Pre- reflection: Theme 4

The paper I have chosen is “The growth of  TV news, the demise of the journalism profession” which is published under ‘Media Culture and Society’ journal. Five year impact factor is 1.295

Written by Carey L. Higgins-Dobney and Gerald Sussman (2013)

This study shows the critical literature on the transformation of local news ownership structure and the impacts of technological reorganization of news production on the television profession and local communities. This study looks at the underlying political economy on local news production and focuses specifically on the labor conditions of newsroom personnel. For this purpose, this study used some quantitative methods based on surveys.

Which quantitative method or methods are used in the paper? Which are the benefits and limitations of using these methods?

One method used in this study is ‘Collecting the empirical data’, the benefit of this method is that it’s fast and results are able to be confirmed and all the observations are based on evidence. For example, one observation to confirm that what the media industry calls ‘the one-man band’ – journalists who conduct the interview, shoot, edit, and report the story for air and post it to the web. More than 30% of news directors nationally said they mostly used ‘one-man-bands’ to cover the news in 2009, perhaps more telling is that less than one in five said they do not use solo journalists, a drop of 35% from three years earlier. Almost 43% said the use of one-man-bands altered the way stations were willing to hire (Paper, 2011). So through these data, we can easily see that how ‘one-man band’ growing in media industry but on the other hand the number don’t show how and why so I think that this is limitation.

After gathering the data, this paper shows the analysis of data by using table ‘cross-media ownership of Portland’s commercial TV companies’. The benefit of using this method that, the data is structured and organized so it can be proof of results they obtained from surveys. But this method have not used any scientific or logical approach to create table.
 

What did you learn about quantitative methods from reading the paper?

The objective of quantitative research is to develop and employ numerical data, theories or hypothesis pertaining to phenomena by using computational and statistical techniques. The process of measurement is central to quantitative research because it provides the fundamental connection between empirical observation and mathematical expression of quantitative relationships. Such as in this paper they came up with some questions to find best possible answers or to reach to any conclusion. For this purpose, they collected data in numbers by using quantitative approach, so they can compare the results and answer the questions.

Which are the main methodological problems of the study? How could the use of the quantitative method or methods have been improved?

I think as this study used the method of collecting and analyzing the empirical data, this approach is observable, even though you can find some results still it can only show limited results in a specific duration of time. For example, the data were collected in time duration 2002 --- 2009 and paper was published in 2013 so results can be different in current situation. Quantitative methods have undoubtedly contributed to the wider acceptance but it can be fruitful if it is used prescriptively.

“Physical activity, stress, and self-reported upper respiratory tract infection”

Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative methods?

The main benefit of quantitative research is that it provides descriptive data —for example, allowing us to capture a snapshot of a user population by using statistical approach and in this way you can study in wider perspective. Also statistical analysis lets us derive important facts from research data, including preference trends, differences between groups and demographics.  It may have higher credibility with many people in power. Quantitative methods are less time consuming, for example you can use software for statistical analysis and mathematical formulas to compute results.    

The limitation is that the descriptive data is problematic when it comes to interpretation, as it can provide a numerical data but cannot provide the crucial information to interpret the data. The researcher might miss out the phenomena occurring because of more focus on testing the hypothesis rather than on theory. One limitation is that the knowledge produced might be too abstract and general as data obtained from local situation, contexts and individuals.

Which are the benefits and limitations of using qualitative methods?

The great benefit of qualitative research that it can provide you details about human behavior, thoughts and personality characteristics that quantitative studies cannot match. Qualitative data provides a rich, detailed picture to be built up about why people act in certain ways, and their feelings about these actions. 

The limitation of qualitative method is that the researcher collects data about the specific group of participants so you cannot necessarily use this data to make assumptions. Also its time consuming and this study is not so easy.

http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2012/09/strengths-and-weaknesses-of-quantitative-and-qualitative-research.php

http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/35/7/847.full.pdf+html

Pre-reflection of Theme 3

Research Journal:

The journal I chose is ‘Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC)’.

Impact factor: 2.019 (JCMC Five Year Impact Factor: 4.748)

JCMC is one of the oldest web-based Internet studies journals in existence, having been published quarterly continuously since June 1995. The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC) is a web-based, peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Its focus is social science research on communicating with computer-based media technologies.

I found this journal more related with media technology because as it broadly publishes work by scholars in media studies, communication, information science, business, political science, psychology and other relevant disciplines.

