Reflections on Theme 3 (After the Seminar)

In this weeks theme we were suppose to read two texts Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems and Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B. M. (1995). What Theory is Not. We were also suppose to choose another text by ourselves. The text that I choose was Thomas J. Johnson, Credibility of Social Network Sites for Political Information Among Politically Interested Internet Users. I always like to choose my own texts, then I can choose the topic that I find most interesting and then the reading gets easier. 

During the seminar we all went thru or texts. First in small groups, In my group we discussed a lot what was the difference between hypotheses and a theory and everyone told what theories there text had used. After we were done in the groups we started to talk about the texts in full class. This gave a new perspective on what theory really is. Thing that were said during the seminar was the a hypothesis is when I am wondering something and a theory is when a get a reason/answer to something. When looking at that explanation it is pretty easy to divid hypothesis from theory. But knowing that and also knowing that a big amount of hypothesis together can create a theory (this was also mentioned during class) makes it really hard to divide the two. 

Theme 4: Quantitative research

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

The text I have chose is ”The ‘‘Nasty Effect:’’ Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies”. They are saying that today we are able to disseminate information to a big crowd of people. This gives the opportunity for small subjects like nanotechnology. A technology that are pretty new and very complex, meaning that not a lot of people have a great understanding about it this small subject can still get discussed with the help of internet and the commenting opportunities. 

The thing that this paper if trying to find out is however the different comments that are placed under text or articles can effect the readers. Some of the comments are not even true but what impact do they have, and how dose different comments effects us differently. 

To find out this the methodology they they have used is that they have sent out a survey asking the participants about there media use habits, science knowledge and efficacy, and nanotechnology support and other things. The participants got to read a blogpost about nanotechnology there. There was eight different blog posts with different comments on it. Comments that were civil vs not civil. Were a good example of an uncivil comment is ‘‘If you don’t see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these products, you’re an idiot.’’

After the participants had read the blogpost and the comments they were asked to answer questions. Questions like if the comment were civil and from a 1-10 scale if the participant agreed with the comment under the text, where 1 = ‘‘Do not agree at all’’ and 10 = ‘‘Agree very much’’

They also measured the risk perception on a 1-5 scale asking ”On the issue of nanotechnology, do you think the benefits outweigh the risks, the risks outweigh the benefits, or the risks and benefits are about the same?’’. They also measured age, gender and Socioeconomic status. The socioeconomic status was measured thru level of education and family income. They also measured religiosity on a 1-10 scale by the question ‘‘How much guidance does religion provide in your everyday life?” 

They also measured the media use of the participants with three questions ‘‘How much attention do you pay to news stories about the following topics when you read the newspaper, either in print or online?’’,  ‘‘How much attention do you pay to news stories about the following topics when you watch television news, either on a traditional television or in online sources (such as Hulu or websites of television networks, such as ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox)?” and ‘‘How much attention do you pay to news about the following topics when you go online for news and information? Please exclude online versions of print newspapers or television shows and answer this question based on your usage of blogs, websites, and online-only newspapers.’’

The last thing they measured was the familiarity of the topic (nanotechnology) with the question ‘‘How much have you heard, read, or seen about nanotechnology?’’

What I think makes the methodology good is that they have used a lot of impact factors when getting there results. But with every survey there can of course be more impact factors that can be relevant for the result. They have backed up there chosen impact factors, but it is easy to find information that supports that this and that impact factor is important and something can then be easily forgotten. 

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

What I learned from reading the text is that you can very easy get statistics on everything. But that this statistics can be hard do really understand. First there needs to be a lot of participants to really get a good and quantitative result. Second there need to be an understanding of what different impact factors there can be.  

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

I think that the way to the information were conducted was good, but as I wrote you can never really know what impact factors that people have when they are answering a survey. 

Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative methods?
You can in a easy way get an general overview of what people think of specific topic/question. But since you can never really know how the participants understood the question or if the questions that you asked pointed the participants to one direction. This gives an limitation to the question and the question therefore need to be very simple. 

Which are the benefits and limitations of using qualitative methods?

By getting qualitative information you can get a deeper understanding in one subject or topic. You can also get a better understanding of who the participants are, and by that get a better understanding of what might affect their response. 

Reflections on Theme 2 (After the Seminar)

This weeks theme was about “Critical Media Studies”. I have read the texts Adorno & Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment and Walter Benjamin’s essay ”The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity”. 

The same thing as last week I found it quite hard to understand the texts. I like after reading the texts to search on them on the internet. To see how people understood them or maybe more what reflections people had after reading them. 

What I have learned from this weeks team is that to get a better understanding on what a text is about the text needs to be read in the same context as it is written. That is very interesting and I can agree with it. To truly understand what someone is feeling and to understand the text as it is written, a background story and understanding needs to be applied. I think this is very important not only when reading a text but in all kind of situations. To understand what another person is trying to mediate I need to see things thru this persons eyes. 

Due to mandatory lecture in one other class I missed this weeks seminar. I think that is very sad and that I because of that missed out on good reflections and better understanding about this weeks theme. 

Theme 3: Research and theory

I have chosen the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. This journal has a Impact Factor: 2.019. The journal is peer-reviewed scholar journal and  writes about education, political science, media studies and different others disciplines. 

The research paper that I have decided to work on is ”Credibility of Social Network Sites for Political Information Among Politically Interested Internet Users”. The authors are Thomas J. Johnson and Barbara K. Kaye. What they are writing about is the credibility that we have for social network sites (SNS). They are looking at this from a point of view is politicians should or can use SNS. If people really trust what they see or read on SNS. They say that 

”Credibility is a judgment made by the user based on a host of factors, including believability, 

accuracy, fairness, depth, trustworthiness, bias, completeness, reliability”

Researchers have created models on how that helps to undertand and explain how individuals determine a sites credibility. Many of those sites are based on the model that the credibility on a site is based on the users ability to evaluate the site and also on how motivated the users are to make sure that the information on the site is credible. 

The method they used to find out the credibility of social networks sites was that they looked into a lot of different studies that takes up different ways people uses SNS sites. On SNS sites there is a lot of different tools to use when spreading information. Like the chat function, posting something in you feed, linking an article, creating group to discuss a specifik subject and so on.  How credible this different tools are is determined by different factors. To give an example, if a Facebook user only have people they he/she know and have meet in real life on Facebook, then this person is more likely to believe in the things that are being posted on his/her’s wall. 

The method used to collect the information about reliance of SNS for political information and if the political information is more or less credible if posted on social networks compared to other online tools that can be used is done thru data collection. They sender out a survey 2weeks before and 2weeks after the elections in the states 2008 on SNS sites to political interested internet users. The users themselves after responding to the survey got the option to send the survey to someone else. 

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

A theory is something that explains why different things happens. If the circumstance are like this, than A will probably happen. If the circumstance are in this way then B is more likely to happen. Theory are not facts and data. It is thru facts and data that you come up with theories. 

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 have above explained the theories that was used in this paper. I who'd say that this theory is a Explanation and prediction (EP) 

”Says what is, how, why, when, where, and what will be.

Provides predictions and has both testable propositions and causal explanations.” 

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

In this case were there is hard to measure the ”real truth” I think they did a well job by explaining what impact factors that can change the results and change the mindset of people. But it is hard to really tell when it comes the SNS since it is a medium that is fast changing and the importance of it as well.  

Reflection, theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science

I found the texts very hard to understand. It took very long time to get thru them and when I had read them it still was not really clear to me what the big picture was. To get a better understanding I searched to web for other people writing about the text. That helped a lot for me to understand but it was still very blurry.
Before the seminar I read thru some of the other students blogs to get a better understanding. It was really good. At the seminar not so many people spoke, that got me to realize that this text and this philosophical way of thinking is really hard. I thought that the seminar professor was really good. Everything is very complex and it feel like you can twist and turn everything and there is no real answer to anything.

Theme 2: Critical media studies

1 Dialectic of Enlightenment

What is ”Enlightenment”?

