Theme 6: Qualitative and case study research - postreflection

This week we were asked to find a paper that wrote about a qualitative method. We were also asked to find a paper that used a case study.  Since I found one paper that fulfilled both of these requirements, I chose just that one. Just as the last few weeks, I feel frustration over the fact that we do not get any guidance about how to find good papers. I really think that this course should include guidance on how to find a good paper that is related to the subject that you are looking for. Especially since it is usually easy to find pro’s and con’s for different qualitative/quantitative methods, but so much harder to find information about how to find good papers online.

Despite the fact that we do not get any good information about how to find the papers, I think that it is good to read a lot of different papers. It is especially good to be critical when reading the papers, and that we have to find parts that could have been done another way. This is since it is always parts that could have been done differently, and therefore maybe affected the results of the study. In some papers, I consider that it is more difficult to find the “flaws”, but in the end it is always something that could have been done different.

When discussing during the seminar, I got the impression that a lot of the papers used interview as the qualitative method. In general, this seems to be one of the most common one. During the seminar we also talked a bit about how different ways of conducting the interview might have an effect on the result. Some authors who did interview chose to do them differently, so they conducted one interview face-to-face while another one was conducted on skype and a third one was conducted on the phone. It was therefore harder to see if the difference in the answers were because of the different ways of the interviews or if it were because of something else. We also talked a bit about how to do when interviewing children, since it is a lot different than interviewing an adult. The most important I think is to, before the interview, really think through who are the person that you are going to interview, and how should you act. I think one of the biggest challenges with interview is that you can not do exactly the same way on every interview because every person you interview is different from the rest.   

Theme 6: Qualitative and case study research

I read the paper “Who’s Watching Whom? A Study of Interactive Technology and Surveillance” written by Lee Humphreys. The study “explores how people think about privacy issues and personal information when using new interactive technologies”

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

The qualitative method used in this study is in-depth interviews. One benefit with using interview as the qualitative method is that it is easier to ask follow-up questions and gain a deeper understanding. The method usually provides more complete feedback than qualitative methods.

There are limitations as well with this method. One being that analyzing the data is much more time consuming. Another being that the person making the interview might influence the answer of the participant.

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

Since I am right now taking a course where we actually are having a project were we are conducting a qualitative observations I did not get any new knowledge from this paper. The method that the author is using is very common and therefore I am familiar with the procedure.

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

I consider that one of the main methodological problems in the study is the way that the author chose to conduct the interview. He has conducted interviews in different ways. Some he conducted face-to-face whiles some were conducted via telephone or internet. This may have influenced the result and I consider that it would have been better if the author have tried to conduct all interviews in a similar way.

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

In case studies, as the name implies, a certain case is examined. This research method aims to obtain a deeper understanding by using empirical data. You want to get deeper knowledge and understanding of a specific situation. The studied case can be different things, for example a group of people or an incident. It is of importance not to confuse qualitative research, even thou this can be used in a case study. The case study can be investigating, explanatory or descriptive.

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.

Since Humphreys in the paper “Who’s Watching Whom? A Study of Interactive Technology and Surveillance” also had conducted a case study, I chose that paper for both of the assignments. Humphreys has chose to investigate how people are thinking about privacy issues and personal information when using new interactive technologies. The research question is clearly defined but when reading the paper it appears to me that Humphreys does not agree when a lot of the participants do not consider the privacy issue as an actually issue. This problem might be because Humphreys consider the privacy issue to be something else than the participants, and even if he tried to define “privacy issue” in a good way, he failed. Or it might just be that the participants do not agree with him.

Another weakness was that Humphreys was not able to follow all the participants when using the service that he was evaluated. He only followed some and saw how they used the service. This resulted in that he had a different amount of information from different participants and how they use the service.

Even thou I think that he should have conducted all the interview in a similar way, it appears as if he got a lot of information that he has presented in a good way.  

Unfortunately I could not go to both of the lectures, I could just attend to the one that Haibo held.

I do not consider that Habio talked exclusively about design research, which was the theme for this week. I actually do not consider that he actually talked much about research at all. Instead he spent a lot of time talking about how to define a problem and what is a problem. For example he mentioned that it is more important to spend a lot of the time on defining the problem rather than solve it (he called this the Habio theory). According to the Haibo theory, 90% of the time should be spent on defining the problem and 10% should be spent trying to solve it.

