torsdag 28 november 2013

Theme 4: Quantitative research - prior

My paper
I chose a paper from the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, which has an impact factor of 1.778. The paper is called The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness (Beukeboom & Utz, 2011). The paper investigates how the use of social networking sites (SNSs) affects romantic relationships in terms of jealousy and happiness. The conclusions were that people in general experienced more happiness than jealousy in reaction to the partner’s activities on SNSs. Individuals with low self-esteem experience more jealousy than people with high self-esteem. These two groups did not differ in the experienced SNS happiness.

The quantitative method that they have used in this paper is an online survey which has been held among all students following a course on interpersonal communication at a Dutch university. The survey contained various personality measures and questions on SNS use. 194 people in total completed the survey (56 males and 138 females) which 103 of those were involved in a relationship and thus were the important subjects. The mean age of the participants was 22 years and the mean relationship duration was 25.75 months.

One strength in their method is that they have used a whole class which consists of both very active and less active SNS users. As they states in the paper, other forms of recruitment of subjects, for example via SNSs may lead to a self-reflected sample in which there are an overrepresentation of highly active users.

Since the paper was made by students the benefits of using an online survey are that you can get it out quickly to a lot of subjects. It is also a low cost method and it takes little time effort to carry out which is often important in school. The limitations are usually the possibility of only attracting certain kinds of people; those that are very interested in the product/research area and thus willing to participate. This they had solved though with their method for recruiting subjects. Since they chose students though, the age is limited to the age group that probably uses SNSs the most. Questions with fixed answers, as they had, may also not describe the situation for the subjects in the best possible way.

As the authors stated in the paper, all the measures were self-report measures and therefore the results could have been influenced by social desirability. Also the sub groups that used various SNSs were too small to systematically compare users from different SNSs. To get a more generalized idea of the situation, the survey could have been sent out to students in more than just one course or maybe to another forum like an evening cooking class where the age range is rather different.

“Physical activity, stress and self-reported upper respiratory tract infection”
More infections during the winter than in the spring are a no-brainer. It was interesting to see though that if you are highly stressed, physical activity has a greater effect on preventing URTI, than if you have a low level of stress. They made good use of quantitative research to get a generalized picture of how physical activity affects the risks of getting URTI. When making this investigation in how something affects something else I think it’s very good to use a quantitative method because then you want to get greater accuracy.

Benefits and limitations of quantitative methods
The quantitative research allows you to do a broader study which involves a greater number of subjects. In quantitative methods you get vast sources of information which allows for greater objectivity and accuracy and you can make comparisons across categories and/or over time. The limitations are that you can miss contextual details and the results are limited in that sense that they provide numerical descriptions rather than detailed narrative as well as providing less elaborate accounts of human perception.

Benefits and limitations of qualitative methods
The benefits of qualitative methods are that you obtain a more realistic view that can’t be understood by numerical data and issues can be examined more in detail and in depth. It also provides for direct interaction with the research subjects. The ways of collecting the data are also more flexible since the framework for it can change during the execution. The limitations are that the findings are harder to visualize, it can be easy to drift away from the original objectives of the research and the researcher’s presence during data gathering can affect the subject’s responses.

References
Beukebom, J, C. & Utz, S. (2011). The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Volume 16, Issue 4, pages 511–527, July 2011.

Fondell, E., Lagerros, Y. T., Sundberg, C. J., Lekander, M., Bälter, O., Rothman, K., & Bälter, K. (2010). Physical activity, stress, and self-reported upper respiratory tract infectionMed Sci Sports Exerc, 43(2), 272-279.

onsdag 27 november 2013

Theme 3: Research and theory - reflection

This week we had quite a different theme to the two earlier ones. It was nice to finally start with the research and science part of this course, now that we have got the basics of philosophy and critical media studies. The instructions for this theme “research and theory” were less of reading a stated book/article but instead getting to find your own literature, which was very nice because then you had the possibility to find a subject which you are interested in. In order to prepare for the two seminars and the pre-reflective blog post I googled for interesting journals that had a connection to media technology. Sometimes you found an interesting journal but I could not find the impact factor which was a shame. The more important part of this theme though was to find an interesting paper to analyze. Then I tried to look at recent volumes of different journals connected to media technology, for example some of them that was listed in the wiki. I also searched on Google Scholar and KTHB for things that I was interested in, like social media, and looked after interesting papers which had been published in quality journals.

On the first seminar of the week we discussed, in smaller groups, the journals and papers that we had chosen. Then we picked one journal and one paper that we put up in the wiki page on the course website and presented to the rest of the seminar group. We picked the journal that I found, which was called Media, Culture and Society. It’s an interesting journal about media in different contexts such as politics, economy or culture. I also had an interesting paper but it was already on the wiki, which I didn’t know when I picked it. 

