I liked how you connected the two philosophies of Kant and Plato and
compared them to each other putting Kant's concept of a priori and a
posteriori knowledge on Plato’s theories! I might now read into the
themes of philosophical empiricism, this sounds interesting!
Reading
your after blog post on the lecture and the seminar, it gets clear that
the discussions elucidated things for you, especially how we should
understand Kant's theory on a priori knowledge. I was in the same
seminar where E.T. came up as a visual sample, which surprisingly
clarified things up for me as well. Who knew that changing to the
perspective of an alien would make our own understanding of the world
clearer!
Thanks for two great entries on theme 1! Reading your pre-post, I have
the feeling you already understood the texts quite well before the
lecture by diving deeply into this difficult philosophical subject! Well
done - also for explaining very skilfully in which ways knowledge can
be approached in.
Your comparison of Kant with Confucius was
extremely interesting. I like how you brought these two masters of
philosophy together although they seem quite diverse in culture and
time! If they had they ever met, they would probably have found some
similarities in their understanding of knowledge!
By giving the
example of the cookie, you created a nice visualisation of Kant's
faculty of understanding and helped to deepen my understanding in this!
However, I might disagree with your statement "This means that we will
never know the true nature of reality". In my mind, I understood the
forms of intuition as categories of the world that come with the world
anyway and that can be thought of as a priori from the beginning.
Therefore, they do not prevent you to see the true nature of reality. By
stripping them away, you would not only change the world and its
reality completely, you would create a completely new world based on a
completely different structure of knowledge.
I really enjoyed reading your posts on theme 1. Your Pre-post already
feels like you understood the given texts very well and concluded nicely
what the two philosophers meant - respect that you were able to do this
already before the lecture and seminar. I could especially reinforce my
own view through your inference on the a priori knowledge.
I share
with you the feeling of getting more interested by this topic and about
how we as human beings could actually conceptualize perception. The
image of the braindead person just staring into space gives a very
distinct picture of a world without forms of intuition and the twelve
categories.
You did a great job in reflecting on the whole week! I'm looking forward to reading your posts on the other themes.
In your pre-reflection on Plato you are doing a very good job in
dissembling his text. Reading your thoughts helped to comprehend it on a
wider perspective, so thanks for that! It is a pity that we didn't have
more time to discuss Plato in the seminar, however, it seems that the
discussion helped you clear things up about Kant's forms of intuition
and the twelve categories.
Having never read philosophy before, I
can relate to you and also feel the challenge in these texts. I think,
and perhaps you too, that writing posts on them and being forced to deal
with the content is a good way to take a closer look at actually very
interesting ideas and concepts.
You did a nice job in preparing for the theme week 1. Reading your first
blog post shows that you have digged deeply into the theories of Plato
conveyed in Theaetetus. Good structure, nice examples and metaphors in your
whole post, I especially liked the examination of water! It is evident
that you put a lot of effort into your reflective post and revised the
given texts in a very detailed manner. Interesting read!
I really like the structure of your two blog posts and your analytical
approach to the subject. You succeeded in explaining me the difficult
definition of Kant and Plato and even underlined the connection between
these philosophers and their timely deferred theories, something I found
particularly difficult. I especially like that you brought up various
examples to underline your trains of thought.
Don't you also think
it is crazy that these philosophers wrote such influential texts leaving
room for so much discussion and interpretation for millennia after -
even as early as 369 B.C.?!
Thanks for the high quality posts on theme 1. You structured them
nicely, especially the breakdown of your reflections. Since I was in a
different group, it was also interesting to read what you discussed. For
instance, I have not considered the possible definitions of pure reason
- yet an example would be nice to clarify that more.
Your thoughts
about the faculty of knowledge are fascinating. It is hard to grasp that
categories are not meant to limit, but actually enable deriving a
posteriori knowledge. Your explanation though, and also your comment on
my blog got me contemplating about it some more, so well done! I really
think you are asking very interesting questions, which make you
contribute beneficially to an in depth discussion.
Nice deduction in your pre-reflections on why Kant can be called
revolutionist, and what position our sensory understanding takes in
empiricism. The seminar seemed to have given you a more in-depth
knowledge on these texts and you did a great job in summarising the
things that were discussed - I especially liked your example of the word
'bachelor' and the preconception that comes with the term.
