Theme 4: Quantitative research

Research paper: Women bloggers: Identity and conceptualization of sports

I have read the media technology research paper Women bloggers: Identity and conceptualization of sports which is published in the December 2013 issue of New media and society. The paper has an impact factor of 1.824. The title of this paper caught my attention since I myself was studying women in the blogosphere for my Bachelor thesis. Also, I am interested in both sports and feminism. The study explores the formation of self and the conceptualization of sports in the 'Sports Blog' directory of a special women’s blog network in the US. I was curious to investigate how the methodology was carried out and also to read the conclusions.

In this research paper there is only one quantitative method used, namely a 'quantitative content analysis'. This method is most commonly defined as an objective and systematic method for a quantitative analysis of manifest content. As opposed to qualitative textual analysis, which is subjective and interpretive, quantitative content analysis does not make any claims beyond what can be identified and counted in the text.

I believe that a quantitative content analysis method is used beneficially when to study a topic that in some way could be controversial, or if it easily affects your feelings. What I mean is that a qualitative content analysis is probably more subjective and interpretive, which may in some cases affect your conclusion, either consciously or unconsciously. For example as feminist scholars, as in this case, you have to be cognizant that your social locations may shape your research. I guess that is always the case, more or less. However, taking such aspects into account when designing the methodology of the study, you are able to increase the level of validity and reliability. Speaking of which, one thing that stuck on my mind was the fact that the study only uses one single method as a base for the discussion and conclusion made. During my years as a student I have always heard that, in most cases, it is recommended to apply methods in a mix. The so-called 'triangulation' is a technique that facilitates the validation of data which is received from more than one or two sources. I believe that is something that could have been approved in this study, in order to increase the level of validity and reliability. At least the they could have argued why not to use other methods than the 'quantitative content analysis'.

The main thing learned from reading this paper is how a quantitative content analysis could be designed. For the Bachelor thesis we carried out a quite extensive qualitative content analysis instead, which was more based on observation and interpretation. Back then it felt too complicated to collect quantitative content from many sources in a widespread blogosphere. Especially since blogs have a high personal mark and it feels difficult to 'transform' this kind of content to research data. After been reading this paper, I am amazed by the advanced tools for collecting quantitative data from personal content, which are often built-in, in the blog networks.

Research paper: Physical Activity, stress, and self-reported upper respiratory tract infection

The reason with this study is to investigate whether upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) could be related to physical activity and perceived stress, or not. There were 1509 participants in the study, aged 20-60 years. The method used is a web-based questionnaire to assess disease status and lifestyle. Also, it assesses the physical activity and inactivity as total MET-hours per day, as well as perceived stress by a 14-item Perceived Stress Scale. The conclusion made is that a high physical activity is associated with lower risk of contracting URTI, for both men and women. Additionally, the result showed that highly stressed people, predominantly men, appear to benefit more from physical activity than those with lower stress levels.

1. Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative methods?

Quantitative methods makes it easy to gather statistical evidence to test or prove a proposed hypothesis. A large amount of quantitative data can be gathered in a short time period and the results is most commonly easy to analyze. Using population-based quantitative methods you get pretty good sample of the population, from which answers clear and comprehensive tendencies can be identified. Since you often receive a large amount of statistical data from quantitative methods, these can also bring up new insights on the issue at question. On the other hand, a drawback with quantitative methods is that these does not primarily take into account complex and more detailed aspects that might be of interest in the study. Also, it is hard to verify if the respondents has misinterpreted questions in a questionnaire, as you probably not come into close contact with the respondents.

2. Which are the benefits and limitations of using qualitative methods?

Qualitative methods are beneficially used when to search answers or information about a narrow research question within a specific subject area. Advantageously, qualitative methods is used to investigate the findings from a quantitative method further, to verify that the statistical data is interpreted properly. The findings often provide a deeper understanding and insights into the research question that is investigated. A limitation with qualitative methods is that they are often time consuming and therefore limited to a smaller group of respondents. Consequently, results from qualitative methods cannot independently support conclusions in a general sense.

Theme 3: Research and theory (Reflection)

I have learned a lot by reading other blog posts this week, that I can also relate to my findings in the research paper I studied. What I found most surprising is that there are so many different categories of theories, and how to decide what theory is not. Even though I have received a greater understanding of what is meant by theory and research in the field of media technology, it feels like I miss a conclusion that ties it all together. What has stuck on my mind after have been working with this theme is that these topics are really multifaceted and somehow 'messy'. Maybe that is because the plurality and dispersal in this research field have gone too far? Or else I am just way off..

However, the question raised above is more or less discussed in the research paper I have studied; Is there a 'field' of media research? – The 'fragmentation' issue revisited. As claimed in this research paper, the ubiquitous social media has penetrated into various academic spheres and led to a range of new disciplines. There is a new positioning of media within frameworks of ideas and how to investigate it, which has led to the so-called 'fragmentation of field'. As things stand today, most of the faculties in the research field of media technology consists of cross-disciplinary research groups. A typical faculty is represented of other 'subfields' within media, such as anthropology, psychology, history, philosophy, economics, computer science, interaction design, film and literature science, media and communication sciences etc. According to my chosen paper, the research field of media technology is changing as a result of the influence by all these 'subfields'. With such a great plurality and dispersal of 'subfields' in a broad and fragmented field, I believe it is hard to discuss a specific topic in a clear way with a logical chain of thought. That is precisely what happens to be the case in my chosen research paper; it is unclear, straggly and lack some logic. This in turn, reminds me of when I was writing my Bachelor thesis and how hard it was to narrow the content of the broad field of media technology. I often included topics that at first seemed relevant, that later ended up being totally irrelevant for the conclusion.

To sum up, I am pleased to have received a more clear understanding of what theory is and what theory is not. Even though I am not entirely sure about the concepts, I guess it will be clearer these forthcoming weeks. It will be interesting to further investigate the research field of media technology. So far we have only gone through the basics of theory and methodology for media technology. The remaining weeks I hope to get an even better insight in this particular field. The more research papers you read and discuss, the more experiences you gather. It will give you a great understanding of how to improve your own writing, which I believe is an awesome preparation towards the Master thesis.

Theme 3: Research and theory

Gregor, S. - The Nature of Theory in Information Systems

Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B.M. - What Theory is Not

What is theory?

Theory is an abstract concept for explaining and describing phenomenons in world, emphasizing the nature of relationships between causal logic and event. It is built on information as a tool to understand why and how things happen or are in a certain way. A theory should be testable, meaning that it is established after have been confirmed by experiments or observations. It can be supported by references, hypotheses, diagrams or variables. A theory is looked upon as an accepted belief when it is accepted by a majority of people.

What is theory not?

There is lack of agreement whether a typology is properly labeled a theory or not, and whether the strength of a theory depends on how interesting it is. Objectivity and validity is beneficially when to postulate a theory, but only using what may be seen as undeniable knowledge does not necessarily make it a successful theory. There is a broad agreement as to what theory is not (Staw & Sutton, 1995). As far as I am concerned, information without context and logical reasoning is not theory. References are not theory, as references to existing theories cannot declare the causal logic which they contain. Variables are not theory, as a set of implications to hypothetical consequences does not make a theoretical argument. Diagrams are not theory, as they lack the logical declarations that are required to evince the underlying reasons, which form the basis of predictions in a theory. Hypotheses are not theory, as they offer statements as to what something is expected to occur, but not why. Finally, Data is not theory, as it describes the empirical patterns that were observed whilst theory explains why empirical patterns are expected to be observed.

Research journal

http://mcs.sagepub.com/

The aim of Media, Culture & Society is to provide a major peer-reviewed forum for research and discussion on the media. This research journal addresses the newer information and communication technologies, within their political, economic, cultural and historical contexts. Also, it raises issues on substantive topics and on critique and innovation in theory and method. Media, Culture & Society has an impact factor of 1.092.

Research paper

I have studied the paper Is there a ‘field’ of media research? – The ‘fragmentation’ issue revisited which was published in the November 2013 issue of Media, Culture & Society, written by John Corner. Appropriately to this theme of the course, the paper puts focus on the meteoric interest of ‘new media’ that brings us to the so-called anxious of ‘fragmentation of the field’, within media research. The main purpose of the paper is to show what is now happening under the heading of ‘media and communications research’ and to recognise the broader pattern of shifts in the nature and conduct of academic inquiry.

Comprehensively, the paper argues that there is a turn towards a more sustained engagement in a great diverse of fields within media, both conceptually and empirically. It claims the strengthening of research that focus on areas like literary studies, geography, history, modern languages and economics. The explanation to this is, not surprisingly, the arrival of ‘new media’ and ‘social media’. The ubiquitous media has penetrated into various academic spheres and led to a range of new disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. Therefore, there is a new positioning of media within frameworks of ideas and how to investigate it, which has led to the so-called ‘fragmentation of field’.

