Theme 3: Reflection

I’ve always seen theory as a rather ”fuzzy” concept, knowing that it’s closely related to knowledge and ways of ”leading” it, but not really seeing the details. It was interesting to see it being structured like the subjects theories themselves aim to structure.

Unfortunately I haven’t been able to attend the seminars the latest weeks, or dedicate that much time to reflection of the topic of theory. But as I finished reading the article of my choice and started to answer the questions, I thought about the fact that many articles use theory to structure theory. Since theory is more or less about structuring knowledge, this means that articles structure structures. And since the theories on the ”lowest” level most likely also structure theories in some way not mentioned explicitly in the texts, this should mean that theories more or less form a long chain of structures structuring structures etc... It made me wonder how ”long”, so to say, this chain is on average in todays academic circles. How deeps is the rabbit hole? (Or if you will, the rabbit’s chain of structure) 

Theme 3: Research and theory

The journal I’ve chosen is ”Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication”. It’s been published quarterly on the web since 1995 and covers a wide spectrum of topics related to communication-technology in one way or another. The latest published articles indicate an inclination towards the behavioral/social aspect of communication rather than the technological. 

Theory is a way of structuring explanations of relations and connections between entities, or lack of said relations and connections. As there is a wide variety of knowledge, the structures can take many different forms. A theory is empirically proven and can sometimes be used to predict outcomes of events/experiments, or used as guidelines to create certain results.

Information/data itself isn’t theory on it’s own, as it needs to have a context and an interpretation. Just like a word coming out our mouth has different meaning in different languages, contexts etc., bits of information mean different things when paired in different ways.

For the I’ve chosen the article ”Location, Motivation, and Social Capitalization via Enterprise Social Networking” by Leonardi, P. M., Huysman, M. and Steinfield, C. (2013). The authors discuss how enterprise social networking systems can help reduce three challenges in sharing organizational knowledge. The challenges include location of expertise, motivation to share knowledge and social capitalization in the form of developing and maintaining social ties with knowledge providers to actualize knowledge sharing. A theory for each challenge is presented along with a motivation and a comparison of each theory to conventional knowledge management systems. The main goal of this article is to present a foundation, or as the authors themselves put it: a springboard, composed of the three theories for further conceptual development in this field.

As for the choice and relevance of theories it’s hard for me to argue whether they’re the ideal ones (i.e., if there are other theories which are more suited), as the authors discuss  said theories as suitable replacements for previous systems and not comparisons between different new theories. The authors do acknowledge this at the end and propose literature which may interest readers curious in further research of this subject.

When it comes to the types of theory used in the article overall, I’d say mainly analysis with a hint of prediction in the discussion at the end of the article. Seeing as it’s main goal is to set a solid foundation for future research and not a final solution for a problem, it seems like a suitable choice for the purpose.

The way I see it, the pro’s of using this theory is that the reader gets a better understanding of why and how things are the way they are, as he/she gets a direct view of the previous system models and what advantages the discussed theories (the three analyzed theories that is) bring in comparison to the old ones.

Theme 2: Reflection

One of the topics discussed during this weeks seminar was quality of information vs quantity and how it has affected our society.

The specific example which led to it was Titanic. More specifically that there has been many disasters with a greater negative result, yet it continues to be one of the most memorable. The discussions didn't aim to prove that it doesn't deserve it's place in the history books, but rather as an example of the difference in the flow of information we have today versus 1912. As the Titanic was one of the first disasters covered in mass media, it had more room, as the media landscape wasn't as saturated as it is today.

My view on the whole question is related to the "stupidification" (if this word didn't exist before, it does now) of the mass media scene discussed in this weeks literature. While the media landscape has grown by ludicrous amounts, our attention span has remained more or less the same (whatever one might say of ones ability to multi-task or whatsoever). So, since we're constantly bombarded with information daily, every piece of information gets less room, leaving weaker impressions in the long run. It doesn't mean we care less, just that unless one gets real passionate about a certain topic, that topic will sooner or later get replaced by one of the other hundreds of topics we are bombarded with.

So who's responsible? Is it up to the consumers to demand a greater variety of media content through the big channels or the producers and the distributors who sit on the power but don't use it to its fullest potential so to say.

I found it fascinating how a text written 70 years ago still feels relevant. Although I have to admit I don't see that it necessarily will be in another 70. Although the authors more or less describe the situation we have today, they don't mention the fact that we today consume some media "passively" by having the tv on in the background, listening to music while doing something else and so on; as well as the way the communication between the producers and consumers is shifting from one way to two-way.

Theme 2: Critical Media Studies

1: The most common meaning of enlightenment is the historical period where people began to switch their beliefs from blind belief in religion to logic and common sense, or in other words: science. When Adorno and Horkheimer talk about enlightenment, the goal is seen to be more or less the same: to "liberate human from fear and install them as masters", where fear was being caused by myths, fantasy etc.. Here, enlightenment is referred to rather as a state of mind than as a historical period, a state where one strives for replacing beliefs with knowledge. But as man seeks to do this, the authors mean that he becomes a slave to his own quest of mastering nature, leading to a darker and more critical view on enlightenment.

