Below you will find all the comments and their respective blog that I have found interest in commenting throughout the course.
The list is formated like this:
Theme #
Name of blog ownerBlog link
My comment on that blog
Note: After all My comments I will post the answers that I've written to comments given to me.
My blog comments
Theme #1
Johan Storvallhttp://dm2572-glass.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme1-theory-of-science.html
I think you make a clear and concise interpretation of what sense-data is. For me, it wasn't that clear at all in the beginning. To get another perspective on it I found this paper from 1953 by G.E. Moore to be quite fulfilling in describing sense-data to me :)Check it out: G.E. Moore ”Sense-data - Some Main Problems of Philosophy”, 1953, Londonhttp://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/percep/MooreSenseData.pdf
Amanda Glass
http://dm2572-glass.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme1-theory-of-science.html
When you state that Russel is critical and goes so far as to say that it is self-contradictory that every object is a part of a bigger "whole". What do think he means when he says it is self-contradictory? Do you share his belief about things that "whatever has relations to things outside itself must contain some reference to those outside things in its own nature, and could not, therefore, be what it is if those outside things did not exist"?
Gustav Boström
http://dm2572-teorimetod.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-1.html
Although propositions are accepted by the large mass as somewhat of a "truth", Russel, as you state, believes Barkleys view on the matter is fallacious. Do you agree with him? For me at least "what is inconceivable cannot exist“ kind of falls upon itself since what is conceivable by be, could in fact be inconceivable by others, not because I bestow some rare power. But rather because I may have more knowledge about a specific concept and thus, I can conceive it. Do you agree with me?
Carl Ahrsjö
http://ahrsjo-tmm13.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-1-theory-of-science-pre-reflection_8.html
You talk about definite description and how it can help us to refer to things to which we have yet to experienced sense-data from. I believe that this could be a fundamental part of how we, Humans, can talk about things we yet do not know anything about, to ponder about things that might and might not exist. Could it be this concept of thought that separates us from other living organisms? Do you agree with me?
Marit Aldén
http://maritalden.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-1-theory-of-science.html
Regarding your explanation on knowledge (question 4). Do you believe that there is a lack of critical thinking in todays society? Should we be more alert in regards to the truth of certain "knowledges"? Russel talks about probable opinion as the case when someone bases their beliefs in wrongly based facts. That seems to be the case a lot today. People are just plain wrong in their beliefs and knowledge. But who should be the one who tells them they are wrong if they don't believe you? In that case, your belief could be just as wrong (if seen from the other persons perspective).
Ekaterina Karpukhina
http://ekaterina-karpukhina.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-1-theory-of-science.html
To continue on the same theme that E. Sakharova posted. Couldn't propositions and facts be determined as true or false if we were to compare the two with someone who undoubtedly had knowledge from acquaintance of said "object" or entity? But then again, how can we verify that he/she really has that relation to that object?
Just to give an example, there are people who still deny (in my opinion) obvious facts about the history of man, such as: we have been to the moon, the holocaust took place, the climate is changing for the worse. No matter how strong the facts are, they can, and will be regarded as false by someone.
Jakob Florell
http://dm2572-jakob.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-1-theory-of-science.html
On the last note you made in answer 4 you take the example given by Hegel. The bottom line being that what was previously thought of as a falsification of a fact (the time and space continuum) was later proven to be contradictory of "certain prejudice", compared to self-contradictory. Talking about prejudice in particular, It is my firm belief that prejudice is the very foundation on which we make our falsifications in the first place. We make sense of things that are conceivable by our minds, anything else would be irrational. My point is this: couldn't most cases of these philosophical discussions have several answers depending solely on your way of reasoning and prejudices used?
Alexandros Sombo
http://dm2572-sombo.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-1-theory-of-science.html
In regard to your answer in question 4, do you believe that there should be more to it than just knowledge seen as true belief.? What about false knowledge? Russel talks about this and refers to it as "probable opinion", meaning that your proposal could based on false facts (i.e. you're wrong).
Martin Johansson
http://dm2572-martin.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-1-theory-of-science.html
In regards to your answer on question 3. Remember that the ambiguous description can be very descriptive, even more descriptive than that of the definite description. The difference is though that the definite description is precis to what specific entity in the universe we are describing. Something that both you and I know is the same object.
