Theme 4 Pre reflection: Quantitative research

I chose a article from the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (impact factor of 2,019). The article I choose have an impact factor of 3,57 and it’s called Internet Community Group Participation: Psychosocial Benefits for Women with Breast Cancer [1]. The paper examines the psychosocial benefits of Internet community group participation for women with breast cancer. A longitudinal (involves repeated observations over a long period of time) content analysis of more than 33,200 postings from a online breast cancer bulletin board (discussion board) and a thematic analysis of the “life stories” of 100 women randomly selected from the bulletin board, was conducted in the paper.
One of the reasons why I choose this article was because I felt that they used the quantitative methods in a very good way. I though, before I read this article, that it’s very hard (close to impossible) to conduct a quantitative method within a area that is very emotionally driven (i.e. cancer).

They used a multi-method, combining quantitative and qualitative methods. When collecting data in the paper, they used a content analysis and a thematic analysis. The content analysis, for the purpose to measure variables, is a method of studying and analyzing communication in a systematic, objective and quantitative manner. The content analysis examined and identified characteristics of women who use the online discussion board by first examining the membership profiles (marital status, children, residence etc.) and then by reading individual members posting on the discussion board. The thematic analysis is a qualitative method that focuses on identifying themes or patterns different behaviors.
So the quantitative method in the paper helped clarifying what kind of women who is active within the examined online breast cancer community. In the paper, they used a cross-sectionally, random collections of samples (N=100), it might be a bit few but but its not one of the main issues. One issue with this method is the sensitivity within the area of breast cancer. Many women might have the need to be private on these discussion boards and therefore not wanting to leave out personal information about them self (such as number of children, home town etc.), and therefore making generalization difficult. It also surprise me that they only used one discussion board in this paper, I think a broader perspective (with different boards) could show a broader perspective on which women that appears online. Even though they used longitudinal analysis in the paper, a even longer period of research time would be of help. Cancer, in general, is a emotional rollercoaster over a long period of time and for examine a psychosocial benefit it would help if they analyzed the members posting on the discussion board for as long as possible.

By reading this paper I really got a better understanding of the benefit of using a combination of method. It helps triangulates the papers observations and data and therefore provides a greater insight than a single method, it also helps understands the full nature of online discussion boards within the area of women with breast cancer. I also got a better understanding of how one could use a quantitative method to support the qualitative findings.

1. One limitation with the quantitative method is that the result is highly depending on the participants. In this particularly paper only 1111 out of 5000 invited participants responded to all of the five follow-up questions, which is a low overall response rate. A natural follow-up question to this is who actually responding? Why did they chose to respond to the survey, do they have any personal interests in this subject? It’s extra important in this paper cause of the fact that they are examine stress, and less stressed people are more likely to answer and therefore may cause misleading results. A benefit with a quantitative method is that it is easy to conduct and reach a large amount of people (with a survey for example), that in turn leads to a great amount of data to analyze. Its also not very time consuming or need of resources in comparison with qualitative methods. But a limitation that comes with this is that the results depends on your questions, if the participants misinterprets your questions or the questions was badly formulated the whole survey gets useless.

2. A benefit in using qualitative methods is that they are more adaptable to the paper/study you conducting. Due to the flexibility of the question and the way data in collected, they result in longer more comprehensive answers with very specific answers about your topic. But like I said above, it can be time and resource consuming to conduct and the answers can also be hard do analyze and categories. 

 [1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00268.x/abstract

Theme 3 After-reflection: Research and theory

Just like the previous weeks I prepared by reading the assigned papers but this time we where also to choose an article. At first, this seemed to me like it would be something easy. But after surfing the web (mainly Google Scholar) I found that there is so many good and interesting papers out there that is actually quite difficult to choose one to immerse in.

But of course I did at last and it was quite interesting.

Today I had my seminar with Leif. At the beginning I really thought I had a good understanding of what theory, hypotheses and statements are and what the differences between them are. But after a short period of time I realized that this is much more complicated that I first thought.

There is two kinds of theories; normative and descriptive. A normative theory is implied by humans, for example all humans are equal. It’s therefore not true or false it’s just normative. A descriptive theory is basically every theory that is not normative, it describes what is it. But a descriptive theory can turn normative.

The differences between a hypotheses and a statement is that a hypotheses is more “open”, and it could be tested as true, false or irrelevant. A statement, on the other hand, is a much “harder”, like a sucker punch in the face as Leif expressed it. For me this really makes sence but it’s just something that I never thought about before.

So, in the seminar we talked about what theories that we came across in our papers. I never thought of it before but social capital (a main part in my paper) is a theory. For me, it is more a concept. So this was really a eye-opener for me, there is so many theories out there is you only look (feminism, democracy, human equality) and this is something I’m going carry with me for the rest of the seminars (and hopefully a longer period of time).

Theme 2 After-reflection: Critical media Studies

In comparison to the first week, this week has been a lot easier on me. I started with doing the assigned preparations for the week. Read the texts (which where easier both understanding, reading, analyzing and interpret) and wrote the pre-reflection. Unfortunately I had a mandatory seminar in the other course I am taking at the time, so I missed the lecture with Håkan. To make up for that I prepared a bit more for the seminar compared to the previous week. I read my reflection again and also some summaries on the assigned texts.  

