Pre theme 4

Part 1

I read the study Social Networking Sites: Their Users and Social Implications — A Longitudinal Study (Brandtzæg 2012). The study examines how social networking sites users differs from non-users in terms of loneliness, informal sociability and bridging capital and how its changes over time.

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

The study uses a longitudinal method where its participants answered a questionnaire once a year over a period of three years. The benefits from this is that you can compare the results the over time. The limitations are that there was a huge amount of dropouts (even though the study argues that the dropouts didn’t affect the result). The questionnaire was Web based so you cannot be sure that the participants took the study seriously and answered the questions truthfully and thoroughly.  

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

When developing the questionnaire the researchers uses a lot of references on how the questions should be written. This gives the study a lot of weight and it decreases the chances of asking irrelevant questions. The paper also shows how difficult it is to avoid dropouts, especially when it is a longitudinal research.

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

I think one of the problems with the study is that the researcher defines what things like bridging capital or loneliness means. For example the participants answers on a grade from 1 (Never) to 4 (Always) on the statement “I have difficulties in making friends”. If you answer “Always” on this statement that doesn’t have to imply that you are lonely. The study never asks directly about what they are looking for, for example questions like “Do you feel lonely?” are missing.

Part 2

The study focuses on the relationship between physical activity, perceived stress and self-reported upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) (Bälter et. al 2010). By conducting a quantitative research, by letting the study group answer several web-questionnaires, the conclusion was that people with a high level of physical activity had a lower risk of URTI. Also that people with a high level of perceived stress would lower their URTI if they increase their physical activity. The study shows how difficult it can be to do a quantitative research with a lot of participants, which is required if you want to draw any generalizable conclusions. There is a lot of outer parameters and events that happened during the study that could influence the result. What I particularly reacted to, and also learned, when reading the study was how detailed the “Study design” section was. They have written exactly how they have conducted their study and it seems like they haven’t left out any events at all, for example all participant dropouts where reported. I also reacted to how often they used statistical methods when both reporting and analyzing their results, something I will take with me when I’m conducting quantitative research in the future.

Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative methods?

The benefits of quantitative methods are that it collects data that is easy to summarize and describe, most of the results will be in numbers that can be presented in for example diagrams and tables. In a quantitative research you often use a large amount of participants, which can be a bit tricky, but it also invites you to draw more generalizable conclusions. The limitations is that it’s important that you don’t develop a questionnaire with any bias, the researchers can get the results they want by just asking the right questions. Also there is a limitation with dropouts and that you cannot be sure if the participants answers the questions truthfully and thoroughly. The conclusions are also very dependent on which population you draw your participants from, to draw wide conclusions you need a broad population.

Which are the benefits and limitations of using qualitative methods?

Qualitiative methods invite the participants to elaborate their thoughts and feelings so you often get deeper results. With qualitative methods you also have the chance to get results that you weren’t looking for, since the participants can speak more freely and not answers direct questions (like yes/no). The limitations with qualitative research is that it’s more time consuming and you cannot have a larger number of participants, so the results is hard to generalize.

References

Brandtzæg, Petter B. (2012) Social Networking Sites: Their Users and Social Implications — A Longitudinal Study, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Volume 17, Issue 4, p. 467-488, July 2012.

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 infection. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 43(2), 272-279.

Post theme 3

This week’s theme was easier to understand because it was within an area that I am more familiar with. I have read scientific articles before and I have tried to do a critical analyze on them in several previous courses at KTH. So in that regard this theme was easier than the previous weeks. However to understand what theory is and to identify it was more difficult. I thought I understood it before the lecture and seminar, but it turned out that my definition was little bit off the one I learned during the lecture. Also I can’t really say that after the seminar and lecture that I know exactly what theory is, since it’s really complex and have different meaning within different areas (like the scientific contra the humanities theory).

What I definitely will take with me from this week is that the definition of theory that Leif gave us is important to remember when you try to identify theory. The definition says:

“A theory is a set of propositions that aims to identify (abstract) objects and their relation to each other. A theory is an abstract entity that aims to describe, explain, and enhance understanding of the world and, in some cases, to provide predictions of what will happen in the future and to give a basis for intervention and action. Theory is something we construct, it does not exist by itself”.

If you use this definition as some sort of filter when you try to find theory, then I think it will be quite easy to success. 

Pre theme 3

Short description of the journal and what kind of research it publishes.

The article I selected was published in the web-based journal “Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication” (JCMC). JCMS has an impact factor of 2.019. JCMS is one of the oldest web-based journals that focus on Internet studies. It is a broadly interdisciplinary since it topics varies within social science research on computer-mediated communication via the Internet, the World Wide Web and wireless technologies.

Write a short summary of the paper and provide a critical examination.

I read the article “The Emergence of a Freedom of Information Movement: Anonymous, WikiLeaks, the Pirate Party, and Iceland” by Jessica L. Beyer (2013). The article tries to explain how the concept “freedom of information” is not just a phenomena that appears online, but instead that it’s only created online and that it has the possibility to influence all types of democracies.

