Theme 4: Quantitative research

My Article
This week I have chosen an article called Measuring Mobile Phone Use: Self-Report versus Log Data, written by Jeffrey Boase and Rich Ling. The article was published in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, volume 18, issue 4. This particular volume was released in June 2013. The article is formulated as an investigation on how accurate users’ perception of mobile phone use is compared to the actual log data of their use. They also want to investigate if there are differences in use between different demographics. The methodology for when people are asked to estimate their own use is in the article called “self-report”. Also worth noting is that when they talk about the concept of “use” they do in this case mean frequency of use.

The methodology that the authors uses themselves consists of both a collection of self-report data from a big set of mobile phone users, and a collection of log data from the same people’s mobile phones. The idea is then basically to map these two sets of data against each other and analyse what degree of accuracy the data provided by the self-reportings truthfully possess.

The self-report data was generated through a survey that was communicated to the consumers via Internet (and sometimes phone for those who did not have Internet access). The survey was conducted for Norwegian citizens between October and November in the year of 2008. Except for person profile questions, the survey consisted of two versions of a question regarding the users frequency of use. Firstly how they believed their activity was “yesterday” and secondly how they believed their activity was over longer periods of time, e.g. “weekly”. The survey had a total of 1382 respondents where server log data existed for 613 of these respondents. However, “only” 426 granted access to their log data so this was the number of respondents that the authors could work with in the comparison. A bit less than 1382, but still definitely enough to draw quantitative conclusions in my opinion!

What they later do in their analysis are different types of statistical analytic methods of the data. These provide the insight if the comparisons are statistically significant or not. They conduct a t-test in order to see if the comparison is statistically significant. For the demographic analysis they use both a simple regression and a logistic regression analysis of the data. An analytic method that I would probably have used myself in such a situation.

I cannot seem to find much problems with the methodology in this particular article. I believe that this is mainly because of the issue that they are investigating does not require many parameters or different answers. It is just a fair and square comparison. The demographic composition of the respondents also seems well distributed. I think the clearness and “crispness” of the methodology makes the paper very easily understandable and that the analysis becomes reliable as a result. One thing that you might argue for as a problem is of course that the results cannot be translated into any market, or any type of user, as the research was solely conducted at a certain time and place (Norway). The users were also all customers of a certain mobile operator, which could have influenced the result in a certain way. That, however, is not really a question of chosen methodology in this case, in my opinion. I cannot say that I learned much from the paper purely methodology wise. I have myself been using similar survey methods and different types of statistical analysis.

The Article by Bälter et al.
The purpose of the article is to investigate the relationships between physical activity level, perceived stress, and incidence of self-reported upper respiratory tract infection (URTI). They conducted a cohort study of 1509 Swedish men and women aged 20-60 years during a period of 4 months. A Web-based survey was made to collect information from the participants on how they lived, their disease status, their physical activity and their perceived stress. After analyzing the data, key conclusions were that people with moderate to high physical activity had a lower risk of URTI and that highly stressed people might benefit from physical activity.

Quantitative vs Qualitative Methodology
Quantitative studies, like the survey methodology used in the articles presented above, is a great thing when you want to analyse big sets of data and spot patterns in a big perspective. To use online based questionnaires is also an easy way of getting many people to answer your questions. Statistical analysis is generally also considered more reliable than arbitrary interpretations of smaller sets of data. A limitation when trying to spot these patterns is however the parameters that may affect the respondents responses or even what type of respondents that tend to answer such questionnaires. The selection of respondents and the formulation of the questions is something you will have to analyse thoroughly before you analyse the result’s patterns. Qualitative methods do however allow a more deep and personal answers to a questions. However, such methods are hard to generalize.

Evaluating and reflecting upon Theme 3

Another week, another topic! This time I found the theme more hands-on to what we may deploy when we conduct our thesis work and whatnot. It was all about discussing the concept of theory and theory in scientific articles. Somewhat more of the kind of work that I expected from this course before it started.

My spontaneous reaction to this week's theme is that it was very useful. I have witnessed a lot of confusion about what theory really is when people have written scientific texts here at KTH, not to say the least in regards of the thesis work we performed in the third grade. I have seen texts that has used the heading "theory" with a lot of content variations. I must admit that even I myself did not have an entirely sure idea about what theory really was, and what theory was not, before this week's theme. I must therefore say that I was very pleased with it. I believe it will prove to bring some clarity into the text formulation of my upcoming master thesis.

I believe that the seminars served their purpose as they brought further understanding to the concept. I think that it is always a good idea to get concrete examples of applied concepts, just as we got by discussing the different articles that we chose. The specific methodology of which we were asked to use in order to find our articles is also something that I may bring with me to my upcoming thesis work. Firstly, simply just looking at journal titles generally gives a great idea of what type of articles you may find in the specific journal. But also (and this is something that I have not been laying too much focus on before) looking at the impact factor of the journal gives a good idea of how much quality the journal is perceived to possess. That is a factor that I will definitely take with me into future text productions.

The article I chose was about the phenomenon of digital divides, a topic that I found interesting to read about in itself. I therefore found the "burden of reading" this week to be of more joy rather than burden. I therefore hope we get the chance to choose some more texts of our own in the upcoming weeks as well. I think a mix of conceptual texts for the week's theme, tied together with some text which you get to pick by yourself - like this week - was a great way to go.

Theme 3: Research and Theory

I chose a research journal called Journal of Communication. This particular journal is published by the International Communication Association and has so far been published in 63 different volumes. According to the journal's website, it concentrates on communication research, practice, policy, and theory, bringing to its readers the latest, broadest, and most important findings in the field of communication studies. It currently possess an impact factor of 2.011.

The specific article that I chose was published in the 63rd volume, issue 4, called Digital Divides From Access to Activities: Comparing Mobile and Personal Computer Internet Users. The article was first published online in july 2013. However, this particular journal issue was published in August. The authors are Katy E. Pearce and Ronald E. Rice. The reason for me choosing this specific article was soley because of the fact that its title appealed to me.

The article aims to explore how the digital divide, or digital inequality, may appear in different generic scenarios. This it does through three main questions:

1. Does the general usage gap model apply in unique contexts?
2. Are the two access devices differentially influenced by digital divide sociodemographic variables, and do they in turn differentially influence usage?
3. Are different Internet activities differentially influenced by the sociodemographic variables, the access device, and usage?

To determine their first question, the authors chooses the unique context of Armenia and perform their own data mining soley in this country. To answer the second and third question, the authors chooses to look closer into four parameters which they believe influences the digital divide the most. These are (1) access and usage, (2) device, (3) activity frequency and (4) activity type and breadth. In all of these areas, except for area 3 for some reason, they develop some hypotheses which they aim to answer by analysis of their method. 

Their method in this case was in the form of a survey which they carried out to handpicked Armenian households. With this survey data, they perform statistical analysis to determine if their hypotheses can still be valid or have to be discarded. After this they further discuss their results. The main findings of the article indicate that there are significant sociodemographic influences on all measured parameters. However, the device type can also significantly influence certain activites - but only on a computer.

To me, the paper feels a bit all over the place and not too cohesive or focused. Why did the authors per example only develop hypotheses for three out of four measured parameters? I also think their main questions could be a lot better formulated. I had to spend some minutes just rapping the head around in what direction the questions' words were heading.

What constitutes theory?

Hrastinski (2012) states that theory is an abstract entity that aims to describe and enhance understanding of the world and sometimes provide predictions of what will happen in the future. Furthermore, theory builds upon information and has to be confirmed or established by observations or experiments.

According to Staw & Sutton (1995), there is little agreement about what constitutes strong versus weak theory in science. However, there is more consensus that (1) references, (2) data, (3) variables, (4) diagrams, and (5) hypotheses are not theory.

Theories in my article

After studying the different theory types of Gregor (2006) closer, I would say that the specific theory type used in my paper would be type II, Explanation. The authors try to explain how the specific phenomena occurs and looks into how these questions have been handled now and in the past. Therefore it is not only an analysis, but it handles more dimensions as mentioned by Gregor in the theory type of Explanation.

Benefits & limitations

I believe that the more variables you introduce in a scientific method or theory, the more depth and deeper insights could be achieved. But you will at the same time be exposed to more potential pit falls and increase the demand for very highly qualitative material backing up the theory. Futhermore, you will of course have to think about what for what purpose you aim to write the text for. Different theories will serve different purposes. A text based on a theory of analysis does not have to be of less quality than a text of explanation and prediction if it serves the purpose of the text well. A conclusion you might draw from this is that areas with less previous research needs less "complex" theories in order to satisfy the needs of a research of good quality.

References

• GREGOR S. 2006. The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642.
• PEARCE K & RICE R. 2013. Digital Divides From Access to Activities: Comparing Mobile and Personal Computer Internet Users. Journal of Communication. Vol 63, issue 4, 721-744.
• SUTTON R I & STAW B M. 1995. What Theory is Not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371-384.

Evaluating and reflecting upon Theme 2

As I approached this week's theme, the mix of topics did not really make sense to me. Enlightenment, myth and mass media seemed like quite a strange combination. But after reading the text and attending the lecture it all made more sense. I must say that reading the text and understanding the concepts of it was this week a little bit easier compared to last week. I think this was both because of me getting used to the writing style and concepts presented in these kind of philisophical texts, but also because of this text being more concrete in its ideas and concepts in my mind. The authors examplified their reasonings with more hands-on media phenomenons which invited the reader to more easily get the full picture, I believe.

It was interesting to get a little more background of the text and its authors during this week's lecture. I actually looked up some on the authors myself even before the lecture as I was interested by my impression of the authors being somewhat a little bitter between the lines. And reading up on their background, I do not think it is strange for that being the case. One can only imagine how it was to witness the development of World War two first hand. To witness it as jewish and also being forced to migrate, must of course have been even more hopeless. When you take this background into account, it is understandable that the two had developed the specific critisism about mass media and the culture industry as they had. If there was any time in history where media was swarmed by deception and propaganda, the time of the second World War does of course rise as a top contender.

As I read through the blog posts of this week's theme I get struck by the fact that pretty much everyone mention that the text feels very applicable on today's society. This was something I thought about and wrote myself. I think this is quite interesting as the text is about culture and media, something that in my mind is everchanging - at least always developing into newer forms. Nevertheless, the foundations that modern media and culture relies on are still the same compared to these earlier days of mass media. Propaganda still exists, but most often in more variegated forms, and the deception of mass media is evident daily, however in more minor forms as well. One might argue that the work of a journalist, tweaking a story to get a more commercialized story, is a form of deception. That Adorno & Horkheimer's text was written in the wake of World War two makes their examples very evident and clear, which - in my opinion - increases the quality of it, as it becomes easier to understand and easier to apply on other time spans in history.

I think it was a great thing to add a question for the blog posts regarding own thoughts about concepts or ideas that you found interesting yourself. It enjoyed to get enlightened by competent own thoughts on topics varying from social control to branding terminology. More of that please!

Theme 2: Critical media studies

Enlightenment

According to Adorno & Horkheimer, enlightenment can in its widest sense be described as the advance of thought. It is a phenomenon that has always aimed to liberate human beings from fear and instead install them as masters of their own fears and thoughts. 

Adorno & Horkheimer makes the point that humans believe themselves free from these fears when anything unknown has ceased to exist. This has determined the path of demythologization - enlightenment - which equates the living with the nonliving as myth had equated the nonliving with the living. Through this they state that enlightenment somewhat is a radical fear of mythology, which I believe to be a fair conclusion drawn on their presented background.

Meaning and function of "myth"
Adorno & Horkheimer literally state that a myth "sought to report, to name, to tell of origins - but therefore also to narrate, record, explain". Through this quote you can dechiffer both their definition of meaning and functionality of a myth - that it is some kind of narrative description of the world and its history.

As also stated under the "Enlightenment" topic, a myth equates the nonliving with the living as enlightenment equates the living with the nonliving. It is therefore also fair to say that mythodology is less "kowledgebased" than when talking about enlightenment in this case. But if you remember Russells text in Theme 1, knowledge is still something that is based on a foundation of belief. So even in this case, the difference of mythodology and "enlighted knowledge" may not be viewed as black and white as one may like to incentively think.

Old and new media

Firstly, you have to bear in mind that the text was written in 1944. This makes the authors capable of talking of "media-steps" that we today would not perhaps view as so dominant. However, they make some interesting points when discussing the differences in the older "art" och "lone subject" medias, compared to the newer mass medias. They per example bring up the step from telephone to radio, where the former liberally permitted the user to play the subject role, whereas the latter makes everyone equally into listerners. They also make the point that newer medias fuses older medias together. Such as the way television aims at a synthesis of radio and film.

Culture industry

The culture industries were formed as the old media forms started moving into the newer mass media forms that could reach a whole lot more people. Films or radio shows no longer needed to present themselves as art, as bigger corporations or governments stepped in to handle productions and distributions. A culture industry, the authors argue, is an industry that tries to please each and everyone with standardized products - rather than producing "specialized art".

Mass media to mass deception

As mass media possess tremendous reach and, at the same time, possess quite an extensive amount of believed credibility (maybe especially in these earlier days) it therefore also possess a great power of opinion. As the authors state, mass medias can without much problem take on a deceptive form of a disinterested, impartial authority. They exemplify this with the contemporary times of fascism, as radio became the universal deceptive mouthpiece of Hitler.

Interesting concepts/terms

What I found most interesting with the text is how applicable it is with the times of today. Then I especially think of the deceptive media. I believe it is fascinating how people in general have not developed the concept of source critisism or questioning much further in these cases. The force of mass deception is daily evident in the media - maybe in more varigated and smaller forms than the fascism of the 30s/40s, but I believe even the journalistic impact of tweaking a story to get a more commercialized story to be a form of deception. Other than that, there are plenty of media networks that is governed by opinion in today's western world. The Fox network in the US is a great example. More extreme, governmental examples can be found in states like China or, probably the most extreme, in North Korea. I do not think that people living in these countries question much that is being said on these networks in general. Deceptive mass media is therefore still very existing, but perhaps existing in even more deceptive forms.

Evaluating and reflecting upon Theme 1

This week's topic was a nice change of mindset compared to the general coursework of KTH. Firstly, I appreciated the sections about knowledge and "truths". I believe academia, and business not to say the least, to often be quite black and white when it comes to knowledge. Knowledge is mostly taken for granted in an absolute fashion that is not often questioned. Reading through Russell's takes on the matter was like a puff of fresh air onto my otherwise quite absolute-truth-minded face. Before reading the text, I somewhat viewed science as some sort of collection of thruths based on the collection of some sort of evidence. I do now believe that you can illustrate the collected science more like a massive research project where smaller or bigger research contributions add to the total science consensus. 

My views have therefore not entirely changed, but I believe it is important to illustrate science more like a collection of evidence rather than a collection of truths. Evidence can always be referred to as evidence, and be argued for being so. A truth may however be relative, and even more "relatively absolute" to a person in question. I do therefore believe that there may emerge several issues when discussion truths rather than discussing evidence. I also think that you can more easily accept that evidence may change over time (as we discover new ways and numbers in research) rather than truth changes as well. With all this been said, I want to point out that the text did of course not change my belief in science - i believe it is the way to go in order to explain our environment and reality. Russell did however make me come to some epiphanies regarding terminology through his text.

To build further upon these thoughts, I also thought his takes on sense-data enriched the idea that the word "truth" is somewhat problematic. At least you have to know that a truth is relative to peoples perspective, values and so forth. That may be hard and irritating for us engineer students to take in, but it may be valuable. This is also a topic that I brought up in my last blog post.

I believe it was a good methodology to answer a couple of questions regarding key parts of the text. That certainly made me dig deeper into these parts and contemplate on topics that I otherwise would have probably just swept by. As known, we sadly did not have the chance to discuss these and other interesting topics in the seminar- since there wasn't any. But I read a couple of other blog posts and I actually got a bit inspired by several people who had made interesting parallels between Russells thoughts and our daily life. Mostly parallels with our daily life as university engineering students that is.

Theme 1: Theory of science

Sense-data

Russell introduces the term sense-data when he presents the example of human perception of physical objects, in the form of a table. There he makes the point that our perception of the table relies on our different immediate sensations. These sensations are things such as colours, sounds, smells etc. The term sense-data is therefore introduced as an attempt to explain that each and everyone of us has an unique perception of what a specific object is and what it looks like. The immediate sense-data for a deaf and colour blind person may probably be different from a hearing person with sunglasses. The object is therefore not absolute, but relative and subjective to the beholder and relies on his or her sense data. This also makes Russell question if the physical object (or “matter”) even exists, as it may “just” be based on our senses and impressions.

Proposition and Statement of fact 

As far as I understand the gist of Russells text correctly, he argues that the terms “proposition” and “statement of fact” are descriptive expressions of reality with a certain degree of truth to them. At least that may be the key connotations of them. However, what separates the two is that the latter possess a greater “truth value”. 

When you talk about a “truth value” in this context, it refers to the general belief - the consensus - of people. You can therefore describe a preposition to be (according to Russell but in my own words) something you believe from a certain acquaintance to matter or ideas, based on your sense- or historical data. A statement of fact is, however, a proposition that possess a widespread consensus. This can be achieved by performing real life “testing” of the proposition.

Definite descriptions 

According to Russel, a “definite description” is a term used for something that is determined and singular. This is contrary to the term which he calls “ambiguous description”, which is undetermined. He exemplifies this by bringing up the phrase “a man” as an example of an ambiguous description, whilst “the man with the iron mask” in this case is an example of a definite description. I would myself however argue that definite descriptions (the so-and-so) can still possess a certain degree of ambiguousness as there might be different connotations for “the man with the iron mask” for different people, depending on their experiences. Perhaps the term “indefinite description” would be less ambiguous than the term “ambiguous description”.

Knowledge 

Russell talks about knowledge in a broad sense, but argues that there are, predominantly, two ways in which something may be known: by means of a description and judgement (in which one or several parts are judged to be related as they are in fact related) or by means of acquaintance (which comprises one’s perception and experience). He therefore states that “true belief” does not constitute what is the consensus of the meaning of the word “knowledge”. A “true belief” will always be a belief, no matter how much “truth” it possess. 

Furthermore, he talks about the “nature” of a thing, which he argues has the meaning of “all the truths about the thing”. This further spurs on that knowledge is relative and that possessing an acquaintance of a thing does not necessarily mean that you possess much knowledge about the thing, or hardly anything about the “nature” of the thing. You need to know how the thing relates to its reality. He gives the example of him visiting a dentist. Even though he is acquainted with his own toothache and his dentist is not, the dentist still possess greater knowledge about the nature of the toothache than the patient himself.