This weeks seminar I thought was a really good one. Håkan talked about nominalism and I got better understanding of the concept after the seminar. I think it's really interesting the way Adorno and Horkheimer talks about nominalism, that we need something more than just nominalism. We can't change the world by only looking at i, we need to use our perception as a tool. For example, human rights are nothing you can observe in the world and it's not a empirical science. Human rights are something that we human created to change society to the better (a Marxist view). 

Another interesting discussion we had was about the way Adorno and Horkheimer compares the enlightenment with the culture industry: that they both promise us freedom and both fail to deliver it. The culture industry makes us think that we are equal and individual, but its only making us passive observers. And the enlightenment promise us freedom from authority and  individuality but it only makes us as a group to believe in the same thing, depending on what "area" we are in right not (science, religion etc.).
I never though about it in that way and I agree with Adorno, especially when it comes to the contradictions within the culture industry, mass media doesn't make a secretary rich, it only makes her passive.

Theme 3 Pre-reflection: Research and theory

The journal I choose is called Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC). The journal has an impact factor of 2.019 (5-year impact factor of 4,748). Its focus is social science research in communicating with computer-based media technologies. JCMC is a web-based and peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

The paper I choose is called The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites [1]. The paper examines the relationship between the use of Facebook and the formation and maintenance of social capital. The central premise of social capital is that social networks has value in terms of social networks and the inclinations that arises from these networks to do things for each other [2]. The paper analyses the dimension of social capital that refers to ones ability to stay connected with members of a previously inhabited community (Maintained Social Capital). One of the issues with this paper is that is only examine one social community, therefore you could not generalize the findings in the paper.
 
The method used in this paper is a regression analyses conducted on results from a survey of undergraduate students (N=286). The recruitment was a random sample of undergraduate students Michigan State University and they were compensated with $5 for replying on the online survey with a response rate of 35,8%. The fact that the recruitment was made only from one university and that a financial compensation was made could be an issue in terms of the seriousness in the survey. If you hear that your friend gets $5 just to reply to a survey, maybe you just fill out the survey without reflecting on you answers. Also this contributes to the fact that you can't generalize the findings in the paper. Another issue with the survey is that they only had one, therefore its hard to establish causalities.

The paper measure social capital with the help of three different metrics; bridging, bonding and maintained. Of course this could be an issue cause all three categories are very subjective, making the analysis hard. The conclusion of the paper is that it’s a strong association between the usage of Facebook and three types of social capital, its also suggesting that the usage of Facebook interacts with psychological well-being and it might provide benefits for users experiencing low self-esteem. 


1. According to Sutton and Staw: “Theory is the answer to queries of why. Theory is about the connections among phenomena, a story about why acts, events structure and thoughts occur”. So theory is about connecting acts, events and thoughts. It’s not about reference, data, hypotheses, diagrams and empirical patterns. Those are just helpful tools in order to support a theory. Theory is more about connecting dots and to provide an expiation of why the data/references and empirical patterns take a certain form. Theories also often are build upon each other, so new theories are often based on old ones.

2. In the paper I selected I would characterize the theory as number III in Gregor’s table – Prediction (it might be a bit of Explanation in the paper as well). The aim with the article was to understand the relationship between Facebook and social capital. Social capital is very subjective and it can explain what is, how, why, when and where but its relying on argumentation (why I think is partly Theory II and III). The article provides a greater understating in the relationship between Facebook and social capital but you there are no testable propositions (Theory III). Even though they use some kind of survey in this paper, it’s not well developed. They had to few participants, only tested one platform and they had to few participants to being able to generalize the result.



3. Of course one of the biggest issue with Theory III is that the result is not justified. They have conducted a survey that would present a deeper understating. Also another issue is that by trying to explain how people experience social capital is that it’s very subjective and depending on how the respondent interprets the question. In general feelings and personal experience are hard to explain and generalize and therefore making the Theory II hard to use in papers.


[1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x/full 
[2] http://www.bettertogether.org/socialcapital.htm

Theme 2 - Pre reflection: Critical media studies

1. Dialectic of Enlightenment

a.
The enlightenment is a historical period beginning in the late 17th century and is characterized by dramatic revolutions (in science, philosophy, politics and society) that changed the medieval world-view into a more modern western world. In a more modern view of the world, the things we know are based on knowledge and rational thinking instead of myths or fantasies. [1]

b.
It’s an argument method, a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject. The two parties discuss with reason and, by hearing both sides of the argument, establish the truth. [2]

c.
Nominalism concept that defines what exist (all individual objects) and what does not exist (abstract objects). [3] I think this is important since nominalism discards and denies fantasies and myths (abstract objects) and encourage knowledge, just like the enlightenment. 

d.
Myth’s tries to explain unknown phenomena’s with illusions that are often supernatural ones. I think Adorno and Horkheimer wants to dissolve myths cause its not the truth and real knowledge.   

