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 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

THEME 4 - Pre-Posting - Quantitative Research

 The effect of Twitter on college students engagement and grades (R. Junco, G. Heiberger, E. Loken)

Social media use in an educational background has long been known to be beneficial for both students and teachers, however very little empirical evidence is available to back up said presumption. Junco, Heiberger and Loken's paper provide an experimental quantitative study to determine the impact of Twitter use on the engagement an grades of a sample of american college students.

In this paper's case, the observable phenomenon that was quantified using scientific methods was the impact of Twitter use on engagement and grades improvement: by using 19 selected psychometric properties from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), an established instrument that was developed to measure engagement in school, the authors measure engagement qualitatively while assessing differences in engagement and grades by using a quantitative mixed effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) models with class sections nested within treatment groups. They also conducted content analyses of samples of Twitter exchanges. 

The authors also calculated the Cronbach's alpha to their studies (0.75 for the pre-test and 0.81 for the post-test) to estimate the reliability of the psychometric test results administered to the students, and compared it to two other studies similar to theirs to further back their study up: this shows their paper is reliable and the use of the quantitative methods gives an empirical take on this very common assumption that social media in school gets the students more engaged and helps them improve their grades. I also think they could have done with a bigger sample. 

While the measure of engagement and the impact of twitter on it and on grades is backed up by significant data and established quantitative methods, I'm not sure about the content analyses of samples of Twitter exchanges, on which they base a number of assumptions and conclusions related to the benefits in terms of skills Twitter gives student, because they don't get into details about the adopted quantitative method… 

 Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality : The body shapes the way we play (K. Kilteni, I. Bergstrom, M. Slater)

Immersive Virtual Reality is a subject that more and more people are becoming interested in, because they can envision its very important role in the future of many actual fields - be it video gaming or information sharing. Now in this paper, immersive virtual reality is used in a very different angle, as a means of demonstrating how the body can shape the way we play. Indeed, by enabling study participants to play drums in an immersive virtual reality where they had different avatar bodies, the authors underline that the way we perceive our bodies could impact our drumming technique. 

The research is based on a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods : the quantitative methods were used to analyze the data collected through various sensors in a way that could be useful to the study, while the quantitative methods served to assess participants' personalities, as a background control that said personalities didn't impact on the drumming performance. I believe this mix is really efficient in making the study that much more reliable : quantitative methods use is compatible with data collection because it's, as data is, undeniable and objective. With the numbers and the scientific process applied to them, the results that come out are both satisfactory and reliable (if the data-collection is sufficiently spread on various samples), while qualititative method use is relevant in the case of personality analysis, because it's very often based on a questionnaire leveraged with a Likert scale: questions are much more adapted to personality assessment than any other data collection and process could ever be, because how are you supposed to effectively assess someone's character/personality based on nervous signals and numbers? In this sense, quantitative methods and qualitative methods each have their own specificities and ups/downs, that make each of them more relevant for a certain type of research and theory foundation. 

Read More

THEME 3 - Pre-Posting - Research and Theory

Learning, Media and Technology (Taylor & Francis Group, IF 1.26)

Previously known as Journal of Education Television (1975 - 1995), then Journal of Educational Media (1996-2004), before eventually settling for Learning, Media and Technology (2005-current), this international peer-reviewed journal focuses on the benefits and drawbacks that technological progress can have on education. Aiming at stimulating debate on how innovation influences educational theory, Learning, Media and Technology publishes papers related to the use for educational purposes of digital broadcasting, internet and online resources, as well as innovative new digital formats. 

Digital Storytelling : A Powerful Technology Tool For the 21st Century Classroom (Bernard R. Robin)

As the title suggests, this article focuses on Digital Storytelling, used as an educational tool. 

With the rise of new technology in every aspect of our life, classrooms have started to adapt themselves to an innovative digital trend, and as this slowly spreads across the world, the author suggests we take a moment to investigate the theoretical framework behind it all.

Robin proceeds to describe digital storytelling, its history, and to what extent its use in classrooms can be beneficial for education and teachers. Contradictory to his statement, the U.S. Department of Education (2007) reported to Congress that they found "no significant differences in student achievement between the classrooms that used the technology products and classrooms that did not". Based on this, and the benefits he previously described, Robin highlights the need for a new, more solid, theoretical framework for digital storytelling as a learning tool, an enhanced and more developed version of the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) model.

The article's motives are undeniably relevant to our current educational situation: in a way, the main issue raised by this article can't be contested, as the core of the debate with new technologies as a learning tool doesn't lie in its efficiency, but rather in the methods applied to its use in classrooms. The author takes a direct and honest approach to the problem : progressing with linearity, the argument is clearly exposed to the reader - after having described the main concept (digital storytelling, definition and history), he shows the opposition between what happens (U.S. department of education's report) and what should happen (the benefits of digital storytelling in classrooms) to bring the reader to his conclusion : the need for a new framework, that he suggests a model for. All along, he backs his argument up by solid and relevant articles and resources, that he sometimes illustrates to make his point clearer for the reader. 

Although the author proves his point already by describing the different kinds of digital storytelling and the causal logic that links them to being an efficient learning tool, without having to back his argument up with data, I find the article could have done with more scientific content on showing the benefits of digital storytelling - studies conducted in classrooms for example, that the author hints at in the last paragraph ("how educators might conduct future research studies that can demonstrate the benefits of multimedia in general and digital storytelling in particular"). 

The Nature of Theory in Information Systems (S. Gregor) && What Theory is Not (R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw)

Gregor and Sutton's articles both contribute in making the concept of theory clearer. Basically, contrary to popular belief, theory isn't to be reduced to references, data, lists of variables, diagrams or hypotheses - even if they are part of a system scientists often use for their research. What makes a theory is the added value to these ingredients : the recipe that causally links them in relation to a question it answers. In short, theory has to answer the question of "why", and in that sense further the understanding of the reader in that subject. 

In the particular case of the article I chose, Robin opted for a method lying in between the Prediction theory type and the Explanation and Prediction theory type to approach the issue he points out. A major part of his analysis consists in explaining the main concept - "what is, how, why, when, where and what will be" - of digital storytelling as a learning tool, based on previous studies and self-reflexion. It's not entirely an EP theory, because the causal explanations highlighted are sometimes hypotheses not completely backed up by enough data/references; but at the same time it's not just a prediction theory because it offers that much more in terms of added value - the justificatory causal explanations are there, they're just not complete. Then, he proposes the beginning of a solution, in compliance with the Design and Action theory type, for improvements and adaptation of the TPCK model for digital storytelling in classrooms. 
The combination of these models makes the article stronger in my opinion, because it's very solid content-wise, and the added value is undeniable as well.

Read More

THEME 2 - Pre-Posting - Critical Media Studies

Dialectic of Enlightenment (T. W. Adorno & M. Horkheimer)

In Dialectic of Enlightenment, Adorno and Horkheimer are building a new theory on Enlightenment and focusing on its rise from the previously magic-and-myth dominated world of beliefs.

By "Enlightenment", Adorno and Horkheimer address the process during which humans transition from a fantastic and magical understanding - or so they believe - of Nature, to a knowledge and hard scientific facts based viewpoint on the world. 

Not to be confused with the Age of Reason, Enlightenment is deeply rooted in the human will of dominating nature, of freeing ourselves from the ancient mythical thinking that was supposed to help us get rid of our fear of the unknown, eventually just succeeding in replacing it with a newfound fear of deities we've, ironically enough, created ourselves. 

Indeed, from the beginning of times, humans have been at the mercy of Nature and its whimsical temper changes: not knowing what to expect, fearing another upcoming storm or famine, that was the world humans had to evolve in… And to tame this fear of the unknown, of how the world actually works, was created a new way to explain the world: Myth, and fantastic stories about magic entities that ruled the world, that we had to please in order for them to treat us mortals kindly. 

Of course, apart from reassuring our nervous minds, that did little for mankind… And here comes Enlightenment, with its rational explanations and scientific facts, as a means for humans to dominate Nature finally, and to get rid once and for all of this ancient fear. However, is Enlightenment a way to freedom, a way for us humans to finally come at peace with nature and the world, as suggested by many? It could have been, if only Enlightenment wasn't so black-and-white, right-or-wrong, so factually exact that it itself stood in the way between humans and nature. This flaw is undeniably related to the concept of nominalism, which rejects everything that can't be encompassed by unity: by submitting to this law, abstract concepts such as deities are of course out of the question; but what about meaning? Can we really grasp even just a tiny bit of human life if we just follow nominalism and its principles? 

By its domination, even qualified by Adorno and Horkheimer as "totalitarian", Enlightenment failed to free mankind, and even served to alienate it further with social division, to objectify it with a newfound working motto, and eventually, plunging again in a world of myths… Only this time it's modern myths we're faced with. 

In this sense, this dialectic link between Myth and Enlightenment, where one emerges from the other only to eventually merge with it again, is a fundamental argument in Dialectic of Enlightenment, serving as a way to resolve the issue of Enlightenment with a dialectical method and logical reasoning, and opening up to a harsh critic of the Culture History, in slight contrast with W. Benjamin's point of view. 

The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity (W. Benjamin)

Walter Benjamin adresses in The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity the changes occurring in Art as a result of scientific progress: is Art losing meaning as its access becomes easier and easier, or is it on the contrary rising to new potentials thanks to newfound techniques and freedom? 