I like how you focused in your pre-reflection on metaphysics and its
working on being a secure course of science. I have not yet perceived it
in comparison to mathematics and natural science. Interesting! Thanks
for the examples you brought up while reflecting on Socrates' concept of
empiricism.
In your post reflections you did a good job in
contemplating on what you have learnt during week 1. I really like the
quote you included in the text - it really sums up Kant's depiction of
reason. Following his advice, we maintain the purity of cognition and
continue to actively ask questions, not acting as a mere observer but an
active participant.
I liked how you put in effort to
compare the given theories on empiricism. Your reflections, in general, really
transfer that you thought about the philosophies of Kant and Plato quite a bit
and did not just list what was spoken in the seminar. Well done! I also
appreciate that you put the week's topic in relation to your field of study. It
is indeed a fabulous idea and I will now start to reflect about this too.
Your statement on objectivity got me
thinking about my stance on this: I actually think that Kant believes in the
ideal of objectivity. He generates it with the set up of his faculty of
understanding and with this given ability to judge a priori, he actually found way
to experience the world objectively.
Theme 2
Reading
you first blog post on this topic, I can see how much time you have put
into these answers and you worked well with the texts! The lecture and
seminar, though, seemed to have helped you - also me - to clear things
up, for instance, on the term Nominalism; I found Plato's cave allegory
also really helpful, nice to read about it again! I agree with you, the
context the texts were written in is extremely interesting - I think by
trying to understand their environment more, but being able just to
imagine how they lived at that point in time, we uphold Benjamin’s point
on perception being determined by nature and history.
Your
pre-reflections on theme 2 clearly show that you worked hard to get a
good understanding of the texts! I especially liked your evaluation on
how perception is historically determined and how you comprehend the
term Nominalism.
You have
a very structured way of writing and I like also that you focus on the
main parts of the seminar discussion you found particularly interesting.
Since I was in another group, I enjoyed reading about the connection
between enlightenment and mass media in the eyes of Adorno and
Horkheimer. Well done!
I
definitely agree with you, the seminar helped a lot by explaining the
term Nominalism. You did a great job in presenting how Nominalism and
Enlightenment are interconnected – especially the examples help to
underline your words.
The
power of media still strikes me and it is just realistic to attest it
even more growth over the next coming years. There is a quote by Allen
Ginsberg saying, “Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the
culture.” I think this is a very important statement and specifies that
we have, in the context of fostering vision and development, a certain
responsibility which media we decide to 'let come true'.
You
did a great explanation on the term aura in your pre-post! Interesting
example by differing between the presence in a theatre play and in a
motion picture.
Both of
your posts are very well written and structured, so it's very easy to
follow your thoughts. The seminar seemed to have helped you especially
by resolving some questions about Nominalism, its comparison to Platonic
realism, and its connection to enlightenment. Nice reflection!
Your
posts are very well written and well structured yet skillfully
intertwined. It is really a joy to read them! Your pre-post feels like
you got an in-depth understanding on the texts even prior to the week.
Indeed,
the cave allegory was very helpful to understand the difference between
realism and nominalism. And I like your thoughts on what could happen
if you take both of them to the extreme. Excess is hardly ever an
advantage; I guess you kind of need balance in everything.
I
also agree that we might have destroyed a lot of the aura in our
surroundings, which was likely much more cherished before the technical
revolution. But I think there is already – or predict there will be – a
countermovement to the strong influence of digitalization and mass
media, a growing urge to experience nature or culture, go travelling or
seeing things actually on-site. Do you agree?
It
feels like that the seminar and lecture could give you a new
appreciation of the texts and that they ignited an interest in this
topic that will last also outside of class. The discussion in your group
sounds very interesting. Reading about your contemplations on myth is
incentive – you definitely have a point there! It would be interesting
to know, which mythologies are already so enrooted in the nowadays
culture that we don't even recognize them at myths anymore. Good job
with your reflections!
By
reading your reflection, I have the feeling you worked hard on
understanding the difference between nominalism and realism. I actually
also accredited nominalists the desire of promoting change and
supporting new ideas, since they reject the 'putting in a box' thinking
fearing inactivity and no foresight. But with you saying the revolution
took actually place within a realistic worldview will start to make me
think about that once more. It is interesting that we rarely hear about
these concepts in our life, but that their defined way of thinking has
actually such a big influence in the world we shape.
Thanks
for sharing your reflections with us. You have a very nice writing
style and were able to check off the given questions skillfully. In
particular, I like your reasoning on how interpretations are also key to
our perceptions and therefore dependent on our upbringing and habits.
The
seminar seemed to have helped you, as it also did with me, to increase
the understanding of the texts. I really appreciate your thinking beyond
it though. How interesting to read your examples on new sort of auras
for the industrialized culture. I haven't thought of that. Good job!
Thank
you for your nicely elaborated reflection on theme 2. It feels like you
could develop your own understanding of the texts better during the
lecture and the seminar. You did a great job in putting your thoughts
into words, which makes it really easy to follow – for instance your
deduction on nominalism and realism is spot on! I agree with you that
nowadays media with its rising force can actually both portray current
living standards and argue for a change. That is indeed an interesting
topic as well, so thank you for bringing that up.
Having
read already other blogs, you are the first to define Dialectic with
thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Interesting! We also discussed Plato's
cave allegory in the seminar, but it was nice to read your summary of
it again. Your reflection is well written and is nicely structured; I
like that you put nominalism in context with fascism, or compare
enlightenment with mass media. I wouldn't say that putting a politician
in Plato's clothes would make him look cleverer, but that is again
dependent on our individual perception. Anyway, I am excited about how
nowadays superstructure will look in 30 years, aren't you?
Theme 3
The research article you chose seems very interesting, especially in our
age of digitalization. I wonder how the technology has actually changed
the behaviour of nowadays children, therefore, I will read through this
article for sure.
It is interesting to read about your seminar
discussion and that you used the example of the pen to explain the
difference between a theory and a hypothesis. I think that a there is no
such a thing as a wrong theory, but just a hypothesis that prove out to
be wrong. To make sure that it is not just an experimental error like
you described, it is probably always advised to compare the hypothesis
to practise more than once.
It is obvious that you put a lot of time and effort into your two posts
this week. You did a great job by structuring the topics and focussing
on the main points of your research paper, the lecture and the seminar. I
think the most interesting thing of the comments this week is to read
the research articles chosen by every student. The role of Twitter in
the Political Campaign seems very contemporary and the integration of
social media a development of new media that will just rise in the
future. Interesting read!
3.
Blog Comment (Link):
Thank you for your thoughts this week. Your clear structure of your
reflections makes it very easy to get into the topic. Interesting how
you worked with the research article and the questions you chose to
focus on. I agree with you, I also found the third's week topic harder
to get into and to follow. However, you did a great job at summarizing
the theme's tasks and describing what you have learnt, in particular
that you have to put the validity of theories also in context of the
academic discipline. Well done!
4.
Blog Comment (Link):
Thanks for sharing your insights on this week's theme. I agree with you
that social media has developed to a very one-sided tool of profiling.
People usually want to get validation constantly. Jumping back to Adorno
and Horkheimer for a second and their take on a slow developing
superstructure, I wonder what affect this current social media behaviour
will have had for instance on the values within our society in a few
decades. Let's hope therefore, that the given positive sides of this
type of interaction prevail. Regarding your post-reflection, you
described the meaning of theory clearly and easily to comprehend. Great
job!
5.
Blog Comment (Link):
Your research paper sounds very interesting. I wonder what results it
presented in the end, if they are significant personal and social
factors to be representative as a gamer. You take on the research shows
that you analysed it in-depth and thought about possible improvements.
In general, it is easy to follow your thoughts thanks to your clear
writing, emphasized remarks and the visual images you put in your text!
6.
Blog Comment (Link):
I agree with you and your remarks on this week's topic. Since I
generally always put more focus on the practical sides on media, it made
it hard for me to get into the texts about theory. However, our group
discussion proved to be very interesting – although it is quite hard to
pinpoint the term theory that everybody would agree with. Your quote is
indeed chosen quite well, since it reflects the meaning of hypothesis in
a very crisp way and nevertheless leaves room for reverberation.
7.
Blog Comment (Link):
Thanks for sharing your well-rounded thoughts on theme 3. Your take on
theory and its connection to our previous topics made me think about
them once more. Likewise your emphasis on why theory can never be stated
as true. A theory has always again been matched by practical experience
due to direct and indirect changes surrounding it. Your samples are
great to shed light on this 'theoretical' subject and I enjoyed reading
your reflections on it. Great job!
