Theme 4: Quantitative Research

I chose the article Making sense of multitasking: The role of Facebook, by Terry Judd (2013) and it was published in the journal Computers & Education with an Impact Factor of 2.775. The article investigates the impact Facebook has on university students’ general behavior when it comes to multitasking and focused behavior. They hypothesize that Facebook is associated with an increased occurrence of multitasking, that it initiates and maintains multitasking behavior, and that Facebook users are generally more likely to multitask.

The quantitative methods of Making sense of multitasking: The role of Facebook

I believe the article make use of pretty much straightforward quantitative methods for its study. The study takes place at an Australian university where it collects detailed data-logs of students’ computer-based activities in an open-access computer laboratory. They then separate the different activities performed, give them task names (i.e. Facebook, Google search, Microsoft Word, etc.) and count how many tasks were performed at the same time and how often the subject was switching task, during a session and during segments with specific time intervals. Depending on the count, the study defines the session as focused, sequential or multitasking. Over all the study makes use of 3372 collected sessions from 1249 different students.

Since the study did use a fairly large group of people and many recorded many sessions that were quite accurate, it could obtain solid results, where the evidence supporting the three hypotheses in general was reasonably strong. The method is efficient – data was collected rather smoothly and results were easily processed and gave clear results.

There are however limitations to the method. The results only represent the data collected from students at a certain university, in a certain country, during a certain time, etc. The study does not represent the whole world, or even every computer/Facebook user. There is also no exact definition as to what is considered to be multitasking, which in a sense makes the results vague. This type of method is also making predictions – it does not explain why or how Facebook would induce multitasking, it only suggests that it does. Perhaps with the use of more intricate interviews with the subjects, or another form of qualitative data gathering, the study could render a deeper understanding of the subject.

The quantitative methods of Physical activity, stress, and self-reported upper respiratory tract infection

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship that exists between physical activity, stress and self-reported upper respiratory tract infection (URTI). The study examines this relationship by Web-based questionnaires to assess disease status, general lifestyle, physical activity and perceived levels of stress of 1509 Swedish men and women that had reported URTI. The conclusions they could make from the study was that high levels of physical activity might reduce the risk of URTI, and that highly stressed people may benefit even more from the physical activity.

Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative methods?

As mentioned above, when analyzing the method of the previous paper (which is somewhat similar in its methods), quantitative methods can be very efficient when gathering data, analyzing it and processing the results. In general the quantitative methods offer a way to gather and process a larger quantity of data. However, the data gathered will not necessarily provide significantly deep insights into how and why a phenomenon occurs. The quantitative methods are generally used in the social sciences, and generally make use of statistics.

Which are the benefits and limitations of using qualitative methods?

As opposed to the quantitative methods, the qualitative methods will provide deeper insight – they examine how and why the phenomena occur. The quantitative methods can consist of interviews, historical research and such. It can also provide an understanding of the conclusions made by the quantitative methods.

Qualitative research is however limited in the sense that it might be harder to analyze the data, detect the necessary patterns or extrude the significance for the study in question. When using qualitative methods it is also generally harder to obtain large amounts of data. The method might, for instance, be more time-consuming, harder to preform or harder to generalize to fit the circumstances.

Theme 3: Reflections

This week our task was to select a journal (with a reasonably high Impact Factor) and an article in that journal, which we considered to be relevant to the media technology field. I therefore chose an article concerning effects Internet advertisement has on people (see the post below), which I considered to be interesting for different reasons; firstly, it is dealing with a subject that influence us both as media technology students and as Internet consumers; and secondly, it could also show what kind of impacts even short exposure from commercials has on the mind, and from there it isn’t hard to continue speculating what kind of power this provides to the mass media.

Our task during the seminar involved defining and discussing of what sort of theory our article consisted, using the five different kinds of theory we learnt of in Gregor’s article The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. I first defined my own article as explanatory, as I considered it to be an attempt to explain the world in a sense. But after the seminar I got a deeper insight in the different kinds of theories, and had to change my choice to the theory of the article as being predictive. The article I had chosen make use of quantitative methods in its research, and consequently get results in which they can compare and predict a connection between the two phenomena. However, because of the lack of more qualitative and investigating methods, they do not exactly explain why or how the connection is there. I can therefore exclude the explanatory part of the theory and define it as being mostly predictive.

