Jing Ke
August, 2010
Course Title: Law and the Challenges of New Media
The question discussed in this essay is the challenges to today’s legal system derived from the uses of new media with regard to the issue of “reputation”. New media, in contrast to the traditional media, in this essay refers to the forms of electronic communication based on the use of computer technology, most typically the Internet. Doubtlessly, the rise of new media and digital communication technologies in the past decades has brought a wide range of challenges to modern society, since the online information publication could be fast, anonymous, global and even uncontrollable. As a matter of fact, the surge of new media, such as the Internet, has become a huge potential threat to a person’s reputation in contemporary society.
The definition of Reputation (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) is the overall quality or character as seen or judged by people in general; or a place in public esteems or regard (good name). On the other hand, Defamation is communication about a person that tends to hurt the person's reputation. In today’s new media era, a person’s online reputation is highly connected with and has large influence on the person’s reputation in real world. As Cory J. asserted in Hill v. Scientology case, the reputation of an individual (an organization as well) should to be cherished above all in a democratic society. Firstly, a good reputation is closely related to the innate worthiness and dignity of the individual. Secondly, reputation is the fundamental foundation on which people are able to interact with each other in social environment. Thirdly, it serves the important purpose of fostering a person’s self-image and sense of self-worth. Finally, it is intimately related to a person’s right of privacy. For these reasons, a person’s reputation must be protected by law, i.e. the common law of defamation.
On the other hand, when we talk about reputation and the challenges brought by new media, we should not ignore what stands on the other side of the issue: the freedom of expression. Among all the cases we read, the Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto Case [1995], the Newman et al. v. Halstend et al. Case [2006] and the Crookes v. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Case [2008] clearly manifest how the whole system of common law aim to strike an appropriate balance between the twin values of reputation and freedom of expression, and how difficult it is to reach a convincing judgment over those issues.
The right of free speech, in other words, the freedom to express ideas and criticize the operation of institution and the conduct of government, is indubitably the cornerstone of a democratic society. However, no freedom is absolute and the freedom a person acquires on expression is also a “freedom governed by law”. The importance of free speech should never be over-emphasized, especially in cyberspace activities. As it is revealed in the cases, with the widely use of contemporary new media technologies, acts like defamation, libel and false allegation can quickly and completely destroy a person’s reputation, both online and in real world, thus such act should be regarded as a serious offence. Besides that, on a broader scope, the issue of reputation is concerned in any lawsuit since the reputation of everyone involved in the case is at stake.
The Crookes v. Wikimedia case is a good example of how the expansion of Internet in society brings unexpected questions to our legal system regarding reputation and defamation, i.e. is it an act of defamation when a website article includes a hyperlink to some defamatory websites. The judgment of such cases indicates a high consideration of the intentions of the article publisher, and whether there is a “publication” of the defamatory words. Based on my understanding, the act of publication can be examined in a rather objective manner while the intention of the publisher is a more subjective issue. In many cases, some extreme, biased or inappropriate expressions in cyberspace could be acceptable and allowed in order to protect freedom of expression and realize public interest, however, such expression may only be one step away to become libel, malice and other illegal act. – In other words, the difficulty and vagueness in keeping the balance between reputation and freedom of expression in today’s legal system is the main challenge brought by new media. As a matter of fact, there is a large “grey area” lies in the protection of these two fundamental human rights, and one can hardly draw a clear line in between.
The challenge of a person’s reputation in today’s web2.0 or even web3.0 area raises questions like the management and regulation of blogs, online chat rooms, bulletin boards and other public space for free expression, which is a challenge faced by the legal system globally. Take China’s “online mob” phenomenon for example, which refers to when some Internet users publish an individual or organization’s scandals (i.e. a husband having an affair with someone else, or some companies doing backstage deals in the market) on the Internet, hundreds of thousands of anonymous Internet users start to join in the publication and “attack” the person involved. They simply use their keyboards and mouse as weapons and in most of the time, the online mob can successfully find out very detailed personal information of the ones involved in the scandals (i.e. name, job, address, phone number, date of birth, family and even pictures). Plus, they also publish numerous threatening and humiliating words to the individual. As a result, the person being attacked turned out to be hurt both mentally and physically, some of them move to another city or even commit suicide under huge pressure.
Obviously, the online mob phenomenon in China has emerged as a growingly strong power in society and has large influence on people’s real life. As a kind of dangerous crowd behavior, it indeed leads to an invisible but alarming violence. Though government starts to pay more attention to online expression regulation, it seems impossible to curb the emergence of such activity. From my perspective, it is unquestionable that Internet should be free and the online freedom of expression should be protected. Such is especially important for a rapidly transforming country like China, and it will definitely help to build a more open, fair and democratic society. However, all these online public space: blogs, chat rooms, bulletin boards and so forth are just a platform for information communication based on new technologies, not a court. Though netizens have the right to express their ideas and opinions, they should not go across the line. Furthermore, numerous historical and current events have proved that the moral standard of the public (the Internet users in this case) is not always trustworthy, and crowd behavior in most of the time turned out to be irrational activities with miserable endings.
From my perspective, the protection of reputation in new media era is both a legal and moral issue. In many cases, defamation exists, damages are made, but no one could be identified to take responsibility since the online identity is fake and anonymous. Policies and laws should be further developed to have a better protection over every social member’s privacy and other interests. However, when present state of technology and legal system cannot promise a whole protection, we have to go to morality and rise the moral standard of Internet users by means of education, mass media, community and so forth. The guideline is the minority who are hurting others should be prevented but the majority’s freedom of expression should not be disturbed.
To sum up, compared with traditional media, new media such as the Internet provides a more rapid, interactive and unrestricted measure in communicating all kinds of information nation-wide and internationally. It is a technology we should take advantage of, but also necessitates a rigorous and systematic regulation over its uses. Law and legislation always develop with the pace of the times and they exist as a measure to balance all kinds of power and interest in society, including personal, public and national. The widely use of new media today questions how to fulfill the vacuum in legal system concerning the issue of reputation and defamation, and the ever-changing legislative and juridical framework of contemporary society is again in a transition. It reveals the development of our society and the development of human civilization; it also indicates the concerns and protection of human rights. The final goal of such transition is to enable all users of the new media to enjoy their own rights and freedom in the cyberspace while guarantee their uses do not infringe others’ rights and freedom, which is also the spirit of a civil society.
Aug 5, 2010
Jul 19, 2010
Government Regulation and New Media
Jing Ke
July, 2010
Course Title: Law and the Challenges of New Media
“The contemporary history of new media has been characterized by conflict over the role of government in regulating the development of new media technologies and their uses.”
The development of human civilization is, to some extent, the history of technological innovations and the recognition as well as utilization of them by human beings. However, it is not unusual in history that the impacts and effects of technological innovations being under-estimated due to the ignorance of the complexity of human nature. The issue of regulating and guiding the development of new technologies needs to be more carefully pondered when we focus on the field of information communication technologies, for the reason that information communication is the lifeboat of human activities and social development. Generally speaking, the functions of mass media can be summarized as informing the audience, forming public opinion, educating, entertaining, and serving the economic, cultural as well as political systems of the society, and so forth. Accordingly, considering the influential functions of mass media, the importance of government regulation and intervention over new media technologies in the practice of using them in society needs to be stressed.
As a matter of fact, the contemporary history of new media, since the 1930s radio broadcasting and later cable TV to today’s Internet, witnesses a conflict over the role of government in regulating the development of new media technologies and their uses. Take the development of radio broadcasting industry in the United States, Britain and Canada for example, as it has been depicted in Dewar’s article, though the radio broadcasting landscape was almost the same in the three nations at its infancy, distinctness emerged after years of development and heated debate arose in these nations concerning the role of government in regulating radio broadcasting activities.
The radio boom in the US in 1921-22 brought in a growing disorder to the country’s airwaves, the profit source was mainly point-to-point communication at that time, and the development of radio broadcasting was dominated by powerful corporations such as the RCA-GE-AT&T alliance. However, the increased capital cost and programming cost made the financing of radio broadcasting became a major problem in the development of this new industry. Under the influence of the rapidly expanding advertising industry and the success of AT&T’s “toll broadcasting” experiment, advertising gradually became a solution to the radio’s growing financial problem. Commercialization advanced slowly and more direct advertising began to be used. In the light of 1927 Radio Act passed by the Congress and years of market development, the American government eventually established a policy of regulation of a privately-owned system based on the commercial profitability of the medium, particularly for advertising by the early 1930s. The radio broadcasting in the US is very capitalist, following the faith of free market economy.
The radio broadcasting model of Great Britain was considerably influenced by the earlier experience of US. Since the late 1920s, British government started to adopt a sharply contrasting broadcasting policy compared with the United States. The BBC was established in 1922 as a government-sponsored company which provides radio programs to the public. As a result of the upcoming heated debate on patent control and licensing policy, the BBC’s structure was radically altered and it finally became a public corporation in 1927 in order to protect the nation’s radio broadcasting industry from foreign competition and revenue crisis. I personally hold that the shape of the British broadcasting model is also largely influenced by the nation’s political system and government structure: the parliamentary system with multi-party competition necessitates a strong state-owned broadcasting system to minimize the partisanship in radio broadcasting in order to cater public interest. As a result, in the 1930s, the British government eventually created a completely state-owned system based on a concept of radio as a “public service”. The radio broadcasting system of UK is public funded and has a low degree of commercialization.
Learned from the already formed British and US pattern and their strengths and weaknesses, Canadian Federal Government intended to draw a balance between public interests (high quality programming) and financial interests (commercial success) in the development of radio broadcasting industry. As a matter of fact, the distinctive mixed public-private broadcasting system of Canada emerged from particular Canadian conditions as well as the technical and economic factors during that period. On the one hand, the limited local market size and audience number failed to attract large amount of advertising revenue to survive the broadcasting in a highly commercialized environment as in the US. On the other hand, the federal government intended to control the spread of direct advertising and protect domestic radio broadcasting by set up licensing policy. The debate on public ownership of radio broadcasting lasted for years, and both sides agreed that government assistance was necessary. The pressure of financing the radio broadcasting system in combination with the needs of a co-existing of both press and radio broadcasting in Canada brought in the distinctive mixed public-private broadcasting system in the late 1930s.
By reviewing the history of radio broadcasting of the three nations, one can easily observe that government plays an indispensible role in regulating the development of radio broadcasting industry, basically by means of licensing policies and varied legislations. From my perspective, the fundamental function of legislation and law in a society is to solve problems, to regulate the entire social activities and to maximize public interests and personal interests while keep a balance between the two. Besides that, we should not ignore that the legislation and law passed by a government also represent the will of the nation and protect its interests in both domestic and international competition. With regard to radio broadcasting industry in the US, Britain and Canada, distinctive laws passed by government represent the government’s will on how to regulate, guide and curb the development of this industry. The US privately-owned system based on the commercial profitability, and the British state-owned system based on a concept of radio as a “public service”, as well as the Canadian mixed public-private broadcasting system were all established by means of government legislation. During the process, though different nations were facing their specific situation, the aim of regulating the development of radio broadcasting industry was the same: to keep a balance between public interest and commercial success and also strive to maximize both of them. This aim necessitates the intervention of government in any kind of political or economic system, since the practitioners’ self-regulation and the “invisible hand” of free market is not always reliable, especially in a field as important as radio broadcasting and mass communication.
In Canadian context, conflict exists between the federal and provincial governments over jurisdiction to pass legislation regulating broadcasting and new media. As it is demonstrated in the Reference on Regulate and Control Radio Communication to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1931 and the Quebec Public Service Board v. Dionne Case in 1978 and so forth, the debate on who has the authority in regulating and controlling radio and television broadcasting and new media has become an eye-catching issue in Canada jurisdiction history. Based on my understanding, there are particular cultural, political as well as historical implications lie in the conflict, which make the issue sensitive and disputative.
As Rinfret J. and Lamont J. argued in the Reference 1931, the jurisdiction of federal government over radio communication is not exclusive, and the wide jurisdiction must be conceded to the Parliament only in the international field where control can only be assured by agreement or treaty between nations. However, as they argued, this issue became different in respect to the capturing of waves and the delivery of the messages they contain. Since the radio transmitting and receiving sets (cables in the Quebec Public Service Board v. Dionne Case) are all property operating within the province, the services they provide including capturing the wave and delivering the message are “localized”, and the resident of a province has the right to use them freely. Any legislation by the federal government that controls or limits the use of such property is an offense to the property and civil rights in the province. Accordingly, the authority to regulate and control that radio communication would be assigned to the provincial legislatures by B.N.A. Act, s.92.
However, as it was asserted by the other side of the debate, such argumentation was unduly simplistic and failed to consider the effects and outcomes of the uses of technology, more specifically, the uses of radio broadcasting as an important measure of information communication. The majority of the justice in these cases agreed that, B.N.A. Act, s.92 removes those works and undertakings which “connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province” from provincial authority, and radio/television broadcasting surely falls into this category. More importantly as they argued, the issue of radio broadcasting is not merely dealing with a transmitter or a receiver simply as pieces of property and equipment, it is dealing with information communication by means of these properties, and the effects of that means of communication cannot be confined within the limits of the province. As a matter of fact, it is undoubted that effects and influences of radio or television broadcasting are enormous and nation-wide.
As mentioned above, the functions of radio or television broadcasting as new measures of mass communication cover from informing to entertaining to educating and socializing the audience by varied programs and information they provide. The linguistic, cultural, ideological and political inclinations conveyed in the programs are so crucial for a unified nation that it has to be regulated and controlled in the authority of federal government. It is the only way to avoid a messy and troublesome situation in the development of this industry and to maintain the stability and unity of the nation.
The issue of Canada’s long-standing debate on regulating new media reminds me what happened earlier this year when Google stopped its Chinese search site (google.cn) in March and moved its branch from mainland China to Hong Kong in order to protest the content censorship requirement and control from Beijing the central government. In this case there is also a conflict lies in the uses of internet search engine as a new technology: on the one hand it is Google’s commercial profitability and the faith of freedom of expression as the cornerstone of a free democratic society; on the other hand it is the will and interest of Chinese government who wishes to keep a “harmonious society” (or for the “greater good”) by censoring the internet content. I’m not advocating strong censorship policies over online expression here; I personally have had enough experience of that. But I do admit that everything exists for a reason. The implications and impacts of new technology, in this case it is the use of internet search engine which would provide access to any kind of information to its users, have to be considered seriously, and the particular conditions of the nation must be taken into account. Sometimes the effects of new media technologies are so huge that strong government control and intervention is a must, this applies in any political, economic, cultural or ideological system. (Interestingly, not until last week, Chinese government issued a new ICP license to Google and allowed it to continue to provide web search and local products to users in China. Though users can click a link and search via Hong Kong to get the uncensored results, no compromise has been made on content censoring in the Chinese search site. Obviously, commercial profitability wins out in this case since Google's stock price has dropped about 18% since it pulled out of China.)
From my perspective, nothing is more complicated than dealing with social life issues and human nature. When a new media technology has been invented, no matter it is the printing press, the telegraphy, or radio, television and internet, its effects and implications have always turned out to exceed our expectations. Effective regulation means a more robust industry and a more ordered society which benefits from the new technologies. That is the reason why in a modern democratic state, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary systems need to play important roles in regulating the development and the use of new media.
July, 2010
Course Title: Law and the Challenges of New Media
“The contemporary history of new media has been characterized by conflict over the role of government in regulating the development of new media technologies and their uses.”
The development of human civilization is, to some extent, the history of technological innovations and the recognition as well as utilization of them by human beings. However, it is not unusual in history that the impacts and effects of technological innovations being under-estimated due to the ignorance of the complexity of human nature. The issue of regulating and guiding the development of new technologies needs to be more carefully pondered when we focus on the field of information communication technologies, for the reason that information communication is the lifeboat of human activities and social development. Generally speaking, the functions of mass media can be summarized as informing the audience, forming public opinion, educating, entertaining, and serving the economic, cultural as well as political systems of the society, and so forth. Accordingly, considering the influential functions of mass media, the importance of government regulation and intervention over new media technologies in the practice of using them in society needs to be stressed.
As a matter of fact, the contemporary history of new media, since the 1930s radio broadcasting and later cable TV to today’s Internet, witnesses a conflict over the role of government in regulating the development of new media technologies and their uses. Take the development of radio broadcasting industry in the United States, Britain and Canada for example, as it has been depicted in Dewar’s article, though the radio broadcasting landscape was almost the same in the three nations at its infancy, distinctness emerged after years of development and heated debate arose in these nations concerning the role of government in regulating radio broadcasting activities.
