Theme 4: Quantitative research (Pre)

I chose the paper Students’ Perceptions of E-Mail Interaction During Student-Professor Advising Sessions: The Pursuit of Interpersonal Goals, which was published in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. The aim of this study was to assess if students prefer e-mail over face-to-face (FtF) communication for interpersonal communication with faculty advisors.  A questionnaire was sent to 300 students at a university in the northeastern United States, asking them to answer questions about how often they use email, if they prefer email over FtF, their perception of self-presentation in emails, etc. It is clear that this is a quantitative method, since there are no in depth interviews and the questionnaire is sent out to a relatively large group. 

I learned how quantitative methods could be used to not only to answer the main research question, but also to evaluate differences between sub-groups of the sample. I think one weakness in the use of the quantitative method is that the sample group might be a little too small to conduct sub-group analysis on. Even though there were 300 respondents in total, the number of African American males (which was analyzed as a sub-group) was much smaller. In order to get statistically reliable results the size of the subgroups (and therefore also the total number of respondents) might have to be increased.

The paper Physical Activity, Stress, and Self-Reported Upper Respiratory Tract Infection evaluates how the incidence of upper respiratory tract infection (cold/influenza) is related to the subjects’ level of physical activity. Data was collected from 1509 Swedish males and females in the age 20-60 years old. The results suggest that there is a strong negative correlation between the occurrence of URTI and the level of physical activity. People who report high levels of physical activity in their everyday lives have an 18 percent reduced risk of URTI compared to people with low levels of physical activity. Even though this paper is far outside the area of media technology I found it somewhat interesting to read. I like to see how “real” scientific papers are constructed in terms of methods, language, presentation of results etc. Also, something that I found interesting is that one of the authors, Mats Lekander, did the statistical analysis for my dad’s PhD thesis. I have also worked with him a couple of times at the Karolinska University Hospital in Solna.

A good example of a quantitative method would be the “partiundersökningar” / election polls that are held each month in Sweden. In these polls there are usually a thousand or two thousand people that are being asked which party they would vote for if the elections would be held today.  I think that the main benefit of a quantitative method is that it helps you to get a broad overview of a subject. If a sample group of people is a representative for the society in general, the results could be extrapolated and applied to much bigger groups (perhaps Stockholm or Sweden). Downsides of this method are you often get very “raw data” or numbers from the results. A study with thousands of people has to be constructed in a very general way so that the results can be statistically analyzed. Therefore you might miss out in important information or subtitle opinions of people. Going back to the election polls, we see that a quantitative survey will produce a statistically reliable data of which party people would vote for, but it would not explain why people vote as they do or how they perceive the different parties.

Qualitative methods on the other hand are perfect for in depth knowledge and personal interviews with subjects. Aging using the election polls as an example, a qualitative study could be personal interviews that are made after the quantitative study to collect more in depth data. Benefits of these methods are that you get a deeper understanding, and interview subjects could provide you with valuable “plain text” answers instead of just raw data. The interview does not have to follow a strict script, and the direction of the interview could be changed in real time with for instance follow up questions. Limitations of qualitative studies are that small groups of people might not yield statistically significant / reliable results. Also, it is very hard and takes a lot of time to present the finding of in depth qualitative interviews in a good visual way. 

Theme 3: Research and theory (Post)

Last week we were supposed to find research journals and research articles to read. I looked at the earlier year’s articles and found a very interesting article about how social networking sites (SNS) affect the users’ reported sense of loneliness and number of acquaintances.

During this week I attended both the seminars, in which I got the opportunity to discuss my article and have a look at what the others had read. During the first seminar my small group had some good discussions, and we all thought my article was quite interesting so we decided that we should present my article to the whole group. When I presented the article it appeared that another person in the group had read the same article. We both had kind of the same view of the article and we discussed if it is reliable to use the method of reported sense of loneliness (as opposed to a standardized/exact measurement). We came to the conclusion that in the case of loneliness (which is very relative and personal), having participants rate themselves is a better method than using a standardized test simply because such a test could be interpreted very differently amongst participants.

