DM2572 - Teori och Metod för Medieteknik: september 2015

måndag 28 september 2015

Theme 3 - Post Seminar

For the third theme’s seminar I have read the following articles: Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems and Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B. M. (1995). What Theory is Not. I have also chosen a paper in the field of Media Technology and evaluated it critically.

The seminar for theme three was about one topic: theory. During the group discussions we agreed on that theory is about explaining why something occurs. It’s about somehow observing something and trying to grasp it, to understand it. We all felt that theory is something related to the previous themes; nominalism, enlightenment and knowledge. Theories describes the world which can lead to knowledge. We started discussing theories in relation to truth and came to the conclusion that it is dangerous to mention truth and theory in the same sentence. A theory doesn’t have to be “true” to be a theory. During the lecture we were taught that when a theory is tested and accepted by a majority of experts, it can be regarded as true. There are multiple theories or models today that we know are not entirely true but we still use them. Newton’s laws of motion is one example. They explain motion in a great way when velocities are within what we can relate to and observe in our world. But when velocities starts to reach the velocity of light, things depart and the theory can’t explain what is happening. So why do we use Newton’s laws if we know they are not entirely true? Because they are a simplification of something very complex. They help us explain the world around us. Even though we know the law is not universal with respect of velocity.

We also discussed that a theory doesn’t have to come from an observation or similar, it can also be based on another theory (which is almost always the case according to our seminar leader). In our group we talked about quantum physics and how there can be theories in that field when there is so little empiric data. Our hypothesis was that there must be theories build on entirely on other theories, which is rather interesting.

During the large discussion in the seminar we discussed what makes a theory good or bad. If you are not an expert in the field then it can be very hard to identify this, especially if the theory is “hidden” within big amounts of data and conclusion. In other words; it’s hard to define a good theory. A good logical argumentation might be one thing that makes a good theory, or that the area where the theory applies is well-defined might also be something to strive for.

My Comments - Theme 2

fredag 25 september 2015

Theme 4 - Pre Seminar

The quantitative paper i have chosen is “Social Networking Sites: Their Users and Social Implications — A Longitudinal Study ” by Petter Bae Brandtzæg. The article was published in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, volume 18, issue 4. The paper investigates the rapid adoption of social networking sites (SNSs) by looking at the social implications of their usage.

Which quantitative method or methods are used in the paper? Which are the benefits and limitations of using these methods?
The quantitative method the authors use is by using an online survey to determine how nonusers and SNS users differ in different social capital dimensions. The survey was sent to representatives of the online population in Norway in the 15- to 75-year age group, gender, and education. The survey was sent out using various means (including telephone, websites, newsletters, and face-to-face surveys). The study consisted of three “survey waves”, one per year. Meaning the same respondents were to participate once per year for three consecutive years. They started out with 2000 respondents, but the number that responded to all three surveys was only 35% of the total number of people. Apparently such a big amounts of drop-outs is expected is such surveys. Since they sent the surveys to representatives of the online population in Norway’s they could check if the drop-outs belonged to a certain group or if it could be regarded as a coincidence through statistics. Their conclusion is that it most likely doesn’t affect the results. The benefits of a online survey is that it’s easy to reach out to the respondents and it can collect results pretty quick (if the people taking the survey answers as soon as they can. However there are of course limitations. One can not be entirely sure that the person claiming to answering the survey actually is. Also the survey type could be more suitable to some groups than others.

What did you learn about quantitative methods from reading the paper?
From reading this paper I have learned that online surveys can have a substantial dropout rate but that even though the dropout rate is rather big, you can still draw conclusions by doing statistical analysis and cross-referencing with other studies.

Which are the main methodological problems of the study? How could the use of the quantitative method or methods have been improved?
I think the biggest problem, which I mention earlier, is that this study is suppose to cover Norway’s total demographic, but its method (online surveys that are sent through e-mail) of achieving this suits some groups better than others. This would mean that some groups become over represented. I doubt that the dropouts are completely random and that some groups are more likely to drop out than others. One could approach different groups differently and in a way that suits that particular group in a better way.

