I believe the journal called “Journal of
communication” edited by Malcolm Parks is important for media technology
research while all sorts of communication is a central area in media
technology. The journal publishes articles about communication theories and
research. Some examples of articles are insurgent propaganda, cultivation
theory, interactivity in online news discussions, the twitterization of news
making, social networks and popular understanding of science and health and the
power of writing in organizations: from letters to online interactions. The
journal is published every second month and is peer-reviewed and has the impact
factor of 2.011.
“The benefits of Facebook
“friends:” social capital and college students” is a paper about finding out
the relationship between the social network site Facebook and the formation and
maintenance of social capital.
The paper proposes several
hypotheses which are clearly stated. It is a bit unclear in the beginning,
while they are written after a quite long introduction. The hypothesis are as
well not gathered together, but separated by text. On the other hand, the relationships between
them are well outlined as well as the explanations and theoretic parts. The main
hypothesis are “Intensity of Facebook use will be positively associated with
individuals’ perceived bridging social capital.” and “Intensity of
Facebook use will be positively associated with individuals’ perceived bonding
social capital.”The background information is integrated in the
introduction and hypothesis questions. This is at first sight a bit confusing,
but the structure suits the paper. The research method used in the paper is
quantitative methods since they use a survey for collecting all kinds of data
from the college students regarding they use of Facebook and internet and
personal information. To measure different aspects, they use scales which are
clearly shown. Graphic pictures are used to present the data. The figures are
very small, which make them difficult to read and understand. The data is also
integrated in text. In the discussion the main question is discussed. The findings
are as well brought up and also some theoretical findings. A slightly odd thing
is that limitations and future research is also included in the discussion. These
parts should maybe have been in the end of the paper. One of the main
conclusions is that there is a connection between Facebook usage and social
capital which is also positive (which is stated in the hypothesis). Overall a
good research paper and is easy to follow.
1. Briefly explain to a first year university student what theory is,
and what theory is not.
Theory is explanations of
something, tested through scientific methods. Theory is how something can be
done and why something is what it is to get an understanding. Theory is not
only statements, hypothesis, methods or just data.
2. 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 paper is
that Facebook usage has positive connections with the social capital and is in
some way proved by the survey and the analysis of the collected data. According
to the table it would probably be the number three “Prediction” while it says
what it is and has testable propositions but does have well-developed justificatory
causal explanations.
3. Which are the benefits and limitations of using the selected theory
or theories?
A benefit of the theory
“prediction” is that “it says what it is” and can give an answer and state. The limitation of the theory on
the other hand is that it doesn’t use any well-developed justificatory explanations
which mean that the theory can’t apply on every similar case and make a generalization.
Hi Ida,
SvaraRaderaA late blog post but its good as I am also commenting late. In this theme I have chosen the same paper as topic of this paper is interesting but now after having understanding or research methods, I would say that research method used in this paper was not of high quality. Also, I agree with you that they didn't use any explanations and just showed results in numeric data so I think we need another study to have further explanation of underlying phenomenon.
Nice blog post!