Reflections after third seminar

At the seminar we discussed the meaning of theory and what theory can apply. We discussed the five different types of theory that Shirley Gregor wrote about in her text. We had at the seminar, a hard time understandning the big differences between them, but after the discussion, it became clearer. We discussed the individual papers we had read, and the theory behind them.

During the seminar I learned that theory is not concrete. It is a set of statements about something, and it is the theory that makes is possible, in a research, to gather hypotheses.

I read and analyzed the text Internet and Social Media Use as a Resource Among Homeless Youth and concluded the text had a type three, prediction theory. Due to their research and research questions was partly based on earlier similar research and they predicted to get similar answers. But unfortunately, I had not interpreted the text in the right manner, and the authors wanted to analyze if the patterns from previous research was the same. Therefor, the basic theory in my text, was theory one, analysis, that says, what is. And I now realise that this theory makes more sense. Because the authors do not measure the youths internet use depending on e.g genders, more how they use the internet and what they use internet for. They base their research questions and hypotheses on erlier studies that have been done with adults. And therefore they analyze if the homeless youths use the internet in a similar way. During the seminar, Leif asked us the question How many trees represent a forest? We can have a theory of how many trees that represent a forest, but we need to analyse our theory to get the right answer. This is similar to the research paper I read. From earlier studies they could obtain several hyptheses, but they needed to analyse, if they could reject it or not. It is hard to know which theory to apply to a research paper, and we learned at the seminar that there are often more, than just one theory to apply.

Theme 4: Quantitative research

The paper I have chosen is -> Internet addiction in students: Prevalence and risk factors by Daria J. Kuss, Mark D. Griffiths, Jens F. Binder (1) from the Journal of Computers in Human Behaviour with an impact factor of 2,273

The research paper examines how addictive students are of the Internet focused on their participation in various activities on the net such as online shopping and online gaming. Kuss Griffiths and Binder explained that the addictiveness does not probably come from the Internet medium in itself, it comes from online activities that affects their behaviour. The study examines how students get addicted to the Internet and what significant levels of addiction there is, and also if the interaction between personality traits (neuroticism, emotional stability, aggression etc) and the Internet use makes students more addictive. The study examines students in an English University in the East Midlands . The result determined that 3,2% of 2257 students were addicted to the Internet.    

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

The quantitative method that is used in the paper is a cross-sectional online gathering technique, which is an online survey(questionnaire) that treats a specific topic at an exact period of time(2). In this case, the study examines how addictive students are addictve of the Internet seen from two variables. These are if there is different levels of addiction and if personality traits and Internet use also can depend on addictiveness. The online questionnaire contained 120 questions and was distributed via students personal email accounts. 

To figure out if a student is addictive to the Internet they first have to define what addictive imply. There are a lot of factors that can depend on addictiveness and I am not convinced that a questionnaire consisting 120(!) questions will get a broader understanding if students are addictive or not. This also rely on an self awareness of the Internet use, and maybe it would be easier if the students could speak freely about their Internet habits instead of answering a questionnaire with premade answers. I think the results get very narrowed with a lack of details.   

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

I already have some knowledge in the field of quantitative research from earlier courses. I have also in praxis, applied quantitative online surveys in my thesis based on our research question. Although, I have never heard about cross-sectional online gathering technique. I have learned that this kind of survey applies to a specific time and is limited to one subject. And I think that this type of survey can gather loads of data, and because it is distributed during a limited of time, the conditions will not have time to change, allowing an evident result.  

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

I was surprised when the result only showed that 3,2% of 2257 students were addicted to the Internet. In this study, they used tools such as t-tests(3) and AICA-S(4) scores to conclude the result. Maybe it would have been better if they made a qualitative study with less students, and focusing on the main parts that from the theory, explains to be addictive factors. I would personally say I am addicted to the Internet, because everything is dependent on the Internet. So maybe complicated tests like t-tests and AICA-S are too advanced to find out if they are addicted or not.   

I also think it would facilitate for us readers to obtain the questionnaire while reading, so we get further understanding of the questions they distributed. 

Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative methods?

Quantitative methods gives an opportunity to collect a considerable amount of data using e.g. questionnaires. The statistic measure may allow one to evaluate and conclude the study from e.g patterns shown from the collected data. A further benefit is that one can control the method and exclude unnecessary facts due to the focused, narrowed and controlling variables. As a result of this a disadvantage is therefore the limited execution (provides limited details) from the respondents. Also that the researchers may address the answers due to their hypothesis.   

Which are the benefits and limitations of using qualitative methods?

A qualitative method may give more realistic results than the quantitative method. A qualitative method is e.g interviews with the benefit that the interviewee can guide the questions in real time. Data based on experience provides a solid result(5).

A disadvantage is that due to the not totally controlling variables redundant data and other surprised factors may occur, which can also lead to a more time consuming effort.

(1) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcc4.12059/full
(2) (https://explorable.com/types-of-survey) (260914)
(3) Definition: “A t-test’s statistical significance indicates whether or not the difference between two groups’ averages most likely reflects a “real” difference in the population from which the groups were sampled.” (http://docs.statwing.com/examples-and-definitions/t-test/statistical-significance/)(260914)
(4) Assessment for Computer and Internet Addiction-Screener
(5)(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987281/)(260914)

Reflections after second seminar

After this week’s lecture and seminar I have gained further and broader perspectives of the philosophical questions. In the lecture we discussed the foundations of enlightenment. At the beginning, church was the solid source of knowledge. And in the beginning of the 18th century, philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, and science men like Galileo, Copernicus and Newton, started to question the beliefs of religion. Because there was no real evidence to the religious statements.

When cities started to expand and construction works began to excel, the enlightenment developed further (in the engineering sphere) due to overcoming the gravitation law. Constructions works such as The Eiffel Tower also became cultural monuments defining the city and country.

I think the texts was quite hard to understand but yet easier than the texts we read the first week. It was easier to apply these statements and questions because they were more concrete than the earlier texts. I had a hard time understanding the meaning of dialectic and nominalism but after the seminar with Håkan this became clearer. Håkan explained that dialectic illuminates a problem from two different sides and brought up an example between Hegel and Marx. The lecturer gave a lot of worthy anecdotes that made this topic clearer. During the seminar we talked a lot about nominalism and Plato’s cave. Nominalism is divided in universal qualities and the particular qualities. Plato’s cave explains the difference between these two qualities. Håkan explained that in the cave there is a fire, a horse and a shadow on the wall representing the horse. The shadow is only a sensory input which occurs from the fire. The fire in this case is what the real world represents in itself, and the shadow of the horse is only a sensory input that is a representation from our senses. Therefore, these senses you can not see or touch, because it is just a representation of something. The particular qualities are those that share a property with something else. For example the color blue, we perceive through our senses, and we know that the color shares it qualities with something else (another object for example). We also know that two chairs beside each other shares the same qualities and that is how we know they are of the same kind. But the name chair is not directly associated with the object and qualities of the chair. I still think that this discussion and way of thinking is particularly abstract, but it is very interesting.

This is why nominalism was criticized because then we would be ‘stuck’ in the representation of the world, and all universal qualities would not exist because we do not see them as a representation of things. That is why the empirical world needed a complement like a concept based on values, to not get stuck in the world as a representation of itself.

This brings us back to the second world war when nazi-germany revealed propaganda movies that weakened the jews. Due to the “truthful” world they lived in, people did not believe in values or the things they did not see. And that is not a world we want to be stuck in. So thanks to the enlightenment and the critique of enlightenment as Adorno & Horkheimer wrote about, we have compromised on a way of life that includes both the universal and particular qualities and via values and things we perceive, we can determine how we want to interpret the world.