During the lecture he also mentioned that it is important to be realistic when talking about problems and solutions. He also told a story about if a professor and a student met a bear, the student did not have to be able to outrun the bear. The student just had to be able to outrun the professor to survive. I think that what Haibo tried to say with this story is that the same problem has different solutions depending on who is looking at it.

This weeks lecture and literature did not give me much new knowledge. But instead it was a reminder that is it important to have a well defined problem. Usually it is harder to find a very well formulated problem, than to actually solve it. Therefore it was good that Haibo mentioned this again. Also it is important to remember that not everybody that works with the problem do have the same background, and depending of whom you talk to, the solution might be different. This is something that also was mentioned during the weeks when Dalhberg held the seminars. That this topic is mentioned over and over again shows the importance of have it in mind. But personally I think that it would have been interesting if the person holding the lecture did mention new topics.

The paper Comics, Robots, Fashion and Programming: outlining the concept of actDresses, is written by Ylva Fernaeus and Mattias Jacobsson. The paper concerns the “design of physical languages for controlling and programming robotic consumer products”.
 
Today, it is no longer clear the areas for where it is possible to use programming and different areas are also merging together. It is no longer given that programming need to be done on a screen since there are more areas where it is possible to use it. But one additional work that Fernaeus och Jacobsson is saying is necessary is to “explore how to create visually effective and easily understandable ways to represent physical program actions”. Therefore, they are exploring the possibility of using design and comics together in physical language design.
 
Both clothes and comics are extensively used and understood in popular culture. The authors is inspired by these two sign systems and by combining them the authors want to explore how it can control the behavior of physical interactive devices. But it is also pointed out that signs “become signs only when they are loaded with meanings that make them stand for something other than themselves”. Hence, it is important to have the consumer and their background in mind when designing this, or any other kind, of system.
 
The study that Fernaeus och Jacobsson do is interesting and it is without a doubt a area where a lot is  going on right now. The experimenting with merging different fields together (like merging comics, fashion and programming) for making new products that are more personalized for the costumer I believe will be bigger and bigger. 

What different areas could we, as soon-to-be-engineers, see are merged together in the future?
 
How can media technologies be evaluated?
Obviously there is not one answer to this question. Since, within media technology, there is a lot of different technologies and these can be evaluated in many different ways. Depending on the system, I think that observation or user tests may be a good way to evaluate. During these different kinds of evaluations, it can become very clear to the developer what the weaknesses are.  

What role will prototypes play in research?
Already nowadays I would say that prototypes have an important role in many researches. Since systems a lot of the time acts different from what was expected and assumed, it is relevant to examine how it actually work in real life. Prototypes are also a good way to discover unexpected errors and become aware of aspects that was not considered before.
I can not see any reasons why the importance of prototypes would change. I would rather say that in the future it might even be more important to do prototypes. Since the technology gets more and more complex and are implemented in different areas, it is important to know that it will actually work before doing it. Even if prototyping can be expensive, it is usually more expensive to implement a system that does not work.

What are characteristics and limitations of prototypes?
A prototype is built to demonstrate or try what the final product is supposed to do. I would say that I prototype is a simplified version of the final product, or some of the features of the final product. But since it is not the final product, it has limitations. If the goal is to test one feature of the product, the limitation could be that it is hard to see how this feature actually would work with the rest of the product. For example, I was once asked to test a device for controlling the computer by eye tracking. But since I could only scroll up and down, and were not able to click on any links, it was hard for me to say what the major problem was since I did not try it during normal circumstances.

Theme 4: Quantitative research - post reflections

This week both the preparations and seminars have been interesting. Just as last week we were asked to find a paper on our own that we found interesting and that were relevant to media technology. According to me this is a good approach for the reason that every person has the opportunity to find a paper they have interest in reading.

One thing that I though about a lot this week is concerning the subject. We were not asked to find a paper that considered a specific topic but instead we were asked to find a method that was used in the paper. I found this a bit frustrating that we were left with only these instructions. I am not questioning the fact that we should be able to search for papers and information ourselves, because we should be able to do that. But to my knowledge it is very rare that in research you only search for papers using a certain method rather than searching for paper that it relevant to the subject which you are writing about. But even if I am mistaken, I do think that we should have gotten some more information on good ways to do it, or things that can be good to considerate when doing it. This is because we are after all actually taking this class to learn this, not because we know this.

During the first seminar we were, just as last week, divided into smaller groups and asked to first present our paper to the other persons in the small group and then chose one. It is interesting to hear what other articles people read. In the smaller groups we were also asked to do “flow charts” of the paper that we chose. I believe this method can be useful, for example during a presentation to make it visual and clear what the paper is about.

