måndag 28 september 2015
Post Research and Theory, or what maketh the man.
This week felt different from the previous ones. It was to me less philosophical and a litte more practical, in that we what we read had to be applied straight away. It was still quite theoretical (pun intended), however.
I had a tough time grasping what theory is, but an easier time understanding what it is not. The text by Sutton & Staw was really helpful in telling me what it wasn’t, but the other text from MIS Quarterly was a little harder to grasp. What I chose to hang my understanding on was the statement “Theory is the question why”. So in that vein, theory would be trying to figure out why things happened. Say that you have observed a bird flying backwards. Facts about how it works, diagrams detailing how often it happens, none of these things is theory. Trying to figure out and explain why the bird does this, that would be theory.
At the seminar we discussed how it is possible to build a theory in the scientific sense when you can’t be sure that you will never be proven wrong. That, in a way, makes the question itself mute. You can never be sure to never be wrong, because you can only work with what you know and have at the time. It is Kantian, in a way, realizing that as he decided to work with and not through his senses, we have to work with the state of things as they are right now. You have to make assumptions, but make them sound and as good as you can. Build on those that came before, but be open to the idea of being proven wrong at some point, when someone makes a new discovery. You can only work within the paradigm, but don’t be afraid of it shifting.
During the lecture on monday we talked about theory in a historical context. In the western tradition seeing is the way to gather knowledge. That means that theory is taking a step back, to view things from the outside. Practice would then be the opposite, since it means actually doing things. Leif mentioned something I found quite interesting on that topic, and that was the different ways to view a subject. KTH, as a technical university, has a practical approach to things. We learn how to do math, and physics, and coding. Stockholm university, on the other hand, teach theory. Their students, even in subjects such as math, learn the theory behind things, and how to apply it. My friend from SU might not be able to solve a third degree equation as fast as I can, but she can do a proof of things I can’t explain. I think you need a combination of both to be a well rounded scientist, both theory and practice.
Although the lecture this week was very interesting (I found myself disagreeing about a lot of things, but in a very passionate way), I didn’t really see the connection between it and the seminar. The lecture talked about theory, sure, but on a different plane than what we saw in the literature and seminar. The most interesting thing to me was the discussion on what made a human. I’d like to formulate some of my thoughts about that, just briefly.
I believe, and stated during the lecture, that a human is made up of a human consciousness and a human body. A dead body is in a way still human, but it’s not a person because it lacks consciousness. A mind without a body, while very sci fi, like in an android might also not be considered fully human. I don’t really want to get more specific than that, because it feels like it leaves room for acceptable abnormalities. If you argue for something like language, how would you then view someone who is nonverbal (something that can occur in people on the autism spectrum, for example)? If lying is intrinsically human, is a bad liar then not a person? Someone mentioned being highly evolved, but that to me is meaningless. The mantis shrimp have 16 types of colour receptive cones is their eyes, compared to the human three. They can probably see colours we can’t even imagine. That seems highly evolved to me, but that doesn’t make them human.
fredag 25 september 2015
Quantitative research, or how many people is enough?
Analyzing quantitative methodology
The paper I’m looking at is Social Networking Sites: Their Users and Social
Implications — A Longitudinal Study by Petter Bae Brandtzæg. The paper looks at how people are affected by the use of so called SNS’s (Social Networking Sites). It tries to examine whether users of social media are more or less antisocial and lonely than people who do not use social media. The paper uses a longitudinal study, that is, a study that looks at how the data changes over time, in conjunction with a survey that gathered quantitative data from the respondents.
What stood out to me when I read the paper was the drastic lessening of responses they got over time. From about 2000 participants in the beginning of the study it had dropped to 708 or about 35% of the original respondents (the study was conducted three waves over the course of three years). While I was aware that a drop off in participation is expected, I wasn’t expecting it to be quite so steep. This, to me, stresses the importance to make sure to start with a large research material. I would also suspect that this makes it important to control that the dropout haven’t shifted the demographics significantly.