Theme 3: Research and theory

Journal: I have chosen the Social Networks journal with an impact factor of 2.931. The journal consists networking and social capital and how it could treat differently depending on the social networks/relations you are using. This journal is focused on social networking but in a variety of context. 

Paper: The paper I chose is Internet and Social Media Use as a Resource Among Homeless Youth written by Eric Rice and Anamika Barman-Adhikari from the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (impact factor: 1,778). Rice and Barman-Adhikari explains that more than 80% of the homeless youths, get online at least once a week, and roughly one-quarter are online for at least one hour, every day. They therefore want to examine the youths through three different perspectives. These are:

Online Activities - Due to homeless adults using their time online to socialize, job searching, pursue medical care etc, the writers want to examine if the youths use their time online in a similar way, or do they use their time online to do more youth-activities like playing games, listen to music, stream movies etc. Therefore in what different ways are the homeless youths, using their time online.

Online Sociability - The paper also examines how homeless youths use the internet and social media differently, depending on whom they are communicating with. For example the youths may use e-mail to connects with parents, but other social media platforms to communicate with friends.

Social Capital and Online Resource Seeking - The authors examines if internet makes it easier for the youths to for example find a job, or a place to live.

The authors collected quantitative data containing 194 homeless youths from Los Angeles. The research method they used was a computer-administered self-interview (CASI), which is a survey questionnaire they answer on the computer(1). The results indicates that a majority of the homeless youths use their time online to send and receive e-mail, and more than half used their time online to visit social networks such as Facebook and MySpace. The homeless youths also use different means of communication to connect with parents, caseworks, employers and peers. This was email resp. social media. The internet does make it easier for homeless youths to search jobs online, and that is what they prefered. The average age among the homeless youths was 21 years-old. 

1)http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/encyclopedia-of-survey-research-methods/n82.xml, hämtad 180914  

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

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

Theory in the opposite of praxis. In praxis you perform an action and in theory it is the knowledge that occurs. How you try to understand things and find a certain pattern ‘in nature’. Sutton & M.Staw defines theory as the answer to queries of why. In the text The Nature of Theory in Information Systems the author define theory as A metal view. I interpret that theory is a statement to examine alternatives, testing, comparison etc with questions like why, how, what is, when, where, what will be etc.   

How I interpret what theory is not after reading Sutton & M.Staw’s text, is the concrete facts that you don’t have to examine, to receive. For example Sutton & M.Staw writes that references, data, diagram, lists of variables and hypotheses is not theory. But these ‘tools’ may help you to base your theory on.

2)Describe the major theory or theories that are used in your selected paper. Which theory type (see Table 2 in Gregor) can the theory or theories be characterized as?

I thinkt theory (III),prediction, is the most common theory that is used in this paper. According to Gregor “Theories aiming at prediction say what will be but not why”. Because a similar study has not been examined on earlier bases, they predict the results with hypotheses for each research question. They also base their research questions on earlier studies that been done, though with homeless adults. I would also say that the paper includes theory (II), explanation, due to the research questions is based on both facts and previous studies.

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

I think a selected theory will make it easier for the authors to examine their research question(s). It becomes a “red thread” through the whole paper which also makes it easier for the readers to follow. For example, in the paper I chose, I knew in an early stage what the paper was about, and how they would proceed to answer their research questions. Thus the authors base their research questions on research and results among homeless adults, is it not necessary that their result will imply to be similar.

Reflections after first seminar

“Perception without conception is blind. Conception without perception is empty”

These are my reflections from the first seminar:

I had a hard time understanding the text Critique of Pure Reason in the beginning. After the lecture and seminar with Johan, Kant’s text became more clear, and it also became more clear what kind of knowledge the text was about. I think at first, I had a very vague understanding about knowledge, "Well, it is something that you know, can learn, can perceive etc" I thought, and nothing more to it. My thoughts were similar to Theaetetus thoughts in Plato's text. Knowledge is, science, geometry and making shoes. "Ok, smart guy, I can agree with that" I thought. But it turns out that knowledge is so much more..