The other task during the seminar was choosing a theory from our articles, after we defined what kind it was, and put it in the course’s “theory-wiki”. We chose the theory from my article, mainly because it was the easiest to define by using Gregor’s theory of theories. In conclusion the theory became something like: “Short exposure of advertisement at low-level attention could have long-term effects on the implicit memory”.

In general this seminar was very useful to me; it incited a much stronger grasp on theory, what theory is and what kind of theories can be used. I think it will be very useful later on, when I have to make my own contributions to science and research. 

Theme 3: Research and Theory

Journal:

I chose the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1083-6101), which is mainly about the social sciences with a focus on media technology and communication with computers and the internet. It has an Impact Factor of 1.778 (and a five year impact factor of 4.748).

Article:

I chose the article: The Long-Term Effects of E-Advertising: The Influence of Internet Pop-ups Viewed at a Low Level of Attention in Implicit Memory (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcc4.12035/abstract), which was published in the journal mentioned above on October 7^th, 2013. I chose it because of the last week’s theme and the discussion of mass deception. This article shows the effects of commercials and advertising on a large media platform, and therefore touches the subject of manipulation and deception through media.

The main focus of the article is to explore the effects of repeated brief exposure from Internet commercials, i.e. pop-ups, and what kind of impacts they have on a test subject 7 days after exposure and 3 months after exposure. Firstly they go through the theoretical framework of the subject, how and why we react to short exposures of words and pictures. Then they explain their methodology, how they’re conducting their experiments, and also their own hypotheses. Lastly they conclude their results of the experiment in a discussion and a conclusion where they point out that short-term, low attention exposure can have long-term effects.

In general I thought their research to be pretty concise and to the point. They linked their background and theory, which I considered to be relevant and logical, to the construction of methodology, and could draw somewhat conclusive results from their experiments.

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

Theory is something that has been widely discussed throughout time and many have tried to put a real definition to the word. But since the subjects in which theories can be made differ so much, definitions of the word become elusive. But, to simplify, a theory is something observed, a way to describe, explain or help to understand a phenomenon. In Stutton and Staw’s paper, What Theory is Not, they explain theory as not being the actual data, references, hypotheses, variables or diagrams, but it is something that can (and perhaps should) make use of these.

• 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 article I chose I’d say is mainly the second type of theory described in Gregor’s text: Explanatory. It takes an existing phenomenon, describes it and tests the effects of it, to try to explain why and what kind of effects the phenomenon actually has. It does have some influences of the third type of theory: Prediction, in the sense that it provides some suggestions for further research, and that those predictions are more speculative than actually based on research.

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

The benefits of choosing the explanatory theory is that it provides a way of understanding and showing others the world as it is from a certain point of view. As it is mention in Gregor’s text: it can be label as a theory for understanding.

This type of theory should however not be used to make deterministic prediction. One has to be aware that these kinds of theories often include a high level of generalization, which can also be seen in the article I chose. They couldn’t test every individual exposed to Internet commercials, every type of commercial, within every time range one is exposed/not exposed to the commercial, and so on. They had to generalize to make any conclusions at all, which means that here is always has to be a certain level of probability, causality and consistency taken into account when viewing the conclusions.

Theme 2: Reflections

For this week’s theme we read and discussed parts of the book by Adorno och Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944). I generally thought the concept of the book to be quite hard to entirely grasp, partially because I’m not particularly used to the language they use and also partially because there were so many examples from old literature that I sometimes had a hard time putting in context with the theme.