I fail to see any major flaws in the methodology at work here. However, I’m actually unsure if this means that are none, or is just an indication of my own lack of comprehension of what the author is doing. I understand the data collection process, but I’m having trouble following what they’re doing to analyze the data. Similar to a discussion we had during last themes seminar on not finding theory in a paper because of being overwhelmed by data, I’m wondering if I’m blinded by the sheer amount of numbers and diagrams here. The one possible flaw I can see is in the selection of the participants. The author have chosen data from Norway, a very computer heavy and internet savvy country. This might make the conclusions not applicable to a less computer dominated society.
Reflections on Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality
Do you move differently in someone else's body? That is the question the researchers are trying to find the answer to. They did this through motion recording of people drumming in a virtual reality setting, where the all white participants were given either a white or a black avatar.
What did I learn? That it is really difficult to read someone’s quantitative research methodology and understand what it is they did. Although I had no trouble grasping how the study was done or what the purpose was, I really didn’t understand how they had analyzed their results. I am not a statistician, which is good since the numbers and deviations just confused me. This is quite similar to the issues I had with the other paper, which I have detailed above.
This leads me to believe that one of the downsides of using quantitative methods is that it’s harder for someone not in the know to understand why the conclusions were drawn. Other limitations may include a difficulty in distinguishing anomalies from rare behaviour. This is not based on the essay, but instead just a speculation on my part. I would argue that when using quantitative methods, if you see something out of the ordinary it’s harder to know what to deal with. If you were to use a more qualitative approach you could always ask the subject, or something along those lines, but that is not possible in this scenario. Benefits would include things such as a, in a way, more neutral result. Quantitative methods leave less room for the researcher's bias to be made apparent, since you don’t really draw conclusions in a way that leaves much room for speculation. It is perhaps also in a way more giving for future research. If the data and analytical methods are clearly presented, it would be fairly simple for another research team to use your results as a accessible jumping off point.
So what about qualitative methods? Well, some things would be what I accused quantitative of not being. It is often easier for a layman or someone not as deep in the field to view and understand what you have done. It is able to present a fuller picture than just data points can, and leave more room for interpretation and adaptation. This is not necessarily a good thing, however, since the same argument could be made as a weakness.
måndag 21 september 2015
Post Critical media studies, or how to reach a classless world in one (perhaps not quite so) easy step.
Nominalism. I was close in my understanding before the seminar, but I had a much clearer grasp afterwards. The seminar leader explained to us the difference between nominalism and realism through Plato’s allegory of the cave. In the allegory you are stuck in a cave and can only see the shadows from outside hit the back wall of the cave. A realist would argue that it is the object casting the shadow on the wall that is the true thing, and only a thinker can actually see the object. This understanding of the philosophical meaning of realism, as being different from the more everyday understanding of the word, helped me in seeing the difference between realism and nominalism.
The thing I found most interesting during the seminar this theme was a discussion about what can happened if you take a philosophy to the most extreme line of thinking. During the discussion on what nominalism was we talked about what can happen if you only always regard and never participate in the world. Nominalism and enlightenment are the same in the regard that they both advocate to take a step back, and try to see things as if you are not involved in what is going on around you.This is the reason that Adorno and Horkheimer were critical of it. If you take their argument to the extreme that would mean that it is only possible to act on what already is. There is no room for you to influence or change anything in your life, since you are just an observer. The world is the way it is. The rich are rich, minorities are oppressed, and there is no changing that. Also, along the same line of thinking, that could then mean that you as an observer have no moral or ideological imperative to stop atrocities from happening. In response to that I would argue, and did during the seminar, that similar risks can occur when taking realism to the extreme. If nominalism can be used as an argument for genocide by saying that this is the way the world is, and there is no changing that, then realism can in the same fashion be taken to dark side. It can interpreted to mean that anything that differs from the true thing you know exists outside the wall is wrong and of less worth.
So what similarities are there between enlightenment and mass media? Adorno and Horkheimer would perhaps argue that mass media just mirrors the world, and therefore has neither interest nor power to change things. Benjamin doesn't quite agree on that, he believes that some forms of art has revolutionary potential. His argument relates to the concept of aura. Aura, as I understood it after the seminar, is in itself exclusionary. Aura is created by uniqueness and that in turn is desired by the wealthy and powerful. Mass production of art would serve to destroy the aura of objects and serve to somewhat equalize the standing of the classes.
