Howard Rheingold on Smart Mobs

Posted on Published by Eugene Eric Kim

(The last in my series of retroactive summaries.) Howard Rheingold spoke at Stanford on October 24, 2003. His talk, entitled, “Smart Mobs: Mobile Communication, Pervasive Computing, and Collective Action,” centered around several themes raised in his most recent book, Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution.    (AZ)

Rheingold suggests that there is a threshold for collective action, and current technology is causing us to approach and, in some cases, surpass that threshold. He cited many, many interesting examples, among them:    (B0)

  • The most recent presidential election in South Korea, where a web site that sent thousands of e-mails and SMS messages in the days preceding helped determine the outcome.    (B1)
  • The Howard Dean campaign.    (B2)
  • The observation that the personal computer became a tool for the masses in the United States when the price came down to one month’s salary of the average lower middle class family ($2,000-3,000). Rheingold then stated that wireless handhelds will reach that threshold on a worldwide basis (approximately $70) within the next three to six years.    (B3)

Rheingold described a project that a friend from Microsoft Research developed. The friend took an IPAQ with wireless networking and a camera, and developed a bar code reader that would query the UPC database and then do a Google search on the product. Rheingold scanned a box of prunes in his friend’s kitchen, which resulted in articles on Sun-Diamond Corporation that raised questions about its environmental practices. What would be the impact of a tool like this if it were available on a wide scale? Such a scenario is not only possible, it is probable within the next few years.    (B4)

Missing Data in Qualitative Research

Posted on Published by Eugene Eric Kim

I’m currently working with Miroslav Klivansky and Josh Rai on Blue Oxen Associates‘ next research report — an extensive case study of the Blue Oxen Collaboration Collaboratory, to be released next month. The study is based on analysis of the community’s archives correlated with the results of a detailed survey of the community’s participants. The goal of the study is to discuss best practices within this community and to propose a framework for examining communities and collaboration. Internally, this is an opportunity to both improve the collaboratory itself and also refine our research methodology.    (AS)

We spent a significant amount of time developing the survey for the study, which was an amazingly difficult process. We had two goals in designing the survey. First, we wanted to gather information about participant behavior that we couldn’t gather from the data itself. For example, we had know way of knowing how much time each participant spent following the community’s discussion. Second, we were trying to determine whether or not the community had QWAN (Quality Without A Name). The problem with this question, of course, is that you can’t just ask it on the survey and expect to get meaningful responses.    (AT)

While struggling with these problems, Miroslav drew our attention to an article by Supriya Singh and Lyn Richards in a recent issue of Qualitative Research Journal — “Missing data: Finding ‘central’ themes in qualitative research” (v3, n1, pp5-17). The article was therapeutic in that it not only empathized with the challenges we were facing, it identified them as standard steps in the research process. Additionally, the article served as a testament to the NUD*IST qualitative analysis tool (the predecessor to NVivo).    (AU)

Singh and Richards write    (AV)

It is rare to find research accounts that do not make the emergence of a theory appear a smooth, even inevitable process. Our own experiences, and those of our students, have never fitted such smooth images, and in discussions we have often found that others are helped by our accounts of the puzzles and anxieties, and the hard detective work, which we have experienced during the analysis stage when a picture appeared to be emerging, but jigsaw pieces were evidently missing. (6)    (AW)

They then explain that the initial research question will inevitable evolve, and hence, there will always be missing data. They also add that survey questions will not always garner the desired information, and hence, the research process must be iterative in order to fill in the blanks. The authors go on to describe the research process for two studies with which they were involved, and explain how they reacted when they discovered missing data.    (AX)

Both authors used the NUD*IST tool extensively, and apparently, the results of their projects “contributed to the further development of the software” (15). I have not had a chance to experiment with NVivo yet, but I hope to do so soon. It sounds like an intriguing tool.    (AY)

A Village Across the World

Posted on Published by Eugene Eric Kim

My friend Ying Qian recently completed a documentary, A Village Across the World, with her film partner, Jie Li. From the synopsis:    (AO)

A Village Across the World follows a group of international English-teaching volunteers into the cultural and emotional landscape of a Chinese village. Tucked away in the mountains, the Huangtian Village at first seemed a poor, forgotten outpost unaffected by dynamic changes happening elsewhere in China. Yet the splash of the volunteers’ entry uncovered rich historical memories and changing power structures that directed the life of the village. As the “foreigners” became increasingly involved in the villagers’ lives, both sides reflected on the fruits and dilemmas of intercultural contact and economic development.    (AP)

The film is 48 minutes long, in English and Chinese with English subtitles.    (AQ)

I saw an early cut of the film, and think it’s outstanding. Ying and Jie are looking for support to help cover film festival entrance fees and finance a followup documentary. Go to the movie’s web site and help support two talented filmmakers burgeoning careers.    (AR)

George Lakoff on Shared Language and the Rockridge Institute

Posted on Published by Eugene Eric Kim

George Lakoff, professor of linguistics and cognitive sciences at U.C. Berkeley, is an intellectual whose work I have admired for several years now. He is the author of many books, including Philosophy in the Flesh and Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think.    (AD)

My friend Alex brought an interview with Lakoff to my attention. Lakoff, along with seven other professors from Berkeley and U.C. Davis, recently founded the Rockridge Institute, a progressive think tank.    (AE)

One of Rockridge’s goal is to develop a shared “moral language,” and to unify progressives around that language. In the interview, Lakoff explains how conservatives invested heavily in infrastructure beginning in the 1970s, creating a network of think tanks, scholars, and media outlets devoted to pushing a conservative ideology and agenda. The result was a shared language that framed public issues from a conservative perspective.    (AF)

Lakoff wants to do the same for progressives. He says:    (AG)

The background for Rockridge is that conservatives, especially conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there. Progressives have done virtually nothing. Even the new Center for American Progress, the think tank that John Podesta [former chief of staff for the Clinton administration] is setting up, is not dedicated to this at all. I asked Podesta who was going to do the Center’s framing. He got a blank look, thought for a second and then said, “You!” Which meant they haven’t thought about it at all. And that’s the problem. Liberals don’t get it. They don’t understand what it is they have to be doing.    (AH)

Rockridge’s job is to reframe public debate, to create balance from a progressive perspective. It’s one thing to analyze language and thought, it’s another thing to create it. That’s what we’re about. It’s a matter of asking ‘What are the central ideas of progressive thought from a moral perspective?’    (AI)

Lakoff cites several examples of how conservatives have framed language to subvert public opinion. For example, “tax relief” implies that taxation is an affliction from which we should be relieved. However, taxes could also be viewed as the enabler for what makes this country great. They enable our infrastructure, they fund research that leads to innovations, they cover law enforcement and defense, they preserve our national parks. We ought to be patriotic about paying taxes! The problem is that the conservatives have taken the initiative in framing the language for public issues, and progressives are playing into their hands by using their language.    (AJ)

A Shared Language for Collaboration and Communities    (AK)

Developing Shared Language is a fundamental prerequisite for effective collaboration, and it is one of Blue Oxen Associates‘ primary goals. The Lakoff interview does a beautiful job of explaining why language is so important for framing ideas and unifying a community.    (AL)

One of my aha moments while working with Doug Engelbart on Bootstrap Alliance was that there were many, many people out there working on essentially the same thing. Most of these folks were blissfully unaware of others, but when they learned of each other’s existence, nothing would happen. They couldn’t figure out how to work with each other. The problems were that there was no Shared Language to begin with, and that there was no motivation to develop that Shared Language. Lakoff touches upon the reason for the latter: People simply don’t appreciate the importance of Shared Language.    (AM)

I’ve mentioned MGTaylor many times in this blog. Blue Oxen Associates has partnered with Tomorrow Makers, an MGTaylor spinoff, on one of its initiatives. MGTaylor’s facilitation process begins with a series of exercises designed to develop shared language among the group. The process often frustrates participants, because they feel like they’re not “doing anything,” or they’re not being productive. The reality is, without going through that stage, it is impossible for groups to accomplish anything or to be productive. Most participants realize this in the end. Shared Language is what makes collaboration possible.    (AN)

Lois Hetland on Researching Arts and Education

Posted on Published by Eugene Eric Kim

On Tuesday, October 28, 2003, I heard Lois Hetland speak at Le Petit Trianon in San Jose. Her talk, entitled, “Studio Thinking: How Visual Arts Teaching Can Promote Disciplined Habits of Mind,” was part of the Cultural Initiatives Silicon Valley ongoing lecture series.    (9X)

Hetland’s research centers around the following question: Does arts education make people smarter? In other words, does it enhance overall cognitive capabilities? While her talk reported the most recent results of her research, she also revealed some very interesting ideas about the role of research in general.    (9Y)

Project Zero and REAP    (9Z)

Hetland is part of Project Zero, a program at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Project Zero was founded in 1967 by Nelson Goodman, a philosopher of the arts, who — according to Hetland — said, “The communicable state of knowledge of the arts as a cognitive activity is zero.” (I found this quote appealing, because I feel very similarly about what we know about collaboration. The parallels between Hetland’s thoughts on arts education and mine on collaboration seemed to recur throughout the lecture.) One of Goodman’s first hire was Howard Gardner.    (A0)

Hetland led a project from 1997-2001 called REAP (Reviewing Education And the Arts Project), which began with 10 meta-analytic reviews of all studies on arts education starting from the 1950s. Her conclusion was that the research was lacking, with the claims greatly exceeded the evidence. She found only three definitive causal links between education in the arts and certain cognitive functions. Another roadblock she discovered was that there was no shared language for describing the quality of an arts program or for measuring learning in the arts. (Another parallel!)    (A1)

After discussing her findings, she explained her subsequent approach for studying the effects of arts educations on other cognitive capabilities: studying the best practices of great art teachers.    (A2)

Hetland and her research partners identified two high schools in Boston that focused on arts educations, then observed and analyzed the classes intensively. They focused on identifying patterns (parallel again!) and came up with eight “disciplned habits of mind” that the teachers seemed to emphasize: Develop Craft, Engage and Persist, Envision, Express, Observe, Reflect, Stretch and Explore, and Understand Art World. A teacher’s style could be described by how often these habits were addressed during class.    (A3)

There was some disconnect between the first and second parts of Hetland’s talk. In describing REAP, she criticized some of the existing research for failing to establish causal relationships between arts education and cognitive capabilities, but in describing her subsequent research, she failed to do the same. The habits of mind she described are certainly useful for other disciplines, but the teaching of these habits are not exclusive to the arts. What is the advantage of taking an arts class over, say, a history class that teaches and applies the same habits?    (A4)

The Research Quandary    (A5)

At the end of the talk, an audience member asked an interesting question: Why invest money into researching arts education rather than into arts education itself? Implicit in the question was the assumption that we already know that arts education is important, and that we don’t need research to prove it.    (A6)

To some extent, that certainly is a valid premise. If people did not already think that arts education was important, why would they be funding research to study it?    (A7)

Hetland had two responses. First, there are many, many organizations that do fund arts educations directly. Second, research is not about justification; it’s about understanding. Better understanding leads to improvement.    (A8)

Unfortunately, many research firms are in the business of justification: certifying claims that businesses want to make, whether they are correct or not.    (A9)

Another problem with justification is that people believe what they want to believe. Hetland cited two examples of this. One of the causal links she discovered in her research was that listening to music temporarily increased spatial reasoning. Many people misinterpreted these results to mean that listening to Mozart would make people smarter. The states of Georgia and Florida decided to mandate classical music in their classrooms based on these faulty conclusions.    (AA)

Hetland also told a story, which she wasn’t certain was true. Isaac Stern taught a one hour master’s class to 43 New York City school superintendents who were threatening to cut back their programs in music. Apparently, a good number of these superintendents were so inspired by the class, they returned to their districts and reversed their cutbacks. (I’m currently trying to verify this story. This New York Times article verifies that Stern did teach the class, but it says nothing about the results.)    (AB)

Even if the Stern story isn’t true, Hetland’s point is a good one. People are fickle animals. They believe what they want to believe. You are more likely to persuade someone of the importance of the arts by involving them in the arts experience rather than citing research.    (AC)