Theme 6: post

Today we had our last seminar of this course. Leif was the seminar leader and it was a good last seminar. We started with a discussion about the course overall and also had a chance to ask questions about the examination, there were some unclear instructions so it was much needed. The focus of this seminar was case studies and we started by discussing in smaller groups. This is a great way of getting new perspectives and thoughts about the topic. Before the seminar I thought that case studies were a bit unclear, and the discussion confirmed that I wasn’t alone t think so.

After discussion in small groups, Leif led the seminar by answering questions and starting discussions. The parable to a doctor and a police detective made it a bit clearer for me; a case study examines the object itself, for example the patient is the case for a doctor.

Leif explained that it is characteristic for a case study to examine a “natural frame”, not use any hypothesizes and use multiple methods (both qualitative and quantitative). Though this was not the case of the paper I read. In that paper the authors “constructed” the case and then examined it, therefore it was not a natural frame. But it used both qualitative and quantitative methods and they didn’t use any hypothesis, so they score two out of three. The author called the research a case study, but maybe it should be called a qualitative study.

Theme 5 post

This week Haibo Li's lecture was cancelled and unfortunately I missed Eva-Lotta Sallnäs Pysander’s due to work. So this post reflection will not be that extensive. What I did was to discuss her lecture with some of my peers that attended. This gave me better insight and understanding of how collaborative setting can be beneficial. I also did discuss the texts with two other students, we usually do this and it really gives me a better understanding and different perspectives.

I really liked the paper written by Haibo. It was interesting and it was inspiring that it was something I could do as a media technology engineer. It is of great importance to use prototypes when developing both physical and virtual products and services to find flaws but also advantages.

The use of a collaborative setting is also really interesting. If this is used, you don’t need to force the users to think aloud; this will hopefully happen automatically when the users discuss and interact with each other. This will be more natural and may result in a better research.   

Theme 6: Pre

Qualitative and case study research

PART I

The paper I have chosen, which uses a qualitative method, is “Communicating Through Location: The Understood Meaning of the Foursquare Check-In”. I found this paper in the journal “Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication” with an impact factor of 1,778. The title of the paper is quite self-explanatory; in the paper the author discuss the role physical location plays in the coordination practices of Foursquare users and the different ways in which Foursquare users interpret the meaning of the application. This is two independent yet interrelated areas which make it really interesting.

1. Which qualitative method or methods are used in the paper? Which are the benefits and limitations of using these methods?

The method used in this paper is, as mentioned above, qualitative. The study is based on interviews of 36 frequent Foursquare users about their mobile communication practices, the interviews ranged from 25 to 90 minutes.

One benefit of using a qualitative method is possibility to do deeper analyze; the participants get a chance to explain their thoughts and feelings, which a quantitative method lacks. Though, this method is really time-consuming and therefore the number of participants may be a lot less than a quantitative method.

2. What did you learn about qualitative methods from reading the paper?

One thing I really liked about this study was that the early interviews shaped the latter. All interviews were conducted over a 5-month period, which gave the author a chance to learn from his mistakes and develop better and more suitable questions. He also used a software called Atlas.Ti which made it easier to identify pattern and also develop a dense understandning. This was something I never had thought about, using a software to analyze qualitative interviews!

3. Which are the main methodological problems of the study? How could the use of the qualitative method or methods have been improved?

One problem I found was that he only used frequent users of Foursquare. If he had interviewed users with more varying activity levels, there are easier to generalize. He tried to interview users that didn’t use Foursquare regularly but the answers weren’t that comprehensive, so he decided to only interview users that used Foursquare on a regular basis. This may be bad, but it also may be good since he argued that the data from non-frequent users couldn’t be used to develop a dense understanding. Anyhow, I like that he adjusted the study along the way!

PART II

1. Briefly explain to a first year university student what a case study is.

A case study is a research method when the researcher tries to get deep knowledge of a single, or sometimes a few, phenomena. A case study is a carried out in the “real world”, empiricism. It is often a combination of both a qualitative and a quantitative method, but it can also be either one alone.

2. Use the "Process of Building Theory from Case Study Research" (Eisenhardt, summarized in Table 1) to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of your selected paper.