In the second seminar we discussed what theory is and what theory is not. Because of a clash in my schedule I could not attend my ordinary seminar group; instead I had to go to group D. We were divided into groups of three and were told to discuss the theories that were used in our research articles. We mainly discussed the theory of social capital, which describes how people gain benefits from social networks. I think one of the main drawbacks of the theory of social capital is that there does not seem to be a consensus about what social capital actually is. We briefly discussed this in the class and it seemed as if there were at least three different views of what constitutes social capital.

Another important conclusion of the seminar was that there is a major difference between theories of natural sciences and theories from social sciences. The former are more “exact” and should stand to be repeatedly tested with the same results as an outcome. Theories of social sciences on the other hand are more “soft”, and they do not have the same requirement of repeatability. Hrastinski told us that it is uncommon for theories of social sciences to be completely rejected; instead they are just slightly updated. I think this suggests that there is a weakness in such theories, because “ad hoc” adjustments does not seem very scientific to me. When we look at theories of natural sciences we see that they are rarely changed or updated. Whenever there is a new, “better” theory, the old theory is rejected and forgotten.

Lastly, we discussed the common meaning of the word theory versus the scientific meaning. This is something that a lot of people get mixed up about, since the common use of the word theory suggests that it is something “unfinished” or a guess. I have heard some people dismiss the theory of evolution simply because “it is just a theory”. However, in science a theory is a explanation (usually widely accepted) that is based on empirical evidence and research studies. At theory should be able to stand to be tested and be falsifiable. Thus, the theory of evolution is as much of a guess as the theory of gravity (which I do not think many people doubt).

I would like to finish off by saying that this week’s seminar was the best so far in this course. However, in retrospect I regret that we did discuss how or if theories are used in the field of mathematics. On the course wiki the definition of a theory reads “Theory is something we construct, it does not exist by itself”. I am not sure if the concept of theories is used in mathematics, but it would be interesting to discuss that during a seminar. I kind of believe that there could be something more to mathematics than just a human construction. Math might not be constructed, instead it might be “discovered”… 

Theme 3: Research and theory (Pre)

I chose the research journal Social Networks - An International Journal of Structural Analysis with a with a current impact factor of 3.381. The 5-Year impact factor is slightly higher with a value of 4.059. This journal is published four times per year and covers areas such as social relations, social structures and other types of groups that could be analyzed in a network form. The editor’s main interests seem to be how social networks arise, how they evolve and what consequences they might have on social behavior. Published papers could vary between abstract (mathematical) works to more concrete (case studies, etc.). In recently published papers authors have analyzed networks such as terrorist groups/drug traders, Italian political parties and Twitter followers.

As a research article I chose Social Networking Sites: Their Users and Social Implications — A Longitudinal Study written by the author Petter Bae Brandtzæg. It was published in 2012 in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, which has a rating of 1.778. This is relevant to media technology research (and social media technologies, a course that I am currently taking) because it evaluates the psychological effects of social networks. I feel that we do not know much about the effects of for instance Facebook, and I think that are going to be a lot of research done on this subject in the future. In short, the study is based on an evaluation of 2 000 Norwegian social networking users in the age 15-75. The results suggest that active social networking site users (abbreviated SNS users by the author) have a higher number of acquaintances than non-users. It also seems as if SNS users do not “replace” real live communication with SNS-communication, instead they do more of both. Something that I found interesting was that the results indicate that males who use SNS heavily are reporting an increased feeling of loneliness, whereas females who are using SNS heavily are feeling less lonely.   

For the critical examination the first thing I am going to look at is the background of the study. The author presents several different studies, each with its own conclusion on the effects of social media. Some studies suggests that SNS have “negative” effects on users, such as less interaction, less physical well-being, less time spent with friends and family, etc. Other studies seems to have found more positive effects, such as higher levels of friendship and trust, higher level of well-being and higher levels of political engagement. To me it seems as if there is no clear consensus on the effects of social media, and maybe the author is a bit to self-confident about his own results.

