This week’s theme was quantitative research, we read one
article of choice and 'Drumming in
immersive virtual reality: The Body Shapes the Way We Play'. This was an
interesting article about if our body influences our attitudes and behavior.
They showed this by doing an experiment with 36 Caucasians who played the
Djembe. They choose the Djembe as an instrument because they wanted an
instrument that is attached to a certain culture, wearing certain clothes and
it was also supposed to fit in the room that they were going to use for the
experiment. The participants saw either a formal light-skinned or a causal
dark-skinned virtual body that represented them. One of the conclusions that
was drawn from this experiment was that both groups felt a sense of ownership,
but the group who was represented by the causal dark-skinned body also felt
that they were more expressive then normal. This answer supports the hypothesis
of the researchers.
The participants of the previous research paper weren’t aware of the
hypothesis of this research, so the results were based on the (honest) opinion
of the participants. The paper that I read for this theme argued that Virtual Customer Service
Agents (VCSA’s) can influence online service experiences positively also based on an experiment, an
experimental survey, but in this case the participants were aware of the
research question that the researchers wanted to answer. The drawn conclusions confirmed
to the hypothesis of the researcher. While I was reading the paper I was
wandering why they told the participants, as this will influence the results
(the researchers didn’t reflect on this). And now its clear to me that is
better to not say what the aim is. The researchers can’t make generalizations
based on the results as in my opinion the results can’t be seen as valid, as it
could be that the participants answered the questions in favor of the
hypothesis.
During the lecture, Illias Bergstrom, one of the researchers of 'Drumming in immersive virtual reality: The
Body Shapes the Way We Play’ explained the different steps they went
through and the process before the experiment. That for an example the
participants were interviewed (a qualitative method) but that the data was only
used to build the theory, so no conclusions were drawn from the data. As you
can’t do quantitative research with qualitative data.
We also discussed how much time a research consumes, I came to the
understanding that first of all analyzing the data can take a lot of work as
you need to do this very precisely to avoid misinterpretations of the results.
Second of all when a research is sent to a Journal it can take months before
the paper is published, as it needs to go through the peer-to-peer review and
the feedback that you get, needs to be improved before it can be considered for
publishing. And then you also need to hope that your chosen subject fits with
the topic of that month’s issue, if it doesn’t you need to wait again.
I also understand the process researchers go through to get results that
are as valid as possible, for an example piloting an experiment as many times
as possible, so that any mistake can be corrected before the actual experiment
and that it is important to know in advance what kind of analysis you want to
do to.
This week’s theme was very helpful and the information is good to know regardless
of if you want to become a researcher or not.
Hi! I really enjoyed reading your reflection. It interesting that you arise respondent's bias as an issue. I was thinking about it as well as people have natural desire to provide socially acceptable answers, even if they are not true. I believe it's highly unavoidable issue, however, I think this sometimes might be a researchers fault. Researcher should take a detailed look at the questionnaire and test it before the real experiment. I think that's why usually scientists do pilot experiments and so on. Moreover, I also agree that theme was really useful and evoking to think critically. Thanks for your thoughts!
ReplyDeleteHi! My key take away from your post is that you've understood that research is extremely time consuming. A great insight, to say the least. Beyond just investing time in their own research, researchers have to go through so many steps in order to finalize and publish their contributions to the academia. The process of validating the results are, just like you write, a big part of this! And probably one of the most important aspects of the research process, too.
ReplyDeleteYour post made me wonder - how much of my time at university has been spent trying to ensure that what I write or do is valid? Food for thought.
I really enjoyed reading your reflection, and I agree with you that it's important to think critically, that research is very time consuming, and that this theme was very informative. When doing research, the researcher has to put in a lot of time and investment, and just like you write, making sure the results are valid is a big part of it. I feel like you've got a good understanding of this theme, great job!
ReplyDeleteWhat you question about bias is important because there may be "socially acceptable" answers, but also unexpected hidden bias that researchers did not foresee.
ReplyDeleteTime consumption of research is a topic that can later be expanded on, but peer review in particular I also reacted on. The length of peer review time conflicts with the turbulence of technology. This might risk that quality-checked and maybe fully valid research never even gets seen as people browsing might only include more recent research. This is something that needs to be addressed and the process itself perhaps needs to be peer reviewed.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI think you're right about it being unnecessary - or sometimes even damaging for the study - to explain the aim for the participants, especially in quantitative research. However, I think qualitative research can sometimes benefit from having participants that are aware of the study's purpose, in order to focus on the right things during a study. I think it is not always obvious whether it's beneficial to let participants know the aim or not, as it will take more effort and structure in order to "lead on" the participants in the right direction, which in the end also can result in biased data, although the researcher's goal was only to highlight the important topics.
It's a complicated matter and I believe different cases need different measures.
Thanks for a reflection that shows your insights! You mention a lot of different interesting aspects for this week’s theme. The part where you write about the researcher expressing the aim of the study or not, is really strong! I also understood that the Djembe drum is attached to a certain culture – but I still wish that the authors had emphasised that relation in more precise manner in the research paper. I would like add something to the paragraph were you write about how time consuming research is. I was really surprised by the time and effort spent on building the virtual space. This is something I did not encounter for when just reading the article. Overall, a really nice reflection!
ReplyDeleteAllo,
ReplyDeleteI dont think this is a generalisation that needs to be made the fact that we can't tell them what the aim of the study. Lying or not saying anything to the participants might not be a good thing for every research. I think it depends on what we study and what we aim to.
Even though the time to get your paper approved after month may be considered as a bad thing as a researcher because you wait for it, but I think it needs that time so only the proper paper can be approved. On an other blog, someone said that a co student of his had wrong data, wrong information about the study he did. Therefore having a last control, allows to have only the approved and verified content into the papers and as a paper reader you will find this way more professional to know that every paper are approved.
Thank you for your reflection