realism quite well, your post makes it easy to understand the difference between both notion thanks to your example! It would be great if you could link this to how the Enlightenment effectively represents a danger to Adorno and Horkheimer when linked with fascism, and also the views of both authors concerning mass culture?
10. Hello Josefine ! To me, nominalism can be dangerous when pushed to its limits because it disables us from having another take on the world than the one that's adopted currently. In this sense, in a world where fascism for example strives, we'd be stuck in this hierarchical society without having the possibility to see beyond, because we don't have abstract concepts such as the fact that all people were born equal - the universal human rights ! I agree with you, the historical context of the texts is really important to take into account, seeing as they were written for Adorno and Horkheimer in the wake of their desillusion from the Usa being the land of freedom, and Benjamin in the tumult and horror of the Fascism reign..

THEME 3

1. I agree, the discussion about the concept of truth was something I really learned from during the seminar. Indeed, we're very used to talking in terms of absolute truth, right or wrong, black or white… To me, it would be wiser to say a theory that works hasn't been proven wrong, rather than to say it is "true" - as we learned that we can't, won't, shouldn't, think about the world "in god's point of view".
2. I agree with you, in regards to the fact that "truth is relative". Indeed, we're used to labelling theories, concepts, ideas, are right/wrong, true/false… We were raised this way, but it's interesting to see that we can change our points of views when reflecting upon all that science has been through - paradigm shifts that show we should, rather than say something is true, say it hasn't (yet) been proven false…
3. Hello ! I have to agree with you on the theme's literature - it was easier to read, since it wasn't that philosophical, which was a good point… But because of that it made reflexion harder : since we don't have the key solutions in the texts, having to think about it by ourselves makes it harder. We tried to discuss in our seminars, but we also had the same opinions, which makes it even harder :-( Thankfully the teacher came and made it possible for us to advance in a way where we could find a more diverse ground and opinions. I like the fact that you underlined the uncertainty of the authors : I didn't particularly note that when reading, and now that you mention it I reckon it seems that way ! It's funny how they specify their paper on theory isn't a theory. Thanks for your interesting blog post !
4. Hello, I didn't think about the difference between philosophical and scientific theories. Love the way you presented it - I agree making a point to differentiate them is important, since we usually say a theory works until it's proven that it doesn't, in terms of scientific theory, but don't refer to philosophical theory that way! Indeed, we often have confronting and opposing theories in philosophy, and we don't talk about truth at all in this sense. Thanks for your thought provoking post !
5. Hello ! Thanks for your post ! I like how you explain very simply the concepts and matters at hand. One thing I thought about when reading your post, is that it seems research sometimes advance without relying on solely observation - they can make things happen in order to study them. Indeed, a lot of natural phenomenons have already been explained - though we don't yet know if these explanations can be improved or not - and thus, scientists can decide to make their imagination work in order to provoke phenomenons not yet observed… in order to study them.
6. Hello ! I like the fact that you've very clearly made a distinction between philosophy and science, but eventually relinked them together with the "theory of knowledge". However, there's one thing I didn't really understand about your post - what do you mean when you say that "we often verify those scientific theories by some methods which are proved to be valid, to the scientific extent"? As you've stated later in your post, no theory can be "absolutely correct", and that's linked to the concept of truth. Don't you think this is relevant as well for scientific methods? Of course we have to consider the fact that methods often are dependent on logic, which, according to our first theme, are inherently proved by itself…
7. Hello ! I agree with you, it wasn't that easy to find relevant journals and papers… I didn't know there were examples in the course website until I saw your post !!!!!! Thanks a lot for that, though I now feel a little stupid for having spent so much time searching... In regards to what you said about the "theory [becoming] the truth", I agree that the concept of truth is relative, and many a theory has been taken as "right" until proven wrong. In that sense, we'd have to be more relative and say that it's a commonly accepted theory, as I think you meant it ! Thanks for your interesting post :-)
8. Hello ! I agree with your distinction between theory and practice. It's important to notice we're used to drawing conclusions based on observations, and that we base our learning on that. But as we become more accustomed to research, we've got to delve more into the theoretical aspects - that are inherently different from observations, as we talked about during this week's lecture. I didn't think about that before reading your blog, so I thank you for provoking such thoughts :-)
9. Hello ! I agree, the phrase "Theory is what practice is not" pretty much sums up everything. It has also been quite the revelation to me when I heard the teacher say it, and it stuck with me until now. I like the idea of "theory flow" that you've brought up, it would be interesting to know more about this : I'm not quite sure this is generalizable to philosophical theories for example? On top of this, we'd generally be more inclined to say that theories are based on observations, and that leads to hypothesis ?Then with the resources and data, we bring the theory up by causally linking everything together, and replying to the question posed by the hypothesis - the link between the two entities that we've formulated. Do you think the theory flow is something that's generalizable and … is a theory in itself? Thanks for your thought provoking post !
10. Hello ! It was the same for me - the seminar was also more helpful to me in regards to my understanding of what theory is, and what it is not. I like the fact that you've mentioned theory doesn't exist by itself : this shows very clearly that we are the ones responsible for creating it, and it underlines again what theory is not - practice. It also draws attention to the fact that hypothesis and theory are different of course. Thanks for your interesting post !

