Theme 3 - Reflection

I thought this week was gonna be a bit easier, since I finally started to get a grasp on the course structure. But then we were supposed to pick a journal and a paper. I took me way too long to find out there was example papers and journals to choose from, could have saved me a hour googling impact factors… When I finally found a paper which seemed interesting the rest went fairly quick. It wasn’t the easiest reading I have done, but still easier than the ordinary texts we usually read. I think I understood most parts of the texts correctly, even though I think the author went of track a bit, but I still found it hard to analyze and to find which theory was present. Also what was the actual question? Were we supposed to find out the theory which the author had used to write the paper or the theory the author, in the end, concluded?

Because we were able to choose our own subject, choose our own paper, I liked this week more than previous weeks. The text was more fun to read and because of that I understood the text better and could therefore contribute more to the seminar, even though we kind of drifted from the subject and started talking about next week's theme. Under the seminar discussion I asked question about that which I found unclear. But unlike previous weeks there wasn’t that many. The seminar was, as usual, more rewarding than the lecture but I think I mostly learned about this week’s subject by reading the texts. I’ve learned a lot about theory, what it is, how it’s structured and what it builds upon.

Under the seminar the group mostly discussed what theory actually was, and when a theory became the “truth”. The consensus was that when the majority of people regard a theory as the truth, it is. However since there are some theories which can’t be proved, the question is rather about how good or bad the theory is, not how right or wrong. Which I found interesting.

Theme 4 - Quantitative research

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

I have read the paper “Channeling Science Information Seekers’ Attention? A Content Analysis of Top-Ranked vs. Lower-Ranked Sites in Google” by Nan Li, Ashley A. Anderson, Dominique Brossard, Dietram A. Scheufele (2013).

The purpose of the paper was to determine the emphasis search engines has on search results, how biased those results will be depending on popularity. They wanted to look at how skewed the information would become when big, popular sites diminished the visibility of smaller, less popular ones. Could this contribute to an underrepresentation of minority voices, they ask. To measure this, the authors of the paper created a bot that empirically crawled across over 200 000 sites to look for root words regarding a certain subject. They then ranked these results based on the frequency of these words.

This is a pure quantitative method of gathering data, it’s consistent but lacks validity. However, they did also conduct some qualitative research methods by using data from a structured panel discussion about the subject to, together with qualitative data from a public opinion survey, formulate search terms which they used to get a better sense of what the user would see when searching for the same subject as the bot and to extract links related to the subject. Which later was used in the bot’s algorithm.

Because they used a bot to conduct research, to collect data samples, they performed a huge number of requests. This in turn yielded tons of data with pretty good reliability, distributed over months. This gives them a pretty good image, with not so much effort put in in the long term. They also got a lot of easy to use data, with numbers they could get a good grasp on the state of the problem without having to analyze different inputs. At the same time the data the bot gathered were of pretty poor quality. The way they measured what should have been higher up in the search results was questionable because the algorithm the bot used could have been more extensively developed, to consider a broader variety of factors than frequency across a set number of root words. 

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

I learned to not only rely on the top results when conducting research, other than that i wouldn’t say that this paper brought something new to the table than what I already knew. Maybe that using some sort of multi-method would be better to get a more comprehensive picture of the problem. They really only used a quantitative method to gather data, how they would use qualitative methods to look for search rankings I have no idea how to accomplish.

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

I think this goes hand in hand with what i wrote above, about what they measure. Can you really measure the quality of a text based on how often certain words show up and compare that to another text? I think they would need a more advanced bot to conduct research with some form of AI, to analyze the content if they wanted more “true” results. They drew graphs based on the word-frequency to see the state of the research more easy by comparing different root word searchterms, which I think contributed to generalized, saturated results. The bot malfunctioned under two months which made them lose about ⅙ of the data which I am sure made the results somewhat skewed. 

Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative methods?

They make it easy to conduct surveys, structured interviews and observations. Quantitative methods gives a less biased, more objective point of view primarily based on numbers which lays the ground for easy to generalize, statistical tests. If the measurement device is objective and stable, the data is valid and reliable. The data that comes out is easy to analyze but the time expenditure of creating the quantitative method is heavy. 

