Queue

Slavoj Zizek: "we "feel free" because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom"

2011-12-06T07:32:00.001-08:00

Such a powerful message, I just had to quote it in case the full publication is restricted (Slavoj Zizek. "Actual Politics." Theory & Event 14.4 (2011). Project MUSE.). Slavoj Zizek talks about ongoing political developments and what can/needs to be done:

Don't fall in love with yourselves, with the nice time we are having here. Carnivals come cheap - the true test of their worth is what remains the day after, how our normal daily life will be changed. ... There is a long road ahead, and soon we will have to address the truly difficult questions - questions not about what we do not want, but about what we DO want. What social organization can replace the existing capitalism? What type of new leaders we need? The twentieth-century alternatives obviously did not work.
...
... is the change really possible? Today, the possible and the impossible are distributed in a strange way. In the domains of personal freedoms and scientific technology, the impossible is becoming increasingly possible (or so we are told): "nothing is impossible," we can enjoy sex in all its perverse versions; entire archives of music, films, and TV series are available for downloading; space travel is available to everyone (with the money); we can enhance our physical and psychic abilities through interventions into the genome, right up to the techno-gnostic dream of achieving immortality by transforming our identity into a software program. On the other hand, in the domain of social and economic relations, we are bombarded all the time by a You cannot ... engage in collective political acts (which necessarily end in totalitarian terror), or cling to the old Welfare State (it makes you non-competitive and leads to economic crisis), or isolate yourself from the global market, and so on. When austerity measures are imposed, we are repeatedly told that this is simply what has to be done. Maybe, the time has come to turn around these coordinates of what is possible and what is impossible; maybe, we cannot become immortal, but we can have more solidarity and healthcare?
...
In an old joke from the defunct German Democratic Republic, a German worker gets a job in Siberia; aware of how all mail will be read by censors, he tells his friends: "Let's establish a code: if a letter you will get from me is written in ordinary blue ink, it is true; if it is written in red ink, it is false." After a month, his friends get the first letter written in blue ink: "Everything is wonderful here: stores are full, food is abundant, apartments are large and properly heated, movie theatres show films from the West, there are many beautiful girls ready for an affair - the only thing unavailable is red ink." And is this not our situation till now? We have all the freedoms one wants - the only thing missing is the red ink: we "feel free" because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom. What this lack of red ink means is that, today, all the main terms we use to designate the present conflict - "war on terror," "democracy and freedom," "human rights," etc. etc. - are FALSE terms, mystifying our perception of the situation instead of allowing us to think it. You, here, you are giving to all of us red ink.

Metadata friction

2011-10-06T12:12:00.000-07:00

Metadata friction - tensions and costs in time, money, energy and attention caused by attempts to produce metadata ("Science friction: Data, metadata, and collaboration", Social Studies of Science, 2011, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 667-690 ). Rather than viewing metadata as products (i.e., a set of descriptors or tags), the authors suggest to look at it as a process. The process of metadata production is often manual and of ad hoc quality. It is fragmented, i.e., many individuals contribute, they may do different things, such as creating websites or spreadsheets, answering questionnaires, etc. The process is divergent, i.e., several versions of metadata can be created. It is iterative because of the need to reconcile versions, repair mistakes and overcome miscommunications. It is also locally oriented, i.e., the local use of data is often privileged over the desire to contribute to the general project.

The authors offer the analogy with engineering, where friction is reduced by precision – making interacting parts mesh better – and by using lubricants. Typically, metadata discussions address precision - how to join parts (datasets) more perfectly. Metadata as process focuses more on lubrication: "the practices through which people overcome friction without precise solutions or the need to modify components." (p. 684). These practices are imprecise, therefore misunderstandings are inevitable. But they are an important part of metadata creation and exchange, therefore more attention should be paid to these practices as forms of scholarly communication.

School lunch

2011-09-30T08:25:00.000-07:00

A lot of resources on the web talk about healthy school lunches. And it is always presented as a huge problem. How to make one's child eat healthy? How to "trick" them into healthy food? For example, this post about healthy lunches at Fooducate shows a picture with banana bread, crackers, broccoli, and blueberries and asks "Would your child eat it?". Why not? But the author suggests that the child would barely touch broccoli and blueberries. What's wrong with fresh broccoli and blueberries? They are crunchy and sweet. In other words, when fresh, they are delicious. But this post along with many others assumes that veggies and fruits are healthy, but they are not tasty. That's why we need to trick our children and force them to eat these foods.

Some tips from the Fooducate post made sense. Such as skip the chips and limit lunch to 3-4 items. Perhaps, some people need reminders that chips are not food, therefore it's not a good lunch option. But other tips are more problematic. For example, offer very small servings of fruit and veggies. Supposedly, it'll expose the child to them. Well, if your child wasn't exposed to fruits and vegetables by the time he/she goes to school, it's probably too late. You should think about more serious strategies at home, rather than working through lunch. Another trick is to never pack the same lunch two days in a row. Again, to increase exposure and get them used to trying new food. Sounds good, but shouldn't trying new food be part of the family lifestyle rather than a source of possible frustration at school? Having surprises at school, when you have only 20-30 min to finish your lunch and go back to classes, may only increase resistance to new food. Besides, a variety every day may be beyond most people's budget and time resources.

A couple of general guidelines could make one's lunch-packing and food concerns easier:

Don't think about vegetables and fruits as evil tasteless-but-healthy-so-what-are-you-gonna-do necessities. Try them fresh and ripe, rather than boiled and green - you'll like them. And your child will like them as well.
Think about what you as a family eat rather than about what your child eats. If you don't eat healthy food at home, it won't matter what you put into your child's lunch box. They'll figure you're trying to trick them. They probably already figured it, that's why they barely touch blueberries.
Don't worry about food too much. Following simple rules (more home cooking and simple ingredients and less highly processed food that doesn't look like food) should be enough. And it'll give you time to do something meaningful, important and creative.

Libraries vs authors - not again

2011-09-27T08:04:00.000-07:00

This article "Authors Take Libraries to Court in Face Off on Copyright Issues" came up in my news feed today. The Authors Guild, some other organizations and 8 authors filed a suit against HathiTrust and several universities (including my own Indiana University and its libraries), blaming them for the "systematic, concerted, widespread and unauthorized reproduction and distribution of millions of copyrighted books and other works." (text of their complaint).

Really? Do these organizations and individuals have legitimate concerns regarding the dissemination of their work or are they there for publicity and settlement money? It seems that if they had legitimate concerns, they would've done it differently. Why attack libraries, which don't really profit from all their work but rather try to provide better and more adequate services to their populations? Isn't it an attempt to go for smaller fish in order to get bigger fish? Libraries have an agreement with google, so this suit looks more like a move against google. If Google steps in, it can settle a better deal for everybody.

Getting one's name out isn't a bad idea either. For example, the article about the suit mentions Frances Grimble, who quoted as saying "It is time for libraries to go. Clearly, their only goal these days is to maintain their existence—with the aid of public funding, which most writers and publishers do not get—in a world where libraries have become obsolete." Hm... The argument doesn't seem to have much evidence to support itself. I talk about library obsolescence with my students all the time and we always come back to "but what do you mean by 'library'?".

It seems that Ms. Grimble's understanding of libraries needs to be updated. Libraries provide access to the internet, databases, digital books, ipods, ipads, e-textbooks, etc., etc. And they rely on public funding, because their goals are not to earn money (which is the goal of authors and publishers), but to preserve knowledge and disseminate it among those who can't afford to pay $35 for a book (the average price of most Ms. Grimble's books on amazon). Public funding allows citizens to combine financial resources (through taxation, etc.) and create a pool of shared resources so that the larger group can benefit from it. Modern resources are digital resources. It's obvious that libraries should provide access to digital resources. Why anybody would want to fight it unless they have an ulterior motive? I certainly wouldn't want to buy every book or DVD I use. I don't have that much money and honestly, most of it is not even worth it.

HathiTrust Statement on Authors Guild, Inc. et al. v. HathiTrust et al.

R. Kegan's theory of cognitive development

2011-06-19T01:02:00.000-07:00

From Tomorrow's professor email newsletter (based on the book "Student Development in College, Theory, Research, and Practice" by N. J. Evans, D. S. Forney, F. M. Guido et al., 2010, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Full posting here):

Cognitive development concerns the evolution of consciousness, the ways we organize experience in our minds. According to Kegan, the process of cognitive development is an effort to resolve the tension between a desire for differentiation, or distictness, and an equally powerful desire to be immersed in one's surroundings, or inclusion (Kegan, 1982, 1994).

Generally, the following five stages, which Kegan referred to as stages of development, then orders of consciousness, and, finally, forms of mind, can be distinguished:

Order 0 (~newborn - 18 months). At this stage, everything sensed is taken to be an extension of the person. By the time infants are 18 months old, they begin to recognize the existence of objects outside themselves, moving to the next stage.

Order 1 (~18 months - 3 years). Children realize that they have control over their reflexes, become aware of objects in their environment as independent from themselves. They are attached to whatever or whoever is present at the moment. Parents should support their children's thoughts while challenging them to take responsibility for themselves and their feelings and begin to perceive the world realistically.

Order 2: Instrumental Mind.Individuals begin to classify objects, people, or ideas. As a result, their thinking becomes more logical and organized and they relate to others as separate and unique beings. In this order, individuals develop a sense of who they are and what they want. "Competition and compromise" (Kegan, 1982, p. 163) characterize instrumental mind. Support at this stage means to confirm the person's identity; challenge is to encourage them to consider the expectations, needs, and desires of others.

Order 3: Socialized Mind. Cross-categorical thinking, or the ability to relate one category to another, is characteristic for the third order of consciousness. As a result, thinking becomes more abstract, individuals are aware of their feelings, and they can make commitments to people and ideas. At this stage other people are seen as sources of validation and authority, therefore acceptance by others is crucial in this order. Support should be in mutually rewarding relationships and shared experiences. At the same time authority figures can challenge co-dependence and encourage individuals to make their own decisions and establish independent lives.