THEME 4

1. I didn't think about that, it's true that comparison can also be very valuable in this case : comparing two studies that lead to the same results is one way to come one step closer to objectivity, despite the fact that our approaches are subjective. It's a very interesting idea, and I am quite disappointed we didn't get to talk more about it during the seminar ! Thanks for bringing this up!
2. Hello Stina, I enjoyed reading your blog post ! Your reflection was well-written and detailed, making it easy for us to follow your ideas. One great thing is that we have discussed different things in our seminars - and reading your post is very enriching ! I liked the idea of the reliability of a study on subjective ideas. Somehow, I had the feeling that this wasn't even a subject to discuss because I felt it will always be pointless : I mean, no matter how deep you get in your investigation, for example if you use qualitative methods, it will be difficult to have an understanding that goes broader than just that of your study group, no?
3. Hello Elinor, Thank you for your insightful blog post ! As most of us probably do, I agree with the fact that a mix of quantitative and qualitative is often much more powerful than just one or the other. Indeed, it becomes difficult to clearly draw the line between them, and eventually what we do in order to serve our research often just blurs the line we try to draw. We also talked about the "wicked problems" in our seminar, and I found that very interesting. Indeed, as we have been formatted to like clear and well cut answers, the problem that too many variables influence the outcome makes us wary - and that's why such a problem becomes hard for us to face. In that sense, it becomes necessary to frame the issue better - as we have learned in our 6th theme, design research :-) Keep up the great work !
4. Hello Björn, Thank you for your interesting blog post! I was quite curious when I read your explanation of the article so I went and took a look at said article and it's very interesting the results they get. I also agree with the fact that our article, drumming in immersive VR, could get quite controversial in some circumstances, but there's also the idea that using quantitative methods shields us from inputting our own opinions. In that sense, some people might want to criticize, but the fact is they're numbers, and most people wouldn't know how to face that… Eventually, because we've attended the lectures and the seminars, we know that the way we conduct the study is our way of inputting our own opinions, and that's where we could and might get critical, but this very often goes unknown to some people.
5. Hello Malina ! That's interesting, it seems a lot of people have worked on quantitative/qualitative research for their bachelor's thesis, as I have read a lot of blog posts where it was mentioned ! Anyway, I like how precise you've been in your blog post, it was very insightful and interesting to read. One thing I'm not sure about however is your conclusion about the choice for qualitative/quantitative research. When you say "broad research questions" and "narrower research questions", I'm not sure what you refer to in terms of size? What are you qualifying as "broad" or "narrow"? I agree that quantitative study has to be applied to a a sample that's reasonably sized, whereas qualitative can be used for smaller samples, as they go deeper in knowledge. But I don't know if the line can be drawn that directly and distinctly. Somehow to me it seems that choosing what type of study isn't something you can do following some type of rule, it depends on the way you're conducting your study and sometimes it can change as you go… But that's only an idea I'm not sure about ! Thanks for your insightful and thought provoking blog post !
6. Hello Masha ! I find it interesting that you've learnt more about qualitative research than quantitative research. It's somehow ironic but it shows that you've worked in depth with your seminar group, and that's something great seeing as you've apparently all already worked with such subjects during your bachelor's thesis. Your post shows that your knowledge about the subject is already deep and that you can reflect on other aspects of the question ! I agree with the fact that the subject of research is one of the most important things in terms of deciding whether you want to go with quantitative or qualitative study. However, I think quantitative methods can be used to get precise results, and not only general answers. It's just that these results will only be relevant for the study group we're attending - and not generalizable. Thanks for your interesting post !
7. Hello ! We don't have the same system in France, so I wasn't in the same case as most of you guys - for the bachelor's thesis. However, I already had an okay understanding on the subject of quantitative and qualitative studies. I have to admit though that I was somehow biased in that understanding, and the lectures helped clear up this fact, so to me this was still kind of helpful as compared as your experience with this theme - and a lot of other people too, as I have read on other blogs. One question I have in regards to your blog post is that you say quantitative research is related to "how you gather, arrange, and present the numbers in an objectively manner." As said in previous themes, the word "objective" is somehow tricky to use, especially in research or philosophy, because there's no real objectivity - or at least we can't achieve that. In that sense, because we are the ones gathering and arranging the numbers, objectivity can not be applied to the results we get, because we are biased and our point of view changes the discoveries of the research. We can somehow bend and break what we get, according to what we want to achieve. At least, that's my point of view… Thanks for your thought provoking blog post !
8. I like how your blog post was different to that of others, it provided a thought-provoking reflection on science and quantitative research which I liked. Especially your discussion on the dependent variable and manipulation of these, which was very relevant I think and that we sadly overlooked in our own seminar - except for when we talked a little bit about wicked problems. One thing we can do if variables are too dependent on each other and that we can't really separate them to get more relevant results can be, in my opinion, to use quantitative and qualitative methods together. In order to neutralize your study, using a qualitative method to "detect" one variable that might influence the results of your quantitative method seems to help in many cases - I have seen quite a number of articles where this type of control was used ! Thanks a lot for your insightful post !
9. Hello ! It's a great coincidence that your fellow seminar group student had the same paper as yours, and that you could reflect together on the methods used! I wish there was somehow a way for us to make it happen more often - because the papers we read for the pre-post somehow eventually get forgotten as soon as we start the lectures of the week's theme, and that's unfortunate in my opinion. Anyway, thank you for your interesting post ! I think that it's a great point you've underlined about the samples and the fact that they don't reflect everything and the way it is everywhere. I agree with that, and the fact that it's one of the weaknesses of quantitative research. Most people try to rely on quantitative research and try to generalize results - when it's often not relevant at all.
10. Hello ! I don't think we can say quantitative methods are "objective", because what is objectivity after all? The thing is that we, as scientists, keep thinking that we can't influence the results we get in quantitative methods because they are numbers - which should be "pure", right? But do we question how we actually get to the numbers? Because we have power over the collection and the design process of the data, we influence the results. 

