måndag 28 september 2015
Theme 3 - reflection post
So the
theme for this time was research and theory, what it is and how it should be
used in the right way. During the lecture Leif Dahlberg explain the two
concepts, one a bit more
briefly than the other. So my main focus of the two concepts will still be on
theory. But since I did not write anything on research in my last post I will
just ad this explanation on what it is and why It is done. Why you do research
is to get more facts and knowledge about your theory but it can also be done to
develop new theories. Then there are different ways of performing the research,
in other word how you will collect data and so on.
Like a said
the most part of the theme theory took the bigger part so I will do a bigger recap
of that. If a study doesn’t get published one reason can often be because of the
lack of theory. It is something very
fundamental and has to be good in order to get your study published, but that
is something that is easier said than done. As I wrote in my first post there is
no clear answer on what theory is and that might be the reason why it can be
something difficult to get right. To provide
with some more explanation on what theory is, instead of describing what it is
not, I will a summary form note from the lecture.
Theory
is:
1.
A
set of propositions that aims to identify objects
2.
Abstract
entity aims to explain, describe and enhance understanding
3.
Connection
between phenomena and explaining why,
when and where
4.
Scientific
theories attempt to explain the casual logic between cause and effect.
The last
one indicates that there are different kinds of theories and this is something
that we discussed during the seminar. Most of us had read papers where the
theory was of the kind explanation and so was I, but after discussing the
differences between the types I started questioning my choice. And it was more
then me who did so, the more we talked about it the more insecure I became of
my choice. I chose explanation since it explains why it looks like
it does. But then we have prediction, which is when you have a theory of
how it looks like, and, there is something to test. This was the two I was
thinking about the first time around but ended up choosing explanation was because I thought that
the prediction had to be true but that is not the case. As long as you have a
theory that you can test then it is a prediction so that is why I now change my
mind. The theory has a prediction that it will differ on content between the
top and the bottom links and therefor it is a theory of the kind prediction.
For this
weeks theme I think that the lecture gave me more then the seminar. That can be because
we all read different papers and it was more difficult to discuss any answer
rather then just describing. But in the
end of the seminar we had a general discussion a bit theory and hypothesis and
the differences, which showed that it, can be difficult to separate them to.
fredag 25 september 2015
theme 4 -first post
For the first part I read Information,
expression, participation: How involvement in user-generated content relates to
democratic engagement among young people by Johan Östman.
1. Which
quantitative method or methods are used in the paper? Which are the
benefits and limitations of using these methods?
For this study they use multiple-choice questions were the participants got to answer a couple of questions. The benefits of this is that it is easy for the participants and by having given answers this make the data you get easier to compile. This makes the result clear and easy to work with. The limitations is that by having already given answers there might not be any alternative that suits one person and therefore answers in a different way than he would have. Also you have know in advance what people are going to answer which can be hard to do.
For this study they use multiple-choice questions were the participants got to answer a couple of questions. The benefits of this is that it is easy for the participants and by having given answers this make the data you get easier to compile. This makes the result clear and easy to work with. The limitations is that by having already given answers there might not be any alternative that suits one person and therefore answers in a different way than he would have. Also you have know in advance what people are going to answer which can be hard to do.
2.
What did you learn about
quantitative methods from reading the paper?
I think they did a good job of getting to know the target group and I think that is important epically if they intend to generalize the result in a bigger context.
I think they did a good job of getting to know the target group and I think that is important epically if they intend to generalize the result in a bigger context.
3.
Which are the main methodological
problems of the study? How could the use of the quantitative method or
methods have been improved?
I have read somewhere that you never should have a middle value if you wont an opinion since people then tend to go in de middle so you wont get a straight answer. One other thing that I am not sure they did was to test and try out the from, and to make sure that people can understand the questions, answers and how to answer before they did the actual study.
I have read somewhere that you never should have a middle value if you wont an opinion since people then tend to go in de middle so you wont get a straight answer. One other thing that I am not sure they did was to test and try out the from, and to make sure that people can understand the questions, answers and how to answer before they did the actual study.
Drumming in
immersive virtual reality is a study
about how people change their performances depending on how they appear. By
changing the appearance with features that you might think is better for that
particular task. This study compared if people played the drums differently
depending on how they were dressed and skin tone. All the people that
participated in the study ware of skin tone causation, and what they did were
to play the drums and see their hands as the causation or as dark skinned. For
the hands in the virtual reality were man hands but there was females in the
study but this did not matter as much as you might have guessed.
By using a
lot of equipment to gather the data from each session, they gathered
information on how their upper buddy was moving and how they played the drums.
The conclusion of this study was that yes people played the drums differently
depending on how their appearance was. I thought this was an interesting study
to read and it showed the use of this phenomena and what it can develop to. As
they stated in the study there is a lot more to investigate, since there are so
many different features that can matter to once appearance. But it was a good
first study and I think that it kept the focus through out the paper, which I
liked.
The benefits
of doing a qualitative study is that the study really can focus on the aim of
the study and dig in real deep. It is not just a lot of numbers and graphs, is
more arguments and it can provide a deeper understanding on how and why. But
the limitations are that you cannot generalise the result widely.
The benefits
of doing a study with quantitative methods
is it can be very clear and the result you get from it is strong since it has
been proven many times. The limitations of this type of method is that you do
not a result that can argue about how and why, it is more something that states
what is and nothing more.