Anton Warnhag
http://antonwarnhag-tmm.blogspot.se/2013/11/seminarie-1-problems-of-philosophy.html
Regarding your sum up of Russels attack in the last question: Do you agree with him stating that the assumption is based on wrong way of reasoning? He, as you state, says that there is no logical issue regarding the infinity of time and space. But should there also be some other point of view to take into account when pondering about such complex relations than just "logical"?
Theme #2
Malin Westerlindhttp://malwes.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-2-critical-media-theory.html
I like the critique you pose on H. and A. view on culture industry and state that you actually think it is the opposite: That we, the people actually can make ourselves heard. "... in the kingdom of social media everyone has a voice", I truly believe this as well. But then again, don't Twitter and Facebook actually have the control in the long run? They can (FB), and it can be confirmed, that they actually have implemented a filter bubble to "tone down" strong political views. Those people don't really have a voice. So we actually have to play by their rules if we want to use that medium.
Hannah Fahd
http://hannah-fahd.blogspot.se/2013/11/1.html
I really like the part in the last question about the "people as marionette dolls". I think I even made this connection myself during the seminar. I myself think of the society this way when it becomes quite obvious their services aren't really free. They offer product "a" but demand "b" about us. Are we actually paying for free internet services with a currency based on integrity?
On a funny side note, since you mentioned movies as an example of this "puppeteering": watch the movie "Gamer" :) It is about a future reality in which traditional computer games play, and actually control, prison inmates on death row, deciding all their moves. Kind of an extreme scenario but a more "light" parallell can be drawn to the society today in some sense.
Edvard Ahlsén
http://edvardtmm13.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-2-post-reflection.html
Even though you really state that both the authors and you aren't optimistic. Don't you have reason to be? Even if we all are "doomed", how do we know that the future only entails a black age of enlightenment? What if it all ends with a singularity in terms of "peak integrity exposure" and the big companies change course and don't exploit us as much. Is it a possibility?
Havva Göcmenoglu
http://havvag.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-2-critical-media-studies.html
I share you interpretation of mass deception as a "force", I even went so far as to say that this force acts like a "puppet master" to the people. It sounds kind of harsh but I firmly believe that this force can have this effect on people in some sense. I mean, not that long ago, let's say, 50 years, It was rare to have electronic gadgets as a part of your everyday life. And in my opinion, this need for technologic advancement is both for good and bad. We are made to believe that we might need it, but aren't we sometimes better of without it?
Johannes Hörnfeldt Nordström
http://dm2572-tmm13.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-2.html
I like you comments on the pseudo-individuality and I think it is good for people to make this reflection every now and then to take a step back and reflect if their choices really are "theirs". You could argue that the pseudo-choices are harmless if it still makes the individual happy and feel like they choose for themselves. I mean, you only get upset about things you didn't know about After you got told about the "reality". Before the truth you might have lived happy anyway. Ignorance is bliss indeed.
Theme #3
Johan Gårdstedt
http://dm2572understandingtheories.blogspot.se/2013/11/new-media-society-publishes-key.html
Even though you state that there weren't any obvious benefits and/or limitations to the used theories in your selected papers. Did you find any pros and/or cons yourself? I found some myself while readin My paper, although they weren't explicitly stated by the authors.
Zahra
http://tmm13z.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-3-research-and-theory-reflections.html
I liked reading your reflection and I think it's nice to see that so many people actually found this theme useful for personal gain, me included. You said that "I think I'm more critical now when reading a paper and I'm also able to more effectively recognize good theory from no good theory.", do you feel like you changed your mind about the paper you chose, previous to this reflection. Would your post reflection be different in someway?
Filip Erlandsson
http://filip-erlandsson-dm2572.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-3-research-and-theory-reflection.html
I think you made a good point during your seminar sessions: "In the end we thought it was important that a theory was tested, not only accepted by the greater majority", I totally agree with this since a lot of people could, in theory, be deceived to believe something that just isn't true. Their belief would still not make their theory correct if it can't be confirmed by a test of some sort.
Carl Ahrsjö
http://ahrsjo-tmm13.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-3-reflection.html
I just came to think of another comment I made on Filip Erlandsson when you said that "In order for a theory to become generalized (which we concluded is a necessity for strong theory) the common belief in a society has to be that it is in fact valid.", I agree with you but with the addition of it being tested to be true as well. If a big group of people believe something to be true doesn't suffice to make it a true theory, they could all be wrong, right? (Even if it is not that probable).