As characteristic of basic research, the paper is toward written with the purpose to greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications towards processes or products in mind. This paper is rather short and does not make room for limitations. Far from all concepts are fully explained to the reader, even though it contains a large number of examples and approaches that would be interesting to discuss further. The paper has an expository structure with a personal approach, as the author’s voice is present with support to be found in the literature. Generally, the data used in the paper are based on a contextual analysis including some literary studies. I believe the data are valid and reliable representations of the empirical reality they attempt to capture.

What I experienced as a disadvantage is the 'straggly' structure without a main thread. For example, concepts that first are said to be left out in the paper, are later brought to light. It misleads the reader and creates an unclear path of argumentation for the paper's propositions. A further disadvantage is that the conclusions drawn from the paper does not form a logical extension of the data used in the context. I really miss a conclusion that ties all the content together. On the other hand, the recited issue 'fragmentation of field' is a rather straggly topic. Maybe that explains the unclear structure, as it is quite hard to "sum up" a topic that is discussed in a broad field.

Theory type

I would describe the major theory that is used in my paper as explanation. The author provides explanations of how, why and when the phenomena happens. In this case the phenomena is ‘fragmentation of field’ and the explanation relies on varying views of causality and methods for argumentation. The paper intends to promote greater understanding and insights into the phenomena, with no aim to predict with any precision. The paper’s propostions are not really testable, which is another distinguished attribute for the “explanation”-theory. It rather explains something merely to show how to derive it in a logical argument from premises that include a covering law.

Benefits and limitations

Explaination serves a purpose to show others how the world may be viewed in a certain way, in turn with the aim of bringing about an altered understanding of how things are or why they are as they are. The theory for explaining is suitable at a lower level, when explanations are given for how and why things happened in some particular real-world situation. It also fits well where theory itself is an end product and not expected to lead to predictive, deterministic theory.

A distinguished attribute of explanation theory is that the propositions are not testable. One limitation is that judgment regarding the contribution to knowledge for this type of theory is made primarily on the basis of whether new or interesting insights are provided, and on the basis of plausibility, credibility, consistency, and transferability of the arguments made. Therefore, you have to keep in mind that there are cases that requires more than an explained “story” to qualify as theorizing and lead to conclusion with some generality.

I believe explanation is used beneficially when the proposition is basic, new and interesting. Instead of generalizing, as many generalizations are widely known and rather boring, the theory serve as a “surprise machine”. The point is to make room for artful and exciting insights that leads the reader into amazement, with a set of categories and domain assumptions aimed at clearing away conventional notions.

Theme 2: Critical media theory (Reflection)

Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the lectures this week. As I read the blog posts, I understand that I missed a good chance to get deeper understanding of the context. After only have been reading in order to get knowledge, I believe it would have been refreshing to stimulate other senses. To compensate for this, I was in contact with a course mate who informed me about the main topics that were brought to light and discussed at the seminar. Also, I was presented to the background of the book and its authors. What struck me above everything, was the situation in which the authors were, while this book was written. In a time frame of the second World War, characterized by propaganda and deception, these two Jewish authors were forced to migrate. With this in mind, it is not hard to understand the authors’ somewhat negative perspective on the mass media and culture industry.

It has been interesting to study the theme of this week. I enjoyed reading some parts of Dialectic of Enlightenment as it brought me to a lot of thinking of how the context is applicable on today’s society. The ubiquitous 'new media' in today’s society is obviously not the same as 'new media' was when the book was written in 1944. Above all, one important characteristic of media today is the interactivity, for example compared to the television in 1944. For that reason, the reasoning on 'new media' carried out by the authors, is not entirely applicable on the media of today.

The 'new' media forms of today (Internet, web and social media) have make room for interaction among the audience and expanded the limit of free thoughts. But concerning the issue of mass deception and mass culture, it is hard to say if these new media platforms have served to prevent these phenomenons since 1944 or not. As the authors claim back in 1944, I suspect humans contributes to the mass culture whether we want it or not. Now as then, there are probably 'forces' that we cannot control over, that map our media habits and put humans in different categories. For example, big companies uses economic strategies to translate information about individuals, in order to make use of these data in the business and earn money. In turn, they can determinate what culture should be. On the other hand, there are probably forces against the mass deception as well, which have received more space due to the 'new' media forms. Even though we can see tendencies of today's media society that is bearing a resemblance with former mass media, I believe there is one big difference; everyone can be heard on Internet, which is not the case through television.