Secondly, I think the method and/or results could have been done in another way. Brandtzæg chose to categorize the SNS users into five groups: sporadics, lurkers, socializers, debaters and advanced. I think this might be a too simplified view of the reality. Referring to the Performing research article critiques, the data and data categorization might not be a reliable representation of the empirical reality they attempt to capture. I believe that males and females differ quite radically when it comes to SNS use, and that might explain the different results when it comes to loneliness. Advanced male users might be World of Warcraft players, while advanced female users might be bloggers. This could explain some of the differences between the groups in the reported sense of loneliness.

------------------

Elements that are not theory (but sometimes confused as such) are references, data, variables, diagrams and hypotheses. Theory on the other hand could be answers to the question why, connections between phenomenon, explanation or causality of the order of events, etc.

I think the main theory used in my selected paper is the theory of social capital, meaning “the social connections or networks and the attendant norms and trust that enable participants to act together more effectively”. I think this would be a type III theory (prediction), since it to some degree could predict how people behave and how social networks are formed. The author refers to Coleman (1998), suggesting that some social networks and relationships are advantageous to group members. I think this indicates that the theory contains some sort of prediction element.

I am not sure this is a real limitation, but I am feeling somewhat hesitant to use a “social sciences” theory in combination with a more “direct” science such as information technology and social networking sites. Maybe it is a good combination, but I am feeling that computers are in a way “more scientific” than social sciences. But since ordinary people use computers and SNS, maybe it is a really good combination after all…  

Theme 2: Critical media studies (Post)

One of the first things I realized when I started reading this week’s text was how much easier it was to understand it compared to last week’s readings. It could be because I am slightly more interested in this subject but I also think that the style of writing by Adorno and Horkheimer helps a lot. I did not have read any summary of the text as opposed to last week.

Anyway, yesterday we had our first seminar in this course. I was not able to attend the lecture so the seminar was extra important to me. I think the seminar was quite interesting and we had some good discussions going on. The main point that I expressed during the seminar was that I think the authors have a very negative view on the culture industry and new media in general. The way I see it this is kind of a simpleminded view, and it seems as if Adorno and Horkheimer chose to overlook some of the real benefits of the culture industry, or any industry in general for that matter.

When field become “industrialized”, money starts flowing in and allows for more complex/better products to be created. Something that is important to notice it that industrialization only makes it possible for higher quality/more immersive products to be created. It is by mo means a guarantee that it will actually happen. Anyway, this is seen in for instance the film industry, where films such as Titanic or Avatar would probably not have been able to have been created without an industry supplying time, money and knowledge. Furthermore, it is not uncommon that the culture industry (movies, computer games, etc.) generate or drive the development of products that could also benefit other industries or people in general. Examples of this could be higher quality cameras, faster computers, new programming languages, more efficient manufacturing processes, etc. This view was also supported by some people at the seminar, and when I read the other blogs I see that some people agree that Adorno and Horkheimer might be unnecessarily negative towards the culture industry.

However, as seen in the book and pointer out by some other bloggers, there are some reasons as to why the authors are so negative towards the culture industry. First, it is important to notice that Adorno and Horkheimer emigrated from Germany to the U.S. to escape the Nazi party. Being a part of 1930’s Germany they must have seen how mass media could be used to manipulate and lie to the people. Also, when I read about the authors on Wikipedia I see how they were influenced by the socialist philosopher/author Karl Marx. When you know that it does not come as a surprise that they were hesitant towards capitalism and mass production. 

Theme 2: Critical media studies (Pre)

What is Enlightenment?

According to the authors, the Enlightenment could be seen as the liberation of thought from the superstitious and religious suppression of the dark middle ages. This is important because a world where myths and religion decides what is right and what is wrong does not encourage curiosity, progression or scientific development. The Enlightenment seeks to explain things from a logical point of view as seen by the following quote: “For the enlightenment, anything that cannot be resolved into numbers, and ultimately into one, is illusion”.  

