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.
It was interesting to hear about your thoughts on the media field. I had a similar thought about the impact factor in media journals. I argued that because media is mostly interdisciplinary, then the papers in journals are quoted more (adding to the impact factor) because it is such a wide scope, and therefore maybe not as reliable because the information may be more likely to be taken out of context. However Stefan argued the complete opposite, saying that media journals could be seen as more reliable simply because they are interdisciplinary and take information from a lot more sources, making it more reliable. I am still unconvinced!
SvaraRaderaHi girls! You have an interesting disussion. I agree that media field is mostly interdisciplinary. I write my Master thesis about metaphors and I mention a lot of theories from different fields - linguistic, politics, economics and so on. Moreover we deal with phenomenon that is still developing very fast, so we have a lot of questions and we should try to find answers in any field that we can.
SvaraRadera