Theme 3: Reflection

During week 39 the theme was ”Research and Theory”. I read three articles ”What theory is not” by Sutton, ”The nature of Theory in Information System” by Gregor, and “Internet, children and space: Revisiting generational attributes and boundaries” by Nunes de Almeida et al. The last article was my own choice, and was the article I practiced doing a critical examination on. In addition to those articles I participated in both the lecture and the seminar this week. 

At the seminar we discussed a lot about what the difference there are between theory and hypotesis and how to separate them. We discussed what Dahlberg showed and talked about on the lecture, when he dropped a pen to the floor. Gravity is the theory of why the pen falls to the ground and hypotesis is our guess that the pen will fall this specific time. Our conclusion is that hypothesis is a guess of how things are related, meanwhile a theory is a model of explanation, which is often build on earlier knowledge and observations and tried on plenty of persons. Theory is what practice is not or as Dahlberg said on the lecture, ”Theory is about observing and practice is about doing”.

Another thing we discussed which I also learned during the seminar is that theories cannot be definitely proven right, they just are until another better theory comes along or until they are proven wrong. When we prove a theory wrong, we cannot build that upon one try. Back to the dropped pen, what happen if next time we release the pen form our grip and the pen flys away. If that happens we cannot just throw away the theory of gravity, we have to allow some error in our experiments.

Theme 4: Quantitative Research

I have chosen the paper ” Internet and social media use as a Resource Among Homeless youth” by Rice and Barman-Adhikari. The method they have used is a computer-administrated quantitative survey, that lasted approximately 60 minutes. They had 201 homeless youth as participants that all received a $20 gift card. To prevent same youth to answer the survey several times, they had two research staff-members that was responsible for the recruitment. 

The limitation of collecting data from self-reports is that the participator might not be fully honset, and answer less seriously. If you want to collect data of how often people use a certain service or product, a diary or a more observational method might be better than using a survey, where you are able to follow up the participator under a loger time to collect the data. From the paper I have learned that the ”best” quantitative method might not fit every data you wish to collect. In this case, they had not the ability to follow the homeless youth, a survey according to them, was the best choice. 

When using a quantitative method you want the resulting data to be numbers or simple answers as age, sex, location, education, etc. The data should be easy to calculate and quantify, and are often presented as tables and graphs. That is what Rice and Barman-Adhikari have been doing, they have also been very good at criticized their own quantitative method. I believe that in their case, there will not be such improvements to make. Additionally they could have been using a qualitative interview to better understand how, why and in which way internet works as a resource for homeless youth, since they are still unsure how the usage of these technologies are working. 

By using a qualitative method you will dig deeper in the subject to get a better understanding. By using interviews you can find out emotions, feelings, opinions, but also answer the questions about how and why.  The limitations of using a qualitative method is that the data you get is not as straight forward as in a quantitative method. It is up to the researchers to value the data and interpret what it means, and what it contributes to the result. 

Rice, E., Barman-Adhikari, A. 2014. Internet and Social Media Use as a Resource Among Homeless Youth. Computer-Mediated Communication. Vol 19: 232-247. DOI: 10.1111/jcc4.12038

Theme 2: Reflection

During week 38, I have read the two texts ”The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity” by Walter Benjamin and ”Dialect of Enlightenment” by Adorno and Horkheimer in addition I have also participated on this weeks seminar, where we discussed the questions from the preparation. Unfortunately I had to miss the lecture because I hade a mandatory lecture in another course.  I found it a bit harder to understan this weeks theme because of it, but I feel the same as last week, it was after the seminar I understood the theme. 

This week I have learned that when Adorno and Horkheimer talks about enlightenment and mass media, connection. When they brings up the cinema, they are talking about the actors are playing ordinary people and behave as they are. The movies are showing the social situation of how it is now. By constant feeding people with those same pictures, people will repeat, and part of society will stay the same. Adorno and Horkheimer talks about nominalism, and that they see nominalism as something bad. How we register what is and will never get a vision of what might be.   

At the seminar we also talked about Benjamin, how he is more positive than Adorno and Horkheimer about media technology might change. We talked about, our neighborhoods. We know them well, and they might not loger be so interesting since we walk there every day. If someone suddenly makes a movie in your neighborhood, they might capture the neighborhood from another point of view, and you might experience it different. This is an example of how media technology can change how we look upon things, change our perception. 