Something that is important to notice is that most people fear what they cannot understand. “The unknown” or the mysterious used to be something that ordinary people should stay away from, or something only to be addressed by priests and powerful religious people. In this sense the Enlightenment could also be seen as a democratic movement, since it seeks to get rid of the fear and replace it with knowledge. With knowledge and truth available in every part of society, power is moved from being held be a few to being held by the people. I believe that this is one of the main reasons why the Enlightenment was discouraged by the church.

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

The way I see it, a myth is the complete opposite of what the Enlightenment stands for. This is seen in a quote from the Preface, stating that: “False clarity is only another name for myth. Myth was always obscure and luminous at once.” A myth tries to give a superstitious explanation to a phenomenon (luminous), but in reality it hides the real truth (obscure). 

I think a good example of a myth would be “Scylla and Charybdis” (from Greek mythology), where these sea monsters in reality are just whirlpools and rocks. Here we clearly see how obscure the myth is, since it hides something so ordinary as a rock or a whirlpool. In this case the function of a myth is quite obvious. As stated in the previous question most people fear what they cannot understand. A myth is a creation of our imagination that is trying to calm people with a “reasonable” explanation to a mysterious phenomenon.

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

Before answering this question, it is important to know that this book was written in the 1940’s. In some chapters it is very obvious that the authors do not have the same view of old and new media as people have today.

So, from what I understand the authors seem to think that the main driving forces of “old media” are creativity, joy and personal fulfillment. Examples of such media could be paintings, sculptures other “handmade” creations.

New media, on the other hand, have other motifs and incentives. This becomes very clear in the following quote by the authors, stating that “films and radio no longer need to present themselves as art. The truth that they are nothing but business is used as an ideology to legitimize the trash the intentionally produce.” Here we see the main difference between old media and new media; old media is considered to be real art whereas new media is just pure capitalism and business.

What is meant by “culture industry”?

According to Adorno and Horkhemier, the culture industry is something that was created by the liberal industrial countries (most likely referring to the US and the UK). The main components of this industry are cinema, radio, jazz and magazines. It seems as if the authors are not very fond of the “standardized products” of the culture industry, since it could be used to manipulate and centralize power to a few.

What is the relationship between mass media and “mass deception”, according to Adorno and Horkheimer?

Mass deception could be seen as a product or a consequence of mass media. According to the authors most of the mass media is trash, and it is only produced to make money. Since mass media reaches millions of people, it could easily be used to deceive or trick consumers. I think this is very clear in some of today’s commercials, only produced to “fool” or trick consumers into buying a certain company’s products.

Please identify one or two concepts/terms that you find particularly interesting. Motivate your choice.

I have always like the Enlightenment, mainly because it seeks to produce reasonable answers to (sometimes) unreasonable events. I see myself as a person who trusts logic and science, and therefore I think the Enlightenment has been one of the most important events of the past thousand years. I am also impressed by the brilliant minds that were active during this period such as Newton, Voltaire and the Swedish scientist Swedenborg. 

Theme 1: Theory of Science (Post)

As we all know this week’s lecture and seminar was canceled. I know there is nothing to do about it, but I think it would have been very helpful to have a seminar to get a deeper understanding of the text by Russell that we all read. A lot of people in class that I have been talking to had a hard time reading the text. I guess we are not really used to reading philosophical texts and that is why it takes a little longer to grasp the content.

The last time I read a philosophical text was probably five or six years ago, back in high school. I had to read more slowly than what I am used to and I had to repeat certain parts before I was able to really understand them. First, I read the whole thing from beginning to the end without taking any notes. When I was done with that, I used a source called SparkNotes, which is a site that keeps summaries of all kinds of books. It was really helpful to get a short recap of all the basic terms and Russell’s main thoughts. The summary also helped me a lot when I answered the four questions connected to this theme.