On the second seminar we discussed the theories used in our papers and what theory is. For me, this was the harder part with theme 3. When we discussed in small groups on Wednesdays seminar we agreed that it was hard to distinguish which of Gregors five types of theory that our used theories could be categorized as. Also the question of what theory is can be hard to define as we tried to edit the course wiki on the seminar. In the end we thought it was important that a theory was tested, not only accepted by the greater majority, to be regarded as true. We also thought that in the most cases it should be a majority of experts in the applicable field, not people in general. When we discussed the theories that were used in our papers, one theory seems to have been very popular, which was social capital theory. So for the task of updating the wiki we went with another one which we called signal theory. That theory was about what signals that can be drawn for e-commerce websites through design and functions. For example if an e-commerce site allows you to rate their products you can get the signal that they have a good product because otherwise they wouldn’t dare to allow this function. Because of the short and generalized name of our theory, we discussed that many theories can have the same name but signify very different ideas. When we presented it as signal theory, the other students in the seminar group thought it was about something else. So I think that you need to treat theory with caution sometimes because misinterpretations can easily happen.

fredag 22 november 2013

Theme 3: Research and theory - prior

I have found a journal that is called Media, Culture & Society which has an impact factor of 1.092. The journal provides a major peer-reviewed, international forum for research and discussions on topics regarding media. That includes newer information and communication technologies as well as their contexts like politics, economy, culture and history.

The research paper that I choose is called Social Networking Sites: Their Users and Social Implications – A longitudinal Study by Petter Bae Brandtzaeg (2012). It can be found in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication which has an impact factor of 1.778. The paper is a study on the so called SNSs (social networking sites), like Facebook and Twitter, and their social impact. In this study Brandtzaeg tries to answer four different questions regarding this subject by using a unique and extensive set of longitudinal data from a representative sample of online users in Norway between 2008 and 2010. This study has compared both the level of social capital among SNS users and nonusers as well as the level of social capital among distinct SNS users.

The paper makes use of a research method called longitudinal study in which data is gathered for the same subjects repeatedly over a period of time. In this paper the research design consists of three survey waves (quantitative data) in the years 2008-2010. Since one of the main questions was how SNS usage and distinct SNS user types changes over time, this method of research was very appropriate.
One objective of the paper was to look at the social capital at different types of SNS users. Therefore the SNS users in the study were divided into five different SNS user types. The groups were calculated depending on the collected data and also finally compared and validated with those obtained in previous research. The author also tried making three and four groups of different SNS user types but benchmarking tests proved that five groups was the best solution. Sadly he does not say how this benchmarking was carried out but I think the choice of clustering SNS users into groups made it easier to draw conclusions about the social capital in relation to SNS usage.

The conclusion of the study is that different propositions, saying that users replace in-person socializing with SNSs or that SNS users are antisocial networking, are not supported by the results of the study made in this paper. An implication that the author draws upon are that the study was conducted in only one country, Norway, which are early adopters of technology and SNSs. Conducting the study in several countries would have given it an interesting aspect of comparing different countries in how they use SNSs and how it effects their social capital.

What is theory and what is it not?
There is a wide spread of definitions to what theory is but in brief you can say that it is a system of ideas or statements that is intended to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Theory is not however regarded as a collection of facts, or knowledge of an individual fact or event. An example of some things that are not considered theory is data, references, variables, diagrams and hypotheses.

Major theory
The major theory that Brandztaeg (2012) uses in the paper about SNSs are one about social capital. Social capital theory is both a multilevel and multicomponent concept and is about the value of social networks. In the paper Brandztaeg focuses on the “social network” component and not others such as trust or norms. The social capital is defined by Brandtzaeg through four features which are “(1) frequency of face-to-face interaction with close friends, (2) number of offline acquaintances, (3) level of bridging capital (or social networks between socially heterogeneous groups), and (4) absence of reported loneliness”. Since the theory about social capital provides explanations without any predictions it can be characterized as the theory type Explanation.

Benefits and limitations
I think that a limitation to using the theory about social capital is that there is no single generally accepted definition or operationalization of it. Therefore I believe that it cannot be as trustworthy as other theories. The definition of the operationalization of social capital can limit a study. Brandztaeg says that focus should be on more extensive measures of social capital than what he has used. On the other hand you can use it in a way so that it fits your purpose, as I think Brandztaeg has done.

References
Sage Journals. (2013). Media, Culture & Society. http://mcs.sagepub.com/
Wiley Online Library. (2013). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1083-6101
P, B, Brandztaeg. (2012). Social Networking Sites: Their Users and Social Implications – A longitudinal Study.
Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. In: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 (3), 611-642.
Sutton, R. I. and Staw, B. M. (1995). What Theory is Not. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 (3), 371-384.

onsdag 20 november 2013

Theme 2: Critical media studies - reflection

For this week’s theme I have prepared by reading chapters 1-4 in the book Dialectic of Enlightenment. I felt that it was easier to read this week, which could be of several reasons, maybe because of the format being a pdf or my increasing experience in reading philosophical texts or the fact that it was simply an easier text. I really liked chapter 4 and I’m guessing most of us did since it’s related to media technology. As Leif Dahlberg said on the lecture for this week as well, chapter 4 is also probably the easiest to read because there you don’t need to have any experience of reading the Odyssey.

When I have read everyone else’s blog posts from this week I think that the most interesting part have been the last question where you were able to do some own reflections by picking a concept/term that you found particularly interesting and to motivate that. This has also verified my belief in that chapter 4 was the most enjoyable one since most of the terms of question 6 figured in that chapter. A common notion when reading the blog seems to be that the discussion about the culture industry and the mass culture that Adorno and Horkheimer talks about is a very valid discussion even today although many things has changed.

An interesting point about mass media that was brought up in the seminar is that today we have so many more options in how we consume media than we used to. When the book was written back in the 40s you didn’t have so many different media, for example the television was not used so much because there wasn’t much content. So it was harder to “escape” the message of the mass media at the time, which meant that it was easier to spread propaganda. Today we have many different sources of information, especially the internet, which can be used to select whatever information/culture you want and also whenever you want. So I think that you can, in a sense, see why Adorno and Horkheimer were critical to mass media and the culture industry. If they had reflected on it today, then maybe they would have been of another opinion because, at least in my opinion, it’s not as easy to be deceived today as it was 70 years ago.

In the seminar we also talked about how we consume media in different ways which relates a bit to my previous paragraph. Adorno and Horkheimer do not in their book think about how medias can be consumed in different ways. Instead they think that each media are used by all people in one certain way. Thinking about how you consume television today, it can be done in several ways. You can use it as background noise (having it on all the time) or you can put it on only on specific times when you want to see a certain program. The point I’m trying to make with this is that there are, in my opinion, some flaws in Adornos and Horkheimers reasoning around the nature of mass culture. 

torsdag 14 november 2013

Theme 2: Critical media studies - prior

Enlightenment can be understood as the advance of thought and has the goal of freeing human beings from fear and inaugurate them as masters. That means the job of thinking for oneself and employing and relying on one’s own intellectual capacities in determining what to believe and how to act. Therefore Enlightenment scrutinizes previously accepted doctrines and traditions because in order to use your own understanding without the guidance of others you generally need to oppose to the established beliefs.

The term myth in the meaning of Adorno and Horkeimer’s argument can be seen as all forms of knowledge that existed before enlightenment. It is superstitious, subjective and emphasizes distinct individual experience over reproducible scientific observation. The ability to represent but not embody is essential to mythic practice. Although something like older rituals, religions and philosophies, which are acknowledged as mythical and outdated by the forces of secularization, Adorno and Horkheimer argues that they may still have contributed to the process of enlightenment.

Adorno and Horkheimer mentions some different media such as radio, film, magazines and television but my interpretation is that the “old” and “new” media is referring to the change in culture that has happened due to the introduction of the culture industry. The authors talks much about art and to me it seems as if Adorno and Horkheimer tries to argument that art is a contrast to what the culture industry stands for. An interesting quote is “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 they intentionally produce”. My take on this is that before the culture industry, art was the popular media but now through the standardization of culture, mass culture is the “new” admired media.

The culture industry is the factory of mass cultural institutions which produces standardized cultural goods for the masses. This culture industry involves standardization, repetition and efficiency and manipulates the society into passivity. According to Adorno and Horkheimer the productions made by the culture industry robs people of their imagination and takes over their thinking. The products are designed to deny imagination, spontaneity, fantasy and any active thinking of the spectators. The culture industry creates a mass production where everything is homogenized and diversity only consists of small trivialities. A good quote from the text that describes this is “every film is a preview of the next”. Here you can see the authors clear opinion of standardization in the culture industry.

According to Adorno and Horkheimer the mass media, or culture industry, gives the illusion of being informed and involved, but in reality the consumer is being reduced to minding himself with his own unimportant troubles. The consumer of mass media is certain that the media is adapted to his needs while in fact the culture industry produces this sentiment in order to strengthen its influence. Thus the consumers of mass media are being deceived and a “mass deception” is taking place.

In the fourth chapter Adorno and Horkheimer are talking a lot about the term amusement in relation to the culture industry. Amusement existed long before the industry itself. An interesting thing they say about amusement is that according to them, amusement means putting things out of mind and forgetting suffering. The escape is not from bad reality though, but from the last thought of resisting that reality. The liberation which amusement promises is from thinking as negation. I thought this description of amusement was appealing because this is in some way how I look at amusement, especially when it comes to film. For me, I think it’s a difference between watching films on the television or going to the cinema though. If you go to the cinema this description of amusement is more correct in my opinion that when you watch on the television, because when you go to the cinema it is more of a special occasion and because of the environment of the darkness and sharing of experience with the rest of the audience you can just forget about your life outside the cinema.

onsdag 13 november 2013

Theme 1: theory of science - Reflection

For this week’s theme of Theory of Science I prepared by reading the book The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell. Then I analyzed it by answering the questions for the seminar that unfortunately didn’t occur. The theme and the readings for this week have dealt very much with philosophy, which is an uncommon subject in our education and on The Royal Institute of Technology. I think I have a mind that is very much catered to science and for example math, where you mostly have one single answer and things that can be determined and proved. So for me it was hard to read and understand Russells book about the problems of philosophy. What I learned when I read it was that there are many different views about philosophy and there are many definitions of different terms in that area. When I am reading all the blogs from the other students in the course it shows what a diverse subject this is. Even though we have answered specific questions, there are many different answers, interpretations and ways of expressing your belief. This is very different to science where if it were a math question, everybody will (hopefully) have the exact same answer.

Otherwise in terms of what I have learned from reading the other blog posts there is not much to say I think, because everyone has answered the specific questions for the seminar and not done much of their own analysis or discussion.

An interesting aspect from Russell’s book that I thought a lot about was the question of what reality is. In my opinion I think it is easy to believe that a table, as Russell talks about, is the same for everybody that sees it and is thus the reality. A table is not more than a table and equal to everyone so to speak. Therefore the notion of sense-data was interesting because everyone have their own sensations of what something is. 

Depending on where you stand when you see the table you will have a certain view of it because of the viewing angle, the light, etc. So the reality of an object can differ from person to person and is determined by the relation between the person and the object in terms of the sense-data. 

Since we haven’t had the seminar for this theme I haven’t contributed to the course in any other way than the two blog postings. I heard from a friend who took this course last year that the seminar for this theme created good interesting discussions and I understand that since, as I have discussed earlier, I think everyone have got a slightly different understanding to the concepts and terms that Russell talks about.

torsdag 7 november 2013

Theme 1:theory of science - prior

In the book The problems of philosophy, the author Bertrand Russell talks about sense-data. That is the things that are immediately known in sensation, such as colours, sounds, smells, etc. For example if we are to know anything about an object, like a table as Russel describes, it must be by means of the sense-data which we associate with the table. This can be the brown colour, oblong shape, smoothness etc. According to Russell we cannot say that the table is the sense-data or even that the sense-data are directly properties of the table. The sense-data depends upon the relations between us and the object.

Russell introduces this notion of sense-data to help in considering if objects such as a table really exist and if so what sort of object it can be.

A proposition is a declarative statement which asserts some matter of fact. These assertions have a truth-value, meaning they can be either true or false. This makes them the primary bearers of truth and falsity. Statement of fact can also be true or false depending on if the fact corresponding to the statement is true or false. The common denominator between propositions and statements of fact is that they have a truth-value and that separates them from other kinds of verbal expressions like for example opinions.

When talking about knowledge by description, Russell separates two different types of descriptions, “ambiguous” and “definite”. A description can be of the form “a so-and-so” or “the so-and-so” where the first one is ambiguous and the second definite. Such a description of an object as a definite one means that there is one object, and no more, having a certain property. An example of such a description is “the man with the iron mask”.

Russell is reasoning around if knowledge could be defined as “true belief”. At first sight it might seem so but according to Russell it is not. He goes on to say that a true belief cannot be called knowledge when it is deduced by a fallacious process of reasoning, even if the premises from which it is deduced are true. 

Further on Russell discusses the hope of finding reasons to believe that such things as the fundamental dogmas of religion can be proved by a priori metaphysical reasoning. This view turns upon the “nature” of things which means “all the truths about the thing”. The author reasons that if that’s the case then we cannot know a thing’s nature unless we know all the things relations to all other things in the universe. Russell concludes though that “(1) acquaintance with a thing does not logically involve a knowledge of its relations, and (2) a knowledge of some of its relations does not involve a knowledge of all of its relations nor a knowledge of its 'nature' in the above sense”. He goes on to draw upon an example of his toothache which although he has the best knowledge by acquaintance there is, he does not know what the dentist can tell about the cause of it and therefore does not know the nature of the toothache.