Order 4: Self-Authoring Mind. Cross-categorical constructing, or the ability to generalize across abstractions, is evident in the fourth order of consciousness. In this order, individuals can establish their own sets of values and ideologies. Relationships become a part of one's world rather than the reason for one's existence. Supportive actions for the individual at this stage will be in acknowledgment of the individual's independence and self-regulation. Challenge involves encouragement to develop further when others refuse to accept relationships.

Order 5: Self-Transforming Mind. In this order of consciousness, which is infrequently reached and never reached before the age of forty [sic], individuals see beyond themselves, others, and systems of which they are a part and form an understanding of how all people and systems interconnect. They recognize their "commonalities and interdependence with others" (Kegan, 1982, p. 239).

Kegan argued that modern life places enormous stress on individuals. He called such demands, the expectations of adults in parenting, partnering, and working, "hidden curriculum" (1994, p. 9) and argued that those expectations require fourth-order meaning making, and many adults have not attained that level. Kegan hypothesized that life requires an ever more complex way of knowing, that of the fifth order, which very few people ever reach. And yet, he thought that it's unrealistic to demand from people order 5 thinking, the most realistic thing would be to help people reach self-authorship, or order 4.

This theory seems similar to other theories of cognitive development, but I'm always surprised how little such theories are incorporated into education and other related activities. They should be taken into consideration not only in formal teaching and learning, but in providing information and literacy services in other settings. I can see how science or citizen engagement projects won't work simply because they require order 4 and 5 thinking, while the targeted population thinks within the third (if not second) order.

Chomsky on intellectuals, power, understanding and public engagement

2011-06-10T07:54:00.000-07:00

Some notes from Chomsky's conversation with Michael Albert (co-developer of the idea of participatory economy (parecon), writer and speaker with leftist, socialist ideas).

Intellectuals - those who think about things, try to understand things, to work things out, maybe articulate and express that understanding to others and so on. Society gave them the opportunity to think (they have time, money, job security, etc. to do so). Chomsky distinguishes the task of intellectuals from their moral responsibility. Their task, based on why social institutions grant them this opportunity to do intellectual work, is to support existing authority and power. Their moral responsibility is the opposite, to try to understand the truth, convey it to other people and lay ground for constructive action. There is a conflict and society usually tries to control intellectuals and eliminate those who follow their moral responsibility too much.

In the social sciences (economics) intellectuals provide ground for ideology (e.g., free market), which is used to control population and prevent social spending, but the actual economic practice doesn’t have to correspond to ideology. Chomsky gives an example of the US steel industry, where not free market but mostly planning exists.

For “honest intellectuals”, e.g. those who are committed to enlightenment values, values of truth, liberty and justice, and don’t want to submit to power, it’s hard to remain within the system. The institutions are not going to welcome serious critics.

Another important point: there are different ways of reacting to societal problems. Activism is one of them, but Chomsky chose a different one. Speaking, writing, commenting on issues. Contributing intellectual activity is important, but there is a danger of it transforming into the quest for power. Chomsky also talks about motivations to engage in what he does - not very convincing.

Chomsky's view on the legitimacy of power and authority: Every form of domination and hierarchy, every authoritarian structure has to justify itself. And we have to constantly ask questions about authority, about how things work in the hierarchical relations, particularly with regard to those who are in the lower positions (workers, animals, etc.). Chomsky is very suspicious about the claim that people don't have knowledge, skills or desire to make decisions (in economics, politics, science). He argues that we can get understanding about our own nature not from reading books (or doing research I should add), but through experience, historical and personal because we’re embedded in our own culture. This means that people have more understanding than authorities are willing to acknowledge. In the situation when somebody says that people don’t have knowledge, etc., they have to prove it. The burden of proof is on those who make those claims. With regard to science, it is obvious that people don't have specialized knowledge. Then my question is - does it inevitably imply that they can't participate in decision-making? How can you prove that?

A must-read: Empiricism is not a matter of faith

2011-05-22T03:50:00.000-07:00

Found a great article "Empiricism Is Not a Matter of Faith". It's about computational linguistics, but it can very well be applied to any discipline. The main idea is that most of our empirical science is not reproducible and verifiable:

Our inability to reproduce results leads to a debilitating paradox, where we as reviewers and readers accept highly empirical results on faith. We do this routinely, to the point where we seem to have given up on the idea of being able to reproduce results. This is the natural consequence of faith-based empiricism, and the only way to fight that movement is with a little bit of heresy. Let’s not accept large tables of empirical results on faith, let’s insist that we be able to reproduce them exactly and conveniently. Let’s insist that we are scientists first and foremost, and agree that this means that we must be able to reproduce each other’s results.

Suggestions for reproducibility (I re-interpret them for non-computational linguistics areas):

1. Release early, release often. This one is about software code due to the nature of computational linguistics. But it can also be applied to data, results, and other research procedures.

2. Measure your career in downloads and users. Maybe not downloads, but definitely users. And definitely not citations. Why care about citations if nobody outside academia is using what we produce?

3. Ensure project survivability. I'd say, it's important to think about expansion of one's research. Can others use it beyond ritual citing? What are the outcomes of one's project beyond a publication?

4. Make the world a better place. This one deserves another quote from the paper:

We are fortunate to do what we do: even if it takes many hours and causes great personal stress, in the end the work is challenging and satisfying, and compared to how most people in the world live and work, we are leading charmed and privileged lives. ... it seems like we really ought to try to give back as much as we can to the greater public good."

Research: How to make groups work better

2011-05-11T11:57:00.000-07:00

Source: Collective intelligence and genetic structure of groups

I didn't get the metaphor of genetic structure (didn't seem particularly insightful), but the idea of collective intelligence seemed interesting. Groups are "smarter" that smart individuals even when there are no very smart individuals in them. Groups that performed better in certain tasks had caring people in them:

Group intelligence is correlated, Malone and his colleagues found, with the average social sensitivity — the openness, and receptiveness, to others — of a group’s constituents. The emotional intelligence of group members, in other words, serves the cognitive intelligence of the group overall.

My "Taming the butterfly" speech

2011-05-07T06:29:00.000-07:00

This week I'm participating in the "Taming the butterfly" game. It's a community-wide game organized by folks from SociaLens, a Bloomington start-up that promotes digital fluency.

The goal of the game is to "tame the butterfly", which wing flaps will affect our future, by proposing a vision of the future and a plan to realize this vision. Participants get some training in digital tools, communicate in small groups, solve puzzles, etc. At the end each group will present their vision in the Ignite format.

My role in this game is to be an expert in the area of mindset, which includes ethics, culture and expression of self. To stimulate participants thoughts on these issues, I wrote a short speech and delivered it via video at the opening session of the game. I'm re-posting my speech here on a separate page TTB speech.

Alternatives to economic growth: re-use, recycle and focus on communities

2011-04-08T12:00:00.000-07:00

A very interesting review article by Barry Smart "Another ‘Great Transformation’ or Common Ruin?" in Theory, Culture & Society, 2011, vol. 28, pp. 131-151. The article considers critical responses to economic growth and examines three alternatives to the model of capitalist economic growth: de-growth, regeneration of "the communist hypothesis", and transition to a sustainable economy. They are very similar and basically have literal meanings, i.e., not focusing on growth, re-thinking communism in positive terms, and work on sustainability. Still, a few details below:

De-growth (Latouche) is a response to evidence on the negative consequences of capitalist economic growth and the detrimental impact of increasing rates of production and consumption. The idea that everything (jobs, pensions, public spending) should depend on economic growth is incompatible with the finite world.

De-growth is based on eight processes: re-evaluation, reconceptualization, restructuring, redistribution, re-localization, reduction, re-use and recycling. First three question the values of constant growth and wealth accumulation. Redistribution calls for a reduction in disparity of wealth and income. Re-localization refers to organization of local production and distribution. Reduction - lower consumption of goods, resources, and services (e.g., tourism). All this would reduce labor time and free people's time for self-development and other forms of activities, such as micro-social activities and civic labor.

Since global capitalism is based on consumerism and is ridden with crises, attempts to repair it with state interventions or environmental ideas won't work. Zizek proposed another alternative - to re-think communism, i.e., to disconnect it from pathologies and perversions of the 20th century and imagine it in a context where the working class can be divided into intellectual workers, manual laborers and unemployed ‘outcasts’, each with their own way of life and conceptions of the others.

There is a lot that can be thought or said about this, but unfortunately, the article doesn't do that. Wouldn't the distinctions between intellectual and labor workers lead to the same wealth and income disparities that exist in capitalist societies now? How can social and financial hierarchies be reconciled with ideas of equality, shared benefits, and sustainability? For somebody who shares ideas of sustainability and de-growth (to some extent), arguments in the article make perfect sense. But can skeptics and non-believers be somehow convinced that this is what should be done? Where is the minimal common ground that can serve as a starting point of a conversation about change and transformation? Haven't seen it so far...

Russian Posters Collection, 1919-1989, at Duke University Libraries

2011-03-31T08:45:00.000-07:00

A new digital collection at Duke University libraries called the "Russian Posters Collection, 1919-1989". Some of them can be understood without words, a lot of them require knowledge of Russian for full appreciation.

Like this one:

Крестьянка! Будь готова уйти от старой жизни к новой (rpcps01002) - Peasant woman! Be ready to start a new life.

On the sides, where the poster pictures the old lifestyle, it says: "Treat illness and evil eye with holy water", "Beat your wife, or you won't be dear to her", "Punish your children and they will help you when you're old", "Woman's path is from stove to threshold". In the middle where the pictures of new lifestyle say: "Follow Lenin's precepts", "Work and learn to read and write", "To make your children happy and healthy, put them into daycare". And my favorite - "Soviet rule is the first rule that gave women full equality". I guess now under new post-Soviet capitalist rule of the 90s and 00s we lost it again...

Typology of public engagement

2011-03-09T10:52:00.000-08:00

Here is my attempt to visualize a paper rather than type up notes:
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30(2), 251-290. doi: 10.1177/0162243904271724.

Organizing a session at 4S (Society for social studies of science) annual meeting

2011-02-25T08:35:00.000-08:00

I'm trying to co-organize a session at the 4S conference (see their CFP), so here is our call for papers (abstracts, actually):

Call for papers for a session on public engagement with science at the 4S Annual Meeting, November 2-5, 2011, Cleveland, OH

“Problematizing public engagement with science”
The discourse of public engagement with science is a prominent topic in the STS literature. Dissatisfied with conventional science education and media dissemination methods, scholars and practitioners explore alternative ways of public engagement, such as the use of digital media, scientists’ participation in school classrooms, and placements of members of the public on advisory boards of policy-making and funding institutions. Where are we with public engagement now? Are we as scholars and practitioners on the right track?
In this session, we aim to bring together researchers who are interested in investigating and problematizing ways the public is engaged with science. We would like to stimulate a discussion that draws on philosophy, methodology, and practice by seeking answers to questions such as: What methods can aid us in understanding and critical analyses of existing and prospective means of public engagement? How can researchers investigate the effectiveness, inclusivity, and underlying agendas of the means of engaging the publics? Are we as researchers missing any perspectives, methods, or tools that can facilitate better understanding and successful implementations?
Ways to contribute to this discussion may include papers that provide insight and raise questions regarding any of the following:
Concepts and social agendas – What roles should various stakeholders (e.g., scientists, government, publics) play? What ethical and moral issues are involved? How do the core concepts, such as science, communication, and publics, influence our understanding of public engagement?
Theories and methodologies – Methods, assessments, and perspectives that hold promise for investigating issues around public engagement with science and science discourse.
Tools and rules – Existing means for promoting public engagement in science. What are the strengths and limitations of these means? What can be learned from reports of success or failure of existing initiatives of promoting public engagement with science?
We aim to organize at least one session submission for the 4S conference on the topic of problematizing public engagement with science. If we have sufficient number of co-presenters, we will submit complementary sessions themed accordingly to the submissions received.
Deadline for submitting abstracts: March 10, 2011
Please submit abstracts (250 words) to: Inna Kouper at inkouper at indiana dot edu
Session co-organizers: Lai Ma, Inna Kouper, & Thomas Fennewald (Indiana University)

Data and the social sciences

2011-02-17T11:56:00.000-08:00

Science magazine has a special issue on data. The article "Ensuring the Data-Rich Future of the Social Sciences" (pay-walled) has some suggestions for how to take advantage of the huge data in the future, facilitate sharing and at the same time protect privacy.

Promote data visibility and credit its original author, but archive the data professionally using formalized standards.
Nurture replication and encourage sharing by making a norm or a requirement.
Develop privacy-enhanced data sharing protocols and allow researchers to work with sensitive data in a connected but digitally secure environment (similar to corporations, governments, etc.)
Build a common, open-source, collaborative infrastructure that makes data analysis and sharing easy within and across disciplines.
Develop legal standards.

A lot of data and their preservation is a serious concern of the future social sciences. But by shifting from wisdom to knowledge to information to now data, are we moving forward or backward? The question is whether improved standards, techniques, and policies of data preservation and sharing ultimately improve our knowledge of the world and our collective wisdom...

Grants and jobs: be astonishingly amazing or grammatically correct

2011-02-04T08:55:00.000-08:00

From "The astonishing secret to getting jobs, grants, papers, and happiness in biomedical research":

I hear a line of advice all the time that I can confidently tell you is nonsense. It goes like this: "In order to get your grant supported, it has to be letter perfect, with absolutely no mistakes, and every experiment you propose has to already be done." Don't believe this, it just ain't so. We get this advice from folks who don't get their grants supported (and hey, I've been there), who see nit-picky reviews that point out every little problem, no matter how trivial. Hence the advice. But this misses the subtext. A favored application has astonished the reviewers, who can be very forgiving about mistakes, chancy experiments, and the occasional missing control if they are convinced that the work has a real chance of affecting how we think about something important.

So, if the reviewers look for ideas, why do they write nit-picky reviews instead of saying "sorry, your idea is obvious and it won't change the world"? I doubt that the problem is that most of the grants are not impressive and only one proposal that was "F 'ed" (do they really avoid the word "funded"?) is astonishing. Rather, it's the phenomenon of "the 41st chair" described by Merton in his The Matthew effect in science:

The French Academy, it will be remembered, decided early that only a cohort of 40 could qualify as members and so emerge as immortals. This limitation of numbers made inevitable, of course, the exclusion through the centuries of many talented individuals who have won their own immortality. The familiar list of occupants of this 41st chair includes Descartes, Pascal, Moliere, Bayle, Rousseau, Saint-Simon, Diderot, Stendahl, FIaubert, Zola, and Proust.

Paper: Technical capital

2011-01-06T13:21:00.000-08:00

Zhang, W. (2010). Technical capital and participatory inequality in eDeliberation: An actor-network analysis. Information, Communication & Society, 13(7), 1019-1039.

Intro: Capital is a set of usable resources and powers that function in fields. Bourdieu discussed economic, cultural, symbolic and social capitals, which can transform into one another and from one field to another. This paper argues that with the incorporation of ICTs into the field of politics, technical capital should be added as a form of capital as well.

Technical capital is a structural (i.e., independent of the consciousness and will of agents and constitutive of fields) relation between technologies and other actors. Accumulation of technical capital happens through the establishment and maintenance of the relations with technologies.

Data: surveys from two cases - the Electronic Dialogue 2000 and the Healthcare Dialogue projects. Both projects consisted of groups of citizens who engaged in a series of moderated chats about 2000 US presidential campaign and about the country's healthcare reform.

Analysis: Mean comparisons, OLS regressions, qualitative content analysis of open-ended questions.

Results: SES variables (education, age, income, gender) have impact on participation. Inventory of actors includes funders, designers, moderators, participants, internet, chatroom, time. Inventory of capitals included economic, social, cultural, symbolic, technical. Technical capital contributed to inequalities according to the surveys. E.g., people were unable to access a computer, had technical failures, had no means to repair their computers, etc.
Conclusion: Disadvantaged groups have more difficulties in establishing and maintaining a relationship with the technologies. They are also less successful in converting other capitals into the technical capital in need.

My opinion: The idea of technical capital is interesting and theoretically fruitful. Some ANT ideas also seem to be interesting, but they were not elaborated in the paper. The empirical part is rather obvious, but still important considering the enthusiasm regarding participatory potential of digital media.

Digital genres

2010-11-12T13:30:00.000-08:00

The paper "Digital genres: a challenge to traditional genre theory" by Askehave and Nielsen (2005, vol. 18, N 2, Information Technology and People) argues that the Swalesian genre theory must be revisited to incorporate medium into it. According to Swales, genres are characterized by three components: communicative purpose, move structure, and rhetorical strategies.

The authors argue that media properties, specifically multi-medianess (text, sound, animations) and hypertext/hyper-reading (non-linear content and reading patterns facilitated by links), must become part of the model. They examine homepage as a new web-mediated genre. The revised genre model includes two modes, reading and navigation. In the reading mode, the text must be characterized in terms of communicative purpose, moves, and rhetorical strategies. In the navigating mode, the medium must be characterized in terms of its communicative purpose, links, and rhetorical strategies.

While I agree that medium is an important characteristic that influences text production and communication, I think it was important before the web as well. Whether a text is printed (as a book or an article) or recorded (using analog devices), it will affect its content, perception, and use. And print media also have a navigation mode (table of content, page numbers, indexes, cross-references, etc.). So what is different? Something is different, since we didn't pay much attention to the medium before or considered it to be a transparent element of the genre. Perhaps, it's speed, immediacy, increased quantities of information, etc. brought by digital media that affect text production and consumption in digital genres.

Stem cells ban debate

2010-08-25T08:47:00.000-07:00

Just to clarify what I understood from the ruling (Civ. No. 1:09-cv-1575 (RCL) and not from information in the media that rely on emotions and obscured values.

Plaintiffs J. Sherley et al. (which include embryos), asked for a preliminary injunction (ban) of the 2009 NIH guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research. These guidelines allowed NIH funding for research using human embryonic stem cells (ESC). The guidelines separate ESC research from the derivation of ESC; they allow federal funding for the former and restrict it for the latter only to embryos from in vitro fertilization that were no longer needed.

The plaintiffs argued that these guidelines violate the 1996 Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which prohibited the use of federal funds for the creation of a human embryo for research purposes and research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed. The defendants argued that the language of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment was ambiguous and the guidelines cleared the issues. They also argued that research with ESC doesn't destroy embryos.

The court ruled that the language of the Amendment is not ambiguous, it clearly communicates the broad prohibition on ESC research. And that to conduct ESC research, ESCs must be derived from an embryo. Deriving ESCs from an embryo results in the destruction of the embryo. Thus, ESC research necessarily depends upon the
destruction of a human embryo. And therefore the guidelines violate the amendment.

All this seems logic and reasonable to me. What I don't understand, is that the court also accepted the plaintiffs argument that federal funding for ESC research injures the plaintiffs competitor standing, because they do research with adult stem cells (ASC). In other words, if ESC research is allowed they would have to compete not only with ASC researchers but also with the ESC ones. So what? Competition is considered to be the main driver of innovation and progress in a capitalist society. Why then removing competitors by a court decision is ok?.

Paper > Changes in science

2010-08-24T10:48:00.000-07:00

Science 2.0 (change will happen ...) by Jean–Claude Burgelman, David Osimo, and Marc Bogdanowicz. First Monday, Volume 15, Number 7 - 5 July 2010:

As we have tried to show in this paper, science will undergo deep changes in the years leading up to 2030, and the speed of change is likely to accelerate. In particular, we envisage that the proliferation of scientific authorship, fragmentation of research output, and increased availability of data will lead to:
* A more unequal distribution of influence, with increased resources being concentrated on a few world–class and star researchers and research centres;
* A disruption of the value chain of scientific production, with a particular difficulty for publishers to maintain their role as “gate–keepers”;
* A blurring of the boundaries between scientific and cultural production;
* A new model of science, thanks to unprecedented data availability, where correlation supersedes causation;
* An increased importance of reputation, and the adoption of more open reputation management systems for scientific careers; and,
* An increased need for scientists to communicate to diverse audiences.

Newspaper 2.0

2010-06-12T02:25:00.000-07:00

10 suggestions for newspapers to adapt to the digital world from Doc Searls' post "A newspaper progress report, sort of" can essentially be summarized as "link, link, link". The suggestions may be good, but they don't seem to be justified:

Open up archives, don't charge for access to archived news. This one makes sense, unless the newspapers come up with a lot of added value in archive browsing (e.g., tools for mapping, tracing, or otherwise researching events and issues).
Link to archived news on the paper's website. The suggestion should be "link to archived news only if you understand the purpose of such linking". Multiple links to archived news add to information overload, clutter the text, and make the reading more difficult.
Link to relevant content on the web. Why and what for? The newspapers want their readers to read their content, not the web. If they link outside, readers will go away from their pages and advertisers.
Link to local bloggers and competing papers. Again to encourage readers to go away? While I can see this being of benefit to the reader, I can't understand why newspapers would want to do it.
Hire good bloggers. Hiring based on one's work rather than degrees, etc makes sense.
Engage citizen journalists. OK, using others without paying them also makes sense.
Treat your writing with respect and don't use the word "content". This is a personal preference. There is no argument why the word "content" is more offensive than "news", "text", or anything else except its coming from a non-journalistic environment and blurring the boundaries between journalists and other producers of digital information.
Simplify your website. Good one, but needs to be more specific. And it contradicts #2,3,4.
Make your web dynamic, in other words twitter and facebook. This is a hype, everybody now calls for using twitter and facebook. Does it mean to reach certain populations or disseminate news in various (shorter, etc.) formats? This suggestion needs "unpacking" as some humanities professors like to say.
Make news friendly to mobile devices. See #8.

Larry's law

2010-06-08T12:22:00.000-07:00

John Tierney at New York Times published a piece "Daring to Discuss Women in Science", where he recites some old and boring arguments about gender bias and argues that there is no evidence of gender bias, only the evidence of sex differences in cognitive abilities. As with any other issues, everybody can have their own opinion. But this piece not only creates a problem out of nothing, it also masks the author's opinion by appealing to evidence and statistics.

The problem, according to the author, is that the House of Representatives passed a law ("Larry's Law") that would require poor science guys to go to some weird workshops where, as the author worries, they won't be allowed to talk about "the new evidence supporting Dr. Summers’s controversial hypothesis about differences in the sexes’ aptitude for math and science". Is that what the law is about? Mr. Tierney says that the official title of this legislation is "Fullfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering" as if the whole legislation is about those poor guys and workshops.

In fact, the legislation is titled "To invest in innovation through research and development, to improve the competitiveness of the United States, and for other purposes". The short title is "America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010". The document consists of 248 pages and tens of sections. It's about policies regarding the national nanotechnology initiative, NSF, various STEM initiatives, etc. The section "Fulfilling..." that John Tierney is so concerned about is in "Other provisions" and takes a few pages. It is primarily about overcoming gender bias among the researchers who receive federal funding by organizing workshops, doing surveys, etc. So what?

I can see a lot of arguments against such workshops. And I think it's pathetic that gender equity in science and technology is thought to be achieved by such means. I even understand those who challenge such equity altogether (not in terms of abilities, but in terms of this being a positive social arrangement). However, Tierney's piece is not about any of this. As I said before, it uses a small part of a larger legislation concerned with a whole lot of other issues to reiterate once again that sex differences in cognitive abilities exist. What's new and worthy of expressing an opinion in NYT?

Putting aside considerations about the quality of social science research and statistics (pre-existing biases built into the instrument, indicators that do not measure what they're supposed to measure, correlation is not causation, etc., etc.), the author of this article fails to see that the point is not in whether gender differences or biases exist. The point is in how we deal with them. Kind of old news too.

The self-imposed limits of LIS by Ron Day

2010-06-06T01:29:00.000-07:00

The paper The self-imposed limits of library and information science: Remarks on the discipline, on the profession, on the university, and on the state of "information" in the U.S. at large today by Ron Day is published in InterActions, a UCLA publication. It begins by raising three related issues: the marginalization of critical thought, the lack of interest in studying public information (mass media and education), and the construction of individuals as 'information seeking' and 'information using'. However, by the end it does not directly address these questions (except maybe the first one). Rather it argues for a change in attitudes and approaches towards information, knowledge, research, and scholarship. Here are a few notes from this paper.

Critique is not a negative term that refers to opposition to the norm. In Kantian terms it's understanding of the formal conditions for understanding, practical action, and judgments of taste. It is the questioning of assumptions from which a research starts, whether they be theological or scientific-empirical assumptions. Empirical research approaches knowledge as facts discoverable through application of theory and method and ignores the possibilities of these facts being constructed by theories and methods. The studies of information that are construed as studies of empirical entities erase the conditions of knowledge production, of understanding that information is not the essence of some substance (as wax is the essence of candle).

It is important to question dogmatically derived assertions and critique the powers of expression. These powers are manifested in the formal arrangement of materials as well as in statements (form and content of expressions). Preventing dogmatism is the orientation of critical analysis.

The modern epistemology of systems emerged as the development of classifications. In various classifications individuals are seen as representatives of classes arranged by a system. Systems often ignore the historical development of individuals. Such synchronic identities may be called 'individuals', while historically determined measures may be called 'singularities'. The political struggle is often confined to the struggle for the rights of certain individuals as seen in terms of classes sanctioned by the reigning state (race or gender). To overcome dogmatism and ideologies, we should view identities as singularities and allow such singularities challenge the world and question conditions and re-define the terms of their existence.

"The ideal of critique, however, is not toward simply being granted identity within the norm's grammar and logic of recognition and representation, but rather, toward justice, that is toward all beings being considered as equal, each according to the terms of its specific singularity, as well as its in-common being."

Synthetic cell

2010-05-22T08:52:00.000-07:00

Another achievement in synthetic biology - researchers say they created a synthetic cell. According to the press release from the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), where the cell was constructed, the bacterial DNA of one bacterium (M. mycoides) was assembled from small fragments and grown in yeast cells. Then an error correction method that allowed to make sure that this synthetic DNA was viable has been developed. Then the synthetic bacterial DNA of M. mycoides was transplanted into another bacterium, Mycoplasma capricolum, where it started producing proteins. The initial genome was either destroyed or lost during replication and after two days there were viable M. mycoides cells rather than M. capricolum.

There are many issues here (including the White House finally getting interested in all this), but I'd like point a couple of things:

Other scientists quoted in newspapers downplay the achievement by saying that it's not a big deal or that it's not a creation of new life anyway. Why? It can be a journalistic way of presenting "diverse" viewpoints, a clash of scientific paradigms, jealousy, or something else.
In previous reports about the synthesis of life forms (e.g., in February 2008) the companies that provided DNA cassettes were usually omitted. Now the provider Blue Heron in also in the news. It can be nothing. Or something related to ownership, commercial interests, patenting, etc.
The project was funded by Synthetic Genomics, which has a contract from Exxon to generate biofules from algae. So while Dr. Venter tries to present the achievement of JCVI as an advance that raises philosophical, epistemological and other questions (and it does), the goal of all this is profit. And it means that if we want the ultimate questions of life, the universe and everything to be sufficiently addressed, it must be done by somebody else. Who?

Published in Journal of Documentation

2010-04-27T07:30:00.000-07:00

My article "Information about the synthesis of life forms: a document-oriented approach" is finally published in the Journal of Documentation (url). It takes almost a year for an accepted article to be published. How come in the age of practically instant communication scholars are still ok with that?

Book: Owing Russia

2010-04-12T11:43:00.000-07:00

The author of this book "Owning Russia: The Struggle over Factories, Farms, and Power" (Cornell University Press, 2006) is giving a talk this week. For a description of the book, see: http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=4462

In his book, Owning Russia, Andrew Barnes documents how a new generation of capitalists gained control over key pieces of the Russian economy by acquiring debt-ridden factories and farms once owned by the state. He shows that dividing the spoils of the Soviet economy involved far more than the experiment with voucher privatization or the scandalous behavior of a few Moscow-based “oligarchs.” In Russia, the control of property yielded benefits beyond mere profits, and these high stakes fueled an intense and enduring conflict over real assets. This competition empowered the Russian executive branch at the expense of the legislature, strengthened managers in relation to workers, created a broad array of business conglomerates, and re-shaped regional politics. It was a process that not only blurred the line between government and business but often erased it.

So, what exactly new is here? I guess it depends on one's knowledge of Russia. For somebody who doesn't know much, there might be something new and interesting. For somebody who witnessed all this - dah!

Minimal effects and modern communication

2010-04-08T10:48:00.000-07:00

A paper by W. Lance Bennett and Shanto Iyengar "A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication" (pdf) in the Journal of Communication (2008, 58, 707-731) raises the following question: assuming that people are more detached from social institutions that used to provide shared interpretative context and that information channels proliferated and became more individualized, can we say that media effects on people's opinions are minimized and dependent on a largely unknown set of factors?

From p. 708:

As receivers exercise greater choice over both the content of messages and media sources, effects become increasingly difficult to produce and measure in the aggregate while creating new challenges for theory and research.

The authors bring together several strands of research from sociology, political science, and communication to talk about current theoretical debates in the field of political communication and argue for the need to theorize sociotechnical changes that affect modern communication. These sociotechnical changes include selectivity in media source choices, fragmentation of content, and polarization of consumption (seeking sources congruent with one's attitudes and predispositions).

Essentially, this need for theories is framed as a choice between two communication theories - agenda setting theory (media have a large influence on audiences) and the theory of minimal effects (media messages marginally influence the public). To me it seems that the issue is more complex than either of this theories stipulates. But I like the paper's concluding suggestion (along with a set of questions):

Many other areas may benefit from interrupting the pursuit of normal science and thinking about larger democratic implications of a fragmented media environment populated by vastly different audience segments. How do we think about the growing numbers who elude the best efforts to bring them into political debates that do not interest them as much as reality TV, yet who remain critical to election outcomes or legitimation of wars? How shall we think about the solid blocs of 30 or so percent on each end of the spectrum who are actively engaged yet prove unresponsive to most efforts to impart new information, to stimulate deliberative activities, or to deepen concerns about others in society (e.g, the lack of popular engagement with issues such as inequality)? In addition, how can we add ideas about how to involve younger citizens in the interactive life of democracy in ways that enable them to become producers of information rather than just passive consumers of non-credible advertising?

My thinking - more efforts into matching the multiplicity of sources of information with multiplicity of producers, languages, and messages. So far it seems that the hierarchical model of information production and dissemination is slow to change.

Open Access Course: Copyright for Librarians

2010-03-24T10:41:00.001-07:00

The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University today announced the launch of a new online, open access curriculum, “Copyright for Librarians”, developed in conjunction with eIFL.net. “Copyright for Librarians” aims to inform librarians about copyright law in general, as well as the aspects of copyright law that most affect libraries, especially those in developing and transition countries.

Teaching reference

2010-03-22T13:23:00.000-07:00

Useful thoughts and tips from Kern, M. (2009). Teaching reference: Ten questions from a first attempt. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 48(4), 330-333.

Teaching is not training. A reference class cannot focus entirely on practicing answering questions - studying theory and doing some research are important too.
Learn about students' background and future goals and tailor exercises and discussions to incorporate all that.
Online discussions have its own challenges - it's a learning experience for a teacher to know what generates an engaging discussion online.
Do not cling to particular sources, such as the National Union Catalog - be flexible and adapt. Look out for new resources.
Reflection papers - what can be learned by writing them? [Yes, writing without feedback does not help. How can a teacher help students to improve their reflection skills without spending hours marking up their papers?]

Biosecurity webcast

2010-03-11T13:25:00.000-08:00

A meeting at Wilson International Center for Scholars discusses the issues of biosecurity in the context of synthetic biology and DIY biology (http://wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1414&fuseaction=topics.event_summary&event_id=601732). Here are some notes from their webcast.

Jason Bobe, co-founder of DIYbio:

Synthetic biology is on the rise, there are a lot of people who are interested in "doing" biology.
DIYbio is a community of people who are involved in genetic experiments.
There are different groups of people involved: entrepreneurs, amateurs, hackers, artists, moonlighters, educators, etc.
People from DIYbio are working on projects such as doing genetic self-testing, trying to replicate studies done at university labs, generating ideas.
Possible futures - biosurveillance, or distributed biosecurity, where everybody has the ability to evaluate the security of water; competitions among non-institutional participants in biology; involvement with synthetic biology.
Question about biosecurity: Who gets access to the equipment and techniques? Amateurs want to engage with synthetic biology, but this poses some issues. Possible models to look at: other amateur communities such as scuba diving and its practices of licensing, certification, etc.

Edward You, a special agent with the FBI Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate, Countermeasures Unit, Bioterrorism Team:

Challenges of synbio biosecurity - living organisms are harder to manage and contain; multiple communities and cultures bring misconceptions and misperceptions
Increased restrictions may not work, we need a culture of responsibility - something like neighborhood watch, when everybody watches everybody else.
FBI Synthetic Biology Tripwire Initiative - mechanism to prevent unauthorized purchase of dangerous pathogens or toxins by contacting FBI WMD coordinators, who then report to WMD directorate and all related agencies.
FBI engages in activities of mitigating the potential risks by outreach, partnerships, and information sharing.

Sustainable information society

2010-02-12T10:52:00.000-08:00

Christian Fuchs offers an interesting approach to sustainable information society - dialectic sustainability through cooperation [Fuchs, C. (2010). Theoretical foundations of defining the participatory, co-operative, sustainable informaiton society. Information, Communication & Society, 13(1), 23-47.)

He uses the concepts of base and superstructure to classify various approaches to sustainable information society (SIS). Base is constituted by labor, technology, and nature that are used in the production of goods to satisfy human needs. Superstructure is the interaction between the political and the cultural systems that facilitate collective decisions and value structures. Base and superstructure are recursively linked and produce each other.

He analyzes various notions of the participatory, co-operative, sustainable information society (PCSIS) and classifies them into four types: reductionistic, projective, dualistic, and dialectical approaches. Reductionistic approaches reduce sustainability to the economic base. For example, the concept of eInclusion focuses on access to ICTs (technological element of base). Or the i2010 initiative of the European Commission focuses on economic goals of growth and employment. Projective approaches consider political or cultural aspects as the sole determining factors of sustainability (e.g., eParticipation). Dualistic approaches assert the existence of a variety of dimensions of sustainability, but they consider these dimensions as being independent. Dialectical thinking conceives sustainability as, on the one hand, multidimensional and, on the other hand, interdependent.

How can such dialectical thinking (the integration of base and superstructure) be achieved? Fuchs' answer is - through the logic of co-operation instead of the logic of competition. Competition means that there is an unequal access to structures of social systems. It creates asymmetric distribution of resources and domination and exploitation. Cooperation means sharing resources so that new systemic qualities emerge. Competition is exclusive, cooperation is inclusive.

Cooperation would allow for the development of various dimensions of sustainability that are interconnected: ecological preservation, human-centered technology, economic equity, political freedom (absence of domination), and cultural wisdom (unity in diversity).

At the end Fuchs argues that future empirical research would need to quantify all these qualities of a PCSIS and measure them. But first it is necessary to determine whether this approach is going to be employed in practice. How can this dialectical thinking be encourages and disseminated among the decision-making agents that exert pressures or simply predict, prefigure, and control the systems of base and superstructure?

Difficulties of cross-country comparisons

2010-01-20T12:53:00.001-08:00

A paper in the last issue of The Information Society analyzes popular searches in Google and Yahoo across multiple countries ("Popular Searches in Google and Yahoo!: A “Digital Divide” in Information Uses?", by Elad Segev and Niv Ahituv, N26(1)). The authors show that users from Russia make more queries regarding economics and politics and offer some explanations of why users from the US and some other Western countries focus more on entertainment, while users from other countries are more interested in the issues of economic and political value.

With cross-country comparisons it is very difficult to develop a common ground. Google and yahoo as international search engines seem to be good candidates to provide such a ground. But how many people in non-English countries use google and yahoo? As far as I know one of the most popular search engines in Russia is yandex.ru (a service that has many services similar to google). So it could be that those who use google in Russia are on the much more advanced side in terms of education, information skills, etc. Then the conclusions about digital divide based on the analysis of google and yahoo become less valid.

According to yandex statistics "Runet content" (http://clck.yandex.ru/redir/dtype=stred/pid=39/cid=2948/*download.yandex.ru/company/yandex_on_content_autumn_2009.pdf) the most popular searches fall into the categories of "download something", "games", "weather", and "dating". Far from the issues of economical and political values. To be convinced by the results of the research published in The Information Society one would have to look at the statistics of search engine preferences in each country.

Genetics as the scientific approach in social sciences

2009-12-28T21:02:00.001-08:00

An article about a possibility of genetic transmission of political party identification (see There may be a 'party' in your genes) is part of a mini-symposium titled "The scientific analysis of politics". According to the press-release "Top scholars, using evolutionary psychological and biological frameworks, provide fresh approaches to the study of politics and political behavior." Does it mean that all the previous analyses and approaches to politics were non- or anti-scientific?

Charter for innovation, creativity and access to knowledge

2009-11-16T11:19:00.000-08:00

This charter for innovation, creativity and access to knowledge talks about a revolution in the flow of ideas and knowledge and proposes reforms that would ensure wider civic engagement and dissemination of knowledge. While I'd agree with their legal demands, I think this charter is an interesting example of how particular beliefs and assumptions can generate change.

We are in the midst of a revolution in the way that knowledge and culture are created, accessed and transformed. Citizens, artists and consumers are no longer powerless and isolated in the face of the content-providing industries: now individuals across many different spheres collaborate, participate and decide. ... In this Charter we propose a number of possibilities for collectively rewarding creation and innovation. Free/libre and Open Source Software, Wikipedia, and many other examples show that the model of Free culture can sustain innovation and that knowledge monopolies are not necessary to produce knowledge goods.

Empirical research and theory

2009-11-03T13:28:00.000-08:00

While digitizing a part of my archive, I found Merton's "The Bearing of Empirical Research Upon the Development of Sociological Theory" (American Sociological Review 13, 505-515, 1948). Here is what he says about the role of empirical research in the construction of social theory.

The model of empirical research as testing or verification of hypotheses fails, because it doesn't describe what actually occurs in fruitful investigation. Empirical research goes beyond the passive role of testing and verification; it initiates, reformulates, deflects and clarifies theory.

These functions can be described as follows:

The serendipity pattern: the unanticipated, anomalous and strategic datum exerts a pressure for initiating theory.
The recasting of theory: new data exert pressure for the elaboration of a conceptual scheme. This pattern looks at neglected but relevant facts.
The re-focusing of theoretic interest: new methods of empirical research exert pressure for new foci of theoretic interest.
The clarification of concepts: empirical research exerts pressure for clear concepts.

Quite often there is a disconnect between empirical research and theory. References to theory are viewed as a rhetorical device for a paper to become publishable. So the next big question, which I'm still working on, is "what is the role of theory in social empirical research?" Merton has a paper about that too.

Paper: Innovation and knowledge in the digital media sector

2009-11-02T12:17:00.000-08:00

An article in the new issue of Information, Communication and Society (Vol. 12, N 7, 2009) - Innovation and knowledge in the digital media sector (pp. 994 - 1014, by subscription).

The article has some interesting terminology, but no particularly interesting claims or findings. It distinguishes between the terms "creative industry", "digital content industry", and "cultural industry" and proposes to rely on the latter, the cultural industries, and incorporate it into the concepts of information economy and the primary information sector (PIS). This should help to avoid "terminological clutter" in understanding of the media services and their innovation processes. PIS includes all industries that produce information machines, goods, and services to sell in the market place.

The discussion of some case studies allows the authors to come to a conclusion that four knowledge domains provide inputs to innovations:

Technical knowledge.
Knowledge related to digital media authoring, design, and production.
Knowledge about specific businesses, policies, and regulations.
Knowledge of the organizational and industrial culture of the media sector.

What's new? Arguments about the complexity and multiplicity of types of knowledge involved in media development and innovation have been made before. How does it help us to understand what is going on in the digital media sector? And how is it different from other sectors of economy?

A long-term fix for science education

2009-10-27T08:23:00.001-07:00

In Wall Street Journal three experts share their thoughts on how to improve math and science education in the US (Why we are failing math and science, Oct 26 2009). In short, they suggest:

recruit better teachers
spend more money to attract talent and reward excellence
use technology
scare people that if they don't compete with Chinese and Indians in education, they will fall behind
make K-12 education more competitive and bring business to education

Fear and business are certainly not good strategies, but these suggestions also ignore students as an active component of the system. Students need to value knowledge and education to succeed. So far science has been valued for its capabilities to drive business, medicine, technology, etc. "You see, science and math are very useful, because they can help you to become rich and successful. And they can help our country become richer and more powerful." This is a weak motivation to study math and science because a) connections are not that obvious, especially for children at a young age, b) there are other ways to become rich and successful.

Science and math are an essential part of overall learning that every person has to do. It's just part of everybody's life in contemporary society. Growing up includes learning to talk, count, read, think, do math, get some knowledge about how the world works. It is certainly not "fun" to learn and study, because it requires effort and perseverance. Yet one should study, not because there are great material and financial rewards for that, but because there is no other way. Knowledge and striving for knowledge are essential not as a means to something but as an end (a non-ending end). Unless this attitude is adopted, no money, genius teachers, or technology can fix any education system.

Eight P's of information architecture

2009-10-22T10:29:00.000-07:00

Thom Haller in the ASIST Bulletin IA Column ( October/November 2009):

1. Performance – What do users need or want to do in this information space? How do we measure successful performance?
2. Perspective – What is our focus? Are we focusing on who’s using the communication product, what they want from the product and their context?
3. Product – What technological choices best suit the needs of the users of this information?
4. Presentation – How can we visually structure information so people can accomplish what they want to accomplish (without becoming thwarted)?
5. People – Who is involved in this endeavor? Who will provide content and expertise? How do we build beneficial relationships?
6. Politics – How do conceptual barriers and organizational context keep us from meeting the needs of the site’s users?
7. Process – What is the framework we follow to develop this communication product?
8. Possibility – What are the ways we can respect and help users, while maintaining our focus on a site/product’s mission?

Web 2.0 and librarians

2009-09-23T10:15:00.000-07:00

From On the Boundaries of Reference Services: Questioning and Library 2.0 , Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 50(3), p. 164-175 (by subscription):

Goal: To understand the demand for "Library 2.0" skills in librarianship as well as evaluate the attitudes of students toward 2.0 technologies
Method: surveys of library staff in 242 public libraries about technology, observations of libraries websites, surveys of students in two universities - 31 graduates taking a course in reference and 46 undergraduates taking courses from Informatics dept.
Results:

Libraries implement technologies (153 libraries had blogs, 105 participated in social networking sites, 91 libraries used wiki, RSS, Flickr, YouTube and Delicious was also used)

"We need to train librarians and build into job descriptions technological proficiencies. You work with books but also the Web."

Use of Web 2.0 by students (an excerpt):

Web 2.0 type
Undergraduates
Graduates
MySpace
80.4%
29.4%
Facebook
84.8%
2.9%
Wikis
95.7%
5.9%
Blogs
47.8%
17.6%
Students didn't think that it was appropriate to ask librarians about blogs and social networking sites.

"web 2.0 services currently are not really helpful in an academic setting so I assume librarians have better things to do."

"Older librarians might not have this knowledge."

LIS graduate students didn't think Web 2.0 was relevant to librarianship

"It never would have occurred to me to as a librarian with help [sic] finding one of these websites."

Web2.0 and other technologies should be considered one of the many documentary practices. It makes more sense to educate students about print and digital technologies that are used to produce documents and information, rather than teach them certain skills, which will be obsolete when they graduate anyway.

Concepts

2009-09-02T12:19:00.000-07:00

From Hjørland, B. (2009). Concept theory. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 60(8), 1519 - 1536:

Concepts are dynamically constructed and collectively negotiated meanings that classify the world according to interests and theories.

Four epistemologies can be employed to understand how concepts are formed: empiricism, rationalism, historicism, and pragmatism.

Empiricism - knowledge comes from theory-independent observations

Rationalism - knowledge is acquired by the development of logical structures prior to any experience

Historicism - knowledge comes from theory-laden and culturally based observations

Pragmatism - knowledge forms according to particular goals, values, and consequences

The main argument for using all this in LIS: the potential of simple searching techniques will soon be exhausted, so the future of information retrieval is in the possibility of re-establishing lost contexts that determine the meaning of words. It can be done by developing an understanding of concepts and how they work.

The question is - if there are at least four paradigms for understanding concepts, will we ever achieve this understanding of how concepts work?

Conference

2009-08-26T12:16:00.001-07:00

CADAAD 2010 Call for Papers | Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines (CADAAD)

In line with previous CADAAD conferences, this conference aims to promote new directions in cross-disciplinary critical discourse research. We welcome contributions from all areas of critically applied linguistics. We especially encourage papers which assess the state of the art and explore new methodologies in critical discourse research oriented toward the general theme of ideology, identity and interaction. Possible areas of analysis include but are by no means limited to the following:

* · Identities in discourse
* · Political communication
* · Language in the news
* · Language in the new media
* · Discourse of advertising
* · Institutional discourse
* · Language and globalisation
* · Business communication
* · Scientific discourse
* · Health communication
* · Language and ecology

Papers will be allocated 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for questions. The language of the conference is English.

Abstracts of no more than 350 words (excluding references) should be sent by email as a Word attachment to discourse@cadaad.org by 15 January 2010. Please include name, affiliation, email address and paper title in the body of the email. All abstracts will be accepted subject to review by an international Scientific Committee. Notification of acceptance decisions will be communicated via email by the end of February 2010.

Research: The construction of anecdotal evidence

2009-08-25T12:30:00.000-07:00

A recent article in the Science, Technology and Human Values titled Experts and Anecdotes
The Role of ‘‘Anecdotal Evidence’’ in Public Scientific Controversies looks at how the notion of anecdotal evidence is constructed in public controversies. The analysis is informed by the concepts of boundary work, lay knoweldge, and expertise.

The main argument is that scientists perform boundary work, i.e., they define the boundaries of what can be considered science and legitimate knowledge. Other actors, such as activists or affected people, challenge the boundaries by re-framing the risk in terms of their particular social conditions. The authors try to show how nonexpert claims in the cases of mobile phones and MMR controversies were ignored, welcomed, or altered during the interactions of experts and officials. To put it simply, nonexperts said that anecdotal evidence is important, but experts dismissed it until publicly expressed dissatisfaction reached a certain point.

The argument of the paper is not convincing. It seems that the authors used the concepts of boundary work and lay knowledge as assumptions that defined their conclusions. In other words, the roles of experts and nonexperts have initially been assumed to be the way they were described afterwards. In such case it's really difficult to find anything less obvious that the expert - layperson divide about the meaning of science and evidence. The questions that should be asked here are "Why do we need to challenge the existing conceptualizations of evidence?", "Why anecdotal evidence should be considered a valid kind of evidence?", and "Can the public legitimize their concerns by making experts accept anecdotal evidence or should they construct their legitimacy by other means?"

Showing that something is constructed (e.g., the boundaries of science) is not enough. It is also necessary to show why showing the constructive character is necessary and why the construction needs to be challenged. I also think that large agents such as the mobile phone industry and the producers of vaccines should have been included in the analysis. The tension is not only between experts and non-experts, it is also among different interests of a variety of agents.

My translation of "Physicists and lyricists"

2009-08-16T10:58:00.000-07:00

In 1959 a Soviet poet Boris Slutsky wrote a poem about scientists and poets (or physicists and lyricists in the original). Few people know this poem (here it is in Russian), but the terms "physicist" and "lyricist" are widely used in Russia to refer to different worlds of science and culture and those who see themselves as belonging to one or both of these worlds.

The poem reflects on why science is valued so much, while poetry is often considered useless. It is a very simple yet powerful verse. And here is my English translation:

Scientists and poets

Somehow scientists are in favor,
Somehow poets are in disgrace.
It has not been done on purpose
Everything has its own place

Did the truth come out in verses?
Did we stir somebody's soul?
Our rhymes are weak and hollow
They can't fly, they barely crawl.

Our stallion Pegasus
Has no wings, no briskly pace.
That's why scientists are in favor,
That's why poets're in disgrace.

It is obvious and clear.
Arguing won't bring a change.
And it even doesn't pain me;
It is interesting and strange

Watching how our soapy poems
Rise and settle in frustration,
And the greatness little by little
goes to numbers and calculation.

Parts for biomachines

2009-08-11T10:03:00.001-07:00

The re-definition of biological systems as machines continues in the press and scholarly publications (Scientists Use Curvy DNA to Build Molecular Parts - NYTimes.com):

You can’t build a machine without parts. That’s true for large machines like engines and pumps, and it’s true for the tiniest machines, the kind that scientists want to build on the scale of molecules to do work inside the body.

Paper: Potentials and Limitations of Discourse-Centred Online Ethnography

2009-07-28T08:18:00.001-07:00

Source: Androutsopoulos, J. (2008). Potentials and Limitations of Discourse-Centered Online Ethnography. Language@Internet, 5. (html here)

There are different approaches to ethrnography on the Internet, which is reflected in a variety of terms such as "virtual ethnography", network ethnography, netnography, cyberethnography, and webnography. However, the linguistic analysis of log data that doesn't include direct contact with users still prevails. To address these issues, a combination of methods called discourse-centered online ethnography (DCOE) is proposed. This methodology combines the systematic observation of selected sites of online discourse with direct contact with its social actors. This approach is grounded in the ethnography of communication (Hymes, Saville-Troike) and socially oriented linguistics (Eckert, 2000; Rampton, 2006). These methods study patterns of communication and social relationships accomplished through language in a community or group.

DCOE consists of systematic observation and contact with Internet actors. Systematic observation helps to understand the complex of relationships and processes that comprise a particular computer-mediated space. The space is reconstructed in terms of a core-periphery scheme, with a core being determined by sites' popularity and awareness among users. The questions to ask during systematic observation include What activities are unfolding in these environments, what is their pace or rate of change, who are their main actors, and how do they interact or interrelate? Another set of questions focuses on semiotic features - What are the semiotic (including linguistic) resources recurrently deployed in this field, what characteristic clusters do they form, and how do different environments, participants, and genres differ in their use of these resources?

Understanding a field (Bourdieu) as a space of positions with differential access to resources (e.g., visitors and ads) captures the difference between sites of edited content (homepages) and community discourse (boards). They differ in terms of authorship, institutionalization, and professionalization. This results in different language norms and practices.

The contact with Internet actors follows from the first. It is better to contact non-random actors to carry out meaningful interviews. Through interviews the researcher can grasp patterns of engagement with the online activities and confirm insights that came from observation.

Paper summary: LIS curricula trends

2009-07-27T12:22:00.000-07:00

Source: Chu, H. (2006). Curricula of LIS programs in the USA: A content analysis. In C. Khoo, D. Singh & A.S. Chaudhry (Eds.), Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Conference on Library & Information Education & Practice 2006 (A-LIEP 2006), Singapore, 3-6 April 2006 (pp. 328-337). Singapore: School of Communication & Information, Nanyang Technological University. (pdf here)

Background: LIS becomes more and more content-oriented. Courses emphasize mediation between the user and technology, designing user-oriented services, and creating value-added information packages (Sturges, 1999).

Methodology: Content analysis of individual course titles and descriptions (2,757 individual courses offered by 45 LIS programs).

Results: Core requirements are reduced to a few courses. The most frequent core courses are "Organization of information/knowledge/materials" (44 occurrences), "Reference/Information resources & services" (39), "Introduction to LIS/Information environment" (38), "Management" (30, Research in LIS" (22), "Information technology" (14). A large number of electives clusters around archives and preservation, information technology, ethics and policy, management, special librarianship and resources, etc. New courses include digital libraries, web design, information architecture, HCI, etc.

I don't see much of a content orientation here. So far it seems that the courses tend to emphasize technology, but not mediation or information.

Mom 2.0 - still with a skillet and rubber gloves

2009-07-17T01:30:00.000-07:00

Mom 2.0: She blogs, she tweets, she rises up! And an image of a multi-arm woman juggling everything at once (via Viva la Feminista, Blogging moms make cover of Ms). Why do I find this extremely offensive?

First, I don't like this sort of metonymy, i.e., an aspect of a person being viewed as his/her whole identity. "Mom" cannot describe a person. These people are much more than "moms" even if they decided to call themselves as such.

Second, blogging and tweeting is not a special achievement. It's a modern way of communication. So being proud that moms can blog and tweet is like being proud they can read and write. Oh, she can even talk!

Third, what is up with this juggling? It adds some craziness to the image of a mother. Most people do a lot of things in their lives, but are not portrayed as crazy jugglers who barely manage to keep everything under control. Why be so condescending toward moms? And those items she juggles - a pacifier, a skillet, rubber gloves.

This is not what womanhood and motherhood are about.

And finally, the idea of moms rising. It's a good idea, but to me it implies that by default women don't have a voice and that they need some kind of action to get heard and taken into account. I guess I consider myself risen enough, because I don't need my mothering identity to voice my opinions and concerns. The only value in that is if nobody else cares about issues important to mothers. Which partially may be true.

Aksyonov and contemporary literature

2009-07-07T06:29:00.001-07:00

Vasily Aksyonov, a Russian novelist, died July 6, 2009. The media described him as one of the people of the 60s (shestedisyatniks). His parents spent decades in the Gulag system, and Aksyonov has been separated from them for years. His background determined his career choice, which he changed later on. His writings were not published at first. He has been described as "unsoviet" and was eventually stripped of his Soviet citizenship. He lived in the US, in Russia and in France. His views were anti-Stalinist and yet he was a Soviet writer. A classic as they say.

I was not particularly impressed by Aksynov's work. I probably read him too early to ~~understand~~ appreciate. When I read "The Island of Crimea" in high school, I didn't care about political regimes, historical consequences of certain actions, and so on. His writing seemed light, somewhat entertaining, but not profound. But while I've been reading some of his obituaries, I realized that I have to re-read him. Not only because I will have a different perspective, but also because I realized why I don't like contemporary literature and prefer re-reading the old books rather than reading new ones.

This essay about Aksyonov's role in literature (in Russian) makes a distinction between writers as storytellers and writers as teachers. The latter write not only interesting stories, but model behavior for writers and, I'd argue, for the rest of us. Was Aksyonov such a writer-teacher? Perhaps. He was part of that generation of intellectuals. But this deeper layer that can move, inspire and teach you is what I miss in contemporary literature. Many interesting stories are being told in books. They can be funny, unusual, mystic, or shocking. But, unfortunately, they rarely teach.

How do the so called classics do it? They use everything - life events, words, meanings, literary forms, and genres - to tell stories and understand something about life. And my pleasure as a reader is to see the workings of all these techniques and maybe understand something about life or myself as well. Nowadays it seems that neither complexity nor simplicity of writing works toward those goals of deeper understanding. At least it takes a lot of effort to find such works.

Journalists as sociologists

2009-06-30T01:47:00.000-07:00

Cooper and Ebeling [2007, Epistemology, structure and urgency: the sociology of financial and scientific journalists, Sociological Research Online, 12(3)] argue that science journalists practice some form of sociology. In short, the interviewed journalists were reflective and aware of the challenges and concerns of reporting about nanotechnology.

The paper begins with Derrida and Bourdieu and the argument that the media and academia are two different fields with their own rhythms and structures. The media play a crucial role in framing the academic knowledge, so it's important to understand the relationship between the two fields. This paper is based on a 15 month project that investigated the relationship between news sources - scientists and PR companies - and journalists. The focus is on 8 journalists who write for financial publications and their modes and strategies of interpretation and action.

Problems with reporting science: impossible to directly verify scientific claims, complexity of particular fields, multiple actors including companies, scientists, universities, etc. With nanotechnology there is also a problem of definition.

Strategies used by journalists to address these problems:

Using expert sources and their direct quotes to evaluate and verify various claims of nanotechnology.

Using as many sources as possible to address the complexity of the field.

Relying on the reputation of scientists and the system of peer-review.

Relying on the reputation (cultural capital) of the paper and sources by asking companies to speak on the record.

Acknowledging the agendas of various sources (a neutral rather than strong form of objectivity where interests and agendas are made explicit).

Being skeptic about the referential adequacy of the term "nanotechnology" and acknowledge "the hype".

"Our findings have a number of points of contact with points made by Bourdieu, Champagne and others about the structures and constraints of the journalistic field. However, we have chosen to concentrate on journalists as active interpreters working within this field, and suggest that this is an important complement to work that sees them as simply constrained by social forces. Moreover, journalists are themselves highly competent and reflexive analysts of these forces." (para 5.3)

The paper has some interesting observations. It supports the otherwise obvious strategies of science journalists with the accounts of journalistic practices, i.e., it provides some empirical evidence. It also makes an interesting point about similarities between journalistic and social scientific practices. However, the practices of social scientists are not explicated, so the claim about similarities is not supported enough. Also, interpretations and conclusions of this paper could have been stronger. To me it seems that the sociological practices of journalists not only prompt for critical reflection on the work of social scientists, they undermine this work. To put it simply, journalists do the social scientists' job. What is the role of social scientists then?

Observations from the ICA meetinng

2009-05-27T12:37:00.000-07:00

On May 22-23 I was in Chicago at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association. Below are my informal observations from this meeting.

It is a fun crowd. It was my first time at this conference and even though I didn't know people, I understood what people were talking about and could relate to that. It'd be nice to end up at a communication department (long shot though).

The conference is huge, almost 2000 people registered. This size has its own pros and cons. On the pro side, there were lots of interesting sessions. I tried to drop in into those that talked about unfamiliar topics and learned a lot. For example, about the agenda-setting theory. Big conferences with multiple sessions are good for expanding one's horizons. On the con side, the conference was packed and there was no time for discussions during sessions and panels. I guess most discussions happen during breaks, but it is hard for someone like me who doesn't know anybody.

The conference format is outdated. There is too much information, too little time, lots of problems with equipment. Besides, writing the whole paper as a submission and then presenting it for 15 min without getting a publication is a waste of time. It certainly affected the quality of some papers at this conference. Something should change to match existing trends in information, communication, and technology.

There is fear of theory in the qualitative camp. I already sensed it before at the ALISE conference, where I was interviewing for a job. Here I also heard people talking again about how Habermas is hard to understand and how Foucault is hard to apply. Several people proudly stated (including those from the podium) that they are *trying* to apply contemporary theory to their work. And others nodded with sympathy and understanding. What is up with all that? No wonder quant people look down on us. Not only we're slow to come up with theories, we also don't want to use them in our work.

The most successful presentations show, not tell. They don't even try to present research. They provide some examples and talk about them, engaging the audience and making people laugh. So my presentation with proper intro-methodology-findings-conclusion was boring.

Conferences are certainly for fun. At the beginning I tried to listen to talks as I'd be reading papers - to learn about people's research. But it's impossible to do in 15 min. All you can do is get a sense of what people are doing and then either approach them to talk more, or think about your own stuff and generate ideas. That's what I was doing mostly.

We all know... Do we?

2009-05-19T11:36:00.000-07:00

Here is an interesting example of the use of the so called factual language in support of a particular agenda (look for underlined fragments):

The National Federation of Advanced Information Services (NFAIST), with the support of the iSchool at Drexel University, is organizing a one-day meeting - Google, the Web, and the Future Roles of Publishers and Librarians - to be held on June 26, 2009 at Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA, from 9:00am to 5:00pm. Virtual attendance is optional for those unable to travel to Philadelphia.

Why Attend?

We all know that Google's objective is to make the world's knowledge accessible to everyone. And through its digitization projects, Google Books, and Google Scholar, it is moving steadily towards meeting that objective. ...

Stephen Arnold, author of the recently released Google: The Digital Gutenberg, will discuss Google's evolution and, through knowledge gained by an analysis of their patents and an understanding of their publishing technologies, shed insight on their competitive advantages and the media roles that they are positioned to play. This will be followed by a look at the current acceptance and use of Google by researchers as revealed by research conducted by Serials Solutions, as seen first-hand by a corporate librarian, and from the perspective of a young Ph.D. candidate. In addition, several publishers will reveal how their organizations are benefiting from Google's global reach.

Do we really all know about Google's objective? Can we say that their competitive advantage is something to look forward to? What about disadvantages of Google's global reach? It looks as if we're talking about something fairly obvious or established through research. I'm not sure. Especially, considering that this one-day event costs around $400 even in a virtual attendance form. Who can afford that?

The Internet and social movements

2009-05-08T12:55:00.000-07:00

How can the Internet shape a social movement? One possible explanation is the so called long tail effect. The Internet-based modes of communication allow for distributed participation of multiple individuals. Before the Internet the communication was one-to-many, similar to mass media. Mobilizing activities were limited in variety and channels, so they had to affect as many people as possible the same kind of message. For example, a leaflet would be produced, copied, and distributed among people.

With the Internet and ICTs that facilitate easy production and dissemination of materials there can be multiple messages with multiple meanings distributed by multiple actors. These multiple networking points create an aggregate effect and mobilize people. To verify whether it works this way, one would have to compare a movement before and after the Internet use. Would the Pareto 80-20 principle hold in the age of the Internet?

Information access

2009-05-07T13:06:00.000-07:00

From a qualifying paper defense yesterday:

Information access is part of information ethics. It has been conceptualized in the literature in different ways. Info access can be viewed as knowledge, technology, communication, control, goods, participation. Another conceptualization looks at information access as a triad of physical, intellectual, and social access. It's important to address the three as in interacting combination.

I think bringing intellectual (cognitive?) and social into the concept of access diffuses the concept and makes it difficult to study it. It will be especially difficult to study it within the boundaries of information science.

What makes a document accessible? First of all, it's availability. If I cannot get the document, I can't use it at all. So it's a matter of collecting and storing information. Second, it's "findability". I need to be able to find it in order to get it. It's a matter of organizing information. Third, it's readability. Can I read and understand it? This is where it potentially starts going beyond information science in its traditional sense.

And this is where it begins to be interesting to me. What role does the language play in accessing and using information? Can we as information professionals make inaccessible (e.g., scientific) documents accessible by providing extended abstracts, reviews, and evaluations? Or is it all obsolete and useless because of the large amounts of information and promises of automation?

Folksonomies

2009-05-05T13:09:00.000-07:00

A review of the concept of folksonomy in First Monday [Wichowski, A. (2009). Survival of the fittest tag: Folksonomies, findability, and the evolution of information organization. 14(5)] shows that folksonomy is another concept that can help to quickly produce research, but it is not easy to answer why such research is needed.

Folksonomies are folk taxonomies, i.e., classification systems developed by "folks" or users. According to the article, the term was coined by Thomas Vander Wal in the discussion about the tagging system at Delicious. Wichowski argues that folksonomies are an evolutionary adaptation of information organization systems to the highly crowded information environment.

The evolution metaphor doesn't help to understand why folksonomies can be viewed as a next step in information organization. People have always been using some sort of folk taxonomies to organize their information. Boxes, paper folders, post-its, computer folders, etc. are often labeled to group stuff. What are the mechanisms of "survival" and "adaptation"?

The author suggests that it'd be interesting to see how small contributions of the masses can help to shape the information environment. "Long tail" is another metaphor that seems to be relevant, but it is not clear how. On Delicious people use tags to organize their own content. Similar to boxes and folders. And they probably find their information just fine. But the researchers are concerned that tags perform poorly in terms of search quality and suggest improving folksonomies by connecting them to thesauri and ontologies. However, it is not clear who would benefit from this. Are tags used for search at all? Do people use other people's tags? If I use my own tags for my search purposes, why would I need somebody to develop a better organization scheme for me? And if I use other people's tags, I wil more likely use them for browsing and I will appreciate their peculiar tag systems, because they can allow me to find interesting or weird stuff.

So, again, why do folksonomies need researchers' attention and how can they benefit from it?

Cloud computing

2009-05-01T13:24:00.000-07:00

From an article in First Monday [Jaeger, P., Lin, J., Grimes, J., & Simmons, S. (2009). Where is the cloud? Geography, economics, environment, and jurisdiction in cloud computing. First Monday, 14 (5)]:

Cloud computing refers to an emerging model of computing where computing services are provided by specialized data centers. The origin of the metaphor of cloud computing is in computer diagrams.

A cloud consists of large data centers operated by technology companies, which provide technology development, physical infrastructure, process management, etc. and deliver a variety of computing services to the users. The cloud can host users' applications, facilitate batch processing (e.g., processing an archive of newspaper articles), or provide other services in conjunction with existing IT infrastructures (cloud bursting or handling peaks in traffic).

Where is the cloud? The question is important because "cloud computing represents centralization of information and computing resources, which can be easily controlled by corporations and governments". The following considerations are important for the construction of data centers:

Physical space (geography, weather, safety)
Proximity to high–capacity Internet connections
Affordable electricity and other energy resources
The laws, policies, and regulations of the jurisdiction

The latter includes the issues of access, reliability, security, confidentiality and privacy, liability, intellectual property, ownership of data, portability of data, and auditability.

Lack of international standards and policies slows down the development and use of cloud computing. Also, education of users is important. Currently, most information is provided in terms of services (ToS) and similar documents, which have poor readability.

Stock issues

2009-04-24T12:17:00.001-07:00

Working on my paper to be presented at the ICA annual conference, I stumbled upon a very interesting point (the PDF was password-protected, so I had to manually type the whole quote - very annoying):

In argumentation and debate theory, stock issues are the general issues that a policy advocate must successfully address in order to persuade targets in favor of a proposed action (Ehninger & Brockeriede, 1978; Inch & Warnick, 2002; Lee & Lee, 1989). Most theorists agree that successful policy persuasion depends on addressing two major aspects of the problem - ill and blame - and two critical aspects of its solution: cure and cost-benefit (e.g., Inch & Warnick, 2002). That is, policy advocates must establish that there is a significant wrong or harm to be resolved (ill), that particular causes are to blame (blame), that the advocated plan of action can work to resolve ill (cure), and that the plan has both strong benefits and few manageable limitations (cost-benefit)

Framing in policy terms can be viewed as a rhetorical strategy in debates that touch upon issues that go beyond policy issues.

L.A. Lievrouw: New media, mediation, and communication study

2009-04-22T10:51:00.000-07:00

A nice review of concepts and theories in communication studies: Lievrouw, L. A. (2009). New media, mediation, and communication study. Information, Communication & Society, 12(3), 303.

The article identifies three conceptual moments that define the development of communication studies: theories of media effect that focused on mass communication, concepts of "new media" and mediation, and cultural studies of the uses of ICTs. The trajectory in the development of communication studies is towards convergence.The first conceptual moment is characterized by the focus on media effects and impacts.

Lazarsfeld and Katz proposed the two-step flow process of "media to conversation to opinion" as a critical response to linear models of communication that defined communication as transmission (sender-message-channel-receiver). This opened the way for other mass communication theories that viewed audiences and media as enmeshed in complex interpersonal relations.
Subsequent research followed two directions corresponding to main "intervening variables" involved in two-step flow: decision studies (opinion formation, voting decisions, etc) and diffusion studies.

In decision studies there uses and gratifications theory, expectancy value theory, dependency theory, and reader-response theory. Uses and gratifications theory argues that users make rational choices among media and messages according to their personal needs and interests. Refinements such as expectancy-value theory and dependency theory addressed the overemphasis on audience's rationality and goal-directedness. Reader-response theory is used to study audience reception to media.

Diffusion studies use diffusion of innovations theory (the communication and adoption of new practices through social systems). Diffusion framework focuses on how people share information, adopt technologies and products, etc. It has been criticized for technological determinism and for the tendency to view innovations positively, thus to privilege the interests of their promoters.

The second moment focused on the attempts to incorporate new media in communication studies. One approach was to adapt existing communication theories to the study of new systems. Another - to draw on a mix of methods and concepts from other disciplines.

From science and technology studies the following was adopted: the concept of the mutual-shaping of society and technology as well as ethnographic and ethnomethodological approaches. Computer-mediated communication framework is another strategy that allowed to study interpersonal interactions via computer-based networks. Some analysts began to reconsider the assumptions that f2f interaction is the richest form of interaction and that the introduction of technology degrades the quality. One conceptual move was to frame interaction in terms of 'presence', i.e., the variety and perceived quality of communication afforded by media. Other theories and concepts: media richness theory, social context cues, interactivity (the extent to which media and information technologies foster a sense of reciprocity, mutuality, feedback, etc.)

The third moment reflects the cultural turn to humanistic approaches from cultural/critical studies. Media are viewed as instruments in the reproduction and transmission of dominant ideologies, interests, and power structures. The drawback is that the cultural-transmission approach views new forms of technologies as new mass media, which may ignore their interactive and participatory features. This view began to shift over the last decade. The concept of connected presence describes non-mass flows of information via mobile phones, email, SMS, and chat. Domestication theory (people consume and appropriate new media, which influences subsequent technology development) is a response to the ideas of mutual shaping. Mediation is the concept that can help to bring together multiple strands of communication studies and bridge the gap between studies of mass media and studies of interpersonal communication.

To conclude, the article argues that "any satisfactory theory of communication today must account for its dual social and technical nature, and for the experience of communication as a seamless and continually negotiated web of meaning, practices, tools, resources, and relations. ... we should keep in mind the multilayered meanings of the word mediation itself - both the technological means or forms of expression, and the interpersonal processes of moderation, negotiation, and intervention." (p. 317).

Back to blogging

2009-04-22T08:02:00.001-07:00

I used to have a blog, but then I deleted it. Now I'd like to come back to blogging because I want to keep my notes organized and well-written and because I'd like to try and find some like-minded people. Not that it can happen soon or easy, but still. My blog is devoted primarily to taking notes related to my academic work (and things I learn while at work), hence the name "Working notes".

Web 2.0 type	Undergraduates	Graduates
MySpace	80.4%	29.4%
Facebook	84.8%	2.9%
Wikis	95.7%	5.9%
Blogs	47.8%	17.6%