Rosan,
It seems to me, on reading your points below, that you're still tacking back and forth finding the one question you really want to answer. Because it doesn't feel settled, it's a bit premature to start designing the research steps. But this is 100% normal and expected. So I suggest the conversation (here and now) be about refining your question so A) you can pursue what genuinely interests you and B) do so in a fashion that produces satisfying results for all involved (you, the readers of your work, etc).
So: As below.
This e-mail includes proprietary and confidential information belonging to The Policy Lab, Ltd. All rights reserved.
On Feb 8, 2012, at 4:14 PM, Birger Sevaldson wrote:
> First, I ask myself whether answering the question will help me. Ultimately, I am interested in finding out what has made iPod, iPhone and iPad so successful on the market or more specifically, are their designs a success factor.
"Are their designs a success factor." That's starting to become a researchable question. And your use of the word "factor" is a good one because you're not asking if they are a determinant of success, but rather a factor. But we're still not there because the thesis would be, "the designs are a success factor", and the antithesis would be "the designs are not a success factor." I'm not versed in this literature, but I sort of suspect no one is out there suggesting strongly that the designs were utterly irrelevant top Apple's success with these products.
So it isn't so much whether the designs were a success factor, but rather A) in what ways, or B) to what extent.
If you choose one of these (and you start from the stated assumption that the designs were likely a success factor, which would probably find few detractors), then you can start to make some headway of which of these is more interesting (to you) to pursue.
> Now, I have learned that I could not trust the accounts or explanations out there because they seem untrustworthy.
I'm in no position to judge.
> Incidentally, some anti-trust lawyers have probably been working hard to prove that iPod/iTune achieve market dominance not by Apple making superior product but by violating anti-competition regulations.
The funny thing about that counter-claim is that it doesn't actually matter in answering your question. To wit, if Apple and their alleged evil ways achieved market dominance through malice and illegal conduct, would that necessarily negate the notion that their designs were influential in achieving success? I don't think so. At best you could conclude that the extent (second question, as above) of Apple's success through good design is unknowable (because there was in fact no competition) or else was far less likely to be a success factor.
But now we're looking at "multiple factors" and hence a "multi-factor analysis." Perhaps one could compare the extent to which design matters COMPARED TO the extent to which clever/malicious legal practices mattered. That's achievable, though tricky.
> Will the decision of the court have any impact on answering the question?
Not if my argument above holds water. There may be other views…
>
> Can I study whether Apple designs are a success factor without proving that other accounts on success are untrustworthy, although I see great values in making the case?
You basically have two options. The nominal argument (designs were a factor vs. designs were not a factor) or you have an issue of measurement (not whether, but to what extent.). The second is more interesting, because surely we want to get some sense of the power and value of good design to Apple's success. So the FUNDAMENTAL question is HOW to measure that? And that's a research design question.
>
> Second, even if I were to prove and argue that other accounts are untrustworthy, given my ultimate interest, I wonder if I need to show a general tendency, or whether it is sufficient to point out some examples of invalidity to make the point?
Not sure what you mean.
>
> Third, perhaps you notice that I am very pragmatic about specifying the research question: I am not interested in establishing facts and truth per se, but doing that to achieve my goal. Do you find this attitude too limiting?
This is the only sentence you've written that confuses me. How can you be pragmatic about answering a question WITHOUT establishing facts or the truth? That's like saying you just want to catch the murderer but not solve the crime. And this is what I meant by that comment you and Birger both commented on.
It's your question. You need to decide what constitutes an answer that you will be professionally and logically and morally satisfied with. And ultimately, you simply MUST align the claims you make about the world with some quality of argument to support that claim. If you don't, its' irresponsible. This is what the whole "burden of responsibility" is about.
But I'm with you on this: What is the most straightforward, logical, and parsimonious way to getting to a good answer? That would be a killer research design.
|