Axel Hammarbäck
http://hammarback2572.blogspot.se/2013/11/week-3-research-and-theory-post.html
I liked you post, especially the last paragraph since it encapsulates mostly what I came to conclude myself: "can we really have something that is absolute truth, a fact?". I mean, even if the "experts" in the field say so, who are they to say what is a fact and not? I mean, everyone can be wrong, even the experts. I would say that That is a fact. So when I read your revised definition I was rather please. All it means is that "the experts" also believe it to be true, nothing more.
Theme #4
Zahra
http://tmm13z.blogspot.se/2013/12/theme-4-quantitative-research.html
I agree with you when you say that every survey, especially of this size, must be thoroughly prepared. Probably by a lot of pilot studies to find bad formulated questions etc. About the unawareness of security settings on social platforms, did the authors say anything about this being a big issue today in general?
Aron Janarv
http://aronsmediamethod.blogspot.se/2013/12/theme-4-quantitative-research.html
I liked the part of the surveys needing a "common ground" for the people taking the survey to viable in a quantitative research. Of course it is easily understood that you need serious answers for a survey to deliver accurate results, and in the end, the opinion of the average individual. I haven't really reflected upon this before but it totally makes sense, maybe there should be more general advice in this area for surveys to actually take the correct measurements in order to be good at all?
Jakob
http://dm2572-jakob.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-4-quantitative-research.html
I agree with your point, as well as Zahra's then it comes to surveys and to actually base the findings of a research on a subjective feeling of an individual. Aron Janarv actually took this up in his blog and the general problem about surveys being inaccurate. In this case, it could actually be quite bad since when it comes to deceases and such, people tend to "feel" a lot. What this could mean for the research is that the result from the survey is exaggerated. Do you two agree?
Kristoffer Ljung
http://kljun.blogspot.se/2013/12/theme-4-questions.html
I noted this as well. Seems strange to me. A question to you Kristoffer: Did they say anything about this in the paper? I mean, did they discuss that the participants mainly consisted of students and not the group of people they wanted to make research on in the first place?
The could've made a twist and talk about the students in this case since the actually can say something about them with more confidence (since backed up by their findings).
Anton Warnhag
http://antonwarnhag-tmm.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-4.html
I think I weigh in on Jennys comment here. It is mostly true that a quantitative research benefits from large amounts of data since the questions asked (see Jennys comment on this) is based on statistical analysis. And we all know statistics love large amounts of data. With that being said I still do believe that a quantitative research can be a combination where qualitative data is a part of the research (perhaps in a pre study).
Theme #5
Jakob Florellhttp://dm2572-jakob.blogspot.se/2013/12/theme-5-design-research.html
I agree with you that a prototype is of high necessity during a research when it comes to the realization of a concept. I somewhat came to the same conclusion on my blog post, stating that the whole concept may fall short of a prototype that doesn't grasp the main ideas covered by the concept. It's very important in my opinion.
Oscar Friberg
http://ofri-teoriochmetod.blogspot.se/2013/12/theme-5-design-research.html
I somewhat agree with you Carl and Gustav. But I find the article a bit too fuzzy since I got the feeling of their concept but not to which degree this is achievable. What got me thinking are that the level of simplicity to the programming is also what puts a halt to how advanced the robot can be.
If something advanced should be expressed by the robot, the input from the user who should program it can't be to simple, how else is the code of this "advanced" gesture of the robot arm be executed? (just an example). I don't really get how It can be applied in practice.
Martin Johansson
http://dm2572-martin.blogspot.se/2013/12/theme-5-design-research.html
I'm with Carl on this one. I have nothing against what you wrote Martin, I just don't understand the concept on a broader scale. I mean, today we have a lot of "sensors" which can activate on some kind of input. It could the proximity of two different object (i.e. distance), maybe a treshhold of some sort etc. This is basically what the authors propose when they descibe their "vision" of simplified programming. By putting on different kinds of garment on the dinosaur it reacts. The garment triggers something. But I wouldn't really cal that "programming".
Do you guys understand what I'm getting at? I don't see the concept as programming. Rather a more specific application with already existing technology.
Malin Westerlind
http://malwes.blogspot.se/2013/12/theme-5-design-research.html
I liked how you chose to take up the fact that a prototype can't be "too good". I haven't really reflected on this myself but it makes perfect sense to not make a perfect prototype since it makes the end customer believe that no further development needs to be done. This could be devastating to a project. I mean, the prototype could potentially give a good idea of how the design representation of a product is, but maybe not that much on the underlying architecture. In this case it would be bad if the customer don't see that you need that much more time to finish your product.
