COMM 305 1ndEditionUnit 3 Study GuideSocial Life of Small Urban Spaces Watching Guide1. Describe the methods the researchers used. What did they actually do? How did they do it?The research was done by observation. They went to various parks in the city and did a number of tests at a number of times during the dayThey measured density of people in areas, noted where people tended to sit, noted what people were doing, why they might have chosen to sit in those places. 2. Throughout the film, the researchers are counting lots of things. What sort of things are they counting?They count the number of people in certain places, how that number changes throughout the day,the gender of people in the parks. They also count things like the number of seats available, the number of ledges, how long people would sit in one area.3. Did it seem like those being observed were aware of the researchers? Why or why not?For the most part it seemed like they were unaware--they weren’t looking at the camera or ges-turing or talking to the researchers. Also, a lot of the footage was shot from what appeared to be the top of a building, so unless the people below were looking up at the buildings, they probably wouldn’t have seen them. This is a complete observer approach.4. How did they analyze the data they collected? What did they do?They made a bunch of graphs--like a lot of graphs--marking the places that people sat, how long they sat, how close together, and other factors like sunlight and whether food was available. So they kind of tried to understand why people would sit in certain places due to psychology, but also they just collected and presented a lot of empirical data.5. What were the key findings?They found that a few things determined the popularity of a spot: sitting availability, sunlight, food, water, trees, close linkage with the street. The main idea posited was that people will sit where there is sittable space available.Radio Lab, December 12, 2008, Yellow Fluff and Other Curious Encounters, Listening Guide1. a) Explain the central question tackled by the podcast (i.e., “When a scientist looks out at the world and sees a pattern, is that the scientist’s mind projected onto the chaos of the world? … Is the discovery in the scientist? Or is it out there in the world? … Meaning it just exists indepen-dent of us. It doesn’t care if we find it or not?”) b) How is this an ontological question? Which stance would be realist? Which would be nominalist?This is a question about whether the reality of experiments exist outside of our minds—do we create the things we see? Or are there things out there waiting to be discovered? Basically, do wecreate the reality we try to understand? It has to do with reality—what is real—which makes it an ontological question. A realist would say that of course the world exists outside of our minds. Of course there is a real-ity out there waiting to be discovered. We don’t create reality around us. A nominalist would say that we do create reality around us—that our minds create the problems and the solutions we explore. 2. a) Is the periodic table a uniquely human construction or does it reflect something more funda-mental about the laws of nature? b) How do these ideas illustrate the basic question of ontology (#1)?No. We created the term “periodic table” and we gave order to the elements, but the elements themselves are obviously created by the world (God). The laws of nature make the elements and make the relations between the elements, but we turned it into a table and imposed human order on them. This reflects ontological questions, because we know that the reality exists out there—we know that the elements exist outside of our own brains/knowledge. However, we do impose our own knowledge on the elements—the periodic table only exists because we created it. Was the peri-odic table a human construct or was it always out there waiting to be discovered? 3. a) Why were some of the researchers’ disappointed by the failure to discover 3-eyed tube worms? b) Would you have been elated or disappointed?COMM 305 1ndEdition Because it would mean discovering something completely new and unknown. The “unicorn of the Arctic.”4. (Warning. This segment is a little gross.) Does Jerry Coyne’s experience with the botfly larva give him a different understanding of botfly larva generally compared to what he might know based on his research? Explain.Yes. This is subjective knowledge. Actual experience versus knowledge you might gain reading abook. This is the concept of phenomenology. 5. Would you say that communication scholarship is more like a science or an art? Why?Unit 1: Revisiting Metatheoretical Concepts1. a) Explain how the phrase, "The map is not the territory" is relevant for this class.To say the map is not the territory is to say that the theory is not the thing it describes. The theoryis not the actual communication behavior itself, but is a representation of the behavior—a set of ideas that help us understand and navigate the behaviors themselves. b) In what sense is a theory an abstraction?Theories are abstractions because they are representations of something in the real world. They are not the thing itself, but an attempt to explain the actual thing or make sense of the actual thing. Theories merely represent and abstract realities. c) Are theories perfect representations of the empirical world? Explain.No. They are abstractions that generalize. Theories often have to ignore certain things to focus onother things, meaning that a theory that might be right 90% of the time may be wrong 10% of thetime. It’s not perfect because it’s a representation of reality rather than the reality itself. d) Are imperfect representations useless?No. They can still be helpful depending on the questions asked. Yes, theories have to ignore some problems to answer other questions, but they can still be helpful in answering specific questions.2. a) What are the two processes for building lay and formal theories?Induction and deduction. Remember, lay theory is the idea that we are natural theory-builders. Even if we aren’t writing things down and formally compiling ideas, we walk around and create theories in our heads as we go. (Induction is an interpretive method and deduction is more post positivist). b) Define induction and deduction.Induction is when you start in the real