I did learn some new things and refreshed a couple of old classic philosophical issues (such as if physical objects really exist or if they are just a product of our imagination). I do find these topics interesting, but I am having a hard time seeing a real connection to my education and this course. Since I am going to write my master’s thesis next semester I really want to learn more about the scientific process and the style in which you need to write. However, it is important to know more about the scientific foundation that all our works should be based on. In some chapters Russell writes about knowledge and how we acquire knowledge, which is closely connected to our studies here at KTH. Russell suggests that we could be “mislead” by reality and derive “false knowledge” (i.e. something that could be true but based on a false assumption). This is something that I will try to keep in mind when I am going to write my master’s thesis and conduct my data collection. Even though I might believe that I have knowledge of something, I always need to have the “doubt” in the back of my mind if it is really based on a true assumption or a correct question. I think this is the most important thing that I can take away from this week’s theme.  

To conclude, I think this theme could be seen as an introduction to science, but I really hope that we get to go more “hands on” on the scientific method. Looking back at my old bachelor’s thesis I really hope that I could produce something much better for my master’s thesis. 

Theme 1: Theory of science (Pre)

1.

A basic definition of the term sense-data would be things that we instantly “know” or “feel” from our senses, such as colors, smells, sounds, the texture of a material, etc. There are several reasons as to why Russell introduces this term. The first is that the sense-data from a physical object (such as a table or a knife) could differ not only depending on who is “sensing” it, but also in what angles and lighting conditions the object is being sensed. Russell gives some examples of this, such as a coin having a slight elliptic shape from almost every angle (except from above where it is completely circular). Another example would be that the color of a table could shift depending on viewing angle, the amount and temperature of the incoming of light, etc.

The second reason, which I find far more interesting from a philosophical standpoint, is that physical objects could be considered to only exist as sense-data on our minds. That means that there are no real physical objects, only our mind’s perception of them. This results in some not very logical (but still possible) consequences, such as objects disappearing when nobody is thinking of them. Another consequence would be that I (the person who is writing this) am the only person existing in the universe. All other material (people, things, etc.) are only a construct of my imagination. 

2.

A proposition could be defined as the “meaning”, or description of properties of a physical object or person. A proposition must (according to Russell) consist of an object and the properties of these objects. An example from Russell would be the phrase “Mr. A. is the Unionist candidate for this constituency”, where “Mr. A” is the object and “…is the Unionist candidate for this constituency” is the property of this object. Something that is important to notice is that there could be different propositions referring to the same object depending on how you chose to describe the object.

From what I understand Russell has no clear definition of the term “statement of fact”. It seems as if a proposition that is generally seen as “true” turns into a statement of fact. Furthermore, according to Wikipedia, a statement of fact is something that could be verified by a scientific method. This means that most parts of religious statements (such as “God exists” or “God did this and that”) could not be seen as facts since they cannot be verified using scientific methods. This is the difference between a regular verbal expression and a statement of fact; the statement could be verified whereas the verbal expression does not have to be verifiable.

3.

I think a good way to define the term “definite description” would be to simplify it as the grammatical term “singular”. A definite description points to a specific object such as “the paper” as opposed to the ambiguous description “a paper”. A more elaborate example of a definite description (used by Russell) could for instance be "the first Chancellor of the German Empire”.

The term description (short for definite description) is starting to become important when we are evaluating knowledge and how we acquire knowledge. Using terminology from the first question, the most fundamental knowledge we have comes from sense-data. This knowledge is called knowledge by acquaintance (such as the perception of a red table). This differs from the more complex knowledge by description, where previously acquired sense-data is combined to give a description of something. Russell uses the example of Bismarck: “"the first Chancellor of the German Empire." We do not have sense-data from this person since we have never met him, but previous sense-data (Chancellor or German) could be built upon to give a description/knowledge of this person.

4.

From what I understand Russell’s main problem with the theory of knowledge is that we could be “mislead” by false (and true) knowledge and false conclusions. In chapter 13, Russell gives the example of a man thinking that the late Prime Minister’s name starts with the letter B, because he thinks that the name of the late Prime Minister is Mr. Balfour. The first statement is indeed correct (since his name is Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman), but the conclusion is based on a false premise. Therefore Russell does not think that this constitutes “true knowledge”.