Theme 4 - Quantitative Research

1.
I’ve chosen the article Recognition of the Main Melody in a Polyphonic Symbolic Score using Perceptual Knowledge written by Anders Friberg and Sven Ahlbäck, and published in the Journal of new music research.
The study aims to see if they can predict the main melody in a polyphonic score, which is in this case is a MIDI-representation of a song. They begin by explaining the concept on melody and more specifically the main melody, and how this can be perceived. They then try to identify the features that they think will represent how the main melody is perceived in the most adequate way. They use a total of 12 features, some examples of those being pitch and articulation.                             
The method used for predicting the main melody is a multiple regression. What this means is that they are trying to find the best possible model for predicting the main melody based on their perceptual knowledge. The regression model allows them to input and analyze huge amounts of data automatically. Since this is done using machine learning they have the advantage of training their model, and therefore optimizing it before trying to perform the actual prediction.
One limitation using a regression model for prediction is the choice of features may not always correctly correspond to reality, and I guess this is hard to actually prove. A more specific problem with this particular study might be the fact that they use a symbolic representation of music for analysis, while their perceptual knowledge comes from analyzing actual music, and due to this the result might a bit compromised.

2.
I think that the paper shows the complexity of performing a large quantitative study. There are so many variables to take into consideration and in this paper there are several examples of this.
First you have you have to gather participants, and in this case they sent out 5000 emails where 1509 went through to follow up questions and 74% of these participated throughout the whole study, which I guess is a good response rate. Furthermore there are a lot of parameters outside the study that could potentially affect the result, such as pollen season and influenza season, but also how to actually separate influenza from a common cold. I think that as long as you are aware of what the implications might be when performing a study like this, you can always bring that up for discussion in the end, which is done with influenza and a common cold. 
So what have I learned? I think that it is of great importance that you motivate and explain your choice of method, questions and participants. If this is not done correctly (not saying that it’s not in the paper) the result of the actual study would probably be mostly speculations.      

Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative/qualitative methods?
I think the obvious benefit is that it enables you to analyze a large set of data which I think gives you room to draw a bit broader conclusions, whereas a qualitative study might not. On the other hand the benefit of performing a qualitative study is that you might receive insight on a deeper level than you could using a quantitative method. Of course this depends on what you are investigating or writing about. If you have a hypothesis, you might want to try it using a quantitative method, and if the result differs from your expectation, you could further investigate why this is using a qualitative method. So perhaps you could say that the limitation of one the methods is the benefits of the other.

Seminar 3 - Reflection

After the seminar i feel that i should probably revisit some of the questions we were asked to answer before hand. What is theory? I found that comparing a theory to a hypothesis made the question a bit simpler to answer. This was also something we discussed during the seminar. Where the hypothesis poses a question, a theory help answer that question. This means that a theory can be built upon one or more hypothesis, but a hypothesis to test a theory.
In the case of the text that i chose to read Digital access, political networks and the diffusion of democracy the title if more of a question or hypothesis and the theories used are those surrounding the subject democracy, digital access and political access. So again, to understand if diffusion of democracy is an actual product of digital access one need to use - or at least i found that to be true in this case -  existing theories explaining the above mentioned topics.

Reflection - Seminar 2

During the seminar we discussed some additional questions in connection to the texts by Benjamin and Adorno & Horkheimer. One of these things was the aestheticization of politics (fascism) and the politicization of aesthetics (communism).
We also dug  a bit deeper in to the concepts nominalism and realism. Realismen describes the idea world whereas nominalism is the world we experienced through our impression and senses. This was something im not sure i fully grasped from the first time reading it.
I wouldn't say that this weeks texts were easier, but the they could perhaps easier be related to our program media technology which is good i guess.

Theme 3 - Research and theory

I have chosen the article Digital access, political networks and the diffusion of democracy published in the journal Social Networks (impact factor 2.324), which is in a journal presenting articles focused on structure on social relations.
The articles main goal is to examine whether access to digital technologies are related to the emergence of democracy within a country and the diffusion of democracy across countries. This is done by using data made accessible by new kinds of digital media.  In the background section of the article main concepts such as democracy and digital technologies are defined on a theoretical basis.
Furthermore they present their data based on what they defined in the background section. Through analyzing this data they suggest that three key mechanisms linking information technology with democratic change.

Briefly explain to a first year university student what theory is, and what theory is not.
Theory is a way to explain, predict and understand the subject you have chosen to examine. Theory is not references and data, but these elements can be incorporated when building theory.