THEME 5

1. I absolutely agree with you, and was somehow disappointed in this theme. The lack of seminar particularly made it difficult for me to really embrace the notions we were supposed to acquire in Design Research, which is unfortunately the theme I was the most looking forward to. I also didn’t really take much with me from the second lecture – the structure (or lack thereof) made it even more complicated to follow the lecturer’s point, but as you said he really can’t be blamed for that. In regards to the first lecture, I agree with what you said – the importance of planning is something I will definitely remember when I am faced with the complicated task of designing a research. All in all, I like your blog post because of its honesty, and I agree with the important points you’ve underlined from the lectures – which are basically those I’ve taken with me from this theme as well. Thank you!
2. Hello, Very interesting and detailed blog post on this week's theme. I felt like I was going through the lectures again while reading, which is a great point because it shows how precise and straight to the point your writing is. I didn't write about the importance of market and timing in my post reflexion, and I feel like that's a big thing I overlooked - indeed, it's really important as you've pointed out, especially in industry research, and I couldn't agree more with what you said - the idea has to be able to stand strong when further pursued. With the examples you've pinpointed, I feel like that's a strong argument that you've built, and I thank you for reminding me about that :-)
3. I agree with you, the lack of seminar made it more difficult for me as well to understand the key notions of the theme, although I liked Haibo Li's lecture as well ! Because as you said, this theme is something that will I believe be of use to us in the future, when we have to actually design our research in the industry or in the scholar domain, I liked that most of the facts he presented us with are from a practical point of view - making it useful for us to relate to them and actually practice with that in mind. Thank you for your interesting blog post ! :-)
4. Hello Rasmus, I really like your blog post : be it because of its clear and detailed structure, or the examples you've used to illustrate your points, it has inspired me in many ways and I thank you for that. Your example of the bus shelter to define what design is - loved it ! Because we are now mostly working on ICT, I somehow feel more distant with other types of products and objects, and forget that they, too, can have innovation implemented within them ! I know this wasn't your point but somehow it made me think about bus stops and how we could design new technologic elements to incorporate in them, making them feel less foreign and sterile.
5. Hello Denise, Thank you for your interesting blog post. I also missed the seminar structure for this theme which I believe is the most effective way for us to learn more about a theme ! Aside from this, I agree with your vision of design research, and with the most important points of the lectures that you've underlined. Most specifically, the idea that the problem definition is the most important. I believe a lot of people forget about that, especially engineers, for whom problems are usually very well rounded and don't necessarily need explanation, because that's how we've been brought up, by having to solve problems that were already quite well explained. In "the real world", things are not as black and white as we've been taught to believe, and the first lecture was very beneficial I believe, and should be taught to every engineer out there. I hope I'll remember this when I'm in the industry, should I ever have to design a solution for a specific issue in the world, that I'll have to define with detail and attention what problem exactly I am designing a solution for.
6. Hello ! Thank you for your comment ! I agree saying that the idea is the most important is somehow extrapolating a little - as your Google + example shows! I think it's better if we say that having a great idea is a necessity for the product to sell, as is the execution of it :-) I didn't really think of it that way before, and I thank you for pointing this out !
7. Hello Gunnar, I think you have written a very interesting blog post that highlights the main concepts and ideas of this week's theme. I agree it's very important for us engineers to actually learn to think out of the box, to find some new angle through which we could see the problem again, in a new light. I like the parallel you drew with you restarting from scratch when faced with a programming problem - I often do that as well, and didn't think to compare this to what we learnt this week ! Thank you for a very interesting and thought provoking blog post :-)
8. Hello Sanna, It's interesting that you learnt more on the second lecture as compared to the first lecture - it's exactly the opposite for me! I didn't really understand what he was trying to say, so I'm glad your blog post made it clearer to me. I understand that prototyping is essential both in research and in the industry - the one difference seems to be the fact that in research, that prototype is destined for knowledge construction whereas in industry that prototype has to be geared towards a validation of the idea, a tool for evaluation. Thank you for your interesting blog post!
9. Hello ! Thank you for your comment! It is also something I found very interesting, the fact that defining the problem is that important. It's true we don't have that type of mindset, as we have been taught in high school to solve problems that were already well-defined. Having to change our mindset completely when we begin working is not that easy, but this type of lecture makes it easier for us to adapt, as we've already been told about it and hence have been exposed to this type of thinking!
10. Hello ! Thank you for your comment. It's true that evaluating ideas is a difficult thing to do, especially when all of them seem great. Prioritizing is one think we have to learn to do, and in doing so we'll acquire more of a business mind - I hope so at least ! But at the same time I can't help but wonder if it's the same in research.. This type of "business mind" doesn't really relate to what scholars seem to prioritize, at least in my opinion, but I'm not really sure about this. I wish we had a seminar to talk more about this type of problem !

