Which qualitative method or methods are used in the paper? Which are the benefits and limitations of using these methods?
I have chosen to read the paper “ Validation and Application of Electronic Propinquity Theory to Computer-Mediated Communication in Groups“ by Joseph B. Walther and Natalya N. Bazarova. (2008). The paper aims to present how the presence of alternate, digital communication media as well as some other factors affect the psychological feeling of nearness and how satisfactory the communication feels.
I have chosen to read the paper “ Validation and Application of Electronic Propinquity Theory to Computer-Mediated Communication in Groups“ by Joseph B. Walther and Natalya N. Bazarova. (2008). The paper aims to present how the presence of alternate, digital communication media as well as some other factors affect the psychological feeling of nearness and how satisfactory the communication feels.
They conducted this research by observing test groups which were using some of these communication measures. This method is purely qualitative which means it doesn’t give a generalized picture of a whole society, instead they get results which depend heavily on the participants. On the other hand they get data which could not be gathered quantitatively. It’s really hard to measure true satisfaction or certain feelings through surveys and similar methods.
What did you learn about qualitative methods from reading the paper?
Since I already knew what qualitative methods is I don’t really feel that I picked up something groundbreaking new regarding them. However they talked a lot about a theory they used to conduct the research which they feel had some faults and later corrected for them. They explain how their research was conducted, how the participants was tested and observed. Maybe I learned a bit about the importance of critically examine source theory material and to be very objective and thorough.
Since I already knew what qualitative methods is I don’t really feel that I picked up something groundbreaking new regarding them. However they talked a lot about a theory they used to conduct the research which they feel had some faults and later corrected for them. They explain how their research was conducted, how the participants was tested and observed. Maybe I learned a bit about the importance of critically examine source theory material and to be very objective and thorough.
Which are the main methodological problems of the study? How could the use of the qualitative method or methods have been improved?
I think they did a great job with the qualitative method they used. I found that they really had thought of everything. They had a large sample group, even though it was qualitative. They had set up multiple different test scenarios so that the result would be as wide as it could be. They critically examined the theory of which they based their research so that there would be no margin errors. Maybe they could have done some quantitative methods to further broaden the results gathered by the, in comparison to quantitative methods, small number of participants. The data they gathered are, as I mentioned earlier, not so generalizable, something that possibly could have been with some more research.
I think they did a great job with the qualitative method they used. I found that they really had thought of everything. They had a large sample group, even though it was qualitative. They had set up multiple different test scenarios so that the result would be as wide as it could be. They critically examined the theory of which they based their research so that there would be no margin errors. Maybe they could have done some quantitative methods to further broaden the results gathered by the, in comparison to quantitative methods, small number of participants. The data they gathered are, as I mentioned earlier, not so generalizable, something that possibly could have been with some more research.
Briefly explain to a first year university student what a case study is.
According to Eisenhardt in the article "Building Theories from Case Study Research" a case study aims to analyse an event or a person, something that is happening. It investigates the phenomenon in a context which could be compared to real life with a focus on the understanding and exploration of the dynamics which are presented in a certain single setting. The data you get when conducting research this way are often empirically valid as well as testable.
Use the "Process of Building Theory from Case Study Research" (Eisenhardt, summarized in Table 1) to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of your selected paper.
I have chosen to analyze the paper “Towards practical, high-capacity, low-maintenance information storage in synthesized DNA.” by Goldman, N. et al. (2013). Which is about storing digital data as synthesized DNA. Cool stuff. It isn’t about trying to collect data to prove a point, instead they prove that something can be perform a certain way using a certain method.
The steps declared in Eisenhardts research paper is: Getting Started, Selecting Cases, Crafting Instruments and Protocols, Entering the Field, Analyzing Data, Shaping Hypotheses, Enfolding Literature and at last Reaching Closure.
As most papers this one of course has both strengths and weaknesses, they don’t fulfill all of the steps. For example they don’t really define any research questions, instead they describe the method which they use to prove how something could be achievable. They declare how they have gotten their information and thoroughly analyzed the conditions. Since they performed actual tests the data was gathered qualitatively and compared with earlier similar works.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar