Theme 4: Quantitative research

Part 1

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

I have chosen the paper "The association between having access to computers and Internet and educational achievement for primary students in Brazil". They examine if and how Internet access at home affects pupils educational results.

They used data from a survey of 7 million Brazilian 5th and 9th grade students. The benefit of this method is quite obvious; the large amount of data. It would have been impossible to conduct a qualitative research with 7 million participants. The limitation of this method is that they only have numbers to analyze. It would have been interesting if the students could have explained how and why internet access at home affected their performance at school.

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

They used a third-party company's survey and connected it with a record of school results. They didn’t conduct any own survey, they just linked data and analyzed it. This is efficient and makes it possible to get large amount of data.

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

As I mentioned above, the authors didn’t conduct the survey themselves. Therefore they had no option to customize to questions.

Part 2

1. Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative methods?

The benefits of using a quantitative method are that you can collect large amounts of data with relatively little effort. A quantitative method is clearly structured and the result is possible to quantify, which generates an objective research. Though, the result is mere numbers and it can be difficult to conduct a deeper analyze.

2.Which are the benefits and limitations of using qualitative methods?

The benefits of using a qualitative method are that it “measures” soft values, stuff that cannot be displayed as numbers. This generates a subjective research. A qualitative method is less structured than a quantitative; the results may be very different between the participants. It is often harder to collect large amounts of data, simply because a qualitative method is more time-consuming than a quantitative. 

Theme 3 - post

This week was both confusing and in some ways easier to grasp than previous themes. Theory, as a common term, is something everybody can relate to and most of us are able to give some simple definition; something like “theory tries to explaining how things work”. But it is not that kind of theory this theme addresses. We were assigned to do a critical analyze of a scientific paper. This is something I have some previous experience of since previous courses at KTH. Though, it was difficult to pinpoint what kind of theory, if it contained any theory at all, the paper presented.

There are many pitfalls that you have to avoid when you define theory; I find it especially hard to distinguish some hypothesis from theory. But after the lecture and especially the seminar with Leif, I’ve got a better hold of it. Even though I cannot exactly say what a theory is, and maybe that is because it can be interpret differently. After the seminar I agree with Sutton and Staw; it is a lot easier to define what theory is not.

After the seminar I felt that I may have interpreted the paper wrong, and a re-read may result in a different analyze.

Theme 3: Research and theory - PRE

JOURNAL

I have chosen the journal Computers & Education with the impact factor of 2.63. The journal’s title is pretty self-explanatory; computers as an educational tool are rapidly growing stronger. This journal contains papers discussing computing and communication technology in aspect of cognition, education and training.

PAPER

The paper I have chosen, The power of play: The effects of Portal 2 and Lumosity on cognitive and noncognitive skills, is published in the journal Computers & Education. It was an easy choice once I found it. This paper examines if playing the games Portal 2 and Lumosity have any impact on peoples problem solving skill, spatial skill, and persistence. This really caught my attention since I have played Portal 2 a lot. The authors’ conclusion is that Portal 2 showed a statistically significant advantage over Lumosity on each of the three different skills.

Critical examination

The paper is well written and interesting from start to finish. They specified four hypotheses in the beginning of the paper. These hypotheses were followed up and discussed with satisfaction, nothing is forgotten. Their method consisted of a test where 77 randomly assigned students played either the video game Portal 2 or the brain training game Lumosity for 8 hours (across 1-2 weeks). Both before and after the gaming period, the participants completed tests (approximately 1 hour) related to problem solving skill, spatial skill, and persistence. The method is quantitative because it only gathers raw data from the tests, there is no elaborating input from the participants. A test with 77 participants, each spending a total of 10 hours, contributes to a more solid impression.

QUESTIONS

1) To explain what theory is is really difficult, accordingly to Sutton and Staw (1995) it is much easier to explain what theory is not. They argue that theory is not references, neither data, neither lists of variables/constructs, neither diagrams nor hypotheses. This excludes many things that are often mistaken as theory and helps us to pin point what really theory is. Theory can be described as the answer to queries of why (Sutton & Staw, 1995). This is probably the most understandable for a first year student. Below is a more detailed but also more advanced definition.

