WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1
Week 9
Mar. 13th: Quantitative Research Methods and Statistics
Chapters 29-31 in Greenfield, Tony. 2002. Research Methods for Post-Graduates: Hodder Arnold.
Chapter 9 in Creswell, John. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
SKIM: Boase, Jeffrey. 2006, “The Strength of Internet Ties” Family, Friends & Community ![[PDF]](http://dream.sims.berkeley.edu/~jantin/is203/wp-content/acrobat_pdf_icon_sm.gif){kind=icon}
Mar. 15th: Quantitative Research Methods II
Cook, Karen S., Coye Cheshire, Alexandra Gerbasi and Brandy Aven. (forthcoming) “Assessing the Trustworthiness of Providers of Online Goods and Services.”
January 2nd, 2007posted by:
WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1
8 Comments Add your own
1. yliu | March 10th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
For a fresh CS/engineering graduate, quantitative methods and experimental design are reasonably standard fare. I’ve had to take more statistics than I probably ever cared about. There is comforting rigor in being able to point to the results of t-tests on your hard-earned data and stating (somewhat smugly) that ‘given the p-value of x, we reject the null hypothesis at the x percent significance and conclude that …’. There is a certain perceived degree of scientific validity and finality to these methods, I think, as hollow as that perception might actually be in some circumstances.
Relating to last week, I’m not sure I understand why these methods aren’t intended to be “predictive”. Isn’t that the whole point of statistics and regressions? Yes, of course, a statistic applies only to the specific set of data being analyzed, but ultimately the goal is to generalize from the specific sample to apply to the population, within some probability, no? There usually is no way to say for certain, of course, hence why probability is so often used in statistics, but the predictive power of these things seems fairly important. Otherwise, the whole matter seems an exercise in hindsight. Like fitting historical events to Nostramadus’s quatrains - they might fit, but how useful and meaningful is it for us, even if we do find a fit? If we can’t extrapolate for future events, that is. I’d like to think that current theory explains events, and has predictive power in the sense of analogical reasoning - if we can establish certain similarities in context, then there is a probability that the results obtained from prior study would tend to be reflected in current circumstance. After all, quantitative analyses are often about causality, are they not?
The Pew Internet was a rather upbeat study, after all the “oh noes the internet is destroying civilization!!!” warnings we’ve seen in the past. They present a lot of data, though, and since I’m skimming, I’m taking most of it on face value. “Media multiplexity” is certainly interesting, though. People who frequently contact others tend to use a lot of media. I personally think that it simply reinforces the idea that email does not replace other media. Email has specific properties that makes it useful for some things and not for others. This study, however, specifically says that it is hard to draw a conclusion about the cause of this media multiplexity. Might be an interesting follow-up study here?
March 10th, 2007 at 10:46 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 12. celeste | March 14th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Trusting people online is surely risky business. I shudder to think about the information I was reading about online dating sites and the long relationships that get built through those in order to filch a few thousand dollars off an unsuspecting “lover”. In such a situation, you get the illusion of repeated encounters to “build trust”, and rating systems are unlikely to apply (since the individual profile would be kept clean until the rug was pulled out from under the victim). I wonder what cues people look for in situations where the “good/service” is actually a relationship.
For some really interesting reading on a similar scheme perpetuated through paper mail, see this article: http://www.jstor.org/view/00935301/di007530/00p00735/0 on the fictional land of Chonda Za, which also talks about the differences between fraud and play.
In any case, I found this reading interesting (and not just because it was written by our fearless leader, Coye), because it examined what was considered “trustworthy” by creating false ads and having people assess them (I see a bit of irony there
). I’d be curious to see if the most trustworthy ad was the first that the respondents would actually contact should they actually be in the market for a camera or webdesign service or if they’d be more interested in less hassle in real life (despite the more “risky” seller). In my studies, I’ve found that people often say and do different (even conflicting) things, so I wouldn’t be surprised.
215d March 14th, 2007 at 9:58 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 13. karenhsu | March 16th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
It’s important to look at the security assurance of a computer system. Though, equally significant is the trust between the individual participants in the actual exchange. Clearly, for a successful transaction, trust must be placed in both the technology as well as the other party involved.