THEME 6

1. It is very inspiring to see how the seminar was able to change your thoughts on the nature of case study, I agree the seminars really are what make this course shine - they enable us to share thoughts and ask questions directly when they arise. You have underlined the most important aspects of this theme in your carefully written blog post, and I agree with most of what you've said. It's interesting that you establish a case study as a connection between theory and practice. I think I understand where you come from, it's true that through a case study, you can start theory, just like practice can make for the beginning of a theory - the formulation of a hypothesis.
2. Hello ! I think that both qualitative and quantitative can provide knowledge, they are just methods through which we can build a theory - and as we talked about in theme 4, a mix of both can be pretty helpful ! The interesting point in case study especially is that it's a method thanks to which we can actually begin our investigation. Indeed, the results don't contribute with knowledge analysis, but they can lead our reflection towards a surer design for our research. As said in the seminar, we can link case study and hypothesis ! Thank you again for your interesting blog post :-)
3. Hello Agri! It’s great that you’ve felt this last seminar was the most inspiring. I’ve also had a few seminars where I was able to learn more than in others, and I believe this happens when people in the group have different opinions – it’s so much more interesting to talk about things we can discuss without having to all agree on it ! Aside from that, I like your post. It’s concise and depicts all the important parts of the theme in my opinion – the cyclical aspect of case study, and the fact that it’s aimed at building theory and conducted in a field where the researcher doesn’t quite feel comfortable at first. Thank you for an interesting post !
4. Hello ! It’s nice to see that you’ve gained so much from this week’s theme ! It’s true that at first, not having a lecture seemed a big hurdle in us actually getting much knowledge from this theme, but I also learned a lot in the seminars ! I like the example of the iron pole. It’s true that the concept of case study is quite difficult to define, though it is instinctually easier to understand. One thing that I am really happy to have learnt is the idea that case studies help in the creation of new theories – moldable through other techniques, in order to get a more in-depth view of a theme. Thank you for your interesting and concise post!
5. Hello ! Thank you very much for this post, detailed and very clear ! It helped me remember a few things I had forgotten since the seminar was quite a long time ago. You put a lot of effort in preparing for this obviously since you've also read additional material, and I admire you for this ! Even just reading the required texts takes a lot of time already, so it's cool that you've managed to learn even more ! The one thing I take with me about case studies is the fact that, contrary to popular belief, one gets knowledge through it and not before it - as Ilias put it in our seminar, case studies relate more to hypothesis in the sense that they enable us to learn something on a subject and field that was yet unknown to us. Thanks for this great post !
6. Hello ! Thank you for your interesting blog post ! It was concise and very clear, making it easier for us to understand. I like your examples, they illustrate the concepts very well ! I like that you chose to talk about qualitative studies as well. It didn't seem clear to me at first how quantitative and qualitative could be hard to sort from one another, but after having read your example it became easier. I think nevertheless that it has to be linked to the type of study you're conducting : when you say you're "interpreting the tweets", are you doing so in a numeric and statistics way, for example with the help of a tool like Iramuteq? Or are you going to read each tweet to analyze it? I think replying to these questions will make it easier to differentiate quantitative and qualitative - regardless of the amount of data you're gathering!