Which are the benefits and limitations of using qualitative methods?

Qualitative methods are based on focus groups, in-depth interviews and document reviews. Unlike quantitative methods this is more subjective, the condition described are from the point of view of the one experiencing it. The information gathered is often unstructured but more in-depth than quantitative methods and consists primarily of text rather than numbers, which makes it pretty bad for statistical tests and harder to generalize. Using qualitative methods the time expenditure lies on the analyzis phase rather than the planning.

Theme 2 - Reflection

I found this second week to be somewhat easier than the first. The texts were still hard to read, but what i took with me from the first week made it a bit easier to understand them. Still it took a long time to go through them, look up words and extract what was necessary to get a good grasp on the subject.

Since I understood, or thought I did, more this week I was more active under the seminar and tried to talk as much as I could. I continued to do as I did last seminar and asked questions of that which I had not understood but this time complemented them with my own opinions of what I thought was the point of the questions.

Like last week I found the seminar to be much more informative than the lecture. The lecturer was more personal and slower paced this time than on the lecture which made it easier to follow. In our discussion-group we had mostly interpreted the texts similar to each other, but what I found most interesting was the fact that I had got big parts of the texts entirely wrong. My interpretation was that A&H liked movies and photography, and the revolutionary potential behind them because they made it easier to spread knowledge, instead I learned that they really thought the opposite.  They feel that movies and similar technology don't contribute to society because they make people dream instead of act. Benjamin on the other hand stood behind these technologies because when copies of movies are made, the aura from the object is destroyed. This makes it easier for ordinary people to own art, to be a part of something they earlier in history couldn’t. It is liberating and gives ordinary people dignity.

I also learned a lot about nominalism, how words are just a social construct and that a nominalistic point of view is about how it’s not good to generalize. I learned about substructure and superstructure and how the substructure is the base of society and about platonic realism and its abstractness.

Theme 3 - Research and Theory

What is theory?

According to Gregor in the article “The Nature of Theory in Information Systems”, theory is based upon abstraction and generalization about phenomenon. Theory itself is not just a set of data, references or hypotheses, even though it can be developed from it. Instead theory is a combination of Analysis, Explanation, Prediction, Explanation and prediction, and Design and action. These categories poses different questions, or rather the answer to these questions. For example, what something is, how it is, why, when, where, what it will be and so on. She says that you could look at these cateogories "as abstract entities that aim 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".

Research Journal

I chose the journal “Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication”, from the examples page. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1083-6101)

As the name implies it publishes articles with focus on computer-based media technologies with the subject of social science research on communication.

Research Paper
The paper I have decided to examine is called "A very popular blog: The internet and the possibilities of publicity" by the author Brenton J. Malin (2011). (http://nms.sagepub.com.focus.lib.kth.se/content/13/2/187.full.pdf+html)

There are two different types of publicity presented in the article, the first one is for openness and the second one is for promotion. In traditional broadcasting as well as in more modern online communications these two aspects of publicity have contrasting, drastic implications. The purpose of dividing publicity into these aspects is to capture different problems in democratic communication. The more a communications channel opens up the more the diversity of opinions will increase, but at the same time the focus for particular topics will decrease. If a channel needs a good debate climate, the channel needs to be established the other way around, with great focus on certain topics. This will inturn increase the promotion for those topics. The problem with the second one is that with less different opinions in the channel, the discussion gets compressed into one big homogenized message, and the few opposing opinions will be excluded.

The two types of publicity are therefore really important in the structure of communicating means and the discussion of these democratic potentials should be increased and taken into account.

Malin argues that as the mainstream media continues to expand, and with that their promotion, we are at risk of overestimating the potential impact of open networks in the digital democracy. Everyone can easily publish and upload stories, articles and opinions online, but this is also the problem. Since everyone has the same access and tools, your own material will drown in a sea of similar works. Therefore it is really hard to reach an audience, to get people to see and read what you have created.