The second seminar was the most interesting of the two this week. I appreciated that Olle chose to use a different approach at the seminar than usual. I got the impression that it was easier for everyone to participate in the discussion. It also created a good opportunity to discuss different topics, which of course is the point with seminars. But during some seminars it is hard to maintain a good, and relevant, discussion. During this seminar I did not feel that this was a problem. Some points that were made during the discussion gave me new insights concerning qualitative vs. quantitative studies and I believe that this knowledge will help we in the future.

Theme 4: Quantitative research

That’s Not the Way It Is: How User-Generated Comments on the News Affect Perceived Media Bias

I chose the paper “That’s Not the Way It Is: How User-Generated Comments on the News Affect Perceived Media Bias” written by Eun-Ju Lee. In the paper, the author examines how comment made by other readers can affect one readers’ perceptions and their hostile media perception (HMP). Other researchers have found that user-generated comments do not only alter other readers’ perceptions but also their own opinion about the new issue.

As a quantitative method, Lee uses a web-based experiment with a total of 240 participants. An online survey company in South Korea recruited the participants. In the experiment, the participants were instructed to do the test in the environment and at the place that they felt the most comfortable. They then had to answer a set of question, in order for Lee to measure, among other things, their ego-involvement and their position on the issue. After that, an article was shown to them. Among with the article the participants were also shown comments. These comments both were and were not consistent with the opinion of the participant. To make the article as natural as possible, Lee chose to have an equal amount of arguments on each side of the issue. After reading the article and comments, the participants were asked to answer how well they agreed with a statement. Based on this, Lee could make conclusions that are presented in the paper, but I will not focus on them in this blog-post.

I will focus on the method that Lee chose to use. Since this is a study where a high number of participants are of importance to be able to make a relevant statistics and conclusions, an online experiment (as he refers to it in his text) is a good option. Lee chose to let a company find the participants for the survey. This method of finding participants have both pro’s and con’s. Since there was not much information about the company it is hard to say how they chose the participants for the survey. As always when people are involved in studies, the way of recruiting people might have an influence on the results.

By letting the people doing the experiment in an environment where they feel comfortable, it is more likely that the participants react as they normally would have. If the researcher choose to do the test in an environment that the participant is not use to, there is a big risk that it affects the result.

Testing the hypotheses on real people can be the most effective way to be proven right or wrong. It is a sufficient number of participants in the study to be able to make conclusions. But as I will mention later in this blog-post, quantitative studies generally provide the researcher with superficial information. In most cases it does not answer they question “why”.

Physical activity, stress, and self-reported upper respiratory tract infection.

Reading Olle Bälters text, I did learn about URTI system and what impact that different variables might have. But in this text I will focus more on the method that was used to collect data. I consider the key points in the text to be that: 

• It is important to to find more participants than actually are need for the study. Looking at figure 1 it is easy to see why this is. Of the 5000 that were offered to participate, 3195 did not even answer. 
• To be able to do more certain conclusions, it is important to have a large number or participants 
• Make sure to do the questioner accessible to as many as possible. In this study they chose to have a questioner online, that did not require that the participants downloaded any software nor install something on their computer.

Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative methods?

Quantitative methods, as the name implies, is to collect a big number of data. One benefits of this method it that it gives a lot of information regarding values and statistics.  One limitation of this method is that it usually only provides superficial answer and does consider the human perception.

Which are the benefits and limitations of using qualitative methods?

The method has the benefit that is usually provides a beeper understanding. It usually focuses on a sample of the population. A limitation is that assumptions cannot be made for the whole populations, since it is as a rule a smaller number of participants in this method.

For some studies, using both methods are advantageous

Theme 3: Research and theory: post-reflections

This week I got valuable knowledge that I will be able to use when doing research for my master thesis. The pervious weeks I have been having a hard time to find a relevant connection between the things we read and the goals for the course. This week we were not only asked to, on our own, find a paper to read but we were also asked to provide a critical exam. Even thou I during the kexjobb had to do research and find literature for my own, I know that I have gotten new knowledge during this week.

Unfortunately I could only participate in the first seminar. During that seminar we discussed the different papers (and journals) that some of us had chosen. I consider it to be good to always be a critical when reading an article and always questioning what could have been done differently. But this is also hard to remember whiles reading and processing the information. According to me, it shows that everyday life, people are forgetting this. Considering how big news some becomes and also the fact that the news sometimes shows to be wrong. This could maybe been easy to realize if people were more questioning when reading articles or getting the fact presented to them. On the other hand, it is hard to questioning and check the fact for all the news and information that you receive in one day. Even thou it is hard to always remember this in everyday life, I do find it of greater importance to remember whiles doing, for example the master thesis.

