The paper “The
Google effect in doctoral theses” by Lav. R Varshney was published in Scientometrics, which holds an impact factor of 2,084. The
paper presents a longitudinal study of how citation has been used in doctoral
theses at MIT's Department of EECS, between 2004 to 2011. The theory is that since scientific literature is accessed through
the internet, the Google effect (increased internal encoding for where to find
information, rather than memorizing the information itself) would result in doctoral theses
providing more information “by reference”. The hypothesis is that citation
behaviour has been measurably affected by the introduction of new information
technology.
The benefits of longitudinal studies are the possibility to determine patterns and see
long-term changes. The limitations of using longitudinal studies includes the risk
of using research conducted by other and the difficulty to accurately date when
a technology became available. The latter is mitigated through the author just
studying one department were the students have “fairly homogenous technological
and social contexts”. To increase the validity of the methodology, the author
argues for using doctoral theses, as they do not have length limitations and
therefore are free to use as many citations as they wish.
The variables consist of 728 doctoral theses were the references were counted manually. Human
errors when counting could affect the research validity in a negative manner. The
numbers were then applied to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and trend test which
showed that the number of references has increased over the years. All years between 2004 and 2011 where studied, and the results were statistically confirmed using
Turkey et al's trend test.
 
The author looks at two alternative explanations for the
increase in number of references besides the Google effect; longer times to get an academic degree or greater efficiency in referencing. Due to privacy reasons the
author could not obtain information about the degree time for the theses that were analysed, which forced him to look at the change in time to graduation on
a national level. This showed that the median time had decreased. The author also examines if any behaviour shifts has occurred in the
sub-disciplines which could impact the findings by looking at the papers style
as well as the faculty turnover. By using this approach, the author aims at controlling
the effect of other values to ensure that they are not resulting in
interpretations of causality. However, there might still be untested variables
that impact the results, which is considered a limitation.
The paper ends with the author using a textual analysis method to determine whether the increased referencing is due to an increase in efficiency
in production due to technology or if its due to a cognitive change with
increased transactive memory use. Ten doctoral theses were randomly selected,
and the age of the references were analysed. The result indicates a transactive
nature of citation, which suggest that the Google effect have resulted in cognitive
changes in doctoral students. Reading this paper I hade learned the importance
of looking at different factors that could affect the result, and disqualify
that they lack impact.
The paper ”Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality: The Body Shapes theWay We Play” by Bergström et al. examines how the body ownership illusion works in an immersive
virtual reality. When reading the text, I increased my understanding of how meticulous one
has to be when conducting research. I was especially surprised with how much
detail was put into describing the materials and methods used. I perceive this
as a way to increase the reliability of the research as others can recreate the
experiment.
When reading the paper, I feel that the writers could have emphasised more on
why the participants experienced that one of the bodies was perceived as more appropriated
for the drumming task. Portraying the two avatars in a way that could cement prejudice
is problematic in my opinion, and it would have strengthened the research if
the authors would have gone more into depth on the topic of stereotyping based
on ethnicity. However, when looking at table one from the article “The nature of of theory of information systems” by Gregor, that illustrates some differing views
of theory in information systems, I understand that the authors' aim is not to
explain the world, but rather to explain a relationship among constructs.
In the paper, the authors were able to look at the relationship between the
constructs of body ownership illusion and the immersive virtual reality. Using
a quantitative method could be considerable more objective, since bias from the
researcher is reduced. The experiment was highly controlled and due to this,
the authors could find a cause (the different avatars) and an effect (differences
in how they performed the task). The problem was complex, but the authors
managed to find a way to investigate it using defined variables. The result
clearly showed precise, statistical significant numerical data. One limitation is that the sample only
consisted of Caucasian people – which means that the research result only applies
to a Caucasian population and can not be generalized to the population as a
whole. When reading about the study, it comes to mind that conducting an experiment
like this must be very time-consuming and that it is risky to use that many
instruments, as something could go wrong with the collection of data. Once the
study begins, the instruments can not be changes, which shows the importance of
testing the equipment beforehand.
The qualitative methods used in the paper is the short semi-structured
interview. The benefit is the possibility to get more in depth and detailed on the
subject as well as the possibility to direct the interview based on which
topics that arise. When the participants are encouraged to expand their
responses, new topics of interest can emerge. One limitation could be the difficulty
to make comparisons based on the material.
fredag 23 september 2016
lördag 17 september 2016
My comments on theme 1
1) Thanks for commenting on my blogpost! I believe that Kant’s theories can be applied to many different subjects, media just being one of them. There might be a more obvious connection to criticize media in Adorno and Horkheimers text, but I think that the texts main focus lies on different things. If Kants' focus is on how we perceive the world, my opinion is that Adorno and Horkheimer focus more on the implications it has in a specific time and context. What I was trying to highlight with my text was the process of how we conceptualize and process these images that we are exposed to. However, I really like how you contributed by talking about the necessity to invent our own ”concepts”, such as defining criteria’s for judging reliable information.
I also liked how you in your comment addressed the question of laws and their subjectivity. I recognize your thoughts on biology, sociology and the forming’s of societies from the book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harar, which might be of interest to you.
But, if individuals have to obey the rules imposed by the majority or leave, why do we have methods of governing in our society today were the majority does not have a say and how does this connect to the subjectivity of the legal systems?
In your reflection, you wrote about how education affects perception, but I don’t agree that higher education automatically leads to a person being more open minded. Even if a piece written by a journalist contains arguments from the different parties involved in the conflict as well as experts, I agree with you that it don’t necessarily needs to be true. The agenda-setting theory by McCombs and Shaw shows for example how news media has the ability to influence the salience of topics on the public agenda.
http://u1h4muxc.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-12.html
2) It is interesting that you also talked about the relation between mental illness and how one perceives the world, as we did in our seminar group. Our view was, however, more linked to conception rather than perception. You mention that people suffering from depression, a couple of decades ago were considered hypersensitive. I did not comprehend from your text whether you were talking about Sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) which is a personally trait characterised by high social, emotional and physical sensitivity or just hypersensitive in a more general meaning? I don’t think one can generalize and say that only because someone perceives something stronger, it automatically leads to someone also conceptualising it in a more thorough way. In another comment on your post, JaPaHe writes that highly sensitive people would not only consider the negative sides, but also the positive sides. This made me think about bipolar disorder and how people with it perceive the world as either fantastic or miserable, with no middle ground. I think it would have been interesting if you in the last paragraph about God, would have included something about ontological argumentation. http://u1kq1ay0.blogspot.se/2016/09/second-blog-post-theme-1-theory-of.html#comment-form
3) Thanks for commenting on my blog! I agree with you that it is important to be critical and use our judgment when exposed to ads, but I am afraid that we subconsciously can start to perceive these images that we, with such a frequency, are exposed to, as ”the truth”. I also liked how you in your comment connected my text to theme 2, by adding the concept of mythology. Regarding your post, I think your connection to modern science as well as the insights in how fluctuating the idea of ”knowledge” is, show that you have a very clear understanding of the concepts. I don’t agree with the thought that things loose their meaning without human perception. In Kantian terms I would approach the subject by saying, ”Lets us climb down from us pretending to be gods”. What indicates that meaning arise from a human interacting and perceiving an object? It might create meaning to you, but I think there is a big difference. http://u1j8du7c.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-post-2.html
4) I found the concept of the ”seven billion worlds” very thought provoking. If we perceived our fellow human beings as carrying their own small universe we might have greater understanding for our differences. However, I am not sure that the more knowledge we acquire by sharing information ultimately leads to us questioning our set of opinions. As we today can access more information than previously, do you believe that there is a risk of choosing to see/read ideas that conform to ones own? Your last paragraph also made me think about what questions we are talking about in the western society today. Are we discussing questions that matter or are we trying to isolate from the more difficult questions by escaping into imaginary worlds such as Game of Thrones? https://u17fpbu5.blogspot.se/2016/09/post-theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and.html
5) I like how you structure your reasoning by clearly dividing your different approaches. It makes your reasoning easy to follow and in some sense reminded me of the teleological arguing for god’s existence, even though your arguments clearly raise standpoints that contrast each other. In your text, you reflect whether happiness is the ultimate goal. If I contribute to the breakdown of the organization my life constitutes of, do you think it possible that something even better might arise from the ashes? What if we change our perspective into something else rather than happiness being the ultimate goal, such as transcending the world to a better place? Is it even possible to find out what a better place is, since we perceive the world subjectively? Your initial reasoning also made me think about how we value different kinds of knowledge in different social settings. For examples it is considered more valuable as a master’s student to have strong reasoning and analytical skills, and the ability to apply the theories as you have done in your text, rather than just memorizing facts. https://u12vkokq.blogspot.se/2016/09/reflections-on-theme-1-theory-of.html.showComment=1474189813657
6) I like how you in your post talks about your previous knowledge and that you have a very forgiving and open approach towards learning something new. If you’re afraid of failing, that could hinder you in acquiring knowledge in an area that is new to many of us. You have been very ambitious using a lot of additional literature. It would have been interesting if you had gone more into depth in describing if these different text books helped you grasping the concepts in a more comprehensive way or if they just added an extra complex element to the learning process. I also found the quote about perception and conception working together to form a whole to be very useful when understanding the relationship between the concepts. https://u1mv5a16.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-second-blog-post.html?
