It often seems that there are as many research methodologies as there are disciplines. When you are in an interdisciplinary field such as ours, this can be very frustrating. This week we aim to cut through all the assumptions about what quantitative and qualitative methods are “used for” or “not used for” and instead ask a simple question: what kind of research problems can be addressed with different research methodologies? On Tuesday we will devote half of our time to talking about research problems and justifications, and the other half to interpreting and using qualitative research. We have an especially good reading as an example this week (Beamtimes and Lifetimes is an excellent ethnography of particle physicists), so we hope you will come armed with questions and comments. On Thursday we shift to research problems that make use of quantitative methodologies. We have a short introductory reading about inferential statistical methods (for context), and then a recent article that uses survey methods and statistics to examine the relationship between Internet use and earnings in the U.S.
February 23rd, 2009
In week 5 our readings deal with how information can act as a public good. We look at two research articles that detail why information sharing is often complicated by different incentives, motivations, costs and benefits. The Thursday lecture is devoted to applying our understanding of this material to two popular-press books: The Wisdom of Crowds and The Long Tail.
February 23rd, 2009
We had a great discussion about the social implications of the Internet this week, covering a range of subjects, from the OLPC to politics in the age of Obama.
Will the OLPC help bring about the changes that its backers hope it will? It well may; but our discussions suggested that it is difficult to anticipate the exact uses to which the device might be put. In addition, we surfaced the dangers of treating the OLPC as a unitary object, eliding away the complexities of the system that it is embedded within, speaking of it as a stand-in for many other issues that must be dealt with concomitantly (government policy, network infrastructures, teacher education, etc.).
The last election proved that the internet certainly can affect the political system. The extent of the changes, however, cannot fully be pinned down. The discussion raised questions of whether more people are contributing because of the internet, or if the same people are just contributing more. Whether the internet creates a greater plurality of viewpoints and better read populace, or if people are just sticking their heads in echo chambers.
This was a great discussion, and we’re already thinking about how we can facilitate more such!
February 17th, 2009
This week, we extend the discussion from Fischer on the different schools of thought around the issues of the connections between technology and society. Does technology “cause” social change? Is society the sole determinant of the course that technology takes? The readings explore the range of possibilities between both these positions. Heilbroner writes persuasively of a sequence to the invention of technologies, and is closest to the technological determinist position. We will be discussing two of the more popular social constructivist approaches: the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) and Actor-Network Theory (ANT). Mackenzie attempts to reconcile these schools of thought, with a consideration of what sociology and economics might learn from one another, and a nuanced view of “natural” technological trajectories. In these discussions, it can be easy to lose sight of the basic concepts that we’re dealing with; the optional reading from Leo Marx explores the origin and meanings of “technology”, helping to focus our analysis.
February 2nd, 2009