A study performed by the local university looks into the ups and downs of young adult Snapchat users. Performed by Montana State University’s J. Mitchell Vaterlaus. Using a mixture of focus group methodology and in-depth interviews, they were able to dig into the minds of young Snapchat users to help understand not only why the social media platform is growing at such an impressive rate but also how and why young adults are using it at such a rapid rate.

The study wanted to specifically understand how the use of Snapchat affects the social, romantic and family relationships that the users keep. Thirty four students aged 18-23 were gathered for an ititial focus group where they were asked a number of student lead questions which transformed into high productive organic conversation about their usage habits. 8 total groups were used, each with 4 to 6 participants each. As unique and new information was produced, those participants were pulled aside for a more detailed and in depth one on one interview.

The data from the initial study was quite interesting, and the hope is that it will lead to future studies on a much larger basic. An interesting note that I think is worth discussing, is the phenomenon that most studies revolving social media these days tend to target the negative aspects of the tech. This particular study notes on how Snapchat can have a positive affect on the users family, romantic and social lives. Allowing them to connect with other users in a completely fresh and new way.  I think it’s very important that we continue to study how our young adults are using technology. They have more access to it than any other generation before, and it’s imperative that we have a good understanding at both the positive and negative outcomes of this wonderful convenience that has been placed at our fingertips.

I’m excited to write this blog, because it might be one of the concepts that I understood the most in our class. The way my mind processes things, it was easy for me to discern a difference between the two different styles of research.

The easiest way for me to break down the difference between the words was to think about quantity and quality. The Quantity aspect makes me think about numbers and surveys. Taking data and crunching the figures to make sense of it all. The Quality word takes me a different direction. I think of details and nuance. I think of sitting down at an interview with someone and hanging up on every word or phrase that they say.

The two terms have a number of similarities and differences. The similarities are harder to find in my opinion. A lot of it revolves around the prepping and planning of both a qualitative and quantitative study. Both require an almost tactical approach to the collection of your data. Whether you are writing a detailed and well thought out survey, or designing a simulation in which you will observe your participants, both require an elevated amount of organization to ensure success.

Another similarity falls in the post-research category. Both of them require a fair amount of time to sit down and analyze your findings. Whether it’s looking at numbers and entering them in formula based spreadsheet, or coding answers from an interview. Both forms of research require a precise period of reflection and processing.

The final similarity is a big picture idea. It’s the idea that both aspects are designed to research how humans communicate with one another and the world around us. Whether is through computer mediated communication or face to face interactions with coworkers in the office, both forms of communication research are looking at finding out ways for explaining or improving the way we interact.

The differences between the two terms is much easier to understand. Quantitative research is about the processing and understanding of hard data that we have acquired through surveys or other forms of mass data collection. Qualitative is about a more detailed look at a specific human being and their experiences.

Qualitative research gives us the ability to transform our research question as our studies provide new information and outlooks, whereas a quantitative approach seems a bit more black and white to me. We are looking for specific answers in the data to lead us to our hypothesis.

To me, a qualitative viewpoint is a detailed look into a microscope, whereas a quantitative plan gives us more of a satellite image of our phenomenon.

Both forms are important and have a special place in communication research, and I know that certain questions are best answered with one format or another.

In my proposed research, I am going to study how people process breaking news in a crisis situation. I think it will be best to take a qualitative approach, and look into the specifics of my participants though process and mindset.

I’m still a little up in the air about how to measure my variables. I think I’d like to perform a study where I bring people into a closed environment and create a fake news event. Something somewhat tragic that will really get people worked up (I understand that part of this may not be exactly ethical, I don’t want to traumatize people). In theory we would be monitoring the people in the room. When news breaks, I’d like to then see how quickly people search out additional information, and then see if they turn to their phones (Twitter, Facebook etc) or a traditional source like a TV based news program.

Another thought would require more of an intimate interview after the tragic news was broke and the subjects had time to process and think about what happened, and where they got their news. I like the idea of using an online service like Mechanical Turk to find my participants. That way I can attempt to be very picky with the selection.

I think that a perfectly executed study would incorporate all kinds of study techniques. A little but of quantitative and qualitative. Start with a survey, then use that data to perform an observation of some kind. Then I’d use the observation to find a handful of folks to do a focus group of in person interview.

Graphic Cigarette Labels give the term “Shock & Awe” a whole new meaning.

I remember the first time I saw one. I was at a business development conference in the Northeast and a handful of the attendees were from Canada. I stepped outside to make a phone call and one of the guys followed me out to have a smoke. Bam. There it was. A picture of two pairs of human lungs. One of them was clean and rid of anything that looked harmful. The other one looked like it had been taking a bath in maple syrup (not a Canada joke…) before being dragged up and down a driveway that had just gotten a fresh coat of sealant. It was honestly disturbing. The image took almost no explanation and it definitely hit home. I remember thinking oh my lord, who would want their lungs to look like that.

It was that precise moment that the gentleman flipped open his Zippo lighter and took his first puff.

My above point raises an interesting question? Does the graphic label work? Is it actually keeping people from smoking? A team of Communication researchers stepped out in search of the very same question. Are the labels actually working?

Nicole LaVoie, a doctorate candidate from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign headed up the team of researchers looking to see if the labels were an effective method or not.

They are using “perceived freedom threats” as a way to understand the positive or negative outcomes of the labels. Using whats called the psychological reactance theory (PRT) they predict that the use of these labels may do more harm than good.