I found the discussions during the seminar interesting. It is always good to hear other people thoughts. That way it is possible to see what aspects I did not considerate and remember that till the future.

Theme 3: Research and theory

I read the paper “Undermining the Corrective Effects of Media-Based Political Fact Checking? The Role of Contextual Cues and Naïve Theory” It is written by R. Kelly Garrett, Erik C. Nisbet, & Emily K. Lynch.

The authors address the problem that political misperceptions are common and they are also resilient. It does not take a lot for misperceptions to occur, and even beliefs that are weakly grounded tend to persevere. Not only is the written fact important, contextual information such as photos or biographical profiles are of importance when conveying a message. The image processing is fast and unreflective and can have a strong influence on impressions.

Another aspect when receiving information is the opinion that the recipient had from before. ”The more objectionable the recipient finds the ideas activated by the contextual content, the stronger his or her resistance to the correction.”

Since people usually do not have time to thoroughly watch the news and search for facts they constantly monitoring the information environment for patterns, and developing their own ”naive theories”. Naive theories are generally form by top-of-the-head considerations.

This paper ” […] extends research on debiasing and the continued influence of misinformation into the domain of political fact checking, examining how the content of a fact-checking message can influence recipients’ willingness to accept the correction”. The authors decide to examen the debate about building of a mosque near the site of the 9/11 attack. More precisely, they chose an Imam, Abdul Rauf, who was known for a widespread believes that he refused to condemn terrorism. He actually had express that the terrorist attack, though unjustifiable, had been partly motivated by the harmful U.S. policies in the Middle East. The participants in the study were presented with different facts about the Imam, both true and false. Different pictures were also presented to the participants, showing the Imam dressed in a suit and also showing the Imam dressed in traditional Muslim clothes. The participants answered questions about their perception about the Imam based the information given to them.

I do find this paper very interesting and it also addresses some important problems. One thing that I would like to question is the subject that the authors choose to use in their study. They choose to use a subject that the majority, not to say everybody, in the State has an opinion about, namely the site of 9/11, the mosque and Muslims. Reading the text I do wonder how this might affect the result of the study. It could be a benefit choosing a subject that are widely know, but it might cause a drawback as well. The drawback being that people already are familiar with the subject and have a strong opinion about it. Not anywhere in the paper I could find the authors discussing this or how this might have affected the study that they conducted.

Briefly explain to a first year student what theory is, and what theory is not.

With theory, we try to construct an explanation to what happens around us. It is a mental tool that we use to try to connect experiences and predictions. It is based on the questions how and why and with theory we also try to answer this questions. Theory may be used in more complex contexts, like science, but also in an everyday environment.

What theory is not might be an easier question to answer. It is not a collection of data, references, variables, diagrams and hypotheses. But these five variables can be used as a support for a theory.

Describe the major theory or theories that are used in your selected paper. Which theory type (see Table 2 in Gregor) can the theory or theories be characterized as?

 The major theory that the authors present is that people are influenced by the way that information is presented to them. They also have a theory that once you have a perception about a subject, it might be difficult to change this, even thou different kind of facts are presented to you. The paper had well formulated theories how were tested. The authors carefully examined their assumptions and sought support in earlier studies. Therefore I would say that they theory type is Explanation and prediction (EP).

Which are the benefits and limitations of using the selected theory or theories?

The benefit of the theory type that is used is that it provides a solid foundation. Not only do they discuss the different theories but they also make predictions and they test it to prove if they are right or wrong. A limitation is that when you have an idea or theory how things work it might be hard to change the perception that you already have. This is one of the problems the authors are addressed it the text.

Theme 2: Critical media studies - post reflections

The text this week was hard to get trough for different reasons. Honestly I did not find the text or theme very interesting. And, just like I mentioned in the text I wrote before the seminar, I got a feeling that the authors are old and because of that they are set in their ways and are having a hard time thinking outside their own box.  

The authors talked about terms like enlightenment and mass media. I do find that some of the terms that Adorno and Horkheimer are discussing does have the potential to be interesting but the authors are not at all able to present it in a way that catch my attention.

The seminar did not contribute to a lot in the sense that it did not give me a deeper understanding about the text nor what the authors tried to communicate. But there were a couple of interesting toppings that came up. 