The radio boom in the US in 1921-22 brought in a growing disorder to the country’s airwaves, the profit source was mainly point-to-point communication at that time, and the development of radio broadcasting was dominated by powerful corporations such as the RCA-GE-AT&T alliance. However, the increased capital cost and programming cost made the financing of radio broadcasting became a major problem in the development of this new industry. Under the influence of the rapidly expanding advertising industry and the success of AT&T’s “toll broadcasting” experiment, advertising gradually became a solution to the radio’s growing financial problem. Commercialization advanced slowly and more direct advertising began to be used. In the light of 1927 Radio Act passed by the Congress and years of market development, the American government eventually established a policy of regulation of a privately-owned system based on the commercial profitability of the medium, particularly for advertising by the early 1930s. The radio broadcasting in the US is very capitalist, following the faith of free market economy.
The radio broadcasting model of Great Britain was considerably influenced by the earlier experience of US. Since the late 1920s, British government started to adopt a sharply contrasting broadcasting policy compared with the United States. The BBC was established in 1922 as a government-sponsored company which provides radio programs to the public. As a result of the upcoming heated debate on patent control and licensing policy, the BBC’s structure was radically altered and it finally became a public corporation in 1927 in order to protect the nation’s radio broadcasting industry from foreign competition and revenue crisis. I personally hold that the shape of the British broadcasting model is also largely influenced by the nation’s political system and government structure: the parliamentary system with multi-party competition necessitates a strong state-owned broadcasting system to minimize the partisanship in radio broadcasting in order to cater public interest. As a result, in the 1930s, the British government eventually created a completely state-owned system based on a concept of radio as a “public service”. The radio broadcasting system of UK is public funded and has a low degree of commercialization.
Learned from the already formed British and US pattern and their strengths and weaknesses, Canadian Federal Government intended to draw a balance between public interests (high quality programming) and financial interests (commercial success) in the development of radio broadcasting industry. As a matter of fact, the distinctive mixed public-private broadcasting system of Canada emerged from particular Canadian conditions as well as the technical and economic factors during that period. On the one hand, the limited local market size and audience number failed to attract large amount of advertising revenue to survive the broadcasting in a highly commercialized environment as in the US. On the other hand, the federal government intended to control the spread of direct advertising and protect domestic radio broadcasting by set up licensing policy. The debate on public ownership of radio broadcasting lasted for years, and both sides agreed that government assistance was necessary. The pressure of financing the radio broadcasting system in combination with the needs of a co-existing of both press and radio broadcasting in Canada brought in the distinctive mixed public-private broadcasting system in the late 1930s.
By reviewing the history of radio broadcasting of the three nations, one can easily observe that government plays an indispensible role in regulating the development of radio broadcasting industry, basically by means of licensing policies and varied legislations. From my perspective, the fundamental function of legislation and law in a society is to solve problems, to regulate the entire social activities and to maximize public interests and personal interests while keep a balance between the two. Besides that, we should not ignore that the legislation and law passed by a government also represent the will of the nation and protect its interests in both domestic and international competition. With regard to radio broadcasting industry in the US, Britain and Canada, distinctive laws passed by government represent the government’s will on how to regulate, guide and curb the development of this industry. The US privately-owned system based on the commercial profitability, and the British state-owned system based on a concept of radio as a “public service”, as well as the Canadian mixed public-private broadcasting system were all established by means of government legislation. During the process, though different nations were facing their specific situation, the aim of regulating the development of radio broadcasting industry was the same: to keep a balance between public interest and commercial success and also strive to maximize both of them. This aim necessitates the intervention of government in any kind of political or economic system, since the practitioners’ self-regulation and the “invisible hand” of free market is not always reliable, especially in a field as important as radio broadcasting and mass communication.
In Canadian context, conflict exists between the federal and provincial governments over jurisdiction to pass legislation regulating broadcasting and new media. As it is demonstrated in the Reference on Regulate and Control Radio Communication to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1931 and the Quebec Public Service Board v. Dionne Case in 1978 and so forth, the debate on who has the authority in regulating and controlling radio and television broadcasting and new media has become an eye-catching issue in Canada jurisdiction history. Based on my understanding, there are particular cultural, political as well as historical implications lie in the conflict, which make the issue sensitive and disputative.
As Rinfret J. and Lamont J. argued in the Reference 1931, the jurisdiction of federal government over radio communication is not exclusive, and the wide jurisdiction must be conceded to the Parliament only in the international field where control can only be assured by agreement or treaty between nations. However, as they argued, this issue became different in respect to the capturing of waves and the delivery of the messages they contain. Since the radio transmitting and receiving sets (cables in the Quebec Public Service Board v. Dionne Case) are all property operating within the province, the services they provide including capturing the wave and delivering the message are “localized”, and the resident of a province has the right to use them freely. Any legislation by the federal government that controls or limits the use of such property is an offense to the property and civil rights in the province. Accordingly, the authority to regulate and control that radio communication would be assigned to the provincial legislatures by B.N.A. Act, s.92.
However, as it was asserted by the other side of the debate, such argumentation was unduly simplistic and failed to consider the effects and outcomes of the uses of technology, more specifically, the uses of radio broadcasting as an important measure of information communication. The majority of the justice in these cases agreed that, B.N.A. Act, s.92 removes those works and undertakings which “connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province” from provincial authority, and radio/television broadcasting surely falls into this category. More importantly as they argued, the issue of radio broadcasting is not merely dealing with a transmitter or a receiver simply as pieces of property and equipment, it is dealing with information communication by means of these properties, and the effects of that means of communication cannot be confined within the limits of the province. As a matter of fact, it is undoubted that effects and influences of radio or television broadcasting are enormous and nation-wide.
As mentioned above, the functions of radio or television broadcasting as new measures of mass communication cover from informing to entertaining to educating and socializing the audience by varied programs and information they provide. The linguistic, cultural, ideological and political inclinations conveyed in the programs are so crucial for a unified nation that it has to be regulated and controlled in the authority of federal government. It is the only way to avoid a messy and troublesome situation in the development of this industry and to maintain the stability and unity of the nation.
