Theme 4 - reflection post

The theme for week 4 seminar was quantitative research and for this week we read one paper made by Johan Östman, How involvement in user-generated content relates to democratic engagement among young people and one made by Ilias Bergström and some colleagues of him called Drumming in immersive virtual reality. I prepared by reading them two and reflected on the different questions. I found that both text was quite easy to understand but the one made by Östman was unfortunately not that interesting to me. But the theme was about quantitative research and for that aspect I found both texts good.

As usual there was a lecture followed by a seminar which I attended and It was Ilias that held them both. During the lecture Ilias talked about different methods on how to collect data and the importance of making sure that you are getting the right kind of data for your question. He also mentioned on what independent and dependent variable was and gave a good example:

Independent variable – how many beers will I drink.

Dependent variable – how drunk will I be.

The second one depends on how many I drink

One common way of collecting quantitative data is by doing questioners. But if you choose to do that it is very important to get it right, validate it. Make sure that the people that will answer it understands the questions so that the can answer correctly. This research method was used in the paper by Östman but like a said in my fist post I never read about the questioner being tested, so again that was a big mistake if that was the case.

The importance with having solid data is because data play a fundamental role and is needed to support the logical argument. Just having data on it own says very little.

The seminar was pretty much the same as usual, we sat in small groups and discussed the theme of the week. At first we discussed Ilias text since it was something everyone had read. At first we all got a bit confused by the fact that Ilias explained that the whole study was quantitative. This was confusing to u since we thought that the data they got from the electronic sensors was qualitative. I am not really sure why I though that but now I agree with Ilias. Form the sensors they got tons of data from every little move the users did and therefor it is quantitative data.

One of the major topics we discussed was that you have to let the question of the study determent the research method and in some sense the target group. One example was the question: “how does people who listen to rock vote?” according to Ilias it would not be interesting to do a quantitative study since it would take away the complexity of the question. And that make sense, if the study have a humanistic character it would be better to do a qualitative research. To break it down you could divide it:

If you have the question “what do they like” it is quantitative and if you have the question “why" it should be qualitative.

Over all I hink I got a better understanding for the fundamental role the research play in a study and what quantitative research is and what it is not.   

Theme 5 - first post

Part 1

1.     How can media technologies be evaluated?
There are many different ways to evaluate media technologies but in the paper “Turn your mobile into the ball: rendering live football game using vibration” they performed a usability evaluation. This meant to evaluate three aspects:

·       Effectiveness – To find out if the system good enough to accomplish the task by calculating the error-rate.

·       Efficiency – To find out the effort is takes to accomplish the task by measuring the users reaction time.

·       Satisfaction – to find out what the users think about the system and the use of it.

2.     What role will prototypes play in research?
In study like this the prototype is very important, the data from the prototype evaluation will be essential for the development. The prototype will help the study go forward in a fast and pretty easy way. By doing a prototype first before the actual product will make it possible to find the limitations and still have time to make changes. In a broader perspective having a prototype will save you money and in the end you will have a stronger product in the end.

3.     Why could it be necessary to develop a proof of concept prototype?
This is to get an understanding for how the prototype will work in different aspects so that you can understand its purpose and verify that it has potential of being used. This is made so the prototypes will the best as it can be, before any users can try it.

4.     What are characteristics and limitations of prototypes?
What the characteristics of a prototype are that it might still be “rough around the edges” it is the first try of the actual product and has not been exposed for any tests or other users´ opinions. The prototypes are built on the original idea and what are tried to be accomplish. The limitations of prototypes are the fact it have not been tested by others so you cannot know how others will be able to understand it, or if it even is doing what it is suppose to do.

5.     How can design research be communicated/presented?
I am not 100 % sure on what “design research” means from the text itself but I did some more research on my own and found that it involves the work before the process of design, and also within the process of design. So how you can present this should be presenting the prototype or showing pictures of it and having texts that explain how it works.

Part 2

-What is the 'empirical data' in these two papers?

In the paper Finding Design Qualities in a Tangible Programming Space they got their empirical data through observations on how children interacted with the experimental designs. And in the other paper Differentiated driving range: exploring a solution to the problems with the “guess-o-meter” in electric cars the data was by doing a stat-of-art analysis and an iterative design exploration and interviews . This was to get data about how the guess-o-meter worked and its problems.

-Can practical design work in itself be considered a 'knowledge contribution'?
Yes I would say that practical work at it self absolutely can contribute with knowledge. We have all heard the saying "learn by doing". By working with the design you can found out new things and can therefore also develop the design based on the new knowledge.

- Are there any differences in design intentions within a research project, compared to design in general?
Research project is developed under special circumcises, and I guess the aim and intentions with the design is also different. A design within a research project has the aim to get more or even new knowledge about something. By having and using the design will be the tool to get data that you otherwise would not be able to get. Other designs in general will be used differently and do not have the same focus on providing with knowledge but instead make sure it works as it should and fulfils it purpose.

- Is research in tech domains such as these ever replicable? How may we account for aspects such as time/historical setting, skills of the designers, available tools, etc? 
I think that the research of the study should depend on the aim of the study. I think you can get a real good insight of the problem by doing research of this kind but I think you have to put in the work so that the data is solid. The tech domains are always developing and there are still things that could be better so by developing new prototypes so users can test is a great way of seeing if your idea is good or not. But it is important to put in the effort so that it actually works in the right way.      

- Are there any important differences with design driven research compared to other research practices?
When you have design driven research you have to let users try it in order for it do give you any data. You cannot just read about different designs you actually need to get feedback from users, which is understandable since the design hopefully in the future will be use by others.