This is a very interesting thought to me, because in a way we have achieved the destruction of the aura in everyday life. All things are mass produced. The internet means that the spread and access to almost all forms of art are instantaneous. If I want to view the Mona Lisa I don’t have to travel to the Louvre, I can just google an image of it. It won’t perhaps, some might argue, be the same but I will still have seen it. If I want to see an obscure movie from India I can most likely do that on the same computer I’m using to type this. I guess you could say that Benjamin got his wish. In most art forms aura has been destroyed. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to have brought on a true marxists paradise quite yet...
torsdag 17 september 2015
Research and Theory, or the almighty question of why
Analyzes of a research journal
I have chosen to work with the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. It’s a peer reviewed journal, published on behalf of the Association for Information Science and Technology. It was originally a journal about documentation and library science, but as computer took over as the leading medium for information the focus shifted towards information technology and communications. In 2014 it had an impact factor of 2.23
Critical examination of a research paper
The Effect of Social Network Sites on Adolescents’ Social and Academic Development: Current Theories and Controversies
by June Ahn
This paper examines how, why, and to what effect teens and young adults use social media. The author examines and analyzes previous studies on the subject, looks at the frameworks in which those studies has been produced, and also discusses the links between use of social networks and issues such as self esteem, well being, privacy, and educational achievement.
In my examination of this paper, I’m going to focus on the author's conclusions, and implications for future research. The reason for this is that the focus of the paper itself is not to present new data, but rather to gather the current theories and research being done and put it in a larger context. It is in a way a meta study, but perhaps not in the strictest sense.
The conclusions being drawn are, in short: There are a lot of issues worrying parents and educators regarding children's use of social networks. However, while there is a lot of discussion going on there are very little empirical research being done. Most of the data being gathered is qualitative, and Ahn stresses the need for other types of data gathering. She also calls for studies to be more conscious and aware of the medium itself, and to be done with the structures of social networking in regard.
Since the focus of the paper is not the collection of data, but rather the compilation of a number of other studies, I would assume that the conclusion is a logical extension of the information gathered. Also, since the study is meant to assist future researchers to find areas of study for future research, I find that the conclusions drawn are appropriate and helpful for the target audience. This also applies to the significance of the research, in that it clearly points to the limitations of the previous research being done in the field.
I actually find this paper to be a very complete and well rounded meta-study, and have no opinions on what might have been done differently.
What is theory?
- Briefly explain to a first year university student what theory is, and what theory is not.
- 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?
- Which are the benefits and limitations of using the selected theory or theories?
Theory is answering the question of why. When doing research it is easy to get lost amongst your data, and to believe that hypothesis and diagrams are theory. However, just listing your findings would be an example of bad theory, as it does not attempt to explain the things being observed. Theory would then be to, as I stated in the first sentence, try and explain why. Why is what you’re seeing happening, and why is that interesting?
If I’m to look at the paper I chose and analyze the type of theory it uses, I would say it is a combination of type 1, analysis, and type 2, explanation. The author mostly look at and presents the information as is. She does however make some attempt to take what she finds further and to try and explain a little both on what she believes the previous work has been lacking, and a little speculation on what she believes could be construed from the information.
I would say the the benefits of using that kind of theory is that it is quite difficult to go majorly wrong. Analysis requires no leaps of logic or assumptions to be made. When you venture further down the subtypes of theory you risk making incorrect assumptions, as they require you to answer the terrifying question of why it is happening. So while Ahn does attempt to talk a little about why and how the phenomenons she views are occurring, she doesn’t really risk being to wrong about the subject.
torsdag 10 september 2015
Wrap up on Theory of Knowledge, or where I'm considering whether I really exist.
