The Ultimate (and maybe unecessary) Reflection

So, it turns out that I was wrong, yet again... Maybe? Probably.

Introducing the why...
According to the course guide, and various comments from other students, we are supposed to compile all our comments and reflect upon what we have learned. Now, since I have not commented on any other blog, I assumed that I would be spared from this last assignment.

But, since I am shrouded in uncertainty, I feel that it is better to be safe than sorry, and thus I will be writing a reflection as to what I have learned from this course. This will obviously be presented in a comfortably vague, rather broad and a bit exaggerating form.


To get to the when...
It all started, much like for anyone else participating, with the beginning of this course. In retrospect, hindsight if you may, when reflecting on what could very well have been, I am once again thankful for the fact that I had read some of Kant's work. This meant that on the first seminar, to which much confusion was to be had anyway, I was able to further the frustrating brain-mashing process of trying to understand Pure Reason, by simply asking questions.

Philosophy is good and all, and although it is a great interest of mine, I still to this day claim that the main benefit of that particular field is to provide mental exercises for your mind.

Moving on, during the subsequent weeks we managed to mow through a couple of other interesting historical figures and their respective thoughts, everything from the revolutionary potential of culture to the repressive nature of regular film. Thus, I was firmly placed in my place to stay somewhat placid for the rest of the course, simply because I had to climb down from my high horse and read up on every new theme just like everybody else.

As time went on I, if I may say so myself, did an okay job trying to contribute somewhat well thought out, if yet always complicating, questions. In that way,  through raw cunning, I managed to make others far more suited than I, come up with the actual solutions, from which I derived my conclusions.


By observing where...
So where am I now? Not in the boring everyday physical sense, but rather in general know-how and state of mind. Well, I am at least further ahead, even if I cant really tell you in what direction. I know where I was six weeks ago, certainly, and I must admit I have a hinge as to the current direction, but let me for the sake of things be specific.

I am at the last year of my studies, slowly approaching the end to one of the greatest chapters of my life. Right now it seems to be ending on the note of an extremely teasing cliffhanger, although there are still a few pages to be laid out before I know for sure.


Something provided the answer to what...
So what is knowledge? Okay, I agree, by now this is a cliché-esque question of grandeur, and a question to which the actual answer, if ever at all found, may not even be interesting. For the sake of this reflection I will obviously make an attempt, but it might not be mind-blowing.

As always, I like to view and define things from a practical standpoint, I know shocker right? Thus I have come up with the following, semi-well phrased non-perfect ad hoc definition:

"An understanding which an entity possess that is used to take an effective action in order to achieve said entity's goal(s)."

I admit, at first , this might not feel all-encompassing (I told you it would not be mind-blowing). But, if you take closer look, this simple sentence actually implies a great deal. First of, by the stated possesive case, i.e. the entity, we understand that this knowledge is indeed specific to the entity which created it. Furthermore, we realise that knowledge is a means to an end, the idea that knowing something is only regarded as knowledge, if it provides some sort of information we previously did not have or even more commonly did not define.


And finally benefiting whom?
Seeing said solution, seemingly sound, speciously someone's sapience states supplication saying suspicion. So, showing significance staying sure, someone sending said signal seeks solace seen specifically since soon.


Or is there something I am not telling you right now? Maybe I know more than I let on, maybe I knowing known knowledge is just the tip of the iceberg?

If you read this post more then once, you might just figure it out.


Ohh, and if you do:

We'll take in a quick bite at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

In retrospect, Theme 6 - But is quality all there is?

The last stepstone, before the summit!

Ahh, the last theme, the last seminar and the last retrospective reflection. I am actually quite sad that this course is over. It has really introduced a nice variety to the various ways I usually think and go about my studies. Although I think the course could have done with slightly less topics, instead letting the students delve deeper into just a few of them, I have once again been reminded that knowledge can be so many things.


Now, the regular question is at hand; what did I learn during this final seminar? Well, I am glad to say, quite a lot! First of, I learned that a presumed case study might not necessarily be a case study just because that the attached paper says it is. As you may, or may not, know I used the same paper to answer both of the question sets for this weeks theme, and although it was a very interesting read, I am not really sure it could be considered a case study any longer.

Of course, one can always ask if that means that my previous post becomes null and void, as in a worthless waste of time. Did I grasp anything at all regarding the given concept if I was unable to pick a proper paper? While I suppose this is ultimately a question for the examiner, I would argue that, just like every previous theme, the seminars have been place where I actually learn the details of the actual topic.

Nevertheless I do have a far greater understanding of what this obscurity called case study is now, and equipped with this tiny piece of knowledge I feel I will be able to better understand studies of that kind in the future, or even dismiss them if they prove sub-par. Moreover, I now realise why case studies are so frequent in modern research and also why, if I am allowed to paraphrase what was touched upon during the lecture, the fact that a general definition is pretty hard to come by.

Another thing I was reminded of, yet again something that I think has been a reoccurring theme among these themes (see what I did there?) is that the gist of any study is choice of method. Because for any given research the choice of methods, that is to say the various ways of going about the actual practice, is paramount to the validity of its results. As I keep saying in this blog, this might seem obvious when frankly stated, but I still feel it is easy to overlook the importance of how you go about your research, especially when judging the conclusion.

Speaking about methods, I was introduce to a broad variety of methods upon the seminar, as the the other participants had obviously chosen different papers. There was of course a great variety of quality, or should I say feasibility, for these methods in relation to their respective paper, but that is to be expected as well. Most of what could be found was semi-structured interviews, and various similar approaches when trying to gain personal opinions.

Last but not least, we tried to give a good definition of what a case study is. This might be the only part of my previous blogpost that somewhat hit the mark, I have taken the liberty of pasting it below for your convenience:

A case study is an examination of a particular subject, its details and any related contextual conditions. In other words, you study a something existing in a specific time and place, such as an event or a group of people. All such studies, much like any other form of research, make usage of one or more methods when analysing the chosen phenomena.


I will be missing Iljas monologues on the coming Friday afternoons, but at least I am aware of how little I know. In time, maybe that will change.


Time by the way, is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so! And with that I finally leave you to your thoughts!

In retrospect (not really), Theme 5 - Why design stuff in the first place?

This reflection was posted abit late because I misunderstood the order of the seminars.

At any rate, I must say that this has been a very interesting theme. The idea of design research seems to be a growing trend in many scientific fields, although the usage of said design does differ between them.

Now, I have to admit that without a dedicated seminar, I have not been reflecting on the specific questions during the weekend and thus I am not sure that I have learned anything new. What I have done however, is that I have used some of the methods mentioned in the design research lecture in another, ongoing, project.

In that project, which is part of a larger course, we had to come up with ideas, and then visualize them, for technologies 25-30 years into the future. This is obviously all about extrapolating trends and mixing in loads of Sci-Fi and wishful thinking, but it is beneficial to us anyway. By utilizing lightweight Design Fiction, mentioned in my earlier post, we were able to visualise and "show" the technology through a video, rather than having to explain it purely through words.

Theme 6 - It is all in the quality

For this week's theme, I choose yet another paper related to digital video processing. This one is called "Quality Assessment of D10 and DV25 Video Codecs for Broadcasting Purposes", and while quite dated by now, it is still a very interesting read. Since this paper was also a case study, I will be using it for both parts of this theme.

Qualitative research can be many things...

Question 1
This particular paper is somewhat unusual, for its specific field, in the sense that it is qualitative-oriented rather than quantitative. It revolves around a psychovisual experiment, using the MDS-method, to assert the difference in perceived quality between two different video codecs.

The MDS-method, Multi-dimensional Scaling, is used to visualise how similar (level of similarity) two or more instances of a given case really are. This is particularly useful, as the above notion suggests, when you are interested in the relation between these specific instances, along a chosen metric, and especially powerful when you want to explore an unknown difference.

