Preparation for theme 4

I picked the paper "Historicizing New Media: A Content Analysis of Twitter" by Humphreys, Gill, Krishnamurthy, Newbury et al. from the Journal of Communication, Volume 63, Issue 3 (June 2013). It can be found at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.focus.lib.kth.se/doi/10.1111/jcom.12030/full

In the paper, the authors employ a content analyzing scheme to a relatively large sample of Twitter messages (tweets) in order to analyze and classify 'microblogging' content on Twitter in a historical context, comparing with 19-18th century diaries.

The report repeatedly gathered public tweets in a three week time interval in early 2008. In total, they looked at over 100 000 tweets and narrowed them down to English tweets, and then randomly sampled over 2 000 tweets for the content analysis.

Since the authors want to look at microblogging (on Twitter) from a historical perspective, it's important that they look at a statistically significant amount of tweets in order to draw any conclusions from their data. In other words, deploying an automatic analyzing scheme to get as many sources as possible is of high importance and benefitted the paper in this regard. Although perhaps possible in this specific case, this type of study would have taken an enormous, maybe unfeasible amount of time to conduct without the aid of automatic analysis.

At the same time, every time computers are analyzing (human) content there is a chance of misinterpretation or computational errors, which either gives false data or removes data that cannot be classified, thus conforming the results to the model of the content analyzing algorithm. This is acknowledged as a problem by the authors, as they mention how they only used 8 content topic categories, which excluded tweets that were not recognizable in this range. Another potential limitation is the fact that the sample data dates back all the way to 2008, which is an enormous amount of time considering the developments in mobile and tablet technology since then.

Also, the report doesn't really say much of why. While the authors discuss some details such as how interactivity may or may not be greater today, and how information seeking (naturally) is a new category and how twitterers potentially can reach a much larger audience, it doesn't really explain the indicated trends fully. Therefore, with Gregor's theory classification this paper would more likely have fallen under "Analysis" or "Prediction", rather than "Explanation and prediction".

---

The paper Physical activity, stress, and self-reported upper respiratory tract infection by Fondell, E., Lagerros, Y. T., Sundberg, C. J., Lekander, M., Bälter, O., Rothman, K., & Bälter, K. (2010) examined, through an extensive study with 1509 Swedish men and women, how stress and exercise affect reported cases of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI).

I say reported because the study doesn't seem take into account the psychological side other than the stress factor, just the number of reported cases and the content of each report. The study was conducted over a four month period where an email questionnaire was answered every three weeks.

The researchers came to the conclusion that high physical activity was linked to a lower risk of contracting URTI - but I see a potential problem in that a reported case is directly translated to an actual case of URTI without a doctor's confirmation. Also, a questionnaire with predefined answers may also affect the result in that symptoms or data outside the box could be missed and misinterpreted.

---

Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative methods?

Quantitative methods have the benefit of (potentially) giving statistical significance. They may employ automatic analyzing schemes to a greater, more accurate effect seeing as the wanted data should have a limited variance. This means that huge amounts of data can be processed, especially so in our digital age. Limitations, however, include misinterpretation and erroneous analyzing algorithms as well as sometimes incorrectly identifying that target data is of low variance, thus missing out on answers outside the box of predefined parameters or questions. Lastly, the truthfulness or authenticity of answers may be harder to confirm. For instance, online anonymity can be both a boon (in getting more answers) and a fault (in getting false answers).

Which are the benefits and limitations of using qualitative methods?

Qualitative methods have the benefit of capturing answers that can vary in range that e.g. a predefined questionnaire might not even have as an option. The truthfulness of answers also gets down to a more personal level, mostly pointing towards higher accuracy in the actual answers given. At the same time, interviews can of course still be faked by a researcher claiming anonymity. Also, since the sample count is normally of a very low count (compared to quantitative methods, at least), it is often difficult to draw any generalized conclusions.

Reflection of theme 3

This week I learned more about how other people define theory and how lack of proper theory can make or break a paper. While discussing papers in seminar one, we decided to focus on one that gave light to problems, or rather lack of problem definitions.  By doing this, I think people in our seminar group (including myself) learned more about how important it is to properly narrow down the scientific issue and properly define the problem in order to produce a paper of good scientific value.

At the same time, Stefan Hrastinski also discussed with us how a paper not always have to come up with a perfect solution or follow the initial hypothesis or prediction. In fact, we discussed how the failure itself is also a valuable knowledge, many times more interesting than the success story that many researchers strive for.

Thinking back on my bachelor thesis, I at least want to believe I had this with me in the back of my head. And so I took the opportunity this week to revisit my old thesis and read it with a new mindset. I came to the conclusion that while many students look for a positive outcome of their experiment or investigation, thankfully we didn't fully fall in the same category. While we could definitely have benefitted from narrowing down our problem area, we acknowledged how (some of) the data we had didn't automatically lead to an easy explanation. In fact, we proposed new outlines for future research in our area based on our experiences and conclusions. At the time, I don't quite believe we would have achieved a very high impact rating...

In keeping with this mindset, I also read a lot of blog posts regarding theory this week. Many seem to agree that theory is something very wide and hard to grasp, while at the same time acknowledging how theory is formed by different, all crucial, parts. These parts are often about the type of data that strengthen the hypothesis or predictions, but also more specifically how data gathering can differ and impact the perception of an entire paper. For instance, when discussing this among my peers we established how studies with low participation counts automatically seem to be viewed with less credibility, but when actually looking at how they conducted the study it may change the perception once again.

Preparation for theme 3

Select a research journal that you believe is relevant for media technology research. The journal should be of high quality, with an “impact factor” of 1.0 or above. Write a short description of the journal and what kind of research it publishes.

I chose the Journal of Communication (with an impact factor of 2.011), which is a a journal containing communication theory in both social and cultural fields as well as computer-mediated communication. In other words, it's a journal with a wide coverage of communication theories.

Select a research paper that is of high quality and relevant for media technology research. The paper should have been published in a high quality journal, with an “impact factor” of 1.0 or above. Write a short summary of the paper and provide a critical examination of, for example, its aims, theoretical framing, research method, findings, analysis or implications. You can use some of the questions in Performing research article critiques as support for your critical examination.

I picked the article "To Your Health: Self-Regulation of Health Behavior Through Selective Exposure to Online Health Messages" (October 2013) by Knobloch-Westerwick, Johnson and Westerwick from the journal above, because I think it touches an interesting subject; the choice to listen or not to listen to health advice when it may conflict with your behaviors or beliefs.

It investigates the problem of reaching crucial target groups in online health campaigns. The authors conduct a study with 419 participants where source credibility affected three different defined motivations; bolstering, self-motivating, and self-defending. The method involved users in browsing topics for a specific set of time after which behaviors and perceptions were analyzed. The problem I find with this method is its very artificial method sampling, by having the users in a lab environment and browsing each topic for a set duration of time, far from a natural environment. Another point of critique lies in its very limited age and behavior diversity, all participants being young students with heavy Internet usage, which may not reflect the general populace.

The results support the notion that self-bolstering was reinforced by selective message exposure when the user was already familiar with messages that confirmed their own health behaviors. Self-motivation also came in effect for people falling short of promoted health behaviors, among others.


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

Theory is made up from several components. One may consider citations, diagrams and data theory in itself, but theory is in fact made up by many of these components. Theory answers (or tries to answer) the question "Why?" by analyzing, explaining, predicting or designing. Hypothesis could be looked upon as the "pre-form" of theory in that it gives a prediction of results, but doesn't really answer the question on a deeper level of logic. And so theory may be an explanation of results that is possible to test.


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?

According to Gregor, there are four different types of theory. The one I think fits the research paper above best is Prediction in how the authors set up a testable environment with some predictions before-hand, but fail to provide more diverse study participants and to explain all results thoroughly. However, the paper does fall close to Explanation and prediction (EP) due to to some specific explanations in its discussion.


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

The good thing is that the theory is possible to test further to verify and build upon these foundations. By illuminating specific problems and giving some insight in specific cases, one can also tailor a design proposal built on these predictions.

Reflection of theme 2

First of all, I'm sorry to say I missed the seminar due to moving to a new apartment. However, to delve deeper into the central themes presented by Adorno and Horkheimer in Dialectic of Enlightenment as well as gain perspective on one of the authors, I decided to read more about Adorno himself as well as read an article by him titled "Culture Industry Reconsidered" from 1963.

After reading up on Adorno, I realized how the culture industry is a pretty broad subject that can be defined in various ways. In a historical context, Adorno himself grew up in Nazi Germany where he first-handedly experienced the results of mass deception in the forms of state propaganda from radio speeches and cinemas, for example. The culture industry in that time and place was severely limited and tainted by state ideals which conformed people to a single minded, brainwashed mass.

And so the link for the notion of mass deception in Nazi Germany to a broader perspective in an entire culture industry seems natural. The industry in culture industry is not an industrial one, but rather a sociological one built for the mind. Perhaps it's a bit harsh, but there are certainly parallels to state propaganda in how mainstream media produces money-making entities (e.g. singers) in a (by Adorno introduced term) "Star system" to a single minded, pacified mass of people who are taught what to like and what to wear.

Preparation for theme 2

What is Enlightenment?

Enlightenment has strong connotations with science prevailing over religion, a way of scientifically seeking knowledge through experiments and observation - empirical evidence - rather than through myth and religion. In Adorno & Horkheimer's text, "enlightenment" is explained as reducing the fear among people while reinforcing their knowledge and control over the world. 

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

As science and "facts" are regarded today, so were once myths and folktales historically, according to Adorno & Horkheimer. A "myth" would be considered an easy way out for hard questions, sometimes resulting as part of a religion that became the next level of "truth" or "knowledge" for people.