2: Myths are explanations of the unknown without any logical foundation. For example, the melting of the arctic ice is explained by science as a result of rising temperatures, which in turn is a result of a chain of explanations etc.. A myth might state that the arctic is melting because the polar bears are hethens for worshiping a false god and are being punished by having their homes slowly destroyed. The goal of a myth is to eliminate fear by giving people something to believe in. The authors also mean that science is more or less modern myths, as it became worshiped by people who can't explain it's statements themselves.

3: The difference between "old" and "new" media is quality vs quantity and the nature of the interaction. "Back in the days", before media was delivered to a wide mass, it was primarily made to make people think. People read books, newspapers and looked at thought provoking art. New media is made for consumption, to fill an empty spot in ones mind and make money in the process. It has also made the communication one-way, making radio and television part of the new media. The latter notion is slowly fading away, as social media today has allowed consumers to make their voices heard. The consumption nature of media is definitely still true today though, almost 70 years after the books publication.

4: Just as the automobile industry makes automobiles for profit, the culture industry makes culture for profit. The focus in rather on the profit part rather than on culture. Producers of mass media make content for consumption of the wide mass, leaving little room for critical thinking or creativity. This is connected to the notion of the enlightenment, as the mass producers know how consumers work and what they want, they can produce content which more or less works as a bug light: attracting mindless victims killing of their time and ability to think.

5: Continuing on the previous question, mass deception is the notion of us being fooled to believe that we get what we want. Consumers are given an illusion of choice. An example from the modern time is the cinema-business. At any given time there are several movie productions consumers can choose to go to, but chances are high that they are all following the same formula with different variables put into them. This can be applied to many different medias today, and I guess this is what the authors were predicting in the book.

6: I found the notion of mass deception to be interesting, as I've been thinking about it before from different perspectives. I don't watch television for the same reason what makes mass deception to be what it is: everything follows the same formula. I'd be lying if I said I don't consume any media created for the wide mass at all, but I try to be more selective of my consumption than "what's on the tv schedule" or listen to what's on the radio. I've seen this notion developing in some areas of culture and reducing in others.

The reducing example: companies behind gaming platforms (Steam, Sony and Microsoft primarily) have been making it easier for independent producers of games to express themselves through productions (also called indie games) by making their mass-aimed platforms available for said production houses to distribute their games and hence making them able to contribute with (hopefully) new ideas and being able to make a living on it.

Increasing example: the latest years the EDM-scene (electronic dance music) has exploded, and the music which once was only played in underground clubs was suddenly being exposed everywhere from the radio to massive festivals around the globe. But this has turned the music from being a creative outlet for artists to a strive to create the most public-pleasing sound. Although it hasn't quite reached the same scale as other "older" mass-media, it's still heading down the same road.

I'll end this post with a concrete example of what I was trying to explain in the previous paragraph. Below is a mix of 16 "EDM festival anthems" with 4 seconds from each song, which aims to illustrate my point of everything sounding the same.

Theme 1: Reflection

The first theme of the course was interesting and thought provoking, although it had some moments which forced me to reread a certain part so I could grasp what Russel was trying to say. When he began discussing whether tables, or matter at all existed or if it is a result of a series of stimulations of our senses I couldn't help but think of The Matrix and whether there is a magic pill which reveals the real form of the table.

The notion of knowledge has been a topic I've thought of before reading the book (although more specifically scientific knowledge). It is kind of certain and uncertain at the same time. The certainty lies in it's ability to explain the surrounding world in a logical step-by-step manner, but at the same time, something which have been assumed/proven to be true for can be proven wrong to be replaced by a new "truth", which basically requires us to have faith in science and it's statements.

My big takeaway from this weeks theme is basically that we're encouraged to question everything, no matter how big or small it is. Perhaps this would've been different if the seminar hadn't bee cancelled, but alas, one can only guess...

Theme 1: Theory of Science

1: Russel introduces the notion of sense data as things which are immediately known in sensation such as colors, sounds, smells etc. He does so because he states that nothing we se/hear/feel is definite, as it all varies by angles of viewing point, lights, which part of the body is used to feel etc.

The reason of this introduction is to separate sensations of truth from the truth itself, as the sensation is dependent on the sense data, which in turn is dependent on the relations between us and the object in question.

2: Both "proposition" and "statement of fact" are meant to refer to a level of truth in a statement. The difference between the two are that proposition is ones own acquaintance with a subject of matter, while the second is a more ”well established” conception of something. The latter has a higher sense of truth to it, as it is a view 

3: The notion "definite description" means that when talking about description, definite description eliminates the possibilities of one referring to several objects. When talking about ”a man”, one may refer to any possible man, while when instead saying ”the man in the yellow hat with purple stripes” refers to a very specific man in singular form.

4: As far as I understand, Russel's argues that we can't know the nature of something without knowing all of it's "truth's" as well as it's relations to other things. He brings up the example of tooth ache, how we may be as acquainted as possible with it, giving some knowledge of it, but not the same amount which a dentist may have, which doesn't have any acquaintance with said ache at all. This leads to the suggestion that we cannot prove that the universe forms a whole "nature" so to say (or a "single harmonious system" as is written in the book), as we cannot say if anything has anything has unknown relations as, well... we don't know about them.