(N.B. This is the study blog for the course Theory and Method for Media Technology. More detailed information regarding the theme as well as the course is available on the course page [1].)
During last week, we had two lectures regarding theme 5 with no seminars as planned. Three papers have been read to help understand the theme topic [2][3][4]. However, due to the absence of second teacher, our second lecture turns into a teacher-led seminar. Meanwhile, we are requested to read three papers given by professors and then answer several questions accordingly. I found it that the task is easier than previous ones, since it is clearer with guidelines. Yet, I thought that the connection between the lecture and the assignment is not that tight. It would be great to have a seminar to discuss with tutor and classmates, just like what we did before.
In the first lecture Prof. Li proposed five interesting questions around 'idea', so I would like to reflect my study thinking based on some perspectives in this blog.
During last week, we had two lectures regarding theme 5 with no seminars as planned. Three papers have been read to help understand the theme topic [2][3][4]. However, due to the absence of second teacher, our second lecture turns into a teacher-led seminar. Meanwhile, we are requested to read three papers given by professors and then answer several questions accordingly. I found it that the task is easier than previous ones, since it is clearer with guidelines. Yet, I thought that the connection between the lecture and the assignment is not that tight. It would be great to have a seminar to discuss with tutor and classmates, just like what we did before.
In the first lecture Prof. Li proposed five interesting questions around 'idea', so I would like to reflect my study thinking based on some perspectives in this blog.
Firstly, the most common way of coming up with an idea might be to solve a problem. For problem solving, Prof. Li points out that although we always focus on how to solve the problem, in fact the first thing we should ask and answer is how to define a problem. I agree a lot with Prof. Li with this perspective. I think in most cases it is the problem itself that stops us or blinds us when we try to solve a problem.
Secondly, regarding filter ideas: Yes, Thinking is always easier than doing. It is typical that we are all able to brainstorm, but find it difficult to decide what can be written down eventually. Sometimes we have too many ideas, but hard to choose which one is better. In this part Prof Li. highlighted that 'We should not fully believe ourselves' to avoid Tunnel Vision. In a sense, 'everyone is blind', since we only see what we want to see. I found this very philosophical, and quite connected with what we did during last weeks. What I disagree that much is about 'great idea'. Professor said that the easier way to define great idea is using money. I understand that this makes a lot sense in our current world. And of course it IS a useful strategy or advice for us with no doubt. But what about in a historical context?
Then Moving to the discussion on idea validation and evaluation. In general, to find some proof, (and to raise some money). In practice, we need a prototype for showing the idea. This is the part linked with the paper we studied and discussed before the lecture. Before the lecture, I was expecting that this part would be the most important part, but it seems not. It has not been widely introduced and discussed. As a result, I still felt a little confused about 'prototype' after that lecture.
Lastly, Professor introduced some valuable and helpful methods to evaluate an idea, such as 1-way ANOVA and Two Way ANOVAs. They are good illustrated with examples, so I think they might be great. However, it is too fast for me to figure out what it is and how to use it. It is only presented at the introductory level, but this might be the aim of the course. We get chance to know something new, but more work might be needed if we want to learn more about it.
Thanks to the second lecture or seminar, my understanding of 'prototype' is much improved. Basically the discussion confirms my earlier thinking on 'prototype' that it aims to Test the idea as proof of concept or evaluation. Then I followed the two questions proposed by the teacher that 'what can you use the prototype for?' and 'how can we use the prototype?' I think these questions are great to help understanding. After knowing 'we can use design to shape prototype to search for a specific answer', we reach another conclusion that 'the prototype does not need to be a solution itself. After figuring out that 'prototype' is a tool created by the author for the research, we agree that 'Design research focuses on the process, in contrast or comparing with the theory'. Also, we see the whole picture with thinking on 'what the research for?' Finding answers, solving problems, testing theory, and most importantly gaining knowledge. So I think this makes more sense to connect with previous themes, which makes me feel that I now have a better understanding of this course.
Those are all for today’s blog. Thanks for reading. Your valuable comments are welcome. Please let me know if you find anything interesting or want to have a further discussion. I am looking forward to more discussions in seminar with you all.
Sources:
[1] https://www.kth.se/social/course/DM2572/page/theme-5-design-research-2/
[2] Réhman, S. U., Sun, J., Liu, L., & Li, H. (2008). Turn your mobile into the ball: rendering live football game using vibration. Multimedia, IEEE Transactions on,10(6), 1022-1033.
[3] Fernaeus, Y., & Tholander, J. (2006, April). Finding design qualities in a tangible programming space. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems (pp. 447-456). ACM.
[4] Lundström, A. (2014, September). Differentiated Driving Range: Exploring a Solution to the Problems with the Guess-O-Meter in Electric Cars. InProceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (pp. 1-8). ACM.
Impressive post, I think you were one of the few to go into such depth for two lectures that no one really seemed to grasp very much. From myn experience and reading other people's blogs, I'd say the subject of the prototype was most thought-provoking for the majority of people, although the extent to which it was discussed by Anders was very limited. Still, the question of what it can be used for, and especially the distinction between industrial and research use, was something I hadn't really explicitly considered before, and was at least somewhat interesting.
ReplyDelete