8.
Blog Comment (Link):
Your reflections are as insightful as ever, therefore it was a joy to
read them! I felt the same way about this week's theme and the
difficulty of defining theory. Your research paper seems to break ground
on an uncovered topic, but indeed one that will grow in importance in
the following years. Social media has obviously a lot of advantages,
however it is interesting to see it from an objective news perspective.
Since I also belong to the category of 'news selector', I wonder how
this shapes my perspective in the long run. Realistically, I probably
miss out on news coverage I would have stumbled on by reading a
newspaper, which intends to cover a range of topics for a wider
audience. It will be interesting to see how digital journalism will
develop further on and moreover, how journalists will keep their
integrity.
9.
Blog Comment (Link):
Thank you for your reflections! You succeeded in explaining the week's
main achievements with the help of a clear structure shaping your
thoughts. The seminar has evidently accomplished to give more complexity
to the subject, for example by touching on the difference between
theory and hypothesis.
One statement I found especially fascinating
in your chosen research paper is that politicians have yet failed to
fulfil the potential of social media. It will be interesting to observe
how campaign management will be perfected in the future and which risks
lay in social media's power of steering voters to one side. What are
your thoughts about this?
10.
Blog Comment (Link):
I really enjoyed reading your thoughts about this week's theme. Your
well-structured texts make it easy to follow and you have plenty of
interesting remarks on our subject 'theory'. It seems even difficult for
scientists to really specify the term itself. Here, it is interesting
to read your reflection on the seminar and how you categorized theory
into good and bad.
The topic you chose as research paper is quite
interesting. I was not that aware about local news stations being forced
to change due to the alteration in broadcasting and how this
transformation affects the profession as a journalist. I especially like
your sentence "more news does not mean more democracy or a better
informed public", since it is really thought provoking. Well done!
Theme 4
1.
Blog Comment (Link):
As
always I enjoyed reading your blog posts since you sincerely recap on
what you have learnt throughout the week and structure your thoughts in
an easy and clear manner. We probably all have gone through qualitative
and quantitative methods throughout our school or university life,
still, you highlighted two important aspects I haven't thought about
anymore. In our seminar we started to discuss our bachelor theses, which
also shows how different bachelor programs produce diverse methods in
approach. Reading through your pre theme post, it is obvious that you
analyzed the research paper on FoodLog in-depth, in order to detect its
strengths and weaknesses. Great job!
2.
Blog Comment (Link):
You
did a great job reflecting on the past week by extracting the most
important things you have learnt. In my blog post I also put together
the key elements when setting up a questionnaire, that's why I found
your inside information on this particularly interesting. I share the
opinion that even seemingly unimportant things like the layout or the
number of questions can already influence the data results. Therefore,
questionnaires are one very defining part in the design research of
quantitative research studies and strongly shape the quality and
magnitude of the outcome.
3.
Blog Comment (Link):
Thank
you for your reflections on this week's theme Quantitative Methods. I
agree with you that this topic neither gave away a lot of new
information nor provided much room for a discussion similar to our first
themes. However, it is very interesting to read about your group
discussion and in particular about the categorization procedure of a
questionnaire. Moreover, your clear structure succeeds in guiding the
reader through the text and communicates your knowledge well. Well done!
4.
Blog Comment (Link):
It
was interesting to read about your thoughts and experiences during the
past theme. Each week we have passed, it gets harder to remember what we
had actually read for the week, so I agree with you and admit to always
re-read my own postings as well! In our seminar, we ended up discussing
the methods of our bachelor theses, but in the end that just proved how
diverse quantitative methods could be. Reading your pre-bog post, I
think your revision of methodology is very helpful. Also the division
into the areas of design, sampling, data collection and data analysis
was a great way to answer the given questions enhanced by the clear
structure. You did a great job preparing and reflecting on this week and
I enjoyed reading your postings!
5.
Blog Comment (Link):
I
really enjoyed reading about the research paper chosen in your pre-post
and the insight scoop on its chosen variables and the outcome of the
study. In your reflections you also demonstrate your knowledge about the
qualitative and quantitative methods while detecting their benefits and
limitations. I was particularly interesting to read about your bachelor
thesis topic! Great job!
6.