I started and stayed mostly confused during this week, but I also liked what was going on. I read and re-read Plato, and in the end I went to secondary sources to help me understand what he was trying to say. I ended up reading a lot of other people's analyses of Plato and his work, and finally think I got a grasp on the material. Kant was easier for me. I ended up using a recorded reading of another translation of the preface, but I don’t think that altered my understanding of the material. Here I also used other sources to contextualize my understanding of his points.
The lecture we had concerned mostly Kant, and very little Plato. I did have some trouble following along during the lecture, since there were a lot more concepts than my brain could handle at the time. The main question I left the lecture with was “How is it possible to consider any knowledge to be a priori, since we as humans exist in the world and therefore are influenced by it from birth?” It’s a question I still feel I don’t quite have an answer to, but I’m definitely closer than I was before.
During the seminar my group mostly spent time on two things. One, we tried to reach a consensus on what similarities and differences there were between to two philosophers. That took a while. In the end our understanding was that while both Kant and Plato believe that the way we view the world is based on our perceptions, Plato thinks that that means that we should try to eliminate the senses and their influence and use pure thought. Kant meanwhile is of the opinion that since we can’t ignore our senses we should use them instead, and experiment with the world as we perceive it.
The other thing we spent time on was a discussion about whether one can say that there exists such a thing as a true world. If everything we perceive is effected by us perceiving it, how can we even know how things would be if we were not perceiving them?
During the discussion in the large group we again drifted to the concept of truth, and whether that has any meaning. I argued that perhaps it doesn’t, because as far as we can tell there is no objective truth of the world. At the same time there has to be something akin to a concept of truth, because otherwise the way we live our lives and the things we strive for are kind of meaningless. If we were to use the modern way of thinking, someone argued, then truth would be what most people could agree on. A table is only a table if there is agreement on what a table is, otherwise the discussion is meaningless.
onsdag 9 september 2015
Critical media studies, or is an apple still an apple?
Dialectic of enlightenment
Dialectic is an argumentative technique that, very simplified, is based on using opposing viewpoint against each other to reach a conclusion, with logical arguments from both sides being equally heard.
To explain how the authors talk about enlightenment I must first explain how they talk about myth. According to them, myth is the old way of the world, a way to explain creation and destruction that is not based on nature or logic. Instead myth used magic and stories to tell and explain why the world functions as it does. Since the people of old didn’t know why seasons existed they invented a story to explain it that, while it had no basis in reality, still helped people rationalize the absurdities that was their reality. The telling and repetition of such stories gave meaning to life,and that is what the authors refer to as myth.
In the context of this, enlightenment takes the shape of a more logical base for such important issues such as why and how. The way to free us from these mythological bonds is with knowledge. Within enlightenment, knowledge is King and Queen, God itself. However, they also state that were the teachings of enlightenment to stray into being just blindly repeated as truth, without the basics for it being obvious, then it would over time morph into myth.
Enlightenment, in the way the authors of text Adorno and Horkheimer are using it, is a system of thinking that seeks to destroy the old myth-based worldview, and instead replace it with one based and logic and natural laws. It seeks to free the people of the world from the fear and lack of control they were living under before they were enlightened.
Enlightenment is to its nature dependent on the concept of Nominalism. Nominalism denies the existence of single, universal truths and entities. If there were to exist such a thing as an universal apple, then all apples that differ from it would not be apples. If a universal apple does not exist then we must always re-evaluate what an apple is, which then in turn gives us an enlightened way to look at the object that is not risking being based on myth.
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
Superstructure and substructure are marxist terms relating to how production is accomplished. A substructure is the actual means in which things are produced, while the superstructure connects and controls, governs, what might be produced. To analyze culture from a marxist perspective is to acknowledge that culture is in no way exempt from these structures, and that you cannot ignore the influence the means of production has on the finished product.
Art created in a fascist context is, according to Benjamin, always reactionary. Propaganda, Hitler’s radio speeches, they are all politics that have been given a veneer of aesthetics. Even war itself can be made a beautiful act in this way. On the other side of the aisle we have the culture Benjamin do believe to be capable of revolution. Progressive art that uses politics in an aesthetic way can according to him truly be revolutionary, but not the other way around.
Perceptions are dependant on the form the object we are observing take. Benjamin talks about the different ways we are capable of appreciating a building to that of a painting. Architecture is visual, but a building is not made to be watched, but to be lived in. Touch, and perhaps even smell and sound are important factors in analyzing houses. Paintings, on the other hand, are only made to be appealing visually. He also talks about the way changes in the form has affected us. Before sound could be repeated exactly on a recording mistakes were not as noticeable, since the performance was fleeting and not repeatable.
When a work of art is produced by an artist by hand it has a place and a time to which it is associated. It is in itself unique because even if the artist was to make another, it would differ in minute ways and would always have been created in another context. When art, and indeed other objects, are being mechanically reproduced it removes the object from the tradition and context that has built it. Benjamin refers to to the “cult” of art, that is, art that has been created not for being viewed by a public, but instead has been created for a spiritual purpose. Producing things for consumption or appreciation, he claims, is the remove the aura of that thing. Objects in nature also has an aura, but one that is based on different things. Benjamin refers to the link between uniqueness and permanence. That a mountain is unique is partially based on the fact that it is permanent. If you were to move it to another location, it would perhaps not be the same mountain.
måndag 7 september 2015
Theory of Knowledge and Science, or two dead men arguing about truth.
Our cognition must conform to objects. If this were to be true, there would then be an objective truth about objects within metaphysics. If this objective truth were to exist, our lack of understanding would be solely dependent on our limited cognition, something that we should be able to overcome. Kant then argues that all our efforts to get to this objective truth through just thinking a lot about them have been very unsuccessful. This, again, can be attributed to our limited cognition, but he also says that ways to expand our cognition have failed. He suggests that we should instead be considering whether, instead of there existing an objective truth, there exists true cognition, and all objects are therefore influenced by the way we choose to regard them.
He, throughout this passage, seems to argue that there is no point in trying to find the absolute truth. Since it hasn’t already been discovered, it either doesn’t exist or is dependent upon means of cognition that are out of reach. Instead he appears to believe that it would be more helpful and productive to regard all things as being dependent on the way they are viewed. The knowable truth is influenced by the ways we collect that knowledge, and therefore it is not absolute and can be disregarded. Instead he takes a more spiritual approach to things. I must therefore abolish knowledge, to make room for belief. Indeed, it is not what we learn from looking at things that is important. Instead it is the mere fact that we are looking at them that will give us knowledge.
...for which is more correct, to say that we see or hear with the eyes and with the ears, or through the eyes and through the ears. Plato, on the other hand, believes that the mind is the be all, end all of logical reasoning and acquisition of knowledge. The senses, in his example the eyes and ears, are just tools of the great overseer, the master of all that is, the mind. According to him it doesn’t matter how we regard the things that we do, the mere fact that we are is enough. He thinks that to take into account different perceptions is to skew away from the truth since, to use one of his examples, if the wind is cold to one and not cold to another, how are we to know what is true? If there, and he seems convinced that there is, exists an absolute truth about the world, we cannot figure that truth out by using our flawed and differentiating senses and cognitions. No, we should only consider things that can be reached through reason and deep thought. I therefore believe that indeed, his argument is very much directed towards empiricism, and that he thinks it is an inadequate system that has nothing on the gloriousness that is pure thought. If we were to take Plato’s arguments at face value the only reason that the absolute truth about all things have not been discovered is that there hasn’t yet been born a man with a great enough mind to figure it out.
Having read both of these very different opinions, I have to say that I prefer Kant’s worldview. Plato can be perceived an elitist who believes that the greatest of minds is all that is required. A great thinker is in himself perfect and fully realized. Kant, on the other hand, seems to believe himself and all others to be inherently flawed and imperfect people, and that this, since he sees it as inevitable, is not something to be rejected but rather something to be embraced and accepted. We can never escape our inherent bias, and therefore we should strive to take it into consideration in everything that we do. This world view seems to me to be more in line with how we in modern times regard the acquisition of knowledge. To put it briefly, my view on modern methods is to take data from as many viewpoints as possible, and when we can then see similarities appear in differentiating data, that must be one step closer to the “absolute” truth, if there even is such a thing.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)