Theme 1 – Theory of knowledge and
theory of science
I
think you've done a great job with both the questions in the first post and
also with this reflection. In the first post you answered the questions in a
clear and concise way and you gave examples that helped show what you meant. I
also really enjoyed your reflection. Especially the parts about how "pure
knowledge" does not exist and how the world cannot be independent of us. I
agree with your group, I think people always try to explain things through what
we already know in order to understand different situations and objects.
Hi
Corinna,
You
can tell that you have thought a lot about the texts by reading the two posts
about theme 1 and understood what Kant and Plato want to convey through their texts.
Really good job! Another point that was discussed during the seminar is that
because people use experiences, cultural contexts and environment it is impossible
to achieve pure knowledge. Since it is impossible (as you have written) we must
instead choose a point of view when looking into the world. Have you considered
this aspect?
I
thought that it was good that you wrote about aspects of the texts you were
unsure about. I also liked that you wrote down what you experienced as key
words in the first post. Even though you did not fully understand the text you
were able to show that you understood some concepts that were important. In the
reflection you can tell that you have a greater understanding of what Plato and
Kant mean with these texts. Regarding your comments about knowledge - have you
also considered that you need knowledge in order to have knowledge about
something, so then we can ask ourselves the question; when does knowledge
start?
Overall
a really good job!
Interesting
posts! In the first post you explained the texts in a way that was easy for the
reader to understand and it also showed that you grasped the important concepts
of the texts. I especially enjoyed reading your reflection as you explain the
important concepts in an even more detailed way then your first post. I agree
with you in your reflection and think that we can never be completely objective
when looking into the world because of our preconceptions.
I
think you have written very interesting posts about theme 1. You can tell that
you have thought a lot about the texts, been active during the discussions at
the seminar and that you have understood what Plato and Kant wanted to convey
through their texts. I also liked the way you structured your reflection. It
was very easy to follow your explanations and understand how you contributed
during the seminar.
I
think you have captured and explained the key concepts of the texts in a clear
way. I especially liked how you explained your thoughts about "knowledge
is perception" in the first post and your thoughts on Kant's explanation
of synthetic a priori. I also felt that these aspects were some of the more
interesting concepts of this theme. Overall I think you've done a good job!
I
thought you made an interesting point when saying that the reasoning within the
texts were too binary. I had not thought of this myself but agree with you in
your reasoning. Overall you have captured the key concepts and discussed these
in a way that is easy to follow. I agree with you in your reasoning in regards
to how knowledge should be defined and thought that this was one of the more
interesting aspects of the texts.
You
have written very interesting posts about the first theme! I agree with you in
that defining knowledge is not an easy task. I appreciated how you gave
examples to explain what e.g. Kant meant. This helped show that you understood
the concepts that Kant and Plato try to convey in their texts. However, I do
not get a sense of your role in the seminars from your reflection and would
have liked to know e.g. if you asked a specific question or gave an example of
a concept that helped explain it to others.
I
think you have written very interesting posts. I agree with you in that there
is no absolute truth and that our world and how we see it is shaped by our
preconceptions. However, I am not sure that I follow in your argumentation that
Kan'ts view of knowledge is not applicable in today's modern world. I think
that the categories Kant described are very basic, but even though society has
changed a lot since Kant’s work was published I still think we at our core have
the same basic way of structuring information and structuring what we perceive.
I'm sure that this could lead to an interesting discussion!
I really enjoyed reading your
posts. You described the core concepts of Plato's and Kant's texts in a way
that was structured and easy to follow. I thought it was good how you explained
the process of understanding the texts, what you thought was difficult and how
you yourself prepared. You can tell that you have put in a lot of effort into
the texts and I agree that the seminars helped clear up a lot of concepts for
me as well.
Theme
2 – Critical media studies
I enjoyed reading your
posts and thought that it was interesting so see which parts you had a hard
time understanding at the beginning, how you prepared and contributed and also
how you then understood these parts after the seminar. I also felt that I had a
much better understanding of the concept of nominalism after the seminar. In
addition to what you wrote, have you also thought about how our cognition and
need to structure everything is the reason that we group things together that
are otherwise, according to nominalism, unique and individual objects?
You’ve written really
interesting posts! I agree in that the texts were difficult to understand and
that the seminars really helped develop a better understanding of the authors
meant with their texts. During our seminar we also discussed realism and
nominalism and we had a really interesting discussion. One thing we discussed
which is related to what you’ve written is how movies affect the way people
behave and how people keep repeating behavior and roles portrayed in movies
because movies rarely show what a world could be like, but rather only reenacts
what the world looks like at that moment in time.
I enjoyed reading your
posts and how you drew parallels to examples from previous themes. During our
seminar we also talked about the dangers of media in form of e.g. movies. In
addition to what you wrote we also discussed how media only portrays what is
and not what could be which is connected to deception and enlightenment. By
constantly repeating a certain view of people, people are forced into repeating
patterns of behavior.
I think you have
written very interesting posts. I enjoyed the explanation of enlightenment,
dialectic and myth. This really helped me in understanding the meaning behind
the terms as you gave different examples than what I had thought of. I also
thought you made interesting comments about the difference between nominalism
and realism. These were concepts that I struggled with and understood much
better after the seminar. You can tell that you have put a lot of effort into
this week’s theme and I think you’ve done a very good job!
It would have been
interesting to know what specifically you didn’t understand before the lecture and
seminar and also how you contributed during the seminar. Otherwise I really
like you summary of the core concepts. You have captured the most important
aspects of the texts and explained these in a way that is easy to understand.
In addition to your comment about aura, during our seminar we also discussed
how aura occur in the world and not just art, for example a mountain has an
aura and the first car made has an aura (while modern cars do not as they are
all replications).
You have written
really good posts, I especially enjoyed the part in the reflection where you
discuss how your understanding of nominalism in connection with National
Socialism changed. I also thought that the concepts nominalism and realism were
hard to grasp and I realized through the seminar discussions that I had not
fully understood what these concepts actually meant. On one point I am not sure
I agree with you, and that is where you state that according to Adorno and
Horkheimer, ordinary people do not have revolutionary potential. I rather think
that it is the culture, in this case inn form of movies that does not have
revolutionary potential. I think this would make for an interesting discussion!
I thought it was
interesting how you described how you contributed to this week’s theme in
comparison to other themes. I also had misunderstood several parts of the text
(especially nominalism) and realized what they actually meant after the lecture
and seminar. Your posts were very well written and your explanation of the
concepts revolutionary potential in art and aura helped me understand these
better.
I really enjoyed
reading your posts and you have explained the main concepts very thoroughly.
You have given detailed examples that support your explanations and after
reading your reflection I feel that I really understand the meaning of the
concepts better. You also mentioned enlightenment (which we discussed during
the seminar) and I also think this was an important concept, especially in
context of the deception and enlightenment of mass media as this affects how
people behave.
I really enjoyed
reading your blog posts. There is a clear structure in the text which makes it
easy to follow and I also thought you wrote very interesting examples in the
reflection as these provided a different view of the concepts than I previously
had. You can tell that you have put a lot of effort into this week’s theme and
that you have really understood the different concepts. One part of your text
that I found especially interesting was what Benjamin would say about social
media in the present time. This offered an insight and a perspective that I had
not thought about. Good job!
I enjoyed reading your
posts! It seems that a lot of people have had difficulties understanding
certain concepts simply from reading the texts. In my case, I also had a hard
time grasping the concept of nominalism before the lecture and seminar. You
have captured the core concepts and written these in a way that is easy to
understand with good examples that illustrate your comments. Good job!
Theme 3 – Research and theory
You’ve done a really
good job with your texts! Your reflection really summed up the most important
concepts and terms that have been discussed during this week’s theme and I felt
you did a really good job in explaining the different concepts and how they are
connected. Since we were in the same seminar I recognize (and agree) with what
you are saying. Another thing we discussed during the seminar was the reason
why we use theories - namely to give us a framework when conducting research.
You have given a very
clear and concise explanation of the most important terms and concepts of this
week's theme. One aspect I found interesting in your text was your comment on
whether or not certain theories can be considered actual theories. We had very
different discussions in our seminar and focused on for example the concepts of
truth and if there is such a thing as a truth. Good job!
I think that your
description of what the word theory is in the scientific world really sums up
what a lot of this week’s theme is about. This sentence was, for me, like a
final puzzle piece that helped me understand what theory is. Especially as I
also used the word and concept theory in a different way before this course. I
think it would also be interesting to read more about the discussions you had
during the seminars, what questions were asked? Did you learn or understand
anything better after the seminar?
I really enjoyed
reading your posts! It shows that you have put a lot of thought and effort into
your reflection. I thought your description of weak and strong theories was
interesting as we did not discuss this during our seminar and your examples
made the difference between the two very clear. One thing we discussed during
the seminar was how all truths are relative and if anything can actually be
defined as "true". Have you thought about this?
I think you have
grasped what the main objective of the week and the theme was and you summed
this up in a clear and concise way. We also discussed the relation between
philosophical and scientific theories and discussed how they are both based on something,
but the difference is that philosophical theories are based on ideas while
scientific theories are based on empirical data. What did you discuss? Did you
come up with a different explanation?
You have done a really
good job explaining this week’s theme and its key words/concepts. To add to
your reflection about theory and hypothesis, during the seminar we also
discussed how a hypothesis is a single statement and how theory is used as a
framework for understanding and conducting research. It shows that you have put
a lot of effort into this week's theme. Good job!
I thought it was
interesting that you realized what type of theory your paper had after the
seminar. I also thought the seminar helped clear up a lot of things. It would
also have been interesting to know more specifically what you talked about
during the seminar. For example, we talked about the difference between
scientific theory and philosophical theory. What we concluded was that
scientific theory is theory based on empirical data while philosophical data is
based on ideas.
You have written a
really good reflection where you have summed up the important concepts and
given examples that support your statements. I agree with what you have written
but I would also like to add something we talked about during the discussion,
that there is a difference between scientific theory (based on knowledge) and
philosophical theory (based on ideas). Good job!
I really enjoyed
reading your posts and it shows that you have put a lot of effort into the
texts. In your reflection you discuss the lecture and the example of the
difference between SU and KTH which I thought was particularly interesting as I
have also studied at both schools. I think this allows a greater understanding
of what the lecturer was trying to convey. I agree with our statements about
theory but would also like to add something that we discussed in smaller groups
at the seminar which is that theory is based on empirical data. Good job!
I think you have
written very interesting posts and it shows that you understand the concepts
that this week’s theme has been centered around. I particularly liked your
discussion about truth as I thought this was one of the more interesting parts
of this week's theme. During our seminar we talked about how truth is relative
and therefore, can we really say that something is true?
Theme 4 – Quantitative research
I agree that the
lecture was very good if you did not know about quantitative methods
beforehand. I also studied both qualitative and quantitative methods so like
you, I did not learn anything new either. It would however have been
interesting to read about something more specific you talked about during the
seminar in the same way that you discussed an interesting part of the paper we
read.
I thought it was
interesting to read how you contributed to the seminar. It would also have been
interesting so read about something specific you talked about regarding
qualitative and quantitative methods. We for example discussed if one method is
more objective/subjective than the other and concluded that both were
subjective in their own ways. Other than that I thought you summarized the
important features. Good job!
I really enjoyed
reading your blog posts and thought that it was particularly interesting to
read your reflection. I also felt that this week’s theme was easier to
understand than the previous weeks and agree with your comments. During our
seminar we also discussed if one method is more objective/subjective than the
other. We talked about how both were subjective in their own ways e.g. because
of the researchers influence on the study.
I completely agree
with your comment that you need to discuss qualitative methods as well when
talking about and understanding quantitative methods. You have written an
interesting reflection and I enjoyed reading it. During our seminar we also
discussed if one method is more objective than the other and discussed how
researchers influence studies regardless of the method used which affects the
objectivity when using quantitative methods as well as qualitative, although
possibly not to the same degree.
I really enjoyed reading
your comments and thoughts on this week’s theme. You have a very structured and
clear way of describing quantitative methods and I especially thought it was
interesting to read your thoughts on how researchers can strive to reach
objectiveness. Through your blog posts and from the seminar it shows that you
have a good understanding of both quantitative and qualitative methods. Good
job!
It shows that you have
a good understanding of this week’s theme. You have described and discussed
different aspects of the most important concepts in a post that is very well
developed. This made it easy to read and understand what you were trying to
say. I especially liked reading your comments about wicked problems as I also
thought this was an interesting topic to discuss. Keep up the good work!
You always write very
well developed and interesting posts and this week was no difference. I really
enjoyed reading your thoughts about this week’s theme, especially your detailed
description of what is important to think about when creating and conducting a
questionnaire. Something I thought was interesting that was discussed during
our seminar was if qualitative and quantitative methods differ in objectivity/subjectivity.
We talked about how researchers always influence the study with their
preconceptions which means that neither method can be completely objective.
Good job!
I enjoyed reading your
thoughts on this week’s theme! I thought your reflection was well written and
structured in a way that made it both interesting and easy to understand. I
also thought that the discussion about objectivity/subjectivity was an
interesting point and fully agree with you in your reflection about this aspect.