Read the following paper written by Ilias Bergström and colleagues. Reflect on the key points and what you learnt by reading the text. Also, briefly discuss the questions below.
I found the paper by Ilias and his colleagues very interesting. I found a bit odd actually that this paper is almost entirely based on quantitative data when the objective is to investigate behaviors and how we can perceive ourselves in a Virtual Reality - an investigation I would spontaneous think would be based on qualitative data. The paper does mention that they conducted semi-structured interviews after each test, but they are not used to support their discussion or conclusion. Instead focus lays on the quantitative data, such as the movement data and the post-experiment questionnaire. I understand if the authors made this choice to have as objective and measurable data as possible, but since they are investigating behavioral change it feels like there could have been more focus on qualitative data. Otherwise there is a chance that some of what the test persons experienced was lost in the quantitative data.

Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative/qualitative methods?
Quantitative methods are good to use when performing research were the number correspondents needed to investigate something is rather high. The output data is more measurable and can be compared much easier. One can also use statistical methods and see if there are patterns. The negative part is that important details can be left out.

Qualitative methods are good to use when the question one hopes to answer is complex. Methods can give you a deeper understanding and lead to interesting side tracks. However, qualitative methods requires more time and funds. It’s also much easier for the one conducting the experiment/test to stay objective during qualitative methods.

måndag 21 september 2015

My comments - Theme 1

Theme 2 - Post Seminar

For the second theme's seminar I have read two texts: Benjamin’s "The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity" (1936) and Adorno och Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944) (chapters "The Concept of Enlightenment" and "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception"). I have also participated on a lecture.

During the seminar the concept and view of nominalism came up for discussion. Before the seminar my view of nominalism was quite limited and restricted to the pure definition. The definition being that a nominalist rejects universal objects and sees objects in the world as individual and claims that two objects can't have anything in common besides the name we happen to give them.

The discussion was about nominalism versus platonic realism. While nominalists believe that there is no such thing as universal objects, a platonic realist believes that every object is a copy of the true object. One example being that a particular apple is a copy of the form of applehood and the apple's redness is an instance of the form of redness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_realism).

Nominalism also relates to the enlightenment. We discussed that it is a matter of perception. The enlightenment basically says to mankind: observe the world and what is happening in it, don't get stuck in rational arguments. It emphasizes physical matter. The nominalistic perception is about seeing objects as individuals and it is important for the enlightenment in the sense that we need to view objects as individuals in order to study them.

We also discussed how an extreme nominalist point of view can relate to fascism. Fascism believes in a feudal society and hierarchy and doesn't question this. This is similar to extreme nominalism which only acknowledges what is observable and also does not question this. According to Adorno and Horkheimer it is dangerous not to question things.

According the Adorno and Horkheimer mass media reflects the world as it is and that we conform to the image of society that is presented to us. They argue that picturing life in movies will mirror actual life and therefore show that life should be in a certain way. The mass media mirrors the everyday life and doesn’t show alternatives, therefore it does not have any revolutionary potential. Benjamin has a more positive point of view. For example, he liked the idea of presenting the working class on the white screen. This would give the working class a sense of belonging and purpose. Therefor Benjamin’s view is that culture does have revolutionary potential.

We also discussed substructure and superstructure. Substructure is what we produce in society, the tools and the actual production, while superstructures are big structures that consists of multiple substructures. We can often see rather quick changes in how we produce, but for changes to happen in the superstructure takes a lot of time. If the changes in the substructures last we will see changes in the superstructure. The example of gay marriage came up during the seminar. There have been a lot changes in different substructures regarding gay rights but to change the actual law has taken its time and effort and can be viewed as a superstructure.

fredag 18 september 2015

Theme 3 - Pre seminar

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

To give “theory” a definition is a bit tricky. This quote from Sutton and Staw says it rather good: “Though there is conflict about what theory is and should be, there is more consensus about what theory is not”. So what is theory not? Sutton and Staw mentions several things that theory is not. Some are trivial while others are not.

According to Cambridge University’s dictionary the definition of theory is: “a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas that are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation”. (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theory?q=Theory)

An explanation from Sutton and Staw text that is referred to Kaplan and Merton is the following: theory is the answer to queries of why. This might be a bit vague and wide and can work for any question there is and a question itself doesn’t have to be a theory of course. Therefor a much better quote from the same text is: Theory is about the connections among phenomena, a story about why acts, events, structure, and thoughts occur. Theory emphasizes the nature of causal relationships, identifying what comes first as well as the timing of such events (Sutton and Staw). So it’s not only a question but it must also relate to a phenomenon or an event of some sort.

Write a short description of the journal and what kind of research it publishes.

I have chosen The Journal of Communication which is a bimonthly peer-reviewed academic journal that publishes articles and book reviews on a broad range of issues in communication theory and research (Wikipedia). From this journal I have chosen the following article: What Is Second Screening? Exploring Motivations of Second Screen Use and Its Effect on Online Political Participation.

Write a short summary of the paper and provide a critical examination of, for example, its aims, theoretical framing, research method, findings, analysis or implications.

The paper is about the topic second screens and investigates what effects the use second screens has in terms online political participation. The term second screen means that while a person is consuming media through a TV, he/she is receiving additional content through a smaller handheld screen (laptop, phone etc).

The authors of the chosen paper aim to show political outcomes of media by examining news media consumption, second screening and online political action. They have a hypothesis that second screening influences certain behaviours.

Their chosen method for the research is to use a national two-wave panel data. The chosen people were selected from a group who registered to participate in an online panel. According to an external source their number of participants that respondent falls within acceptable parameters for web-based surveys. With this survey data, they perform statistical analysis to determine whether their hypotheses can still be valid or have to be discarded. The authors also compare the demographics of the responders with the U.S population and mentions what minorities differ from the U.S population. I believe that the reason for this is that the authors wants to make conclusions based on the entire american population. The authors claim however that the differences in terms of demographics is within a standard.

The results are backed up with a lot of statistics and everything is statistically analyzed. The authors also compare their results with their hypothesis for them to see whether they were on the right track before conducting the survey.

In order to make conclusions the authors combine the literary study with their results. They claim that second screening is motivated by information seeking and discussion and that users with a second screen in political context get more engaged in the debate. Their main points are rather clear.

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 in my selected paper is that how people use media (in this case second screen) that produces positive effects (in this case more information and discussion). According to the theory second screening provides users an opportunity to get more information, discuss, and elaborate on TV news which creates a path from TV news consumption to online political participation. Based on this I would say that the theory type falls on explanation which means that the theory what is, how, why, when and where. The author explains what second screen is, why and how it produces positive effects.

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

The limitation is that is doesn’t give any prediction or testable propositions. The benefit of the theory is that is gives a clear explanation by answering how and why and the reader can make their own future predictions and applications, which is also a limitations since the reader can make wrong predictions.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Communication

GREGOR S. 2006. The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642.

SUTTON R I & STAW B M. 1995. What Theory is Not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371-384

ZUNIGA H et al. 2015 What is Second Screening? Exploring Motivations of Second Screen Use and its Effect on Online Political Participation,

måndag 14 september 2015

Theme 1 - Post seminar

During the first theme I have read two texts: Plato’s Theaetetus and the preface of the second edition of Immanuel Kant's A Critique of Pure Reason. I have also participated on a lecture that mostly was about about Kant's A Critique of Pure Reason.

I found A Critique of Pure Reason much more complex and harder to truly grasp. Before the seminar I read the two text rather briefly and tried to find the important parts. I also did some research about Kant on the Internet. But just reading the text wasn't enough for me to understand what Kant actually is saying. The lecture did straighten some question marks but also created a lot of questions. But when all groups in the seminare had a joint discussion somethings finally cleared.

During the seminar we discussed a lot about how we interpreted Socrates statement "we see through our eyes and ears, not with our eyes and hears". Within the group we all had a similar understanding to this statement; that knowledge does not consist in impressions of sense, but in reasoning about them. Our senses alone are not enough to achieve knowledge, we need to process and reason with the raw sense data that we obtain from the outside world. We also discussed Kant's A Critique of Pure Reason. I brought up the topic of Copernicus and why his scientific discovery that we live in a heliocentric world is such a good example of our objects conforming to our cognition (and not the other way around). Copernicus disregarded the current beliefs (conceptions of history, society etc) and conformed the objects (scientific data) to his cognition of a heliocentric view of the world.

Now according to Kant there is a lot of knowledge in the world, that is his starting point and he never questions this. He doesn't care where this knowledge comes from. His big question is: how is this knowledge structured? He does so by examining the most basic things in the world (time and
space etc). According to Kant we cannot be truly objective in our understanding of the world. It is impossible and regarded as God's point of view. To gain knowledge we need to see the objects according to us. This leads us to a priory - attributes that can be assigned to objects without empirical knowledge.

Kant's phrase perception without conception is blind was discussed in the seminar. The example of a pen came up. How do we define a "pen"? It is a physical object we write with. A pen is a common object so there exists a cultural context in the world that the pen lives in. But if you remove the world and the context - there is no such thing as a pen. There is an object with an extension in space. But the meaning “pen” is gone... Amazing.

fredag 11 september 2015

Theme 2 - Pre seminar

1) What is “Enlightenment”?

The enlightenment was an era when a wave of reason, logic and rationality swept through Europe during the 18th century. Instead of explaining the world with myths and made-up stories the followers of enlightenment tried to explain the world through reason and rationality. The grand idea is, according to Adorno och Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment to “liberate humans of fear and installing them as masters”.

2) What is “Dialectic”?

Dialectic a method of argument for resolving disagreement between two people that have different opinions about a certain subject or topic. The purpose of the method is to find out was is the truth and what isn’t.

3) What is “Nominalism” and why is it an important concept in the text?

Nominalism is a philosophical point of view that believes that abstract objects and universal objects (objects that do not exist in time and space) does not exist.This means that not all what we describe can be categorized by a recognized entity. I think it is an important concept in this text since the text is about the enlightenment which opposes a lot of metaphysical explanations that are not based on empiricism.

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

According to the book Dialectic of Enlightenment myths as the projection of subjective properties onto nature. Meaning its purpose is to (without empirical evidence) explain nature in order for human to feel secure since not knowing is a state of mind we don’t want to find ourselves in.

1) 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?

In this concept I believe that substructure is things that are in direct correlation with production while superstructure are things that are more indirectly involved with production. The relation between them, as I understand them, is that a superstructure is made of multiple substructures. A superstructure is much more complicated than a substructure and takes more time to develop. The point of analyzing cultural production is that it can tell you which way our culture is heading.

2) 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 believe that according to Benjamin culture does have potentials that can be regarded as revolutionary. Benjamin discusses technological advancements and how they change society and thereby culture. Benjamin discusses photography versus painting and discusses their major differences and if both can call themself “art”. Benjamin’s opinion is that a painter has a distance from reality and tries to interpret it while a photographer captures multiple fragments that he/she combines together. The cultural shift from painting to photography has therefore changed the impact on us. I like this quote from the text:

“I can no longer think what I want to think. My thoughts have been replaced by moving images”

I would say it is clear that Benjamin disapproves the cultural changes in artform since we no longer have to interpret and reflect over the artform, someone else does it for us. Benjamins opinion differs from Adorno and Horkheimer. I believe they saw technological advancements as new ways of dominating nature.

“What human beings seek to learn from nature is how to use it to dominate wholly both it and human beings. Nothing else counts.”

3) 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).