But, as opposed to last week, we did have a seminar this time, and this seminar really brought some clarity to the subject. It was really useful to hear my classmates’ interpretations and thoughts about the book. We spoke mostly about chapter 4: The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, how the culture industry affects us even today, comparing mass media now and mass media back when the book was written. We discussed how there are very few big actors producing the content one is exposed to through mass media, and how easily they can manipulate and affect the consumers. I think we also had some really interesting discussions about art - what can be considered as art and how it relates to mass media and the culture industry. Adorno and Horkheimer had a very strict definition of what they considered to be art, and they saw the emerging mass media as the imminent death of art. Discussing the subject of art in relation to mass media really opened up a critical view of Adorno and Horkheimer’s text. They were very one sided and did not take every angle of mass media in consideration – only the ones that supported their point of view, and those were only the negative points. I deem that to be a bit “non-scientific”. How can we view their point of view as truthful if they only give us parts of the truth? And I also find it odd that Adorno, who we learnt to be a quite talented musician, did not consider how the mass media could help to spread art, as opposed to merely destroying it. 

Theme 2: Critical Media Studies

• What is Enlightenment?

Enlightenment is an attempt to remove mythology and religion as a way of explaining the world, and rather focus on science and “real truths”. It is supposed to incite a mastery over nature through knowledge and dispel the fear of that which is unknown.

But according to to Adorno and Horkheimer the Enlightenment is in its essence itself a myth. For most people science is just something we are told to believe in by people that actually do the science. Science isn’t necessarily true, and science still doesn’t explain every part of the world to us. Therefore science itself can be considered to be a myth which makes the Enlightenment a myth.

• What is the meaning and function of “myth” in Adorno and Horkheimer’s argument?

Myth is a thing which the Enlightenment strives to remove, as said above. A myth is an attempt, just as the Enlightenment, to explain the world, but the myth instead makes use of deception to explain, it does not speak of the real truths or use definite knowledge.

But, according to Adorno and Horkheimer, the myths which the Enlightenment sought to remove were actually themselves products of the Enlightenment. The function of a myth is to report, to name, to tell of origins, and it does this by the means of narrating, recording and explaining, and therefore the goals doesn’t differ much from the Enlightenments. The real difference lies in that the magic and the spirits and the demons have been replaced but what science deems to be facts, rituals become experiments.

• What are the “old” and “new” media that are discussed in the Dialectic of Enlightenment?

I cannot find if Adorno and Horkheimer actually mention anything being specifically “old” or “new” media, but my interpretation is that the authors imply a difference in the way that the media is being used. Radio and TV (which was literally new back then) can be consider new media and I believe Adorno and Horkgeimer imply they strive for mass production, quantity and standardization, where there is a smaller consideration to whether or not the material produced is good as long as it reaches out to a big crowd. Older media had a focus on quality, it was the creation of art, and it could not be mass produced in the same way.  

• What is meant by “culture industry”? What is the relationship between mass media and “mass deception”, according to Adorno and Horkheimer?

 With the “new” media’s mass production of material, the production of culture becomes more of an industry. The focus turns to commercialism and the reaching a wide public, and it is controlled only by a few individuals. Adorno and Horkheimer comment on the problems that lie therein. The mass media could easily be used to manipulate the consumers. The people running the industry can themselves decide what culture should be, and culture can therefore also be altered to fit the standardization that comes with mass production, which in turn allows for an even greater spread of media and an even greater control over it. The consequences may be that culture suffers, becomes simplified and even dumbed down.

There is a pretty simple connection between mass media and mass deception. The former can be used to create the latter, as stated above. When there is a mass production of media and the media reaches the wide public, the producers gain a great power when deciding what kind of culture and which influences the general population should be exposed to.

• Please identify one or two concepts/terms that you find particularly interesting. Motivate your choice.

Personally I think it could be very interesting to view the concepts of culture industry and mass media, that Adorno and Horkheimer presented, but in our day and age. Today the mass media is even more widespread and information move even faster, but one big difference might be that the sources of information can be practically anyone. Today anyone can spread their art – in whatever form it might come - globally by just the push of a button. The big question then may be: have we moved even further away from “old” media and managed to mass produce even art, or have the mass media perhaps advanced and transformed into a place where the “old” media can be a part of the new?

