Since we didn‘t have the group seminars last week, my reflection will cover only the lecture about quantitative research methods.
When we were going through the study about body ownership illusion „Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality: The Body Shapes the Way We Play“ from Konstantina Kilteni, Ilias Bergström, and Mel Slater I understood more what the topic was about. Really interesting for me was the experiment of the rubber hand illusion as a proof that body ownership illusion exists. In the experiment the participants got over their hand a sleeve that made their arm look like one from a rubber hand. The arm of the participants was hidden behind a visual cover while a rubber hand was placed in front of them. The researchers tapped in the same patterns on the rubber hand and the hand of the participants. After a while the fingers of the rubber hand were turned over suddenly. This made (as it looked like in the video) all participants to flinch. That showed how strong the body ownership illusion can get in such a short period of time.
In the main research the question “Do people behave differently under a body ownership illusion? Does the body shape our attitudes and behaviors?“ brought the body ownership illusion to another level. Based on the assumption that it exists and is real the experiment was made to show if the behavior and attitudes can change through changing the body of people in a virtual reality. It was really interesting to hear about the way the design of the experiment was formed. When I read through the paper the first time, I couldn‘t really understand why the researchers built the two avatars to stereotypically right and wrong for playing the drums. I even thought it was a little bit unethical. Especially because all participants were caucasian. Throughout the seminar I found out the purpose behind all this and how anthropology and psychology play as well a huge role in such an experiment. I think in the field of media studies it happens so often that the lines between field become blurred. That makes media studies so interesting. Depending on the topic researches cover technological, communicational, anthropological, or psychological questions next t the main field of media sciences.
In my reflection I want to bring up one more topic that we talked about last week: The Replication Crisis. The replication crisis came up through the fact that many researches are not published, because they are replications of an earlier research about the same topic. Scientific papers are obviously not interested in covering a concrete research theme more than once. According to me that is a big issue. In my years as a Bachelor student I learned the importance of replicating researches to strengthen the theories behind them. Theories get more strong the more often we try to falsify them and fail with it. If papers are now standing in the way of replicating researches (because with no perspective of publication many researches can not be founded, nor get the right amount of awareness), how shall new theories be constructed? In the theme discussion about theories it came up how new theories can exists and survive next to the older and more strengthened theories (like David against Goliath). Especially at the moment when the media technology sector is changing so fast it is important to find new theories that explain the behavioral changes and what the media does with us. It is important to understand changes in the substructure to see where the superstructure might go. But when papers and institutions are standing in between that, it is hard to overcome this crisis.
Hi! Thank you for this brief but indeed informative view of the lecture. I find the questions that you raise about research replication quite interesting. I had the same problem while writing my Bachelor's thesis by finding a theme that was not "touched" yet. Thus I believe replication is quite useful in every kind of field, especially if one sees replication as a way of complementing to previous studies. Furthermore, I think that two different people can never make exact same study the same, as they have different knowledge, approach and assumptions which logically leads to different outcomes. So, I totally agree that this is an issue that must be discussed more. Good job!
AntwortenLöschenI also got very fascinated by the experiment of the rubber hand illusion, it’s really interesting how the brain can be fooled by an illusion and how we instinctively react to it. I would like to try this experiment myself. I thought it was really good that you brought up the Replication Crisis in your reflection. Like you mention in your text, the more we try to falsify a theory and fail the stronger the original theory gets. It is as important to update and challenge research than create an entire new theory. In the society we live in today, when we constantly want to move forward (just take technology as an example, the development is so fast moving and we are constantly striving for new and more efficient technology) I don’t think it is that surprising that the Replication Crisis exist. However, as you mention, it’s important to see and understand the changes in the substructure to see what will happen with the superstructure and to be able to do that we need to look in the rear-view. Good job with your reflection!
AntwortenLöschenHi! I really enjoyed reading your reflection. You make some important points.I agree with you on the importance of researchers having the opportunity to replicate researches to test theory. Especially because the integrity of these findings are important as they form the base for future studies. The fact that these findings haven't been replicated enough also affect these future studies, as the bases went through a peer-to-peer review, but might actually not be solid enough. Or there might have been new or more findings, but the future researcher doesn't know about this because it wasn't reproduced and therefor never brought to public.