Blog Comment (Link):
Thank
you for your well-rounded reflections on this week's theme quantitative
research. It feels like you have a deep knowledge of the subject and
can appoint easily when this method should be used. In addition, your
explanation on its benefits by using your research paper achieves to
emphasize the accuracy and scope of this method. Furthermore, I think
you're text is very well written and nicely structured. I especially
appreciate the text highlights since they really emphasize the most
important messages.
7.
Blog Comment (Link):
You
did a great job reflecting on what you and your seminar group have
learnt and discussed this week. I especially appreciate your comment on
the gender perspective of the article Drumming in Immersive Virtual
Reality, since I haven't thought about this before. You also summarized
perfectly how categorization in quantitative research can also influence
the quality of the outcome by its limited response scale. However,
there's probably no perfect solution since one is dependent on
classification with a growing data extent, but when using a more
individual method of gathering data, the research is very likely smaller
and not generalizable at all.
8.
Blog Comment (Link):
You
really demonstrate an unusual and distinct approach in your reflections,
which made it very interesting to read! I haven't though about the
levels of subjectivity and objectivity in quantitative method in-depth
like you did, but now with your structure, well-written thoughts and
examples you really explained the difference and the underlying problems
perfectly.
"Although abuse of data is much less found in
research papers than in magazines, newspapers, polls and TV, it is
important to realize that statistics is not always “objective” or
reliable." How often do we hear 'based on the study of...', 'following
new numbers of...' in nowadays media. Your statement here really zones
in on the problem of quantitative methods: that the word study might
actually have a bad connotation since it is misused in our everyday life
and that we are actually confronted with a lot of wrong data on a daily
basis!
9.
Blog Comment (Link):
Your
reflection really summarizes all the important messages of this week's
theme quantitative methods. It is clear that you already had a good
understanding of these techniques before, but I still appreciate your
concise discussion of their benefits and limitations. I especially like
that you put your own thoughts in this and tried to get more out of the
topic, although you were very familiar with it. You found a good example
to explain the combined use of qualitative and quantitative methods -
this really visualizes how research can increase in value by blending
both together. Enjoyed reading your posts!
10.
Blog Comment (Link):
Thank
you for your well-written and crisp reflection! You succeed in guiding
the reader through your text making it easy to follow your thoughts. It
is interesting that the lecture and seminar could change your
perspective on objectivity and how we are often judging before
assessing. Your explained the connection between the design of the study
and the researcher's perception in a very understandable manner. The
visualization with candy really helps to clarify your point in favor of a
combination of the two methods: "this would shed light on our
perception of quantity" – Well said!
Theme 5
1.
Blog Comment (Link):
You
did a great job writing a crisp and clear reflection. Your structure
into the three main conclusions makes it easy to follow your thoughts on
the first lecture and summarizes it concisely. Moreover, you succeed in
explaining the role of the prototype in design research, even taking
the extra step by researching the meaning in more detail. It is clear
that you really tried to get behind the week's topic and managed to
improve your own understanding with the help of different sources. Your
pre-theme posts reflect that as well as show that you have a more than
good comprehension of the given research papers. In particular, I also
agree with your response to the different values of design in a research
project (contribution in knowledge) and design in general (satisfy
user's needs).
2.
Blog Comment (Link):
Reading
through your reflections, it is clear that you worked well with the
texts and managed throughout the week to increase your knowledge of
design research. I especially liked the example of your own experience
of building a prototype and how this was of benefit in validating your
idea back in high school. I also agree that math can be one part in
selecting an idea. However, I don't think it is the only way to prove if
an idea is profitable since an idea nobody has believed in first can
also prove to be financially successful anyway. Do you agree? Anyway,
your text is structured cleverly and follows a strong line of arguments
that perfectly showcases a prototype's role and practice - great job!
3.
Blog Comment (Link):
I
think you did a great job in deducting messages of value for design
research and for prototypes. In particular, you get back to original
questions of the pre-theme, for instance, answering where the difference
lies between design research and design in general – this also got me
thinking about this again. Your steps of thought are easy to understand
and establish good arguments throughout your text. Reading through your
pre-post on this topic, I find specifically interesting what options of
assembly you had mentioned, which reminded me of market research used in
advertising or marketing. Really good work!
4.