In the very beginning of the essay, Benjamin analyzes cultural production from a Marxist perspective, so as to reflect on the effects capitalism could have on culture by its never ending production process: "Superstructure" describes the system which controls the production, our capitalist economy and system, whereas "substructure" is used for the reproduction itself, in this case, our culture and art. 

According to Benjamin, culture can have reactionary or revolutionary potentials: in a fascist context, culture is reduced to propaganda, where attempts have been made to beautify politics, wars, and all sorts of horrors; while the cinematographic art, because it wakes the masses from their inactive slumber and carries them along in the action, has revolutionary potentials. With its newfound accessibility, art can free the masses from fascism and alienation, and thus, be revolutionary. In this sense, Benjamin's take on culture contrasts with Adorno and Horkheimer's point of view: while the latter agree that these new artistic forms can free themselves from political and mythical domination, they make a point to condemn the objectification and idolization of culture made possible by its accessibility to the masses, enabling an easier manipulation of mankind through a deceptive cultural escape. 

Benjamin discusses the mode of human sense perception and how it can not only be naturally determined, but also highly dependent on historical circumstances: he illustrates this claim with the birth of the late Roman art industry and the Vienna Genesis, developed as a result of great shifts of population, and enabling a new kind of perception. 

The concept of "aura" is fundamental in this essay: by reproducing Art, aura is created and taken away at the same time. Indeed, when threatening an object's uniqueness, this object's authenticity is created, and thus its presence, in this time and place - its aura. At the same time, because it's reproduced and in another time, another place, another meaning, it loses its aura. It's a difficult concept to grasp, but inherently we all can understand it with Benjamin's analogy with nature.  

Read More

THEME 1 - Pre-Posting - Theory of knowledge and theory of science

Critique of Pure Reason (I. Kant) 

In the preface to the second edition of "Critique of Pure Reason" (page B xvi) Kant says: "Thus far it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to objects. On that presupposition, however, all our attempts to establish something about them a priori, by means of concepts through which our cognition would be expanded, have come to nothing. Let us, therefore, try to find out by experiment whether we shall not make better progress in the problems of metaphysics if we assume that objects must conform to our cognition." How are we to understand this?

Is metaphysics a science? 

To answer this question, a deeper understanding of what defines science is needed. In the preface to the second edition of his "Critique of Pure Reason", Kant delves into the fields of logics, mathematics, physics, and metaphysics to show us what makes mathematics and physics worthy of being called a science, as opposed to logics, science's "outer courtyard" where reason has only to do with itself, devoid of any object at all; or metaphysics, where reason is presented with objects, but with no intuition or experience as mathematics or physics would be. Indeed, based on the presupposition that the understanding subject acquires knowledge only by passively submitting itself to experience, with no added value whatsoever from its own reason, metaphysics seems like an pointless and endless "battlefield": in its very definition, metaphysics relies on the belief that there is knowledge without experience. Here comes the big question: can there actually be knowledge without experience?

Indeed, Kant is establishing the ground for a new theory of knowledge: in this preface, he distinguishes between a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. The former is exactly what metaphysics is based on: pure knowledge, preceding any experience, that lives in the understanding subject's reason. To try to solve the issue with metaphysics, Kant suggests we shift our viewpoint in regards to both forms of knowledge : before, we believed a posteriori knowledge came wholly from the world surrounding us, without even considering, or needing, an a priori knowledge. Now, similarly to what happened with the isosceles triangle, or Copernicus' revolution… What happens if we open our eyes to the possibility of an a priori knowledge that influences greatly the a posteriori knowledge, in that it shapes the considered object itself ? 

Theaetetus (Plato)  

At the end of the discussion of the definition "Knowledge is perception", Socrates argues that we do not see and hear "with" the eyes and the ears, but "through" the eyes and the ears. How are we to understand this? And in what way is it correct to say that Socrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?

In Plato's Theaetetus, Socrates and Theaetetus discuss the meaning of knowledge : through three definitions offered by Theaetetus, we come closer to where Socrates wants to lead us. 

The "Knowledge is perception" definition misses the idea of human cognition, implying there's nothing more to knowledge than what our organs sense: Thankfully Socrates reminds Theaetetus that organs are but a means for the sensory world and our cognition to meet. Based on our senses, our reason can build knowledge. In that sense, Socrates calls out to the notion of empiricism, where knowledge is built on experience. 

What about Kant's a priori knowledge then? Perhaps this could counter Socrate's looming conclusion that truth can't be found in a world where knowledge is built through experimenting the objects of the world, objects that are changing indefinitely… 

Read More