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 article I’ve chosen is that digital access and information technology can play a part in the spreading of democracy within a country but also between countries. 
The theory type used is the explanation type, though it is done with some precision it does not aim to predict this.

Which are the benefits and limitations of using the selected theory or theories?         
The most obvious benefit seems to be that you can give a really accurate explanation to the current situation. The limitation of this is that you can’t provide any deeper insight into how predict future developments.

Seminar 1 - Reflection

During the seminar we were to discuss the texts by Kant and Platon. Though there weren't much of a discussion, Johan, the seminar leader, gave some insight to the ideas presented in the mentioned texts. I can't recall all that was said ,so im gonna try to shortly present some of the things i've thought about in connection to the seminar:
I think that a qoute that in a good way sum up the thought of Kant in Critique of Pure Reason, which was mentioned during the seminar is"Perception without conception is blind, while conception without perception is empty",with perception here being our sense perception. So while we can experience the world through our senses we still need a way of organizing these impressions in a way that can be understood and explained.
The seminar clarified some of what Kant was trying to say, it raised an equal amount of questions, all relating to how we are to understand our existence. And while i to some extent enjoy contemplating the meaning of life, not even an infinite amount of blog posts would get me anywhere.

Theme 2 - Critical media studies

a. What is "Enlightenment"?
It seems to be a way of viewing the world. Where mythology once was perceived as knowledge enlightenment demystifies this, accepting only answers that have a formula based on rules and probability.
b. What is "dialectic"?
In this particular case being the dialectic of enlightenment I suppose it refers to how enlightenment can be established through discourse.
c. What is "nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?
Nominalism is the denial of either the existence of universal objects or particular objects.
The denial of universal objects seems to better apply to the thought of enlightenment were things can be understood based on rules and probability.

d. What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?
Myth in this meaning is a way of understanding the world, just as there is an enlightened way to understanding the world. Though, without a mythical worldview one cannot be enlightened. Both myth and enlightenment has to conform to existing boundaries, so one could perhaps make the argument that myth and enlightenment are the same.

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?
They represent different spheres in our society, where the substructure is sort of the production sphere and the superstructure that which is not related to the production. So where for example a painting can be produced in the substructure, it can be understood and interpreted in the superstructure.

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 it has revolutionary potentials. For example Benjamin mentions the expression of revolutionary criticism of social condition presented in film. According to Adorno and Horkheimer it seems as though mass culture is a way of controlling the masses.    

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 gives examples concerning different changes in art forms and art industries not only changed the actual art but also the way we look at art. I think this is applicable for all historical events – whether it’s related to art, science or religion etc – that has pushed us into a paradigm shift.

d. What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?
The aura in natural objects refers to the phenomenon of distance.
The aura in art objects is what constitutes its uniqueness. The way of understanding what gives a specific art object its aura may change over time, or to refer to previous question you might say that the perception of the aura can be historically determined. Though nature can be reproduced in the sense that we can present it through art as a picture or photograph, the aura of natural objects – being that of distance – cannot be reproduced, therefore I would say that there are diffent kinds of auras.

Theory of knowledge and theory of science

Question 1:
To answer – or rather interpreting - the first question regarding Kant and metaphysics shortly, it seems to be a way of looking at metaphysics from a different perspective.
If cognition must conform to objects, these objects are formed by our impressions, and to see or create something new a priori would require a set of impressions which we do not yet have, thereby making it impossible. So the question seems to be if there is a metaphysical doctrine to be found, which would allow us to reach beyond the limitation that comes with idea of cognition conforming to objects.
Kant implies that the answers is not to be found in how we understand and experience actual things, but rather how we can understand the workings of our own mind, and use this understanding as a way of transcending the above mentioned limitations.
If we were to assume that objects must conform to our cognition there are still certain boundaries which we cannot breach, such as space and time.

Question 2:

It is not the eye which creates the world we see, nor is it the ears that create what we hear, they merely gives us the ability of seeing and hearing. Therefore one might say that sight and hearing exists through our eyes and ears.
The definition of empiricism, being that knowledge comes through experience applies the same logic in the sense that we cannot draw conclusions without experience. There is no self-existing truth, just as the eyes and ears cannot present us with sights and sound without interacting with the world around it.
Empiricism is not the answers itself but the means of “seeing” what is before us. Furthermore, the answers we might find through empiricism are not absolute, just as the way we perceive the world is a subjective matter that might vary from person to person.