Isabella Arningsmark
http://dm2572isabella.blogspot.se/2013/12/theme-5-design-research-post.html
Even though I weren't part of the discussions you had on the use of prototypes I really agree that prototypes can give you false hopes in the sense that they can (for example), if done well, give the impression that your project as a whole is almost done and your client gets annoyed that you need more. I mean, you prototype looks like the product we wanted! Why shouldn't it? In that case your prototype can show the design process, but what about the things that aren't really visible? Like the code that runs the robot (just to give an example), that could need more work.
On the other hand, if you present a prototype for a client to early in the process he/she might get the impression that you're not delivering what's expected. Or that the feedback you get on the design is also what the client believes about the other aspects of the product might be in quality (if you get negative feedback, he/she might think that your implementation is just as bad etc).
It is truly a "fine line".
Theme #6
Edvard Ahlsén
http://edvardtmm13.blogspot.se/2013/12/theme-6-post-reflection.html
I too believe that you have gotten better in being more objective in you critique since I've read earlier reflections from you. Great job! I also enjoy your small rants on academic papers not contributing to the field, we need more of those critiques ;) But to add a comment on this, In some cases it might as well be the results of a research. The hope is of course to contribute to the research in a specific area by asking different questions and changing the methodology perhaps. And you could end up stating: "well this didn't help". But nonetheless it is research which show another way which yields the same result.
Of course you can argue in this case that the way they were carrying out the research can't yield different results because the method is too similar. But in that case, you have another source which can confirm the previous research on the same topic.
Carl Ahrsjö
http://ahrsjo-tmm13.blogspot.se/2013/12/theme-6-reflection.html
I like the idea of having a focus group before you clearly define your hypothesis (i.e. for a bachelor thesis). You could probably see it as a pre-study to see if you "pre-hypothesis" might be good to use or not. Personally I interviewed people with knowledge in the field as a pre-study, but in retrospect I believe that a focus group where you invite several people and discuss can be quite effective too.
Of course there are pros and cons in choosing either method and I think it depends on which type of study you do. If the questions is based on personal experience and highly subjective to ones own personal opinion I believe interviews to be better since the individual don't have to feel judged.
Gustav Boström
http://dm2572-teorimetod.blogspot.se/2013/12/theme-6-qualitative-and-case-study.html
I agree with you that using the first four participants in the interviews as a part of the end result is falsely done. As we discussed at the seminar they should be considered to be pilot-testers for the type of questions which should be posed.
Do you have any thoughts on how the answers of the first four can make the end results skewed? Where the questions they ended up using for the rest of the participants very different?
Jakob Florell
http://dm2572-jakob.blogspot.se/2013/12/theme-6-qualitative-and-case-study.html
I think interviews is a great method to use in qualitative studies since you get to connect with the people you talk with on a more in-depth level. I too have experience from semi-structured interviews from my bachelor's thesis, although we only had 5 participants. So I greatly respect their efforts in getting 35 people to partake in their interviews. The transcribing part of the research must've been a nightmare...
Your paper is a perfect example of why a pilot study is good practice when conducting a qualitative research. If you lack in this area the results can, in worst case, be useless, just consider a badly formulated question which could result in inconclusive answers.
Ragnar Schön
http://theoryandmethodformediatechnology.blogspot.se/2013/12/theme-6-qualitative-and-case-study.html
You say that "Focus groups are more time-effective than solo interviews and promote a discussion" and I agree that the promote a discussion better than an interview which can be quite unpleasant way of talking for some people. But is this always the case? An interview can be tedious in a research. If you interview a person for one hour and then later on transcribe it for 2 hours. That is 3 hours per person interviewed. In a setting where you instead choose to have a free discussion in the form of a focus group you might have it for 1hour too. I guess the transcription is more time demanding but on the totalt It might require less time and can yield good results too.
My answers to comments left on my blog
Theme #2 - Pre-reflections
Hi!
Just like you, I also didn't really have any ideas of how myth could be related to enlightenment before this course, and so found this particular topic especially interesting. One thing I would like to ask though is how you stated that "if we can't conceive the underlying concepts of things, it may as well be mythical".
