Theme 4: Quantitative research

This week I decided to begin by reading the paper Physical activity, stress, and self-reported upper respiratory tract infection by Fondell et al. Hereafter I will refer to upper respiratory tract infection as URTI. As we see in the paper quantitative methods like online surveys can be an extremely effective tool, as it allows researchers to draw conclusions from very large amounts of data. Using qualitative methods it is almost impossible to reach generalized conclusions that can be applied to the whole population or a larger group. However, in the paper some of the weaknesses of quantitative methods also become apparent. For example, there is no way for the researchers to verify the information submitted is correct. In the conclusions we don’t see a statement about URTI, but rather about self-reported URTI. Also, the researchers are unable to find more detailed information that the respondents can’t be expected to know themselves, in this instance the researchers couldn’t know for sure if a respondent had influenza or a common cold.

Keeping this in mind I went to read the research paper I chose: Measuring Mobile Phone Use: Self-Report Versus Log Data, by J. Boase and R. Ling. It was published in Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication with an impact factor of 1.778. I was happily surprised that the paper attempts to answer some of the questions I had when reading the paper on URTI, namely the reliability of larger surveys. The aim of the study is to compare self-reported data about mobile phone use to server logs supplied by a network operator. The quantitative methods used are an internet based survey done in Norway in 2008 and analysis of the phone log data of 613 respondents who authorized it when answering the survey. The researchers then compare the responses of the survey to the average phone usage pulled from the logs and calculates the correlation between the numbers. The advantage of using quantitative methods in this instance, apart from the researchers pronounced objective to evaluate and compare quantitative methods, is that the the researchers are able to draw much broader conclusions than they would if they had done a qualitative study on a smaller sample group.

I found the results of the study very interesting, as the researchers conclude that the self-reported data only correlate moderately with server log data. They also found that asking respondents to estimate “how often” they use their phones gave more accurate responses than asking how much they used their phone “yesterday”. The yesterday-question was something I reflected on while first reading it. My first thought was that it would not produce very good results, as, at least for me, the amount I use my phone varies heavily from day to day. Since it would be compared to the monthly average pulled from phone logs I figured there was bound to be deviations. On the other hand, I would have a hard time correctly estimating how much I use my phone on average so I found it interesting that that question still produced the best results. What I take away from this study is that what questions you ask, especially when it comes to surveys and self-reporting, heavily affects the quality and accuracy of your data.

After theme 3

This week I unfortunately missed the first seminar, but I went to the second one and found it really helpful in many ways. What I didn’t really grasp going into the seminar was what the different types of theory from The nature of theory in information systems actually meant, but talking about it in our group and with Stefan Hrastinski made it much more comprehensible. In particular I came to understand the difference between explaining and predicting, which meant pretty much the opposite of what I first had thought.

When I think of predicting I immediately imagines a theory predicting the future, or future events, but this is actually quite uncommon in science in general. A theory for predicting is more about showing a connection, but not actually diving in to explain why this happens. A theory for explaining on the other hand is concerned with why and how something is happening, but not how that can affect other events.

Also, as I completely missed describing my chosen articles using the concepts described in Nature of theory in information systems and What theory is not in my last blog post, I figured I should probably write something about that here. A recap: the article I chose was called Technical code and the social construction of the internet by Flanagin A. J., Flanagin C. & Flanagin J. (2009). The aim of the article was using the concept of technical code to examine the internet’s “evolution, current form and future potential”. For a long time I was lured by the fact that the authors are making some vague predictions in the concluding part. I figured predictions -> theory of prediction, but as I’ve learnt now that is not how it works. The core of the article is using this theory, technical code, to describe and analyse the history and current state of the internet. This places the theory mainly under theory of analyzing.

The conclusion of the article begins with this quote: “The technical code perspective provides a penetrating view of technologies by increasing awareness of the choices that form them …”. The first time I read it it went right past me, but looking at it again it struck me just how the choice of theory shapes an article. Using technical code helped the authors focus on important choices made during the development of the internet. Had the authors based the article on, for example, theories based in technological determinism they could probably have done roughly the same study, looking at the same aspects but coming to a very different conclusion.

So, what did I learn this week? I learnt there are different types of theory. I (think) I learnt what the concept of theory actually means in a scientific context. I learnt that the choice of theory is important, and that the choice is not necessarily between right and wrong but rather about what you want to communicate with your research.

Theme 3: Research and theory

New Media & Society is a peer reviewed journal. They publish research from communication, media and cultural studies. It caught my interest by having a top ten impact factor in the field of communication, (1.824). I expect this journal to cover the social aspects of media technology fairly well.

The paper I choose was named Technical code and the social construction of the internet by Flanagin, Flanagin and Flanagin, published in New Media & Society in 2010. The aim of the paper is to use the concept of technical code to examine the current state of the internet. Flanagin (and Flanagin and Flanagin) defines technical code as ‘a background of unexamined cultural assumptions literally designed into the technology itself’. By examing the technical code the authors hope to find the values and and assumptions that was important during the development of the internet, and understand the internets evolution, current form and future.

To accomplish this the authors reviews a large number of articles on the subject. A large focus of the article is the openness of the internet. The authors point out that one of the most important decitions in designing the internet is the end-to-end principle. The end-to-end principle means that the “inteligence” or the processing of the network happens primarily at the sender and reciever nodes, the network in between is neutral, handeling all data indifferently. This causes conflict, as the neutrality of the internet is challenged by laws, for example laws agains file sharing. The authors finishes by concluding that there are choices to be made in the future development of the internet, and those choices will likely determine to what degree the internet will continue to be “the technology of freedom”.

After theme 2

First of all: having a lecture and seminar this week helped immensely with understanding the material. For me the turning point was when Leif Dahlberg in the lecture pointed out the circumstances during which the book was written. Knowing it was written during the second world war, by germans exiled in the United States, (living at least part of the time in Los Angeles), helped me understand and see through a lot of the anger in the text.

An aspect of the text I found really interesting was how many of the arguments used by Adorno and Horkheimer in the 1940s are still used today in discussions of the media industry. The ideas that mass media is dulling the minds of consumers, the ideas that the latest form of consuming culture is worse than the ones used before, it has been said so many times and will surely be said again. I feel the fact that these arguments have been used for over 50 years at least indicates that there is at least a core of truth in this. As a student of media technology, my view on the latest in media is fairly positive, but that is no reason not to be cautious of negative consequences from consuming media today. A central point in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument seems to be that mass media trains the population to listen to authoritative voices. At first I found it a bit silly and conspiratory, but again, taking into account that the book was written during a war started by a Germany that had been turned from a democratic state to a dictatorship, I think I get their point. The development of mass media has, among other things, enabled propaganda to be spread more easily than ever before.

My biggest problem with the text is how culture conservative I find it. I don’t think holding back or preventing the use of “new” media would benefit anyone. The authors may well have a point when saying mass media have negative aspects, but as far as I can tell they completely ignore any positive aspects that would make their arguments more nuanced, (and interesting to me). As a student of modern media technology I’m not that interested in hearing how things were better in the past. What concerns me is how to make things better in the future.

Theme 2: Critical media studies

Last week I never thought I would say this, but compared to this week's text, Russell was pretty easy to follow. I have read through the recommended chapters and will attempt to answer the seminar questions below, but while reading I really really felt large chunks of text floating straight through my mind without me ever understanding what the authors were trying to tell me. Fortunately, according to the course web next week’s lecture will “summarize the main ideas in the text and also situate it in the history of media studies”. I expect dramatic changes in the reflective post next week.

So, what is enlightenment?

In the broadest sense enlightenment is the advancement of thought, according to Adorno and Horkheimer. It is the process of dispelling myths and replacing fantasy with fiction. It is our constant effort to better understand the world.

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

At one point Adorno and Horkheimer describes myths as false clarity. The name of the book is Dialectic of Enlightenment and dialectic implies one thesis is contrasted with an antithesis. In Adorno and Horkheimer's argument, myth, is the antithesis to the concept of enlightenment.

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

Dialectics of Enlightenment was written in the 40s, so it’s no surprise that what Adorno and Horkheimer describes as new media is different from what I would classify as new media today. New media, is according to them, for example film, radio and magazines. One of the newest media the authors are interested in is the television, “a synthesis of radio and film”. As for old media, Adorno and Horkheimer talks about art history and classical music. I assume old media, in their view, is paintings and sculptures, symphonies and operettas. Anything you can put classical in front of, really.

What is meant by “culture industry”?

As I understand is, the culture industry is the industry built upon manufacturing art and culture in a capitalist model. That is, the law of supply and demand is in effect. According to Adorno and Horkheimer the culture industry not only makes the popular products, (a movie or tv-program or whatever), but also somehow controls the demands of the audiences. It determines consumption, and “rejects anything untried as a risk”.

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

According to, Adorno and Horkheimer, the culture industry endlessly cheats its consumers in order to infinitely prolong their interest in the culture industry’s products. In their view the culture industry suppresses and controls the consumers. I believe this is the mass deception the chapter Enlightenment as Mass Deception refers to. Mass media is how this deception is spread to the masses.

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

I’ll have to come back to this in the next blog post, but right now I’m fascinated by how the authors are pinning all the blame for their dissatisfaction on “new media” on the media industry. I agree that the focus of much of the media today is entertainment rather than enlightenment, but I find the way Adorno and Horkheimer writes about the culture industry interesting, and also a bit narrow-minded.

Also, the 17.00 deadline clearly don’t work well for me.

After Theme 1

So, what have I learnt from this theme? Let’s begin with some meta reflection. Last week I had an important deadline in another course I’m taking, as well as a lot of work to do for Armada, a student project I’m engaged in. My schedule didn’t leave much time for this course and it resulted in me being late with the first blogpost. I’ve learnt that the preparations for this course takes time, and that I should make more time for it in my schedule. I’ve also learnt that if I know I will miss a deadline, (if only by as little as 30 minutes), the work will be so much more difficult for me to complete.

As I’m sure everybody has noticed, we did not have a lecture or a seminar this week. This was really unfortunate, at least for me, as I feel I would have needed that help to make sense of the material. Fortunately I got two comments on my blog post, which was surprisingly helpful as they forced me to go back and reevaluate parts of my writing that I was unsure of. Replying to the comments definitely helped me put my interpretation of Russells text into words, but I still feel I’m lacking a connection between this weeks theme and the theme for the entire course, theory and method for media technology. Reading my fellow students blog posts doesn’t help with this either, or at least not the ones I’ve read. While it’s interesting to read different interpretations of the same text, all posts are answering the same four questions, and very little I read help me understand not only what Russell is saying, but what it means for me and for my future as a scientist.

So, as I cannot find anything that will help me make sense of this material, I will attempt to do it by myself. It’s quite probable I’m way of the mark, if anyone happens to read this feel free to correct me!

What I think I've learnt from Russell and the various interpretations of his text:

• We cannot be sure of the real, physical nature of anything, all we can be sure of is what our senses are telling us about an object, which may or may not be the same thing. I think this hold true, not only for our senses, but also for the instruments we use for measuring different aspects of our world.
• There are many types of knowledge. Some types are self-evident and easy for others to accept as true, while other types have a more gradual degree of trustworthiness. For us interested in writing and reading scientific papers, it means that we can learn something true from others, but we need to pay attention to what kind of knowledge we have received.

Theme 1 - Theory of science

1. The question posed in the opening of the book is how do I know the world around me exists? To do this Russell introduces the notion of “sense data”, the sensory information we perceive by interacting with everything around us. Russell separates between sense-data and physical objects. For instance, we can doubt what exact color something has, or whether you see the thing the same way someone else sees the thing, or even whether there really are other people. What we can’t doubt know is that we have this sense-data, that no matter what is the actual cause, I am feeling the surface of an object and seeing it’s color. The realness of an object can be put into question, but never our perception of it.
   
   
2. Russell uses propositions as a sentence on the form ‘X is something’, that means stating this proposition reveals a property of X. Furthermore, a proposition is exclusive. That means, if i propose ‘X is the next prime minister’, what I mean is ‘X is the next prime minister, and no one else is’. However, we may not actually know the real X, for example if X was a historical person. We can still describe a proposition about an object named X as long as we know we describe a true statement of fact about the real X.
   
   
3. With definite description Russel means a description that identifies someone, or some object. The example he uses is ‘a man’, which is a description, contra ‘the man in the iron mask’, which is a definite description. When I say ‘a man’ i may refer to a number of objects, but ‘the man in the iron mask’ refers to one man in particular.
   
   
4. The chapters discuss truth, and in particular true knowledge. Russell holds that knowledge is not the same as ‘true belief’, as something we believe may well be true but if the belief was based on a false belief it cannot be said we have knowledge. This is all a bit complicated to wrap your head around, but if I, for example, make something up that you believe in, and the thing I made up actually come true, what you believe is also true. But you cannot be said to have knowledge, as your belief is only based on my random guessing. 
   
   
   Instead Russell builds a more complex system proposes two ways in which something can be known, by means of judgement or by means of perception. Judgement means, for example, if you know the hour of sunset, you may know when the sun is setting even though you’re not actually seeing the setting sun. Knowledge by perception on the other hand means knowing something by actually observing it. Russell points out that the first way, like all judgement, is liable to error. The second way on the other hand is only possible when the relation between different parts of a complex situation is perceivable. 
   
   
   In the end Russell concludes that what we firmly believe, if it’s true, can be called knowledge and what we firmly believe, if not true, can be called error. As not everything can be known with absolute certainty Russell also introduces a third term, probable opinion, and notes that the greater part of what would commonly pass as knowledge belongs there.
   
   
   In the next chapter Russell uses a theory by philosopher Hegel as an example of when great ambition has gone into attempting to prove that an apparent feature of the actual world is self-contradictory and therefore cannot be real. Russell argues that very little can come out of this. He uses the infinity of time and space as an example. While it appears apparent to Russell that time and space stretches out infinitely, and is infinitely divisible, this have not stopped philosophers from trying to disprove it. Russell ends the chapter by noting that in the case of infinite space and time, it was later proven infinity was not self-contradictory but rather contradictory of certain prejudice.