A historically determined perception means that it is affected by the current society, politics and culture etc. A natural perception is one that is not affected by the current external circumstances but it’s a perception that is inherent in every human. One example is something that we discussed last theme: heliocentrism. Before Copernicus discovered that the earth orbits the sun the human perception was that earth was the centre of everything and therefore a geocentric worldview seems correct.

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

According to Benjamin, an aura is a property of an object or artform and when this object or artform is reproduced through mechanical reproduction its aura is lost. Aura is tied to presence and it itself cannot be copied. For example like a photograph of a painting, The photograph it makes the painting’s existence non-unique.

“...reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence.”

Benjamin discusses the aura of theater and film. His opinion is that aura is lost in the art form that is motion picture. Since aura is tied to presence I suppose he means that a play has a place in time and space while a motion picture will always be exactly the same and doesn’t have a place in time. I think there is a different kind of aura between a natural object and an art object.

söndag 6 september 2015

Theme 1 - Pre seminar

At the end of the discussion of the definition "Knowledge is perception", Socrates argues that we do not see and hear "with" the eyes and the ears, but "through" the eyes and the ears. How are we to understand this? And in what way is it correct to say that Socrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?

Socrates and Theaetetus discuss what knowledge is and what is it not. Was is stated early on is that, according to Theaetetus, knowledge is what we perceive from the outside world. This statement is challenged by Socrates, who convinces Theaetetus that knowledge cannot be perception. He does this by saying that knowledge does not consist in impressions of sense, but in reasoning about them.

What I believe Socrates means is that we experience the world through our senses. They act as a middle-man between the outside world and our mind (where we perceive things). To say that we see and hear WITH our eyes and ears would imply that our senses are enough to obtain knowledge, which is wrong according to Socrates. We also need to reflect and compare to previous experience in order to understand. This means that it is more correct to say that we see and hear THROUGH our eyes and ears. Later on in the dialogue Socrates points out that knowledge does not exist in the impression of senses but rather in the reasoning in them, meaning we compare our impressions from our senses with what we already know and by combining the impressions and previous experience we decide what is knowledge and what isn’t.

Empiricism emphasizes experience rather than reason as the basis of our knowledge. This fits Socrates statement that our senses aren't enough, we also need to process our impressions. “SOCRATES: Then knowledge does not consist in impressions of sense, but in reasoning about them; in that only, and not in the mere impression, truth and being can be attained?”

In the preface to the second edition of "Critique of Pure Reason" (page B xvi) Kant says: "Thus far it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to objects. On that presupposition, however, all our attempts to establish something about them a priori, by means of concepts through which our cognition would be expanded, have come to nothing. Let us, therefore, try to find out by experiment whether we shall not make better progress in the problems of metaphysics if we assume that objects must conform to our cognition." How are we to understand this?

According to Immanuel Kant there are two ways of knowledge: a priori and a posteriori. The a priori means universal knowledge we have which isn’t based on any experience, for example mathematics (1+1=2) or a statement like “all bachelors are unmarried”. A posteriori is knowledge based on experience or empirical evidence. If we compare this theory with what Socrates says then according to Kant there is more knowledge than what we can observe and reflect upon, there is also knowledge that isn’t based on any experience at all. (I find this very interesting and can’t help but wonder what Socrates would have thought of priori).

Kant says that great scientists considers without conventional form. Objects (the outside world) should be observed with an empty mind and without preconceptions. According to Kant, great scientists comprehended that reason has insight only into what it itself produces according to its own design. If we want to get something a priory, we should consider it without conventional form. Some objects should be considered beyond space and time, without its own qualities and we will get a priory.

Kant addresses the importance of assuming that objects must conform to our cognition. One good example of this is how the astronomer Copernicus came up with the hypothesis that that the sun is the centre of our solar system, not the earth. He did this by making the objects conform to his cognition of the sun orbiting the earth. In other words, he first imagined a theory and then he examined if the objects (in this case through observations of space) matched his cognition. So by doing experiments where we don’t adjust the objects to our cognition and instead assume the cognition we can make great progress in metaphysics (explaining nature).