This paper identifies a criterion for choosing the largest set of rejected hypotheses in high-dimensional data analysis where Multiple Hypothesis testing is used in exploratory research to identify significant associations among many variables. The method neither requires predetermined thresholds for level of significance, nor uses presumed thresholds for false discovery rate. The upper limit for number of rejected hypotheses is determined by finding maximum difference between expected true hypotheses and false hypotheses among all possible sets of rejected hypotheses. Methods of choosing a reasonable number of rejected hypotheses and application to non-parametric analysis of ordinal survey data are presented.
A number of recent high profile news events have emphasised the importance of data as a journalistic resource. But with no definitive definition for what constitutes data in journalism, it is difficult to determine what the implications of collecting, analysing, and disseminating data are for journalism, particularly in terms of objectivity in journalism. Drawing selectively from theories of mediation and research in journalism studies we critically examine how data is incorporated into journalistic practice. In the first half of the paper, we argue that data's value for journalism is constructed through mediatic dimensions that unevenly evoke different socio-technical contexts including scientific research and computing. We develop three key dimensions related to data's mediality within journalism: the problem of scale, transparency work, and the provision of access to data as 'openness'. Having developed this first approach, we turn to a journalism studies perspective of journalism's longstanding "regime of objectivity", a regime that encompasses interacting news production practices, epistemological assumptions, and institutional arrangements, in order to consider how data is incorporated into journalism's own established procedures for producing objectivity. At first sight, working with data promises to challenge the regime, in part by taking a more conventionalist or interpretivist epistemological position with regard to the representation of truth. However, we argue that how journalists and other actors choose to work with data may in some ways deepen the regime's epistemological stance. We conclude by outlining a set of questions for future research into the relationship between data, objectivity and journalism.
The author sets out to construct a historical approach to thinking about resilience that is grounded in a critical approach to "the international" as well as an alternative notion of progress. Specifically, it is posited that resilience is the outcome of developments that emerge through a process of uneven and combined development.
The current state of scholarly communication is one of contest between an increasingly commercial system that is dysfunctional and incompatible with the basic aims of scholarship, and emerging alternatives, particularly open access publishing and open access archiving. Two approaches to facilitating global participation in scholarly communication are contrasted in this paper; equity is seen as a superior goal to the donor model, which requires poverty or inequity to succeed. The current state of scholarly communication within the discipline of communication is examined. Journal publishing in communication shows a greater diversity of ownership and less commercial concentration than scholarly publishing overall; this, and the at least 76 fully open access journals in this area suggest strong potential for emancipating scholarship in communication from commercial imperatives. Specific sites of struggle and actions for scholars, including developing open access journals and self-archiving, are presented.