Question 2
I am not sure I learned anything new about qualitative studies as a whole from this paper, however I did learn about the particular method mentioned above. This is of course somewhat unfair since half of our previous seminar (for various reason) was used to cover this specific question.

Question 3
In some sense the main methodological strength of the paper is also its greatest problem. Because the qualitative evaluation is psychological in nature, one has to account for a whole science of contextual parameters in order to come up with any meaningful result. There is definitely an advantage to such a method, in this case; studying the perceived quality (i.e. asking people what they think) instead of using image processing to mathematically measure the difference. The most prominent example being that since most information contained within a digital image cannot even be registered by the human eye, a "high quality" image, as in higher PSNR, might still lack the specific parts "we look for".

... in this case, it is a study

Question 1
A case study is an examination of a particular subject, its details and any related contextual conditions. In other words, you study a something existing in a specific time and place, such as an event or a group of people. All such studies, much like any other form of research, make usage of one or more methods when analysing the chosen phenomena.


Question 2

- DISCLAIMER - As I mentioned above I used the same paper for both question sets

To start of the research question itself is quite simple, which one of the two mentioned codecs produce the best perceived quality? At the time of its publishing, there were no similar studies, and since the codecs are built upon the same mathematical methods a qualitative study yields a far better result than a pure quantitative one.

In retrospect, Theme 4 - And for any given choice, quality over quantity

Another seminar, another topic and another hugh chunk of my self-glorified knowledge-base properly smashed.

Ohh, and as if that wasn't enough, once again I failed to properly answer all the questions. I did however, managed to give a somewhat summarized version of the paper I had read.


So, while my previous post wasn't a complete failure, I have to admit that I sorely missed the mark.


Fortunately for me, this situation was somewhat saved due to the excellent seminar I attended, where I was able to discuss the questions I had missed with my more thorough classmates. So what did I learn this time around?

Well to start of, I learned that both kinds of studies are needed in order to come up with any meaningful results once the research reaches a certain size. I also learned that qualitative studies can be statistical in nature (something I thought was anathema to that sort of research). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I was reminded that any research, apart from the scrutiny of its methods, is entirely reliant on which question it attempts to answer. In other words, how you frame the question at hand, in any given study, will drastically affect the worth of your results.

While the above may seem obvious to some, it is still very much one of those things you tend to, "not think" about, and so a reminder is always useful to sort of keep you on track.

Theme 5 - Researching some design

Xplore that mobile game

According to the paper, media technologies are best evaluated on a in the metrics of usability experience. This umbrella term encompasses three main aspects, the effectiveness of the technology’s main purpose, the efficiency with which it completes said task and finally the level of satisfaction that the intended user feel.

The prototype is obviously a central piece in achieving a meaningful result for any new technology. Without a practical test-version, there is no way to know if it will actually work in the end.

Although the prototype is of outmost importance to see if a given technology might be viable, a proof of concept, as referred to in the lecture, can be essential in order to even get to the prototype. While not specifically stated to be the case for this paper, such a proof is more often than not the reason any technological research is even initiated. In the competitive environment of science, whether academic or corporate, there is always a measure of prioritization. In order to convince your peers why your specific project is worth the investment, a proof of concept is key.

By definition, a prototype is an incomplete product. While this might not necessarily define exact limitations, it will point towards certain characteristics. A prototype needs to contain the major, or key, features that the final version is intended to have. By testing and showcasing the core aspects of the proposed product, you can achieve both practical experiments and a realistic view for people outside the project.

There are many ways possibilities when it comes to presenting design research, the first one that comes to mind is the method of Design Fiction. Although Design Fiction can mean many things, certainly the definition differs depending on who you ask, I'll give you my idea (which indeed co-relates quite a lot with all that was said during the lecture); 

Design Fiction is the idea that by creating a fictional representation of your product, through an appropriate medium, you are able to showcase exactly how it is intended to work upon completion. I think this is already happening as our "science-pitches" are getting more advanced, and when you fight for funds to your research, you are always looking for ways to convince people of your idea.

The qualities of practical design

Question 1: Of course it can be seen as knowledge contribution! Now, one might argue that in order to make such a statement one must first define knowledge, and this might indeed be true. However, in a broader and I dear say more practical (hurr hurr) sense, it will indeed contribute.

By applying an idea, in these cases through an actual prototype on a set focus group, practical design allows us to illustrate possibilities. Now I will be the first to admit that such an illustration is conformed within a very specific frame of limitation, i.e. just because something is possible it might not necessarily be feasible.

Question 2: Well, once again it all comes down to your definition of design. For some people, design is just a way of presenting something, a shell if you like, aiming to look appealing in some way. Others, see design as a statement, or choice of style while for another group, me included, design also incorporates a thought/sense of purpose.     

If you fall into the last of the above mentioned groups, well then there really is no difference. Design within a research project must always have a well motivated and defined purpose, even though that purpose is to make something look beautiful.

Question 3 (and 4): To be completely honest, I think this is the wrong question, or at least it is phrased in a way such that the answer becomes rather vague.


Question - Is it replicable?

Answer - Yes of course, just do the same thing all over again  

Is this tech domain in any way different then other such domains in this regard? Not really, however it might be harder to pull of the exact same thing. What does it mean, to "do the same thing again"? Then there is another follow-up question aimed at clarifying the previous one with a more specific context, and while that question is indeed interesting it is also damaged by its lackluster predecessor.

(Now, if the question is to be made interesting, because I realise that the reader might wonder if a I can come up with a better question myself)

Well, I will give it a shot, how about: How can we handle the inevitable differences, within aspects such as time/historical setting and the skill of the designers, when trying to cement conclusions from previous studies by replicating their process?

And in one big swoop we managed to encompass the fourth question as well, this wall of text really did the trick! Now, how about the answer? Well lemme´givit´ a try!

I think that the key point in this case, is the goal of the design, if we are aiming for the same goal, and keep to the same set of parameters, the design itself can differ immensely and still provide similar results or at least strengthen the same conclusion.

To give some examples of what I mean: Our vehicles and our fuel may change, but we will still be interested in having a low consumption and thus we will be aiming to create ways of informing the driver in that regard. Likewise, we our taste for design might change over time, but we will always want to have appealing design. Our language may change, but we will always be interested in a design that makes things clear.

Now, my point to this is that results from such studies may very well become useless over time, the conclusions drawn from such studies will probably hold a lot longer, and thus stay both relevant and useful for the next study in line.

Speaking about useful, a towel is about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitch hiker can have!

In retrospect, Theme 3 - Oh bugger that, It is just a theory anyway

An interesting seminar to say the least. On one hand a discussion bogged down in a semantic mire where our spirits rose and fell alternately, akin to a roller-coaster, when we tried to define mere words. On the other hand, we managed to exchange understandings which, although simple in nature, managed to untangle the soggiest of puzzles.

We discussed what a theory is, what a hypothesis is, their relation to each other and whether a pen is to be considered blue at all. We went on, taking a quick detour to Kant, refreshed our knowledge of basic mechanics (i.e. physics), and finally we got to discuss various form of theory.

Oh, and we did mention our individually selected papers aswell.

What did I learn then? Well, I learned that my, in my mind, clear definition of what a scientific theory is, might not be so obvious after all. Now, reviewing the reviews of my earlier retrospects, in retrospect, it should not really come as a surprise that I find my own views, initially very solid, rather altered after one of these seminars. But at least I was not the only one who had to rethink a few things.

Another thing that I gathered, an this is more of a specific detail then a general revelation, is that a (scientific) theory apparently does not have to relate to the natural world. Although I still have a hard time accepting this fact, seeing as science is usually dependent on empirical observations. The teacher cleverly pointed out that mathematics for instance, you know the main theories behind the paper I choose, does not inherently belong to the natural world.

I also learned that some of my grander ideas fly, in much the same way that bricks do not.