Good job!
You have captured all
the main concepts that I think were important during this week’s theme. Your
reflection was very structured and you discussed both the paper, lecture and
seminar in a way that was easy to follow and easy to understand as a reader. I
agree with you in your comments and I also think that the more interesting
parts of this theme was when both methods are useful and the discussion of
objectivity. Good job!
It
shows that you have really understood this week’s theme. Your posts are very
well written, thought through and interesting to read. Your reflection of the
week helped me summarize and understand the most important aspects of this
week’s theme and you gave examples which explained your thoughts and comments
in a clear way. We were in the same seminar but I agree with you in your
discussion and think that an interesting aspect was the objectivity discussion.
Keep up the good work!
Theme 5 – Design Research
Your posts are thought
through and well written. I agree with you in that I also felt I learned more
form the seminars in comparison to having two lectures. I would have liked to
read if there was anything in particular that you found interesting from the lectures,
for example I thought it was interesting when we discussed if prototypes can
provoke new knowledge. What do you think?
Your texts are always
very thought through and well-articulated and this week was no different. It
was really interesting for me to read your reflection because I feel that you
have done a very good job of summarizing the core concept of the theme. I have
looked at and reflected on the different aspects of design research but you
have managed to compile and reflect of the theme as a whole which helped me
understand it better. Really good job!
As always you have
written a post that is both well developed and interesting to read. I believe
you have managed to capture very important aspects of the theme and summarized
these in a way that is clear to both yourself and the reader. To add to your
thoughts about defining the problem and solving the problem, Li also talked
about how there an be several good ways to solve a problem but by clearly
defining the problem and by using calculations you can define the actual
problem and the best way to solve it. Good job!
You have written a
concisely summarized blog post! I actually disagree with you on one point
though, and that is Haibo's comment that 90% is defining the problem and 10%
solving this. I interpreted this in a more literal sense in that 90% should be
focused on finding the actual core problem and not the at first perceived
problem (rather than coming up with an idea). When you've done that the
majority of the work is done as you don't have to focus on solving the
"wrong" problem. I liked that you added a quote because it gave more
dynamic to the text and showed that there are more than one way to look at
something.
You have written a
very well developed and thought through reflection. It shows that you have
understood what the main concepts of the two lectures have been and you have
managed to summarize the lectures in a way that is clear and interesting to
read. Good job! One thing I thought was interesting from Anders lecture was
that it is not the method that makes the research but research occurs when
collected data is analyzed through a method.
I think you have
managed to capture the main concepts of the two lectures and summarized these
in a good and clear way. I also thought it was really good to add other sources
in the reflection as it shows that you have put a lot of effort and thought
into this theme and your reflection. Good work! I also thought it was
interesting that defining a problem is such a large part of problem solving so
that you don't put focus and resources into solving the wrong problem. Like
Haibo said, defining the problem is 90% and solving the problem is 10%.
I agree with you in
your thoughts that the previous week's have been more beneficial and that the
seminars have been very helpful. I also agree with you in your comment that the
second lecture was unstructured, for obvious reasons. However, there was one aspect
that was discussed during that lecture that I found interesting, that how
choosing a method does not in itself mean that research is being conducted. It
is the analysis that turns something into research. Was there anything from the
lecture that you found interesting? Regarding the first lecture I feel that you
have summed up the main concept of that lecture, problem solving and it was
interesting to read your own thoughts in connection to Haibo's thoughts. Good
job!
I think that you have
really summarized the main aspect of this theme in a clear and concise way. I
also liked the example of the teacher, student and bear as it helped me
understand what Haibo was saying in a way that was easy to remember. As you
said the second lecture was more a repetition of the first but I thought that
there were a few discussions that were interesting. For example that choosing a
method does not in itself mean that research is being conducted. It is the
analysis that turns something into research. What do you think?
You have done a really
good job reflecting on the first lecture and I think you have understood the
most important aspects from the lecture. Good job! What I feel were the main
concepts of the second lecture was why prototypes are useful, that the purpose
of research is at its core to gain knowledge and that choosing a method does
not in itself mean that research is being conducted. It is the analysis that
turns something into research.
Your reflection
summarizes the most important aspects of this theme in a way that is clear and
easy to understand. I particularly liked that you discussed an external source
in connection to problem solving. This showed that you have really thought
through the discussions from the lectures and that you have understood the
concepts well. To add to your comment that interviews are not a method, during
research it is important to remember that choosing a method does not turn the
study into research. It is instead the analysis of collected data that turns
something into research.
Theme 6 – Qualitative and case study
research
You have done a really
good job with your texts regarding this theme. Your thoughts are clear and you
text is well developed which makes it more interesting to read. I also enjoyed
the way you described case study because you approached the subject from a
slightly different angle than what I did which helped me understand the
definition of case studies better. I also want to add to your thoughts: during
our seminar we discussed how case studies do not seek out to address a specific
hypothesis and it does not start with a specific hypothesis. A reason for this
is that there is simply not enough data about the subject, which is also when
case studies are useful.
You have written a very clear and concise text
that manages to summarize what I think are the most important aspects of case
study, Since we were in the same seminar group I also found the example of when
case studies are useful very helpful to better understand what a case study is
since this was difficult for me to grasp. I agree with you in that case study
methodology is used in order to find out more and I also want to add that it is
used in order to construct a theory about the field one is studying. Good job!
Your texts are very
thought through and it shows that you have put time and effort into
understanding this week's theme. I agree with you in that the form determines
whether or not a study is qualitative and quantitative rather than the number
of participants. What helped me understand what a case study is better was
knowing it was used to construct a theory within the field one is studying. I
thought you described this very clearly and eloquently.
You have written a
carefully prepared text that is very well developed. I really enjoyed reading
about your thoughts on what case study was before the seminar and how this
changed during and after the seminar. In my case I had a hard time grasping the
concept of case study and it became much clearer after the seminar so it was
very helpful for me to attend the seminar. I think you have captured the most
important aspects of what a case study is and have explained this in a clear
way. One thing I would like to add is the example discussed regarding when case
studies are useful. The example was a study from 2000 looking into whether or
not internet addiction existed at that time which shows that case studies are
useful to see if something exists or not when you don't have enough information
about the research field. Well done!
It shows that you have
reflected thoroughly on both qualitative methods and case study methodology as
well as the discussions from your seminar. I also thought that case study was
more interesting to discuss as I had a more difficult time grasping what a case
study was (before the seminar. During our seminar we also discussed examples of
when case studies are useful and an example that I found helpful was a study from
2000 about internet addiction which had the purpose of examining if internet
addiction existed and was a problem. Therefore case studies are useful to see
if something exists or not. Do you agree?
You did a good job
explaining what your role was during the seminar and what your group
discussions were like. It would however have been interesting to read about
what you learned, if you realized you had been wrong about something or if you
found anything from the seminar particularly interesting. I actually disagree
with you regarding the definition of a case study. During our seminar we talked
about how case studies are used when you do not have enough information about
the field you are studying to create a theory. Case studies are therefore useful
to find out more information, see if something exists or not so that future
studies can create theories and test these based on the results of a case
study.
I enjoyed reading your
posts and thought that your reflection was very clear and well developed. It
shows that you have reflected upon this week's theme and as I had a harder time
grasping the concept of case study I thought your post did a good job in
summarizing the core concepts. I agree that case studies are used to build a
theory and that it's used when there is not enough information. An example from
our seminar that helped me understand when to use case studies is when you’re
not sure if something exists or not and want to research this.
I also agree that it
was difficult to find relevant papers, especially one using a case study
methodology as I also had a hard time understanding what a case study actually
is from the little information I had about it. I though you did a really good
job explaining ow you prepared and what you thought was interesting and less
interesting. I would also have liked to read about your thoughts on what a case
study is after having had the seminar. For example, during our seminar we
discussed what defines a case study and what I think is an important aspect of
case studies is that the purpose is to build a theory rather than test a
theory. You enter into a field, knowing very little about the area and use a
case study methodology in order to find out more and construct a theory about
the field you are studying.
It was interesting to
read about what helped you understand the methods discussed during this week's
theme better. I think you have summarized the core concepts of case studies in
a clear and concise way. Good job! What made case studies more difficult for me
to grasp is that the method does not have a clear cut structure. This made it
more difficult for me to understand the method and how it is carried out, but I
also think that this is a strength, because it provides an advantage over other
methods. What do you think?
Your posts are very
thought through and despite not having a lecture it shows that you have
understood what a case study is from your reflection of the seminar, I agree
with you and also want to add an example that I thought was interesting from
our seminar discussions which was that cases studies are useful when trying to
find out if something exists or not (in other words, when looking into a new or
relatively new area). Good job!