For example we did discus art, and what is art. And who are to say if it's art or not. It is up to the viewers to say if it is art or not? Or should it be decided by the law? These are difficult questions and we could not agree on one answer. My personal opinion is that it should not be the law that decides everything but there has to be a limit when it is not possible to blame what you did on art. But to make the decision on where to draw the line is hard, take for example the line between art and vandalism. On one hand I would say that it should be illegal to cause damage on other person’s property, for example spray paint a train. But on the other hand, that would mean that graffiti should be illegal, and in many places, graffiti is a big part of the culture in the city. I do think it is important to acknowledge that art has a very wide spectra and the street art are just as much art as Mona Lisa, even thou it is not as famous. But now I have decided what art is, and who am I to do that? 

The question about art also got us talking about if it is our assignment, as media technology students, to decide and define what it actually is. Nor in this question we were able to agree of one answer. Personally I think that the question is to complex for us to decide this. And I am not even sure that I think that someone should be able to decide and tell the rest of the world what art is and not. Because, in the end, I do think that art is something very subjective.

In the beginning of the seminar we were discussing the text in smaller group. One of the topics that we talked about then was the fact that it is easy to see that the book is not written today and that is also in some ways are very out of date. The authors are very critical of the fact that they think that the media, when they wrote the book, is a one-way communication. The audience has no opportunity to respond to what the media is saying. I do find that times have changed and even if TV is bigger today than ever there is still one media that exist only because of two way communication, namely social media.

To sum it all up: the seminar contributed with some interesting discussions but I do believe that it could have been even better if another text would have been chosen for us to read.

Theme 2: Critical media studies

What is Enlightenment?

Enlightenment is when what we believe in is not base on fear or myths but on knowledge. Adorno And Horkheimer write “Enlightenment, understood in the widest sense as the advance of thought, has always aimed at liberating human beings from fear and installing them as masters”. By being able to understand and explain thing that happens, people can conquer their fear and superstition. Adorno and Horkheimer also writes “For enlightenment, anything which does not conform to the standard of calculability and utility must be viewed with superstition”. Hence, it is important that, for example, statements are based on knowledge, not believes.

What is the meaning and function of “myth” in Adorno and Horkheimer’s argument?

As it is possible to read in Adorno and Horkheimer’s text, they state that false clarity is another name for myth. The function of the myth was to try to explain, record and narrate the things that happened.

What are the “old” and “new” media that are discussed in the Dialectic of Enlightenment?

When reading the text, I found it that Adorno and Horkheimer did not talk a lot about the object of media, like magazines, tv or radio, and named them old or new media even thou they mentioned some quickly, like radio, cinema and magazines. But what they rather discussed what was and is produced and how this has changed. They write “Cartoon and stunt films were once exponents of fantasy against rationalism.”. Today they mean that for example, the movies have no deeper level and there are no requirements that the consumer of media needs to think. The “new” media is mass-produced to suite the big group of consumers.  

What is meant by “culture industry”?

With culture industry, Adorno and Horkheimer try to describe the way that the culture is today. They mean that all the medias and the culture is more or less the same. It is produced in a standardized form. They mean that with this standardized form, the bigger part of society is manipulated into passivity.

What is the relationship between mass media and “mass deception”, according to Adorno and Horkheimer?
I felt that Adorno and Horkheimer in the text had a very negative attitude against mass media. According to me, they mean the media that is produced today in some ways make the people stupid and we, as consumers, are tricked to believe that we want, for example, to watch certain programs. They write, “Today, that belief has itself been intellectualized, becoming so refined as to lose sight of all actual goals and to consist only in a golden shimmer projected beyond the real.”

Please identify one or two concepts/terms that you find particularly interesting. Motivate your choice.
I find the concept culture industry and mass media interesting. For me, the terms are a bit complex and to really understand them, I think that I would need to spend more time reading about them. But I found it interesting that Adorno and Horkheimer are so critical and negative to the media that is produced today. I can agree that some programs on the TV is more that bad and I do not find any point in watching them but at the same time I do get a feeling that Adorno and Horkheimer are just two old men, sitting behind their desk saying “it was better when I were young” instead of finding the good things that actually is produced.