Several parallels can be made between principles in human/computer (or computer/computer!) and human/human studies of trust. In computer security, an entity is trustworthy if “there is sufficient credible evidence leading one to believe that the system will meet a set of given requirements (M. Bishop),” and trust is the “measure of trustworthiness. (M. Bishop)” This set of system requirements are stated in a policy, and is implemented through a series of secure mechanisms. It was interesting to see a similar distinction between trust vs. trustworthiness, as well as supporting mechanisms in our reading.
It was also compelling to read about how we gauge trustworthiness. There are actually proofs you can do to prove that a system is secure (though it’s not usually practical to do so), but in human/human interactions it is infinitely less clear-cut and requires much analysis and consideration. I fully agree that our such decisions are laced with our assessment of the other party’s competence and motivation. It’s interesting to think about how the two might influence each other: our assessment of one’s motivation can be based on our assessment of his/her competence, or vice-versa. For example, “this person can’t be thinking of cheating me.. s/he’s too dumb to.”
March 16th, 2007 at 3:26 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 14. lawan | March 18th, 2007 at 12:04 am
While I agreed with Cook, Cheshire, Gerbasi and Aven that “Much of the current empirical work on Internet trust and trustworthiness can be roughly placed into three broad types. These categories include: website credibility from design and structure, interpersonal trust in computer-mediated environments, and online reputation systems as a mechanism for assessing trustworthiness.”, I just want to add one more type as personal understanding of technology. In developing country like Thailand, eventhough the system is good and trustworthiness, most people prefer to go to the bank counter where they can speak and interact with real teller for such a sensitive money related transaction. I understand that this is not just only the issue of they do not trust in computer-mediated environments, but most importantly they do not understand and trust in technology/information technology in general. As a result, the line in the bank is always very long, while the number of user perform/complete banking transaction via Internet is very low comparing number of total customer the bank has. Another good example is the on-line shopping business in Thailand, though it is very successful here in U.S. , it is not very successful in Thailand. People prefer to buy things from the shop where we can interact with seller and where we can see the real transaction occur/take place.
March 18th, 2007 at 12:04 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 15. Ken-ichi | March 18th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Creswell’s extremely operational description of survey design seems like a useful tool, esp. for those of us with no experience in this area. I especially appreciated his catalog of threats to validity. Perhaps these threats should be considered first, so the survey is designed from the beginning with awareness of how things can go wrong.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:22 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 16. johnson | March 18th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
The subject of trust and trustworthiness is mighty captivating as I’ve never come across a piece of reading that explores this area in depth. It states that A views B as trustworthy if “B is viewed by A as taking her interests to heart and thus as likely to act in ways that would not harm or take advantage of her.” I originally just saw a trusting relationship as one that manifested itself from repeatedly good interactions. I never thought to imagine on a more interest-oriented view, where because two people share the same goal, they’re less likely to go against one another. This is kind of brutal. It seems as if everyone is always on the defensive and constantly watching their backs; but I guess this also does make sense because people do experience others backstabbing them or turning against them etc.
The paper goes into several ways trust can be built, including face-to-face interation, transactional objects, and perceptions. These make sense to me but I think the punchline that did it for me was when it started talking about stereotypes, experiences, and reputation. I think these factors are the biggest when it comes to trust. I firmly believe that the way our mind thinks depends directly on our past experiences. If we’re haunted by bad encounters from a person with a certain set of characteristics, the chance we will take risk with someone else with those characteristics is slim. In the area of reputation, I also find myself believing someone’s stated credentials if they’re from a reputable company rather than believing half the things I hear from random strangers over the internet (i.e. forums or games).
March 18th, 2007 at 4:44 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 17. jimmy | March 18th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
The issues of trust and trustworthiness in the online environment are interesting. As people are used to face-to-face communication, it seems to be not a natural way of building trust with strangers online, let alone purchasing goods and services based on a few lines of textual product description. However in today’s Internet era, e-commerce has been a natural thing in our daily lives. With its huge conveniency, we are willing to, even love to, spend more and more money on the online stores. But it’s also true that besides the conveniency, people care about the trustworthiness of online goods and services providers. In the paper of this week, we see the importance of reputation systems that indicate the trustworthiness of sellers. Given the asymmetric information in the online markets, we certainly need the reputation systems to check sellers’ records in order to assess their trustworthiness.
In addition, we also see how an online seller’s motivation affects shoppers’ willingness to submit their credit card numbers. A detailed product description with great knowledge and understandings would be more convincing for its trustworthiness. This may be more obvious in some sites without reputation systems like Craigslist, in which trust is often built upon the information provided by sellers. We tend to favor products with more complete descriptions and photos. However, fraud would more easily appear without reputation systems, since buyers know little about the ratings of the sellers and products. Given such limited information, buyers and sellers would often need to meet up to see the products before the transactions. In such case, face-to-face negotiations are inevitable.
Computer-mediated communication is getting popular in today’s world driven by technology. However, it doesn’t mean that human factors and interactions can be replaced. After all, it is not realistic to dream of the world of pure technology without any intervention of human behaviors. We need to make more efforts to compensate the problems of switching from traditional transactions to electronic commerce.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:43 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 18. Bernt Wahl | April 3rd, 2007 at 9:34 am
What is ethnography do we need to go to exotic world and study native people for years or can it be found write where we are.
Can Virtual tribes be held together by Mobile communication
A Mobile Device Society Based on Mobile Media
Mobile communication is fast becoming the force that binds global communities. In 1991 there were 60 million mobile devices, in 2006 there were 2 billion wireless devices deployed worldwide. Penetration rates in Japan and South Korea 90%, China 35%, India 5%, Pacific Rim Countries 42%, Latin America 72%, Africa 10%, Europe 60% and North America 67%.
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:34 am |In the future we will have more mobile devices then people when inanimate objects will keep in contact with their owners through wireless communication. Business and personal communications are the prime driving forces, with unintended effects such as collective activism.
Collective activism is using the Network as a primary means to call people into action. The Philippines president calls supporters to prevent a codetta; China rallies groups to protest against Japan becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Counsel, Ukraine assembles masses to prevent vote fraud. At the World Trade Organization 1999 meeting in Seattle protestors used mobile communications to disrupt meetings. Ironically it is technology that is being used to mass resistance to globalization. Corporations now feel the brunt of their own technology. The new technology also has the potential to undermine the control of governments through ‘mobile clustering’. News now is hard to censor with so many alternative ways of delivery.
Banned protest becomes a collective action of family and friends. Social identities are formed through small intimate wireless communities based on collective identities. Instant communities form for raves parties, sports events, religious gatherings, dating gatherings and instant communities. YouTube politics were people form an opinion based on what they see posted by virtual groups online rather then the words of politicians e.g. SMS messages exposed cost Spain’s president the election when they swayed voters by accurately informing them that the railway bomb blast came from Al Qaeda rather than Bas Separatists as the state claimed. Later the police traced mobile phone records to trace Al Qaeda cell operatives that had recently talked to bombing suspects.
In Africa farmers in remote villages relay on communicating to brokers for crop prices by cell phones. Phones that are brought by bicycle messenger periodically, recharged by means of power-generation from bicycle peddling.
Developing country inhabitants put extraordinary value on mobile phones; it is their link to the outside world. In China a miner can spend up to 40% of his income on cell calls to find employment.
YouTube Politics
In November 2006 the Republicans lost the U.S. Senate by one member because his domestic dispute was shown on YouTube. Users now are producer of content that can be seen by millions. In 2006 there are 3 million viewers of iPod video casting, by 2010 it is estimated there will be 25 million in the U.S.
The Mobile Revolutions is having a effect economically as well socially. In a effort to bust efficiency, managers use email to quickly respond to work flow information rather than call. Youth prefer to email employees and teachers but still prefer to talk to friends on the phone. SMS is used when calling is inconvenient or too expensive. Cell phones have an incredible value in developing countries where information is scarce. Ring tones are a $ 4-5 billion market in the U.S. SMS with its 160-character message limit is becoming the preferred form of communications in many developing countries bringing information to a worldwide audience. Global cell-satellite, once seen as expensive can transmit information anywhere in the world for just a few cents in SMS form. In 2006, there were 60 million blogs worldwide more and more of them accessible through mobile devices. As mobile technology brings digital information to remote places, there is one major problem we will to over come, how do we teach youth to text message that are grammatically correct?
Source readings and lecture by Manuel Castells, iSchool U.C. Berkeley Lecture November 18, 2006
WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed