THEME 4 - Prereflection

Petter Bae Brandtzæg (2012). Social Networking Sites: Their Users and Social Implications - A Longitudinal Study (Volume 17, Issue 4, pages 467–488, July 2012)

The paper contains a quantitative longitudinal study that examines different social implications of social media sites. A part of the theories that were presented was from the paper I read last week about the relationship between Facebook and social capital. This study, by Brandtzæg, also investigates the term social capital in different ways. It was really interesting to read both papers and see the connections between them, since their topics are very similar.  The method that was used by Brandtzæg in his paper was in some ways very similar to the method in the paper I read last week. Both authors propose a couple of hypothesis, collect data by questionnaires and analyse the results and test their hypothesis. The different lay mainly in how the data is collected.

In this paper, by Brandtzæg the study consists of three survey waves with different questionnaires on 2000 persons during a three-year period. It was interesting that the study was going on for such a long period, but a disadvantage with this is that the methods in the different waves in someway varied.

Fondell, E., Lagerros, Y. T., Sundberg, C. J., Lekander, M., Bälter, O., Rothman, K., & Bälter, K. (2010). Physical activity, stress, and self-reported upper respiratory tract infection

The paper investigates the relationship between physical activity level, perceived stress and incidence of self-reported upper respiratory tract infection (URTI). The researchers conducted a population-based study and sent web questionnaires to the participants with frequent follow-ups. The results showed that people reporting a higher level of physical activity had a lower risk of getting URTI and that highly stressed people might benefit more to physical activity than the less stressed people.

One limitation with the quantitative method in this paper is that the result of it is very depending of the participants. Within this study 1111 out of 5000 responded on all the follow-ups, which gives a low response-rate overall. With that said it is important to analyse who it is and why people chose to answer this online survey. Are they having any personal interests in this subject or what is the reason for their participation? Especially in this case when they were interested of comparing stressed people to less stressed people it. Maybe the less stressed people are more likely to answer, since they do not experience that they have too much to do.

Another limitation is that the results from the study are depending on what type of questions you have asked and those are based on your pre-knowledge. Maybe you afterwards realize that the questions did not mean what you wanted or that the participants have misinterprets your questions. You have got one shot, and have to get it right the first time only.

On the other hand, a benefit with this type of quantitative method is that it is easy to conduct and to reach a large amount of people, which could give good data and material to analyse. It does not take so much time or resources to set up an online survey or questionnaire compared to the amount

One benefit within this study is that it was on going for a very long period of time, which was made possible due to the choice of method.

Qualitative methods provide a more flexible way to perform studies, since they are more adaptable. They also result in longer and comprehensive answers that can be very useful because it provides more specific information about the topic, but they are not suitable for longer periods of research, like the questionnaire above was. Therefore a combination of both quantitative and qualitative answers should be used when doing research and studies to achieve best possible data and results.

By reading the paper by Olle Bälter and colleagues I learnt a new way of how to use quantitative methods. I found it extra interesting that the study was done during such a long period of time, with several follow-ups and not only one time questionnaire.

THEME 3 - Afterreflection

This week’s theme, research and theory, was a bit different from previous weeks.

I attended the first seminar of this week but unfortunately I had to leave earlier because I had to go to work so I missed the last 30 minutes, which was a shame, since the discussions were very interesting. We begun by discussing the papers and journals that we had read in small groups and it was fun to hear about the others papers. We also discussed a bit about what criterias there are for a paper, since their disposition varied a lot. I wondered if there are any mandatory headings that have to be in a paper, for example the paper that I read this week was not self-critical and there was a lack of discussions about choice of method, in my opinion.

This world of journals and papers are almost completely new for me, I have never been confronted with it before. Therefore it was interesting to discover this because it feels pretty relevant for a student at KTH, as me. Of course I have heard a bit about it and I have read papers before, in the search for information for my bachelor thesis, but I have never understood the importance of the papers and all journals.

Unfortunately I missed the second seminar of this week, due to I have gotten sick and felt that I had to stay home and try to cure myself and not infect other people as well. I suppose, by guessing and reading the other students after-reflections of this theme, that they discussed more about different theories in the second seminar. It sucks that I missed it because I felt like it was something that I wanted to discuss after reading the texts about what theories are and not are.