showComment=1474191711184
7) Your thoughts on the positive effects of us being different was refreshing! I agree with you that the different nuances make the world a more diverse and colourful place. But if we don’t interact, then how will we get the advantages of us being different? Not only do we choose what kind of news sources we expose ourselves to, but my view is that we also are drawn to people that share our set of beliefs, resulting in us confirming rather than challenging these. This arises a question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are we drawn to people that share our sets of beliefs and lifestyle, or do we form each other into adaptation and thinking the same as we interact as an evolutionary strategy? This is a scenario were dialectic reasoning as a method could be used so that we are hindered to continue reproducing our opinions and perpetuating our view of our truth being the truest. https://scarsickbg.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-blog-post-2-reading-plato-and.html
8) In the comments student u1j8du7c talks about how our backgrounds does not affect how we interpret e.g. math. I don’t agree with that statement. Even if math is linked to analytical, a priori judgements, we still conceptualize the subject ”math”. Have our parents showed positive or negative feelings towards math? Have you been encouraged in school to learn math? It affects your motivation towards the subject. Even if the subject is based on facts, we are still humans and interpret the ”facts". I appreciated how you applied the theories into discussing rules, values and norms in the world and the difficulties of conforming to one set of ”universal norms” as the human rights could be considered. I don’t agree with body images not being that much of a big deal throughout history. I just think there are different norms now, and that we to a greater extent are exposed to images. If people just perceived each other as they were and accepted that, I don't see why we have had wars and controversies throughout the history? http://u1cq6h0z.blogspot.se/2016/09/reflection-on-theme-1theory-of.html
9) It is interesting how you connected Plato’s and Kant’s texts in your reflection and connected it to empiricism. It would be interesting to hear, as several others have pointed out, how you would apply the concepts to a modern context. My view was that Kant wished he had called it formal or critical idealism so that he would have not been misinterpreted as a sceptical or empirical idealist, as the sceptical idealism is formulated from the god’s point of view, which Kant distanced himself from. https://u1bauz11.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-reflection.html?showComment=1474197347986
10) I think it is interesting that you mention how the faculties of knowledge might need to be updated. How is that done? During our seminar we also discussed about updating the twelve categories. I think it would have been interesting to learn more during this theme about how these categories are applied to real world concepts. I have experience a situation that forced me to update my faculty of knowledge. It was when my perception did not correspond to my conception during a sleep paralysis. It is a transitional state between being awake and sleeping where your mind is present, but you cannot move my body and often experiences hallucinations. It was a very strange feeling, where I perceived things I could not conceptualize. http://u1818rgq.blogspot.se/2016/09/post-2-theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and.html
2) It is interesting that you also talked about the relation between mental illness and how one perceives the world, as we did in our seminar group. Our view was, however, more linked to conception rather than perception. You mention that people suffering from depression, a couple of decades ago were considered hypersensitive. I did not comprehend from your text whether you were talking about Sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) which is a personally trait characterised by high social, emotional and physical sensitivity or just hypersensitive in a more general meaning? I don’t think one can generalize and say that only because someone perceives something stronger, it automatically leads to someone also conceptualising it in a more thorough way. In another comment on your post, JaPaHe writes that highly sensitive people would not only consider the negative sides, but also the positive sides. This made me think about bipolar disorder and how people with it perceive the world as either fantastic or miserable, with no middle ground. I think it would have been interesting if you in the last paragraph about God, would have included something about ontological argumentation. http://u1kq1ay0.blogspot.se/2016/09/second-blog-post-theme-1-theory-of.html#comment-form
3) Thanks for commenting on my blog! I agree with you that it is important to be critical and use our judgment when exposed to ads, but I am afraid that we subconsciously can start to perceive these images that we, with such a frequency, are exposed to, as ”the truth”. I also liked how you in your comment connected my text to theme 2, by adding the concept of mythology. Regarding your post, I think your connection to modern science as well as the insights in how fluctuating the idea of ”knowledge” is, show that you have a very clear understanding of the concepts. I don’t agree with the thought that things loose their meaning without human perception. In Kantian terms I would approach the subject by saying, ”Lets us climb down from us pretending to be gods”. What indicates that meaning arise from a human interacting and perceiving an object? It might create meaning to you, but I think there is a big difference. http://u1j8du7c.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-post-2.html
4) I found the concept of the ”seven billion worlds” very thought provoking. If we perceived our fellow human beings as carrying their own small universe we might have greater understanding for our differences. However, I am not sure that the more knowledge we acquire by sharing information ultimately leads to us questioning our set of opinions. As we today can access more information than previously, do you believe that there is a risk of choosing to see/read ideas that conform to ones own? Your last paragraph also made me think about what questions we are talking about in the western society today. Are we discussing questions that matter or are we trying to isolate from the more difficult questions by escaping into imaginary worlds such as Game of Thrones? https://u17fpbu5.blogspot.se/2016/09/post-theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and.html
5) I like how you structure your reasoning by clearly dividing your different approaches. It makes your reasoning easy to follow and in some sense reminded me of the teleological arguing for god’s existence, even though your arguments clearly raise standpoints that contrast each other. In your text, you reflect whether happiness is the ultimate goal. If I contribute to the breakdown of the organization my life constitutes of, do you think it possible that something even better might arise from the ashes? What if we change our perspective into something else rather than happiness being the ultimate goal, such as transcending the world to a better place? Is it even possible to find out what a better place is, since we perceive the world subjectively? Your initial reasoning also made me think about how we value different kinds of knowledge in different social settings. For examples it is considered more valuable as a master’s student to have strong reasoning and analytical skills, and the ability to apply the theories as you have done in your text, rather than just memorizing facts. https://u12vkokq.blogspot.se/2016/09/reflections-on-theme-1-theory-of.html.showComment=1474189813657
6) I like how you in your post talks about your previous knowledge and that you have a very forgiving and open approach towards learning something new. If you’re afraid of failing, that could hinder you in acquiring knowledge in an area that is new to many of us. You have been very ambitious using a lot of additional literature. It would have been interesting if you had gone more into depth in describing if these different text books helped you grasping the concepts in a more comprehensive way or if they just added an extra complex element to the learning process. I also found the quote about perception and conception working together to form a whole to be very useful when understanding the relationship between the concepts. https://u1mv5a16.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-second-blog-post.html?