2. "The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity"

a. 
The substructure is directly connected to production and therefore you could say that it is the material and economies foundation of a society – a general production. The superstructures are all things that are not connected to production, such as religion, political institutions and philosophy – a production of culture. From a Marxist perspective the substructure is the base, if countries have good, well-functioned substructure, the slower emerging superstructure will grow and a more equal society emerge.

b.
I think that Benjamin thinks that culture have revolutionary potential in the sense that art, like film or photography, have the ability to influence people. On the other hand, I make the interpretation that he isn´t too excited about the technological progress: “I can no longer think what I want to think. My thoughts have been replaced by moving images”. I think it differs from Adorno & Horkheimer cause of the fact that they liked to spread knowledge (Enlightenment), and every technology that supports that, they therefore support.

c. 

Perception can be naturally in that way that we experience the world is different from person to person. We all have our own experience because we all feel and sense different thing in life. But perception can also be determined in a historical way. The history shapes us, why would we otherwise have different cultures and religions? One example Benjamin is giving is when a great shift in population happened in the fifth century, that in turn gave birth to Roman art industry.

d. What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?
Aura definition of Benjamin: “unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may be”. To me it means that an aura is unique and can’t be replicated, by humans or machines. It’s also independent of a distance, both in time but also in space. So an object can’t loose its aura over time or the distant and it cant be replicated. In an art object I assume that for an object to gain some sort of aura, it’s dependent on the history, cultural heritage. That differs from an aura of natural objects, like a mountain, its aura is only in the mountain itself, independent (or a lot less depended at least) on what the mountain have meant to other the cultures or who owned it before, etc.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic
[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nominalism

Theme 1 After-reflection: Theory of knowledge and theory of science

This first week has been a tough one for me. Me, my head and I are not really used to philosophy and the confusion a couple of words can bring just blows my mind. I’m going to focus most on Kant’s text since its definitely the hardest to grasp, its also the text that we focused to most on the seminar and the lecture.
So, after my first seminar, I wouldn’t say I understand everything Kant is trying to say but I definitely got a better hang of it. Before the seminar I tried to read the text (Kant) but I had a hard time understanding, so I did what any person in my generation would do, I Googled it. I then watch some Youtube videos and read some summaries. A thought about it, read some more, thought a bit more and then started to write.
After the lecture with Johan I came to an understanding that the way I thought of Critique of Pure Reason wasn’t correct, it was a “school-book“ –simplification. After the lecture and the seminar I came a lot closer to an understanding what he is talking about. I learned a lot during this week, especially during the seminar.  I always thought I had a decent understanding of what I think the world is and how we experience it. But Kant put all that to a stop. I learned mostly that you can think different of the world, and in different I mean in a non-scientific way. Priori and posteriori knowledge are totally new concepts and words for me and I think it is really interesting to differentiate knowledge from knowledge.

Theme 1 Pre-reflection: Theory of knowledge and theory of science

Question 1:

Objects must conform to our cognition - I think we are to understand this as our mind has an impact on the object (therefore also the world) we experience. In this case our minds would then have an impact on the world we experience, therefore making our mind active. If our mind is active then it helps us construct the world. Therefore we are not only passive observers but rather active in that term that our minds have an impact on the world that we are experiencing.  If things are objects of experience, then we don’t have any perception of how they might be in it self, independent of the cognitive conditions of it.
This would also mean that the universe not is a self-subsisting reality but a conform of the human mind. It doesn’t mean that math or physics are false and incorrect, they work but its not true knowledge since our cognition has had an impact on it. One can argue that if our cognition didn’t have an impact on objects, then raw data that our sensory organs take in, though eyes and ears, would not make sense if our minds didn’t have experience since before.

Question 2:

The argument that we do not see and hear with our eyes and ears but through them means, at least to me, that they are only tools for us to interpret things. For example, we don’t specifically hear with our ears because the sound wave travels from its origin, goes through our ear (therefore they only functions as a tool), the ear (the tool) interpret and translate the wave to a vibration and then finally send the electrical signal to the brain where we finally experience the sound.
Hence, it’s first in the receiver’s brain we perceive the sound and therefore hear it. The same goes with the rest of our senses, the eyes only helps us receive the signal of light, is does not see for us, the hand does not feel for us etc. If we have our sensory organs only as a tool to interpret things, does the world appear the same to all of man? And is knowledge the same to all of man? One could ask, what is knowledge? In the dialogue it is said that knowledge is perception and that “man is the measure of all things”. If knowledge is the same as perception then knowledge must be relative to the observer. So we humans gain knowledge through sense perception, and that is just what empiricism is about [1]. The progression of knowledge starts (for a empiricist) at birth and is the accumulation of ideas one gains from touch, smell, taste, hearing and sight. Plato’s famous cave allegory is a great example of how the physical world is shaped by our perception, and also the perceptions ability to lie to us, but it is the source of our knowledge. Therefore it is important to test all hypotheses and theories against observers of the world, to find our how they appear to man.

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/empiricism