Search engines is also at fault for this saturation, by ranking results by popularity already established and popular sites will continue to dominate the market and push away less popular ones. Internet is prone to rapid change, and online communication is not immune to influence from powerful sources. Since the internet exists in an economic, legal and cultural context and since the corporations mostly don’t work for a neutral internet, the digital democracy and the publicity it lies upon may be at risk.

- - -

The paper doesn’t go too deep into analyzing why things are a certain way, it’s mostly about stating the facts. Therefore my interpretation is that the purpose of this article is just to be descriptive. To reason about publicity and its cores, how our perception of the internet as a neutral, pure tool for democratic discussion should reflect these inherent properties. Something that I found to be a bit odd was that the author wasn’t very clear on where she was going, in the end she wound up arguing about digital democracy instead of putting more focus into the perception of publicity and the problems and consequences that comes with it. It felt kind of like she side-tracked a bit.

I think the major theory presented is open channels leads to a fauna of opinions, but with a bad discussion and focused channels leads to a good debate climate but with few opinions. The paper mostly argues what is, it tries to go deeper and analyze somewhat how and why, but not to much i feel. Still i think the most suiting theory may be theory number II, Explanation. This kind of theory is not trying to predict what is gonna happen in the future nor is there any solid arguments on which the best way of solving the issue of publicity are.

Theme 1 - Reflection

Since this was the first seminar we have attended, and since there are so many new words, concepts and theories to take in, I found it hard to get a good grasp on the subject. I struggled therefore a lot with contributing on the seminar and instead tried mostly to listen, to catch up. What we talked mostly about was about perception and how it differs from person to person. It’s really interesting to think about something that we all take for granted, our surroundings, and how it is affected by our experience and history. I think I contributed mostly by asking leading questions, to drive the conversation forward and so that I could get answers and other peoples opinions on the things i didn’t understand.

I had prepared myself before the seminar by reading the texts, which took forever. Since the language in the texts were very advanced, I had to stop several times to read the same piece over again and to look up words. Normally when I read something I usually read the entire page and reflect upon what I’ve read at the same time. Now i really had to concentrate to get forward and stop to think about what the text is actually saying after nearly every paragraph. I also wrote down some questions that I had, which I brought up on the seminar for discussion.

I feel that i learned more on the seminar than I had on all the previous lectures because the tempo of the discussion in our group wasn’t to fast, yet we had time to cover everything using our own words, which helped to clear a lot of things up.

This first real week I have learned a lot. The philosophic view of our perception and surroundings, how we see “through” our organs and not “with” them. I think of it as an empty room which we then, as individuals, apply our own textures to. I have learned to question perception and that it is us who gives objects their properties. What is and what is not? I change a bolt in my car, is it the same car? If i continue, one piece at a time, until everything have been changed, is it still the same car? If a tree falls in a forest and nobody's around to witness it, has it happened?

I have learned tons of new words, the 12 categories with which we shape everything we perceive, a priori knowledge, a posteriori knowledge (without and with experience). Synthetic knowledge, such as math. I have learned that conception without perception is blind and perception without conception is empty. I have learned about empiricism, about meta-physics, the laws that define our surroundings.

I have learned about analytic judgement and synthetic judgement. A synthetic judgement example could be, a bachelor I meet are single, I can draw the conclusion that all bachelors are single. Because single is a property of the word bachelor. An analytic judgement example could be, “all cars are red”, this is something we need to investigate because the property red is not inherent in the word “car”.

I think that the biggest thing I have learned is to think in a new way, a different way. In almost all other courses everything is factual, there is no argument. Now there are no absolutes, it’s challenging to go through such a drastic change in learning in such a short time, but it’s also kind of relaxing.

Theme 2 - Critical Media Studies

Dialectic of Enlightenment

1. What is "Enlightenment"?

Enlightenment is empiricistic, based on logic, reason and natural laws and is an advancement of the earlier view of the world, which contained a lot of fear for the supernatural. That which are uncertain or impossible to measure is to be viewed with suspicion, this puts people in control and creates a sense of order.