Blog Comment (Link):
Thank
you for a good summary of week 5. You provide all the core information
we got out of the lectures, I just miss some reflective thoughts of your
own. However, since we did not have a seminar this week, some questions
stayed probably unanswered. As you mentioned in your text, it can be
rather confusing to find a solution to a problem, thus Haibo's approach
on defining the actual problem might help to assist in finding a
solution. I really appreciate this concept since it was news to me - the
90/10 ratio seems a bit intense though. What do you think?
5.
Blog Comment (Link):
Your
blog posts really show that you put a lot of effort into this week and
worked on understanding the topics in-depth. The structure of the text,
particularly the first lecture, really helps to frame the idea process.
Moreover, you really succeed in bringing me closer to the subject of our
second lecture, explaining the content in a very understandable manner
while pouring in your own thoughts.
6.
Blog Comment (Link):
You
have written an interesting reflection by including the main elements
of the first lecture and spicing it up with your own thoughts! I like
your statement on how you can communicate your idea the best: by being a
mixture of a salesperson, an entrepreneur and a researcher - this
really captures the challenges of success. When the idea itself is
validated and likely profitable, you still need to unify your skills and
create opportunities, in order for your idea to make it in reality.
Besides, I agree with your answers on the last questions, which
summarizes the other arguments in your text. Well done!
7.
Blog Comment (Link):
You
indisputably did great in structuring the elements in your text
containing spot-on conclusions drawn from this week's theme. Your text
really captured the essence of the lectures and your own thoughts are
worked in skilfully. Especially your comment on the professor's idea
selection and validation method proves that you have reflected in detail
on the topic. I share your idealist perspective, hoping that a balance
of all influencing factors determines the success of an idea. Moreover, I
really like your analysis on design research and its ability to
question the idea constantly and checking on its relevance. Enjoyed your
text!
8.
Blog Comment (Link):
Indeed,
a very well written and nicely structured reflection. The missing
seminar did not seem to limit you in your understanding of the texts. I
especially like your statement about how selling your idea is an
essential part of being a successful researcher. If it's getting the
job, selling your invention, or growing your business, it all revolves
around getting other people on board, and for this you just have to be
able to sell it - communication is key.
Your arguments
distinguishing between the two types of prototypes are truly
comprehensive, so any misconceptions about these research fields I might
have had vanished. Spot-on!
9.
Blog Comment (Link):
Your
text is well written, interesting to read and structured in an
understandable manner. You focus on one very noteworthy pre-theme
question successfully distinguishing between design and design research.
I think that your visual samples make your point, and clearly
illustrate your thoughts on this; I like that you put the topic in
context to your field of study as I see that as one of the course's
intentions! Reading through your two posts for this week, I really value
your style of writing, since it is of high quality and conveys the
messages of the texts together with your own considerations. Spot-on!
10.
Blog Comment (Link):
Great
reflection in which you put the context in perspective to passed
lectures. Enhancing the text with visualizations makes it very easy to
understand and succeeds in revising the lectures. I think you
successfully summarized the week's messages and did a great job
structuring them and putting them into words. Interesting quote of Don
Norman! I think it's hard to not measure everything around us in regard
to our own perception of it, especially when you develop an idea and are
dependent on the opinions of others. Well done!
Theme 6
I
agree with you that the lecture would have been interesting since it
would have gone deeper into what a case study is or is not, surely more
than the seminar discussion. For my part, I actually wouldn't know how
qualitative method is conducted with the help of a focus group – did the
discussion help you to clarify this more? I agree with your statement
on trends, but there might also lie the difficulty: trends are not
always surely generalizable and might just be valid for a short time
frame, its period very likely hard to be defined. Your conclusion on the
term case study is very well drawn and I feel like you answered the
question on where the difference lies between a case study and other
types of qualitative studies. Well done!
You
gave a great summary of last week's them Qualitative methods and Case
study research! Your emphasis on the most important elements really
focuses on the term case study itself, which cannot be defined by the
method, but constructs the method along the way. I found the seminar
also helpful in this regard, really outlining the tenure and explaining
how a case study intends to establish a theory where no theory yet
existed. Your clear structure and writing style complements your
thoughts, and I really enjoyed reading your reflection. In particular,
the last quote Ilias told us really questions everything we knew
supposedly about research and its definitions. Since there is still an
argument between researchers and philosophers alike if this quote by
Feyerabend is applicable, I would be interested in your opinion about
this. Do you think research can be conducted that uninhibited?
