Theme 3 - Reflection

The theme for this week was research and theory. Before this week I had never reflected on what theory is and isn’t, but after reading What theory is not written by Sutton, R. I. and Straw, B. M. I got a better understanding of the concept. We also discussed theory at the seminar and I understood theory as it’s the explanation of why something happens. A theory could either be weak or strong. It’s also important to be aware of the limitations of theory when writing a paper and be aware that there is no universal theory that covers everything.

To this theme I read the paper The benefits of Facebook “Friends”: Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites where the researchers examine the relationship between the use of Facebook and establishing and maintaining social capital. At the seminar we talked about social capital and the importance of having a social network because it’s often through the social network you get a job. Then there’s also the theory that it’s not so important to have many friends but to have friends which have friends because it’s through you friends friends you get a job. I think that it’s a combination, it’s always good to have a large social network but to get access to your friends social network helps a lot too.

I still think that the different theory types: Analysis, Explanation, Prediction, Explanation and prediction, and Design and action is a little difficult to understand, but I think that I need to read more different papers (with different theory types) and analyze them to get a better understanding. But over all I think this weeks theme was easier to grasp and that also made it easier to discuss it during the seminar.

Theme 4: Quantitative research

I chose the research paper Facebook self-disclosure: Examining the role of traits, social cohesion and motives written by Erin E. Hollenbaugh and Amber L. Ferris. This paper was published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior with an impact factor of 2.273.

The study aims to determine the predictors of self-disclosive behavior on Facebook to confirm a clearer picture of the Facebook-environment and to predict the population most at-risk for highly disclosive and - maybe - damaging Facebook self-disclosure. This might lead to a better understanding of self-disclosive behavior and may discover those Facebook-users who benefit from increasingly intimate relationships online. Some of the results showed that the Facebook users who disclosed most information on the network wanted to maintain relationships and get attention, and that users who were more outgoing and used Facebook to establish a virtual community disclosed most personal information [1].

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

In this paper a cross-sectional survey was used on Facebook-users over 18, who posted on Facebook at least once per month. They collected data from 301 users [1]. Cross-sectional means that the data is collected at one specific point in time [2]. The benefits with this type of quantitative method is that data from a large amount of people easily can be collected. It also requires less time and money to send out a survey for people to answer than to, for example, interview all those people. The limitations of this method is that it’s more difficult to analyze on a deeper level. If you find answers in the survey that raises questions it requires effort and time to ask the participants what they meant and it’s impossible if the answers are anonymous. Since the researchers didn’t do any follow-up survey they needed to know the attendant questions in advance which can be difficult since they can’t know the participants answers in advance.

2. What did you learn about quantitative methods from reading the paper?

When wanting to collect data from a large amount of people a survey (which is a quantitative method) can be very useful. To interview 301 Facebook users takes a very long time so therefore it’s good to use a more time-efficient method, like a survey. In this type of research, when wanting to get an overall and general view of the predictors of self-disclosive behavior on Facebook, this method is very useful because with this way they get more data in a shorter period of time than if they were to study the participants more closely.

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

The methodological problem of this study is that they received 232 answers from women and 68 answers from men. The result that there weren’t any difference between the genders could therefore be misleading. Perhaps there weren’t enough men to test for them. If the survey was sent to the same number of men as women they might have received a more fair result.

The paper written by Olle Bälter and colleagues is about the relation between physical activity and upper respiratory tract infection (URTI). They did a web-based questionnaire and five follow-up questionnaires which a total of 1111 persons answered. The results shows that people with moderate to high total physical activity had a lower risk of URTI and stressed people, in particular men, benefits more from physical activities than those with lower stress levels [3].

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

Quantitative methods are often less expensive and more time-efficient than qualitative methods.
The limitations with quantitative methods are that it requires a great amount of participants. The more correspondents the more statistically accurate will the result be.  It’s also that you don’t get those specific details that you might get with qualitative methods.

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

The benefit with qualitative methods is that you can use it for more exploratory purposes. It’s easier to study on a deeper level than if you’re using quantitative methods alone.
The limitations are that it takes longer time to study a big group of people (and therefore it’s often used when studying a smaller group of people) and concentrating on a smaller group makes it more difficult to study on a more general level.

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

[1]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074756321300294X

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-sectional_study

[3]http://www.setantacollege.com/wp-content/uploads/Journal_db/Physical%20Activity,%20Stress,%20and%20Self-Reported.pdf

Theme 2 - Reflection

To the second theme I read the texts The work of art in the age of technical reproductivity by Walter Benjamin and two chapters in Dialectic of enlightenment by Adorno & Horkheimer. I found this weeks text a bit easier to read but some of the questions were still a little difficult to answer.

After the seminar this week I realized that I was partly right about the concept “nominalism”, but that I didn’t understand it in full. I know now that a nominalist just describes the world as it is and don’t try to change it as opposed to a marxist who describes the world as he wants it to be and then tries to change it.

During the seminar we got some more questions about the texts we had read to discuss in smaller groups. We got to share how we interpreted the texts with each other in order to try to answer these new questions. In my group all three of us had interpreted the texts almost the same. We also talked a lot about the difference between Adorno & Horkheimer and Benjamin. While Benjamin is more of a optimist, Adorno & Horkheimer are more critical. For example, while Benjamin thinks that the culture industry promises us freedom with all its feelgood Hollywood movies Adorno and Horkheimer instead think it makes us prisoners because they tell us how to look and how to act. And by saying that everyone is allowed to be a part of a cultural society it tries to make everyone a hostage.

I think that both these views on the cultural industry is a bit extreme. It’s not good to think that the Hollywood movie-lives are something to aim at because that is almost always a beautification of the reality. But I also don’t think that movies makes us hostages. It’s good to look at things from a critical point of view but it’s not good to believe that everything is trying to make us prisoners.

Theme 3: Research and theory

I chose Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication with an impact factor of 2.019. This is a journal that covers the field of computer-mediated communication and was established in 1995.

The research paper I chose is named The benefits of Facebook “Friends”: Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. This paper was published in Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. The study is about the relationship between use of Facebook and the establishing and maintenance of social capital. Social capital is the achieved resources through the relationships with other people. There are three types of social capital: bridging, bonding and maintained social capital. Bridging social capital means the loose connections between people who can provide new perspectives for one another but not emotional support. Bonding social capital is the emotionally close relationships such as family and close friends. Maintained social capital is the ability to stay connected with friends or family when you’re far away from them. The results show, among other things, that Facebook plays an important role in the forming and maintaining of students’ social capital. Most of the students used Facebook to maintain the bonding social capital.

My first reaction when reading what method they used was on the fact that they paid the students 5 dollars for answering their survey. This could be a weakness in the study since this might encourage students to participate for the wrong reasons. They might answer only wanting the money without really thinking on what they are answering.

The study only examined college students which made it difficult to look at the results in a broader point of view. It requires, of course, more time and effort to also study for example high school students but by studying more different types of students (in different ages) it makes it easier to generalize the results.

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

Theory is understanding why something happens, why data is showing that specific pattern or why the diagrams shows that result. Theory is understanding the systematic reasons for a particular occurrence or nonoccurrence. Theory is not just listing references to theory, showing diagrams or data without explaining why they look like they do, formulating hypotheses or predictions, and theory is not lists of variables or constructs. These are all parts of and sometimes needed in theory but it’s the why-explanation that is required for it to be 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?

I think that in The benefits of Facebook “Friends”: Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites the theory is Prediction theory (type III). The authors specify five hypotheses in the beginning of the paper and later in the study they try to prove them by letting students answer a survey, they test the propositions. I also find that the explanations doesn’t contain how and why. I think that the theory in this paper is Prediction theory because Prediction theory has testable proposition and lacking well-developed justificatory explanations.

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

The benefit with this theory is that it have testable propositions which makes the propositions more trustworthy because they are or going to be tried out. The limitation is that we can’t get a deeper understanding of the results without the why-explanation.

-----
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x/pdf
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~petterog/Kurs/INF5220/NatureofTheoryMISQ.pdf

Theme 1 - Reflection

Before the lecture I read the two texts: Plato’s Theaetetus and the Preface to the second edition of Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Since I’ve never studied philosophy before I had a little trouble with grasping most of the concepts in the texts, and to answer the questions. Especially difficult to understand was the text written by Kant. There were many concepts that I’ve never heard of before and many difficult sentences.

After the lecture with Johan Eriksson most of the concepts from the texts became a little more understandable. He explained, for example, the difference between analytic and synthetic judgement which is that analytic judgement is apriori and synthetic judgement is aposterori.

In the seminar we started discussing why we should learn philosophy when we are engineering students and Johan explained that it’s because we need to see things in terms of meaning and forms instead of facts. Thinking in terms of meaning and forms is thinking outside the box and if we can’t see the meaning of the world it’s difficult to study it. I think that there’s a point in this. Since engineering students are taking a lot of courses where we should learn facts or find the right answers it’s important to also learn how to reflect on things. We gain all this knowledge, but I have never reflected on what knowledge really is (which Socrates is asking Theaetetus in Plato’s Theaetetus). In the seminar we also discussed if an infant can see and hear. I think that there’s a difference between hearing and listening since listening is understanding what you’re hearing. This is what we discussed; an infant can hear but don’t understand what he or she is hearing. To them it’s just sounds without meaning.

It was interesting reading and discussing the texts but also difficult for me since I’ve never studied philosophy before.

Theme 2: Critical media studies

1. Dialectic of Enlightenment

a. What is "Enlightenment"?

Enlightenment is the idea of setting humans free from fears and making them masters. It wants to defeat myths and eliminate fantasy so that knowledge and rational thinking could rule.

b. What is "dialectic"?

Dialectic is “the art of investigating or discussing the truth of options”. For example, two people can have different perception of the same happening and the investigation of the most truthful one is dialectic. In the text dialectical thinking is determined such as “in which each thing is what is it only by becoming what it is not” which means that in order to find the most truthful option we also have to examine all that it isn’t.

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

Nominalism claims that universal entities or objects only are names and don’t have any corresponding reality, but it accepts that objects and entities exists. For example, the only thing that unifies two different trees is the fact that one can call them a tree. I think that knowledge is important in nominalism since it accepts that objects and entities exists, and therefore don’t encourage fantasy. It is important in this text because enlightenment also encourages knowledge instead of fantasy.

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

Myths were stories about things that could not be explained in any other way and was created because of the fear of not knowing. Adorno and Horkheimer wanted to dispel myths since it wasn’t the truth about the world.

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?

The substructure is the material and the economic foundation of a society. It is the most important part of a society and also an important base for superstructure. The superstructure is instead the art, culture, religion, social and political institution and ideology in a society. I think that the superstructure, in this context, means the art in itself and that the substructure means the tools and materials, for example paintings and movies. I believe that the point of analyzing cultural production from a Marxist perspective is to understand the structure of cultural production. In order to achieve a well-functional superstructure, which is the cultural production, we must have a working substructure.

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?

Yes. He describes how a small number of writers with a large number of readers changed into an increasing number of readers becoming writers, and how pictures eventually became moving images with sounds. This shows that culture has revolutionary potentials in the future as well.

No it doesn’t differ since knowledge can lead to cultural revolution.

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).

Naturally determined perception means that the perception differs between different persons, since different people can experience things differently. Historically determined perception means that the perception is affected by things that has happened in the history. For example, I have never experienced war but since war has happened in the past (and still happens around the world) I know it’s a horrible thing. So my perception of war is affected by historical events and is therefore historically determined.

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

Aura means the unique phenomenon of a distance. You can experience the aura of something that you see in a distance. Benjamin describes the aura in natural objects with this example: If you see a mountain range in the distance and it casts its shadow over you, you experience the aura of those mountains. Aura in art objects is instead the distance between the reader and the work of art.

Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science

1. 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?

“All our cognition must conform to objects” means that to achieve knowledge about something we must study it. For example, we can’t know that roses needs water without studying the flower.

“Objects must conform to our cognition” was a little harder to grasp according to me. This means, I think, that in order to understand the object we need to use experience and knowledge that we already have. Kant uses the example with Copernicus who changed his way of thinking when he didn’t made any progress when trying to explain the motions of the celestial. I think that when trying to achieve more knowledge about something that is difficult to study, the universe for example, we need to use the knowledge we already have and by that knowledge try to achieve more.

2. 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 Soctrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?

Socrates argues that it is more correct to say that we see and hear “through” the eyes and the ears than to say that we see and hear “with” the eyes and the ears. He continues by saying that the ears and eyes are the instruments of the mind. This means, for me, that the eyes and the ears only are pieces in a larger system for hearing and seeing. The sounds travel through our ears but it’s not until it reaches the brain that we realize we are hearing something. And the same goes for seeing. The light travels through our eyes and it´s when the brain processes the signals that are sent from our eyes that we are realizing what we are seeing. That is why it is more correct to say that we see and hear “through” the eyes and the ears.

Empiricism means that reliable knowledge comes through experiences. But experiences can differ between different persons. For example, “cold” weather can appear cold to me but not so cold to somebody else. This is what they discuss in the dialogue as well. They say that knowledge is perception and that one thing is to me what it appears to me and to you what it appears to you. By saying that knowledge is perception they are saying that knowledge can be different to different people since it is what we experiences it to be. And, also, by saying that knowledge is perception (and therefore is what we experiences it to be) the argument is directed towards empiricism since it means that knowledge comes through experiences.