7. Hello Elin ! I liked your post, it was very concise and gave interesting details on this week's theme ! I agree with you on most points, and especially the one about the number of participants not being a condition or a requirement for a study to be quantitative or qualitative. It's true that a lot of people might think this is the case, myself included before having attended the seminars and read the texts, and it's great that you're highlighting this ! Thanks for this insightful post!
8. Hi ! Thank you for this great post. I actually had a great time reading because your seminar was different from mine, where we essentially talked about case studies rather than qualitative methods. It's nice to see that you've learned a lot from the seminar, which I believe is something we all feel - especially if we didn't really understand a lot about the subject to begin with :-) I agree with what you said about qualitative methods - we shouldn't think that they are less developed or that we can achieve less with them than quantitative. It is through qualitative methods that we can assess things not quantifiable such as character and personality… 
9. Hello Josefine ! I really enjoyed reading your blog post, it was clear, concise yet detailed ! Especially the last paragraph was full of interesting things, I like the example of natural disasters that you've extrapolated to case studies and single events. It makes it much easier to understand a concept perhaps not that easy to decipher ! The fact that we explored the possibilities of using case studies to create new theories was one I really enjoyed, and learned from the most. Indeed, having practical insights is one thing I find most other courses about theory lack, and I'm glad we have this opportunity to talk about it between us here ! Thanks a lot for this interesting post :-)
10. Hello ! I liked the fact that you talked about hypotheses. We've also discussed about it in our seminar, and the fact that case studies and hypotheses can be related to one another in the fact that they are the beginning of a theory - through them we can learn more about a subject yet unknown. Indeed, it is something not entirely instinctual! We've heard a lot about case studies before, yet I didn't think about that before having read the literature and attended the seminar ! In this sense, a case study is most important in its design - how you strategically decide to build it - rather than the methods (quantitative or qualitative) that you are using. Thanks for this insightful blog post!

Read More

THEME 6 - Comments - Qualitative Research

Links to the comments I've made

1. On case study and hypothesis - Post-Seminar
2. On knowledge and methods - Post-Seminar
3. On seminars and disagreement - Post-Seminar
4. On case study as a tool to create new theories - Post-Seminar
5. On preparation and greatness - Post-Seminar
6. On qualitative methods and in-depth analysis - Post-Seminar
7. On the amount of participants as a condition, or not - Post-Seminar
8. On data gathering and timing - Post-Seminar
9. On natural disasters and single events - Post-Seminar
10. On case studies and strategy - Post-Seminar

Read More

THEME 6 - Post-Posting - Qualitative and Case Study Research

This is the last post-posting I'll do for this course, as this week symbolizes the closure of the DM2572 course for me. Interestingly enough, I have been pleased to realize that week after week, my ability to analyze issues and understand research articles got much better than in the beginning. Of course, this can also be related to the fact that I got more used to speaking English, having been here in Sweden for a little more than a month now. Still, I believe that this course helped me a lot in understanding important issues and how to practically solve them. 