You remember how we read from the first theme about the concept of knowledge and our attempt to define it? I just had a quick thought whether knowledge could partly be described as mythical, also considering the concept of "sense-data". Our "real" world may not be real but the way we think it is might be just supernatural compared to the "real reality"... hmm. Do I make sense? :)
Just like you, I also didn't really have any ideas of how myth could be related to enlightenment before this course, and so found this particular topic especially interesting. One thing I would like to ask though is how you stated that "if we can't conceive the underlying concepts of things, it may as well be mythical".
You remember how we read from the first theme about the concept of knowledge and our attempt to define it? I just had a quick thought whether knowledge could partly be described as mythical, also considering the concept of "sense-data". Our "real" world may not be real but the way we think it is might be just supernatural compared to the "real reality"... hmm. Do I make sense? :)
Cederman22 november 2013 05:07
I get your point, and I don't really have an answer really. Just my specualtion/opinion ;) I believe when you dig "this" deep down all the concepts become even blurrier than before and there is more of a philosophical chain of thought when reflecting on these matters. I believe that even though the reality you perceive is based on false assumptions about the "real facts" or "true knowledge", it will ultimately still be "your reality". Much like the world of someone who is "crazy".
Radera
Theme #3 - Research and theory
- Filip Erlandsson24 november 2013 02:59
The subject of the paper seems very interesting in my opinion. Something that springs to mind is a blog post by Laila Bagge, who i think said that homeless people can't have a mobile phone because they shouldn't afford it. This opinion seems to me to lie in line with the hypothesis of this paper. We make weird assumptions of the homeless that isn't true. As you say, we might think that the driving factor for homeless is food and shelter in order to survive, but having the possibility to contact family, relatives or friends might be just as important.
SvaraRadera
Svar
Cederman25 november 2013 09:26
Thanks for your reply. Your comment about Laila is also in my opinion in line with what the author of my selected paper gave the impression of. I guess the intuitive thought is that poor people (the case with most homeless people one can argue) can't afford modern gadgets like smartphones. But that statement is fairly vague since it is just wrong when you actually observe the reality around us.
Radera
Svara
Carl Ahrsjö25 november 2013 02:49
I mostly agree with your explanation of what theory is, although in my opinion I would emphasize that a theory should answer the question "why?" primarily rather than "how?". It has to provide a logical ground for future argument and therefore express something about the reasons behind the statements. However we seem to share the opinion that theory has to contain some sense of interconnectedness.
SvaraRadera
Svar
Cederman25 november 2013 09:33
I'm not sure I get your argument. I believe that by questioning things with the mindset of asking "how is this working?" or "how can I explain this?" we develop a set of rules of conditions for which the theory is based on.
But then again to answer somethings existence of behaviour in our world I guess we need to be able to both answer to the how? and the why? to give "a logical ground for future argument".
Radera
Theme #3 - Post-reflections
Research take a lot of time I've discovered! Either the research is quantitative, involving many subjects and therefore takes a lot time, or it is qualitative, often takes several hours transcribing and categorizing the data. Then you have the whole publishing-circus with peer reviews etc. -Research is not for the busy ones!
Cederman19 december 2013 08:21
I agree with you that research takes time. And I believe that is the case for any problem solving in general, some problems just take more time than others since it covers a greater scope. :)
Radera
Theme #4: Quantitative research
I think it's interesting to see all the different quantitative methods that have been used in everybodys paper. The most common is of course online surveys which is easy to use. So i think your paper had an interesting way of collecting quantitative data, using search results from Google and analyzing that. This quantitative method feels very specific for the research question or the area of research that is being made in your paper. In contrast an online survey can be used for almost any research subject. At least that's the feeling i have, i don't know if you agree with me?
Cederman1 december 2013 23:16
Hello Filip, Yeah, I totally agree with you. And that is naturally the case with my paper. I don't really see any other way to go about this kind of research without having the aid of some type of algorithm. Although it would be nice with the addition of maybe a survey in the beginning of the research process to check what types of clustering people believe that the results might give?
Radera
Theme #4 - post-reflections
Interesting study you got to discuss. I also agree that it's pretty weird that the participants weren't able to keep focus for 15 minutes. But don't you think that's why they used their friends as observers? To make it less formal and more like a regular study session? Because I think it's a huge difference if you're being observed by a total stranger, judging your every move, or just your friend sitting beside you as usual.
Also, how old were the ones in this study and where was it performed?
Also, how old were the ones in this study and where was it performed?