Research Paper:

The paper I chose is ‘The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites’ that is published under ‘Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC)’. This study examines the relationship between use of Facebook, a popular online social network site, and the formation and maintenance of social capital. Also it described bonding,bridging and maintenance of social capitals and how social network sites asses one’s ability to stay connected with other people which are previously inhabited in community. The authors collected data by surveys and they came up with regression analysis of undergraduate students (N = 286), which shows a strong association between use of Facebook and three types of social network sites such as Friendster, CyWorld and MySpace. This paper is more about Facebook usage such as ‘elements is profile and perception of who has viewed profile’ and also ‘use of Facebook to meet new people vs connecting with existing offline contacts’. Also how in short period of time, Facebook has generated strong percentage of users on college campuses. The key finding of this study is, control of demographic factors, psychological well-being measures, and the general internet use is not a significant predictor of bridging social capital, and only certain kind of internet uses support the generation and maintenance of bridging social capital. This study also shows analysis of psychological measures and found that, the extent of students’ satisfaction with the life at university campus was strongly correlated with bridging social capital.

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

According to Orlikowski and Robey (1991), ‘Theory as statements providing a lens for viewing or explaining the world’. The term ‘theory’ cannot be describe easily as it have different perspectives depending to some degree on philosophical and disciplinary orientations. Theroy is a possible answer to why and how. Theory is not a hypothesis but an explanation of the observation. But this explanations give birth to several hypotheses that can be right or wrong

Sutton and Staw 1995 argue that data, variable, diagrams, hypothesis and tables are not theories. Gregor talks about five types of theories in essay but, he says still  there is a limit to what is classed as theory. However, Abstraction and generalization about phenomenon, interactions, and causation are thought to be at the core of a theory in the text.

  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?

As I understand from Gregor text, I think this paper is characterized in table 3 (Prediction). Because this study is brought up with six different hypothesis, then authors used surveys method to test these hypothesis. In another way, this study is based on one popular social site (Facebook), authors got small number of answers such as 286 from 800 people even they offered 5$ to students for participating in survey. In this way, it’s not well-organized study as it does not contain any satisfactory conclusion. The structure of study is more like predictions, testing propositions and explaining the hypothesis.

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

I think the strength with this article is that it came up with some hypothesis that came out of perceptions or predictions. These hypothesis were later tested by using scientific methods so we have answers in terms of true and false. But on the shorter side we don’t know the underlying reasons for these conclusions and perhaps we need another study to have further deeper explanation of underlying phenomenon.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x/pdf
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~petterog/Kurs/INF5220/NatureofTheoryMISQ.pdf

Post reflection of theme 2

The second theme was quiet good, but texts were not easy to understand as in first theme. Also these texts were connected with previous texts as the core concept was similar. I prepared for theme two by writing pre-reflection in my learning portfolio for which I have read two texts, ‘Walter Benjamin's essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity" (1936)’ and ‘Adorno och Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944) (chapters "The Concept of Enlightenment" and "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception")’. Then I answered some questions related to these texts. By answering the questions I understood the core concept of authors that how art and culture has revolutionary potentials and evolve in our society.

Johan did a good job in lecture as he explained these philosophies with the help of interesting examples. Also he discussed the historical background and personal life of authors that enabled me to think about their concepts in a different way. He discussed some new terms as well such as ‘Futurism’ and ‘Fascism’, then explained these terms in different cultures like Italian and German fascism. Another interesting question we discussed, ‘’What is the role of culture in society?’ As I understood, culture preserves knowledge and helps its transmission from generation to generation which is essential for physical and intellectual existence of human beings.

In seminar we discussed Benjamin’s and Adorno & Horkheimer’s philosophies further, we talked a lot about nominalism, and also nominalism vs realism. As we shape society based on the illogical things or historical culture (perception based on past knowledge and experiences) but if we investigate it further so we just stuck about these concepts. However, we grasp these concepts in depth. We also did an interesting activity during seminar, we divided in smaller groups of 4 members and answered some additional questions. In which we discussed the connection between enlightenment and culture industry and how culture deceive us, here we talked about American mass media (as Benjamin was American) which makes people passive and happy slaves, for example it gives the idea to people that ‘only way you can climb society is winning money and be settled.’ We also talked a lot about revolutionary potentials with the help of new technologies.

The seminar gave me more insight about the texts and clearer understanding about dialectic of enlightenment. As Johan described enlightenment in two ways: one way it gives more knowledge but the other way it removes old knowledge.

Pre- Reflection on Theme 2

   1.      Dialectic of Enlightenment

   (a)   What is "Enlightenment"?