During our seminar, we talked more about case study research than qualitative research - as most people have already, like in Theme 4, had the opportunity to face qualitative studies and quantitative studies for their bachelor. I personally wasn't in that case, but still didn't really feel the need to go over again the difference between both, as we had already spent quite a long time during the Theme 4 seminar to discuss this issue. We then exposed the methods that were used in our papers - for example, focus groups, semi-structured interviews, auto-driving... Interestingly enough, I felt that these methods go hand in hand with the numerous methods we have in User Interface and Experience testing; to evaluate a prototype and see if it fits or to pinpoint issues that we have to correct. I feel like the fact that for both these goals we need to delve deeper in order to understand the subject plays a major role in the correlation between the used methods.

Another thing I liked about the seminar is that we got to discuss our papers - I feel like it's somehow a shame that we often didn't think to talk about what we've learned thanks to them, because we mainly talk in the seminars about the questions that we had to answer to. It could have been interesting during the other themes as well to share the conclusions we each drew about our papers, but it's a pity I didn't realize this before the last theme... 

Read More

THEME 5 - Comments - Design Research

Links to the comments I've made

1. On the structure of this week - Post-Seminar
2. On market situation and good timing - Post-Seminar
3. On usefulness and practice - Post-Seminar
4. On design for everyday objects, and how we might forget about non ICT products - Post-Seminar
5. On problem definition and the importance of it - Post-Seminar
6. On great ideas and their execution - Post-Seminar
7. On thinking out of the box, and new angles - Post-Seminar
8. On prototyping in the industry and in research - Post-Seminar
9. On business mind and research - Post-Seminar
10. On problem definition and a formatting made by education - Post-Seminar

Read More

THEME 4 - Comments - Quantitative Research

Links to the comments I've made

1. On comparison between different studies - Post-Seminar
2. On reliability for subjective ideas - Post-Seminar
3. On "objectivity", numbers and quantitative research - Post-Seminar
4. On wicked problems - Post-Seminar
5. On controversial subjects and quantitative research - Post-Seminar
6. On the choice between quantitative and qualitative - Post-Seminar
7. On precision and quantitative research  - Post-Seminar
8. On objectivity - Post-Seminar 
9. On variable control and dependence - Post-Seminar
10. On having the same paper and advancing together towards understanding - Post-Seminar

Read More

THEME 5 - Post-Posting - Design Research

This week's seminar was replaced by another lecture : this somehow made me realize how enriching a seminar can be, especially since it allows one to compare ideas with other people - which I sadly didn't get to do for this theme. This leads me to one important point concerning this post : I am not that confident in terms of what I have learnt, what I have understood, as compared to what I might have taken with me from the other week's themes. This is sadly going to be quite lacking in terms of added value, as we have all attended the same lectures and most likely will all be putting the same type of thoughts and reflexions in our posts, and I apologize for that in advance..

The first lecture was about design and problem solving. The most important thing in terms of problem solving is to take the time to reflect on the actual issue : how do we define a problem? As illustrated by the teacher, the student and the hungry bear, we can see that depending on how you structure that problem, the solving of the issue is going to be that much faster, or slower. 

In regards to idea design, the value that a great idea adds to a product is the most important thing. Rather than focusing on a breakthrough technique or invention, the idea is the one thing that is going to sell the product - take the example of Facebook : as the teacher said, it's an innovation based on a technological platform, but in no way is it a technological innovation. And this underlines again the importance of the idea in design research, especially if we're talking about the industry. But we've got to be careful - many ideas come up, and most look interesting. To filter them, we've got to have a business mind, capable of prioritizing. With proof of concept, we can validate the chosen idea. 

Accordingly to the articles we've read earlier in the week, Haibo Li stressed again the need for prototypes and user-experience in testing the product : this responds to the important question of idea evaluation. And, when we eventually come up with our final product, it's time for commercial selling - the elevator pitch, basically. 

Read More

THEME 6 - Pre-Posting - Qualitative and case study research

Communication Processes in Participatory Websites (Walther B., Jang J.) 