AntwortenLöschenThat's nice that you managed to connect the topics of research methods, sub- and superstructure, scientific journals' policies and replication crisis in one reflection. I was against replication from the very beginning seeing it as the waste of time and money but the explanations of falsifications and fact-checking issues changed my mind. The "Nature" magazine conducted a poll this year asking more than 1500 scientists whether they were able to reproduce their own experiments, and about a half admitted their failures. That means we cannot confirm or shake our heads at previous findings. And the policy of the editorial journals, as you correctly noticed, also demotivates people to replicate other works. That's interesting to see how the academics are going to solve this problem in the future.
AntwortenLöschenThat's nice that you managed to connect the topics of research methods, sub- and superstructure, scientific journals' policies and replication crisis in one reflection. I was against replication from the very beginning seeing it as the waste of time and money but the explanations of falsifications and fact-checking issues changed my mind. The "Nature" magazine conducted a poll this year asking more than 1500 scientists whether they were able to reproduce their own experiments, and about a half admitted their failures. That means we cannot confirm or shake our heads at previous findings. And the policy of the editorial journals, as you correctly noticed, also demotivates people to replicate other works. That's interesting to see how the academics are going to solve this problem in the future.
AntwortenLöschenInteresting reflection on the topic of replication. The replication of methods should bring out more tight methods which will hopefully generate more accurate results. The discussion regarding The Body Shapes the Way We Play, I think most people act up on their prejudice subconsciously. We have been shaped by our cultural heritage and our society. I think that there are few people who do not.
AntwortenLöschenThank you very much for your insights on the replication crisis. I feel very similar about the topic. While the whole point of the paper was to prove, that there can be a behavior change in body ownership illusions, I personally would also be interested in why this is happening and what might cause it? I think it is important to understand these questions as well, not to say that they are even the more important ones. If Galileo had stopped at the finding that different objects fall at the same speed and no-one else would have looked deeper into his findings, we might not be where we are today, let alone would have been able to illustrate his findings by dropping a feather and a hammer onto the surface of the moon.
AntwortenLöschenThanks for interesting reflections. Replicating seems to be a well-discussed topic in the scientific world. I agree with you, even if it’s hard to be publishing when replicating study it’s a huge meaning of doing it. Researcher has to replicate studies to test validity to increase the result’s generalizability. To build new theories it’s necessary to confirm earlier studies findings. If findings can be repeated it will increase confidence in its validity. Also, many research’s results cannot be validated by itself; they need other studies to conform their result. This, the reproducibility of experiment is a core to making science cumulative. But also I understand that journals are more interested in publishing new research. It’s an issue.
AntwortenLöschenAllo,
AntwortenLöschenThis is a very interesting point you are bringing to the discussion here. The replication is and should be totally what you described it should be.
A paper that has more than 10 others studies trying to disprove it or studied from a different angle makes it more closer to the truth. I used to say in the early theme that the truth is true until proven otherwise. But at some point, aren't we going hit the wall and the universal truth that will never be changed again ? Anyway, trying to disregard an actual theory and ending up saying the same thing is what makes is strong. I hadn't thought about it so thats why im exciting to read and write a comment on that.
But I can understand the point of view of the researchers that they dont go for a redo of an actual theory because they won't prove something new, discover a pattern in something, they won't contribute on a discovery level. And the newness thing of things is what makes researchers research...
Hej, thank you for profound reflecting and careful insight on this theme. At the first blog post you proved your familiarity with the topic and stated some excellent points about the study methods. You managed to find the right way of critically examining a study, and this you showed by discussing the methodical problems of face-to-face discussion, for example. Great job!
AntwortenLöschenOn this second blog post I found myself having the same interest towards the experiment of a rubber hand illusion. It gave a nice basis for the article of Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality. Also one important point that you brought up is the mixed scientific fields, which all supplement each other in media research. One has to almost know a little bit of everything, right?
Dieser Kommentar wurde vom Autor entfernt.
AntwortenLöschenI also had thought initially that the drumming in virtual reality study was a bit biased in terms of its use of Caucasian participants as their test group. However, when discussing the use of quantitative data, it is easy to see how this this was necessary. The use of the virtual reality and tracking equipment can be quite expensive and take time to analyze and present into statistically significant information. Considering this, including the added use of questionnaire and interview, it would have required too much resource to include other groups. This presents the ways in which quantitative data can be restrictive, but I believe that it is alright to limit the data source in this case. Otherwise, it would have to be testing an impossible number of demographic groups and never be completed.
AntwortenLöschenThere are benefits of qualitative research could be used in this circumstance. The use of interview, as opposed to movement tracking, could have perhaps afforded for a more diverse study group as this requires less equipment and cost.