Theme 1: Reflection

So, this week's seminar was cancelled, which makes reflection over it a bit harder (I would guess). But I thought that the theme was generally quite interesting, especially since it touches things I've been thinking about myself from time to time; what is real truth?; are there really any real truths? I do some painting and drawing, and as you develop that that skill you gradually learn that to create something realistic you need to see things for what they actually are. Colors are light and reflection, or the lack thereof. Proportions are just the angle of observation. Simply put, objects do not appear as the symbols we interpret or have learnt them to be. Sense-data gave me a name to the difference between the minds sensing of an object and the actual physical object. And from sense-data it's not a big leap to be thinking about what the actual truth of an object is. Are there really physical objects or just interpretation of them? And when speaking about descriptions passed between people, whether or not the people have acquaintance to the object, can there really be a description that really represents a physical object since every mind interprets it differently. And if every mind that has sensed an object has their own interpretation of it, one could consider the object to actually be multiple objects existing in the minds of different observers. Is the world as every person sense it therefore a world on its own? Does every mind contain their own dimension? Is every man actually his own island?

It would've been interesting to have the actual seminar so that people could have shared their own thought about this subject. Just reading the blog posts with the answers to the questions did not really reflect on what people were thinking themselves, and the seminar probably would've offered a greater insight. It also feels as though I missed a lot of the texts, since I didn't have time to read them all.

Theme 1: Theory of science

• What does Russell mean by "sense data" and why does he introduce this notion?

All objects that we perceive to exist in our world can be perceived in numerous different ways. An objects color, size, proportions and constraints may differ from mind to mind and also differ depending on what kind of light that's illuminating the object, from which angle and which distance the individual is watching it. The touch of an object isn't the same when touched with different body parts. The noise an object makes isn't necessarily the same from every point of the object. Russell introduce the term sense-data as a way to describe this momentary sensation of an object, and he uses it to differentiate between how different minds perceive an object under certain circumstances and the actual physical object itself and if the object actually exists. The sense-data isn't the physical object and you can't say it is actual attributes of the physical object, it is merely how it is perceived, the immediate experience that can differ in so many ways.

• What is the meaning of the terms "proposition" and "statement of fact"? How does propositions and statement of facts differ from other kinds of verbal expressions?

A proposition is the description, the explanation, of an object. You can make propositions to describe an object, and there a many ways in which a description can be made. When describing, say a historical person, one cannot actually view the person and obtain sense-data, so one has to rely on propositions made about the person. The propositions does not necessarily have to be true, and they depend heavily on the individual uttering the proposition and that individuals acquaintance to the object in question. A statement of fact is however a description where you make a stand on whether or not a fact is true. Russell means that a statement of fact is something holds a higher value of the truth than the proposition does, and it is based on facts that can eliminate other descriptions of the object.

I interpret that propositions and statements of facts differ from other verbal expressions in the sense that they are descriptions based on acquaintances, the experiences of things.

• In chapter 5 ("Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description") Russell introduces the notion "definite description". What does this notion mean?

Russell talks about both definite descriptions and ambiguous descriptions. The ambiguous description would be a description that could imply a large number things, while the definite description would only refer to one certain object. As an example Russel use the ambiguous description: "a man", which could refer to any number of different men, and he uses the definite description "the man with the iron mask", which only refer to one special man, one object. The definite description is what is 'known by description' - it is the description of what is known of a physical object by the experienced sense-data of it.

• In chapter 13 ("Knowledge, Error and Probable Opinion") and in chapter 14 ("The Limits of Philosophical Knowledge") Russell attacks traditional problems in theory of knowledge (epistemology). What are the main points in Russell's presentation?

Russell doesn't accept that true belief is the same as knowledge. There are premises that can be true, but still not lead to actual knowledge, as with the example Russel makes: "All Greeks are men; Socrates was a man". The premise is true, since Socrates was a Greek and a man, but it's a fallacious process of reasoning. Russell makes the point that all the knowledge we have of truths always contains a certain degree of doubt. Therefore one can question if there can really be any true knowledge of any kind, but merely a belief of true knowledge.