To conclude, I really see the relevance of reading and discussing the raised questions of this theme. As a media technology engineer it is important to understand the media society as a whole and see what role media is playing. In big, the theme 'critical media theory' is about thinking critically and always question the media when it is developing into newer forms.

Theme 2: Critical media theory

Theodor W. Adorno & Max Horkheimer – Dialectic of Enlightenment

1. What is Enlightenment?

At first, I would refer Enlightenment as a period in the history of western culture, characterized by dramatic revolutions in science, philosophy, society and politics, during the 18th century. After have been reading “Dialectic of Enlightenment” I got another picture. Adorno and Horkheimer proclaim that there are tracks from Enlightenment and myths as long ago as in the Greek mythology. Earlier in history, when humans were predominated by nature, they feared the unknown. On the ground of understanding by rationality and reason, humans conquered superstition and were liberated from fear. “Knowledge is power” was a slogan that liberated the humans from myths and blind beliefs. Enlightenment stood in the same relationship to things as the dictator to human beings - he knew them to the extent that he can manipulate them. For enlightenment, anything which does not conform to the standard of calculability and utility must be viewed with suspicion.

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

Adorno and Horkheimer describe “myth” as a form of knowledge that existed before the Enlightenment. In addition, the authors describe that the mythology serve a way for human beings to understand nature and explain mysterious, sometimes unexplainable, things that happens. The quote "myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to mythology." is the paradoxical and fundamental thesis of the book. Mythology and Enlightenment are not implacable opposites. In myths, everything that happens must atone for the fact of having happened. It is not different in enlightenment: no sooner has a fact been established than it is rendered insignificant. According to enlightened thinking, mythical figures can be reduced to a single common denominator, the subject. Just as myths already entail enlightenment, enlightenment entangles itself more deeply into mythology. To receive all its subject matter from myths, in order to destroy them, it falls as judge under the spell of myth.

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

“Old” media, according to Adorno and Horkheimer, was for example feature film, radio, newspaper and magazines. Given that the book was written in the 1940s, I guess that television, which combined feature film and radio, was seen as “new” media at that time.

4. What is meant by “culture industry”?

“Cultural industry” is referred as the industrial production of culture. Adorno and Horkheimer proclaim that when the capitalist society are mass producing the culture, it becomes rationalized and commercialized. As a consequence, the mass is led into a passivity in which they are “deceived” into thinking that their needs only can be met by consumption. In turn, there is a loss of individuality and the commodification of ourselves. The mass production of culture items will be standardized, partly since the cultural industry is economic driven, but also as there will be no need to introduce unique concepts to the mass.

5. What is the relationship between mass media and “mass deception”, according to Adorno and Horkheimer?

Mass media are diversified media technologies that intend to reach a large audience by mass communication. According to Adorno and Horkheimer mass media is an effective tool to deceive the audience, with commercialized cultural products that they are constantly exposed to. “Mass deception” occurs when the cultural industry produces products that prevent the audience from thinking independently. The audience believes that the mass media serve them with information and education, in a process of enlightenment. In fact, instead of serving the audience, they lose their individuality and become passive when consuming the mass media, under control of the capital. The mass is turned into marionettes who are controlled by the commercial forces.

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

What I found interesting and would like to investigate a little bit further is the discussion about amusement in relation to the culture industry. I read in the text that “Amusement always means putting things out of mind, forgetting suffering, even if it is on display.” In addition, I read that “To be entertained means to be in agreement.” The root of being in a state of agreement, the authors explain to be the powerlessness. In turn, it explains how easily the culture industry influences the consumers. What especially caught my attention was the claim that individuals on the screen are specimens of the same species as everyone in the audience. The authors proclaims that media influences the audience in the way that they no longer “lose oneself” in others on the screen. Everyone amounts only to those qualities by which he or she can replace everyone else, meaning all are fungible, mere specimens. That statement led me to think of the culture industry and mass media's major role when it comes to shape ideals and stereotypes. I guess that is what the authors wants to put to light by writing that “the culture industry has sardonically realized man's species being.” Consequences of stereotypes and ideals are constantly current topics for discussion, but nonetheless interesting to be discussed at a seminar.