Beyer begins with describing how the idea of freedom of information was born in groups like WikiLeaks, the International Pirate Party and Anonymous. These organizations/communities then mobilized mainly young people around the world so much that a huge social movement, with the ability to influence nations. For example when the Swedish Branch of the Pirate Party got seats in the 2010 European Parliament election. The core values for this movement are that “communication in any form should not be restricted” (Beyer 2013).

Beyer’s conclusions are drawn from different empirical findings, like studying the creation and history of Wikileaks and Anonymous. Also she studies election results and Anonymous methods of recruiting new members, in order to gain knowledge of how the broader public thinks about this movement. The theory the article provides is of the explanation (Gregor 2005) type, but it’s lacking of generalization that makes the theory weak. Even tough here empirical findings are well elaborated and described, the weak feeling of the theory also comes because of the lack of prediction (Gregor 2005). This results that the whole article feels like a long stretch of facts from references, without any big conclusions drawn.

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

Gregor (2006) describes the core of theory as ”abstraction and generalization about phenomenon, interactions, and causation”.  So it’s important to understand that theory has some level of generalization, knowledge of an individual fact is not theory. Theory has four primary goals; analysis and description, explanation, prediction and prescription (Gregor 2006). This means that theory should describe why the certain phenomena is of interest, it should provide an explanation of how, when and why things happens, it should state what will happen in the future if certain preconditions hold and it should give a description of the methods and/or structure used when creating it.

You can create theory by explaining why for example data has a certain pattern, why events has certain results or by creating new predictions by combining previous theories. Meanwhile the data in it self, the references to other theories or the empirical pattern 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?

As I mentioned above the main theory in this article is of the type explanation (Gregor 2006). Beyer describes what and how WikiLeaks, the Pirate Party and Anonymous have done and describes the causalities, for example how their actions resulted in a huge social movement.

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

The benefits of the explanation theory type are that it provides a greater understanding or insights by others to the phenomena of interest. This theory type invites others to understand an alternative view on how the world could be looked upon to. It’s limitations is that often is the conclusions drawn under a given number of circumstances, which makes it hard to generalize any of them.

References:
Beyer, Jessica L (2013). Online: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcc4.12050/abstract

Post theme 2

To prepare for this theme I read the literature for the theme but I also complemented it by reading some summaries in both English and Swedish, and looking up some terms in various dictionaries. This gave me a feeling that I had a reasonably good understanding of both Benjamin's and Adorno and Horkheimer's texts before the lecture and the seminar. After the lecture and seminar I realized that I only scratched the surface of what the literature was about. For example I didn’t put the literature in the context that their authors where in when they wrote them. I didn’t think of the fascism, nazism and capitalism during the 1940s that of course influenced both Benjamin, Adorno and Horkheimer. But when Henrik reminded us to do so, both during the lecture and the seminar, it was much easier to understand and to find the underlying subjects in the texts.

An interesting topic during the seminar discussion that I learned a lot from was about Adorno and Horkheimer thoughts about that the Enlightenment is not always something good. For example that empiricism can’t decide all knowledge, because if so there will be no room for ideas like human rights or human value and instead you can find support for oppression. They discuss that there should be some dialectic balance between the realism and nominalism, or empiricism and rationalism. I found these thoughts interesting because I have never looked at knowledge in this way. As a engineer I often think that only scientific knowledge is the correct, but after discussing Adorno and Horkheimer text I understand why we also have to listen to our ideas and rationalism in order to get visions of a tolerant and just society.

Pre theme 2

1. Dialectic of Enlightenment

a. What is "Enlightenment"?

Enlightenment is a whole new way of thinking that is based on rationality and reason instead of magic and mythology. The enlightenment emphasizes the science so all the humans’ knowledge is based on for example mathematic number or physical laws, not some old folklore. The enlightenment has the ambition of leaving nothing unknown since the unknown results in fear, which shackles the humans thinking.

b. What is "dialectic"?

Dialectic is a method used when trying to find the truth of a subject. Two parties with the opposite opinion discusses with logical thinking and reason, so they both hears the argument of the opposite side.

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

Nominalism is a concept that defines what exist and what does not exist. According to nominalism all individual objects exists, while the abstract objects does not (1). This is important since nominalism discards all illusions that has no scientific proof, e.g. gods.

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

A myth is when human try to explain the unknown natural or social phenomenon with supernatural illusions (2). The enlightenment tries to liberate the world from the myths, since the myths causes fear and decreases the reason and rationality.

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?

In the context of capitalism ”superstructure” is all those things that aren’t directly connected to the production. E.g. laws, philosophy or religion. The “substructure” is directly connected to the production, e.g. the resources or the machinery. What’s important is that the substructure forms the superstructure. When applying this model on the cultural context I think that the “superstructure” is the cultural field as it self, and the “substructure” is the objects (film, paintings), tools (cameras, pencils) and the artists (cameramen, painters).

The reason of analyzing the cultural production in this perspective is that this says a lot about what culture is and where it’s going. New technology (e.g. the camera) has made it possible to create new cultural productions that do not only change what a work of art is, but also what culture as it self is. Benjamin uses this perspective since he is afraid that the new technologies, that mainly have made reproduction easier, are changing the aura of art, since it more and more resembles the economical production.

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?

Benjamin describes how both the film and the photography has broadened the culture and how we define what culture is, which is some extent has revolutionized the way we think. For example has the invention of film, with it’s possibility of e.g. camera angles and editing, made it possible to influence the viewers thinking much more than books or plays could do. I think for example our imaginations skills has weakened since you get everything in a film on a silver platter, you don’t have to picture the characters or the surroundings like reading a book. Or as Duhamel says in the text: “I can no longer think what I want to think. My thoughts have been replaced by moving images”.

Benjamin don’t really embrace these new technologies, he thinks that it’s ruins what true art is, mainly because of the possibility of reproduction and that art becomes more available. Adorno and Hockheimer on the other hand likes this since this makes it possible to spread knowledge much easier, which is important for the enlightenment.

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).

The perception can be naturally determined since we all have our own experiences, feelings and senses, otherwise the perception wouldn’t differ from person to person. But the perception can also be historically determined, since the history of course has a role in forming who you are, which also includes your perception. The reasons for this could be changes in culture, art or religion. One example is Benjamin discussion about how the Roman art not only changed the culture, but also our perception.

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

Since a work of art’s aura is its uniqueness and authenticity. A work of art does only have an aura if it’s uniquely present in time and space. For example as the original Mona Lisa an aura, but the poster of Mona Lisa doesn’t. Due to the possibilities of reproduction with the new technology, the art objects' aura is what Benjamin thinks are disappearing. I think there is a difference between natural objects' aura compared to art objects. All natural objects are unique so they all have an aura according to Benjamins concept, but all art objects don’t.

1. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-metaphysics/
2. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/myth

Post theme 1

I struggled during theme 1 with the high level of philosophy and some of the English terms. This meant that I hade to prepare well before the deadline since I had to read every page in the literature several times in order to understand it. I think that I got to a level so I was able to understand it, but I couldn´t really reflect on what the literatures content and what it meant to me. Therefor I didn’t participate much in the discussion during the seminar. With that said the seminars really helped me a lot in understanding both Kant’s and Plato’s texts, Johan described the meanings and his interpretation of the texts well.

During the seminar we discussed why we have to answer the question what knowledge is, a topic that I found very interesting. This was a feeling that I had when reading the literature, that some of it was too complex that only well educated philosophers can understand and interpret and therefor find a meaning of reading it. A meaning I struggled to find. We also discussed why giving examples of knowledge when trying to explain what knowledge, like Theaetetus does, isn’t a valid explanation according to Socrates. Lets say that you are explaining knowledge to a person that never had heard the term before, if the examples helps the person to merely understand it, haven’t you in someway described what knowledge is? I now that this doesn’t comply with the theory of “you have to have knowledge to know what knowledge is”. So you shouldn’t be able to describe knowledge to someone who doesn’t have it according to the theory. But I still think that it’s something to it. Can we really answer what the essence of knowledge is without using examples? At least I can’t.

In the end of the seminar Johan started talking about paradigm and how Tomas Kuhn defines it in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1). What I understand this definition means that when old knowledge gets replaced by new knowledge this doesn’t mean that the old knowledge was incorrect, since knowledge is how we describe our representation of the world. An example is Copernicus revolution. I can understand this theory since scientist is trying to create new knowledge under the umbrella that is the current paradigm, unaware of the current paradigms flaws. Of course this doesn’t mean that the knowledge produced during this time have been worthless. We asked Johan what he thinks is the next paradigm, and he started talking about ICT and other modern technology and how it for example redefines our perception of time and space. Today you can make a telephone call to a person on the other side of the world, something you couldn’t even imagine a century ago. This means that our way of thinking is not the same as before. These social effects from modern technology are really interesting, since it is an industry that I hopefully will have my future occupation in. To be able to look at it from this angle is important according to me.

Of course I learned a lot more about Plato’s Theaetetus and Kant’s Critique of pure reason but these was some of the topics that I thought worthy of writing down in my blog.

1. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/aug/19/thomas-kuhn-structure-scientific-revolutions

Pre theme 1

Kant

I think that Kant means that if the human want to expand their cognition and knowledge we sometimes have to put our previous experience aside. We have to look at it from a different perspective in order to get new experience. Letting our cognition determine what the objects are, instead of letting the objects and previous experience determine our cognition can help us avoiding this hurdle.

Socrates

By saying that we see or hear "through" our eyes and ears Socrates means that it is our mind that interprets our senses and then draws the picture of our surrounding. Our mind takes the nerve impulses from our sensing organs in to action, but also our previous experience – our mind perceives what we see. This mean that two people looking at the same object can perceive it different, based on their individual previous experience.  Lets say that these two persons are looking on a chair but their vision is covered so they can't see three of the chairs legs. One of them has seen several chairs before, so they know that the chair probably has four legs or else it would fall over. The other person has never seen a chair before so he thinks that this chair only has one leg.

By arguing about this Socrates comes close to what we call empiricism, that knowledge is primarily based on experience. Like in the example above the two persons had different knowledge since they had different experiences, Socrates argues about what knowledge is and is not with Theaetetus by making him think about his own previous experience. A learning method Socrates is famous for.