We also discussed what revolutionary potential means in todays society. We discussed trends and other things that happens very fast. One example we thought of was smartphone, they have established in our society and have become a part of our everyday life. 

Theme 3: Research & Theory

New Media & Society is an international journal with impact factor 2.007. The journal publishes researches within communication, media and cultural studies. The first issue was published in April 1999, and I have selected a research paper from the current issue - October 2015.

The article “Internet, children and space: Revisiting generational attributes and boundaries.”  are focusing on children as subjects and actors on the internet. New information and communication technologies are blurring out the differences in “private” and “public”, “real” and “virtual” spaces. By giving voice to children the research aim to understand how internet usage by children are affecting their experience of space “in” and “out” of the private borders they call home. The article are bringing up what differences there are in childhood depending on time and place, cultural aspects etc.  How children have access to internet through different devices and are competent informants to their activities online and offline. The research which is based on children from Portugal is divided into 4 topics, their time spent online, their favorite sites and activities, their communication and social networking practices.

All theory that are brought up are relevant and necessary and shows that the study is up to date and there is an interesting topic. In the theory and introduction the authors brings up how the navigation online in the virtual space crosses the private and offline boundaries that exists in a home. The method the authors have been used is semi structured interviews with the same amount of girls and boys in different ages between 8-17, located in three different cities, in both private and public schools. The representations are broad and evenly distributed, and therefore considered reliable. A quantitative summary from the interviews are easily accessed through a table, otherwise quotes from different children with belonging explanations are running through the text.  

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

Sutton and Stew are bringing up a lot examples of what theory is not. According to them, references, data, lists of variable or constructs, and diagram are not theory. Then what is theory? As they describe it, theory is “the answer to queries of why”. I believe theory is the part of your research that makes your finding meaningful. It describes what and why the observation has been made and sometimes also a prediction of what may be.

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?

The major theories is about childhood, how it may differ based on different aspects. How parents control or not controlling the children's usage of internet. It also brings up children's experiences on internet usage through different platforms. All theory is based on a bunch of other researches. I would say that all the theory is explanations on what is, how come and why, and therefore matches with Gregor's theory type 2, Explanation.

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

The benefit of using Gregor’s theory type 2, is that you are explaining to the reader all the knowledge he/she needs to understand and take part of the research method and the findings. Using this type of theory might limit you to predict what will be. By predicting you can prepare the reader on what result you think the research might have.  



Nunes de Almeida, Anna., Delicado, Ana., Nuno de Almeida, Alves., Carvalho, Tiago. 2014. Internet, children and space: Revisiting generational attributes and boundaries. New Media & Society. Vol 17(9): 1436-1453. DOI: 10.1177/1461444814528293

Theme 1: Reflection

Week 37 and the first theme, which was Theory of Knowledge and Theory of Science, has come to its end. In the beginning I found both of the texts we were supposed to read really hard to understand, they were long and quite complex. The lecture and the seminar helped me a lot to understand. I took the opportunity to ask all the questions I had from the texts and from the lecture during the seminar. I think misunderstood some part of Kant’s Critique of pure reason when I only had read the text. What I wish I had done for this week was to start earlier, that would have given me much more time to reflect about the texts before the first blog post and before the first lecture.

From this week I have learned that Kant is discussing the basics in time and space. He tried to understand what the world means in itself. And I thought it was interesting what was brought up at the seminar, that we don’t know about the world in itself. Since “in itself” is a concept that will die along if all people dies. The teacher asked us if the world will still exist if all people dies and as I understand from the seminar the answer will be no. This example goes along with the quote “Concept without perception is blind, and perception without concept is empty” and I believe that is what Kant means with object must conform to our cognition.

I also learned from the lecture about Kant’s categories, which is based on our conception. Those categories are very basic and becomes the structure of our world.

Table of Categories:

Quantity Quality Relation Modality

unity reality subsistence possibility

plurality negation causality existence

totality limitation community necessity

Before the lecture I had what the teacher called "the schoolbook version" of what Kant is saying in my mind. That we can only see what is perceived to us, like we see the world through glasses we cannot take of.

Theme 2: Critical media studies

"Dialectic of Enlightenment"

What is ”Enlightenment"?