In the seminar we focused on Kant’s text and we discussed the difference between synthetic and analytic judgements. The analytic judgement is a priori, where the knowledge in independent of experience, ie. “every body has extension” while synthetic judgement is a posteriori, which means that the truth can only be gained by investigating if something is true. Kant asks himself How is it possible to gain knowledge about the world a priori? His conclusion is that it’s impossible. But! He discusses: Let us assume that our faculties of knowledge do not conform to objects, but that objects conform to our faculties of knowledge. With this he means, that we can not know anything about the world in itself. We only know the representation of the world and you cannot gain experience about it objectively. But what we do know, is the inherent knowledge of the world. For example, if it’s raining outside, we know there is a possibility that it could not be raining. But to understand that it is raining outside we need to be aware of the time and space, and our forms of intuition. Another example Johan brought up at the seminar was that if I see a book, and it is black. That is not enough sense to actually know anything about the book. The book has to have certain form including ie. other qualities. The book is just a substance with different qualities, but the form has to be there. Johan said that the perception has to be formed, structured in a certain way and that we know nothing about the object, in itself. Kant was an empirical realist and transcendental realist. The transcendentalism allows the subject to be fully aware of all the limitations in their mind. One may then adapt their cognition to understand things. And get knowledge about how the world actually exists.    

Later on, we discussed Plato’s text and Socrates argument that we do not see with our senses but through our senses. The similarity between Kant and Socrates argument is that knowledge is perception. We discussed if an infant could see through its eyes and perceive its surroundings. We discussed that maybe a baby can see but not look, and with their hearing, they can hear, but not listen. I think that the eyes are still just a tool to help you perceive things, but being aware and interpret what you see, comes from your mind and conscious. There are twelve categories of understanding and probably your mind arrange what you see, in a particular category. And that is how you understand the things you see. We also discussed how a baby could feel hunger if they do not perceive senses. I think that due to our ancestors we have inherent the sense of survival, and that we need food to survive. So even if a baby do not know he/she is hungry, its body longs for food, to survive.

Critical media studies (Pre-seminar)

Dialectic of Enlightenment:

a) What is "Enlightenment"?

“For the Enlightenment, anything which cannot be resolved into numbers, and ultimately into one, is illusion”

Enlightenment is an epoch where people came to understand that they were curious creatures who wanted to receive facts and knowledge about the world. All myths and fantasies would be replaced by knowledge and concrete facts. The man’s world was altered by modern science which also led to that human beings became more suspicious about religion and myths existens. To summarize with regarding to the citation, man wants to replace myths and fantasies with knowledge, and everything that is not knowledge or scientifically proved, is in our imagination.  

b) What is "dialectic"?

Dialectic is when two or several people use opposite argumentation towards each other about the same subject or hypothesis. By setting arguments against each other the people which are included in the discussion may gain new insight and understanding about the subject they’re discussing and probably agree on a common or new solution.

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

Nominalism is a term within the metaphysical question and the term contains of two aspects. The only thing that exists in nominalism is the object, for example the human body. The things that do not exist is the qualities, and the things you can not observe with the human body. Therefore, all the abstract qualities, do not exist, according to nominalism.

It is an important concept in the text because enlightenment questions the qualities/objects of being or not being. For example the myths, religion and fantasies, are abract things becasue you cannot see them, and therefore question their existence. The physical objects that you can see (in singularity) eg. a chair, a tree etc do exist.

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

Myths are abstract stories that the enlightenment tries to refute. Before the enlightenment epoch, people turned to myths(like religion) for answers about their existens.

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?