Accordingly to Gregor (2006) there are four primary goals of theory:

-          Analysis and description, describes what something is.

-          Explanation, explains how and why things happen.

-          Predication, predict what will happen in the future.

-          Prescription, description of the methods/structures used when creating it.  

2) Accordantly to me, the theory used in the paper follows Gregor’s second theory; explanatory. The authors analyses the result of the conducted study, they also explain why and how the results occurred. They explain the causality between the gameplay and the skills that is improved. Though they do not predict anything.

3) Explanatory theory provides a simple understanding of the subject. Though it is often explained under specified circumstances and therefore generalization may not be applicable.

Theme 2 - Reflections

These to texts was, for me, much easier to read and to interpret than the texts from the previously theme. I read the texts, participated in the lecture and also read some summaries of both texts to prepare for the seminar. But it turned out that I did not fully understand any of the texts. Håkan did a really good job at the seminar to get us to understand.

The most interesting thing we discussed at the seminar was Adorno and Horkheimer’s thoughts about the relation between nominalism and realism. They think it is very important to have both perspectives, otherwise it is easy to get a skewed view of the world. If one only live by nominalism, or empiricism, all abstract values disappears. For example the human value is something very important, but you cannot measure it and therefore it is forgotten by empiricism. To live in a just and fair world we need more than just facts, we need insights that are born from ideas and rational thinking.

Håkan said a wise thing during the seminar that I will probably carry with me for a long time; to fully understand a text, one have to be aware of the writer’s situation at the time he or she wrote the text. With that perspective both Benjamin’s and Adorno and Horkheimer's texts gave me new insights. Both texts are written during the late 1930s and the early 1940s. Capitalism, fascism and nazism was a reality during this period. But both texts differ in one significant way; Benjamin lived as a Jew in Nazi Germany and Adorno & Horkheimer lived in the USA. This is obviously two totally different situations that both generated different perspectives and opinions. 

Theme 2: Critical media studies

1.

a)    What is "Enlightenment"?

I interpret Adorno and Horkheimer's way of describing enlightenment as a disenchanting and demythologizing of the world by translating life into math and physical laws. Knowledge gave people an escape route from blind belief to insight.

b)    What is "dialectic"?

It is a way of investigating what is the most truthful of different opinions; discussing in a sophisticated way and listening to all facts and opinions. To know what is true, you must know what is not true.

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

Nominalism is a doctrine that says that all particular objects exist, but universals or general ideas are just names without actual meaning. This is important because it is similar to the mindset of enlightenment; knowledge is the nucleus and all other things is just made up and therefore do not exist.

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

Myths are untruth explanations of unknown phenomena’s made up by humans because of the fear of not knowing (even if it is a lie, it is better than nothing). The function of myths in this text is to highlight the problem of not having enough knowledge.

2.

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?

Substructure contains the means of production, e.g. machines, tools and raw material. In this context I think it is the e.g. paintings, movies, pencils and artists. Superstructure is everything that the substructure is not, things not directly connected to the production. For example laws, religion and politics. In this context I think it is the work of art itself.

The point of analyzing cultural production from this perspective is primarily to get a grasp of in what direction culture is developing. Substructure shapes superstructure. If the substructure changes, it will affect the superstructure. Changes in the substructure are fast meanwhile changes in the superstructure are very slow.

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?

Yes, Benjamin argues that the culture indeed have revolutionary potentials. A paintings purpose is not to be spread worldwide via newspapers or television shows. Movie and photography, on the other hand, made it easier to convey a specific message to a large crowd. Movie and photography are very persuasive art forms and if you are able to easily spread them to a large amount of people, you sure have big influence.

Adorno & Horkheimer believes that knowledge is great and the evolution of culture has led to easier spreading of knowledge, which is something they like. On the contrary, Benjamin doesn’t fully embrace the evolution of the culture mainly because of the risk for reproduction and forgery.

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).

I think Benjamin means that naturally determined perception is when people perceive things using their own experiences and feelings. This may vary between different people and therefore the same thing can be perceived in different ways. By historically determined perception I believe it is when people’s perception is influenced by historical events and the fact that culture evolves and is not the same as it was yesterday. One example from Benjamin’s text is the decline of the Roman Empire which led to great shifts of population and also different art and a new kind of perception.

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

A person’s aura is their charisma, an invisible attribute that is hard to explain. Aura is something you can’t measure. An object can also have an aura. Benjamin defines it as a “unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may be”. Benjamin also argues that a reproduction of a painting, perfectly painted, still misses something; the presence of space and time. A reproduction doesn’t have an aura. The difference between natural objects and art objects is that natural objects are all unique and therefore have an aura meanwhile art objects can be reproduced and therefore doesn’t have an aura.

Theme 1 - reflections

The first theme is done and I must admit that it was difficult for me. I have never had a lecture in philosophy before and I am not used to read this kind of texts, hence it was a bit of a struggle. It was really hard for me to get a grasp of all the thoughts and concepts in these two texts. Once I finally thought I knew what they meant, the next sentence confused me again.

Kant’s text was by far the most difficult to understand, therefore Kant was focused of both at the lecture and the seminar. This helped me to get a better understanding of what Kant and Plato means. But still, I can’t say that I fully understand them.

One interesting discussion we had at the seminar was why examples of knowledge are not enough to explain what knowledge really is. If you know an example of knowledge, you sure know what knowledge is otherwise you shouldn’t been able to associate the example with knowledge. But it is still difficult to pinpoint what knowledge really is. This discussion led to the discussion why we need to understand what knowledge is. Isn’t it just an unnecessary mind wrestling for a layperson? For me it is to complex and I don’t see the point of it. The level of philosophy is too high for me and I gladly assign the task of determine what knowledge is to people who are more enlightened in philosophy.

Another interesting subject we discussed at the seminar was empiricism and the way an empiricist sees things. For example at the very start of everything how did the first people name things? It requires so much insight and knowledge to even grasp the concept of naming things. It is really hard to explain that in an empiricist’s point of view; if all people are born as a blank sheet how is it even possible to get the very first knowledge without any previous experiences to compare with? We didn’t get an answer but still it was an interesting discussion.

I also learned about Kant’s categories of understanding and how he argues about synthetic a priori judgment.

Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science

1. Kant - Critique of Pure Reason

By the quote “our cognition must conform to objects” I think Kant means that our cognition of an object is formed by the object itself. What we see is based on previous experiences and theories, but what if we have no prior knowledge or the knowledge maybe isn’t the truth? Kant suggests to try a different perspective, that the objects must conform to our cognition – the other way around. One example of this is when Copernicus did change perspective. Instead of thinking the sun was spinning around the earth, he discovered that the earth was spinning around the sun. He studied it from the suns perspective.

2. Plato - Theaetetus

Socarates argues that we don’t see and hear withthe eyes and the ears, but through the eyes and the ears. By that he means that two men can both hear or see the same thing, but they perceive it different from each other. For example if two persons looking at an expensive piece of art: one of them, an art collector, thinks the painting is beautiful while the other person, who is not interested in art, thinks it looks like it was painted by a 5-year-old. Just because their eyes see the same painting doesn’t mean they perceive it the same way. Our eyes are only tools we need to be able to see things, and our minds perceive what we see. We see throughthe eyes, and not with them.

There are some resemblance between Socrates argument and modern empiricism. Empiricism is a theory where knowledge is based only, or primarily, on experiences. Socrates argues that what is true for one person may not be true for another. It is hard for me to explain, let’s take an example. Two friends are eating the same food; one of them thinks the food is really spicy. For him it is true that the food is spicy, it is proven to him by his experience when he tasted the food. The other person doesn’t think the food is spicy at all. For her it is true that the food is NOT spicy, proven by her own experiences. Everything that is true is based on experiences, just like empiricism, but it doesn't mean it is true for everybody.
Also, Socrates proves to Theaetetus what knowledge is not by taking examples from Theaetetus own experiences, similar as empiricism.