I have chosen the paper “Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study” from the journal “Computers & Education” with an impact factor of 2,621. This paper is also quite self-explanatory; the aim of this study is to investigate kindergarten children’s problem solving skills and reactions to a programming environment.

To analyze this case study I use the different steps of “Process of Building Theory from Case Study Research” (Eisenhardt). The first steps in the process – getting started, selecting cases and crafting instruments and protocols – were being followed according to me. The authors defined a research question and specified the population. They also used multiply methods to gather data; both raw data, quantitative, from the tests and also qualitative data from the conversations among the peers and the teacher. The rest of the steps I think they followed somewhat, but I am not sure that I have interpreted the steps correctly. I miss the cross-case pattern in the analyze step, but they do the enfolding literature step really good by comparing to other similar studies. 

I think I was a bit tricky to analyze the paper using this model, I’m looking forward to the seminar to get more understanding.

Theme 5: Design research

PART 1

1. How can media technologies be evaluated?

In this research they use ISO recommendations to evaluate usability; it is defined by the effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction of the prototype. The effectiveness was in this case measured by calculating the error rate when the user had to determine which area of the soccer field that was communicated via the vibration. The efficiency was measured by the cognitive time and the satisfaction was measured by a questionnaire.

2. What role will prototypes play in research?

A prototype is a necessity to use if you want to examine something where the desired tool is missing. In this example they developed a prototype that gave vibrational feedback for a soccer game, there were no similar product to be found. In some cases the desired product might exist, but they may be very pricy and therefore a prototype is required.

3. Why could it be necessary to develop a proof of concept prototype?

A proof of concept is a very good way to test the concept before you develop it further, investigate the feasibility. A proof of concept prototype can save a lot of time (because it is not required much time for developing a ready product) and it is also easy to detect advantages and disadvantages.

4. What are characteristics and limitations of prototypes?

A prototype is not a ready product and therefore may imply some faults or flaws. When the user interacts with a prototype these faults and flaws may affect their impression in a negative way. Also, there is a risk that the researcher gets emotionally attached to a prototype which may lead to biased interpretations of results.

5. How can design research be communicated/presented?

There is of great importance to illustrate the research with pictures (e.g. screenshots), charts and explanatory texts. It makes no sense to present design research only as text. There might be useful to present the entire iterative design process of a prototype by screenshots or pictures. If a physical prototype is to be presented, it is preferred to display a refined version (so it doesn’t look like a piece of scrap).

PART 2

1. How does a collaborative setting differ from a single user setting as regards methodology used and the results obtained?

If a single user setting is used and you want to know what the user thinks while performing the test, you have to force the user to think-aloud. But if you use a collaborative setting the think-aloud may be achieved automatically by the users when they communicate with each other. The collaborative setting may result in more honest opinions. But there are also a possible risk of the users affect each other to think similarly.

2. How can qualitative and quantitative methods in the same study complement each other?

The qualitative method can provide deeper understanding to the data acquired by a quantitative method. If you use only one of the methods, there is a risk of only getting raw data and numbers or only “soft values”.

3. How can using both subjective and objective methods give a better understanding of a phenomenon?

As I interpret this question it is very similar to the question above; a quantitative method generates an objective research while a qualitative method generates a subjective research. As I mentioned above, the both methods complements each other both often needed to fully understand a phenomena.

Theme 4 - post

This week was by far the easiest for me to understand. I have encountered and worked with both quantitative and qualitative methods before. The assignment to choose a paper that uses a quantitative method was useful and interesting. The workshop with Olle was a great complement to the assignment, and was also really fun and gave me a greater understanding of the different methods. It is always more interesting when it is a competition! I learned among other things the pros and cons with each method, how and why a method should be used and some pitfalls to avoid. It was obvious that Olle did know what he talked about.

The most interesting thing Olle talked about was interactive forms. Interactive forms can give feedback to the user while doing the survey. The feedback may give the user extra motivation to make an effort, and indirect result in a better research. Unfortunately, interactive forms are rare; I myself have never encountered one. I really think this way of conducting surveys have great potential and should be something form developing tools should provide.The workshop in it self was designed in a similar fashion; the participants got feedback in when they presented their results.