Theme 3 - Research and Theory (part 2, reflection)

For this week's theme we delved into the world of theory and research. I appreciated the step away from philosophy, into the more empiric world of research. Although I thought I had a pretty good idea of how theory was defined before this week’s theme begun, I would learn that this wasn't the case. Theory, like philosophy as it turns out, is multifaceted and up to discussion. The borderland between the different types of theories is something I haven’t really considered earlier. I always thought of theory as strict scientific theory with solid proof and tangible conclusions. After partaking in this week’s theme I have come to terms with theory as a non-tangible entity that sometimes is required in order to reach more solid results. This can be related to how philosophy sometimes needed to go back to more theocentric viewpoints to get the best of both worlds.

The seminar mainly revolved around the theory type “prediction”. I think it was confusing to learn about the duality that comes with defining different theory types. Prediction has to be a strong proposal or has to have a good basis in order to be a solid prediction. This basis was described during the seminar as something related to explanation about the circumstances of the prediction. If that is the case, how can we separate it from EP theory? Many different scenarios were described during the seminar and most of them were regarded as being strictly analytic. I think it is difficult to determine which theory belongs in which “box”. Dahlberg made some good arguments regarding the detail and categories presented in the different scenarios; eg. How did the researches account for demographic, location or gender specification? I agree that in order to specify the type of theory we must first analyze the details of the preparation for the research.

During the seminar we were divided into smaller groups and set to discuss our respective texts. I like the small group concept but also think that the balance of the seminar was a little off as half the groups didn't have time to present their discussions in the end. I prefer a more structured layout starting with a well-thought briefing of the topic, a short recap of the lecture, in case someone missed it or didn't understand it. After the briefing we should be divided in groups. Merely wishing and counting on all us students to bring the context and definitions into the seminar, I think, will leave many questions unanswered in the end.

Theme 4 - Quantitative research (part 1)

Part 1:

Paper: “Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching 

while studying”, by Larry D. Rosen, L. Mark Carrier, Nancy A. Cheever 

California State University, Dominguez Hills, United States 

Journal: Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 948–958 

Impact factor: 2.067 

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

The paper was an observational study of studying behavior. The methods used were observation and interviews. The observations were conducted by student observers and the survey-type interview was performed after the minute-by-minute observation was completed. The benefit of using student observers and a standardized survey is that it is quantifiable. The process of finding new participants by letting students ask their friends also simplifies reaching out to larger quantity of test subjects. The limitation of these methods is that they may cause an unbalanced test group. The observation performed by counting the number of windows (tabs?) open on the computer might also leave inaccurate results as this may not be a proof of actual multi-tasking. Multiple windows or tabs can relate to the same task. 

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

I learned that there are many different ways to conduct a quantitative research study and that even in journals with a high impact factor a lot of limitations or methodological problems in studies can occur. 

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

I think that a methodological problem with the study was that the participating students were not objectively chosen. The chosen participants were then asked to recruit up to three other students. This friendship among participants along with the student observation procedures might have contributed to skewed results. Another main problem was that the participants knew they were being observed. This might also have affected their behavior patterns. They were told to that the study involved “observations of how people typically study”. I believe that this instruction may cause students to think or contemplate more about their study pattern and study in a different way than they normally would. In my opinion, an ideal method would be to randomly select all of the participants individually and make the observations by using eye tracking technology, perhaps not letting the students know exactly when they were being observed. After a certain amount of time in the “test” environment I think that the student’s studying behavior would fall back to a more default or regular pattern, thus making the observation results more accurate and interesting. 

At the start of the study, the chosen participants were distinguished by their race and median income. The conclusion was that there “were no differences in median income between school groups”. I question the routine the authors used to come to this conclusion. How you can tell the median income of all student groups by looking at the median income from each zip code? Do people with similar income automatically live in the same areas? I argue that many averages don’t have to result in an accurate answer. I think that there is an issue with separating and dividing the participants into smaller groups and then taking multiple averages of those groups to eventually land a “conclusion”. Instead, what you are doing by this is watering down the data until you get something else in entirety. Sometimes it is better to leave conclusions out if you do not have sufficient data to make the claim.

Part 2:

Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative methods?

The benefits of using quantitative methods are that you are able to gather data from a larger group of participants. The data obtained is more generalizable than that from qualitative methods and it permits you to see patterns and even acquire accurate results. Some limitations of quantitative methods come to light when researching complex scenarios. In the study “Physical Activity, Stress, and Self-Reported Upper Respiratory Tract Infection” by Olle Bälter et al. it was sometimes necessary to generalize data or skip certain participants due to the complex nature of the study. By having questionnaires involving both influenza and the “common cold” the symptoms sometimes coincided, leaving the results partly conflicting. Instead of solid results, the differences between the two cases instead lead to a general conclusion based on patterns or trends in results. Another limitation of quantitative methods and questionnaires is the difficulty of validating the questionnaire items. Perhaps the results are colored by the structure of the questions rather than by the participants.

Which are the benefits and limitations of using qualitative methods?

The main benefit of qualitative research is that it, unlike quantitative research, can obtain qualitative data. Qualitative data is usually more abstract and less tangible data, e.g. experiences and recitations of feelings or emotions. The reason quantitative data normally doesn't contain qualitative aspects is that such data is more difficult to quantify, the amount of resulting data is too heavy to process. The main limitation of qualitative methods is that they require an inevitably subjective interpretation. Qualitative methods with fewer participants lead to results that are individual and difficult to generalize accurate results or general conclusions from. Qualitative studies say more about the target study group participants than about the general public.

Theme 3 - Research and Theory (part 1)

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

To understand what theory is, we can go back to it's roots. The word "theory" stems from the ancient Greek word "thea" (a view), evolved into "theōros" (spectator) and later on to "theōria" (contemplation, speculation). In modern times the definition of theory has broadened into several different related meanings, but briefly it can be explained as a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.

Gregor (2006) provides us with some insight by distinguishing five interrelated types of theory:
Theory for analyzing (descriptive, what something is), explaining (explains how or why some phenomena occurs), predicting (what will be), explaining + predicting (EP, a combination of the first three types), and theory for design and action (how to do something).

The word "theory" is often misunderstood and used in the wrong context. Sutton and Staw (1995) lists references, data, variables, diagrams and hypotheses as words that are often confused for theory. The difference between theories and hypotheses, for example, is that a hypothesis attempts to explain or predict phenomena by proposing or guessing an explanation. Theory on the other hand is eventually formed after extensive scientific testing of hypotheses. A hypothesis can be right or wrong while a theory is considered true (until disproven) based on scientific methods. Sutton and Staw (1995) concludes their text by arguing that today's quantitative research lacks in theoretical emphasis and that empiricism in qualitative endeavors isn't appreciated enough. I agree and can imagine that many interesting theories have been rejected too soon in the process of revision, mainly because they were too theoretical according to today's standards.

Write a short description of the journal and what kind of research it publishes.

I have chosen a paper from the journal 'Computers & Education', an interdisciplinary technically-based computing and communication related forum with focus on all aspects of cognition, education and training. The impact factor of the journal is 2.621.

Write a short summary of the paper and provide a critical examination of, for example, its aims, theoretical framing, research method, findings, analysis or implications.

"The power of play: The effects of Portal 2 and Lumosity on cognitive and noncognitive skills"

This paper is written by Valerie J. Shute, Matthew Ventura and Fengfeng Ke. It is recent study that was received 11 May 2014 and accepted 23 August 2014. It is due to be published in Computers & Education, Volume 80, in January 2015.

Looking at the title, the object of the study becomes quite self-explanatory. 77 undergraduates were randomly assigned to play either a video game (Portal 2) or a brain training game (Lumosity) for 8 hours. Before and after the game-play, participants completed tests related to problem solving, spatial skill, and persistence. Results showed that Portal 2 players had a significant advantage over Lumosity in all three categories and that Portal 2 players actually improved in spatial skills from pretest to posttest.

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?

The major theory in the study is that some cognitive and non-cognitive skills can be improved by playing video-games or using digital learning platform similar to games. The theories mainly applied could be characterized as prediction. The authors analyze the structure of the games and predict the results based on earlier theoretical findings in a similar context. They present the concepts and cognitive aspects involved but they don't explain why effects occur.

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

By predicting a result based on earlier research and testing it, the study can function as a complement to a larger research field and provide a basis for future research. What this study doesn't perform well is explaining or contemplating why the acquired effects occur. The result of this is that the study becomes strictly empirical and in a way loses it's depth. By having a larger emphasis on the theoretical parts, like Sutton and Staw (1995) suggested, I think that the study would have been more interesting.

Theme 2 - Critical media studies (part 2, reflection)

At the start of the seminar the seminar leader, Henrik Åhman, asked us all if we had fully comprehended the last week’s topic regarding Kant and Plato’s theories, knowledge and concepts. After receiving a semi confident response from the group he then proceeded to go through the topics again as a short repetition. I feel this was a great and well needed initiative as we got to hear it explained from someone else and in a more concise manner. We discussed how the previous topic relates to this week’s and he presented Plato’s allegory of the cave in a visual way. Marx, Freud and Nietzsche are regarded as "the big doubters", and it is this way of critical thinking that relates to Kant. The part about nominalism was inriguing and I agree that while we need empirism, we also need to question it in order to address the more soft or abstract subjects, such as democracy.

During the recent lecture and seminar, I particularly valued Henrik’s focus on the contextual aspects of the texts and authors. I hadn’t really thought about how much the surrounding political and cultural environment tend to color and affect the different views of the authors. It was interesting to hear the short anecdotes from the lives of the authors and also the history (or lack thereof) of philosophical breakthroughs in Sweden. 

Particularly interesting was the group question regarding the connection between Enlightenment and the culture industry and how the culture industry deceives us, according to Adorno and Horkheimer. Discussion about this sparked on and Henrik related this to the revolutionary potentials of culture. He referred to the pacifying effects of religion, according to Marx, and proceeded to connect this to how the mass media in Adorno and Horkheimer’s world perhaps is pacifying the American people. Instead of promoting revolutionary thoughts, the promise of happiness and freedom in the US media may in fact be preserving the passive societal structures. Although it comes off as creative, nice and free, it is constructed to not bring forth or instill revolutionary thoughts in the general public. I would say this is proof of the revolutionary potentials of culture, as it affects how the society chooses to live. Causing people to suppress their revolutionary thoughts is a revolutionary potential in itself.

Overall, I like the structure of this week’s seminar more than the last week’s. Last week I had a complaint of the one-way lecture-style structure of the seminar and that it caused too few people to participate in the discussions. My advice was that after the seminar leader has finished with his go-through of the topic, the seminar group should instead be divided into smaller groups for discussion. I don’t know if anyone saw that advice, but this seminary's structure was exactly like the one I had suggested. I think this worked much better. More people participated and dared to share their reflections on the topic. We even had time left to present the results of the discussions to Henrik afterwards.

Theme 1 - Theory of knowledge and theory of science (part 2, reflection)

After the lecture and seminar relating to the theme I feel that I have obtained more insight into what the texts really were about. Not being used to reading philosophical texts made this assignment a challenge, but by partaking in the seminar some topics were clarified.

Johan did well in explaining the concepts of analytic vs. synthetic judgements, primary vs. secondary qualities and Kant's categories (quantity, quality, relation and modality). I think it was interesting to learn about Plato's critical idealism and the intertwined expression "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind?". Particularly interesting was the statement during the lecture that Plato's rationalism was, in a way, foreseeing the copernican revolution. Instead of connecting everything to a higher purpose, a will of god, we can instead adhere ourselves to empiricism. Eventually this thinking lead to the Aristotelian/telliological world view being replaced by a mechanical worldview. It's fascinating how both Kant and Plato were before their time, considering the impact their philosophy and critique has had on the philosophical field even today. Johan helped clarifying the importance of these contributions to the field and provided a new viewpoint to the idea and notion of knowledge. We have to have a concept of knowledge in order to research and understand what knowledge really is.

Regarding the layout and structure of the seminar, I think it would have been better if more people joined in on the discussion. For example, by involving people through smaller group discussions, perhaps including the personal blog posts, the seminar activity would have increased in a positive way.

Theme 2 - Critical media studies (part 1)

1.      Dialectic of Enlightenment

(a)   What is "Enlightenment"?

Enlightenment is closely linked to knowledge and the thought process of attaining such. By educating oneself to reason and rationality, people became enlightened and were, to some degree, liberated of the fear that can stem from relying on myths and fantasy. The writers refer to enlightenment as a dispelling or disenchantment of myths.

(b)   What is "dialectic"?

Dialectics is a way of reasoning or debating that involves putting different concepts, ideas or opinions on separate ends of an argument. By logically and rationally discussing the alternatives one can acquire a wider insight and perhaps establish which side is closer to the truth.

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

Nominalism is a metaphysical position regarding what does and does not exist. For example, nominalists usually consider concepts originating in thoughts unreal. Universals such as emotions or other arbitrarily defined human qualities are merely results of the human mind and do not exist in reality. Nominalism is an important concept in the text as it relates to the change in attitude that enlightenment brought towards the mystical and unknown. Essentially, nominalists find myth and fantasy abstract, and thereby incomplete. Although nominalists reject thought up concepts, names and numbers are acceptable to most, as they are considered valuable tools for categorizing groups and further bringing on the enlightenment.

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

Myth is referred in the text as false clarity, being both obscure and luminous at once. Myth is, according to the writers, closely correlated and intertwined with enlightenment. Mythology is the origin of the world view that later became radicalized and rationalized into enlightenment. Myths stem from the projections of the subject itself and functions as a comparative measure to how the world used to think. By demythologizing existing myths, using formal logic and calculations, enlightenment can be achieved.

Side note:

Although myths are constantly being disenchanted due to enlightenment, they are still very present in today's society. For example, the myth of the internet as a magical wonder, resulting in over-speculated and overvalued stock options in internet related companies. This later caused the internet bubble to form and burst, affecting a large part of the global tech industry negatively.

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

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

Cultural production consists of two parts, the substructure (base) and the superstructure. The substructure consists of the physical components of a society or system, e.g. banks, paintings and churches. The superstructure goes beyond that and also refers to the corresponding sociopolitical/cultural components, such as law, art and religion. Cultural production from a Marxist point of view states that changes in the substructure particularly affect the superstructure, while changes to the superstructure slowly transform the substructure. I think this point of view is interesting because it describes the relation between economic and cultural changes in societies.

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

Benjamin describes photography as the first truly revolutionary means of production. The reason for this is how photography brought on the transition of classic painted art, with its soul and uniqueness, to the new mass-produced copies, causing them to lose their uniqueness and thereby their ritual "aura". This transition of "pure" art changes, or reverses, the entire function of art with a negative result.

"Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice - politics"

This is an example from Benjamin of how mechanical reproduction can revolutionize not just technology and arts but also entire cultures. Benjamin's perspective differs from the perspectives of Adorno and Horkheimer in the way that it's more concerned about the cultural effects of mass-production, rather than the positive outcomes of spreading knowledge and enlightenment more effectively.

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

Benjamin, like Kant, describes how people perceive the world through senses rather than objects leaving an exact imprint on the brain. While Kant doesn't differentiate between natural and historical perception, meaning they are both automatically intertwined, Benjamin separates them into these two different categories. Naturally determined perception is what your senses experience, proceeding from your own mind only, while historically determined perception changes with acquired time, experience and knowledge of historical events and your surroundings.

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

Benjamin differentiates auras from natural objects and art objects in that the aura from traditional art objects is derived from the uniqueness and authenticity of the structure in the art. The auras of artwork can be perceived differently depending on the subject experiencing them. Auras in natural objects come from sensory experience, through the phenomenon of distance and light. Benjamin refers to a scenario in which he is resting on a summer afternoon being surrounded by natural objects overwhelming his senses with their auras of distance, light and shadows.

Theme 1 - Theory of knowledge and theory of science (part 1)

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?

My interpretation of Kant’s view and writing on this matter is that he urges society and mankind to revolutionize the way we think about metaphysics. Instead of assuming that cognition through metaphysics must automatically conform to objects, we must broaden our views and dare to challenge that thought. By conducting experiments, where we presuppose that objects instead must conform to our cognition, we may be able to make progress and even solve problems of metaphysics. Kant exemplifies this “shifting of viewpoints” by telling us the story of how Nicolaus Copernicus formed heliocentric hypothesis in order to make sense of the celestial movements and thus eventually giving name to the revolutionary astronomical model Copernican heliocentrism. Objects conforming to our cognition, I would presume, means that we as humans should look within us at our initial perception of understanding and knowledge of objects. Instead of focusing on the characteristics of objects we should look at how we initially interpret observations, theories and how our cognitive qualities as individuals play a role in what the end result will be. Acquired knowledge depends to a greater extent on the beholder perception and the minds of thinkers rather than “preexisting” but undiscovered variables deducted from observing an object.

I think that metaphysics in it’s definition is bound to stay “meta”. Science has been formed and migrated from a basis of metaphysics when metaphysicists started to look for proof to their theories. In my mind metaphysics is a scientific equivalent of brainstorming and I don’t see the absolute need of “securing” a certain scientific path for it. However, like brainstorming, I think metaphysics would benefit from shifted perspectives and new methods.

2. At the end of the discussion of the definition "Knowledge is perception", Socrates argues that we do not see and hear "with" the eyes and the ears, but "through" the eyes and the ears. How are we to understand this? And in what way is it correct to say that Soctrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?

Like Kant, Socrates believes that knowledge is related to how the human mind perceives and interprets the information retrieved from its sensory receptors. The eyes and ears in this context are merely forms of medium. It is up to us as individuals to make our own interpretation of the sensory information. Socrates advocates that initial knowledge thereby is arbitrarily defined regarding to the perception of individuals, their experience and opinions in beforehand. The experience-based theory of empiricism is closely related to this definition of knowledge but requires evidence in the form of multiple sources of different individuals’ experience, experiments and observations in order to gain validity. As individuals’ views of knowledge are relative to their own perceptions and differ in characteristics and conclusions, it is required that we form a common ground, an average of perceptions, in order to obtain a truer, more finite, knowledge.