Superstructure is a term in capitalism that contain propellants beyond the physical construction of the society. Superstructure therefore contains the “environment” of the society such as political and legal intuition, religion, family, media, education etc that also provides the development a society. From a marxist perspective means that these propellants together with a base builds up the society and infrastructure. The base or substructure includes all the “tools” you need to build up a society, such as machines, factories, properties etc. So to speak, the substructure determines the superstructure, and the supertructure supports (financial contribution) the substructure. In the text, I think you can compare superstrucutre with eg. spectators, economy etc. And the substructure is the painting brushes, cameras, sculpting tools etc.  

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?

I think that culture have revolutionary potential. Benjamin writes in his text, for example, that art could be reproduced with lithography. Later on, lithography gets replaced by photography. Later on they realized how fast you could ‘catch’ a moment through the lens, so they started to film the actors movement. And that is how they went from snapshots to capturing moving images. As Benjamin writes it's “the mechanical reproduction of art”, ie. new tools were invented (as the camera) and they could explore the apparatus qualifications.

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).

Benjamin gives an example that the Romans developed a new kind of perception that was different from antiquity due to new art forms emerged. The historically perception is about a cultural change in art. Naturally determined perception is how every human being, individually, interprets the world through their senses. For example, it is likely that I perceive a work of art differently (maybe due to my earlier experiences in life) than another individual perceives it. I think that time and space affects how every individual examines art through their own perspective.

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

Aura is the art's authenticity and unique attachment to time and place. Therefore I think, that reproduction of art, loses its aura, because you can not associate it to a particular time and place. On the other hand, I think that both natural objects and art objects have an aura depending on how the spectator experiences the object.

Theory of knowledge and theory of science (Pre-seminar reflection)

Hello! Here is my interpretation of the two texts:

1)
Cognition is a collective term that describes our different emotions,senses, knowledge and information that we can receive(1). The term includes our way of thinking, memories, learning, interpretations and so on. Further Kant discusses in his text about a priori knowledge. This knowledge is independent by experience, it speaks about the obvious, logical knowledge. An a priori example is “there are people on earth”. This statement does not include our cognition nor experiences from life.

The opposite of a priori is a posteriori(2).

For example we know (for know) that one can not travel back in time. By our experience and the knowledge of physics, time and space, we know that this is impossible. We know that time is a dimension that moves forward, and therefore we can not go backwards. We know that things that already happen is history, and we can not change that. We know that time goes by. Due to this knowledge,a posteriori, becomes more obvious.  

Since our cognitions develops through experience, such as memories, learning, decision making, problem solving etc. Kant means that it is impossible to establish something (cognitional) without the experience. How would we get memories without being there to experience them? How can we learn something if you do not know what to learn? Therefore it is impossible to expand our cognition without the experience. And tho cognition and experience cooperates, it is not likely to establish something a priori.

As a result, Kant discusses that why not use our cognition to develop and solve metaphysical problems? Due to metaphysic problems, one needs to be able to applicate experience from oneself to have a chance to understand these problems.


2)

When Socrates argues that we do not see and hear “with” eyes and ears, my interpretation is that the eyes/ears is only an organ with the function to see/hear, and there is nothing more to it. And that they only exist like a ‘tool’ to help us navigate ourselves. What I think Socrates means when he says we see/hear through our eyes/ears is about experiencing your surroundings and the present from a  three-dimensional perspective. With this I mean, that the body which includes your sensory experience can perceive and receive the surroundings you are in. By using your eyes/ears you receive knowledge (by seeing and hearing things that affects you and your senses) by interpreting and experiencing your surroundings. In this way it can affect for example your emotions and other senses in your body. So when you see/hear through eyes/ears my interpretation of Socrates discussion is that you experience something that will also expand your cognition.

Empiricism is that we obtain knowledge through experience and awareness(3). Due to my earlier discussion, you receive knowledge through your eyes and ears which are converted to your senses. This is why the modern term is directed towards Socrates argument. Because they complies to each other.  








(1) http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/cognition.htm
(2) http://www.iep.utm.edu/apriori/
(3) http://www.theoryofknowledge.info/sources-of-knowledge/empiricism/