I would say
that this study had little bit of both qualitative and quantitative
methods.
måndag 21 september 2015
Theme 2 - refelection post
Yet again I misunderstood some parts of the texts but luckily I
participated on the lecture and seminar so now I have my fact straight. The two key areas within this theme that I
thought my group had it best discussion about was first the Marxis perspective
of superstructure and substructure. We all had acknowledged the fact that
there is a strong connection between them two. Superstructure, like I wrote
before, depends on the substructure, which decides the structure of the
production and economy while superstructure is the culture. The superstructure
takes longer time to change compared to the substructure. One good example is
media technology and its production, thanks to its development more and more
people are able to use it in their every day life. It takes time but after a
while that lead to a change society and therefore also the superstructure. You can even draw a parallel between the media production to that we today have new laws regarding privacy and so on.
When more people can use the technology more can raise their voice and show
what they want and by time this leads to a social revolution.
So this takes us to the second interesting discussing point during the
seminar, whether or not Benjamin and Adorno
and Horkheimer
thought that it was the
culture that had revolutionary potential or not. This is something I got
twisted in my first post of this theme. So now I am going to set it straight,
according to Benjamin: it is the culture that has the potential. New movies
show new things, in the beginning there were only rich people in the movies but
later you could see poor people. Which according to Benjamin showed that
anything is possible and therefor culture has the potential power.
Adorno
and Horkheimer
were of the perspective
that it is the technology that develops and it has nothing to do with culture.
What shows in movies only confirms that it is how it is suppose to be. So their
take was more nominalist, what you see is what you see and you can´t have any
other visions.
Strict nominalism = shows how it is
and nothing more, you can´t change it. So what shows in movies is how it should
be and there for has a great power of working as propaganda.
In the end of the seminar we discussed how we see things differently and
how that is naturally and historically. Naturally since we all see differently
using our perspective and senses. And historically since event during time
changes the perspective. So then we ended the seminar with a question: is not
everything historically?
This time I was active during the group discussion asking questions and
joining in with my answers. Also I thought that the seminar leader was really
good at explaining and given interesting examples regarding this weeks theme.
fredag 18 september 2015
theme 3 - first post
Short
summary of journal:
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, is a
web-based journal which focuses on social science research on communication with
computer-based media technology. It is one of the oldest web-based journals and
has been publishing since 1995.
It publishes a great variety of work by scholars in communication, business,
education, political science, sociology, psychology, media studies, information
science, and other disciplines. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication has an impact
factor of: 3.117[1].
Short summary of paper:
I chose to
read ”Channeling science information seekers´ attention? A content analysis of
top-ranked vs. lower-ranked sites in Google” from the mentioned journal. The
aim of the study was to find out if there is any differ with information about
nanotechnology between popular sights and less popular. The paper start of very
interesting and it is easy to follow the logical reasoning where it is going
and the background of it. When Google presents different links on where you can
read more about what you have searched for it is not an accident that some likes
places higher than others. The rank of the different links depends on algorithms
and one of the variables are popularity amongst the viewers, which means that
when a website reaches the top it easily stay there. This leads to that a very
wide field can become pretty narrow and in a way misleading for the audience.
The method
of the study there was a bit of a limitation sense they did not have access to
all the data of all the links. And the theory is of the type that it is hard to
predict. So what they compared was the differences of content for the top ten
links with 11-37. I felt like the method was disconnected from the aim and
tried to do too much, but the discussion around the result made the study get
back on track.
I my opinion
the study could have been a bit narrower so that the conclusion could have
answered something. But other than that I think it emphasized some interesting
questions and it showed that there is more to find out and investigate within
this area. But since the theory is of its kind this is not something you can
expect.
1. Briefly explain to a first year
university student what theory is, and what theory is not.
Theory is something that is very fundamental, and it has to be a part of whatever journal you are writing. No matter how good your study is, you have to have a theory if you want it to get published.
What a strong theory should do is: “emphasize the nature of casual relationships, identifying what comes first as well as the timing of such events.”
Theory is something that is very fundamental, and it has to be a part of whatever journal you are writing. No matter how good your study is, you have to have a theory if you want it to get published.
What a strong theory should do is: “emphasize the nature of casual relationships, identifying what comes first as well as the timing of such events.”
But there is no magical way of getting a
strong theory, but Sutton, R. I. and Staw, B. M. (1995) has
tried to make it a little clearer but explaining what is not a theory.
1, Your references are not your theory sense no logic are presented
2, Data are not your theory, your data presents that “what” while theory should present “why”
3, Lists of variables or constructions are not theory.
4, Diagram are not theory, just more like stage props.
5, Hypotheses or predictions are not the same as theory, describes “what” you can expect not “why”. It is more like the bridge between data and theory.
1, Your references are not your theory sense no logic are presented
2, Data are not your theory, your data presents that “what” while theory should present “why”
3, Lists of variables or constructions are not theory.
4, Diagram are not theory, just more like stage props.
5, Hypotheses or predictions are not the same as theory, describes “what” you can expect not “why”. It is more like the bridge between data and theory.
2. 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?
The major theory in the selected paper describes why there are differences of what a “Googler[2]” will read about depending on the rank of the links. Why it could be that the people can have a different idea in general about a certain area even though there are different opinions about it amongst scientist and other more informed people.
The major theory in the selected paper describes why there are differences of what a “Googler[2]” will read about depending on the rank of the links. Why it could be that the people can have a different idea in general about a certain area even though there are different opinions about it amongst scientist and other more informed people.
The type of theory would be: Theory of explanation. Since the theory explain
how it looks like and why, it gives a greater understanding and insight into
the phenomena of interest.
3. Which are the benefits and limitations
of using the selected theory or theories?
The benefits with the selected theory: “theory of explanation” is, like said in the answer above, the clearness of it and it gives you a good understanding of the subject.
The benefits with the selected theory: “theory of explanation” is, like said in the answer above, the clearness of it and it gives you a good understanding of the subject.
The limitations are that the theory does
not provide any aim to predict with any precision. Which makes it hard to test
and therefor the answer well be more general and in this study answered with
more questions.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)