Participatory websites, more commonly referred to as SNS - social networking sites - or Web 2.0, have become more or less the most popular ways to communicate on the internet. As stated by the article to qualify them, "these systems present and juxtapose messages that are generated by different authorial sources: central messages posted by a web page's proprietor, and user-generated content that other readers contribute". How are we to understand the complex communication phenomenon that facilitate but complexity social influence?
In order to tackle this question, the article takes on a qualitative method. First, by suggesting the definitions of four common message types - proprietor content, user-generated content, deliberate aggregate user representation, and incidental aggregate user representation - that they designed using a content analysis method. Then, they offer a desk research that illustrates how these message types may function in transforming online social interaction and influence. 
By offering an in-depth view into the state of the art in that field, the article builds up its reliability, and makes it possible to assess the progress made and what is yet to come. They also establish logic links between the different views and methods found in order to provide added value - they analyze and go into more details, enabling them to offer the definitions they base their paper on. 
One issue we could raise is the fact that they didn't really have any active interaction "in the field of studies" - meaning they don't have any immediate feedback on their research. Maybe having a focus group or some type of study with involved people would have helped. 

Does Internet and Computer "Addiction" exist? (Griffiths M.) 

A case study is a research strategy which contributes into providing in-depth understanding of the different dynamics involved in a specific case - which can be a person, a group, or a particular subject. It is not excluded for a case study to target more than one case, and there are different types of case study methods. Typically, a case study can be multi-layered in terms of analysis depth, and uses data collection methods such as archives, interviews, questionnaires and observations - which may be qualitative or quantitative, though more often than not they tend to stick to the qualitative side of the subject. 
The article I have chosen is based on five case studies of excessive computer usage, and tackles the issue of Internet and / or Computer "Addiction" - an urban mouth-to-mouth tale on social cyber-pathologies that are becoming increasingly popular now that children are exposed since their youngest age to digital improvements and cyberspace. 
The author begins by collecting information on the social pathology of addiction, accordingly to the first step of Eisenhardt's Process of Building Theory from Case Study Research. By detailing the principal core components, and exposing them to us, the author defines clearly the research question and makes it possible for us to start reading his research study with the same knowledge as him. Then, he proceeds to the case selection, that he is said to have done in the course of six months. Even though this selection is made on specified population and quite detailed by the author, very often the source of account is that the subject contacted the author directly, making this selection having somehow of a random feeling rather than it being based on theoretical sampling. But still, the selected subjects still have all the required traits the author exposed in the beginning, making it a specified sampling of the population. For each case, the author describes with attention and detail every information he can, which makes it easy for the reader to understand exactly the point of the study, and how he reaches closure. Somehow, I still feel that because he is the only interviewer, and that his data collection method is somehow linear and lacks perspective, the instruments and protocols he based his study on are less precisely crafted than what ideally could have been done. In having data collected by Internet Discussion, he somehow enters the field already biased, and without a means of verification, and makes his data analysis clear and not subject to any other discussion - as compared to what can be done described in Eisenhardt's table. Despite these weaknesses, I think the article is quite clear in what it wants to expose, and maybe these weaknesses come from the subject itself - because in the design of this research, I can't really think of a lot of other alternatives the author could have gone for. Maybe this is something he already decided during the design process, and he can't really be blamed for that because in the end it is still a study that shows material and reliability, in my opinion, although it doesn't really follow exactly the table of Eisenhardt. 

Read More

THEME 3 - Comments - Research and Theory

Links to the comments I've made

1. On the concept of truth - Post-Seminar
2. From falsification to truth - Post-Seminar
3. On uncertainty from the authors - Post-Seminar
4. On philosophy and theory - Post-Seminar
5. On observation and forced phenomena - Post-Seminar
6. On theory of knowledge - Post-Seminar
7. On searching for relevant journals and papers - Post-Seminar
8. On theoretical aspects and practical research - Post-Seminar
9. On theory flow - Post-Seminar and Part-Two
10. On abstraction and existence - Post-Seminar

Read More

THEME 4 - Post-Posting - Quantitative Research

This week's theme was an eye-opener for me. I have always put more value in quantitative research rather than qualitative research. After having read the recommended literature, and selected one paper for our pre-seminar, I realized I couldn't have been more wrong. 

Indeed, during the seminar we talked about objectivity: just like in last week's theme, we're generally very quick to brandish words like "truth", "objective", "false", "subjective"… But in research, it's best not to resort to that, as we very often realize that the results we get can't help but be related to the way we've designed the study, within our certain framework, set of data, decisions and starting concepts. Why have we chosen drums, and not piano? Why white people and not black people? 

In this sense, while the general preconception would be that because quantitative studies often produce results in the form of numbers (which we, as scientists, love, worship, and more specifically don't question… sadly), we think they're more "reliable", more likely to be accepted. I was in this case as well. Thankfully, the seminar and lecture changed my point of view: now that I know the design of the study is the one subjective, questionable, deniable, point, I realize that a big part of the study's reliability boils down to the skills of the researcher - might the study be quantitative or qualitative. Best would be that it's a mix of both. 

In this sense, deciding to conduct a quantitative/qualitative study generally comes parallel to the design process - there are things more adapted to be quantified than others, for example character and personality traits generally would be difficult to reduce to just a few numbers. The same goes in terms of "wicked problems" : trying to quantitatively design a product to solve that problem only using measurements isn't enough, we have to go into many more aspects - and thus, controlling the outcome becomes much more hazardous. That's why we have to use a mix of quantitative and qualitative. While the standardization of the quantitative methods offers the possibility to have a uniform metric for different people, the benefits of having the possibility to vary our measurements sure show when we use a qualitative method. By doing this, we get deeper knowledge, and an interrelation between the results that quantitative and qualitative methods give us. An example that illustrates the benefits of the comparison would be conducting a qualitative method to measure the amount of candy you ate last week (do you feel you ate a lot of candy? Or little ?) then, conducting a quantitative method, and comparing results: this would shed light on our perception of quantity, on the concept of guilt, or want… But of course, it still depends on sample selection (for the quantitative method), question and test implementation… Everything that makes research interesting, captivating, and of course, complicated. 

Read More

THEME 5 - Pre-Posting - Design Research

 Turn your Mobile Into he Ball : Rendering Live Football Game Using Vibration (S. Rehman, J. Sun, L. Liu, H. Li)

Media technologies, and generally any product directed towards human use, should have at some point in the design cycle a phase of user-evaluation, in a Usability Lab (for example LUTIN in La Villette, France). Indeed, we used to have conception models that were basically system-centered - like the Waterfall model, V or the Spiral model, that resulted in products which interfaces were all but ergonomic, or user-friendly. Now, we've learned about participative conception, where we adapt the technology and science to the user, and not the other way around, thanks to the immediate feedback of users - their evaluation of the technology, that's used for the next update, next modification. 

In this sense, prototypes are a vital tool in design research : without them, users wouldn't be able to evaluate the media technology at hand, and it would render the whole process fruitless. Generally, because we usually need a feedback at each step of our design, we'd be forced to have a prototype for each step. Now, this is made possible thanks to the various and multiple shapes prototypes can take : indeed, we don't have to design a fully functional and physical prototype for every step, even if this would be very welcome. For the beginning stages of design, concept prototypes that show the appearance, the general idea, look-and-feel of the product would be enough. Then, little by little, based on the feedback and the new ideas that emerge, research will go towards building a prototype that's functional, testable, and of high fidelity. In order to show the evolution of the product, the team can show the different prototypes and response they drew in a target group of test-users. Indeed, said group has to be a sample of professionally apt people, that test prototypes accordingly to personas they've created. This can of course prove to be quite tricky, as this is highly subjective - that's why to needs to be done by people who we can rely on. 

Finding design qualities in a tangible programming space (Fernaeus & Tholander), Differentiated Driving Range (Lundström)  

In the first paper, Fernaeus and Tholander record the children playing with the prototype - in this case, the empirical data is the children's response to the prototype, which is immediate and free of any thought, because it's collected as soon as it's out. In the second paper, the empirical data is the thought and analysis contribution Nissan drivers share in their forum and blog posts.

In my opinion, practical design work can be considered as knowledge contribution because it's adding up to what the designer knows about the prototype - like said earlier, the need for some "fresh eye" is undeniable in the case of object evaluation : feedback is mandatory for design research, and in that sense I consider said feedback to be knowledge contribution.

Within a research project, I believe the main goal would be to discover something - to learn more about the world and about mankind, as we've talked about in Theme 2. On the other hand, in terms of design "in general", which I believe refers to design for the industry, the focus is to create something that can be produced, sold, and used. In this sense, design intentions vary from one group to the other : while research design can produce something that's not "viable" in the sense that it's not a finished and sold-able product, production design in general often has a fully working product as their ultimate outcome.

The funny thing is that very often, design research ideas are inspiring production design, and the first  prototypes eventually end up being the very first children of a big family of working, used, and trendy new objects. 

Read More