Theme 1: Theory of Science (Reflection)

It was a pity that both the lecture and the seminar was cancelled this week. I believed it would have been worthwhile to discuss the text of Russell with my classmates, to receive a greater understanding of the content. The broad scope of content, written in a stilted language, gave me a hard time to clearly understand all of the text. Besides, theory of science as a topic is somewhat ambiguous and equivocal. For that reason, it would have been interesting to get insight in other perspectives on the topic, at a seminar.

However, it was educational to read the blog posts written by my classmates. During reading all reflections on the questions, it struck me that our course literature is quite complex, and therefore the content can be interpreted in many different ways. Everyone has highlighted what they believe to be relevant and important central questions, that emanates from the text. I guess that this diversity of approaches can be linked to something Russell is writing about in the book; how to experience something corresponds with the beliefs of what you considered as “true” or not. In other words, everyone perceives things read in the text differently, according to their own point of view. Speaking of this, Russell also explains that there is a difference between "true belief" and “knowledge”. Even though you believe a thing to be true, you cannot take it for granted and designate it as knowledge. Because, even if it usually turns out to be true, it is still just a conjecture and as written by Russell in the text; “a true belief is not knowledge when it is deduced from a false belief.”

I have never studied philosophy in a broader sense, so working with this theme has, in some way, improved my philosophical thinking. So, there is one more thing that I find interesting and will remember from this theme. Namely, that there are a lot of similarities between scientific knowledge and philosophical knowledge. The philosophy actually has an impact on science that I was not aware of before. Maybe because I have never thought about it.

Theme 1: Theory of Science

Bertrand Russell – The Problems of Philosophy

1. What does Russell mean by "sense data" and why does he introduce this notion?
When we catch sight of a physical object our mind makes up a sensation of what it is. Russell explains that it is through our senses (sight, touch, hearing, taste, smell) that we interpret an object receiving the sense-data of it. We are not immediately aware of the physical object, but rather the sense-data of it. The sense-data differ among people depending on how our mind creates an understanding of the object, where prior knowledge, experiences and physical laws are taken into account. Therefore, people often experiences one and the same object differently. I believe that Russell introduces this notion to highlight two aspects that are important in the field of communication. At first, there are different stages of knowing. What you see, at a first glance, is merely a rough interpretation of what your senses register, which is often changed at a closer look. Secondly, everybody has their own perception of the sense-data. Hence there are of importance to understand that there is no “right or wrong”, but all people perceive things differently (according to their own point of view).

2. 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?
Propositions about objects are statements in our minds, which are known to us by description. We are not acquainted with the object in the proposition and therefore not aware of the facts about it. However, a proposition must be completely composed of constituents that we are acquainted with. That is, we must have facts about things regarding the object in the proposition. In some cases we have knowledge by description of things which we have never experienced, so called a proposition with “a priori knowledge". A statement of fact is something experienced in acquaintance, which has led to a belief. When an object or a fact of the statement corresponds with our beliefs it is considered as “true”. Unlike other verbal expressions, propositions and statements of facts are based on knowledge, and not only prior experience, rumors etc.

3. In chapter 5 ("Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description") Russell introduces the notion "definite description". What does this notion mean?
When Russel introduces the term “description” he illustrates a difference between “ambiguous description” and “definite description”. An “ambiguous description” is on the form “a ‘so-and-so’” where not a particular object or a specific person is pointed out, but it exists many of the same kind. In contrast, Russell defines “definite descriptions” as words or sentences on the form “the ‘so-and-so’”, which describes a unique object or person. The knowledge of this unique object or person does not come from immediate acquaintance, but rather from the acquaintance with things regarding these. We receive knowledge from acquaintance by our memory, sense-data, or through introspection with our sense-data.

4. 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 argues whether there is something that can be entitled “true knowledge” or not. According to Russell, knowledge is not an exact conception and the scientific knowledge does not differ that much from philosophical knowledge. The main thing that divides the two is criticism. He puts to light that true belief cannot be called knowledge if it is deduced by a fallacious process of reasoning, even if the premisses from which it is deduced are true. In general, knowledge is probable opinions proved theoretically as we are not acquainted with objects or facts personally. Further, we do not know the universal relations between all included facts, which is a condition to totally receive knowledge. An opinion isolated from others does not make something true knowledge, but many matching opinions make knowledge more probable. Russell also addresses that we by no means easily can discover criterion for intuitive beliefs, which leads him to a conclusion that all our knowledge of truths is infected with some degree of doubt, and a theory which ignores this fact would be plainly wrong.