Using previous studies and data they learned that it is possible that the labels can arouse smokers and possibly anger them. Rather than a text based warning which is probably politely ignored.

The research team studied just under 500 students all of which were undergraduates at a large Midwestern University and ranged in ages 18-25.

The students were shown a graphic based warning and a text based warning and then surveyed on the level of perceived threat to their freedom.

After all of the data was compiled and analyzed, the results showed that most students positively associated the graphic warning with freedom threats.

So what does all of this mean? To put it simply, perhaps the picture of the black lung does a little more harm than good?

My title was supposed to mimic one of the recent Disney “Pirates of the Caribbean” movie titles, but I don’t really think it worked. 

I’ll be honest I don’t have a formal title to my research question yet. I can think of about a dozen ways to type it out, and they all look equally bad. So that is a work in progress. The question I would like to answer relates to critical breaking news and how people react when accessing the news information via social media sites (Twitter & Facebook) compared to actual confirmed journalistic sources from print or the television. In my head I am breaking those two categories and calling them “old school” and “new school.” Old school being the more traditional way of consuming news, and new school representing the newer way of doing things.

The clues I used to find my 5 sources are a handful of key terms and phrases. The first term I used was “Online News Consumption” which led me to:

“Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparativeanalysis”

This journal is important because it is the natural “beginning” of the question that I am curious about. The journal talks about people not considering social media to be a news platform. And that while using Facebook or Twitter, they aren’t purposely searching for news updates. But the algorithms and feature sets that social media provides us with put things that we are projected to be interested in right in front of us. Now rather than looking at funny cat photos or the latest recipe including the inappropriate use of guacamole (which should only be eaten with a tortilla chip…) we are presented with the latest local or national news article.

Truthfully that was my best search term. I was able to use it as a stepping stone to get to new articles and more related content.

Oh my. Related Content is such a “social media” term. Look at that, a first class example of the brainwashing we are all subjected to on a daily basis. I would have never used that term 5 years ago.

Besides the point, I’m getting off track.

After “online news consumption” I used other similar search terms. I tried “twitter news” and “digital news” which got me some mixed results.

I think the term that I would have liked to refine more and perhaps find some more information on is “crisis news.”

The study that I am thinking about proposing will relate directly to a “breaking news” situation or a staged crisis of some sort. I want to see how people react, and where they go for what they perceive to be the most accurate and reliable source of news.

I took the extra pairs survey put on by the University of Sunderland. It was an interesting process. I’ve never taken a survey like that before, and some of the questions got pretty graphic. It made me think and opened my eyes a bit. Made me realize how often I do or do not think about certain things when it comes to sexual relationships.

The survey took about 25-30 minutes which I think was a good time. If it was any longer, I think I would have started to lose interest and probably would have started not reading the questions as closely. I think the user interface of the survey could have been improved. I found it difficult to pair the bubbles to the scale at the top of the page. The scale definitions should have been statically placed at the same place on the page as users scroll through the questions. Perhaps that is the difference between a higher budget and lower budget study.

I’ve decided to do my research about a topic that interests me. It consumes my life on a daily basis. Video Conferencing is revolutionizing the way people work, live and most importantly communicate with others. It helps teachers reach students that would normally be out of reach. It helps doctors diagnose patients in the comfort of their homes rather than a germ infested clinic. It allows employees to work from their homes and spend more time with their families rather then catch planes trains and busses to get to work.

The first article I stumbled across is called “A Window to the World: Video Conferencing via Mobile Devices in Schools.” It was written by Damien Maher and published in the Journal of Current Issues in Media & Technology in 2015. The article explains how video conferencing via laptops and other mobile devices supports learning and augments reality which creates a more intense learning environments. The use of video conferencing in classrooms allows students to interact with people who are more or less experienced in their communities.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article and it lead me to my next read. One of the articles cited in the text was called “Facilitating Computer Conferencing: Recommendations from the Field” by Zane Berge. The coolest thing about this article is that it was written in 1995. Hang on while that marinates for a moment. Nineteen Ninety Five. I was four years old, cell phones and tablets were still in pipe dream phase.

The ancient article explains video conferencing as the “merging of computers and telecommunications systems.” I found that extremely interesting and I enjoyed how it simplified the explanation of video conferencing.

My Scholar of choice is Nichole Ellison from the University of Michigan. I chose her for a few reasons. First, I am a big Jim Harbaugh fan. I also think its incredibly cool that the school is sponsored by the Jordan brand, a subsidiary of Nike and the greatest logo in sportswear.

Dr. Ellison is a professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Information. She got her bachelors degree in english from Columbia University in 1991. She then moved on to the University of Southern California for her masters and doctoral studies. Both of which in Communications.

She has done research projects in a number of fields, but most of them revolve around computer mediated communication and how people use the internet. She worked on a project in 2013/2014 that was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (very cool) about low income first generation college students. The study surveyed 500 kids from low income areas of Michigan. Using different factors such as family history, demographics, parental community involvement Ellison and her team were able to learn that kids with Facebook friends that are attending college are more likely to have confidence in having a positive college experience than their peers with no Facebook friends attending college.

I think this is an interesting outlook on how kids are using the internet, and processing the images and signals they are receiving on a daily basis. The study was successful and lead to the creation of the College Connect App, which connects college bound high school students with facebook friends attending college, and allows them to ask questions.

“I don’t have a quote for this box” – Tyler Theilken