A minor miracle has happened. I have survived graduate school.
What a complex and challenging two years it has been, learning concepts and frameworks that I never would have dreamed existed. The MSIM degree at the University of Washington's Information School has been a growing and learning experience. I've been exposed to people and ideas that have allowed me to see problems and the world from new perspectives and within many different contexts.
When I graduated from my undergraduate program at The American University, there was a certain way that I viewed the world, and my time there shaped my skills and abilities, including giving me a strong foundation in research. Shifting to the field of "information" has actually been a natural progression for me.
I've discovered I am an information gatherer.
Whether trying to build a case for a peace program in Kashmir or developing a content strategy for a company, having the right information is critical. I find it incredibly satisfying to solve problems using rigorous and robust information.
And I am looking forward to the next step of finding a career that isn't just a job, but will allow for finding engaging and dynamic solutions for how to connect people with the information they need.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
Partners in Emergency Preparedness Conference 2011
Attending the Partners in Emergency Preparedness Conference was a new experience for me. I have attended a number of conferences in the last few years as a student, but this was the first conference where I felt I might actually be attending as a future practitioner. The opening keynote addresses both approached some of the high-level issues associated with emergency and disaster management. The booths of vendors were quite interesting to peruse - the products and services available ranged from communication systems to emergency rations. The first session I attended was on building resilience community partnerships - how to form connections between businesses, government, and citizens.
And this opportunity was also very special because I was given the opportunity to take part in Annie Searle's presentation "Tweet Me Up: Social Media Tool and Crisis Management". Annie presented some of the emerging trends and risks associated with the increasing prevalence of social media use in both normal and crisis business environments. Speaking to about 150 people, the session covered a number of benefits as well as the challenges of social media that appear in the crisis management framework.
After recommending organizations (including government, business, and NGOs) find ways to better adapt to the new reality of social media, Annie passed the microphone to me. A bit nervous to be lecturing to a room full of experienced professionals, I tried to clearly present some of the social media tools available, and how they can work and be managed. It is always an educational experience to try and present a topic one is very familiar with to an audience you must assume knows little to nothing about.
Social media isn't going away. One of the questions from the audience was, in short, about what if Facebook (or the like) isn't around in 5 years? Should people (organizations) jump on board and go through all the headaches that are being seen with trying to integrate social media into more and more business environments? And my first thought was it doesn't matter if Facebook isn't around in 5 years. It is simply one "tool". The methods and mentalities are changing in society, just like what happened with email. And someone else in the audience pointed out just that - the conversations businesses and organizations are having today about social media are very similar to those that were taking place 15 years ago over email. An interesting thought to mull over.
And this opportunity was also very special because I was given the opportunity to take part in Annie Searle's presentation "Tweet Me Up: Social Media Tool and Crisis Management". Annie presented some of the emerging trends and risks associated with the increasing prevalence of social media use in both normal and crisis business environments. Speaking to about 150 people, the session covered a number of benefits as well as the challenges of social media that appear in the crisis management framework.
After recommending organizations (including government, business, and NGOs) find ways to better adapt to the new reality of social media, Annie passed the microphone to me. A bit nervous to be lecturing to a room full of experienced professionals, I tried to clearly present some of the social media tools available, and how they can work and be managed. It is always an educational experience to try and present a topic one is very familiar with to an audience you must assume knows little to nothing about.
Social media isn't going away. One of the questions from the audience was, in short, about what if Facebook (or the like) isn't around in 5 years? Should people (organizations) jump on board and go through all the headaches that are being seen with trying to integrate social media into more and more business environments? And my first thought was it doesn't matter if Facebook isn't around in 5 years. It is simply one "tool". The methods and mentalities are changing in society, just like what happened with email. And someone else in the audience pointed out just that - the conversations businesses and organizations are having today about social media are very similar to those that were taking place 15 years ago over email. An interesting thought to mull over.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
At A Loss for Words
Seriously. Not from anything horrific or sad or wonderful. I just seem to find myself slogging through my brain, trying to find words these days. This is how I know I am at an almost critical burnout point. Meaningful thoughts are important to communicate well, and I'm not at the top of that game these days. So I'm saving my words for what I must get done in the next 57 days until graduation.
I had a whole food and information ramble kind of tossing about in my mind, but at this point I'm afraid of how long it might take me to put those sentences together. I'll have to give it a go, regardless.
I had a whole food and information ramble kind of tossing about in my mind, but at this point I'm afraid of how long it might take me to put those sentences together. I'll have to give it a go, regardless.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Women, Cyberspace, and Information
 |
| CC License Use (http://flic.kr/p/4TAdv6) |
So I had an interesting article sent to me the other day by a friend. One of the Financial Times (UK) blogs posted on "Inequality in Cyberspace", about the numbers showing that there seems to b. The author, Liz Bolshaw, mentions Noam Cohen's NYT piece left off talking about how only 13% of Wikipedia contributors are women, and Joseph Reagle's justification that women are “less willing to assert their opinions in public”.
HAHA. That's an interesting thought. Haven't gotten that impression from most of the women I've met.
My first though about the whole gender gap isn't concern, it's "women have better things to do than edit Wikipedia". Not sure how true that is, but it seems to me that the people who are the most qualified to do something don't have the time to do what they need to do. Not that women are more qualified by any means, but they're certainly not less qualified. I'm not convinced that women are less well-represented as an internet population, but really? Is it something we should be concerned about - that women are not contributors to Wikipedia? My association with Wikipedia-editors is drunk frat boys mucking around with various entries. Is that something women should be aspiring to? The power of outsourcing knowledge creation to the cyber community (Wikipedia is only one such example) is certainly a force to be considered, and the power of it comes from the diversity of the people who are contributing. I would be more concerned with those who are excluded from contributing (directly or indirectly), not those who chose not to participate.
An interesting side note - women are actually really well represented in my program. Less so in the undergrad version, but there is still a good number, or at least it seems that way to me. It has been quite an experience the past two years as I've studied in a hybrid field that mixes strong gender stereotypes. The program is based out of the field of Library Science, but it has been heavily influenced by Information Technology and Business. I have the feeling that there are less gender stereotypes because of this hybridization, but I have yet to really immerse myself into the working field. All I know, there are some kick-ass women out there who are managing information and sharing what they know with the world (see some Seattle folks like Karine Nahon, Vanessa Fox, Samantha Starmer, and Alix Han). Maybe we aren't writing in Wikipedia, but women are certainly invested in cyberspace and information.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The Knowledge Economy - Don't Kill the Education Budget
An article on the BBC News website yesterday was titled "Graduates - the new measure of power". The main take was from an education perspective, looking at the shift from raw resources as sources of power within nations to knowledge and intellectual resources. This is not a new topic - scholars have been exploring the shift to the "knowledge economy", but perhaps I've been abnormally exposed to the school of thought since I'm getting a degree in information. Nevertheless, it is a recognized fact that measuring the "power" of a nation must calculate the innovation, information, and knowledge that is being generated within its borders and its citizens. This article emphasized the role that formal educational institutions play in this generation of value, and how all across the globe governments are heavily investing in their future through students and schools.
Maybe the numerous states in the US, such as Washington, should consider this fact before they continue to viciously slash at the state-supported education budget for schools such as the University of Washington. As the Governor's new budget presents a worst-case scenario of an additional 40% slash, it is important to understand what has come already (from a letter to the State legislative from Interim President Phyllis Wise).
The steepest decline in state funding for the UW came in 2009-2011, when the state and the nation entered the Great Recession. Over a two-year period, the University of Washington lost over $132 million in state funding, roughly 30% of its state appropriation. Even with two 14% tuition increases, over $57 million in cuts were still necessary to balance our core education budget.
Major cuts included:
• Eliminated 950 jobs
• Froze enrollment for resident undergraduates
• Closed/eliminated 12 degree programs; 14 MA programs now self-sustaining
• Increased advisor load by 180 students per advisor
• Closed 384 undergraduate lecture sections and 130 small group sections
• Decreased number of lab sections by 20%, while average lab size increased 38%
• Closed 4 writing/tutoring centers and 2 computer labs (loss of 1/3 student workstations)
• Closed 1 library, reduced library hours, and canceled subscriptions to over 1,200 journals
• Reduced hundreds of hours of student counseling services (advising, financial aid, health)
As I'm preparing to graduate in June from a program that is not state-supported at all, I'm still concerned as a citizen of Washington about the future of education systems if these huge cuts are continued. Economies recover, but it is likely going to take years and years for educational institutions to recover from the hemorrhaging of funds out of their budgets. It seems awfully short-sighted for any government to pull money from the one resource that is almost guaranteed to reward the economy handsomely in the future.
Maybe the numerous states in the US, such as Washington, should consider this fact before they continue to viciously slash at the state-supported education budget for schools such as the University of Washington. As the Governor's new budget presents a worst-case scenario of an additional 40% slash, it is important to understand what has come already (from a letter to the State legislative from Interim President Phyllis Wise).
The steepest decline in state funding for the UW came in 2009-2011, when the state and the nation entered the Great Recession. Over a two-year period, the University of Washington lost over $132 million in state funding, roughly 30% of its state appropriation. Even with two 14% tuition increases, over $57 million in cuts were still necessary to balance our core education budget.
Major cuts included:
• Eliminated 950 jobs
• Froze enrollment for resident undergraduates
• Closed/eliminated 12 degree programs; 14 MA programs now self-sustaining
• Increased advisor load by 180 students per advisor
• Closed 384 undergraduate lecture sections and 130 small group sections
• Decreased number of lab sections by 20%, while average lab size increased 38%
• Closed 4 writing/tutoring centers and 2 computer labs (loss of 1/3 student workstations)
• Closed 1 library, reduced library hours, and canceled subscriptions to over 1,200 journals
• Reduced hundreds of hours of student counseling services (advising, financial aid, health)
As I'm preparing to graduate in June from a program that is not state-supported at all, I'm still concerned as a citizen of Washington about the future of education systems if these huge cuts are continued. Economies recover, but it is likely going to take years and years for educational institutions to recover from the hemorrhaging of funds out of their budgets. It seems awfully short-sighted for any government to pull money from the one resource that is almost guaranteed to reward the economy handsomely in the future.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Creativity, Law, and Change
I recently listned to a well-articulated TEDTalk by Larry Lessig on "Laws that Choke Creativity". A really interesting and thought-provoking piece about how the changes in culture are leading to creative conflicts in the newest generations.
"We made mixed tapes; they remix music. We watched TV; they make TV. It is technology that has made them different, and as we see what this technology can do we need to recognize you can't kill the instinct the technology produces; we can only criminalize it. We can't stop our kids from using it; we can only drive it underground. We can't make our kids passive again; we can only make them, quote, "pirates." And is that good? We live in this weird time, it's kind of age of prohibitions, where in many areas of our life, we live life constantly against the law. Ordinary people live life against the law, and that's what I -- we -- are doing to our kids. They live life knowing they live it against the law. That realization is extraordinarily corrosive, extraordinarily corrupting. And in a democracy we ought to be able to do better."
I thought this was one of the best summaries of one of the biggest social difficulties of the times - the shifting notions of right and wrong, and what kind of impact that has on us as a culture. I think I have some more thoughts on this, but for now I have to get back to writing a paper on the concept and ethics of a national "smartcard" ID. A fascinating topic that has led me down many tangents (such as this video) though most of the diverging hasn't been useful for the paper. Oh well. At least the tangents are interesting and educational.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Anonymity, Privacy and The Debate on National Online IDs
I think the National Internet ID conversation that has been recently taking place is quite an important and interesting piece to be discussed. I've been approaching a research piece on it from a risk-perspective, but part of that is a risk to privacy and anonymity. In an article by Helen Nissenbaum on anonymity, I thought she had a good point - that anonymity is really about being "out of reach" from consequences. Anonymity can be abused and used as a negative thing (think criminal activities) but many times it is critical for certain systems to work (as mentioned, voting and peer-review).
In the draft of the "National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" released in June 2010, their vision of the future sounds pretty good. "Individuals and organizations utilize secure, efficient, easy to use and interoperable identity solutions to access online services in a manner that promotes confidence, privacy, choice, and innovation." (pg. 12) Some interpret the strategy to mean that Americans could begin to have unique online identities used to access password-protected websites. That's an interesting and slightly worrying thought. While "confidence, privacy, choice and innovation" sound good, what does that mean in a practical sense?
Would having some sort of online identification be a threat to anonymity and a violation of privacy? Already there is so little privacy on the internet - maybe if the government regulates more, there would be less abuse of breaches in privacy and security. But I am a bit leery of the idea of allowing a government to so in-depth access or observation to the behavior of citizens. Nothing sounds so tyrannical as being observed at every moment or having to curtail one's speech for fear of reprival. And I'm not sure that an Online ID would be the most conducive tool for an open and free democratic society. But on the other hand, I like parts of the idea in theory - but things look so good on paper sometimes when in reality they just are a really bad idea.
In the draft of the "National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" released in June 2010, their vision of the future sounds pretty good. "Individuals and organizations utilize secure, efficient, easy to use and interoperable identity solutions to access online services in a manner that promotes confidence, privacy, choice, and innovation." (pg. 12) Some interpret the strategy to mean that Americans could begin to have unique online identities used to access password-protected websites. That's an interesting and slightly worrying thought. While "confidence, privacy, choice and innovation" sound good, what does that mean in a practical sense?
Would having some sort of online identification be a threat to anonymity and a violation of privacy? Already there is so little privacy on the internet - maybe if the government regulates more, there would be less abuse of breaches in privacy and security. But I am a bit leery of the idea of allowing a government to so in-depth access or observation to the behavior of citizens. Nothing sounds so tyrannical as being observed at every moment or having to curtail one's speech for fear of reprival. And I'm not sure that an Online ID would be the most conducive tool for an open and free democratic society. But on the other hand, I like parts of the idea in theory - but things look so good on paper sometimes when in reality they just are a really bad idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)