Enlightenment refers with cognitive process that brings additional knowledge. Knowledge helps to reduce fear. Usually there is a fear of unknown due to lack of knowledge that gives birth of risk. When there is adequate knowledge the risk is reduced and you have better control. For better understanding authors used a very good example, ‘the supernatural spirits, ghosts or demons are taken to be reflections of human beings who allow themselves to be frightened by natural phenomena.’ The concept of enlightenment is to eliminate these self-created fears by enhancing the rational knowledge.

On the other hand in order to anticipate lack of knowledge humans can develop myths and beliefs that can be based on their previous experiences or perception. This additional knowledge helps to further clarify or reject the myths or believes that exist.

   (b)   What is "dialectic"?

Dialect is the method of argument that helps to find the right opinion. The basic purpose is to resolve the disagreement between two parties or persons through rational discussion. It may not be possible to reach to absolute truth but there are ways and logics that lead us closer to the truth.  

   (c)    What is "nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?

The way I understood nominalization is that it brings relativity to reality. There are illogical things that are being used to give birth to logic and we made them absolute to make a basic structure. For example why A is called A is illogical but later this principal helps to create logical use of this letter. Same is the case for digits. Similarly there could be things around us that doesn’t exist and we have created them to bring more logic and methods to our world.

   (d)   What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?

Myths are the stories that we have created to fill the gap of knowledge. Myths could be leading misleading half true as well. But in all the cases myths are there, pointing that there is a lack of knowledge. So myth indicate the absence of knowledge and creates attention. Adorno and Horkiemer has also argued that enlightenment is a process that lead to clarity of these myths and clear the way to truth.

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

(a)    In the beginning of the essay, Benjamin talks about the relation between "superstructure" and "substructure" in the capitalist order of production. What do the concepts "superstructure" and "substructure" mean in this context and what is the point of analyzing cultural production from a Marxist perspective?

I understand from the text, ‘substructure’ is directly connected to the general production such as machines, factories, tools etc. ‘Superstructure’ is ideology for the general production such as concepts, laws, reasons etc. As mentioned in text that superstructure takes place very slowly than the substructure so it is important that substructures (which prepare the base or ground for general production) must met the superstructures (ideology, constitute). In the context of art film, photography, paintings are the forms of substructure and conventional ideology behind them is superstructure. In a Marxist perspective, substructure is base which forces the feasible work conditions and technically division of labour, and in these conditions cultural production takes place which is necessary for people’s life. And superstructure is cultural ideology such as rules, politics etc. which often influence the base. For example any culture is built on some core values that are very hard to change but bringing minor changes to any culture or slow transition is easier.

(b)     Does culture have revolutionary potentials (according to Benjamin)? If so, describe these potentials. Does Benjamin's perspective differ from the perspective of Adorno & Horkheimer in this regard?

In my opinion the concept of enlightenment is the concept that can revolutionize a society. So yes, culture has revolutionary potentials. As enlightenment leads to further clarity of unclear or the knowledge about unknown can raise the awareness to change the logics that are wrong. So in case if there will be enlightenment toward the elements of subcultures then subculture will change but the basic structure of the society will still be same. On the other hand if there will be higher enlightenment towards the superstructures of the society there could be revolution on a greater scale. In this way, Benjamin's perspective is not different from the perspective of Adorno & Horkheimer.

(c)    Benjamin discusses how people perceive the world through the senses and argues that this perception can be both naturally and historically determined. What does this mean? Give some examples of historically determined perception (from Benjamin's essay and/or other contexts).

As I understand this concept historically perceived, perceptions are the ones that were conceived on the basis of natural senses first. The perception may have been combined with individual cognitive abilities but later these perceptions developed as the people shared each other’s views and opinions and the process of cognition went on for a time that further lead to developments in perceptions.

For example as Benjamin explained this concept with example of Roman art that, how not only the culture changed but human being’s perception changed too about 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?

As I understand what Aura means is, if we see things from some distance we may have a picture of them that include some of their shadows or reflections that can be differ from actual picture. What we will see also include some other elements because of distance. Though, the term ‘aura’ refers to the uniqueness of object. I think natural aura (objects) cannot be changed because of its natural characteristics and facts. On the other hand, artistic aura can be shaped as per modern necessities. 

Post reflection on theme 1

Post reflection on theme 1:

The first theme is done and it was pretty tough but I have learned many new things. I have prepared myself for this week by doing pre-reflection on Theme 1. In which I have read Kant’s and Plato’s text over and over again to understand their views which requires a lot of patience, then I answered some questions about ‘how we understand the world?’ and ‘what is knowledge by itself?’ After posting the blog I thought that I understood the author’s text but then I had a lecture on Monday, after attending the lecture I became confuse about their philosophies and concepts.

