Wireless for the People But Not the Government

Recently, I spent two days at a Washington State agency down near the capital. It came as quite a shock to me that in the building (and outside in the parking lot) there was terrible coverage for both mobile reception and 3G connection. It made me wonder why any major mobile telecommunications company would fail to provide excellent coverage to key governmental locations? Or was that intentional? Were the majority of the employees on a network other than Verizon Wireless and had no such issue? Whatever the reason, it left me feeling quite disconnected from the rest of the world, as I additionally had no internet connection to use my laptop.

Arguably, it is a separate issue that there was no public or private WiFi network in the building, either – I suppose it isn’t unreasonable since the agency handles sensitive information, and perhaps it is a security concern. But even so, it makes me wonder. Some employees had Blackberries (which were scheduled to be taken back due to budget cuts), but I never saw anyone from the agency in the slew of meetings I observed bring a laptop or tablet (though smartphones were definitely present).

I am definitely a member of the constantly-connected generation. Personally, being without internet for a few hours makes me twitchy. But it is also impossible for me to get work done without an internet connection, as approximately 95% of my job is tied to having access to the world wide web. While I was on-site, I found myself writing a number of work emails on my phone through the web access email portal we have, wishing all the while for one of those magical little wireless network creating USB sticks. Tried to run my work computer off my phone's network, but was informed that I was not graced with those administration privileges. So I just had to accept my lack of internet and move on, thankful I could still take notes in Word and set reminders for myself for when I was back on the grid.

My handwriting, after all, can be pretty dire when taking speedy notes.

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.

Made it Through

So I've now been gainfully employed for almost eight months. A bit hard to believe how quickly things have flown. It feels like from September until December, things were crazy for me because I was trying to learn and absorb so many new things (the 'drinking from a firehydrant' phase). At the beginning of January, the workload increased with the beginning of a major 'busy season' for the firm, which makes sense at an tax/assurance firm. There were some crazy weeks where I really felt overwhelmed, but at the same time quite proud that I was able to manage through it.

Now things have calmed a bit with the passing of April 15th (well, 17th this year). I still frequently have questions, but I'm slowing growing more and more confident in my own abilities to do my tasks well and in a timely manner. It feels as if I've managed to tame the information madness that comes from starting a new job, and have emerged stronger and more adept for the experience.

And sorting through one area of life often makes it easier to tackle others. I've been on a bit of a health bent, working towards a more healthy body and fitness level. Nutritional information and research exists in such an incredible environment. It is one area that you can't avoid in your life - everyone has to eat. And the question of what to eat - and all the tangents that question produces - is answered with a vast cacophany of different sets of data and opinions. I definitely am planning to explore this area further, not just for my own education but because the information behavior around food is incredible.

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.

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.

A 15 page report? That'll be $1,295 please.

One aspect of my role as a researcher for an accounting firm is to provide industry and economic outlook write-ups as part of larger client projects. As a department, we subscribe to a number of different services that allow us access to reports and analysis, but I also look for other relevant sources for each topic. I often find reports that look like they may be relevant, but require a subscription that the department does not hold.

For the most part, the subscription-based model is understandable if annoying to someone like me. I wouldn't want to access the source if it weren't valuable, and if it is a business producing the data and/or analysis, it makes sense that they charge for it.

But the amount sometimes seems somewhat disproportionate. I recently found a Gartner market report that seemed likely to contain pertinent information. I knew we don't subscribe to them, but I was hoping to find a report that might be summarized or quoted elsewhere. I glanced down at the purchasing information out of curiosity... $1,295.00 for a 15 page report.

Hmmm. So that doesn't fit the budget.

Honestly though, the value-add of the information I could fish from that doesn't seem to match the price tag. It makes me wonder who would consider the data and analysis in those 15 pages actually worth it to pay out that much money. And it also makes me really curious about what kind of content is in the report! That has to be some excellent and astounding research, right?

At least I hope it is...

PS: If only I had figured out a way to charge $86 dollars a page during my undergraduate and graduate school experience... they I might have made a profit rather than being in six-digit debt.

Read, Analyze, and Write... QUICKLY

The most amazing thing about being a professional researcher outside an academic context? [Okay, other than the paycheck] The fact that there is a direct link between the work I'm doing and some sort of business action that takes place. I went into a MS graduate program largely because I was frustrated by the idea of continuing down the pure-academia route. It is critical to study and analyze the world, but all the research that I did as an undergrad... where was the value to anyone other than me as I developed analysis and writing skills? Of course not everything done needs to have an identifiable value attached to it, but from a career point of view? Well I have finally found a route that puts all the skills I've worked on building the last six years through "higher education", and that is working as a researcher at an accounting and consulting firm in Seattle. It is the most amazing opportunity I never would have known I was missing out on if I hadn't been hired. 


The best parts so far have been the incredible office environment (unlimited Starbucks brewed coffee... I mean, really?) and people that have welcomed me to the firm. The work is challenging and extremely different. I mean really, anyone who knows me never would have guessed I would end up working in an even remotely finance-related environment. Without going into specifics, it isn't your typical research-type job. We're meant to be a resource for the firm, yes, but we're doing it with an output/results focus that includes billable hours and profit. 


My most enjoyable projects thus far have been the industry-related writing pieces I've done, which means I've gotten to research up on the motorcycle industry, paint & sealant manufacturing, semiconductor manufacturing, and property management so far. The diversity of topics and the variety of frameworks means that I've found my ideal career context. I'm working in an environment that keeps my brain engaged, the type of work changes frequently, and I am in a constant learning mode. 


Basically I've found a way to be a paid perpetual student. Man I love it.


PS: Writing on my lunch break, I have to admit, I love the view when I turn around in my desk chair. It's a good thing I don't face the window, because I'm not sure I would be able to concentrate.

Real-World, Here I Come

Well I am officially not a graduate-school geek. That whole graduation thing happened a few months ago, and I’ve been acclimating to non-student life ever since. I had one last hurrah of a summer, thankfully, before turning into a “real-world” citizen who (thankfully) managed to find a job.

Summer went something like this: sleeping; some contract work; watching Sounders FC matches; sleeping; job hunting; sleeping; panic-attacks over lack of job; sleeping; buying a car; sleeping; family members from NY arriving (2 adults, 4 children under 7); international friend visitation; babysitting mentioned nephews & niece; job interviews; driving 1,000 miles in one week; Whistler-with-friends; job acceptance & paperwork; goodbyes to friend and family; driving more between Seattle & Ferndale; starting new job…

Notice how sleep stopped happening along the way? Yeah, I did too.

So now the new job is fabulous, even though it has felt akin to trying to drink out of a gushing fire-hydrant. I’m still working on figuring out the new life-work balance. The weekdays are still difficult to adjust to – full days in the office and trying to squeeze in some evening activities before a relatively early bedtime. It is stress-relieving to finally have a full-time paycheck, but the stress from trying to figure out repayment of student loans is epic.

By the way, I should make a note that if the federal government wants to stimulate the economy, they should do a student-loan forgiveness program en masse. There would be a HUGE influx of revenue into the market from all of us recent graduates who are currently putting at least half of our paychecks into paying off debt. I’d still have some privately-held debt, but it would cut my total amount in half.

And the whole system for repayment is terribly confusing, disjointed and poorly designed.

But regardless, the only direction to move is forward.