Theme 3: Reflection.

I would say that theme 3 was interesting to work with and although I might have made an air ball in the pre-theme-blog post about what theory is and what it is not I feel that the lecture was indeed a life saver for my understanding but that the seminar didn’t brought that much more to the table.

In the lecture we were presented with the assumption that theory in every day life is interpreted as hypothesis, which is obviously wrong. Dahlberg presented tree major arguments for what a theory is, namely that a theory is:

1.     a theory is an explanatory framework for an observation.

2.     Theory involves stepping back, or abstracting, from
that which one is viewing.

3.     Theory can be contrasted with praxis or practice.

But most importantly, theory is something we construct. It doesn’t exist by itself. When we also look at the scientific theory it is mainly concerned with event and cause and why, how and what. You could also argue that research is the tool you need to confirm a theory or to actually develop a new theory. We also had a seminar that I didn’t care for that much. I really felt that the lecture for this theme answered my unanswered question.

Theme 4: Quantitative research

The first paper this theme:

I read the paper “Validation and Application of Electronic Propinquity Theory to Computer-Mediated Communication in Groups” for this weeks theme and as the title implies the paper seeks to validate the electronic propinquity theory set within the communications in groups.

The authors cite Korzenny to describe the theory of electronic propinquity as “a general theory of mediated communication”. They electronic part of this theory refers to electronic proximity, -nearness or –presence. We also learn that according to the theory, propinquity is strongly associated with satisfaction, communication effectiveness and task accomplishment. This is also something that the papers hypothesis comes to work with.

The participants consisted of 211 students with the average age of 19 which of 68% where male. This is a good N-number for a quantitative research although all 211 students where recruited from the same university in the U.S. This would lower the validation of this paper because how we experience communication is probably affected by culture and geographical location, even within the same culture. The setup for the test consisted of 7 different configurations, which makes it easier to generalize the result. The results of the test are presented in easy to read summarized tables. But when the measurements during the actual test comes from the participants rate the experienced propinquity and presence this would be the drawback with the whole research because ratings from the participants are always bound to include errors from various sources.

The paper concludes that the electronic propinquity theory holds true with the “new” CMC, which wasn’t available at the time, when theory of propinquity developed during the late 1970.

To summarize the quantitative characteristics of this paper I would say that: 

The results are based on larger sample sizes that are representative of the population.

No, because the participants consisted of a homogeneous group not valid for a bigger population.

The research study can usually be replicated or repeated, given its high reliability.

This is probably true if the new participant comes from the same geographically, professional and social sphere. 

Researcher has a clearly defined research question to which objective answers are sought.

Yes, I would say that they do.

All aspects of the study are carefully designed before data is collected.

Data are in the form of numbers and statistics.

Yes, the data is presented with easy to analyze for the reader.

Researcher uses tools, such as questionnaires or equipment to collect numerical data.

Yes, the test included questionnaires.

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

The test consisted of questionnaires, multi-setup for the tests and a rather large N-number of participants.

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

That it’s a good idea to look at previous reports in the same field to learn by other people’s mistakes. No need to invent the wheel all over every time you are to attempt a test.

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

I would say that difficulties with papers, which main variable is poeple, comes from include people.  Then again, wouldn’t be much of a research if the research is about people.

The second paper this theme:

The second text for this week’s theme is “Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality”. This paper suggest that a persons behavior can change if the person is presented with a illusion that the persons body is changed with other attributes such as gender, skin tone, length and so on. I do believe that the paper presents a good case that IVR can infact change the way one behave. However, despite the fact that the authors declare four possible things that could have influenced the result from the test I see a fifth problem. The problem that I speak of is to be found in this short phrase:

“To ensure that participants were aware of the cultural origins of the Djembe drum

and in order to enter the right mood, they were shown a four minute medley video that included African Djembe players performing in the traditional manner and setting, as well as people from across genders, ages and nationalities, playing in constellations varying

from solo drummers to an ensemble of seven. They were informed that they should later, while drumming, try to enter a mood similar to that of the drummers in the video by expressing themselves.”

This in it self isn’t the anomaly but in conjunction with the CD persona I can see how this could trigger more movements in the upper body and not with the FL persona. With the element of the text phrase above and the fact that there is no such thing as a neutral clothing (if we see a person we judge based on our prejudice or at best only our experiences) this could generate the following chain:

I see dark colored skin people with a certain way of appearance (clothing and such) play on a instrument that I have been told is from a certain culture -> I’m embodied within a CD persona -> I look like some of them people in the video -> we do imitate our social surroundings all day long so why should it be any different in VR? -> I try to imitate the persons in the video. I know it is a bit extreme thing to say that it is like as I described, but I think you get my point. Point is that people are already level “master” when it comes to adapt to the social environment we are placed in so I figured it is even easier to adapt or “play a role” when you know that it is “ok” because you deep inside your mind know that this new body/persona isn’t me.

Lastly, the benefit to utilize quantitative methods would be that it, in most cases, raises the validation of the paper and that it’s easy to re-do if necessary. The drawback should be that it could generate unmeasureable errors in the date if questionnaires are used.

For the qualitative methods the benefit is that it holds high validation in a closed range. Which in many report cases is sufficient. The draw back is of course that it is very hard to generate a general conclusion solely on qualitative data.

Theme 1: comments

1. http://dm2572elvira.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and-theory.html?showComment=1442826648172
2. http://dm2572lisa.blogspot.se/2015/09/week-1-first-post.html?showComment=1442828658301
3. http://bjornsblogggg.blogspot.se/2015/09/emmanuel-kant-plato.html?showComment=1442829878137
4. http://elindm2572.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and-theory.html?showComment=1442830347492
5. http://dm2572rberggre.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-1-before.html?showComment=1442831034181
6. http://aris-totall-loss.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and-theory.html?showComment=1442835420991
7. http://theoryandmethodmediatechnology.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and-theory.html?showComment=1442836101788
8. http://blog4course99.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and-theory.html?showComment=1442837972447
9. http://rchcc.blogspot.se/2015/09/theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and-theory.html?showComment=1442838761580
10. http://gamlagreker.blogspot.se/2015/09/plato-and-kant.html?showComment=1442839370771

Theme 2 Reflection

Both the lecture and the seminar for theme two were very interesting for me. For starter I learn that Benjamin and Horkheimer didn’t share view on the potential in culture. Benjamin stated that culture could be as powerful as to change the society whilst Horkhemier’s point of view was almost the opposite, saying that culture only reflects what is and as such unable to change what to come. Both gentlemen agreed on the limited room for visions within Nominalism. This makes Nominalism unfit if you want to work with the future. Also some light shed upon the word aura for me. It became clear that Benjamin saw aura as something a natural object posses and what makes it one-of-a-kind object. Art objects can also hold aura but by replicate the original you destroy the aura until it is nothing left. Which from Benjamin’s point of view is a good thing.

I had a hard time read up before this theme’s lecture and deadline for the draft on Friday. Especially Horkheimer’s text wasn’t as accessible as Benjamin’s text. I felt that the lecture and seminar gave me insight in the matter much better than I probably could have obtained by my own.

Theme 3: Research and theory

I’ve chosen The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC) for this week’s theme because I think this journal focus on very important topics for our society today and for the future. In some sense it cover sustainability as well. The journal also got a high impact level of 3.1.

Short description of the journal at hand:

JCMC focuses mainly on communicating with computer-based media technologies. Within this frame the journal also reviews work on communication, business, education, political science, sociology, psychology, media studies, information science, and other disciplines. JCMC is a web-based journal and have been active since 1995 and as such, one of the oldest web-based journals.

We are supposed to explain what theory is and what it is not, but when no one up till now has been able to come up with a formula for what theory is I can’t see how we are supposed to do that. What I can tell you, or the “first year student in a university” is that we have managed to agree on what theory is not. According to the texts we read for this theme it is clear that theory is not: references, data, variables, diagrams, and hypotheses. If I’m to speak what theory is then I would say that it is the art of balancing theoretical quantitative research with empirical qualitative research.

For the last part of the theme I read the paper “Internet and Social Media Use as a Resource Among Homeless Youth (2013, Eric Rice, Anamika Barman-Adhikari)”. The authors found that the available papers on homeless youths Internet behaviors were non-existing. Some papers investigated homeless adults in general in terms of Internet use but not youth or adolescent in particular. With good coverage of housed youth and their Internet use the authors approaches a theory based upon already known behaviors and with the help of already known patterns for housed youth they implies that the same might hold true even for the homeless youths. I would say that you could put their theory under the “Explanation” row in the “Table 2. A Taxonomy of Theory Types in Information Systems Research” in the paper The Nature of Theory in Information Systems.

The problem with this class of theory would be that it is hard the generalize the outcome without rendering the specific case useless or “yes, it is true in this certain case”. It is also hard to validate the outcome outside the given case as well.