Theme 3 reflections

I really found the theme of this week a lot more graspable and it felt pleasant to finally leave two weeks of more philosophical elements behind (even though some earlier terms and concepts were mentioned during the seminar). I prepared myself for the “research and theory” week by reading the papers which we were assigned and answered the questions according to them. Unfortunately i missed the lecture with Leif on monday since I had a mandatory lesson in another course but the seminar itself was really instructive and i learnt a lot during it.

During the seminar we were divided into groups and talked about our papers and what different kind of theories we have discovered but also about how we define theory. I actually thought I had grasped the definition of theory correctly but when Leif started to describe for us what theory really is, almost the entire room looked surprised. How we should see the difference between theory, knowledge, hypotheses and statements is something that came up during the entire seminar and was hard to completely understand. As i understand the word theory and its meaning now afterwards is that it is propositions we create ourselves that tries to explain and describe different phenomenon and it can be either strong or weak depending on different circumstances. Furthermore, to build a strong theory it has to be supported by a set of proven hypotheses and if the hypotheses are reformulated as a result of a strong theory, it can end up with new theories. Therefore, even if it’s hard to convince people about a new theory and why it should be accepted, it’s still possible and basically could be changed interminably.

When i read my text “The benefits of Facebook “Friends”: Social Capital And College Students” which was about the relationship between Facebook and social capital i never realized that social capital was a theory itself until Leif explained it for us. There are so many different theories we’re witnessing in our daily lives without noticing. It’s fascinating with this course how our perceptions of different concepts that we’re examine could change radically in a second and I will carry with me the knowledge of theory into the coming up weeks.

Theme 4: Quantitative research - before

Part 1

The quantitative article i chose to read was Measuring Mobile Phone Use: Self-Report Versus Log Data published by Jeffrey Boase and Rich Ling. The paper could be found in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication which has an impact factor of 2.019.

Two quantitative methods were used in this paper, self-report measures and logged data.

The aim of this paper was to investigate and compare self-report measures regarding voice calls and SMS (Short Message System) usage from cell phones, with logged data in order to find out their correlation. Hence, to be sure that the quantitative methods they were going to use were the most relevant for this survey the authors examined previous researches in the area and found out that investigating the frequency and duration of mobile phone use in the self-report measures were predominantly. Measuring a user's frequency is about finding out how often one is using their cell phone, how many calls or SMS that are received each day. The duration part is about estimating how much time a participant uses his/her cell phone a day.

The method used in this case was a survey including 1382 Norwegian citizens in late 2008 focusing on what i earlier mentioned, finding out their frequency and duration of cell phone use. The self-report done by the participants were later compared with logged data from telecommunication companies collected from the month which the survey took place. The method was divided into two separate parts. The first part was about asking the participants how many times they used their cell phone for outgoing calls and SMS “yesterday”. In the this case the respondent was free to report any number that they considered matching their usage. In the other part of the self-report measure the authors wanted to find out “how often” the participant used their cell phone in order to receive/send voice calls and SMS. Unlike the first part of the survey, this time the respondents had to select from a predefined set-list of responses-categories, for example “2-4 times a day” or “1-2 times a week” etc.

The benefit with this method is that the investigator easy can compare the self-report measures with the logged data and thereafter analyze and point out under- and overreporting with different demographic traits for example. There are some limits as well. The phone usage in Norway may differ from other countries and cultures, and the matter to under/overreport in this kind of survey could be different around the world. Another concern is that this survey does not measure phone activity for a specific day, but for a more general frequency like in this case “yesterday”. People with day-to-day activities may have a mobile phone usage that varies a lot. I also think the credibility of the logged data could be questioned since we’re not sure that family or friends of the participants didn’t borrow their cell phones.

There are some methodological problems in this paper as well. We should be aware of and question the self-measured data in three aspects which are cognitive burden, social desirability and conceptual validity. There may be some occasions when the participant does not recall their exact frequency or duration of time spent using their cell phone. Therefore, the accuracy of these respondents’ answers needs to be considered if a survey is made in order to collect exact numbers of something since it’s easy to over- and underreport an answer. Mainly overreports may also occur since the usage of mobile phones often is jointly with sociability, and the interest of high sociability among friends could give uncertain answers.

Finally, in this particular study I think it’s hard to improve the self-report measures since people find their phone usages as a part of their integrity and therefore are very aware of which information they share (further information than just numbers/short comments could be too intimate for certain people).

Part 2:

1. Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative methods?

One benefit of using quantitative methods is that you often make a survey included a lot of participants which leads to plenty of data that you later on easily can analyze, finding patterns depending on demographic aspects etc. Quantitative methods are often cheap to implement and it is time efficient compared to qualitative methods. There are some limitations as well regarding quantitative methods. First of all, acquiring a good result depends on plenty of participants. It’s hard to obtain a result that’s reliable and where you can get an accurate analysis of the data when only a few participated. It’s also worth mentioning that misunderstood questions can lead to an arbitrary survey.

2. Which are the benefits and limitations of using qualitative methods?

Qualitative methods differ a lot from quantitative ones. The benefits with qualitative methods is first of all that you can get a deeper understanding on an individual level and can analyze specific people’s thoughts. This also leads to a limitation. Since you collect data in a way that’s very comprehensive and different from participant to participant it takes a lot of time to analyze all of them. Therefore you have to do the survey on the less amount of participants compared to quantitative methods unless you have unlimited time.  

Reflcetion after theme 2 - Critical media studies

I found the theme and the reading materials this week a lot easier to deal with compared to the previous week, even though it still was quite hard to understand. In order to prepare for this week’s theme, critical media studies, i read the assigned texts and answered the question according to them. After i finished reading the papers by Benjamin and Adorno & Horkheimer there were still some questions i was pondering about, but the lecture with Henrik was really satisfying and it felt like everything fell into its place. Next up was the seminar and i prepared myself by reading the notes from the lecture one more time and summarized my answers to the questions.

At the seminar Henrik talked about the concept nominalism once more since it was the term that everybody still had some concern about. We discussed the idea behind nominalism and the fact that it is, according to Adorno and Horkheimer, something that’s only used to describe things, not to question and criticize it. The example with the cave was really effective and visualizing and I think the entire group really understood the concept after that. I think nominalism needs to be assembled with other methods in order to be effective, because the concept as alone is quite useless.

We also talked about the revolutionary potential of culture and how new inventions through the history have changed the way people understand and look at things, for example the “new” way to look at the horse. Before the camera was invented people thought that a horse always had their four feet on the ground at the same time, but the camera proved something else.

I liked the way we were divided into smaller groups in order to discuss some questions together because it was interesting and exciting to hear how other students reflected about these concepts that the text’s provided. At the same time, it was nice to grasp that i’m not the only one who’s struggling reading these texts.

Theme 3: Research and theory

Part 1:

I chose a research journal named Journal of computer-mediated communication (JCMC) which had an impact factor of 2.019. The journal focused on computer-mediated communication through different mediums, like internet and wireless techniques. The journal has published articles since 1995 and contains everything from literature surveys to original articles.

The paper i later on decided to read was an article called The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students that was published by Nicole B. Ellison in 2007. The paper is about a study that was made in order to understand the relationship between a SNS (Social Network Sites), in this case the social platform Facebook, and social capital. There are three different aspects of social capital who are examined through the text; bridging, bonding and maintain social capital. The article focuses, unlike most of the press coverage, on the good outputs from Facebook such as increased well-being and the positive aspects of an offline to online relationship. The author states 6 different hypotheses which are quite similar to each other. Ellison starts with one hypothesis and discusses it whereupon the next hypothesis is delivered. This pattern is repeated, and even if i do like the way to really discuss and examine hypotheses, i find it a bit unclear which of them that is the definitive one.

Before the research is published, Nicole is presenting a sample of background information such as literature reviews and a short description of Facebook that makes it easier for the reader to put the later on examined research in context. The research method that is used is letting a couple of students at Michigan State University (MSU) answer an online survey. Out of 800 people asked, only 286 of them decided to complete the survey, even though they were rewarded with 5$ after finishing it. I would like to criticize the collection of information because it only includes one community, MSU in this case. The way a college student answers questions about SNS is not the same as asking a 13-year old or a 40-year old mother. Therefore, when the author states that there’s a positive relationship between Facebook use and to maintain/create social capital after going through the research, we have to be aware of that this is just a fact for this target group (even though it might be similar to other).

The data that is collected from the survey is represented in a several different tables and diagrams. Nicole is using a lot of different symbols and terms from the mathematical statics that i consider as a shrewd move for those who have studied statics, but for the others it’s close to impossible to understand it. I do also miss better presentations and structure of the tables. For example, you could read about one finding that the author has made but the table/figure connected to this is presented 3 pages later which causes some frustration and confusion.  

Part 2:

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

There is no specific recipe or correct answer of what theory actually is and you will get different definitions depending on if you ask a natural scientist or a social scientist for example, even though they all are based on the same conception. Theory is essentially about the connection among phenomena which it tries to express and explain. Since people often, according to Sutton and Staw, are mixing up the meaning of theory it is easier to explain what it is not. Theory is not hypotheses, collecting of data, references, diagram and empirical patterns. They are on the other hand used as tools in order to support theory.

2. 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?

According to Gregor’s table and the article i chose i would say that is can be characterized as number 3, Prediction. The reason why i think so is because the author introduces six different hypotheses in the beginning which are supposed to be supported from the answers of the survey (the theory has testable propositions). Hence, i think the article and the theory itself do not have well-developed justificatory explanations by the easy reason that the survey contained few participants, only one community was examined and they only tested one SNS.

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

I think it’s hard to get the most superior understanding in this case (III) when we don't use any why and how-explanation. The good thing though is that the hypotheses whom are stated actually are supported by a survey.

Post Seminar 1 - Reflection

Reflections after seminar 1

The theme of week one was theory of knowledge and theory of science which considered reading two text by Kant and Plato. The hardest thing regarding the reading phase was to understand Kant’s critique of pure reason. I had a hard time trying to understand the philosophic terms and the way Kant wrote which forced me to take notes in order to get a deeper understanding and overview. I was a bit concerned after finishing reading, but the two lectures by Johan made everything more clear.

Even though i thought i understood the concept about knowledge and in what way you should perceive it, the both lectures showed me the truth from another perspective. For example, Johan explained the difference between Analytic judgement, which is a priori and synthetic judgement (a posteriori). The latter says that in order to find out if something is true, we have to examine its truth, for example “some bodies are big”. Analytic judgement means that we can be sure of a knowledge independent of knowing the world, for example “all bodies have extensions”.

Our seminar had its mainly focus on Kant’s text because the majority of the group found it most hard to understand. We and Johan talked about the different concepts of the text which further lead us into a really interesting discussion about knowledge and how an infant can perceive knowledge. We speculated and discussed if the newborn child even grasps what’s going on or if he/she starts to perceive things as soon as he’s born. I think the parents have a huge part in this case since they supply the infant with their already “approved” knowledge that the children then embraces. When an infant is crying, is it because it knows the sense of hunger or just because it feels pain?

To conclude the week i would say i have really improved my way to see things from a new perspective and that the “philosophic concepts” can be quite interesting and thoughtful as well. I will take with me Kant’s 12 categories of understanding time and space and the transcendental idealism which basically means that “the world is out there, in order to gain knowledge about it, study it as it is”.

Theme 2: Critical media studies

1. Dialectic of Enlightenment

a. What is "Enlightenment"?

Enlightenment is regarding to the text basically a new era where the purpose was to enlighten people to get rid of old myths and fantasies and instead dare to use their knowledge in order to understand the world. The thinkers of the enlightenment era wanted everything to be calculable and what couldn’t be considered as a number was a myth, which is its opposite. By taking our knowledge to a new level we can get a new insight of time and space.

b. What is "dialectic"?

Dialectic is a method with the aim of solving some kind of disagreement where there are two different opinions/answers of one single question. Dialectic involves letting the people who disagree with the others convince each other and through reflections and thinking try to find the answers which the truth lies in. When you find out what i true, you unconsciously know what’s not true as well.

c. What is "nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?

Nominalism is a philosophical term which contains of two different versions. The first one says that only absolute objects exist, not abstract ones (like names and words etc.). The other one is the contrast to the latter. The reason why i think it is important for the concept in the text is because these arguments can either support enlightenment and myths or have the opposite effect. Regarding to enlightenment this concept is similar to each other, because enlightenment says that everything is made up except the knowledge.

d. What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?

Myths are essentially the opposite of what enlightenment is. With enlightenment and its focus on knowledge we can find out the “truth” of an object, which we cannot with a myth since it’s just made up by the human being. According to Adorno and Horkheimer and their arguments i think they want to explain what the consequences of lacking knowledge could lead to.   

2. "The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity"

a. In the beginning of the essay, Benjamin talks about the relation between "superstructure" and "substructure" in the capitalist order of production. What do the concepts "superstructure" and "substructure" mean in this context and what is the point of analyzing cultural production from a Marxist perspective?

Superstructure and substructure are two terms in Marxist theory and are the fundamentals of our common society. Substructure is an essential condition of the economic structure of a society and contains the means of production. In the context of Benjamins’ text it’s photography and film etc. Superstructure on the other hand do not comprise the production in the same way that sums the substructure, but contains laws and political power and culture (in this context i would say it is different kind of arts). The reason why we should analyze cultural production is because when some kind of art is produced in a big extent and affected by the new technology it changes our view on the culture. Benjamin is talking about when the reproduction of art is a fact, it changes its aura because it contributes a more economic production.

b. Does culture have revolutionary potentials (according to Benjamin)? If so, describe these potentials. Does Benjamin's perspective differ from the perspective of Adorno & Horkheimer in this regard?

I would say that the culture has a huge revolutionary potential in many aspects. In the text, Benjamin is talking about photography as one of the reproductions which came from using old techniques in old art. He says that it is detaching the reproduced object from the domain of tradition, which takes the culture into a new way of thinking about it, but also how the society can ingest it.

I think we can compare the possible cultural revolutions to the concept of enlightenment in the text by Adorno and Horkheimer. I think Benjamin is aware of that the reproduction of culture can be a risk for its evolution and therefore he do not totally agree with their opinions.

c. Benjamin discusses how people perceive the world through the senses and argues that this perception can be both naturally and historically determined. What does this mean? Give some examples of historically determined perception (from Benjamin's essay and/or other contexts).

“During long periods of history, the mode of human sense perception changes with humanity’s entire mode of existence.” Benjamin says and i think he means that all people have different ways of perceiving the world based on their feelings etc. Hence, how we perceive the world can also come from changes in the history. For example how we look and perceive art is a consequence of the changes in history. At the time where there only were paintings available (in a small scale) the main task for the people was to understand it. Nowadays the photos (yesterdays painting) has been a commodity and the way we perceive it has changed.

d. What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?

By aura he means “unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may be” and i assume that he wants to say that the aura can’t be replicated, it is unique to an object and you can experience it in the distance of time and space. Benjamin is also saying that only authentic objects can have an aura. Hence, the difference between natural and art objects auras is how they’re affected by reproduction. The development of culture and history changes the aura of an art object (the way an observer perceives photography has changed over time). For natural object, like a mountain, the aura (the feeling you receive from the specific mountain is its aura) of it remains the same independent of the history and therefore cannot be lost as in the case of art objects.

Theme 1: Plato’s “Theaetetus” and Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason”

1. In the quite complex and hard text by Kant he wants us to get an eye-opener on how we look at the universe and its components. The question itself, which is a quote from the publication by Kant has turned around the contention from the fact that “our cognition conform to the object” and instead say that the “object must conform to our cognition”. The first statement (the one that Kant meant has come to nothing) means that in order to understand an object we need to do experiments and study it. Hence, the author questions this and rather want us to see it from a different perspective in order to learn more about the time and space, namely through letting the object conform to our cognition. Basically this means that in order to understand an object it’s not enough to study it from our own eyes (since our mind is influenced by earlier experiences), but also from the object’s perspective. His example about Copernicus, who stated that the sun was the center of the universe, was an effect of this way of this reasoning. He obviously want our own mind to influence in which way we are perceiving an object and not the other way around.

2. The way i understand Socrates argue that we do not see and hear “with” the eyes and ears but “through” the eyes and ears is that first of all we have to be aware of that when we see or hear with our eyes/ears we are just collecting the information. As soon as we start thinking and using our mind we automatically perceive knowledge about the object through our eyes/ears (the thing we perceive through one of these organs cannot be perceived through the other and vice versa) and can therefore put the object in relations to other things such as values and emotions etc. based on earlier perceptions. I think we have to combine the organ, in this case the eye/ear and our soul (soul is an umbrella term which Socrates uses for an object of the senses), to fulfill seeing/hearing through something because they’re separate from each other. Socrates is also clear with the statement that every individual has his own perceptions and therefore the way we look at a single object can differ from person to person. 

I do see connections between Socrates previous argue and the philosophic term empiricism which is a theory that says that knowledge comes primarily from sensory experience. Once a human is born he is given organs and a soul that’s undeveloped since he hasn’t had any impressions that’s made an impact on his mind. But as you grow older and through experiences and education in life in several of areas you see objects from new perspectives. In order to get the most trustworthy view of an object though, it’s important to not only rely on your own experiences but also to look at the surrounding world’s empirical studies.