The lecture was started with the basic concepts about naturalism and scientism then difference between them. We also discussed primary qualities and secondary qualities of the world but when lecture moved forward to ‘Kant’s critique of pure reason’ so it became confuse and took me a lot of effort to understand especially when it came to this philosophy, ‘’Perception without conception is blind & conception without perception is empty.’’

However, the seminar was really good and it made me to have clearer understandings of these two texts. We started by discussing the analytic and synthetic judgments and then we discussed one interesting question, ‘’ How is it possible to gain knowledge of the world a priori? ‘’ For example, how our ancestors made concepts about the world and gave names to things, is it a knowledge? Also the other question, ‘’what is the meaning of knowledge?’’ It is difficult to describe the meaning of knowledge, we tried to answer with many interesting examples but still examples are not enough to define knowledge. Then seminar came up with another interesting topic ‘the concept of empiricism’ and here we discussed very comprehensive example that ‘how new born babies see things with the blank mind?’ From the philosopher’s point of view, it is very hard to explain these questions and it requires very deep understanding and insight to answer these questions. Well, we did a lot of discussion about these questions but could not find actual answer.

At last, the world is meaningful and forms of intuitions like time and space conforms the knowledge of the world. The world would not have any meaning without human beings and authors wants us to see things in terms of meanings rather than facts.

Theory and Method

Hi all!

I am not good in scientific theories and philosophies but it is my effort to present my understandings. So I will appreciate your suggestions and comments.

My reflection about first question:

1. In the preface to the second edition of "Critique of Pure Reason" (page B xvi) Kant says: "Thus far it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to objects. On that presupposition, however, all our attempts to establish something about them a priori, by means of concepts through which our cognition would be expanded, have come to nothing. Let us, therefore, try to find out by experiment whether we shall not make better progress in the problems of metaphysics if we assume that objects must conform to our cognition." How are we to understand this?

Kant means cognition is normally based on how people perceives objects apparently and then they use their perception as knowledge. But before making the cognition all our perceptions are based on concepts that we already use as knowledge about objects (e.g. characteristics of an object). Kant wants to express that how and why all the objects around us are perceived like this as they are. As Kant proposed that ‘’objects must conform to all our cognition’’ would be better than, ‘’ all our cognition must conform to the objects’’. It means that we should must analyze and think about objects in a different way and make cognition about them through our experience rather than through priori or presuppositions. In the perspective of metaphysics which requires a lot of discussions about nature and world, this thinking would be more accurate (e.g. in mathematics and natural science) as he says that making cognition about objects without experience is just like the assumption of Copernicus and how could we make any constitution based on the intuitions (assumptions, perceptions).

Hence, Kant wants us to change our thinking about perceiving the things (objects) around us, we cannot make cognition about anything without experience. Let’s take the simple example of a book, without studying the book we cannot say something authentic that how it is and before studying the book, all our assumptions about the book is priori.

My reflection about second question:

2. At the end of the discussion of the definition "Knowledge is perception", Socrates argues that we do not see and hear "with" the eyes and the ears, but "through" the eyes and the ears. How are we to understand this? 

In the dialogue about ‘Knowledge is Perception’ where Socrates talks about senses ears and eyes, he means that ears and eyes are only organs and instruments which we use in the process of perception. As our all senses ears, eyes, nose etc. are directly connected with mind and we use our eyes and ears to just see and hear, but we sense or think about something in our mind. Hence, ‘mind’ is a key part in the process of perception and we use our sensory organs to activate our mind and produce information. As in above text Socrates used a very good example, when we are sleeping so what we think is ‘dream’ but when we awake and use our sensory organs so what we think is ‘Knowledge’.

However, we can see and hear ‘through’ our eyes and ears but we can understand it in our mind and then our understanding becomes a knowledge.

And in what way is it correct to say that Socrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?

Empiricism in the philosophy of science states that knowledge comes only from sensory experience and as Socrates argues that knowledge is perception and we perceive something in mind through our sensory organs. In this way I think that Socrates argument is directly connected with the empiricism philosophy as nothing in this world is self-existent, all the knowledge came into existence from any kind of sensory experience. Also at the end of discussion Socrates and Theaetetus argues that perceptions about objects vary from person to person so it is important to consider all the impartial theories of observers to find the correct knowledge.