With my recent dearth in blogging, I've found myself wondering what the benefit of blogging might actually be? I mean, there are some people who have really interesting thoughts and perspectives on a whole slew of topics to share with the world that add value (professional sites such as Advice from a Risk Detective or Wonkblog). Or bloggers are documenting some interesting experience or experiment (e.g. studying abroad or cooking on a budget), or simply humorous findings or topical observations (e.g. A Walk in the WoRds). But what if you're like me? Casually gathering up some thoughts, putting them down, and sending them out into the interwebz with no particular goal (though I suppose we want someone to read these random thoughts). Adding another drop in the information ocean.
Is this type of blogging (that I'm doing just now) just adding to the noise?
In school, students were sometimes encouraged to blog on some topic they were passionate about, in order to build some sort of active, dynamic thought-profile. Some fellow MSIM grads managed to pull it off (Free Range Information and The Turning Grille). That professional perspective has always appealed to me, but I've never quite been able to pull off either the discipline nor the implementation. Perhaps it is because for the last decade, I've been writing 'professionally' - academically from high-school through grad school; now my career requires it daily. Regardless, I write blog posts as the fancy strikes me, sometimes regularly, sometimes with months in-between.
And I don't think I'm going to change. I think I'll always be happy to remain primarily a consumer of blog content, rather than a producer.
Showing posts with label decision making. Show all posts
Showing posts with label decision making. Show all posts
Friday, November 30, 2012
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Is the Internet Closing Minds?
A recent NPR podcast asked people to debate the question, "Is The Internet Closing Our Minds Politically?". It was fascinating, mostly because there were some very different beliefs about information behavior online. The basis was whether or not "we [are] running the risk of getting trapped in information bubbles, where all we read and see falls in line with our political views?"
And while I find both sides have some interesting points, it it worth examining some of the information behavior and access assumptions underlying the two arguments. I understand that I am part of an elite minority with my education and background, but I don't think it is elitist view to say that I don't believe everyone has equal access to information nor equal knowledge about how to seek out information. Perhaps having a degree in information management makes me biased about information behavior, but the internet for many people has certainly changed the dissemination and acquisition of information. The saying "If its on the Internet, it must be true" is usually said sarcastically, but too often it is a key part of decision making. People find information from a source, and based on prior experience, biases and beliefs (or what is said in social circles), the source is given more or less validity. People decide "oh, I know this source is trustworthy" or "oh, this source is a joke". And the more they trust the source, the easier it becomes to assume the source has verified its information (which in an ideal world would be what all news agencies do).
One key thing that I value about being a researcher in a business environment is that it is really, really important that I understand my information sources. While doing economic or industry research, most of the time there are conflicting sources for data I need, whether its employment numbers in a state or the number of operations in a certain industry. If I find a secondary source that analyses primary data, I need to know what data they were including and how they crunched those numbers. I have seen it bleed into other areas of my life, making me all the more curious about where people get their information and what assumptions are based upon.
When sites on the internet such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter engage is social filtering behavior (tailoring search results to each user), that can change what information we are exposed to when we search online. The argument was made that this can be beneficial - crowdsourcing results through your social circle might expose you to new ideas. But is that really the case? Do many people actually surround their digital selves with people who have opposing viewpoints? Isn't one of the more powerful parts of online interactions is that people with similar outlooks and beliefs can more easily congregate, regardless of where they are in the physical world? I'm not sure people need help seeking out others who view the world like they do.
People need help finding information that expands their knowledge, not constrains or limits it. And that is a lot harder to do than filter out and customize results.
And while I find both sides have some interesting points, it it worth examining some of the information behavior and access assumptions underlying the two arguments. I understand that I am part of an elite minority with my education and background, but I don't think it is elitist view to say that I don't believe everyone has equal access to information nor equal knowledge about how to seek out information. Perhaps having a degree in information management makes me biased about information behavior, but the internet for many people has certainly changed the dissemination and acquisition of information. The saying "If its on the Internet, it must be true" is usually said sarcastically, but too often it is a key part of decision making. People find information from a source, and based on prior experience, biases and beliefs (or what is said in social circles), the source is given more or less validity. People decide "oh, I know this source is trustworthy" or "oh, this source is a joke". And the more they trust the source, the easier it becomes to assume the source has verified its information (which in an ideal world would be what all news agencies do).
One key thing that I value about being a researcher in a business environment is that it is really, really important that I understand my information sources. While doing economic or industry research, most of the time there are conflicting sources for data I need, whether its employment numbers in a state or the number of operations in a certain industry. If I find a secondary source that analyses primary data, I need to know what data they were including and how they crunched those numbers. I have seen it bleed into other areas of my life, making me all the more curious about where people get their information and what assumptions are based upon.
When sites on the internet such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter engage is social filtering behavior (tailoring search results to each user), that can change what information we are exposed to when we search online. The argument was made that this can be beneficial - crowdsourcing results through your social circle might expose you to new ideas. But is that really the case? Do many people actually surround their digital selves with people who have opposing viewpoints? Isn't one of the more powerful parts of online interactions is that people with similar outlooks and beliefs can more easily congregate, regardless of where they are in the physical world? I'm not sure people need help seeking out others who view the world like they do.
People need help finding information that expands their knowledge, not constrains or limits it. And that is a lot harder to do than filter out and customize results.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Comments
Someone recently shared a link to a blog, pointing out the comments section introduction:
"Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous."
I thought this was brilliant. I am not someone who comments often on articles or blogs, but I sometimes glance through the comments when I finish reading. I primarily browse through the online versions of BBC News and the Seattle Times, for world and local news, respectively. The Seattle Times commentators certainly fit the above statement a little too closely for my liking. It frequently seems to be a free-for-all to see who can come up with the most idiotic or unsubstantiated content, belittling others and generally presenting themselves poorly. People seem to sometimes react to the feeling anonymity in the digital realm by behaving in very different manners than they would in-person.
In my information ethics course, we discussed the pros and cons of anonymity from both an ethical and policy perspective. It isn't a clear-cut, black and white issue, but it is an important area to consider as new technologies and information behavior continue to emerge and evolve. There are cases where anonymity can facilitate more honest feedback, particularly when there are power disparities that hinder people from feeling completely able to voice opinions otherwise. Employee engagement/feedback surveys are a good example of this.
But for something like social media or other by-choice dialogue, I wonder if anonymity is the best choice. I understand the comments on cute kitten pictures at icanhazcheeseburger.com don't often take a serious tone, and I wouldn't argue that a site like that requires full name disclosure. But on a newspaper site like the Seattle Times? I think that it is a little too convenient for people to say outrageous things on an issue, throw out all sorts of data that they do not back up, and do it all rudely.
In terms of social media, I was really disappointed with the newest development by Google on their most recent foray into social media, Google+. Google initially instated a policy that required users to use their real names when signing up for Google+. I seemed to have missed most of the commentary and "controversy" over that, but Mashable recently reported that Google would be relaxing that policy to support pseudonyms and nicknames. Seems like that move will dilute the community-concept (including knowing who your neighbors/'friends' are) that Google was going for. Ah well. Maybe I'll go post an anonymous comment about my concerns.
"Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous."
I thought this was brilliant. I am not someone who comments often on articles or blogs, but I sometimes glance through the comments when I finish reading. I primarily browse through the online versions of BBC News and the Seattle Times, for world and local news, respectively. The Seattle Times commentators certainly fit the above statement a little too closely for my liking. It frequently seems to be a free-for-all to see who can come up with the most idiotic or unsubstantiated content, belittling others and generally presenting themselves poorly. People seem to sometimes react to the feeling anonymity in the digital realm by behaving in very different manners than they would in-person.
 |
| Photo by Stian Eikeland |
In my information ethics course, we discussed the pros and cons of anonymity from both an ethical and policy perspective. It isn't a clear-cut, black and white issue, but it is an important area to consider as new technologies and information behavior continue to emerge and evolve. There are cases where anonymity can facilitate more honest feedback, particularly when there are power disparities that hinder people from feeling completely able to voice opinions otherwise. Employee engagement/feedback surveys are a good example of this.
But for something like social media or other by-choice dialogue, I wonder if anonymity is the best choice. I understand the comments on cute kitten pictures at icanhazcheeseburger.com don't often take a serious tone, and I wouldn't argue that a site like that requires full name disclosure. But on a newspaper site like the Seattle Times? I think that it is a little too convenient for people to say outrageous things on an issue, throw out all sorts of data that they do not back up, and do it all rudely.
In terms of social media, I was really disappointed with the newest development by Google on their most recent foray into social media, Google+. Google initially instated a policy that required users to use their real names when signing up for Google+. I seemed to have missed most of the commentary and "controversy" over that, but Mashable recently reported that Google would be relaxing that policy to support pseudonyms and nicknames. Seems like that move will dilute the community-concept (including knowing who your neighbors/'friends' are) that Google was going for. Ah well. Maybe I'll go post an anonymous comment about my concerns.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Graduation -- A Master's Degree Completion
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.
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, 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.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Keeping Our Troops Connected
A recent headline on Wired.com made me pause: "Tweet Away, Troops: Pentagon Won’t Ban Social Media".
There has actual been the serious possibility that the Pentagon would ban soldiers from using social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook? It boggles my mind - many of the troops now are being more and more made up of digital natives. You might as well tell them they're banned from talking as tell them they can't use social media, especially to communicate with their friends and family. As Robert Mason et al. describe them, these youngest generation of adults have “grown up in a world surrounded by connectivity and digital tools. They are ‘net natives’ or ‘digital natives.’ These are people who have never known a world without the Internet, instant messaging, online games, and the possibility of persistent digital presence with networks of people.” You're not going to be able to tell we of this digital native generation that we can't have our Facebook or Twitter fix. Sorry, it just isn't going to happen. Social media is a force that is moving forward, not winding down.
** Edit Note: If you read the comments, Jordan makes some very good points that should be integrated into my little ramble here. I really agree with her when it comes down to the fact that sometimes take an entitlement approach to social media. Just because we behave a certain way doesn't mean we should. **
** Edit Note: If you read the comments, Jordan makes some very good points that should be integrated into my little ramble here. I really agree with her when it comes down to the fact that sometimes take an entitlement approach to social media. Just because we behave a certain way doesn't mean we should. **
Apparently, the bright idea of banning came from military officials who feared that social media caused too much security hassle, and took up too much bandwidth. So to say again, in 2009 the military was "seriously considering" a complete ban. The reason that this is now back in the news is because come March of this year, the 2009 policy that "enshrined military access to social media" is expiring, which only came after a long battle.
Hopefully, there wont' be any more malarky about banning or limited access. Because frankly, if the military did do something like this, the country would probably have to implement a draft. And then there would be riots in the street... and on Twitter.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
The Beauty of Data Visualization (David McCandless TED talk)
I have to do a quick post about this TED talk from earlier this year. David McCandless talks about "The Beauty of Data Visualization". And it's beautiful. I've been digging around the newest website, "Information is Beautiful" having a lovely time examining all the truly lovely visualizations they've created.
I really do believe that pictures/visuals really are the next sets of vocabulary for communicating data. We have spent a lot of time in using words to describe data (and believe me, I love words), but there's so much power in a picture. And the visualization of data can give you an immediate grasping of context (accurate only if done right, of course) that words just can't quite capture.
For example, McCandless et al. produced a "Billion Dollar-o-Gram" in 2009 to give some context to those billions being thrown around. Go look at that for a second, and then come back after finding the cost to "Wall Street Revenue 2009", "Cost of Obesity Related Diseases", "Eradicate AIDS worldwide", and then "Worldwide cost of financial crisis".
McCandless talks about how the sometimes quoted "absolute figures" don't give you a whole picture - the relative presentation of data through visualization can give you a better view of the landscape. Visualization creates an information map for people to explore, and helps expose the hidden patterns among the data.
One comment he makes was interesting - he challenges the saying "data is the new oil" with a slight modification: "data is the new soil". It is this rich resource, and there is so much of it. We just have to figure out how to ask the right questions of it to get the answers.
"Let the dataset change your mindset" - the use of visualization is definitely a part of making sound decisions that can be backed up by data.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Education and Innovation
Today the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced the Next Generation Learning Challenges, which is "a collaborative, multi-year initiative, which aims to help dramatically improve college readiness and college completion in the United States through the use of technology."
Sounds like a great initiative to me. Education is one of the issues that I feel very strongly about, but it doesn't get a lot of my energy, mostly because it often depresses me. But this is quite relevant for me right now, because I'm working with a colleague on refining a case study we wrote together about this very issue - how can the educational system benefit from the integration of technology, and successfully see that happen? How does an institution keep it's educational mission at the forefront of any initiative that brings about change? I think it's an interesting and critical problem, and it has to be taken seriously by parents, students, legislators, business owners, educators, and pretty much every citizen in the country.
In the press release, Bill Gates says “American education has been the best in the world, but we’re falling below our own high standards of excellence for high school and college attainment ... We’re living in a tremendous age of innovation. We should harness new technologies and innovation to help all students get the education they need to succeed.”
I think Mr. Gates has it right - we're at a pivotal moment in our education system's history, and how we deal with this is going to set the tone for the next few decades. We're not talking frivolous or secondary issues - we're talking about the education of generations of kids. The policy and investing choices we make today are going to have repercussions, and so we all had better take them seriously. I hope this movement from the Gates Foundation will help stimulate further dialogues about this issue.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Information & Making Decisions
Decision making can be a difficult thing. Sometimes it's simple "I wouldn't be caught dead in those shoes", a decision made on strong personal preferences without much thought or information needed. My experiences over time have shaped my shoe taste, and I don't really need outside information to make my decision.
But the majority of the time, making a decision is not so simple - numerous variables can catch us up in a game of trying to calculate tradeoffs and possible outcomes and consequences. I find myself going over the same problem over and over, imaging all the various things that could go wrong if I make the "wrong" decision. Over-thinking an issue can get me into trouble.
And then there are the decisions we don't even realize are important until later, and we go through the phase of "if only I'd known when I was making that decision that I would end up here with this result, I would have chosen differently".
It's easy to find oneself feeling paralyzed in the face of making a decision that can have seemingly unending number of outcomes and consequences.
Good information can help the decision making process easier. If we know more, we can make more informed decisions. Part of what I want to do with my degree in this field called information management is help make information more accessible, understandable, and sustainable for decision making in organizations.
Whatever the heck that means in the real-world. Still working on figuring that part out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)