Theme 3 reflection

I felt like the readings for theme three were a lot easier to understand as they were on a more concrete level compared to the texts of theme one and two. Although I felt like the term theory left a lot open to be considered and discussed later on, as I think the word can be interpreted in many different ways. Unfortunately I missed the lecture related to theme three due to a conflict in my schedule.

At the seminar however, we got into some nice discussions of what theory is and how we all interpreted the word. My conclusion is that nobody would define the word in exactly the same way, but there were certainly many similarities between the different attempts of making a description. As we tried to come up with the best short summary we stated that theory is like a bridge between raw data and hypothesizes, which is a summary I am quite pleased with. We also discussed how the word theory was misused in many ways today, which might be one of the reasons why it is difficult to really understand the concept. For instance, one might say something like: I have a theory about…, which is simply wrong. I suppose one could argue that the word has two meanings in a way, the meaning of the word among normal people as well as the actual implication from a science point of view. Therefore I would say that the hard part about it is to get used to the meaning of the word in a science related way, and not the one which is usually thrown around carelessly.

To sum up the past week I would say that the seminar gave me a new perspective on theory and I also realized that there is a lot more to the term than what one would think at a first glance.

Theme 4

Part 1

The paper I chose to read is called: Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. I chose this paper mainly because of two reasons. First of all I recognized the author’s name, and found out that he also was the author of a book I read in a school related project last year. As I quite liked that book I became curious to see what his paper would be like. The second factor which made me chose this paper was the study itself. I thought it was very interesting as well as relevant for me as a student, living in this information society.

Two quantitative methods are used in this paper: Observations and interviews. Observations are great for gathering information about behavior under certain circumstances, although there might be changes in the behaviors if the subjects know whether they are being observed or not. Interviews seem to be quite a common method. They are good for gaining insight and understanding of the subjects’ thoughts and experiences. Another good opportunity with interviews is the fact that they allow follow up questions when needed which can decrease the amount of inaccurate answers. However interviews have their own disadvantages. The result can vary a lot depending on the mood of the interviewee. The process of extracting the data from the interview is also very time consuming and it might be tough to keep apart important data from less important data.

The biggest problem I noticed with the methods used in this paper was that the subjects knew that they were being observed. Obviously there is no solution around this as people will know whether they are part of an experiment or not. However, what they did to sort of go around this problem was not to mention exactly what they were observing. The subjects were told they were part of a study where study techniques were observed, which of course in this case is true but they did still not know in which ways they were being observed. I reckon their behavior would have been a lot different if they knew that their media management was being tracked.

Part 2

After reading Olle Bälter’s paper I figured research done by using quantitative methods leaves the result somewhat open for generalization as well as interpreting the results with statistic models. Something I thought was cleverly done in the paper was to use several questionnaires. I feel like the result can be better balanced in this way rather than being dependent on solely one questionnaire, as it will be easier to see trends thanks to the follow up questionnaires.

Quantitative research overall I would say is very good for gathering large amounts of data during a relatively small timespan, which later on can be analyzed fast in the representation of statistics. With the statistics it is somewhat possible to generalize further too. Another big advantage is that the answers given can be anonymous. I suppose however, that it could potentially be a disadvantage too in some situations as all replies might not be answered truthfully. Another disadvantage could be that fact that a lot of people are required in order to be able to build accurate statistics, this might be hard to achieve and costly as well.

Qualitative research is very different from quantitative. It is indeed good for analyzing topics on a deeper level than quantitative research would be able to achieve. However, it is very unlikely that qualitative research would be able to produce accurate statistics which also makes generalizing impossible.

Theme 2 reflection

The reading this week was a little bit different from the previous week. I felt like the two texts (The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction & Dialectic of Enlightenment) were somewhat easier to read compared to last week, but there was still a lot to think about after having finished the texts.

During the lecture Henrik talked a lot about the circumstances during which these texts were written, which certainly gave a new perspective and interpretation of the texts. The seminar started by some discussion about the term nominalism and what it implies. Henrik elaborated the concept further by getting back to Plato and the text we read the week before. He also talked quite a bit about Plato's Cave and how these concepts could seem connected. Further on during the seminar we compared the two texts and discussed what they had in common and what made them differ from one another. A lot of the discussion was also about reflection upon the society today with these perspectives in mind, which lead to some rather interesting discussions and argumentations about today's politics.

Overall I felt like the lecture and the seminar this week helped me get a way deeper understanding of the texts which made them far more interesting. Also the discussions at the seminar were very interesting and educative.

Theme 3

Journal

The journal I chose is called IEEE Xplore. IEEE  is short for Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, hence the journal provides articles mainly on electrical engineering and electronics, but also a bit of computer science. I believe this is relevant for media technology as this is what the infrastructure is built upon.

Paper

The paper of my choice is called Smart Grid Technologies: Communication Technologies and Standards. The paper investigates the technological aspect of the smart grid system and compares it to the regular system we have today.

I felt a bit skeptical when I started to read this paper. Already in the first few lines of the introduction our current grid system is explained as an old technology which has remained unchanged for about 100 years. However, this might be the case, but I felt like the paper is already trying to highlight the new system before it is even introduced properly. The aim of the paper is to analyze and compare the smart grid system to the current system, strictly from a technological point of view. Therefore mostly technical data is analyzed, such as data rates between different communication systems (which are an essential part of the smart grid technology).

The research method is based upon earlier knowledge within the subject and the comparison and analysis are done by listing advantages and disadvantages for each examined subject. At the end of the paper there is a very short conclusion which sums up the key points of the smart grid. I feel like the conclusion, and essentially the whole paper, is like an introduction of the subject to those who already are interested and willing to do deeper research within the subject.

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

Theory is something we use to rationalize, explain and understand things about our environment. Theories are abstract entities, which are used to describe and explain, but also enhance our understanding of the world. Theory may also be used to predict the future and to give an idea of intervention and action. This also implies that theory is not data, variables or diagrams. They are indeed connected to theory, but they are not theory themselves. These items are on a lower level, and can be part of a theory, for instance a certain theory might use a diagram to strengthen its message. Hypotheses and references are not theory either. A hypothesis is more of a guess, rather than being a theory with the purpose of explaining something, therefore it cannot be considered theory. References are not theory themselves either as they are simply pointing at a fact.

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?

I would argue that the theory in this text is of the category analysis. I do this because there is not much to the paper besides describing the technology and comparison between different technical systems.

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

I think the benefit of using only this theory in the paper is great for focusing on nothing but the purpose of the paper, which was quite limited to begin with. The whole idea of the paper is to give a better understanding of the technology and to provoke interest among other researchers within the same area. As this only represents the first level of the taxonomy of theory types, it leaves out a lot of information. Therefore it might not be suitable for generalization nor seeing the papers subject from a bigger perspective.

Theme 1 - reflection

During the first week, the week of theme 1, I read the two texts: Plato’s Theaetetus and the Preface to the second edition of Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. I must admit that reading these two texts was a really had task for me, as I have never studied any philosophy before. I read the texts but felt like I did not quite understand the full meaning of either one of them, but thanks to the lecture and the seminar things became a bit clearer to me.

During the lecture Johan mentioned sources of our knowledge today, which are mostly based upon naturalism and scientism. This made me reflect about the evolution of knowledge over the years which I think is rather interesting. The general concept of empiricism is something that I really believe in and agree with, and as far as I can see it is the most logical way of obtaining information about the environment and the world we live in. Now this is sort of the opposite of what we talked about during the seminar. Much of the time during the seminar was spent talking about a priori knowledge, which is a concept I had a hard time grasping.

To sum up the week, I have gained a lot of new insight and knowledge about subjects which I was not very familiar with earlier. I have also improved my ability to see things from a different perspective, which is quite necessary, considering the different style of this course compared to the more traditional ones.

Theme 2

Dialectic of Enlightenment

What is "Enlightenment"?

Enlightenment is about acquiring knowledge and base facts upon science rather than previous traditions. This train of thought corresponds very well to the society today where most knowledge is based upon science and empiricism.

What is "dialectic"?

Dialectic is a way of arguing for or against something or discussing a problem with the purpose of solving the problem. The dialectic process requires at least two people with different opinions regarding a subject. The problem is solved by arguing in a reasoned way.

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

The term nominalism is a discipline of regarding what exists. There are two different types of nominalism. The first kind of nominalism denies the existence of universal entities while the second type of nominalism denies the existence of abstract objects. I believe nominalism is an important concept of the text because it is connected to enlightenment and myths in a way so that it can either argue for or against both myths and enlightenment, depending on which of the two types of nominalism is regarded.

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

The myth seems to be sort of the opposite of enlightenment. The purpose of enlightenment is to get rid of old fashioned values which are not really based upon anything, rather than previous thoughts and tradition. These old fashioned values, traditions, or myths if you will, are way different from enlightenment as the latter is based upon empiricism and science. There was a part of the text which I liked in particular, and totally agree with. It says that humans are free of fear when there is no longer anything unknown, i.e. myths. The myths are then taken care of by enlightenment of the people and to get back to the question itself I would say that the myth in this text is simply an argument for enhancing the image of enlightenment.

The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity

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?

Superstructure and substructure are two terms which seek to explain the connection between the production and economy, also called substructure, and factors which are not directly linked to the production and economy themselves. Some of these factors are politics, law and culture which are all part of the term superstructure. These terms are essential for describing the typical class society, which is something not very wished for, at least from a Marxist point of view.

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?

Yes, according to Benjamin culture does indeed have revolutionary potentials. Lithography took the culture to a new level as there would be more products on the market than there was before with Woodcut graphic art being previous technology. Eventually the art of photography developed the culture even further and therefore I think it would be safe to say the he believed in the potentials. With this in mind, I would also say that his perspective is similar to the one of Adorno & Horkheimer.

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).

Perception can be acquired through the human senses and the mind, which makes me reflect upon the reading of last week about empiricism, which again is a central part of this statement. Benjamin discusses also, however, that perception can be historically determined. By this statement I believe he means that the perception can change over time. For instance, an item which might be emotionally valuable to me today might not have the same value after a certain period of time, as times goes by.

What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?

By aura he I believe he seeks to describe the properties of an object, seen and interpreted from a person’s point of view. Therefore the aura of an object may vary between different persons as it is based upon their own reflections. The aura of an art object however, is different. The aura may vary even further between different perceivers as it may mean different things depending on their earlier experiences. As the example in the text itself, the Greeks and the clerics of the Middle Ages experienced the same object in completely different ways, which would not probably have been the case with the mountain used to describe an aura of a regular object.

Theme 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?

As far as I understand Kant he believes that our cognition must conform to some sort of object that we are already familiar with in order for it to make any sense. This also means that establishing knowledge about an object a priori is nearly impossible, and all our attempts so far have resulted in nothing. I feel like Kant believes that a prior knowledge is rather useless and believes more in the school of empiricism. Therefore he suggests we should assume that everything conforms to our cognition, and by doing so we might improve our progress in the problems of metaphysics.

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 Soctrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?

My interpretation of this statement is that the eyes and ears are simply a medium used to collect information from our environment. This information is then processed by our minds and eventually turns into something useful that we can understand and relate to. Hence, I would say that we indeed see and hear through the eyes and ears rather than seeing and hearing with them, as the mind is what connects everything together and gives us an impression.

The meaning of empiricism is that knowledge is attained primarily from experience. This experience is collected over time by our senses, or rather through or senses. This brings back the focus to the question Socrates proposed. The theory about seeing and hearing through our eyes and ears is then essentially the same as empiricism as it is through these mediums we get our experience.