Links:
http://amlinden.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-2-reflection.html?showComment=1443199176723#c9097455786895486531
fredag 25 september 2015
Theme 3: Reflection
This week was all about the concept of theory, how it is commonly used and how it is supposed to be used. There were two accompanying text this time: Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems and Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B. M. (1995). What Theory is Not.
Theory seems to be something almost ungraspable, there is no easy way to explain it. You almost have to enter some kind of context for it to make sense. I thought I had a rough understanding of theory as a concept but apparently I had woefully misinterpreted it. Here are some things I learned from the lecture and seminar that didn’t quite stick while only reading the texts:
Theory is often a misused word, especially in the common world. Out there it has the connotation of something speculative something you predict, which is actually closer related to the word “Hypothesis”. The word hypothesis refers to a prediction which should be testable, something you can prove. The two words do however share some bonds and are often used like a compliment to each other.
When observing an event, you try to make sense of it - by taking a step back and observing the event from a different angle, you could come up with a theory about that event. You can try to identify if the theory is strong by creating different hypothesis around it and testing your proposition. There is no such thing as a true theory, something absolute. If the theory is strong enough scientists agree that it should be taken as “true” but it can of course still be disproven. Theory should be thought of as a tool to describe, explain and enhance our understanding of the world.
A good example is the former theory about Earth as the center of the universe. As people saw this as the absolute truth, they conformed to it and therefore based other theories on this assumption. When Aristotle revealed our current vision , that the sun is the center of our solar system (triggering a paradigm shift) - all the theories built on the preceding became illogical, it was way easier to calculate the orbits of planets when they didn’t revolve around Earth.
“Theory is about the connections between phenomena, and explaining WHY, HOW and under WHAT circumstances acts, events, structures, and thoughts occur.” - Leif Dahlberg (2015). This is now my new interpretation of the word “theory”, at least when discussed in a broad sense. Context is important for its interpretation though, so there are different kinds of theory within different fields like science or philosophy.
I also learned that theory can be contrasted with practice. It is basically the difference between observing and doing. We at the Royal Institute of Technology are more practical in our approach to learning, while orthodox universities often delve more into the theoretical aspects. We do have to consider though that all things practical have a theoretical dimension.
As a last note, I found this theme easier to read and work through, but almost as hard as the previous to fully understand. Learning to find reliable journals and research papers will surely come to great use in my future when exploring new horizons!
torsdag 24 september 2015
Theme 4: Quantitative research
For this theme I chose the paper: Emotion regulation, procrastination, and watching cat videos online: Who watches Internet cats, why, and to what effect? from the journal: Computers in Human Behavior. As the title implies it is about finding out why there is such a big fuss about cats, who is watching them, and how it affects the individual.
- Which quantitative method or methods are used in the paper? Which are the benefits and limitations of using these methods?
The method used for this paper was an online questionnaire (spread through Facebook and Twitter) which took approximately ten minutes to fill in. The questions were about the individual himself and his association with cats, his behaviour, and then to what extent the subject viewed cats online. Almost 7000 users answered the questionnaire. The several benefits with this method that I can think of are: The ease distributing these surveys, with the possibility of an exponential growth of test subjects (through sharing with friends/family). Since it is online and within a friendly setting such as Facebook or twitter, the users might feel more inclined to answer truthfully as to uphold their secondary internet persona. Because it’s a short and simple test, it is easier to accept - ergo more people will take it.
Some limitations could be: It is harder to get a definitive answer when only asking and not studying the users up close while they perform said act of watching cats. While they might answer in a certain way, there is no evident proof that the user really is affected as he describes. Furthermore there might not be enough options in the answers to give of an accurate answer.
- What did you learn about quantitative methods from reading the paper?
I learned that quantitative methods are great for researching large groups of people, getting data that is easy to analyze and come to conclusions with. You can ask a broad range of questions that might correlate to one another, and then puzzle together which of them are truly connected, through statistical analysis. It is also easy to show for the reader, connecting the dots with numbers where quantitative analysis would have a hard time.
- Which are the main methodological problems of the study? How could the use of the quantitative method or methods have been improved?
I do not see any great problems with the study, they set out to find the truth about cats online and I think their method is appropriate for the job. There could be the fact that, since the participants taking the test are volunteering (not being randomly chosen) the demographic might become skewed - giving of a false representation of the love for cats online. They do not however want to find the ratio of cat lovers to indifferent people and thus volunteering could still work. Rephrasing the abstract to include this fact is appropriate, telling us that we are mostly dealing with the effects on people already with an affection for internet cats.
Short reflection of IEEE VR 2012 - Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality
This paper seems like a nice blend of qualitative and quantitative methods, going both into depth with exploring the subjects emotions and perception while also retaining mathematical analysis of numerical data. There is a lot of attention to details in this experiment, rapporting every single instrument and method used. I do find it fascinating how fast we adapt to living in another body and I wonder how this ties into historically determined and natural perception. The fact that people could sense that different bodies were better for specific jobs is really interesting, like being the embodiment of a samurai when learning to fight with a katana.
- Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative methods?
The way you answer is often simplified for the statistical purposes (yes/no or checkboxes), therefore participating in such a study will not demand much of the participant. Quantitative methods are best used when you want to gather a lot of raw data. By nature it is numerical and therefore easier to measure and reach conclusions with.
- Which are the benefits and limitations of using qualitative methods?
When you want to study something in depth, qualitative methods offer a more cohesive analysis of each test subject. It does create a greater strain on the researcher as the information gathered might be harder to analyse. It could also be harder to come up with a definitive answer as the data is often from a smaller selection of people and interpreted by the researcher himself. A lot more theory could be involved when deciphering the extracted data.
References:
söndag 20 september 2015
Theme 2: Reflection - Postseminar
For this week we were asked to read two classical texts in critical theory: Walter Benjamin's essay "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").
They were both interesting texts but before the seminar and lecture I was sorely confused - my mind did not realise that the author’s situation (place, time, etc.) was fundamental for understanding the context of the differing texts. Mainly that Benjamin was in Germany in a pre-war era. Adorno & Horkheimer fled to America and wrote their text towards the end of the war.
I now understand the that enlightenment is complemented by nominalism to only see the world as it is and not rely on concepts, theories or thoughts. When enlightenment takes over completely we get stuck in a mindset where potential for new ideas are crushed. Therefore a balance should be maintain where we try to see the world as it is but still remain open to our own interpretations.
In the seminar we discussed and learned the following:
Classic realism is the opposite of nominalism. While nominalism depicts all objects as true uncategorized objects and the world is only as we perceive it - classic realism is the theory that every single thing we experience is only a reflection of a true hidden object, for example, every chair I see is a partial reflection of one ultimate chair. These ultimate objects exist in the mind, within concepts and theories.
Another topic that ties into this is the differing opinions of Adorno & Horkheimer and Benjamin when it comes to mass media and culture. While Benjamin sees the potential in new technologies like cinema because it gives a sense of dignity to the bourgeois when they are depicted film. He also proves that there is more to discover with this new technology, like the camera for example, allowed us to realize how horses gallop. Therefore Benjamin thought these elements created revolutionary potential in media & culture.
Adorno & Horkheimer on the other hand argue that mass media is using nominalism to stabilize the world and depict it as an absolute. People see the world through cinema as it is outside - therefore they believe it is the absolute truth, everybody is bound to their roles. Adorno & Horkheimer believe that we should reintroduce a bit of the classic realism that lets us ponder on important questions, not just take the world as we experience it.
We also realized that historically determined perception is more or less contextually determined perception. The circumstances form and shape our perception.
Lastly aura is the uniqueness of an object, the circumstances in which it was used or created gives it aura. If a rockstar throws you his hat under a concert, that hat has aura since it was used by that famous rockstar - a copy of that hat has not experience the scalp of that rockstar, ergo it has less aura. Mass media allows everyone to experience that “hat” and therefore its uniqueness decays.
I would like to add as an end note that the professor who was giving the lecture and seminar performed fantastically. He was easy to understand and spoke well.
torsdag 17 september 2015
Theme 3: Research and theory - Preseminar
Computers in Human Behavior
A journal where the focus is aimed at understanding the correlation between psychology and computer interaction. How is a single individual, a group or a society affected mentally by this ever increasing usage of computers? The primary subject within this journal is human behaviour created by interaction with computers, not the computers themselves. The published works within are: Original theoretical works, research reports, literature reviews, software reviews, book reviews and announcements.
I do think this journal has a role in media technology - even though the technical aspects are undermined the information can still be of great use in further developing the design and interaction aspect.
Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory
This paper is researching social networking sites (SNS), trying to figure out the crucial factors that contribute to members initially joining, continued use and why there is growth within the network. To categorize and explain these factors the author is using motivation theory and network externalities. Motivation theory is divided into extrinsic motivation (usefulness) and intrinsic motivation (enjoyment). Network externalities is a term that refers to (in this case) a user's contribution to the increased or decreased growth of the network through the value and effect that they themselves generate - both directly and indirectly.
So in short, the different factors that would determine why people join a network is: Usefulness, enjoyment, amount of peers (friends/family), amount of members and perceived complementarity (indirect network externalities). The method used to gain this knowledge was through an online survey (based on questions) in the Taiwan version of Facebook. The findings showed that the most influential factors was enjoyment, followed by number of peers and then usefulness. The survey further showed that there was a difference between genders: the male demographic was less influenced by the number of both peers and members in the network. Which means they were less likely to stop using the network if some of the members and/or their peers dropped out. The goal of the paper was to give a reference point to operators of SNS, modifying their priorities.
The fact that the subject group was mostly people from Taiwan has me wondering if the results might be biased because of differing cultures and/or lifestyles. I have yet to read an article about internal cultures of social networks but my assumption is that they remain unaffected from a secondary life.
Lastly when discussing the theoretical background of the subject it was easily understandable as the author explained the context by which the citations were used. Seldom were citations randomly placed to increase the “value” of the paper.
Questions
- Briefly explain to a first year university student what theory is, and what theory is not.
Quotes by Sutton & Staw are: “Data are not theory” and “Theory is the answer to queries of why”. As such theory can be used to explain observations in a logical way; it can be built/created upon data, references or diagrams - but empirically collected information in itself is not theory.
- 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?
Two major theories are used to describe and explain the phenomena of joining social network sites are “Motivation theory” and “Network externalities” which both are described above in the summary. These theories are best suited to type II. “Explanation” because they are needed to formulate the questionnaire and are also used to clarify/simplify the main article’s subject.
The most fitting for the whole paper itself is theory type IV: “Explanation and Prediction” (EP), because the paper involves all the elements of “What is, how, why, when, where, and what will be.”. It starts with something to aim for, predicts what will happen, shows the result and lastly explains and discusses said result.
- Which are the benefits and limitations of using the selected theory or theories?
The whole paper which is of the fourth type (EP) appear to me as a reader the most comprehensive with a structure as this. The other theories which are used to build a foundation for the the article make it easy to follow and understand because the theories use simple and few concepts. However, it might limit the scope of the article and make it a bit shallow, are the different categories too broad, limiting the facts that can be extracted from the paper?
References:
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/computers-in-human-behavior/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563210003766
söndag 13 september 2015
Theme 1: Reflection - Postseminar
To be honest, starting with such heavy and complicated essays as Kant’s and Plato’s had me slightly overwhelmed. The level of academic english forced me to constantly look up the definitions, interrupting my reading flow. From what I understand, Kant is from germany and therefore the translation to english might have suffered. The structure of the sentences made you lose track of subject at hand.
I do feel that I have learned quite a lot though, after extensive thought and going through the texts again, the pieces began falling into place. After the lecture and seminar the picture seems a lot clearer. Kant was discussing our way of viewing the world in the most fundamental way, giving us categories to define everything that is and has been - both empirically or a priori. The concepts of space and time felt like a large influence in his writing.
On the seminar, we discussed about our different ways of understanding the messages relayed by these philosophers of a bygone time. Discussing the mind and soul that Plato refers to following an exciting argumentation for our perception dealing with cloning, teleportation and siamese twins. It was really interesting to discuss what happens to the presence of the mind with the coming of new technology. Later on in the general discussion we drifted into the definition of art and a truly objective world view (Which we agreed on was implausible). Furthermore we had a conversation with the subject of “using old knowledge to gain new knowledge” and how it applies to newborn babies, how we as humans slowly build up a structure within the brain that allows us to understand and experience that which happens in front of us.
fredag 11 september 2015
Theme 2: Critical media studies - Preseminar
Dialectic of Enlightenment
- What is "Enlightenment"?
As the first sentence in the book states; it is the subduing of the things that are unknown and therefore fearful to man, and thusly creating a master race - fearful of none! I perceive it also through these chapters as the removal of subjectivity amongst theories unknown. By going for a more objective approach towards myth, you can unveil the mystery and therefore deny it the power over man - a more naturalistic way of thinking perhaps. Described as disenchanting the world and cleansing it of magical aspects.
- What is "Dialectic"?
Through definition it is described as: “A logical discussion that aims to seek out the truth of an opinion or theory”. In Horkheimer and Adorno’s book, they are both explaining the term itself - and also using it within the context of the book, gathering other philosophers thoughts and theories, clashing them against one another within the subject of enlightenment. They further describes it as a way of putting the whole image onto a script, giving a way to carefully perceive the fallacy within arguments.
- What is "Nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?
Nominalism is a philosophic angle that denies the reality of abstract terms (unproven Ideas, types and concepts) acknowledging real tangible objects instead. Since enlightenment is focused on objectivity and the abolishment of the supernatural, nominalism fits like a glove.
- What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?
Myth denotes that of the whimsical and mysterious past, filled with supernatural and magical aspects - an alternative way of understanding how the world came to be. As I see it through the book, myth is both a state of power from the fear/respect of that which you do not fully understand, while also being something fictitious and abstract. That which cannot objectively be proven is tagged as “myth” by enlightenment.
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?
I interpret the superstructure in this context as the deeper values we possess within our culture, ideology or art. Changing how people value things takes time, it is something you affect at the core. Substructure on the other hand I therefore perceive as the material parts (tools, people, methods) within our society.
In the Dialectic of Enlightenment, Horkheimer and Adorno describes our daily capitalistic production of culture and art, where a rich few defines the troupes and direction of art. As culture stands on the flow of money, the corporate fatcats are reluctant to embrace new and innovative ideas - therefore a Marxist perspective on the production of culture could prove useful.
What I believe Benjamin is implying is the fact that through new methods, inventions and letting the people experiment i.e. developing the substructure, we can unlock new heights in the superstructure which has in the present slowly come to a halt.
- 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?
According to Benjamin the answer is yes and I concur! With the leap in art from lithography to photography and even later on with the advent of moving pictures, as said before, with a change to the substructure, culture can embrace these new methods and thusly change the world. It has already happened with the mentioned new discoveries, and can therefore happen again.
- 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).
The general perception of man can be shaped and bent - influenced by historical events. On the other hand; to naturally determine human perception, we just have to look at our biological body and figure out how it works.
An example of historically determined perception that Benjamin brings up is the shift from expensive cultural performances like theater and opera to the affordable movie ticket in the cinema. Both in the price and the performance the shift to perception was staggering! No longer could the recipient calmly analyse the scene as it progressed, with the editor’s help, movies felt fast and exhilarating with a staggering amount of sound effects bombarding the senses - there was no room left to analyse as the scenes flew by. And that became the accepted term of perception within such art.
- What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?
From what I could gather, “aura” could mean presence of the soul from within the object or person. Benjamin mentioned how revolution of cinema compared against theater missed the “aura” that the presence of real actors on stage creates. By destroying the uniqueness of the act or object, the decay of “aura” begins - ergo within the mass produced market of today, all “aura” is lost!
söndag 6 september 2015
Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science - Preseminar
Kant
A priori - proof without experience.
As I see it, the “object” is referred to anything which the five senses can pick up and translate into a sensation or experience. By having our cognition obey all that is around us, which means all that we see is absolute, we yet to make headway with the possibility of creating new knowledge within our minds which is not bound to the senses, and then proving that such is the truth.
What I then interpret Kant to be suggesting is: What if our perception or rather intuition is actually shaping the world we live in. We might be the ones to give things substance and meaning where there is none. Does the tree make a noise in the wind, if no one is listening? As mentioned in Plato’s text, Socrates brings up the idea that we as humans give a quality to things when we experience them, maybe even with a form prejudice, therefore white and heat become hot and whiteness. Is this what Kant means with the possible reversal of his first presumption about cognition? Is this way of thinking beneficial to better understand things beyond our grasp? That we are molding the world and it is not the world that is molding us, I most likely think it is a combination of both.
Perhaps the other way to think is by that of the supernatural - metaphysics by definition tries to deal with the concept of a higher power, mind over matter, the sixth sense. By trying to move beyond our senses and into the unknown we struggle to prove our ideas since there has yet to be any tangible way of actually knowing the truth about concepts and theories beyond our perception.There may or may not be many more dimensions of perception which we cannot unlock.
Plato
I believe what Socrates is trying to express is the fact that we are unique, each and every one of us. Therefore we experience things differently through our senses, not with them. Does my brain interpret objects in the same way yours does? Surely there must be some differences with the genetic diversity and the billions of people that inhabit the world. If I perceive a blue box as blue, and another person also think it is the colour blue, does that mean our mind know of the same blue color? The hue might be slightly shifted or completely different, therefore we do not see with the eyes, we experience things through them and because we have prejudices about things and objects our view of the world will differ. At least that is how I would try to make sense of this long winded argument.
My final interpretation of Socrates is that the mind that has to translate the input from our sensors, therefore we see through these sensors, not with them. I think the correlation between Socrates proposition and “empiricism” becomes quite clear when you take this former sentence into the argument.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)