Theme 1: Research publications/Theory of science - post reflection

I found the text that we were supposed to read for last week’s seminar interesting but also maybe a bit “out there”. The text addressed a lot of topics that is a lot more abstract than the topics that we usually study. With abstract I mean for example when Russell was writing about the table, and that it could be discussed if there even were one real table. For me, this is closer to philosophy rather than science, even if it is a part of science to identify and make clear what an object is. Of course, it is a fine line between these two subjects and sometimes it might even be hard to tell them apart. I can definitely see how to apply some of the topic that Russell mentioned in the subject science, since in science it is really important to clarify what is the object that is being observed/talk about/investigated. In that way, it is important to have in mind what Russell talked about that some things we know because of our experience. So if you talk to a person that does not have the same experience as yourself, it can sometimes cause a lot of complications.

A good aspect with reading this text is that I think that it is good to practice to read more abstract texts and also practicing to understand what the author is trying to say with a text that are more abstract. The text definitely had some aspects and thoughts that I found interesting. One of these was when Russell talked about was truth is and that the truth can be different for different people, depending on a lot of different reasons.  For me, that is something that is important for us as soon-to-be-engineers to remember when we start to work.

Some of the questions that Leif wanted us to answer were easier to find the answer to. But some of the questions were harder, and for some questions there were no direct answer, instead you had to make your own conclusions from what you had read. This was possible to see in the blog posts that we wrote. Looking trough different blogs, I realize that different people had sometimes found different answers to Leif’s questions. But since is sometimes did not exist one simple answer so I find it to be expected that people will answer the same question in different ways. I think that this would also have made the seminar more interesting than if everybody shared the same opinion, because then it would not have been so much of a discussion. Of course, I do not know whether this is true or not since the seminar got canceled. But in my experience discussions are usually more interesting if the participant do not share the same opinion.

So what do I feel is the most important knowledge that I got from the text and this week? First of all, it is the practice to read more abstract text. Second of all, the conclusion that sometimes there is not one truth for all, and it is important to realize that when meeting new people.  

Theme 1: Research publications/Theory of science

1) What does Russell mean by "sense data" and why does he introduce this notion?
When people look at a table most of them would say the same thing about the appearance, like the color, the shape or the hardness. But if the people have to describe the table more specific it can cause problems. For example the color, since different parts can reflect the light differently and depending on where you stand the table appears to be different colors. Another example is if you look at the table in a microscope, then you will se different things than you see with your naked eye, which description of it is the true one? Thinking like this, you realize that the real table, if there is one, is not that one that we first saw/heard/felt. This raises two questions, 1 is there really a table? 2 if so, what type of object can it be? To make this more clear, Russell introduce different terms, and one of these is “sense-data”. The sense-data is the data directly know by sensations, like color, smell, hardness, sound and so on.

2) What is the meaning of the terms "proposition" and "statement of fact"? How does propositions and statement of facts differ from other kinds of verbal expressions?
A proposition is one way to explain the reality of an object or situation, but it’s based on your own believes of said reality.  
A statement of fact is also a way to explain the reality of an object or a situation but what distinguishes this from a proposition is that when it is a statement of fact, it is important to be able to prove that the statement in fact is true. Usually when it is a statement of fact a larger group of people have agreed on the same think. But what the truth is may be different for different people which means that a statement of fact not is the same thing as the absolute truth, if there even is such a thing.

3) In chapter 5 ("Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description") Russell introduces the notion "definite description". What does this notion mean?
There are different ways of describing objects. One way of describing a pillow would be to say “a white pillow” but since there are a lot of white pillows in the world, the person that receives the descriptions would probably not understand which white pillow. But if the pillow were described as “the pillow with the pink skull and the coffee stain” the person that receives the description would understand which pillow. The description that allows us to understand which object that is being described is called a ‘definite description’. It is only one object that has the described properties. The described object is know to us through ‘knowledge by description’ not by acquainted.

4)In chapter 13 ("Knowledge, Error and Probable Opinion") and in chapter 14 ("The Limits of Philosophical Knowledge") Russell attacks traditional problems in theory of knowledge (epistemology). What are the main points in Russell's presentation?

In these chapters Russell discuss some of the problems about knowledge. According to me Russell claims that there is two main problems; what is knowledge and what is the truth? Russell argues about what knowledge actually is, and that just because something you though were going to happen happened does not mean that you had knowledge about it. He also argues that knowledge can be based on sense-data. For example if a newspaper write that the king is dead, it is assumed that you know how to read and therefore can understand the news.

Knowledge is based on fact, and as earlier mentioned a fact that is true to one person can be false to another person. This raises the question; what is the truth? Russell argues that there are many different truths and it is not sure that there is one absolute truth. He argues that there are many different truths and there is various factors to consider in order to make a decision.