Theme 4:2

After this weeks reflections I think it has become clear how quantitative methods can be used in various ways in order to produce valid results. 

I believe the most important factor in the process of quantitative research is to carefully control the conditions during the study. Since quantitative research is handling a large amount of data, there has to be a structure that assures that all of the data is collected within the same framework. The reason for having this kind of structure is to make the data generalizable – without generalisation there is no possibility to reach a result. Another problem without a controlled structure/conditions would be that an irregularity would be perceived as a standard and therefore cause a deceiving result.

Quantitative studies aim to get an overview of and describe circumstances/phenomena as they are. Therefore, they cannot take irregularities into account. Instead, quantitative research does often lay the foundation for further studies, e.g. qualitative research that can study object in-depth. This way it is possible to get a causal understanding of phenomena, and also highlight abnormalities that could not be included in the quantitative research.

With this in mind, I believe I presented a reasonable analysis/discussion of the essay I read related to the topic (Henning Rode’s  “To share or not to share, the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations on knowledge-sharing in enterprise and social media platforms” published in Journal of Information Technology). In hindsight I believe that Rode did manage to target the right people for his study. I mentioned in my previous post how the aim of the essay was to clarify why workers did not apply Enterprise Social Media Platforms (ESMP) into their daily use of social media. However, as Rode did not control who answered the survey, the research did not manage to reach the passive users that were the main object in the study (and in case some of them answered, he would not know, as he did not control who of the workers actually used the ESMP and who did not). In other words: at it’s best, Rode’s result could at it’s best only be partially accurate.

Rode, Henning  “To share or not to share, the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations on knowledge-sharing in enterprise and social media platforms”, Journal of Information Technology, volume 31, June 2016, accessed 22.09.2016

Theme 5:1

In the field of studies, data and method are the core factors that contribute in creating meaningful results. But whereas most fields have a preferred method that produces the most relevant data, design research usually has a need for using multidisciplinary methods in order to achieve the most useful results. In this blog post I will present and discuss the key features of design research, and the benefits – and disadvantages – of this field of study.

As design theory is using different types of methods, and often even combining several, the data produced often comes in various forms. The essay “Differentiated driving Range: Exploring a Solution to the Problems with the Guess-O-Meter” in Electric Cars” by Anders Lundström is a perfect example of how design research can end up with various forms of data. In order to find out how to improve the range-estimation of electric cars Lundström have been driving a selected number of cars, read information, read online forum posts regarding rage-estimators in electric cars, had semi-structured interviews with people with different kinds of experience and tested what he calls the “guess-o-meter” himself. These various approaches create a combination of qualitative data:

- Experience from driving the cars

- Opinions and information from interviews, forums etc.

- Technical data from testing the guess-o-meter

By analysing these forms of data Lundström can apply them onto the idea of how and speed estimator should be designed.

However, design research does not always require more than one method in order to attain reliable data. In the essay “Finding Design Qualities in a Tangible Programming Space” by Ylva Fernaeus and Jakob Tholander only one qualitative method is used. By observations Fernaeus and Tholander are able to qualitatively analyse children’s behaviour while they are interacting with a computer program. This means that the only form of empirical data they attain is the children’s behaviour. Depending on how the children are reacting and interacting with the program, Fernaeus and Tholander are adjusting their design step by step in order to achieve the most useful and rewarding system (result).

With this in mind, I do perceive practical design work as a form of knowledge production. As the design gradually improves the study tests different theories, verify and falsify them depending on the data produced and create information about the most useful/valid design. The method can also generate valuable information about how to pursue this kind of study or how to approach the field/object of study. As Fernaeus and Tholander had to go through a lot of tests before they could determine an appropriate program that integrated tangibles as representation of digital information - this produced information about what is and what is not relevant.

I believe this is the most important difference between design driven research in comparison to other research methods. Instead of having a strict framework and path to follow during the research, design research has the advantage of being open to alterations during it’s methodological process. This also causes a different approach to the result: instead of expecting an certain answer or result, design research’s goal seems to mainly de finding the most reliable/relevant option.

Although design research is useful and advantageous in many ways considering how adaptable it is depending on the circumstances, I do believe it has a disadvantage. With modern technology developing in a fast pace, and the social (physical and psychological) conditions with it, it cannot be replicated after a certain time. Firstly: as the technology have changed, the results may be different as well depending on whether the technology has become somewhat dated, or e.g. in Fernaeus and Tholander’s case, because the next generation of children are a lot more accustomed to growing up in a tech-intergrated society. Secondly, as technology evolves some kinds of studies becomes irrelevant. As today’s studies are trying to understand programing in a tangible context, maybe this won’t be necessary information/knowledge in a couple of years.

Theme 2:comments

https://u17fpbu5.blogspot.se/2016/09/post-theme-2-critical-media-studies.html?showComment=1474622499215

https://u1gixy4z.blogspot.se/2016/09/after-theme-2-critical-media-studies.html?showComment=1474636849097

https://u1h02pv3.blogspot.se/2016/09/reflection-on-theme-2-critical-media.html?showComment=1474637510792

https://u1dn0y6t.blogspot.se/2016/09/post-reflection-theme-2.html?showComment=1474638134406

https://u11zdo9t.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-2-critical-media-studies-2.html?showComment=1474639367453

https://u10o7oqf.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-2-critical-media-studies-part-2.html?showComment=1474883980064

https://u1818rgq.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-2-critical-media-studies-post-2.html?showComment=1474884771042

https://u1cq6h0z.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-2reflection-on-critical-media.html?showComment=1474885271139

https://u12vkokq.blogspot.se/2016/09/reflections-on-theme-2-critical-media.html?showComment=1474885609246

https://u1kq1ay0.blogspot.se/2016/09/second-blogpost-theme-2-critical-media.html?showComment=1474886158079

Theme 3:2

The seminar about theory made it clear how complex the definition of theory is, and why theory can so easily be confused with e.g. references, empirical data or a hypothesis. In this post I will look back on my previous discussions about theories and reflect about how my perception of theory has changed since the beginning of the week.

To begin with, I want to examine the definition I presented in my previous post: “theory is institutionalized ideas of understanding, used as supporting logic in scientific studies”. Although it might be considered a very broad definition, I do believe it describes some of the key factors that characterize theories. I presented this definition during the seminar and my group agreed that it was a reasonable explanation, however, I was questioned about whether it is necessary for the ideas to be institutionalized. After having thought of it I do realize it might not be necessary for the theories to be institutionalized per se, as theories can be thought of and constructed in environments outside of the academic/institutional domain. However, I do believe it adds to the theories credibility to be formed within academic/institutional field, as there is a higher probability for the theory to have been falsified, reconstructed, supported by empirical data and verified (etc.) in this type of professional circumstances.

During the seminar someone mentioned the idea of defining theory as “theories are tested assumptions, which is the temporary truth”. This would mean that theories are not a fact or an absolute truth. I do agree with this statement to some extent, but as the discussion continued we were discouraged from using such absolute terms as “proof”, “truth” or “fact”. Therefore, I want to propose a new definition of theory that combines my old suggestion and the one presented during the seminar: Theories are tested ideas of understanding, used as supporting logic for current scientific studies – until they have been contradicted.

I do realize that this pose a rather long definition, but it is the most accurate way of defining my idea of the concept.  

I believe it is important to emphasize that theory is only an temporary idea of understanding in order to not confuse it with knowledge. Theories might support our production of knowledge, but if wont create any of it’s own as it cannot be proven to be absolute.

Moving on, within the group, we were also discussion how certain types of theory present an analysis. As I mentioned in my previous post, my chosen article, “Influential IT management trends: an international study” by Jerry Luftman et al. (2015) a lot of empirical data is presented without any reflection about why or how these trends were caused. Therefore I defined this as a theory for analysing (descriptive article). Initially I considered this kind of theory as unsatisfying, considering the authors had a lot of data from a long period of time to reflect upon. As the survey did not contain any explanatory question and options, I understand the authors have ignored this element completely but I expected the data to at least be analysed to a fuller extent and used with a more predictive approach. In response to my criticism, a fellow student explained to me that the descriptive approach could generate a satisfying, fundamental study, which in turn could encourage further studies with more specific approaches. Considering the extensive time period for the study, and the amount of empirical data I suppose the analysing/descriptive theory should be sufficient. After all, with that amount of data there probably would be difficulties reflect upon all reasonable predictions. I suppose in an analysis, it is not only necessary to find supporting theories, but also to critically eliminate excessive theories.

Luftman Jerry, Derksen Barry, Dwivedi Rajeev, et al. ”Influential IT Management Trends: an international Study”, Journal of Information Technology (2015) 30

http://link.springer.com.focus.lib.kth.se/article/10.1057%2Fjit.2015.18 accessed 14.09.2016

Theme 4:1

As we will be discussing method, and quantitative method in particular this week, I chose to read Henning Rode’s article “To share or not to share, the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations on knowledge-sharing in enterprise and social media platforms” (Journal of Information Technology, volume 31., June 2016).

Rode’s article present a new phenomenon that has emerged in recent years: Enterprise Social Media Platforms (ESMP). These platforms are very similar to the social media technology we are used to for private use (e.g. Facebook) but have been developed as a means to share knowledge and information within a corporate domain. Although sharing the same sort of functions as regular social media platforms, ESMP has proved to be difficult to integrate into the working environment due to workers indifference in actively participating and sharing information on a voluntary basis. In order to determine what causes this passivity amongst workers, Rode performed a quantitative web-survey at a German company. Out of the 7946 persons who were invited, 492 participated in the survey. The questions in the survey where based on Rode’s four hypothesises with answers based on a binary scale (yes/no) and some on a 7-point scale (‘strongly disagree ’ and  ‘strongly

agree ’ and by  ‘does not apply at all ’ and  ‘applies fully).

In the discussion of the essay, Rode admits to the study’s limitation, stating that by only having one company representing the phenomenon might have affected the result. I am definitely agreeing with him as different companies have various company-cultures, which I believe affects their willingness to adopt a new system and actively participate in it. Further on, Rode is also worried about whether the questions have been understood correctly (mainly the concept of “knowledge” as in knowledge sharing) as there have been no opportunities for the participants to have the questions explained. Finally, as Rode presents the result of the study he is having a hard time figuring out a correlation between the hypothesises that were supported. This is caused by the lack of any explanatory, in-depth questions, as Rode’s only posed questions to answer “what is” (descriptive).

Although Rode is aware of the weaknesses in his study, the are a two profound limitations he does not mention: firstly, Rode is only using four hypothesises to define all of the questions. Therefore, the result of the study can only be either verifying or falsifying one or several of the hypothesises. If the actual reason why workers do not adopt the ESMP is not defined by any of the hypothesises, it will naturally be excluded from the result. This means that although Rode’s result have some support, it might not be the only (or even the most accurate) answer as the outcome might have differed if workers were to answer/discuss the issue freely.

In addition to that I also want to point out how the survey’s participants can have affected the outcome. Obviously, having 492 persons answering a survey will give some sort of valid result, but as the survey is voluntary – as is the ESMP it is trying to analyse – surely will the most passive users of the ESMP also ignore the survey. In other words: the main people that Rode is trying to analyse will not be represented in the final result.

If Rode would insist to use a quantitative method for the study he should at least make the survey mandatory for a certain amount of people in order to reach the target he is trying to analyse. Also, he should not restrict the questions to four hypothesises only but instead use a categorized framework that include more alternatives. But above all, I would suggest an additional qualitative study in order to find out why the ESMP’s have not been adopted and how it can be improved. Also, a quantitative, in-depth study would show the correlations between results (which Rode admitted to be missing in this case).

However, I do not think that this study could be performed by qualitative methods only. Although qualitative methods can give a deeper understanding of phenomena and avoid misunderstandings/misinterpretations (by interacting with the research subject directly), a qualitative result cannot be generalized the same way as quantitative. Having 10 people participate in in-depth interviews would not produce a more comprehensive result than the 492 people than answered.

Also, another issue in a qualitative study would be the lack of anonymity. In this case, it is not certain how honest people would be in interviews when answering questions about their employer.

Therefore, I would not suggest replacing a quantitative method with a qualitative, at least not in this case. I believe that only by combing the two a more useful result would emerge. 
This brings me to the article "Drumming in immersive virtual reality" by Illias Bergström et. al. It seems to me that they have tried in some ways to combine these two by performing interviews in addition to behavioural data. Still, as the study was mainly quantitative and did not pursue any in-depth interview there was no results that could explain the cause of the outcome. This shows that a method does not necessarily reach a qualitative standard only by adding interviews. I would say that this sort of quantitative study is presenting a good foundation for further research as it describes a phenomenon in a general way. The same way as Rode's article, Bergström et. al has potential to provide deeper understanding if they (or other researchers) approach the study with an additional qualitative method. 

Rode, Henning  “To share or not to share, the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations on knowledge-sharing in enterprise and social media platforms”, Journal of Information Technology, volume 31, June 2016, accessed 22.09.2016