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

The "new" media is viewed harshly by Adorno & Horkheimer in that it pacifies the consumer by limiting their imagination, deceptively tricking them to consume even more and simply look to make money. In contrast, "old" media is explained with less of a mass-consumer focus where artistic values, deep discussion and critical thinking is encouraged on a much higher intellectual level.

What is meant by “culture industry”?

Adorno & Horkheimer uses this notion in reference to the businesses which goal is to entertain the masses, for instance the movie business, TV-companies, books, etc. The general philosophy that is discussed is one that views the consumers as easily persuaded and tricked into consuming the "culture" that this "industry" produces. In particular "new" media is seen as part of the culture industry, according to the authors.

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

As mentioned above, the culture industry is just like any other industry interested in making people buy their product. Since culture can be seen as a way in itself to affect people, for instance letting James Bond drive a fancy new BMW, it is also deceptive in the way it subconsciously affects people. In this way, mass media is looked upon with distaste by Adorno & Horkheimer in how it manipulates people into making certain choices that benefit the producers of said media. 

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

I find the concept of deception and pacification particularly interesting, especially looking at the very latest spawn of the culture industry; computer games. Take for example World of Warcraft, which is featured numerous times in the news because people have become so pacified by the game that they simply can't stop playing. Deception is also interesting because it's related in how we perceive the world. If all we see is a computer generated world, the step into thinking that world is the real world isn't too far off. Putting this in the perspective of countries with news organizations that feed from fear and ignorance, the result is a warped, almost "mythical" view of the world.

Reflection of theme 1

First of all, I hope everything is well with Leif Dahlberg, who was the first person to welcome us to Media Technology at KTH. I feel he managed to inspire us all to study this program, something that has turned out to be filled with both courses built upon layers of logic (mathematics, programming, etc.) as well as courses filled with creativity and not necessarily 'statements of facts'.

Although it would have been good to further discuss this week's theme in the seminar groups and lectures, I feel like it has also been a good opportunity to think about these subjects on my own while reading fellow students' blog posts.

A lot of people, myself included, are quite puzzled by the choice to read 100-year-old philosophical pieces. However, as this course in essence is a preparation for the master thesis, I feel like credibility, bias and good research can benefit from the notion of sense-data (as all blog posts have pointed out) data being perceived by sense, and that logic and 'facts' are ultimately artificial things that are created by people. As I wrote before, one must consider who is given the mandate of credibility, given this point of view of knowledge being built in layers.

That being said, I'm looking forward to learn about concrete methods about how to conduct scientific research in further themes.

Preparation for theme 1

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

Russel means to differentiate the act of sensing (the experience we have when smelling, hearing, etc.) and the result of said act. The result of this is the sense-data - what is the color, how does it smell, and so forth. Fundamentally, Russel aims to investigate how we perceive and ultimately define “physical objects”. “Is there any such thing as matter?”, he asks. But the true goal I feel is to introduce Descartes’ system of “methodical doubt”, where scepticism is used to invites us all to view things in a new light.

- 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 statement of fact is a proposition that is commonly agreed upon amongst peers, sometimes erroneously. Different social groups may have conflicting perceptions of facts, take for example religious Creationists in the U.S. who reject evolution. Russel writes about empirical knowledge, and how experience and sense-data make up what we today may propose to be a fact, and later accepted as one. Propositions are, in turn, made up by data (be it historical knowledge or sensor-data) from acquaintances to matters or simply a description of an object or abstract idea.  In all, a proposition is required to include constituents that we are acquainted with, according to Russel.

In the modern scientific society we live in today, the (indirect) consensus from scientific observation is that a proposition constitutes for a statement of fact once it has been tested and thoroughly analyzed from the scientific community. One could argue, however, about who is given the mandate of credibility, and what impact this has on “statement of fact”?

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

When describing objects - or propositions, for that matter - one can talk about ambiguous and definite descriptions, according to Russel. In regards to physical objects, sensor-data and description by acquaintances is what gives our perception strength, but when looking at non-physical objects one must more finely tune the very definition of the object itself. It is therefore of value to look at a more definite description of said object, in singular, to minimize the presence of ambiguity.

- 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?

Argues that our perceived knowledge may be based on either false or true beliefs, and that neither is true. He mentions the example of a newspaper announcing the death of a king, but what if the newspaper simply lied? That would be categorized as a false belief, resulting in no knowledge.

Russel means that because of this, self evidence needs to play a critical part where the sense-data is gradable in terms of truthfulness. Thus, he draws the conclusion that since knowledge needs to be inferred from self evidence or intuitive knowledge, the majority of what we today call knowledge is simply probable opinion. Russel further argues that since knowledge or science is based on agreeing on these kinds of individual probable opinions in larger masses, ideas that are based on probable opinion (or propositions, or theories) can never "transform [it] into indubitable knowledge”.