Method and Theory in Media Technology: September 2015

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Comments on Theme 2

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Theme 3: Research and theory - Afterthoughts

The term theory is derived from a ancient greek word which means looking. So theory is about looking at objects in the world. Moreover, one must distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis. The latter is unproven or even speculative whereas a theory can be rather seen as a description or an explanation. In science a theory is a model or a framework which represents or observes the reality or ideas. In order to come up with a theory, one has to take a step back and observe the object from within a certain distance. An abstract view has to be taken to gain another idea about the object. Since theory is not about doing something it can be set into contrast to praxis. This does not mean that one of both should be valued higher than the other. Both differ only in the way of how they view an object. Both theoretical and practical knowledge are important and only together they can provide a concept of an object which is as complete as it can be in the given context. It is always important to bear in mind that every theory is relative to the context within it is settled. No theory can be considered as truth since it is all influenced by the context, by the store of knowledge at the time when a theory arises. Only in this way paradigm shifts are possible. Such things would not exists if it were not for the context dependence of theory. Nevertheless, an important criterium for theories is that they should be generalisable. Even if a theory cannot be truth it can be useful all the same. But for this purpose it should be applicable in a general context. In my opinion another requirement for a theory is that is should be verifiable. Otherwise it is hardly more than an empty concept. This is also the reason why research is done all over the world to verify theories, achieve a progress and construct new theories. Research can also be seen as the process of producing knowledge. The aim of research is to confirm that our knowledge can be considered as true within the frameworks of the current context. As mentioned in my previous blog entry, data alone is not equal to a theory. But it can be used to support a theory. This is the reason why the major part of research is the collecting of data. But since data cannot simply be found somewhere, there is a need for scientifically approved methods to collect data. However, collecting data is quite similar to constructing theories: it is made up human beings. As theories, data cannot really be objective since it is always filtered in a certain way. For example you begin filtering the data by deciding which data you want to collect. Maybe it would have been more useful to collect other data instead. Or to use a different method to collect the data.
And then again, our theory of theories is nothing more than just a theory. Maybe some day there might also be a paradigm shift concerning this special theory.

Theme 4: Quantitative research

A research about mood induction via virtual environments has been approached by the article Is virtual reality emotionally arousing? Investigating five emotion inducing virtual park scenarios [Felnhofer, A., Kothgassner, O. D., Schmidt, M., Heinzle, A. K., Beutl, L., Hlavacs, H., & Kryspin-Exner, I. (2015). Is virtual reality emotionally arousing? Investigating five emotion inducing virtual park scenarios. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies.]. The study is designed to create different emotions in participants by placing them in different modifications of a virtual park environment. Five different parks have been designed in order to create joy, anger, boredom, anxiety and sadness. The emotions of the participants were measured by a quantitative and a qualitative method. Both measurements were taken during an initial relaxation phase. To quantify the emotional reaction of the participants, the electrodermal activity (EDA) was measured. However, this method is only able to provide information about the agitation level of the participants. It is not able to detect a certain emotion. Taken this into account, a more suitable quantitate method might have been chosen to quantify the emotions. Nevertheless, a significant difference between the agitation during the relaxation and the experiment phase has been measured. A distinction between the emotions invoked by the different virtual environments was proved by the analysis of collected qualitative data. This data has been gathered by a questionnaire in which they asked the participants to report the intention of the five emotions they wanted to create. The so collected data supported most of their theory even though they found out that some environments also created other unintended emotions. For example the environment which was supposed to create sadness also created a significant higher intension of anxiety and boredom. But this is not very surprising since negative and positive emotions are closely related and it is not always easy to distinguish between them. Thus, the environments might have created other than some of the five emotions in participants. But due to the narrowness of the questionnaire, which did not cover all possible emotional reactions, only partial insight into the effects of a virtual environment on emotions could be gained.
In conclusion it can be stated that it was a good choice to use a quantitative method to support the qualitative results. Because of this the researchers were able to present the persuasive conclusion that mood induction by a virtual environment is possible. Since all of the environments did not only influence one specific emotion, the qualitative data alone would not have been that meaningful.
Another problem I can see in the study is the lack of a clear foundation about how to design a environments for the purpose of invoking a certain emotion. For example, they used rain in one environment to create a feeling of sadness. But most of the participants felt rather calm instead of sad.

The paper Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality: The Body Shapes the Way We Play [Kilteni, K., Bergstrom, I., & Slater, M. (2013). Drumming in immersive virtual reality: the body shapes the way we play. Visualization and Computer Graphics, IEEE Transactions on, 19(4), 597-605.] is build on the theory that behaviour and attitude is influenced by a person’s body. To prove this theory, the fact that people can receive the illusion of an ownership over a virtual body in an immersive virtual reality was taken into account. Based on this, the researchers created a virtual environment where study participants could observe themselves playing a drum with different virtual avatar bodies. The study was able to provide interesting results supporting the theory that a different body can influence our behaviour.
To gather results of the study, qualitative and quantitative methods were used. Quantitative data was collected by measuring and processing the body movement data of the participants while playing the drum. The collected data gives an objective impression about the perfomativity of the participants. Comparing the data with the reference data, a reliable value for the measuring can be obtained. But a common difficulty is to process the data into an adequate measuring. A lot of data had been collected by the move detecting sensors and it had to be transferred into another interpretable form. Otherwise it would just not have been possible to extract relevant information. In contrast to this, quantitative data, which is often collected by a questionnaire such as in the described study, can be easily analysed since it needs hardly any former manipulation to be interpretable. But a questionnaire is nearly always designed to support or negotiate a specific theory and therefore it is limited to certain aspects in advance.

Quantitative as well as qualitative research is important in the field of media technology. In my opinion qualitative data should always be supported by quantitative data so as to obtain a certain level of objectivity. Whereas I believe that quantitative data alone is sufficient to support a theory.

Monday, September 21, 2015

Theme 2 - Afterthoughts

After some class discussions I was able to gain a clearer definition of nominalism. It is the rejection of universals, the rejection of the existence of abstract terms such as numbers. Nominalism states that these terms are completely made up by the human kind. The opposed philosophical position to nominalism is called platonic realism. This classical position says that universals are more than only mental constructs of human beings. During the middle ages more and more people turned away from this point of view and supported nominalism instead. Therefore it somehow paved the way for enlightenment and both concepts became tightly connected to each other. One could even go as far as calling nominalism a requirement for enlightenment. The reason for this is that nominalism wants people to observe people to go out into the world, to observe things instead of getting stuck in abstract concepts. This was an important perquisite for the progress of the natural sciences. Furthermore, nominalism encourages people to get rid of the idea that all objects are the same. In the contrary: it should not be taken for granted that objects are the same.

I also had to rethink my statement about Adorno’s and Horkheimer’s position towards the revolutionary potential of culture. Now I believe that they are not able to see such a potential. This is due to their attitude that a nominalistic world view can be dangerous. They argue that it comes close to a fascist position as it tends to make people believe that things will always be the way they are. Because since the observation of objects does not include - you could say even excludes - the act of questioning things, there is no potential to change things. There is not even a possibility to change for example their own situation. Moreover, if nominalism rejects the existence of universals, it rejects important concepts such as human rights. But if we strive for progress and development in order to change the world we are in need of those concepts. Therefore concepts cannot only be seen as a suppression but also as a conception. In contrast to this is Benjamin Walter’s point of view. He is more optimistic that culture has the potential to revolutionize society. He says that there is no change in the superculture yet but that it is still to come.

If we try to reflect on these positions in today’s context, we should focus on the effects of mass-media on society because they are similar to the thoughts of enlightenment. Media mirrors the world as it is, which assumes that an observation of the world has taken place beforehand. But by mirroring the world it makes people believe in the world's current state and in its ultimacy. It takes away people’s ambition for change. Just as enlightenment, media fails to question the world. But then again everyone is able to produce media and we are confronted with so many views and alternative concepts of the world, that media cannot be denied potential to enhance established concepts.

Friday, September 18, 2015

Theme 3: Research and theory

I considered the paper On the design of a Dual-Mode User Interface for accessing 3D content on the World Wide Web [Jankowski, J., & Decker, S. (2013). On the design of a Dual-Mode User Interface for accessing 3D content on the World Wide Web. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(7), 838-857.] published in the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies in 2013 as relevant in the field of media technology. The journal as an impact factor of 1.293. It features article not only about research in computing, artificial intelligence, engineering but also about communication, design and interactive system. Furthermore, the main focus of many articles lies on the connection between both areas: the interaction between human and computers. Therefore it contains a suitable combination of the human, the technological and the design aspects media technology aims to unite.
The article I picked is about the development of an user-friendly web interface which consists of 2D and 3D content. Since the World Wide Web has become an important part of our daily life, the influence of web content cannot be denied. Even though 3D is another heavily evolving technology, it has yet not been successfully integrated in the WWW. This is the reason why Jankowski and Decker worked on an easy to use user interface for hypertext and 3D content. Based on the results of earlier studies and with respect to approved web usability principles, they developed a Dual-Channel Model which enables the user to change between a hypertext and a 3D mode. A user study has been set up to evaluate the usability of the Dual-Mode Model. For this purpose a wiki about World-of-Warcraft characters had been created according to the previously developed model. The Wiki contains a 3D museum where the characters are displayed. The evaluation was made according to 'a systematic and methodical approach based on the sequential evaluation developed by Gabbard et al.'. Students, researchers and staff members formed the group of participants. The evaluation result was computed by measuring the time and the correctness of the answers. It indicates that the Dual-Channel Mode guarantees an easy usage. Even though users could have benefited from additional features like a keyboard based control.
The theory which was developed by the research team can be classified as a theory for design and action. The theory describes how a 3D integrated web interface has to be designed in detail. Since it is based on established theoretical design principles it can be called a deductive theory. A test system has been developed according to the theory model and a user study was evaluated to support the theory.
It appears to me that the theory of the Dual-Channel Mode is based on relevant usability paradigms for both web UIs and 3D interaction. The evaluation was made according to an approved evaluation model. But in my opinion they should not have used team members as participants in the user study as their previous knowledge about the UI could have influenced the evaluation.
One of the benefits of using a theory of design and action is clearly that it is the most practical theory. I believe that in media technology or similar fields of research this theory variant is often the only reasonable choice. Since the human being plays an important part in media technology and usability is often an intended feature, a theory can only be verified if it is about design and action. Of course this is not always the case and also theories for explaining and/or predicting are made previously to those more practical theories. For example it can happen that such a theory for design and action is not based on enough theoretical knowledge and therefore may not be consistent.

But the presented study represents only one special type of theory, the example is not able to demonstrate exactly what a theory is made of. In order to give a simple definition of a theory, one could tell a first year university student that theories are universal statements which provide verifiable explanations and predictions. Causality is an important element of a theory, because a theory can only be declared as testable, if a cause exists for every event predicted by the theory. Moreover, a theory should be based on an unsolved problem or a question which is worth asking. But even if references, data, variables, diagrams and hypotheses can be important parts of a theory, these alone can not be considered as a theory. Raw data is not able to solve a question or to answer a problem.

Sunday, September 13, 2015

Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science - Afterthoughts

Both the lecture and the exercise have been very helpful to gain some deeper understanding of Kant’s position. Before the lecture I was not aware of the different types of a priori knowledge. But one must distinguish between analytical a priori, synthetic a posteriori and synthetic a priori judgements. An analytical a priori judgment would for example be the following statement about a class: ’There are pupils in this class’. The concept of a class already includes that there must be pupils because if this would not be the case, there would be no class at all. Therefore a priori knowledge is something which can be verified without experience. A synthetic posteriori statement would be something which you can only know by investigating the object like the exact amount of people. This is something you could not know by just thinking about it, you have to look into the world to gain that knowledge. The third kind of knowledge is called synthetic a priori and generally equal to metaphysics. It is defined as knowledge about abstract object, a knowledge which can not be verified. And therefore Kant says that it is not worth to talk about metaphysics since there is nothing to be gained. Due to this Kant calls himself an empirical realist and a transcendental idealist instead of an empirical idealist and a transcendental realist. Because the latter one would worship synthetic a priori knowledge.

Moreover, Kant says that every kind of knowledge - a least this kind of knowledge which is worth achieving - can be put into one of twelve categories which can be under-ordered to the four super categories of quantity (unity, plurality, totality), quality (reality, negation, limitation), relation (substance, causality, community) and modality (possibility, existence, necessity). Metaphysics can be classified as knowledge that lies beyond these categories. According to Kant it cannot be decided by pure reason and therefore has to be considered as empty.

Now it can be argued that these categories narrow our knowledge to certain aspects, that we might skip important properties of an object if we build our concept of it according to these categories. But Kant views this categories as something similar as a language: these categories give us the opportunity to form, describe and express our knowledge. So it can also be stated that this categories open up our knowledge.

Since it is not possible to explain the world in terms that are independent of our subjective experience it is necessary to organize knowledge in a way the categories do. I guess Kant wants to establish a kind of guideline or method by using the categories to eliminate subjectivity as effectively as possible. But since these categories are vague and they are only approved by Kant himself I guess one should not overestimate its significance. Its nothing more than Kant’s concept of knowledge which is - in my point of view - a concept of a very abstract object and therefore not verifiable.

We also discussed the general concept of objectivity in our exercise and if it is possible to come even close to such a thing as objectivity. I guess as long as there is no way to distinguish the world as is it from the world we experience there is no way to reach objectivity. And since we can only come to this conclusion by using our subjective mind and our subjective experience it seems to be impossible to completely eliminate subjectivity.

Friday, September 11, 2015

Comments about Theme 1

Theme 2: Critical media studies

Dialectic of Enlightenment by Adorno and Horkheimer is to be understood as a critical analysis of enlightenment. The concept of enlightenment has always aimed at liberating human beings from fear and installing them as masters. Enlightenment’s program was the disenchantment of the world by replacing the magic with rational knowledge. Adorno and Horkheimer think the wish of gaining knowledge and understanding the world is grounded on the evil ambition to dominate [nature] and human beings. They view technology as a key to power. And this power will be abused. Adorno and Horkheimer only see a power to change the world into something worse and neglect the possibility that knowledge could enrich the world.
Furthermore, they criticize nominalism by calling it the prototype of bourgeois thinking. A characteristic of a nominalistic position is that universals (abstract terms) are negated and only assumptions of individual non-metaphysical objects are seen as true.
Enlightenment, as Adorno and Horkheimer see it, has its origin in myth. Myth, like knowledge, was used by human beings to explain the world. The unknown, which cannot be explained, arises fear and fear keeps people under control. But with understanding comes the feeling of superiority and with it the striving for power. So both knowledge and myth can be seen as tools to overpower the nature. Since enlightenment tries to give explanations for the same concepts which were covered by myth, it can be said that enlightenment developed from myth.

The essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Benjamin Walter discusses the progress of culture and its influence on the authenticity of art.
In the beginning of his essay Walter introduces the terms of superstructure and substructure. A Marxist refers to the economy, the base of the society, as a substructure and refers to the subculture as the social or political structure resulted from the substructure. As the terms already indicate, the superstructure is build upon the substructure. So as a logical consequence, the superstructure can only develop more slowly than the substructure as it is based on and developed from it.

According to Walter, revolutionary potential can be found in culture. The culture people experience influences their way of perceiving. A culture in which people can easily be reached by mass-media is a dangerous one. As people’s perception is formed by experiences, the cultural influence should not be underestimated. It can be said that Walter is giving a warning about the potential influence the culture bears and that this potential can be abused to control people. But he does not characterize the nature of cultural progress as evil as Adorno and Horkheimer do. They identify the culture as weapon which not only CAN but WILL be used against nature and people. In contrast to this Walter only appeals that this weapon should be used carefully and that people have to be aware of its power.

Walter believes that human perception is determined by historical circumstances. Perception can therefore never be optimal in terms of objectiveness since there are certain prerequisites which influence the interpretation of perceived information. Walter gives an example of the scholars of the Viennese school, Riegl and Wickhoff, which were unter the influence of the late Roman times and therefore could make conclusions about changes in perception but where not able to connect them to social transformations.

The aura of an object describes the authenticity of this object, its uniqueness and thereby also its value. Walter says that the aura of early photographs in the fleeting expression of a human face is established by their melancholy, incomparable beauty. But according to Walter the aura can be stripped of an art object by the mechanical reproduction. The reason for this is that he believes the term of art implies uniqueness, in other words that an object can not be art if it can be reproduced. The reproducibility causes a loss of distance between the observer and the object since the object degenerates to something common and becomes unconditionally available. Whereas we can easily reproduce things which were made by human beings, nature is something which we cannot reproduced. Therefore the aura of a natural object will stay untouched.

I think that Adorno’s and Horkheimer’s perspective of knowledge and culture is too drastic and one-sided. Something that bears power can always be used for god and evil purposes. Nevertheless it is important to be aware of its possible influence and power. Therefore I agree with Walter’s point of view. I also believe that he is correct in saying that reproducibility can diminish the value of art.

Friday, September 4, 2015

Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science

In preparation for the theme theory of knowledge and theory of science I read Teaetetus by Plato and the preface to the second edition of Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

In Theaetetus, Socrates discusses the nature of knowledge with the young Theaetetus. Theaetetus' first definition of knowledge is perception or sensation. He agrees that men see and hear 'with the eyes and with the ears'. But Socrates leads Theaetetus to the conclusion that this statement is incorrect and one should rather say that 'we see or hear […] through the eyes and through the ears'. There is a delicate difference between the meanings of 'with' and 'through'. By saying that something is done 'with' an object, the object becomes an independent tool. But if you do something 'through' an object, then the expression indicates that a kind of reflexion is done while using the object. You not only use the object but you process and interpret the information you have gained with the object. Socrates says that using 'with' in this context would imply that the senses were like unconnected parts in a 'Trojan horse'. So if our organs would only be loose objects in our body, working independently and without a connection to the others, we would be nothing more than a lifeless, wooden shell. If we assume that the underlying mechanism of sensation in every organ works in the same way, then every man would precept exactly the same without further processing. If this would be true than Theaetetus' statement that 'knowledge is perception' would be true as well. But this is not the case as we see not 'with' but 'through' our eyes. If two people look at the same thing they might not percept the same. This is because the information they gain through their senses is interpreted by 'the mind' - the centrum where sensations are brought together and interpreted based on earlier experience.
The empiricism states that knowledge is created by perception combined with experience [Cf. Curd, Martin, and Stathis Psillos. The Routledge companion to philosophy of science. Routledge, 2013. Pp. 129–138]. This definition is similar to the one given by Socrates when he emphasizes the importance of seeing and hearing 'through' eyes and ears. Since we gain information through sensation, knowledge can only be formed by processing the sensation and is stored as some reflected version of the sensation. Sensation without experience is the same as seeing and hearing ‚with‘ and not ‚through‘ the eyes and ears.

In the preface to the second edition of Critique of Pure Reason Kant introduces the concept of pure reason. Pure reason is a knowledge which is created by imagination and logic. It is formed a priori which means that it is formed without sensation. Kant believes pure reason to be the key to gain new understandings. But 'all our attempts to establish something about them a priori […] have come to nothing'. At the time Kant was writing Critque on Pure Reason most attempts of gaining knowledge a priori have failed. Kant believes that this is due to us thinking that 'all our cognition must conform to objects' instead of 'that objects must conform to our cognition.' The meaning of it can be illustrated best by an example. If we would examine water in its different states and try to recognize the water conforming to it as an object, then we may only see ice or a liquid. But if we would try to recognize the water conforming to our cognition we might get some ideas about the real character of the water which may lead to a more abstract cognition of the water - the atom model. So Kant wants to express that it might not be possible to understand the real nature of an object by perception but by reasoning.

As a scientist I believe that both kinds of knowledge play an important role in our learning process. It is important to gain knowledge through sensation and to question its quality. But it may be even more important to gain knowledge through imagination and logic - the pure reason. Because this is how new ideas can arise. I guess that is what Einstein meant with his statement: 'Imagination is more important than knowledge' [A.F. Osborn, Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-Solving. Charles Scribner’s Sons. Bombay, 1985.].