Theme 1 to 6 – Comments

posted by Marion , on , No Comments

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!


0 Kommentare:

Post a Comment