The issue of Canada’s long-standing debate on regulating new media reminds me what happened earlier this year when Google stopped its Chinese search site (google.cn) in March and moved its branch from mainland China to Hong Kong in order to protest the content censorship requirement and control from Beijing the central government. In this case there is also a conflict lies in the uses of internet search engine as a new technology: on the one hand it is Google’s commercial profitability and the faith of freedom of expression as the cornerstone of a free democratic society; on the other hand it is the will and interest of Chinese government who wishes to keep a “harmonious society” (or for the “greater good”) by censoring the internet content. I’m not advocating strong censorship policies over online expression here; I personally have had enough experience of that. But I do admit that everything exists for a reason. The implications and impacts of new technology, in this case it is the use of internet search engine which would provide access to any kind of information to its users, have to be considered seriously, and the particular conditions of the nation must be taken into account. Sometimes the effects of new media technologies are so huge that strong government control and intervention is a must, this applies in any political, economic, cultural or ideological system. (Interestingly, not until last week, Chinese government issued a new ICP license to Google and allowed it to continue to provide web search and local products to users in China. Though users can click a link and search via Hong Kong to get the uncensored results, no compromise has been made on content censoring in the Chinese search site. Obviously, commercial profitability wins out in this case since Google's stock price has dropped about 18% since it pulled out of China.)
From my perspective, nothing is more complicated than dealing with social life issues and human nature. When a new media technology has been invented, no matter it is the printing press, the telegraphy, or radio, television and internet, its effects and implications have always turned out to exceed our expectations. Effective regulation means a more robust industry and a more ordered society which benefits from the new technologies. That is the reason why in a modern democratic state, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary systems need to play important roles in regulating the development and the use of new media.
Apr 2, 2010
Lab Report - Hope and Maslow's hierarchy of needs
Jing Ke
Mar, 2010
Course Title: Research Method
Lab Report - An exploration on the biggest hopes in contemporary Canadian undergraduate student: related to Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory
Introduction
From the psychological perspective, hope has been broadly characterized as the “will” and the “ways” to achieve goals (Snyder, 2002). It is a reflection of positive needs and motivations in human psychology. Maslow (1943) proposed a hierarchy of needs theory to depict five layers of human needs, this theory suggests that people are motivated to fulfill basic needs before moving on to the higher needs. By means of this, to study people’s hopes and relate them to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a good way to investigate their psychological status and wellbeing.
Undergraduate student is a unique group in social demographics. On the one hand, they are young adult stepping into the society and start to frame their individual personalities and worldviews. On the other hand, they don’t possess economic independence and still bond closely to their families. Psychologists suggest that to care about these students’ hopes and motivations may help them to reach their education-related goals and become more hopeful in life (Snyder et al., 2003). The aim of this study is to find out the status of “hopefulness” in a group of undergraduate Canadian students and analyze how their hopes can be related to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory.
Based on preceding analysis, two research questions are developed for this study:
1. What are the biggest hopes of the sampled Canadian undergraduate student?
2. What are the possible incentives of these hopes and how do they relate to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory?
In this study, a group of undergraduate students from University of Ottawa served as the sample, and data is generated from the sample by presenting them the question “What are your biggest hopes?” Each of the students created a collage plus a text description to express their answers. In this study, only the text data will be used since the collages contain almost the same information. Content analysis research method will be adopted.
Review of Literature
Hope is a desire accompanied by expectation of or belief in fulfillment (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2010). Snyder and colleagues (Snyder et al., 1991) have introduced a new cognitive, motivational model called Hope Theory. According this theory, hope reflects individuals’ perceptions regarding their capacities to: (1) clearly conceptualize goals, (2) develop the specific strategies to reach those goals (pathways thinking), and (3) initiate and sustain the motivation for using those strategies (agency thinking). This theory also suggests that a goal can be anything that an individual desires to experience, create, get, do, or become. It may either be a significant, lifelong pursuit or be mundane and brief (Snyder et al. 2003).
High-hope and low-hope individuals are distinguished according to their perceived probabilities of attainment. Snyder et al. (1991, 1996) argued that high-hope individuals tend to prefer “stretch goals” that are slightly more difficult than previously attained goals and develop alternative strategies to achieve goals, especially when the goals are important and when obstacles appear. Up to this point, high-hope people are more likely to achieve success and have greater perceived purpose in life (Snyder et al., 2003).
As mentioned, hope is a reflection of people’s desires and expectations, which can be related to Maslow’s interpretation of human needs. Maslow (1943) outlined a hierarchy of needs theory which divides human needs into five levels:
1. Physiological Needs
These include the most basic needs that are vital to survival, such as the need for water, air, food and sleep. Maslow believed that these needs are the most basic and instinctive needs in the hierarchy because all needs become secondary until these physiological needs are met.
2. Security Needs
These include needs for safety and security. Security needs are important for survival, but they are not as demanding as the physiological needs. Examples of security needs include a desire for steady employment, health insurance, safe neighborhoods and shelter from the environment.
3. Social Needs
These include needs for belonging, love and affection. Maslow considered these needs to be less basic than physiological and security needs. Relationships such as friendships, romantic attachments and families help fulfill this need for companionship and acceptance, as does involvement in social, community or religious groups.
4. Esteem Needs
After the first three needs have been satisfied, esteem needs becomes increasingly important. These include the need for things that reflect on self-esteem, personal worth, social recognition and accomplishment.
5. Self-actualizing Needs
This is the highest level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Self-actualizing people are self-aware, concerned with personal growth, less concerned with the opinions of others and interested fulfilling their potential.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is most often displayed as a pyramid. The lowest levels of the pyramid are made up of the most basic needs, while the more complex needs are located at the top of the pyramid. Once the lower-level needs have been met, people can move on to the next level of higher needs (Koltko-Rivera, 2006).
Although no literature has been found to support my viewpoint, I maintain that to study people’s hopes and relate them to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory is an interesting way to interpret people’s needs and willingness. In this study specifically, by analyzing the biggest hopes of sampled students, we can code them into matched levels in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, demonstrate what kind of need they are, and this will further bring out more meaningful findings.
Research Method
Content analysis is a research technique for the systematic classification and description of communication content according to certain usually predetermined categories (Wright, 1986). It may involve quantitative or qualitative analysis, or both.
Quantitative content analysis is the systematic and replicable examination of symbols of communication, which have been assigned numeric values according to valid measurement rules and the analysis of relationships involving those values using statistical methods, to describe the communication, draw inferences about its meaning, or infer from the communication to its context of production and consumption (Riffe et al, 2005). Meanwhile, qualitative content analysis employs approaches like discourse analysis, rhetorical analysis, ethnographic analysis, and conversation analysis, etc. (Atheide, 1996)
This study adopts both quantitative (refers to the statistical analysis of collected data) and qualitative (refers to the interpretation of texts and statistics) content analysis. Detailed data collection and data analysis procedures are as follows:
Sampling and Data Collection
The sample capacity of this study is relatively small, the texts generated by a group of undergraduate student from UofO served as data source. After an early filter of the texts, a 673-word 2-page MSW document gathered from seven participants is used as the transcription for coding procedure and further analysis.
Data Analysis
Coding procedure involves scrutinizing the content of transcription, highlighting the key words and sentences that answer the question “What are your biggest hopes?” and finally centralizing the meanings into single words and phrases (codes). As a result, ten codes are generated in this procedure. Besides that, the times each code being mentioned are also calculated. In sequence these codes are: success, love, family, health, happiness, owns a house, travels the world, all dreams come true, end poverty, and end climate change.
In the next step, findings from the coding procedure are therefore coded into the five levels in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which served as “categories” in this study. These categories are: physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. Similar to the former step, the number of codes belongs to each category as well as its percentage is calculated. The statistics generated in these steps makes the findings of this study more observable and persuasive. Moreover, further interpretation and discussion will focus on both codes, categories, as well as the statistics.
Findings
Quantitative Findings
The quantitative findings of this study are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2. Table 1 indicates the codes emerged by content analysis while Table 2 reveals the statistical analysis of codes and categories. The data derived in Table 2 is based on the results in Table 1.
Table 1 Findings of coding procedure
Table 2 Further analysis related to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
Qualitative Findings
Based on preceding quantitative findings, some qualitative analyses can be carried out. One very first and fundamental finding is, as the codes reflect, all “biggest hopes” generated from the students are conventional and positive, which indicates that the psychological statuses of the sample are in a generally good condition. The students also acquire the capacity to “clearly conceptualize goals” (Snyder et al., 1991), which is the first step to hope attainment according to Hope Theory.
As to the second finding, according to Table 1, the biggest hope for the majority of participating undergraduate student is to obtain success in their ongoing study and future career, rather than the acquirement of love, family, health, happiness, etc. which are considered to be second-to-none important in traditional values. This may probably be explained by the worship of success stories, the severe peer competition, and the prevailing commercialism and utilitarianism in contemporary society. It is obvious that such tendencies have inevitably influenced the values and worldviews of youth today, making them more materialistic and pragmatic than before.
The second finding can be reinforced by data in Table 2. As we can see, the levels in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs which represent the students’ hopes are, in sequence, Esteem (41.38%) - Safety (37.93%) - Love/Belonging (20.69%). Combined with Maslow’s (1943) discourse, the sampled students take things that related to self-esteem, personal worth, social recognition and accomplishment as a priority. They also pay much attention to guarantees on safety and security, such as steady employment and shelter from the environment. Compared with these needs, the need for love and belonging has been put to a lower position. Though obviously, the need of love and belonging is still intense for young adult today, the priority has been replaced by the zest for success.
Conclusively, the principal qualitative findings of the study can be summarized as: Firstly, in general, the sampled students are in good and positive psychological status. Secondly, their life goals and human needs are more materialistic and pragmatic than expected.
Interpretation and Discussion
The study on students’ biggest hopes in combination with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory provides us an alternative access to understand contemporary Canadian undergraduate students’ psychological statuses and needs. As we can see from the findings, what the students currently desire most in their lives are directly shaped and influenced by the macro environment of the society. They tend to give more credit to personal achievement and material guarantees than love and belongings. Such findings indicate that, on one hand, today’s undergraduate students are aware of the highly competitive pressure in society and wish themselves to be independent and respectful individuals in future. On the other hand, it is possible that they are still not mature enough to realize the importance of love, family and friend in their lives thus take them for granted. Further studies are needed to find out the real incentives and rationalization of such phenomenon.
However, despite its significance, the study itself is far from perfect. A main weakness is the limitation of sample capacity, which directly threatens the validity of findings. The texts used for data analysis are 673 words and generated from only seven students, which is obviously not sufficient enough for a valid statistical analysis. Another restriction is the lack of chronological comparative data. As I proposed, the second finding indicates that the students today are becoming more materialistic and pragmatic than before, however, this argumentation is derived partially from the data collected, partially from my intuition, observation and life experiences. If more data is available to accomplish a chronological comparison, the findings would be more powerful.
To sum up, the study on contemporary Canadian undergraduate students’ biggest hopes combined with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is meaningful and significant. However, what needs to be improved in future studies is to develop more systematic data collection and well-organized data analysis procedures for a mature research design.
References
Atheide, D.L. (1996). Qualitative Media Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Goebel, B.L. & Brown, D.R. (1981). Age differences in motivation related to Maslow's need hierarchy. Developmental Psychology. 17(6), 809-815.
hope. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hope
Koltko-Rivera, M.E. (2006). Rediscovering the later version of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: Self-transcendence and opportunities for theory, research, and unification. Review of General Psychology, 10(4), 302-317.
Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review. 50(4). 370-396.
Riffe, D., Lacy, S. and Fico, F.G. (2005). Analyzing Media Messages. (2nd Edition). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T. et al. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570–585.
Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L. (1996). Development and validation of the State Hope Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 321–335.
Snyder, C.R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 249-275.
Snyder, C.R., Lopez, S.J., Shorey, H.S., Rand, K.L., and Feldman, D.B. (2003). Hope theory, measurements, and applications to school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 122-139.
Snyder, C.R., Shorey, H.S., Cheavens, J., Pulvers, K.M., Adams, V.H.III, and Wiklund, C. (2002). Hope and academic success in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 820-826.
Wright, C. R. (1986). Mass Communication: A Sociological Perspective (3rd ed.). New York: Random House.
Mar, 2010
Course Title: Research Method
Lab Report - An exploration on the biggest hopes in contemporary Canadian undergraduate student: related to Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory
Introduction
From the psychological perspective, hope has been broadly characterized as the “will” and the “ways” to achieve goals (Snyder, 2002). It is a reflection of positive needs and motivations in human psychology. Maslow (1943) proposed a hierarchy of needs theory to depict five layers of human needs, this theory suggests that people are motivated to fulfill basic needs before moving on to the higher needs. By means of this, to study people’s hopes and relate them to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a good way to investigate their psychological status and wellbeing.
Undergraduate student is a unique group in social demographics. On the one hand, they are young adult stepping into the society and start to frame their individual personalities and worldviews. On the other hand, they don’t possess economic independence and still bond closely to their families. Psychologists suggest that to care about these students’ hopes and motivations may help them to reach their education-related goals and become more hopeful in life (Snyder et al., 2003). The aim of this study is to find out the status of “hopefulness” in a group of undergraduate Canadian students and analyze how their hopes can be related to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory.
Based on preceding analysis, two research questions are developed for this study:
1. What are the biggest hopes of the sampled Canadian undergraduate student?
2. What are the possible incentives of these hopes and how do they relate to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory?
In this study, a group of undergraduate students from University of Ottawa served as the sample, and data is generated from the sample by presenting them the question “What are your biggest hopes?” Each of the students created a collage plus a text description to express their answers. In this study, only the text data will be used since the collages contain almost the same information. Content analysis research method will be adopted.
Review of Literature
Hope is a desire accompanied by expectation of or belief in fulfillment (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2010). Snyder and colleagues (Snyder et al., 1991) have introduced a new cognitive, motivational model called Hope Theory. According this theory, hope reflects individuals’ perceptions regarding their capacities to: (1) clearly conceptualize goals, (2) develop the specific strategies to reach those goals (pathways thinking), and (3) initiate and sustain the motivation for using those strategies (agency thinking). This theory also suggests that a goal can be anything that an individual desires to experience, create, get, do, or become. It may either be a significant, lifelong pursuit or be mundane and brief (Snyder et al. 2003).
High-hope and low-hope individuals are distinguished according to their perceived probabilities of attainment. Snyder et al. (1991, 1996) argued that high-hope individuals tend to prefer “stretch goals” that are slightly more difficult than previously attained goals and develop alternative strategies to achieve goals, especially when the goals are important and when obstacles appear. Up to this point, high-hope people are more likely to achieve success and have greater perceived purpose in life (Snyder et al., 2003).
As mentioned, hope is a reflection of people’s desires and expectations, which can be related to Maslow’s interpretation of human needs. Maslow (1943) outlined a hierarchy of needs theory which divides human needs into five levels:
1. Physiological Needs
These include the most basic needs that are vital to survival, such as the need for water, air, food and sleep. Maslow believed that these needs are the most basic and instinctive needs in the hierarchy because all needs become secondary until these physiological needs are met.
2. Security Needs
These include needs for safety and security. Security needs are important for survival, but they are not as demanding as the physiological needs. Examples of security needs include a desire for steady employment, health insurance, safe neighborhoods and shelter from the environment.
3. Social Needs
These include needs for belonging, love and affection. Maslow considered these needs to be less basic than physiological and security needs. Relationships such as friendships, romantic attachments and families help fulfill this need for companionship and acceptance, as does involvement in social, community or religious groups.
4. Esteem Needs
After the first three needs have been satisfied, esteem needs becomes increasingly important. These include the need for things that reflect on self-esteem, personal worth, social recognition and accomplishment.
5. Self-actualizing Needs
This is the highest level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Self-actualizing people are self-aware, concerned with personal growth, less concerned with the opinions of others and interested fulfilling their potential.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is most often displayed as a pyramid. The lowest levels of the pyramid are made up of the most basic needs, while the more complex needs are located at the top of the pyramid. Once the lower-level needs have been met, people can move on to the next level of higher needs (Koltko-Rivera, 2006).
Although no literature has been found to support my viewpoint, I maintain that to study people’s hopes and relate them to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory is an interesting way to interpret people’s needs and willingness. In this study specifically, by analyzing the biggest hopes of sampled students, we can code them into matched levels in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, demonstrate what kind of need they are, and this will further bring out more meaningful findings.
Research Method
Content analysis is a research technique for the systematic classification and description of communication content according to certain usually predetermined categories (Wright, 1986). It may involve quantitative or qualitative analysis, or both.
Quantitative content analysis is the systematic and replicable examination of symbols of communication, which have been assigned numeric values according to valid measurement rules and the analysis of relationships involving those values using statistical methods, to describe the communication, draw inferences about its meaning, or infer from the communication to its context of production and consumption (Riffe et al, 2005). Meanwhile, qualitative content analysis employs approaches like discourse analysis, rhetorical analysis, ethnographic analysis, and conversation analysis, etc. (Atheide, 1996)
This study adopts both quantitative (refers to the statistical analysis of collected data) and qualitative (refers to the interpretation of texts and statistics) content analysis. Detailed data collection and data analysis procedures are as follows:
Sampling and Data Collection
The sample capacity of this study is relatively small, the texts generated by a group of undergraduate student from UofO served as data source. After an early filter of the texts, a 673-word 2-page MSW document gathered from seven participants is used as the transcription for coding procedure and further analysis.
Data Analysis
Coding procedure involves scrutinizing the content of transcription, highlighting the key words and sentences that answer the question “What are your biggest hopes?” and finally centralizing the meanings into single words and phrases (codes). As a result, ten codes are generated in this procedure. Besides that, the times each code being mentioned are also calculated. In sequence these codes are: success, love, family, health, happiness, owns a house, travels the world, all dreams come true, end poverty, and end climate change.
In the next step, findings from the coding procedure are therefore coded into the five levels in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which served as “categories” in this study. These categories are: physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. Similar to the former step, the number of codes belongs to each category as well as its percentage is calculated. The statistics generated in these steps makes the findings of this study more observable and persuasive. Moreover, further interpretation and discussion will focus on both codes, categories, as well as the statistics.
Findings
Quantitative Findings
The quantitative findings of this study are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2. Table 1 indicates the codes emerged by content analysis while Table 2 reveals the statistical analysis of codes and categories. The data derived in Table 2 is based on the results in Table 1.
Table 1 Findings of coding procedure
Table 2 Further analysis related to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
Qualitative Findings
Based on preceding quantitative findings, some qualitative analyses can be carried out. One very first and fundamental finding is, as the codes reflect, all “biggest hopes” generated from the students are conventional and positive, which indicates that the psychological statuses of the sample are in a generally good condition. The students also acquire the capacity to “clearly conceptualize goals” (Snyder et al., 1991), which is the first step to hope attainment according to Hope Theory.
As to the second finding, according to Table 1, the biggest hope for the majority of participating undergraduate student is to obtain success in their ongoing study and future career, rather than the acquirement of love, family, health, happiness, etc. which are considered to be second-to-none important in traditional values. This may probably be explained by the worship of success stories, the severe peer competition, and the prevailing commercialism and utilitarianism in contemporary society. It is obvious that such tendencies have inevitably influenced the values and worldviews of youth today, making them more materialistic and pragmatic than before.
The second finding can be reinforced by data in Table 2. As we can see, the levels in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs which represent the students’ hopes are, in sequence, Esteem (41.38%) - Safety (37.93%) - Love/Belonging (20.69%). Combined with Maslow’s (1943) discourse, the sampled students take things that related to self-esteem, personal worth, social recognition and accomplishment as a priority. They also pay much attention to guarantees on safety and security, such as steady employment and shelter from the environment. Compared with these needs, the need for love and belonging has been put to a lower position. Though obviously, the need of love and belonging is still intense for young adult today, the priority has been replaced by the zest for success.
Conclusively, the principal qualitative findings of the study can be summarized as: Firstly, in general, the sampled students are in good and positive psychological status. Secondly, their life goals and human needs are more materialistic and pragmatic than expected.
Interpretation and Discussion
The study on students’ biggest hopes in combination with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory provides us an alternative access to understand contemporary Canadian undergraduate students’ psychological statuses and needs. As we can see from the findings, what the students currently desire most in their lives are directly shaped and influenced by the macro environment of the society. They tend to give more credit to personal achievement and material guarantees than love and belongings. Such findings indicate that, on one hand, today’s undergraduate students are aware of the highly competitive pressure in society and wish themselves to be independent and respectful individuals in future. On the other hand, it is possible that they are still not mature enough to realize the importance of love, family and friend in their lives thus take them for granted. Further studies are needed to find out the real incentives and rationalization of such phenomenon.
However, despite its significance, the study itself is far from perfect. A main weakness is the limitation of sample capacity, which directly threatens the validity of findings. The texts used for data analysis are 673 words and generated from only seven students, which is obviously not sufficient enough for a valid statistical analysis. Another restriction is the lack of chronological comparative data. As I proposed, the second finding indicates that the students today are becoming more materialistic and pragmatic than before, however, this argumentation is derived partially from the data collected, partially from my intuition, observation and life experiences. If more data is available to accomplish a chronological comparison, the findings would be more powerful.
To sum up, the study on contemporary Canadian undergraduate students’ biggest hopes combined with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is meaningful and significant. However, what needs to be improved in future studies is to develop more systematic data collection and well-organized data analysis procedures for a mature research design.
References
Atheide, D.L. (1996). Qualitative Media Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Goebel, B.L. & Brown, D.R. (1981). Age differences in motivation related to Maslow's need hierarchy. Developmental Psychology. 17(6), 809-815.
hope. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hope
Koltko-Rivera, M.E. (2006). Rediscovering the later version of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: Self-transcendence and opportunities for theory, research, and unification. Review of General Psychology, 10(4), 302-317.
Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review. 50(4). 370-396.
Riffe, D., Lacy, S. and Fico, F.G. (2005). Analyzing Media Messages. (2nd Edition). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T. et al. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570–585.
Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L. (1996). Development and validation of the State Hope Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 321–335.
Snyder, C.R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 249-275.
Snyder, C.R., Lopez, S.J., Shorey, H.S., Rand, K.L., and Feldman, D.B. (2003). Hope theory, measurements, and applications to school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 122-139.
Snyder, C.R., Shorey, H.S., Cheavens, J., Pulvers, K.M., Adams, V.H.III, and Wiklund, C. (2002). Hope and academic success in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 820-826.
Wright, C. R. (1986). Mass Communication: A Sociological Perspective (3rd ed.). New York: Random House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