The texts confused me a bit even though I really tried to understand what they meant it was difficult. That is probably explained by my lack of knowledge in this subject, I have never before reflected over that a theory is and what it is not. I have only learnt a lot of theories that has been presented to me during my years in school. I was chocked and a bit confused when I read the text by Sutton and Staw where they states that theories are not data, diagrams or hypotheses, because initially I thought that was exactly theories.  The other text, by Gregor, categorized theories into different categories and that was interesting to read and also new to me.  By knowing the differences between theories it is easier to analyse and question them, because not all types of theories can be generalized and used to, for example, predict the future. It all depends on what type of theory it is and what study or research that has been made.

The lessons that I have learned from theme 3 are many and among them are that there are journals that publish very interesting and high quality papers that present studies and research. I have also learned about how theories are defined, and by knowing that it is easier for me to question theories that are presented to me in the future and also to categorize them into different types of theories.

THEME 3 - Prereflection

Research Journal

I have chosen the journal “Social Networks”, which is an international journal of structural analysis with an impact factor of 3.381.

The journal is interdisciplinary and publishes paper within a wide range of disciplines, such as anthropology, sociology, history, economics and others.

I think it is most relevant to media technology because the new developed social networks are a pretty new technology that has affected our society a lot and also because of the interdisciplinary quality. Especially since I this period at KTH are taking a class called “Social media technologies” where we learn about and discusses different social technologies and among them social networks.

The journal can be found here: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/social-networks/

Research Paper

The paper I chose is called The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ and is written by Nicole B. Ellison, Charles Steinfield and Cliff Lampe.  It was published in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (Volume 12, Issue 4, July 2007) and the journal has an impact number of 1,778.

The paper presents the results of a study conducted to examine the relationship between the popular social networking site Facebook and the formation and maintenance of social capital. The notion social capital refers to “the resources accumulated through the relationships among people”. Based on their research the authors propose a set of hypothesis that analyses the relationship between Facebook and social capital.

The study was performed by sending an online survey to undergraduate students at Michigan State University (MSU) with questions about their Facebook usage, why they use the site, their self-esteem and also about their satisfaction with life at MSU. Out of the 800 students the survey was sent to, a total of 286 students answered and completed it. After collecting and compiling data the researchers performed regression analysis in order to compare their results and do test their hypotheses.

The results showed that students use Facebook primarily to maintain relations with people they knew before Facebook, “offline relation”, such as friends from high school. The study also demonstrates “a robust connection between Facebook usage and indicators of social capital, especially of the bridging type”. The bridging type of social capital refers to low-ties, in other words loose connections. They also found that students with low self self-esteem who do not feel so satisfied with their life at MSU could increase their social capital by using Facebook more.

I found the study very interesting and well executed but there are some limitations. The limited selection of responders, all of them were students at the same university and the use of Facebook may differ a lot between different schools, because of different cultures and climates there. There is also a lack of critique and discussion about their choice of method, which would have been interesting. For example why they chose to conduct an online survey instead of interviews or a discussion about the benefits and limitations with the chosen method.

The paper can be found here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x/full

1.

There is a lack of consensus on exactly what theory is but it can be described as something we construct to understand, explain and describe the world. Theories do not exist by them selves. They are constructed to answer the questions why and how.

Theory can be seen as universal statements and provides explanations and predictions and is being testable. It is also the result of generalized thinking when trying to explain how things, such as the nature, works. 

Theory is based on information from some observations or experiments and is not data, diagrams, variables or hypotheses, but that can be used to support the theory itself.

A theory can be proven to be inapplicable by other theories or questioned by other observations that do not support it. It can also be considered as an accepted belief if a majority of people accepts it.

2 + 3.

I consider the major theory that is presented in the selected paper as analysis theory, which is the first type of theory according to Table 2 in the text by Gregor where it is defined as: “Says what is. The theory does not extend beyond analysis and description. No causal relationships among phenomena are specified and no predictions are made.” (Shierly Gregor, 2006)

In the paper there is a study conducted and a following analysis on the results. Since no other methods are used the researchers cannot state or generalize too much, either not make predictions about the future. That is also one of the limitations with this type of theory; generalizations cannot be performed.

On the other hand, the benefits of using the analysis theory is that it is easy to do, since it does not extend beyond analysis and description.

Shierly Gregor (2006) "The nature of theory in information systems".
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~petterog/Kurs/INF5220/NatureofTheoryMISQ.pdf

THEME 2 - Afterreflection

I think this weeks reading were a lot easier compared to the week before and that is explained by my newly acquired skills from last weeks reading. I now know how to handle this amount of texts within this type. Also was the text that we were supposed to read by Horkheimer and Adorno a bit different and in my opinion easier to understand than last weeks. I really appreciated the fourth chapter (The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception) because it feels very relevant and up to date.

The lecture and seminar was not cancelled this week, which was a relief, since the theme of the week was very interesting to discuss and a topic that needed to be discussed. Also the lecture with Leif before the seminar was good, because he gave a repetition of the subject and some new perspectives.

The discussions that we had during the seminar were not so much in direct relation to the texts, which was refreshing since it was nice to apply it on related topics. Instead we discussed the theories and notions that were presented in the book, such as culture industry and mass deception in relation to our society today. I found that interesting because it was something that I had thought of when I read the text; the theories and thoughts that are presented feels very modern and relevant and also most applicable on our society, especially the texts from the chapter about culture.

We also discussed the difference between myth and science, which was established in connection with the Enlightenment. This has confused me a bit and leads me to the same question I ended up asking last week as well; what to we know for sure? Who says science is the right thing to believe in? An example of the difference, which still is discussed, is the creation of the universe and our planet earth. I believe in a more scientific explanation to the creation like maybe the Big Bang and not the more religious track that some others do. But who knows what is right? And what makes it more right than the others? I think a lot of it has to do with your childhood and how you are raised.

To sum up what I have learnt from Theme 3 I can point out a development of my critical thinking even more. Another thing is to question things in our society like the mass media and connected industry and to realize that it has not always been such a large industry as it is today, even if it feels like that for me.

Also I feel more confident in the coming seminars because now I know their structure and who the others students in my group are, which makes me feel more safe and prepared for what to expect from them.

THEME 2 - Prereflection

1.

The enlightenment, also called the age of enlightenment, is a historical period beginning in the late 17th century in Europe continuing through the 18th century. The period is characterized by dramatic revolutions that changed the medieval worldview into a more modern western world. The revolutions were in science, philosophy and especially politics and society, because the enlightenment is said to culminate in the French Revolution in the late 18th century. In the French Revolution the traditional hierarchical orders, such as the royal family and the Catholic Church, were destroyed and replaced by new orders that were originated from the thoughts of the Enlightenment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment

2.

The Enlightenment changed the way of explaining the world, from believing in myth and religions to rather focus on science and knowledge.

In the book they write: “Myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to mythology”, which is quite a paradox.  By this they mean that the myth and the Enlightenment are not incompatible opposites of each other, but that both are qualities of life. The Enlightenment in its self is a myth, because science and knowledge is something that we are told believe in after the Enlightenment instead of believe in religion and can therefore also be considered as a myth.

According to the authors the function of the myth is to put things that we cannot explain into words.

3, 4, 5.

The mass culture was, at that time when they wrote this, a pretty new and growing industry. With the concept “culture industry” the authors criticizes the industry behind the new growing culture; the popular culture. It is mass produced standardized culture goods such as books, movies and music for the people. Adorno and Horkheimer’s think that the popular culture is produced to manipulate the consumers into passivity, which is dangerous for the society. They say: ”Films, radio and magazines make up a system which is uniform as a whole and in every part” and they also states that the needs of the mass audience is not fulfilled, because the masses get what is being offered, not what they want. And that is also what they meant by the notion mass deception; the new ways of consuming and producing culture as a consequence of the new culture industry.

As far as I am concerned the authors never mention the notions old and new media, but I interpret it as the way the media is produced, according to the way it is described in the book. The popular culture, which is produced for the masses and to make money, is what I would consider as the new media. The focus with that type of culture is on the quantity, not the quality, which is the case with older media.

6.

I found the discussions about the culture industry in the chapter  “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” very interesting. Especially at page 96 where they talks about the telephone and a recently introduced media channel:  the radio. They criticize the radio for turning the participants into subjects and equally listeners, without a chance to reply to the radio content, different from the telephone where the point with it is the conversation and the involved are equal to each other. I found this discussion very interesting because it is the opposite of the society and media as it is today, with the Internet that gives everyone a chance to reply and the discuss the media that they have consumed and even to contribute with their own material. Today the consumers of media also are the producer.