Theme 6: Qualitative and case study research Reflection

I blogged about Haibos lecture in great detail in my last reflection so I’m not going to repeat that, anyways it mainly aimed at last weeks theme "design research". This week we’ve read texts as usual and I’ve also attended a seminar.

During the seminar we were divided into smaller groups where we discussed our texts. Then we asked Leif questions based on our discussions. The main topic concerned what a case study is and how it should be handled.  The mandatory article, “Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.”, already stated much of the seminars main-topic. However, it’s always good with repetition and clarification.  We discussed how a case study is a limited-area or scenario, that the optimal number of cases for building theories from it are 4-10, how you first get familiar with the field and then create the methods to be used, that multiple methods are to prefer, how to define undefined cases as research fields (uniqueness), that they’re often open-ended, that there’s never to little data in a case study but quite the opposite etc. In other words, some case studies have greater potential to build theories from, we’ve checked the potential using the article mentioned above to examine a case study. In summary, depending on if you search for building theories there are preferred ways to do this, however not all case-studies has this intention as some just investigate one singular case.

Other topics we discussed were: discourse analysis and rule coding, mainly the latter. It’s a way to restrict subjectivity and categorize the qualitative results. The thing is that anyone should be able to do the coding and they should get the same answers, it should be objective. So therefore multiple people often do the coding and often they are not the researchers themselves just to avoid subjectivity. The coding is often done on some samples of the results, not all.

Another thing that Leif mentioned during the seminar was how some cases/phenomena’s are described in multiple different accurate ways. He used the two theories describing light as an example, one that uses waves to do this and the other one particles. Both ways are considered correct but the fields can’t cooperate as they could if they were the same field. Within one case-study I think it’s important to find one way to describe the phenomena in order to be convincing and not confusing. If there are multiple possible ways, this should be underlined to make it very clear.

This week I’ve learnt about the difference between case-studies intended to build theories and case-studies intended to research a singular case. How you often go from qualitative data to quantitative data back to qualitative data again and so on, in order to answer your questions, confirm, explore and get deeper understanding. Possible ways to handle qualitative data before analyzing it. 

Theme 5: Design research Reflection

This week we attended two lectures, one given by Haibo Li and one given by  Eva-Lotta Sallnäs. We read  3 texts in addition to this: Réhman, S., Sun, J., Liu, L., & Li, H. (2008). Turn Your Mobile Into the Ball: Rendering Live Football Game Using Vibration. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 10(6), 1022-1033, . Moll, J. and Sallnäs, E-L. (2013). "A haptic tool for group work about geometrical concepts engaging blind and sighted pupils." ACM Transaction on Accessible Computing. 4(4), and 1-37, Huang, Y., Moll, J., Sallnäs, E-L., Sundblad, Y. (2012). "Auditory feedback in haptic collaborative interfaces." International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 70(4), 257-270.
Haibos lecture touched upon the importance of choosing the right and easy problem. It's more important to find a problem that is of importance and that has a convincing solution than finding a problem which lacks obvious solutions. An enforced example is two men being chased by a tiger where the wrong kind of problem is: How do I outrun the tiger in order to escape and the easy problem is: How do I manage to outrun the other man in order to escape. It's about asking the right questions. Still if you've too many ideas, which one to choose, Haibo briefly discussed how you could differentiate between "great ideas" and "big ideas". Then how you can validate the idea with the help of prototyping. To then evaluate the prototype you can measure the usability: efficiency, satisfaction, and effectiveness. Other things to think about in regards of evaluation are that mathematics and statistics helps us find (and describe) exact correlations that otherwise wouldn't have been found so easy.  He gave an example of Analysis of variance (ANOVA), a relative comparative way of finding correlations between independent and dependent variables. At the end he briefly discussed the importance of communicating your technology ideas as an entrepreneur when presenting them to people outside the technological world.

Sällnas Lecture was kind of deeply involving her research in collaborative haptics. She mentioned that collaborative data resulted in a lot of free data. An example from the lecture: In order to measure the way haptic feedback affects people she measured presence which is divided in social and virtual presence. She measured virtual prescence with the help of an existing scale, made for this purpose. However, there were no scale to measure social presence  so they had to define social presence and then build an own way to measure it. This example shows that there are not measures for everything and that it's possible to get around this. She also mentioned that there are general ways to measure things in order to put the in relation to other studies, for example by using Fitt's-law-task on input-output devices  you can put your input-output device into relation with other input-output devices outside the study. She discussed the importance of defining the study's keywords, collaborative setting as well as the relation between quantitative and qualitative data. All this with her own research as the base.

After the reflections before and the after this week's theme I think that I've learned quite a bit. Especially from reading the texts and reflecting around this week's questions. 

Theme 6: Qualitative and case study research Pre

I read this paper, Gilbert et al. (2013). The psychological functions of avatars and alt(s): A qualitative study. Computers in Human Behavior 32 (2014) 1–8.

I’ll shortly describe the core of the paper with a citation from it:

“Prior research has shown that approximately 50% of active participants in the 3D virtual world of Second Life have one or more secondary avatars or ‘‘alts’’ in addition to their primary avatar. Thus, these individuals are operating a ‘‘multiple or poly-identity system’’ composed of a physical self, a primary avatar, and one or more alts. However, little is known about the functions these virtual identities serve for the virtual-world user.”

Which qualitative method or methods are used in the paper? Which are the benefits and limitations of using these methods?

The method contained Semi-structured interviews with second life participants; they were done within the virtual 3D world. The participants had to have a primary avatar and at least one or more secondary avatars. The study found the participants via an announcement in second life’s calendar.  After the interviews they got virtual in-second-world money as compensation of participation.  Other factors that could impact the results regarding the method were: That they had been a member in second life for at least 6 months, that they were 18 years or older, and only in-depth English speaking people could participate. During the interviews the participant described “their primary avatar, their physical self, and then each alt.”

They made coding rules for data: bottom-up and top-down design were used to come up with these. Prior research as well as interview data gave them a model to interpret the results in relation to the coding-rules.

Limitation according to the paper: Small sample of in-depth interviews as “their labor-intensive nature often constrains the size of the sample that can be used“. This small sample makes it hard to generalize in relation to how many users there are within Second Life. In the paper they stated that their paper is only descriptive of how you could do future studies, and this because of its limitations, it should be seen as a starting-point. The study only applies to Second Life and not other virtual worlds. The small scale of participants made them not see a frequent answer as more important than an answer that was not frequently maintained, they said caution is needed.

Benefits according to the paper: “Qualitative techniques are useful when an area is not well studied or understood as they can reveal nuance and context that is difficulty to capture through quantitative techniques alone”.

Other advantages and disadvantages: They performed the interviews in Second Life which made them catch active participants and geographically distant participants, however would they’ve given the same answers if they were interviewed in person (as their physical identity).

What did you learn about qualitative methods from reading the paper?

I think I knew pretty much of it since theme 4 and 5 past 2 weeks. One thing that I did not know about was the coding of interview data, and how they cooperated to analyze the data. That it can be done in such systematic way, based on previous research, coding rules, the data itself and a model.

Which are the main methodological problems of the study? How could the use of the qualitative method or methods have been improved?

Further on, as they wrote that more frequent answers do not necessarily imply that they are more important. It’s not generalizable, not even within second life. The method could’ve included a larger scale of participants, maybe by hiring people to perform the interviews if possible with the use of a framework/interview-form and training. To be a bit harsh, it could’ve included non-English speakers, to give the generalizability more potential. The participants could’ve also been interviewed in all their identities, as the psychical self, primary avatar, and other avatars to see if their identity varied (a time-span between the interviews). According to the paper, one woman didn’t understand the questions and her results were therefore left out, unnoticed misunderstanding like this could’ve been easier avoided in a face-to-face interview, but that would’ve had other disadvantages. The coding and the analyzing of the qualitative data included different opinions on how to interpret things according to the paper. I think they had a good strategy with coding rules; still they weren’t able to agree. I think a larger scale of participants could’ve solved this problem, partly.

Read the following article:

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.

Select a media technology research paper that is using the case study research method. The paper should have been published in a high quality journal, with an “impact factor” of 1.0 or above. Your tasks are the following:

Briefly explain to a first year university student what a case study is.

The case could for example be a situation, event, person organization of some kind, and the study’s aim is to get deep knowledge about that particular case. It aims to describe, explore, and explain. Such deep knowledge means that lots of time spent on that case is needed and often you look at a single or few cases rather than multiple because of this.

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.

The participants in relation to the main-questions of the study are good in relation to the amount of samples the study had since Second Life seems to be the most popular virtual world. There was however a lot of factors that could’ve had an impact (mentioned above) and no priori research saying that Second Life could represent virtual worlds, which is a weakness in terms of generalizability. Participants participated voluntarily which is a weakness (not totally random). The study concerned both quantitative data and qualitative data, except for the interviews, the gathering of data also included a web-form. However, the different ways of gathering data did not confirm each other as the questions/data from them were unrelated. This could however show relationships that the researcher didn’t know about. There’s no over-lapping in data-collection and data-analyze, coding rules were made and it’s clearly coded before it’s analyzed. From each participant there’s not a lot of data over a longer time of period, the interviews were extensive but only made once, and the model helped analyze the data. The paper seeks no cross-case patterns between different virtual worlds except for maybe the descriptive parts. The cross-case patterns between the participants were found via “categories”, multiple people coded this lead to disagreement on different points which otherwise wouldn’t have been found. Comparing with similar literature. Lastly, I think that the paper closes before the marginal for improvement becomes small, more patterns and and discussion could’ve been made but it’s unnecessary because of the descriptive purpose and the limitations of the study.

Theme 4: Quantitative research Reflection

For this weeks theme I read two papers, attended a seminar and studied some more.

I choose to read this: “Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying”by Larry D. Rosen, L. Mark Carrier and Nancy A. Cheever, published in Computers in Human Behavior (Impact Factor: 2.067) Volume 29, Issue 3, May 2013, Pages 948–9581.

Then we had to read this:

Fondell, E., Lagerros, Y. T., Sundberg, C. J., Lekander, M., Bälter, O., Rothman, K., & Bälter, K. (2010). Physical activity, stress, and self-reported upper respiratory tract infection. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 43(2), 272-279.

The texts and seminar in relation to the suggested questions for this theme made me reflect around how specific methods are more accurate for a specific study, what kind of uncertainties comes from different kinds of used methods. Uncertainties regarding for example using the same method in different contexts, the reliability of the theories that the methods depend on, uncertainties regarding the participants, uncertainties regarding the way of gathering data/method, for example how you formulate questions without any confusion and so on.  With that said, we’ve looked at both uncertainties within one method but also uncertainties in comparison to other potential methods and this depending on the context, goal and purpose of the study.  For example is it a exploratory, confirmatory, or any other kind of study, what methods can answer to what the study seek? However, mainly I think this weeks theme learned me how to criticize results/methods internally and externally.

Seminar

During the seminar we got divided into 4 groups and had a small competition where the group with most unique answers to different questions won. The questions concerned disadvantages/advantages in qualitative research, disadvantages/advantages in quantitative research, disadvantages/advantages in web-survey vs paper-survey etc.  After each question Bälter presented his answers to the questions. To be more concrete, for example, we discussed how feedback could make participants more engaged because they get something back from the study, this will probably result in more accurate results. Another thing we discussed were how participation, in for example surveys, could increase by sending a pre-introduction, reminders and, as mentioned, giving feedback. Bälter also talked about the importance of how you formulate questions and scales when gathering data in order to avoid confusion and reliable answers.  Other topics were for example, you can test methods before you actually use them as well as not only having the study’s purpose in mind when choosing method, but also the target group.

I think much of this week theme introduced different kinds of methods depending on what type of theory the study seek/have, this relates back to last weeks theme. The generalizability is also something I think is affected depending on the method as well as the to what extent you seek causality and more. In another way I think this relates to earlier themes in that, depending if you know anything a priori or not, impacts what kind of method you prefer. Quantitative data can be good to confirm a hypothesis for example. Other than that I think that this weeks theme concerned finding problems and limitations with methods, but also how external problems and limitations can have an impact on the data gathered from methods.

Theme 5: Design research PRE

Read:
Réhman, S., Sun, J., Liu, L., & Li, H. (2008). Turn Your Mobile Into the Ball: Rendering Live Football Game Using Vibration. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 10(6), 1022-1033

Please reflect on the following questions:

1. How can media technologies be evaluated? 

For example in the text: Prototyping and usability test through questionnaire and observed experiments, usability defined as effectiveness (can the task be completed with the evaluated system? Success to failure ratio common way to measure this), efficiency (How much effort is needed to accomplish the task? Less effort is better of course) and satisfaction ("refers to the comfort and acceptability of the system to its users and other people affected by its use, questionnaire").

A technology can require experience or training before mastering the three aspects of usability. So to complement evaluation you can do a trainability test, as done in the text, to see if it’s any difference in usability afterwards. How much training is required before any difference is noticed etc.

2. What role will prototypes play in research?Prototypes can play a big role. For example it’s useful to only test parts of a system because you can prototype exactly the part that you want to test without having to spend time on completing the whole system before you can get any answers. In the text this concept could be used on live football for example, but in the tests their were no live football. I guess it both saves time and money. Since time is saved more alternative ways of doing stuff can be tested. The making of the prototype can also present the decisions that have to be made in order to make the system, which makes people understand quickly and have their own opinion on different paths. If those decisions are motivated they can be argued against or agreed which leads into choosing the most appropriate alternative.


3. Why could it be necessary to develop a proof of concept prototype?Other than it’s cheap and less time consuming than developing a complete system. It allows for mistakes and changes in a wider change than a complete system would. Imagine building a house and then having to eradicate it and rebuild it just because you decided it’d be better to use other dimensions than the first one had. So after other people have seen this prototype and expressed their opinion, or even when results from the prototype are evaluated maybe changes have to be made. Making those changes on a prototype instead of a complete system costs less. I think that prototypes also are a great way of presenting your ideas, it can get people understand and active within a concept easily. In comparison to only words a prototype is more convincing and interesting in my opinion.


4. What are characteristics and limitations of prototypes?Buggs, not full functioning, only a representation, doesn’t shut possibilities for future changes. Depending on what the prototype is, it has different limitation, maybe it’s just a mock-up or maybe it’s the real thing. If a prototype is made in a bad way, it can give inaccurate results or give a wrong impression.

5. How can design research be communicated/presented?
In every way: words, text, prototypes, pictures, models, mock-ups, substitutes, videos and more. I like different kinds of prototypes for the reasons mentioned above, different kinds of prototypes depending on what you want to present.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For the lecture Wednesday, read the following papers written by Eva-Lotta Sallnäs Pysander and her colleague. Reflect on the key points and what you learnt by reading the text. Prepare one question that you would like to discuss during the lecture.

1. Moll, J. and Sallnäs, E-L. (2013). "A haptic tool for group work about geometrical concepts engaging blind and sighted pupils." ACM Transaction on Accessible Computing. 4(4), 1-37.

2. Huang, Y., Moll, J., Sallnäs, E-L., Sundblad, Y. (2012). "Auditory feedback in haptic collaborative interfaces." International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 70(4), 257-270.

1. How does a collaborative setting differ from a single user setting as regards methodology used and the results obtained?
I guess you need to define what’s collaborative in the specific context; it might be a common ground, awareness in-between the participants, awareness of their actions, awareness of their own actions, their goals, who takes initiative etc. Based on earlier work, studies and theories you might find what’s collaborative and how to measure it in the context you want. However I think that collaborative work include many different answers to why a specific outcome occurs, it’s often a unique context since you can collaborate in so many ways and places, hence more variables. Previous quantitative methods, performed studies, and theories within collaborate settings might not always answer to why a specific outcome in a specific context occur. Maybe qualitative methods can contribute to more understanding of why/why not something is collaborative and what effects come from it. If a user test is performed, it might not be a bad idea if the participants know each other depending on the study, this could prevent insecurity from having an effect on the result, in a single user setting this problem doesn’t occur, that is the relation between the collaborates.

2. How can qualitative and quantitative methods in the same study complement each other?Qualitative methods can bring results not encountered for; these results can then possibly be used in quantitative methods in order to measure and analyze them. Qualitative data can also give deeper understanding of the quantitative data. It can for example answer to why a specific quantitative or qualitative result was maintained. For example in the third text: ”qualitative analysis showed that the auditory and haptic feedback was used in a number of important ways”, qualitative data helped answering to why haptic feedback was used and in what way it was used, not only that it was used or used in certain predefined ways.

3. How can using both subjective and objective methods give a better understanding of a phenomenon?
Subjective method. Gaining data about how the subject interpreters and experience the phenomenon, does it conform to the objective data or does it differ, how, when and why? Objective method, can give less varying results, which then might be easier to compare with results from other studies or in the same study, generalize, and analyze with quantitative methods.

Theme 3 Research and Theory Reflection

I’d like to start with correcting myself from last week’s theme 3 pre where I missed saying, that the representation of the problematic online game scale theory is a table, to describe it further he uses a figure of the POGU-model as well. This scale is just a suggestion, “an initial step”, towards finding a path and a way to develop a scale for POGU further. With that said, after reading some more literature, I now think that the POGU-scale is mainly a design theory in that it tells how to continue on this path of developing a scale and also it tells how to measure POGU, with the help of the relationship of 20 items and 5 factors.  Last week I said that the theory type was analysis and a tiny bit explanation, which it also kind of is in my opinion since it both says what it is, and a little bit about why and how. But the main purpose, I think, was to develop a scale that could be used as an instrument on how to refine and design further on the scale, and not just find what is or how to measure. As the text said that we read: theories could include components from multiple types of theory. 

During the week I’ve learnt that theory can be influenced by the discipline, for example theory within the area of information systems might not be the same kind of theory in another discipline like mathematics. I’ve learnt about 5 types of theories in the area of information systems. Further on these contain a degree of generalizability, degree of explanation and/or prediction, and a degree of causality. The text I read was a suggestion tested in Korea, so regarding the generalizability or scope it’s hard to say until further tests have been done, which he states in the text. But one clear boundary is that it only concerns online games in the form of MMO and as he defines it.  The causality could be the items in the scale, for example item 1 statement, which is related to the factor “Euphoria” : “I feel unrestricted when playing online games”, it’s also a little bit of explanation in this, at least to why you have/haven’t POGU but it says nothing about the effects from having it.

So with that said I’ve learnt about different types of theories which can have a mean of representations, constructs, scope, casual explanation, testable propositions, and prescriptive statements. This regarding theories in information systems. As I missed the lecture, due to the fact that I had another lecture that I couldn’t afford to miss at the same time in another course, I had to read the literature carefully again. Except reading the literature I’ve tried to find explanations online in order to get a hang of everything. Then I attended the seminar where we discussed our texts, different kinds of theory, hypothesis and knowledge. It’d be interesting to read about other disciplines view on theory in order to compare and find differences. It’s also interesting to reflect around how a paper like the one I read, are based on other theories, which has its own type of theory, of different reliability. Even the methods used in the papers are motivated and used with the help of theories from other areas.  The theories helps building the papers structure, and finding its purpose, which makes the theories type, reliability, and style reflect on the paper itself. 

Theme 4: Quantitative research PRE

I read this: “Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying”by Larry D. Rosen, L. Mark Carrier and Nancy A. Cheever, published in Computers in Human Behavior (Impact Factor: 2.067) Volume 29, Issue 3, May 2013, Pages 948–9581.

1.      Which quantitative method or methods are used in the paper? Which are the benefits and limitations of using these methods?

As briefly descried as possible the papers main concern was the following question: “How do such technological distractions impact academic learning?”

Method used: Using a study observation form, observers watched participants for 15 min who were told to do important studies. Observers were trained to perform the observation, and picked the participants for the study themselves. Before the observation started, “pre-data” which described the environment were gathered (study location, technologies/devices present at the study location, amount of windows/programs open at a computer). Actual studying was called on-task and distraction/other tasks were called off-tasks. The observer measured the amount of tasks, time spent on each task and what kind of tasks it was. After the min-by-min observation the participants were asked questions from a questionnaire formed by previously acknowledged scales/surveys regarding phone usage, social networking usage, amount of technology distraction present, school performance, preference for task-switching, technology attitudes, and study strategies. At the end they had a qualitative questionnaire (which is irrelevant for this question). However, the combination of a quantitative and qualitative method is interesting, a specific quantitative method, like the observation here, allows for a specific kind of qualitative data at the same time.  

Benefits: Observations are time-consuming, using a study observation form and trained observers makes it less time-consuming and more observations possible. Observations makes it possible for the participant to focus on the actual task without having to worry about forgetting any data. Observers can focus on only gathering data and nothing else, which might make it more accurate. It’s happening in the actual environment in real-time. Another benefit is that the data from the questionnaire and the observations can be measured, compared, and described. Good to support or contradict the hypothesis given.

Limitations: Despite that trained observers are used, the amount of observations are limited. It’s also time-consuming, resulting in 15 min observations in this study, more time would probably have given more accurate and generalizable results. Observers can make mistakes. In this study observers choose participants who they knew, which could affect the result. The participants were aware that they were being observed, which could influence the result as well. It relies on scales/surveys from other sources which themselves have a reliability.

2.      What did you learn about quantitative methods from reading the paper?

Quantitative observations can be made more efficiently with the help of observation-forms and trained observers. It is a good way to check a specific hypothesis. It’s a good way to compare and analyze data, from different groups for example. It can involve many errors which are to be accounted and prepared for.

3.      Which are the main methodological problems of the study? How could the use of the quantitative method or methods have been improved?

A second observer could’ve observed the observer and so on. If possible, the participant could’ve been observed without knowing it. The observers could’ve chosen people they don’t know which could’ve lead to less or more accurate results. They could’ve been observed for more time and also more participants could’ve been observed. The participants could’ve given more time to answer the questionnaire, maybe by doing it into a web-based survey (which would’ve resulted in other potential errors).  

Fondell, E., Lagerros, Y. T., Sundberg, C. J., Lekander, M., Bälter, O., Rothman, K., & Bälter, K. (2010). Physical activity, stress, and self-reported upper respiratory tract infection. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 43(2), 272-279.

”Reflect on the key points and what you learnt by reading the text”: I don’t know if it’s the key points concerning the method used or the purpose of the paper. However, the web based questionnaires seems to be a good choice in order to find and compare relationships between different attributes and URTI. For example the study resulted in the conclusion that people with high physical activity reduces the chance of getting URTI, especially for those who feel more stressed. One thing I acknowledge was that they didn’t only look at the numbers from the quantitative data, but presupposed factors influenza seasons which could affect the results etc.

1.      Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative methods?

When you want to use statistics on a large amount of participants/data/variables in order to analyze, compare between groups, find relationships between them. This allows for results that easily can disagree or agree with questions and hypothesis. However you’re bound to numbers, measurable stuff, which makes it harder to investigate further than the numbers let you, a lot can be described in accurate measurable stuff tho. It also allows for objective data and not subjective. The results from quantitative data can be compared to data from other studies to strengthen a theory etc. Depending on the source of data, if it’s random etc, it can be generalized to some level.

2.      Which are the benefits and limitations of using qualitative methods?

Let’s data be described in other than numbers. The participant can provide with something new to the research when they’re not “being measured”, instead they can express their subjective view regarding the topic. This can result in data containing many different and varying responses. It can also answer to why a different relation between two variables from quantitative data occurred. Qualitative data can be harder to get in greater amounts, compared to quantitative, often because it takes time to gather and analyze. This can affect the generalizability since the amount of data is actually less and can be varying.    

Theme 2: Ctritical media studies POST

I’ve learnt how Horkheimer, Adorno and Benjamin thinks technology, enlightenment and technological development, can deceive people. How it can change the way we perceive things such as culture for example. How people can become passive and unable to think by it. How culture affects people’s ideologies. How it can make people think myth is enlightenment, and not what it really is.

The two texts for this weeks theme ”Critical media studies” was very related to each other. I’ll try to make a short summary & reflection on each of them as well as the connection to demonstrate some of what I’ve learnt after the lecture and the seminar. Dialectic of Enlightenment describes how standardization of culture, related to capitalism, has allowed for a kind of mass culture or rather the culture industry. The culture industry is used to describe its wide scope; it affects all who depend on capitalism. The culture industry also makes people dependent on capitalism. The products of the culture industry is created with the purpose of satisfying as many needs as possible, in order make as much profit as possible and affects as many people as possible. They mean it’s kind of a loop of always wanting more and satisfaction of created need, not real happiness. What follows from this is that the culture produced is similar and based on the same things, even if it seems different.  The commodification of culture results in the gravitation towards capitalism.  According to the text, this is when people stop thinking and submit to the culture. This is when enlightenment becomes myth in that people see the success presented to them through culture as their own success. ”There is no gap between what exists and the possible”. Here is the relation to nominalism, unable to identify this gap. Their answer to identifying this gap is conceptual thinking, new ways of seeing the world, don’t see things as they seem/are (nominalism) but criticize, explore and search.

The other text describes reproduction and standardization of art and culture as well. Benjamin also thinks that the things related to the production of culture decide the culture that forms and affects our ideology. He describes historical technological inventions lead to mass distribution of culture, arts loss of authenticity (aura), changes in perception that leads to art/culture which have the same affect given above. That is, leaving the audience passive and seeing the art/film as reality.

It feels like Horkheimer and Adorno see people becoming unable to think and submitting to the culture industry and therefor thinks there’s no revolutionary potential of the people, the gravity to capitalism is to strong. In contrast however, Benjamin noticed the critical view of the audience to film, and predicts that they will act as judges while viewing, which means more critics towards culture and therefor a more revolutionary potential, both culturally and the things culture affects.

Other than that the Lecture was very interesting and informative, with lots of examples, and recommendations on how to see things regarding the theme. During the seminar we discussed the seminar questions in addition to some others given by Håkan. I felt a bit lost and tired, but some fell into place after the seminar. After the seminar I read some more as well as went through my notes from the lecture in order to get some other pieces into place.