u1eqtjc8

Montag, 17. Oktober 2016

The last topics we talked about in this seminar were case studies and qualitative research. In the first blog post about this topic I already summarized quite well what a case study is. It is one or more cases that are investigated in a specific field of research. What I understood wrong the first time and learned throughout the week is, that the research question which that you are going into the field doesn‘t have to be as clear as I stated it the last time. That is actually one of the most important elements of a case study. When going into the field you mostly have no concrete research question. The research question as well as the theory that will be built can be completely open.

In the seminar came up the question what the difference between case studies and qualitative research is since there occur quite many similarities, like the construction of hypotheses or the approach inside the field. As we had to learn it is sometimes quite hard to draw the line. Basically a case study is not just a method. It is describing a research focus on another level above qualitative and quantitative research methods. In comparison to a qualitative research the boundaries or limits of a case study is way more concrete. For example the case is limited to a specific company or occasion like an earthquake. So a case study is about a setting of phenomenon. The research framework is normally not constructed, like in the most qualitative or quantitative studies. The researcher doesn‘t intervene that much. He has also another intention than in a qualitative study. In a case study the researcher wants to understand something we don‘t know anything or enough about yet. In a qualitative study the focus is more on a specific occurring and we try to understand things that influence or explain this occurring. The research questions are more narrow and we go into the field with some kind of assumption. After the discussion in the seminar the differences were way clearer to see. Before I didn‘t even ask myself the question and just accepted that there are different ways of researching and different ways of using a method. Nevertheless it is important to define for yourself the opportunities in researching when you start to explore or analyse in social sciences. In the seminar was mentioned that many researchers don‘t chose the method after the topic, but the topics after the methods (they used before, their colleagues use, the field of interest uses, etc). Although that might happen to some of us, it is still good to know the differences, advantages and disadvantages of different methods and approaches.

The example I chose in my first blogpost was in retrospect seen not really a good case study. The field was not as specific as it should be in a case study. The investigation of the social meanings of mobile phones of youth in South Africa could have been made in a qualitative study at the same time. The borders around this field for according to me not clear enough for a case study. Additionally the researchers already had quite a lot assumption when they went into the field. So some of the other examples, like the case study about the communication strategies after a specific earthquake, was a better choice.

Montag, 10. Oktober 2016

Theme 5: Reflection

The last week‘s topic was really interesting. Both the lecture and discussion seminar broadened my horizon. The concept research through design was new for me. In my Bachelor studies the focus was set on qualitative and quantitative research. Research design was for me the chosen way about how to conduct a research. That might be true but, especially in my answer to the last question in the first blog post I mixed up research design and research through design (RtD). Although I read the text I didn‘t understand how it works concretely. Now after the last week I feel more comfortable with talking about design through research. Especially in the lecture it was pointed out that in this research method the research intention is to form and identify design. This design could be anything from how a smartphone should look like to user interfaces. This broad spectrum of contents makes RtD quite complex. There are no general approaches like surveys, observations, interviews, etc. to collect your data, but the method has to be chosen, shaped and maybe even developed individually for every research. Before this week I wasn‘t aware of the intricacy behind RtD.

In the seminar we talked about really interesting topics. After all the previous discussions about fundamental understandings like knowledge, one might think that there is not that much to say anymore, but in the seminar Anders made us question it again - and it was good that he did. So what it knowledge? Especially in the social sciences this is hard to answer. I think the most people would say that knowledge in the hard sciences is easier to describe, since every achievement of knowledge is tested and verified for several times. Even in school we still make a lot of experiments that proof the knowledge that is written in our physics or chemistry books. It‘s not that easy in social sciences. The knowledge in our field shall cover theories that mostly explain constructs of behavior. For example: Why do we prefer internet to newspapers? Why does a PSA with a testimonial has bigger influence than one without? How does our behavior change when we are in a Virtual Reality? How the term social sciences already say, it‘s about social behavior, intentions, actions, and so on. The focus is on what happens inside of all of us (and not in a medical way). When we conduct a research and find new knowledge it is only applicable for a specific kind of group in a specific time context. The variety of influences that affect and change our behavior are so multiple that it makes it difficult and almost impossible to replicate researches. We can build theories and try to verify them as much as possible. But then there is still the question if theories or knowledge that were found 50 years ago are still applicable to our behavior today? The world changes, the media changes, we change and our opinions and behavior changes. And all of this happens every day. So does general knowledge in social sciences exist at all that can explain different behaviors? And if it doesn‘t why are we still researching in this field? Because humans always seek for more knowledge and we all try to understand ourselves and each other. It explains the world and humanity, just like the hard sciences do.

