(1) H1a: online communication will reduce….. H1b: online communication will increase…… -- Shouldn't one be the hypothesis and the other one be the null hypothesis?
(2) IM ∈ online communication but IM ≠ online communication
(3) The authors' intention to explain the relationship between online communication and users well being is good, but the first step for this study is to clearly define "online communication." If only "IM" is measured in the study, the theoretical framework and literature review do not seem to be so relevant to the results.
I looked at: (spaces added to discourage search engine indexing)
On line Per suas ion in Face book and Mi xi: A Cro ss-Cul tural Compar ison, by B.J. Fo gg and Dais uke Iiz awa.
From: H. Oin as-Kuk konen et al. (Eds.): PER SUASIVE 2008, LNCS 5033, pp. 35–46, 2008.
I had problems with the fact that they drew conclusions for two entire countries based on the one social networking site each. Social networking site users are self selecting and one site is not like another; there are distinct differences in which sites appeal to what kind of people. (This has been examined in other studies.)
Secondly, to prove one of their points, the authors survey a group. But the group that they surveyed was only about 60 people split in two different groups. This doesn't seem very scientific to me. Should they even have included the survey in the paper?
4 comments:
I was going to post here but don't see an option to do so anonymously...
Thanks Kim. I just changed the setting. It should work now.
(1) H1a: online communication will reduce…..
H1b: online communication will increase……
-- Shouldn't one be the hypothesis and the other one be the null hypothesis?
(2) IM ∈ online communication
but
IM ≠ online communication
(3) The authors' intention to explain the relationship between online communication and users well being is good, but the first step for this study is to clearly define "online communication." If only "IM" is measured in the study, the theoretical framework and literature review do not seem to be so relevant to the results.
I looked at: (spaces added to discourage search engine indexing)
On line Per suas ion in Face book and Mi xi: A Cro ss-Cul tural Compar ison, by B.J. Fo gg and Dais uke Iiz awa.
From: H. Oin as-Kuk konen et al. (Eds.): PER SUASIVE 2008, LNCS 5033, pp. 35–46, 2008.
I had problems with the fact that they drew conclusions for two entire countries based on the one social networking site each. Social networking site users are self selecting and one site is not like another; there are distinct differences in which sites appeal to what kind of people. (This has been examined in other studies.)
Secondly, to prove one of their points, the authors survey a group. But the group that they surveyed was only about 60 people split in two different groups. This doesn't seem very scientific to me. Should they even have included the survey in the paper?
Post a Comment