showComment=1474191711184
7) Your thoughts on the positive effects of us being different was refreshing! I agree with you that the different nuances make the world a more diverse and colourful place. But if we don’t interact, then how will we get the advantages of us being different? Not only do we choose what kind of news sources we expose ourselves to, but my view is that we also are drawn to people that share our set of beliefs, resulting in us confirming rather than challenging these. This arises a question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are we drawn to people that share our sets of beliefs and lifestyle, or do we form each other into adaptation and thinking the same as we interact as an evolutionary strategy? This is a scenario were dialectic reasoning as a method could be used so that we are hindered to continue reproducing our opinions and perpetuating our view of our truth being the truest. https://scarsickbg.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-blog-post-2-reading-plato-and.html
8) In the comments student u1j8du7c talks about how our backgrounds does not affect how we interpret e.g. math. I don’t agree with that statement. Even if math is linked to analytical, a priori judgements, we still conceptualize the subject ”math”. Have our parents showed positive or negative feelings towards math? Have you been encouraged in school to learn math? It affects your motivation towards the subject. Even if the subject is based on facts, we are still humans and interpret the ”facts". I appreciated how you applied the theories into discussing rules, values and norms in the world and the difficulties of conforming to one set of ”universal norms” as the human rights could be considered. I don’t agree with body images not being that much of a big deal throughout history. I just think there are different norms now, and that we to a greater extent are exposed to images. If people just perceived each other as they were and accepted that, I don't see why we have had wars and controversies throughout the history? http://u1cq6h0z.blogspot.se/2016/09/reflection-on-theme-1theory-of.html
9) It is interesting how you connected Plato’s and Kant’s texts in your reflection and connected it to empiricism. It would be interesting to hear, as several others have pointed out, how you would apply the concepts to a modern context. My view was that Kant wished he had called it formal or critical idealism so that he would have not been misinterpreted as a sceptical or empirical idealist, as the sceptical idealism is formulated from the god’s point of view, which Kant distanced himself from. https://u1bauz11.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-reflection.html?showComment=1474197347986
10) I think it is interesting that you mention how the faculties of knowledge might need to be updated. How is that done? During our seminar we also discussed about updating the twelve categories. I think it would have been interesting to learn more during this theme about how these categories are applied to real world concepts. I have experience a situation that forced me to update my faculty of knowledge. It was when my perception did not correspond to my conception during a sleep paralysis. It is a transitional state between being awake and sleeping where your mind is present, but you cannot move my body and often experiences hallucinations. It was a very strange feeling, where I perceived things I could not conceptualize. http://u1818rgq.blogspot.se/2016/09/post-2-theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and.html
fredag 16 september 2016
Reflection on theme 2: Critical media studies
Looking back at what I wrote when answering the questions for theme two, I perceive that my answers backfired at forming a whole and explaining the general concepts of the two texts. After the lecture and the seminar, I feel that I have a more comprehensive picture of the concepts. This is both due to the historical context that was provided, but also my increased understanding of the societal critique that were put forward by the authors.
During pre-modern time, knowledge was about understanding Plato and Aristotle. The focus was not seeking new answers, but rather to reinterpret these old thoughts. During the 17th century there was a shift in how knowledge was perceived, from reading books to observing our surroundings. The discoveries of Newton, Galileo and Copernicus and other pioneers such as Boyle, Pascal and Hooke are examples of the outcome. The perception of human as mechanisms for repeating, changed. Humans are not only able to develop and change science, but also the society. This is the epistemological backdrop to the French revolution.
The world kept progressing, and after a few years, the negative consequences of growth appeared. The aftermath of the first world war, followed by the crash of the New York stock exchange resulted in the failure of the promise of enlightenment. For anyone interested in these questions I can recommend the book ”Moral consequences of economic growth” by Benjamin Friedman. In the book he argues if progress continues indefinitely, or if there is a limit. If the progress is not inevitable, what does our civilization have to do to achieve it?
Regarding the Adorno and Horkheimer text, which criticizes the cultural industry in the U.S, I wish that I in a clearer manner, had described the relationship between nominalism, enlightenment and mythology. A&H have a negative view of nominalism, as categorization according to them results in societal oppression. When enlightenment showed through science that human interference did not have any impact on the outcome of events, it ultimately showed us that our actions do not matter, which leads to my role in the universe being peripheral. When I am thinking about the world, I am just reproducing it. This means that we are as trapped in enlightenment as we were in mythology. We cannot change society; we can just repeat it. This results in passivity and conformity, and nominalism prevents the formation of an antithesis to this state. Even though enlightenment came as a contradiction to myth, it is actually reproducing mythological examples. Instead of using culture to reproduce societal structures we need to revive the concept, understand that there are concepts and question the big picture, by looking at the smaller components and pay attention to details.
Regarding the Benjamin text, I could have emphasised the role of historical materialism in question one. In question two I learned during the week that the revolutionary potentials according to Marx, does not equal democratic potentials. Regarding the question about historical perception, I did not fully understand when I read the text that this argument could undermine the Nazi propaganda that German art were superior to other art, giving the text a greater societal value.
Below are some examples of how the ideas can be applied to a modern context:
During pre-modern time, knowledge was about understanding Plato and Aristotle. The focus was not seeking new answers, but rather to reinterpret these old thoughts. During the 17th century there was a shift in how knowledge was perceived, from reading books to observing our surroundings. The discoveries of Newton, Galileo and Copernicus and other pioneers such as Boyle, Pascal and Hooke are examples of the outcome. The perception of human as mechanisms for repeating, changed. Humans are not only able to develop and change science, but also the society. This is the epistemological backdrop to the French revolution.
The world kept progressing, and after a few years, the negative consequences of growth appeared. The aftermath of the first world war, followed by the crash of the New York stock exchange resulted in the failure of the promise of enlightenment. For anyone interested in these questions I can recommend the book ”Moral consequences of economic growth” by Benjamin Friedman. In the book he argues if progress continues indefinitely, or if there is a limit. If the progress is not inevitable, what does our civilization have to do to achieve it?
Regarding the Adorno and Horkheimer text, which criticizes the cultural industry in the U.S, I wish that I in a clearer manner, had described the relationship between nominalism, enlightenment and mythology. A&H have a negative view of nominalism, as categorization according to them results in societal oppression. When enlightenment showed through science that human interference did not have any impact on the outcome of events, it ultimately showed us that our actions do not matter, which leads to my role in the universe being peripheral. When I am thinking about the world, I am just reproducing it. This means that we are as trapped in enlightenment as we were in mythology. We cannot change society; we can just repeat it. This results in passivity and conformity, and nominalism prevents the formation of an antithesis to this state. Even though enlightenment came as a contradiction to myth, it is actually reproducing mythological examples. Instead of using culture to reproduce societal structures we need to revive the concept, understand that there are concepts and question the big picture, by looking at the smaller components and pay attention to details.
Regarding the Benjamin text, I could have emphasised the role of historical materialism in question one. In question two I learned during the week that the revolutionary potentials according to Marx, does not equal democratic potentials. Regarding the question about historical perception, I did not fully understand when I read the text that this argument could undermine the Nazi propaganda that German art were superior to other art, giving the text a greater societal value.
Below are some examples of how the ideas can be applied to a modern context:
- A lot of things that are bad for the society can be backed up with facts deriving from research, however it does not mean that it should be considered the right way forward. We need to be critical.
- The dialect between freedom and oppression is current in many questions regarding media technology.
- If substructures changes the superstructure, developing technological solutions can be a way of changing the society.
onsdag 14 september 2016
Theme 3: Research and theory
Organization
Studies (OS) is a journal with global
reach that aims at increasing the understanding of organizations, organizing
and the organized in and between societies. The journal has
a multidisciplinary approach, and the research is rooted in social
sciences. It was first published in 1980, and publishes research with both
a theoretical and empirical approach. The impact factor amounts to 2.798.
The research paper "Narrative
Policy Framework: The Influence of Media Policy Narratives on Public
Opinion" was published in Policy & Politics in May 2011. The journals impact factor amounts to 1.200.
The aim of the study is to understand to
what extent media policy narratives are effective at influencing public opinion
and how this influence is manifested. Are policy narratives strengthening or
changing readers' opinions? The purpose is exploratory and the authors want to
advance quantitative research by employing a quasi-experimental design to the
study. The research employs media reports
concerning snow mobile access to Yellowstone National Park. A pre- and a post-test survey was administrated to 194 students. The sample size is a major weakness
of the research, as the selection is small. The participating students were enrolled at an introductory course in American Government. Using students as a
sample group is also problematic when it comes to generalizing to the public. When
the data derives from a student population, this cannot be done.
The pre-test aims at collecting baseline
opinion data. One out of two articles that constitutes of different policy
narratives from two advocacy coalitions were used as treatment. After the
treatment, a post-test survey was carried out measuring changes in a) policy
belief, b) policy outcome preferences and c) interest group alignment. Four
different audience characteristics were also used as measures of change in a) familiarity,
b) rural-urban residents, c) newcomer-old timer and d) political leaning.
The results show that for each of the
four audiences, there were both statistically significant and non-significant
results regarding changes in reader opinion. When read by audiences with
similar opinions, the result is significantly strengthening conformably
opinions of the reader. The research also shows that there is a significant
strengthening of opinion in the opposite direction of the students previously
opinion.
Sutton states in the paper What Theories is Not: ”Theory is the answer to the queries of why”. In the paper, theory is described
to emphasize the nature of causal relationships and the aim is to understand
the systematic reasons for an outcome. According to Weick, a good theory
explains, predicts and delights. In the paper The Nature of Theory in Information Systems, written by Gregor, the picture is more nuanced. How you perceive theory
depends on which field of conduct your research is attributing, and depending
on whether you consider yourself as a logical positivist or if you are devoted to interpretivism or hermeneutics. That might be considered too much information, but the point
is to paint a picture of theories as abstract entities. However, the aim of
using a theory is to ”describe, explain and enhance the understanding of the
word”. In some cases, theories can also be used to predict what will happen in
the future, and create a base for further action. Mentioning existing theories
and their references without connecting it to your research is not theory. To
show data is a way to show which empirical patterns that were observed, however
data does not explain why they were observed, as theory does. List of
variables, diagrams or hypotheses are neither no be seen as theory.
The theories used in the research paper questioning whether public narratives can influence public opinion, are the national theory of federalism and the compact theory
of federalism. According to the theory classification made by Gregor, the paper
can be categorized under the Theory for Explaining and Predicting.
”EP theory implies both understanding of
underlying causes and prediction, as well as description of theoretical
constructs and the relationships among them.”
The benefits of using EP theory is its
grand approach of taking on a wide question. I perceive that the writing could
be a bit more rigorous and strict, and I would prefer if less hypotheses had
been used. I also feel that the authors could have emphasized a bit more on the
causal relations of the factors measured as well as the possible problem of
self-assessing factors such as familiarity to a subject, since it arbitrary. One
overall problem with the research, which is also mentioned by the authors, is
the possibilities to adapt it to a real world context. Even if the policy narratives
are shown to have influence on public opinion in a controlled experimental
setting, citizens might not want to be exposed to opinions and sources that directly oppose what
they already believe?
söndag 11 september 2016
Reflection on theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science
This week has been a study of acquiring knowledge.
It started with me missing the first class due to work. Coming from a context with greater focus on practical knowledge, to reading Plato’s Theaetetus and the preface of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, which focuses on knowledge as a theoretical concept, was a bit of a shock. The highly theoretical nature of Kant's text, combined with me asking myself "What I am going to do with this information?" and the difficulties I experienced trying to grasp the concepts, did not put me off to a good start.
However, after attending the first lecture, the theoretical aspects were more apprehensible, and after the seminar, I felt that I could apply the concept to my own life and incorporate the theories into my perception of knowledge.
So according to Kant, metaphysic questions such as "Is there a free will" cannot be verified empirically. It is a priori (prior to sense experience) discipline that tries to find synthetic judgements. So how are synthetic judgement possible a priori? Kant's answer is through changing the perspective, from human beings conforming to object, to assuming that objects conform to our faculties of knowledge. Let's say I have a brown table. Firstly, the table exists within space and time, since we cannot interpret things outside of it. Secondly, we perceive the brown table using our sense impression. But, it is not enough to fully understand it. Thirdly, we also conceptualize the table, which is the process were the impression is organized according to the twelve Kantian categories. So when I say that I find the table beautiful – I am not reflecting on the table, but my experience of how I am experiencing the table, in a subjective manner according to my infinite. Conception and perceptions form a reciprocal relationship, were we experience the world through our sense perception but we interpret it through our conception of the word.
During the seminar my group discussed the following themes, which were also brought up in class:
- Is there a link between questioning your own perception of the world and happiness?
Does questioning yourself and your perception lead to feelings of anxiety and does the opposite result in happiness, but a stagnation of development?
- Today we are exposed to more impressions than during Kant's time, for example, in the forms of advertisement and updates on social media. These impressions need to be processed. What coping strategies are used to conceptualize these images in an effective manner? If we are exposed to one-sided image of how, for example, a body should look, we might consider these images to be the right way a body should look like. Media has a responsibility and need to be aware of the power of the norms and representation.
- If the laws, which ultimately build the foundation of our western society, are subjective, why do we conform to them?
My conclusion from working on this theme is that there are no universal truths and that my view of the world is subjectively colored by my previous experiences. This insight has given me a further understanding of the importance of being open-minded, and meeting with people that challenge my current worldview.
However, after attending the first lecture, the theoretical aspects were more apprehensible, and after the seminar, I felt that I could apply the concept to my own life and incorporate the theories into my perception of knowledge.
So according to Kant, metaphysic questions such as "Is there a free will" cannot be verified empirically. It is a priori (prior to sense experience) discipline that tries to find synthetic judgements. So how are synthetic judgement possible a priori? Kant's answer is through changing the perspective, from human beings conforming to object, to assuming that objects conform to our faculties of knowledge. Let's say I have a brown table. Firstly, the table exists within space and time, since we cannot interpret things outside of it. Secondly, we perceive the brown table using our sense impression. But, it is not enough to fully understand it. Thirdly, we also conceptualize the table, which is the process were the impression is organized according to the twelve Kantian categories. So when I say that I find the table beautiful – I am not reflecting on the table, but my experience of how I am experiencing the table, in a subjective manner according to my infinite. Conception and perceptions form a reciprocal relationship, were we experience the world through our sense perception but we interpret it through our conception of the word.
During the seminar my group discussed the following themes, which were also brought up in class:
- Is there a link between questioning your own perception of the world and happiness?
Does questioning yourself and your perception lead to feelings of anxiety and does the opposite result in happiness, but a stagnation of development?
- Today we are exposed to more impressions than during Kant's time, for example, in the forms of advertisement and updates on social media. These impressions need to be processed. What coping strategies are used to conceptualize these images in an effective manner? If we are exposed to one-sided image of how, for example, a body should look, we might consider these images to be the right way a body should look like. Media has a responsibility and need to be aware of the power of the norms and representation.
- If the laws, which ultimately build the foundation of our western society, are subjective, why do we conform to them?
My conclusion from working on this theme is that there are no universal truths and that my view of the world is subjectively colored by my previous experiences. This insight has given me a further understanding of the importance of being open-minded, and meeting with people that challenge my current worldview.
torsdag 8 september 2016
Theme 2: Critical media studies
Dialectic of enlightenment
1) Horkheimer and Adorno writes in the first sentence of the chapter that the concept enlightenment in its widest sense is to be understood as the advancement of thought. Enlightenment aims at dissolving the world of myths and magic and favors objective knowledge that can be measured and empirically proven. The aim is to relief man from fear, by creating an empirical and positivist understanding of the world. This is done by demythologising and disenchanting myths. For example, if using Kant’s example of a blooming tree, in a mythical sense people might have perceived the blooming as a sign from the spirits. But, through demythologising it, by giving no space for the unknown, we explain this through photosynthesis, thus explaining the phenomena in an empirically scientific manner.
2) Dialectic is the name of a process, where two different views on a subject matter are discussed through sets of rational arguments. The aim is to establish a truth. One could say that the discussion between Socrates and Theaetetus is of dialectic nature.
3) Horkheimer and Adorno are influenced by Marx. Nominalism is a philosophical concept that argues that universal and/or abstract objects do not exist. This means that objects should not be grouped but looked at with an individualistic approach. With a nominal viewpoint, it is difficult to work for a societal structure with a focus on the collective.
4) In a meta perspective myths are enlightenment, because without myths there would be no enlightenment. Mythical understanding in Adorno and Horkheimer’s argument is further explained in answer one, above.
The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity
1)
2) According to Benjamin, culture has revolutionary potential. In the preface it is evident that it is useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art. One of the democratic potentials he mentions is the increased numbers of readers becoming writers, hence having the opportunity to express their thoughts to a great mass. Adorno and Horkheimer have a different perspective, where the emerging mechanical culture industry has weakened the capacity of the individual to revolt.
3) Benjamin proposes that historical conditions affects how we perceive the world through our senses. We perceive a painting differently to a film. Because of the dynamic element of the film, we have to adapt our perception from contemplation to a more active form of media usage. History affects how we perceive through our senses. The American sociologist, Becker later argues that how we interpret a photograph is dependent on our prior knowledge about the object. Hence, as the world changes, our perception of the world changes. If we see a reproduction it is put in a context of social construction.
4) Benjamin defines the aura of natural objects as the unique phenomenon of a distance. When talking about the aura of art objects, Benjamin raises the importance of the objects presence in time and space, which can not be reproduced. Mechanical reproduced art objects, will loose its aura, as it looses it historical context as well as its authenticity. Benjamin writes that techniques of reproduction increases the possibilities of hosting exhibitions. But, when an artwork is represented at an exhibition, there is a risk that the authenticity of the artwork is decreased as a result of it not being presented in its original context. Benjamin’s text also made me wonder whether a natural object can loose its aura? If for example a shell is taken away from its original context (the beach), it no longer appears as nice. Could it be due to lack of aura?
1) Horkheimer and Adorno writes in the first sentence of the chapter that the concept enlightenment in its widest sense is to be understood as the advancement of thought. Enlightenment aims at dissolving the world of myths and magic and favors objective knowledge that can be measured and empirically proven. The aim is to relief man from fear, by creating an empirical and positivist understanding of the world. This is done by demythologising and disenchanting myths. For example, if using Kant’s example of a blooming tree, in a mythical sense people might have perceived the blooming as a sign from the spirits. But, through demythologising it, by giving no space for the unknown, we explain this through photosynthesis, thus explaining the phenomena in an empirically scientific manner.
2) Dialectic is the name of a process, where two different views on a subject matter are discussed through sets of rational arguments. The aim is to establish a truth. One could say that the discussion between Socrates and Theaetetus is of dialectic nature.
3) Horkheimer and Adorno are influenced by Marx. Nominalism is a philosophical concept that argues that universal and/or abstract objects do not exist. This means that objects should not be grouped but looked at with an individualistic approach. With a nominal viewpoint, it is difficult to work for a societal structure with a focus on the collective.
4) In a meta perspective myths are enlightenment, because without myths there would be no enlightenment. Mythical understanding in Adorno and Horkheimer’s argument is further explained in answer one, above.
The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity
1)
- The substructure consists of the the means and relations of production.
- The superstructure consists of everything in society that is not directly connected to production, such as the political, social and juridical institutions as well as more abstract concepts of norms and culture.
2) According to Benjamin, culture has revolutionary potential. In the preface it is evident that it is useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art. One of the democratic potentials he mentions is the increased numbers of readers becoming writers, hence having the opportunity to express their thoughts to a great mass. Adorno and Horkheimer have a different perspective, where the emerging mechanical culture industry has weakened the capacity of the individual to revolt.
3) Benjamin proposes that historical conditions affects how we perceive the world through our senses. We perceive a painting differently to a film. Because of the dynamic element of the film, we have to adapt our perception from contemplation to a more active form of media usage. History affects how we perceive through our senses. The American sociologist, Becker later argues that how we interpret a photograph is dependent on our prior knowledge about the object. Hence, as the world changes, our perception of the world changes. If we see a reproduction it is put in a context of social construction.
4) Benjamin defines the aura of natural objects as the unique phenomenon of a distance. When talking about the aura of art objects, Benjamin raises the importance of the objects presence in time and space, which can not be reproduced. Mechanical reproduced art objects, will loose its aura, as it looses it historical context as well as its authenticity. Benjamin writes that techniques of reproduction increases the possibilities of hosting exhibitions. But, when an artwork is represented at an exhibition, there is a risk that the authenticity of the artwork is decreased as a result of it not being presented in its original context. Benjamin’s text also made me wonder whether a natural object can loose its aura? If for example a shell is taken away from its original context (the beach), it no longer appears as nice. Could it be due to lack of aura?
torsdag 1 september 2016
Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science
Introduction and thoughts on the theme
"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?
In the preface, Kant takes a dual approach when describing knowledge as a concept:
· A Priori, which is knowledge independent of experience. Here knowledge is discovered with a rational and analytical approach.
· A Posteriori, which is knowledge based upon experiences. Here knowledge is discovered empirically.
The claim ”Students are people”, is a priori cognition. Using deductive reasoning, I can draw a logical conclusion clarifying the statement. I can tell a priori that students are people by determining the object (the students). The claim ”Students are happy people”, is a posteriori cognition. I can only get an understanding of their emotions towards their studies, by investigating the students' situation, ultimately by using my senses. My cognition conforms to the object.
From the moment we are born, we want to understand the world, and to find out the nature of objects. This is our nature, we examine objects. But what if the object, whether tangible or intangible, can not be examined through our senses? And what if our ability to reason is limited? Can we then truly learn about a subject in a scientific manner?
Kant describes metaphysics as follows "a wholly isolated speculative cognition of reason that elevats itself entirely above all instructions from experience, and that through mere concepts/…/”. He continues with saying that we can cognize of things a priori only what we ourselves have put into them. This does not sound very scientific to me. The clarifying example given in the text is Copernicus, who instead of conforming to the recognized belief, questioned that perception of the world and shifted the perspective from the object to the observer. Thereby he conformed the object to his cognition.
Instead of using the rational and analytical knowledge, as one can with the science of mathematics, the knowledge about metaphysics can be based upon our experience. However, we can not prove metaphysical questions without testing them in the real world.
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? And in what way is it correct to say that Socrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?
The eyes and ears are example of parts of our body through which we perceive information. However, just aquiring information and knowledge does not equal learning. In order to obtain knowledge, we have to process and understand what is being presented to us. When we process and interpret information, we do it based on our previously obtained knowledge and experiences.
In the dialogue Socrates asks if perception has any part in attainment of truth or of being. Theaetetus simply answers "No", whereas Socrates continues by asking if perception can be the same as knowledge or science.
He illustrates this with a parable. If I perceive the wind to be cold, it does not mean that it actually is cold. Based on my reference point of wind temperature combined with my favored body temperature, I form a preference. So rather than saying "The wind is cold" the more correct way to say it would be "The wind makes me feel cold".
Empiricism implies, as the posteriori cognition, that knowledge is gained through our senses. Socrates ideas are derived from his intuition or his previous knowledge.
But, when interacting with Theaetetus, Socrates clearly uses his mouth to convey his questions, and Theaetetus uses his ears to perceive the information. By using their senses, they interact with each other, and through that dialogue questions arise and theories are formed.
I will finish with concluding what a) I have learned from reading these texts and b) I have learned thinking about the concepts:
· Our backgrounds, cultures, social heritage and upbringing influences the way we perceive the world.
· We do not interpret objects and the world in a uniform way.
· The rationalistic and the empiricist standpoint are sometimes overarching, sometimes conflicting.
"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?
In the preface, Kant takes a dual approach when describing knowledge as a concept:
· A Priori, which is knowledge independent of experience. Here knowledge is discovered with a rational and analytical approach.
· A Posteriori, which is knowledge based upon experiences. Here knowledge is discovered empirically.
The claim ”Students are people”, is a priori cognition. Using deductive reasoning, I can draw a logical conclusion clarifying the statement. I can tell a priori that students are people by determining the object (the students). The claim ”Students are happy people”, is a posteriori cognition. I can only get an understanding of their emotions towards their studies, by investigating the students' situation, ultimately by using my senses. My cognition conforms to the object.
From the moment we are born, we want to understand the world, and to find out the nature of objects. This is our nature, we examine objects. But what if the object, whether tangible or intangible, can not be examined through our senses? And what if our ability to reason is limited? Can we then truly learn about a subject in a scientific manner?
Kant describes metaphysics as follows "a wholly isolated speculative cognition of reason that elevats itself entirely above all instructions from experience, and that through mere concepts/…/”. He continues with saying that we can cognize of things a priori only what we ourselves have put into them. This does not sound very scientific to me. The clarifying example given in the text is Copernicus, who instead of conforming to the recognized belief, questioned that perception of the world and shifted the perspective from the object to the observer. Thereby he conformed the object to his cognition.
Instead of using the rational and analytical knowledge, as one can with the science of mathematics, the knowledge about metaphysics can be based upon our experience. However, we can not prove metaphysical questions without testing them in the real world.
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? And in what way is it correct to say that Socrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?
The eyes and ears are example of parts of our body through which we perceive information. However, just aquiring information and knowledge does not equal learning. In order to obtain knowledge, we have to process and understand what is being presented to us. When we process and interpret information, we do it based on our previously obtained knowledge and experiences.
In the dialogue Socrates asks if perception has any part in attainment of truth or of being. Theaetetus simply answers "No", whereas Socrates continues by asking if perception can be the same as knowledge or science.
"Clearly not/.../and knowledge has now been most distinctly proved to be different from perception."
He illustrates this with a parable. If I perceive the wind to be cold, it does not mean that it actually is cold. Based on my reference point of wind temperature combined with my favored body temperature, I form a preference. So rather than saying "The wind is cold" the more correct way to say it would be "The wind makes me feel cold".
Empiricism implies, as the posteriori cognition, that knowledge is gained through our senses. Socrates ideas are derived from his intuition or his previous knowledge.
But, when interacting with Theaetetus, Socrates clearly uses his mouth to convey his questions, and Theaetetus uses his ears to perceive the information. By using their senses, they interact with each other, and through that dialogue questions arise and theories are formed.
I will finish with concluding what a) I have learned from reading these texts and b) I have learned thinking about the concepts:
· Our backgrounds, cultures, social heritage and upbringing influences the way we perceive the world.
· We do not interpret objects and the world in a uniform way.
· The rationalistic and the empiricist standpoint are sometimes overarching, sometimes conflicting.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)