One of my fellow students defined knowledge in social sciences as a snapshot of a specific moment and a specific group of people. Anders added that it means for him to bring attention to something previously unknown.

I am still not entirely sure what it means for me, but I think every researcher has to reflect on what knowledge means for themselves. For the moment I can say that we as maybe-future-researchers in social sciences should always seek to being creative and investigate the things that we are interested in. Even if it is just a small piece of knowledge that we are gaining through a research, it is still a puzzle piece to the understanding of the world. And with world I mean our personal world with our perspectives and comprehensions, that are based on our previous knowledge and that shape our values and behavior.

Theme 4: Comments

In commented the following posts:

Freitag, 7. Oktober 2016

Theme 6: Qualitative and case study research

The paper I chose is called "Dialectic Tensions of Information Quality: Social Networking Sites and Hiring". It was published in 2013 by the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. As qualitative research method were semi-structured guided interviews used. These interviews give the participants space and time to not only answer the constructed questions, but also to explain their experiences and thoughts. Most of the interviews were recorded and transcribed, for the rest were taken notes and adequate protocols written. These transcripts were analyzed and coded in the three ways: open, axial, and selective. Two independent researchers categorized the data. The constructed categories were through the analyzation process modified and transformed to mirror the outcomes of the interviews appropriately. The most difficult in writing a paper about a qualitative research is, to bring no discussion or interpretation into the results section. Pike, Bateman, and Butler managed this very well.

Through the method of semi-structured interviews you can receive really open answers. This is on the one hand a benefit, because the participants are having enough space to explain and elaborate specific topics. That gives you to possibility to earn a lot of knew knowledge and understanding in specific fields and show you how it really is. At the same time these open questions can lead to very different topics, so some participants might drift away easily. In this case it‘s the task of the interviewer or researcher to bring them back on track. A true benefit of qualitative research, compared to quantitative, is that it gives the researches access to the processes that happen inside of the people, the reality. An often discussed critique of qualitative research is, that the outcomes depend highly on the interpretation of the researcher. Not everything is intersubjectively reasonable.

Explanation of case study to a first year student:

In a case study a theory is build from cases. These cases or only one case that are investigated occur in one specific field of research. The approach is usually used in new areas of interest. In other words a case study offers "understanding [of the] the dynamics present within single settings" (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 534). The coverage of more than one case inside the specific setting or field is possible as well as several levels of analysis can be conducted. There is no strict rule that it has to be either qualitative or quantitative analysis, a case study can be both. When starting a case study, it is important to have a clear research question before going into the field. Otherwise the amount of data can easily be overwhelming. The research question can be changed throughout the research, but it is important to have a focus in the beginning. The cases that are chosen for the analysis don‘t have to be random or representative. The main intention in choosing cases is that they proof or extend the constructed theory. After the data collection (via interviews, observation, content analysis, etc.) patterns are searched. These patterns lead to the building of hypotheses what can lead to the construction of a theory. The comparison of this found data, hypotheses or theory with the existent literature in this field is centrally important. A case study is closed when an iteration of data and the theory occurs.

An example for a case study is the investigation of the social meanings of mobile phones of youth in South Africa. The social place of mobile phones of undergraduate students of the University of Cape Town was researched. In the following the selected will be analyzed according to the "Process of Building Theory from Case Study Research" (Eisenhardt, 2013, p. 533). In the paper was no concrete research question defined or formed, but it was clear from the beginning on what aspect the focus in the research is set: "The social meanings of the mobile phone in the lives of African youth" (Chuma, 2014, p. 400). The sampling of all students in one specific course might be theoretical sampling, but could as well be the group that the researcher has most easy access to. Anyway for the data collection were multiple methods used: Quantitative method in an online survey and qualitative method in group discussions. The concrete procedure of analyzing the data is not outlined in the paper. This gives the whole research a quite non-transparent character. The outcomes of the case study is compared to other literature in the field, but only to some examples. This part could have strengthened the whole research.

Sources:

Chuma, W. (2014). The social meanings of mobile phones among South Africa‘s ‘digital natives’: a case study. Media, Culture & Society, 36 (3), 398-408.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.

Pike, J. C., Bateman, P. J., & Butler, B. (2013). Dialectic Tensions of Information Quality: Social Networking Sites and Hiring, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 56-77.

Montag, 3. Oktober 2016

Theme 3: Comments

I commented on the following blogs:

Theme 4: Reflection

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.