Thank
you for a well-written and crisp summary of last week. You mentioned
that qualitative research is likely to always involve some kind of
social aspect - I think so too! Your also succeeded in explaining
clearly what a case study is and recited a good example underlining your
words. I agree with you that we would have profited if a case study
would have been selected or at least spoken about in the lecture. Since
we just had the seminar this week, I feel like we missed out a little
bit. Reading your pre-post, it is obvious how much work you put in
preparing for a theme, and I also think your definition of a case study
you deducted in there is pretty precise already.
Very
interesting to read your reflection about theme 6 and to dive into your
understanding of a case study! Indeed, a lecture would have been great
to verify some issues we might have had about case studies, a topic I
for my part have never had to think about so in-depth. I also wondered
how it would be possible in research to follow no guideline at all,
since argumentatively, can it then still be research? As we also read
about the steps in the setup of a case study, I doubt that anything
would be acceptable; apparently, you always have to follow at least a
basic structure. Anyhow, I like that you emphasize the cycle of case
studies and that the latter intend to build rather than test a theory -
one of the most defining points. Enjoyed reading your post!
Great
reflection on the past week – you were able to really teach me more
about the subject – thank your for that! I agree with you about the
benefits of a focus group since I would also be the type to talk more in
a smaller group size. Your knowledge on longitudinal studies is also
very much appreciated. I actually had to think of the brilliant film
Boyhood when I read it, which may or may not be defined as "study", but
it also paints a picture of growing up by observing a young boy for 12
years of his life. Anyway, it is great that you got me thinking about
this more. I also learned about the exponential curve in collecting data
for case studies. Very well executed and refreshing reflection!
Thank
you for teaching me new things about this topic. Since I was in a
different seminar group, it was interesting to read about Auto driving,
something I never heard about before. Your emphasis on a case study
being iterative is important as its cyclic nature makes a key point in
defining it as a case study. Besides, I appreciate you bringing up the
example of the paradigm shift as I read about it in regard to the term
'anything goes' by Paul Feyerabend, who wanted to prove that you
shouldn't give up in research just because your theory gets proven
wrong. I really enjoyed reading your reflection and I totally agree with
you in the course having fostered "a small appetite for the
philosophies of old". Great job!
Nice
and sharp summary of last week's theme! You gave an in-depth
explanation on a case study – it seems that the seminar was helpful to
give you a better understanding of the term the same way as it did for
me. As you emphasized, a case study is better at building theory than
testing it. I think you are right, a case study has both its benefits
and weaknesses and it is the researcher's choice to choose which type of
research fits the topic best. That's also something the statement
'anything goes' underlines: the superior goal should always be to deepen
your knowledge. Well-done reflection!
You
gave a very nice and crisp reflection stating the main points of last
week. I agree with you that the lecture was missed and would have been
great to give us a straighter definition of the term case study. Both of
your chosen papers of the first post seem interesting, and I found it
remarkable that the comparison between your case study paper and the
proposed procedure steps came out as accurate. I had a hard time to
actually find a real case study with a higher impact factor and then it
did not seem to completely agree with the table. Anyhow, I enjoyed
reading your reflections!
I
really like your style of writing and wording - you have a way getting a
reader's attention and keeping it funny with amusing side notes.
Chapeau to your technique! Besides that, I like following your thoughts.
I also have the problem to judge the quantitative method as the
'better' one, but thinking about it, it also has its perks since I feel
even mathematical data is not all that generalizable (which of course
shouldn't be the goal of research, I guess). I instinctively followed
your way of finding a case study - safe bet, looking for a title that
leads the way! And as you said, it's good to explore a subject of your
interest, a statement that could be easily transferred to anything in
life. Well done, Linnéa!
Reading
through your predefinition of the term case study, I think you are
already quite right, but referring back to it after the weekly
discussion was a very good idea. The seminar seemed to have succeeded in
given you a deeper knowledge about case studies and their intentions.
You emphasized that one specific case is looked into more deeply due to
its specialty. I agree, but would also add that although it definitely
is often one case, it could be more than one as well. You give very good
advice on how to construct a case study, in particular, reading
contradictory sources to strengthen your argument! Great post!