It is a way of thinking. It describes how we should make everything into knowledge and reason. If we don't then things will be myths and/or imaginary. Why this needs to be done is because things with myths and imaginary things is that they are blurry and can therefore frighten us, leave us in fear and make us not think as clear as we can. By make everything into knowledge we can advance the way we are thinking.  

What is ”dialectic”?

It is that thru knowledge and reason disagreements can be solved.

It is when to sides have different opinions and together they can find out the truth. By dividing up the subject into positive and negative sides they can look and discuss the subject. By having an opened mind and being able to change their opinion, by sorting out what is not true the truth to the question can be found.

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

It is when you find out the truth thru knowledge and not thru the myths. When searching and information and knowledge to find out what is what and not just make a assumption based on myths and what you think it is but don’t really have the facts on it. Saying that only objects can be divided up. For example two chairs they can be divided into a group and you can distinguish them from the group of flowers. Flowers and chairs are objects so that you can divide up. But you can not divide up one chair from another based on that one is hard to sit on and the other is not. Thats a feeling and can’t therefore never be knowledge. Thats why it is so important in the text, to see the difference.  

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

A myth is what enlightenment is not. Is things that we believe is true but don't have any sources to back it with it is something that is illusion and imaginary.  We can not really know what is true or not in a myth.

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

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 are all the things that are the main core. The superstructure are things thats built around the substructure. Superstructure are things like culture, religion. laws. Things that are really important and that people make decisions based on. But to have a superstructure there needs to be substructure to built the culture and religion on.

As en example if the superstructure are the laws in a city, then the substructure are the city that is needed for the laws to exist. The substructure is the material needed for the superstructure.

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 it does when looking at photographs and movies. Everyone can today take a picture or get a copy of it. Everyone can make a movie and the access of a movie is really easy. The package a movie is wrapped in makes it easy to understand the information or the meaning of the movie. When watching a movie you don’t need to create you own pictures on how things looks compare to when you read a book. This has made art and culture easier to understand and I think that this is an effect of enlightenment. Where everything needs to be understood and very clear.

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).

That the perception are naturally is that we as humans take in information differently. We see things from different point of views, we feel different feelings about the same things. So the perception is naturally in one way if that was not true everyone would feel the same way. But it can also be historically meaning that historically changes in culture or religion can make the perceptions change. That because of this changes people changed their senses to the same ”direction” and the change is then no naturally.  Benjamin refers to the stature of Venus as an historically perception.

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

The term aura means the uniqueness of objects something that can not be changed or replaced. Something that is real and does not change based on the distant or time and space. An object can not lose it’s aura. Al natural objects have an aura, they are unique. But when it comes to art it is different. The way of looking at art is determined from history and culture so the aura differs from natural objects.

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?

My opinion in what Kant want’s to say is that we can not trust how we see things thru or own eyes. Or cognition is based on objects and thats why the author say that we can not really trust how we see and percept time and room. Nothing says that the way of looking at things and thinking of them needs to be something that we can se (a object).  

Today or cognition complies with the objects Kant say, he thinks for us to learn more we need to change the way we see things. Instead of making or cognition complies with the object, the  object should compile with or cognition. Meaning that we may see something in one way but for us to truly understand  we need to se things thru the objects perspectives. So we base things on this assumptions and then make it knowledge but when looking at Kant’s point to it we can not call it knowledge since we can not be truly sure if it is knowledge or just our way of seeing things.  

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"?

What we see and what we hear is not coming from the eyes and the ears. It is just tools for us to collect information. The collected information then goes to the mind. The mind makes us understand the information and in some case it is not understandable.

Just because we see something or hear something that does not mean that we understand it. For us to make something understandable we need to fist collect the information and then based on old knowledge we can make something out of it. 

When I say old knowledge I am meaning collected information about different things from a lot of different people. The more of the same information that we collect about the same thing will make us believe that it is knowledge and what they are believing is the truth. 

This is the way that we do empiricism today. We collect a lot of information from different persons and what the majority things are often described as the knowledge. Like if a flower smells good or not. If a majority say it dose than we are more likely to believe that it those.