It could also be called the age of enlightenment. It is an era from the 1620s to the 1780s. It was a time that challenged Kants arguments that we see the world as it is perceived to us, it was a time where the society started to tolerate science and skepticism. 

What is ”Dialectic”?

It is a method of thinking of something in a rational way, and by discussion and arguments searching the truth.

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

Nominalism is a concept that is used in metaphysics. There are two aspects to describe the concept. The first one denies that universals exist, which means that general terms don not have any concrete meaning. The second one denies all abstract objects, which means that all objects that has no extension does not exist.I think that Adorno and Horkheimer uses nominalism to highlight the dialectic of enlightenment. E.g the existence of god, one, the word ”god” does not have a concrete mening, and two, god have no body in time or space.

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

I believe the term ”myth” is how the world was when the society did not believed in science or used scientific proof.  Are we still in that time, but just in another phase, what if science could be made up and we just blindly believe it? This describes the function of myth. 

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

In the beginning of the essay, Benjamin talks about the relation between "superstructure" and "substructure" in the capitalist order of production. What do the concepts "superstructure" and "substructure" mean in this context and what is the point of analyzing cultural production from a Marxist perspective? 

The concept ”superstructure” is defined as a structure built on top of something else, like a concept is based on another concept. ”Substructure” is defined as an underlaying or supporting structure. In our context those two concepts means the same thing as in a marxist perspective. The substructure is the base of a society, the working class. The superstructure includes the ideas, cultures, believes, thoughts, etc.  

Benjamin is in the preface talking about which position art has in the context of Capitalism, and it is here marxist perspective are brought up. I think, by analyzing the construction of the society and what could be expected for the capitalism in the future we can understand how all the condition of production has changed in all areas of culture. Since the superstructure includes culture and art.

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?

The culture is a part of the superstructure. And theoretically we know that the superstructure is build on top of the substructure and that it is possible for the superstructure to change the base. By this aspect I think culture have a revolutionary potentials in the society.  As Benjamin talks about how lithography was ousted by photography it changed the society and how the artistic function changed focus from the work of hands to our eyes.

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).

If our perception is historically determined it is affected by historical happenings and changes in society. Benjamin gives the example from the fifth century when the late Roman art industry took place which was different from the antiquity. It was the beginning of a new perception. Taking modern days and music as another example, 60 years ago when Elvis moved his hips on television it was perceived by many as very offensive, whilst nowadays most house music is built on sexual lyrics. This is one way our perception has changed along with society. 

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

Talking about ”aura” Benjamin explains ”… unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may be.” I think he means that every body has an aura, that reaches all places where its own shadow might be. Which means that no matter how far the body is from you, if its aura is big enough it can still affect you. If we look at it this way I believe there are no differences between natural objects and art objects. Even though art objects can be abstract, they do not have a body in time or space, I believe that the aura exists and will affect you the same way as a natural object.

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?

Our cognition comes from the mind, everything we perceive is our minds representation of the physical world. When Kant is saying that all our cognition must conform to objects and that we might do better progress in problems of metaphysics if objects conformed to our mind instead. I think Kant is saying that our cognitive comes from within, from our minds, not form the physical world.  As he is explaining on page B xx, that we should try not to see objects as a thing in itself, instead we should see their appearances as representations of our mind. With experience we may arise our representation and we might perceive things differently. 

I believe this Kants argue has a lot in common with the second question, to answer that question we need to have this in mind.  

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"?

I understand Socrates argues in a way where the eyes and ears are working as ”tools” to our brains that helps the brain to perceive impressions. We do not look with our eyes but through them which means that we creates the images in our minds, not in our eyes. If we look at Socrates argues together with Kants argues I understand it as,  whatever we experiencing in the physical world, it goes through our senses, where we in our minds creates representations of what we have perceived. This is also why I believe we can say that Socrates argument is directed towards what we today is calling ”empiricism”. 

WELCOME

This is my individual learning portfolio to the course Theory and Methods for Media technology. I will be posting prior and after each theme.
The themes will be:

        Week
           37.         Theory of knowledge and theory science
           38.         Critical media theory
           39.         Research and theory
           40.         Quantitative research
           41.         Design and research
           42.         Qualitative and case study research

Enjoy!