2. What is "Dialectic"?

Dialectic means that for something to become what it is, it has to become what it’s not first. It’s a way of resolving disagreement. To get closer to the truth you first have to investigate different opinions and by reason reject what is false.

3. What is "Nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?

Nominalism states that universals, concepts are nothing but empty words, things that has no corresponding reality. It defines what is (individual objects), and what is not (abstract objects). It discards myths and encourages knowledge. In that way it supports the Enlightenment.

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

Myths are based of the unknown, the untrue and the cause for superstition and fear. Far from logic and reason. It’s used as an argument for Enlightenment, eliminate myths which in turn eliminates fear.

"The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity"

1. 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 the production of cultural value such as religion, art or politics. Substructure is the general production of society, the material and economical value. In a Marxist perspective it is the general production that defines how the society will develop. That means that with a good base of well-functioning, rapidly improving substructure the superstructure will flourish and a more evolved society can be established.

2. 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?

Photography can be seen as a revolutionary way of reproduction, and in the way it has the ability to influence a lot of people and to get information out quickly I think this form of culture definitely have revolutionary potential. Since this mechanical reproduction isn’t prone to one's own perception the core is fundamentally the same in a scientific way, which is great for the Enlightenment.

But because the image is developed from a negative, which can have multiple copies, it isn’t true art. I think Benjamins and Adorno & Horkheimer stands differ somewhat about this technological progress. I get the feeling that Benjamin thinks that it’s bad, because art loses its aura, its originality, but A&H on the other hand thinks that it’s good because it has the potential to spread knowledge.

3. 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).

Our senses gives us information which we then combine with earlier personal experiences, knowledge of history and reason. This reminds me of a posteriori knowledge, the perception we get are strongly influenced by our backgrounds and how we have interpreted similar situations in the past. In enough time, even the view of our whole existence could change depending on how history and personal interpretation has gradually changed our perception of reality.

An example Benjamin wrote about is how a drastic change in the Roman population created the huge art industry and changed how the Romans perceived art.

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

Benjamin describes the concept of “aura” as being a “unique phenomenon of distance”. The real physical distance doesn’t matter. He gives an example of this by explaining the aura of natural things. If you follow a branch with your eyes and the branch casts a shadow on you, you feel the aura of the branch.

Art is a way of disconnecting from reality by removing limitations and distance, to get closer to something. In that way my interpretation is that genuine art has an aura, as long as it is authentic and not a copy. When something is duplicated the original thought behind the piece gets stripped away, the uniqueness of the piece is no more, which simultaneously destroys it’s aura.

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?
   
   

To get a better grasp of metaphysics, the fundamental nature of things, we first need to establish the two forms of knowledge. The first is a priori knowledge, meaning knowledge obtained through theories. This form of knowledge is independant from experience and relates mostly to factual tasks such as mathematics and physics.

The second is a posteriori knowledge, and unlike a priori takes experience into account. This form of knowledge is a combination of imagination and logic and is regarded by Kant as the pure reason, the form of knowledge that leads to new discoveries. Kant argues that you can only understand the real nature by reason, not perception alone.

Since one can only percieve reality from ones perspective and viewpoint, and since this percieved image of nature is bound to our experiences, education, everything that has formed us as humans, it will be unique to us as individuals. Because of this, perception was said to conform to objects around us and not to reason. The Copernican revolution rejected the established perception and argued that objects must conform to our cognition, to reason. A gust of wind could be cold to someone and warm to another, our perception gives objects their qualities.

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 Socrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?
   
   

As I said earlier, we all percieve reality uniqely to our own experiences, this would not be true if everyone recieved information “with” the sensory organs, it would imply that we all percieved the environment the same way since we all have the same senses. This would give us a raw perception from senses not capable of analysis or creating a common understanding.

Socrates instead argues that our sensory organs are mere tools for the mind to gather information “through”. These impressions are processed and combined with experience to create a personal intepretation, even though we all have the same tools to percieve the environment. 

Knowledge comes from our reflections on sensations which are based on sensory information. Our understanding of nature, our knowledge, has therefore its ground in sensory experience. Which “empiricism” also declares.

First post yo.

Sup.