Cederman9 december 2013 00:18
Yes, we discussed that as well during the seminar. We came to the conclusion that there drawbacks choosing either option, that is: 1) Have someone you know observe you, 2) Have someone you don't know. The benefit of having someone you know to observe your behavior is good since you probably feel more at ease having that person behind you. This would also probably result in acting as you please, not feeling guilty of "not" studying during that 15 min session. So the results are accurate in that sense. The drawback is that you friend is actually an distraction because you maybe feel inclined to engage in some conversation with him/her during that period of time. On the other hand, the benefit of having some outsider to observe you might yield "better" result (i.e. you keep you concentration), but then again, what does this say about your results? They were better, but is this a valid result for "you"? If you would be alone, maybe you actually wouldn't be able to study for that long... It all depends.
Radera
Theme #5 - pre-reflections
- Jenny Sillén6 december 2013 11:40
Hej Mårten!
I think that Fernaeus et al would like to offer another way of "programming" the robots, something for non-technology nerds. I would enjoy having mood-stickers on my vacuum cleaning robot (if I had one) and watch it tackle my dust-bunnies with different character. Then maybe I could match my own mood at the moment and we could be angry or happy together. That could make cleaning fun, for a change. :-)
SvaraRadera
Svar
Cederman10 december 2013 04:27
I get your point. I just don't see that it could be that "programatical" if you only can modify it to a minimum =)
Radera
Svara
Gustav Boström9 december 2013 10:49
I agree with your comment about limitations of prototypes "Very often the prototype is far from the finished product in many aspects." I think that this might give misleading feedback from test-users if the prototype lack complete features, in some cases. Maybe not very misleading but may differ a lot from a later high fidelity prototype. But I still believe that prototype testing is of strong value even though if you only got a low fidelity prototype. A small picture or a hunch of the prototype use, I believe give a better foundation for development and error findings compared to other evaluation methods excluding test-users. Do you agree?
SvaraRadera
Svar
Cederman10 december 2013 04:29
I agree. I do believe it do some kind of catch 22 since your prototype can be low fidelity, but not "too low" in the sense that it turns the end user away from believing in the final product. It is a fine balance indeed!
Radera
Theme #6 - post-reflections
Hello Mårten! Well written above, of your writing was it particularly one meaning I enjoyed extra:
"From this paper I learned that both qualitative and quantitative research can in some cases be necessary to use in a combination to yield the most optimal result."
I absolutely agree with you, and only have a follow up question. You say that a combination of the two methods can be used to yield the most optimal results in some cases. In your opinion, isn't that always the case? Can't it always be better to conduct both methods when writing a paper?
"From this paper I learned that both qualitative and quantitative research can in some cases be necessary to use in a combination to yield the most optimal result."
I absolutely agree with you, and only have a follow up question. You say that a combination of the two methods can be used to yield the most optimal results in some cases. In your opinion, isn't that always the case? Can't it always be better to conduct both methods when writing a paper?
Cederman19 december 2013 08:16
Good question, and I think you touch upon what Katerina in our group was talking about in my post-reflection (on the same theme) that you don't necessarily get all the benefits of using a combination of several types of methods, but you might just end up with their draw backs too. I do agree with that. I guess a combo suits some research better than others, right?
Radera
Theme #6 - post-reflections
Hej Mårten!
I like the way you discuss about the trend in researches to combine qualitative and quantitative methodologies. As you say, research papers are not black or white. I also discussed (in previous blog posts), that choosing the methodology used in a paper depends on the research question and the aims of the research. All methodologies have both benefits and limitations. But as peer of us noted, combining methodologies doesn't only mean getting the benefits of the methodologies used; we should take into consideration of their limitations. Do you agree with that?
I like the way you discuss about the trend in researches to combine qualitative and quantitative methodologies. As you say, research papers are not black or white. I also discussed (in previous blog posts), that choosing the methodology used in a paper depends on the research question and the aims of the research. All methodologies have both benefits and limitations. But as peer of us noted, combining methodologies doesn't only mean getting the benefits of the methodologies used; we should take into consideration of their limitations. Do you agree with that?
Cederman19 december 2013 08:13
Hello Katerina!
I totally agree with you, just as we both think, it all depends on what type of research is being done to weigh our options on which type of method to conduct. I guess for a "combo" of methods to be used one needs to think it trough thoroughly to get the most out of it.
Radera
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar