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.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteGood reflection! I especially like how you use and apply concepts we have learned earlier in this course (a priori for example) as a help when reflecting on this week's theme.
I think it is interesting that you say that quantitative data can be good to confirm a hypothesis. It what way do you think that is? Doesn't it depend much on what the hypothesis say? Some hypotheses may be easier to confirm by the help of interviews (qualitative data) than surveys for example. I am just curios because it is an interesting thought! :)