Desperately Seeking Wholeness…

I confess that I have only read (more like skimmed through) ‘Introduction’ and ‘Chapter 1’ of David Bohm’s ‘Wholeness and the Implicate Order’ (Reprinted in 2008, Routledge & Kegan Paul). Thus, I cannot say much about probably what is the most interesting aspect of this book, the quantum theory.

However, I found some interesting food for thought for both qualitative and quantitative research perspectives.

In page 19, Bohm explains, “Of course, the prevailing tendency in science to think and perceive in terms of a fragmentary self-world view is part of a larger movement that has been developing over the ages and that pervades almost the whole of our society today: but, in turn, such a way of thinking and looking in scientific research tends very strongly to re-enforce the general fragmentary approach because it gives men a picture of the whole world as constituted of nothing but an aggregate of an separately existent ‘atomic building blocks’, and provides experimental evidence from which is drawn the conclusion that this view is necessary and inevitable.”

As an interpretive researcher, making sense of any social phenomenon meant seeking out the context in which it is situated. However, in doing so, we tend to fragment the collected data into groups and categories, aggregating ‘atomic building blocks’ in the name of ‘seeking wholeness’. How can I obtain ‘wholeness’ without fragmentation?

I will be continuously thinking about what ‘wholeness’ and ‘fragmentation’ means.

Yes, we've got the point! Now what?

Just read ‘The anatomy of the Twitter attack’ article. Should we be thankful to “Hacker Croll” and TechCruch for raising some serious security issues with our increasing reliance on Web and Cloud to host our data and our security lax attitude? Yes, I would say so. This article seems to make sure that the actions that TechCrunch have taken have been ‘beneficial’ to internet industry and wider onlookers by raising to us the security issue. So, now what? Surely, TechCrunch does not need to publish any Twitter documentations.

Entertainment? I’m not Entertained by it at all.

About six hours after discussing current BBC expenses news with Howard this morning, I decided to write down some of the thoughts. I then went about trying to find the article which prompted the whole discussion about the role of public broadcasting service, “Yentob’s £1,600 BBC dinner claim”. ‘Naturally’ I searched ‘UK’ section of the BBC online news but I had no luck. With reservation, I restarted a broader search in ‘England’ and then ‘Business’ section. Unsurprisingly, I could not find the article. So, I decided to go and view my ‘History’ where I found the article, under the ‘Entertainment’ section of BBC online news. ‘Entertainment’? Have Howard and I wasted an hour of our morning discussing about entertainment news?

This is a serious social and political issue. BBC is funded by the TV licence fee. By law, even if you do not watch BBC channels, the mere act of watching and recording any live television programmes, you are obliged to pay the fee. We hear about the various BBC expense claims for example, “…in 2006, BBC Vision director Balraj Samra bought a £827.02 dinner for the then Culture Minister Tessa Jowell and BBC managers.” Such claims cause us to contemplate the moral and ethical implications of the whole concept of public broadcasting service, operating as it does in the free market. It also reminds us of our (the general public) role in co-constructing the current shape of BBC. It is easy to criticise BBC for their conduct but is it not also time for us, the general viewing public to think about how our 'demands' are making BBC to behave like that of a commercial broadcasting company?

It's About Time to Draw the Boundary of the Internet Law

Pushing at the boundary has been a key driving force in Internet development, creating greyness and fuzziness of the boundaries of privacy and identity etc. Whether Twitter decides to take the current case further or not, the mere discussion of the case itself has highlighted the difficulties that we (particularly law makers) are faced with.

Clipped from - PC World

the hacker's legal problems are easy to see. The legal responsibilities of others who published the information are less clear "If they can claim journalistic privilege ... it gives them a lot of different rights and privileges. [A journalist] doesn't have to give up his sources, Are bloggers considered to be journalists under the law? That issue, legal experts say, is still up in the air. "Everyone has something to say and a means to say it -- so are they all journalists?" asked Christie. "Is there a difference between full-time, traditional journalists and all these Johnny-come-latelies? It'll be hard to say. How much of a blogger do you have to be to qualify as a journalist? That's a burgeoning gray area that is just starting to be fleshed out in the courts."

It Is You, Not Me!

Let’s picture this. A couple living in a picturesque small countryside village where everybody knows everybody, left their front door unlocked whilst waiting for a neighbour in the back garden for afternoon tea. Then, in that short space of time, they were burgled. However, fortunately, the thieves were caught on their way out by the neighbour who arrived just in time. The neighbour asked the thieves why they were in possession of the goods not belonging to them. The thieves replied. “ We are not guilty. It’s not our fault that these couple left the front door open, making it ridiculously easy to get access to their things.” Do you agree with what the thieves said? I just hope not.

Now, below is the direct quotation from the TechCrunch’s article, explaining and defending their decision to publish some of the twitter’s corporate documentations as they believe, is in public’s interest. These documentations were given by someone who hacked into Twitter.

“It’s not our fault that Google has a ridiculously easy way to get access to accounts via their password recovery question. It’s not our fault that Twitter stored all of these documents and sensitive information in the cloud and had easy-to-guess passwords and recovery questions.”

In the case of the couple’s story, there certainly is the element of ‘carelessness’ in the couple’s notion of security. However, shouldn’t we be sad that we are living in a world one where we have to constantly watch our backs, treat strangers with suspicion and greet people through the peephole or behind the door chain? Well, I am. I am not trying to be idealistic and unrealistic here. I sadly have to accept the human behaviours that harms oneself and others such as thieving and hacking. It is a sad fact of our lives. However, just because it is common and widely acknowledged behaviour, that does not justify wrong doings nor any right to blame the victims.

Worryingly, TechCrunch is saying that we, the public is to be blamed for using Google or Twitter whose security issues are problematic. Consequently, the hackers can access and distribute our data in these services as long as the hackers can justify the publication of data that is in 'the interest of the general public'. Basically, it is saying that it is our fault and not the hackers.

Let’s picture this again. There is a couple whose house is secured by a system designed by a reputable company. However, the burglar figured out the way to bypass the security system and stole valuable goods from the couple’s home. Is TechCrunch saying that it is the home security company’s fault for designing the security systems that was cracked and also the couple’s for using that systems?

In here, I only have extracted one paragraph from TecCrunch article, however the case becomes much more complicated. They are trying to distrance themselves from the hacker and the ways in which the documents were obtained. However, if TecCrunch is trying to claim and use the same law that protects 'traditional' journalists, I would expect a more responsible attitude from TecCrunch than 'it is you, not me' sort of response.

Yet to Monetize Social Technology

The articles such as Freemium Services and the Economics of Social Networking and YouTube: The online hit that's losing £107m highlight the difficulties in monetizing social technologies. The emergence of social technology and its massive take up by internet users are influencing and influenced by the ways in which we interact with others and perceive ourselves etc. Its pervasiveness and embeddedness have been demonstrated and documented in every corner of our lives. Therefore it is an attractive investment opportunity for many. However, making social technologies financially viable is particularly difficult due to its inherent nature. The social technology is considered to be user orientated and as such, the current notion of social technology is closely related to a ‘free’ service. The savvy internet users will find free alternative applications if necessary and there will be continuous supply of innovative social technologies. Probably with the lessons learnt from the likes of Twitter and Youtube, the next generation of social technology will have a clear business model embedded from the start.

Writing? Not so Darwinian Experience for ME

I read a piece written by Julian Baggini in ‘Literal’ yesterday (I recommend the Julian Baggini’s Twitter (microphilosophy)). I am not a regular Twitter user. I've had a personal Twitter account for over a year but only posted one message, never returning since then, as I could not see any benefit for myself even though I could see, it has clear benefits and advantages of its use for public figures and PR companies etc. who have a clear interest in publicity, promotion etc. However, since I have started blogging, I created another Twitter account to be ‘visible’. I wasn’t interested and still not interested in twitting about what I do and importantly, I cannot see why anyone would be interested in my mundane activities. I havn't considered it as a tool for writers even though I do agree with the value of encapsulating ideas or themes in fewer than 140 characters as Gideon Rachman discussed in FT. I remember a professor telling us that we should be able to describe our own PhD thesis as a simple after dinner speech. Meaning that, regardless of the subject matter, we should all be able to succinctly summarize it for anyone and anywhere. I believe that without that core thinking, the focus of the writing could easily be lost. Thus, for me, I consider Twitter to be a thinking tool that helps people to crystalize their thoughts succinctly (for some!).

Then I read the Julian Baggini’s article which says,

“However, paradoxically, microblogging might actually
help longer, more thoughtful writing. The ever-shortening
nature of social networking communications could
help revive ‘proper writing’ by re-opening the gap between
off-the-cuff jottings and thoughtful prose which
blogging temporarily blurred.”

I do not intent to disagree with such an argument except the fact that my personal experience is rather different. Moreover, I also do not speculate that microblogging harms ‘proper writing’ as some would argue. I talk only about my own experiences. Since the PhD thesis, I found it increasingly difficult to write long scripts as I was getting used to writing shorter scripts. For that reason, I feel that I have to put a lot of effort to write longer pieces. Consequently, without that intention and determination, it is difficult to imagine how a tool which limits a number of character can help ‘longer, more thoughtful writing’.

Buying and Selling at Twitter

Another clever business idea that utilizes a social technology, Twitter.

Mighty Minutiae

Sungmin and I attended Open Tec 2009 last Saturday and heard a talk given by Heather Brooke. Upon listening to her account, it reminded and amazed us that from small acorns of ideas unexpected outcomes and major changes occur. Who could have predicted the outcome? So I dug out an article that I cliped back in May.

clipped from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/

(The Guardian, Friday 15 May 2009)

“campaigning journalist Heather Brooke has spent the last five years fighting tooth and nail for MPs to come clean about their expenses ...”

---

---

“I first telephoned the House of Commons about expenses, back in 2004 …. I didn't intend to bring a plague on all politicians' houses. But I was interested in our opaque parliamentary expenses system…”

---

“a five-year investigation, and take me to the high court”

---

“I wanted the detail. That's where you find the truth”

---

“in 2006. My request for details on second homes was rejected”

---

“Commons presented its two favourite arguments:

privacy and security”

---

“…rallied against me were a posse of lawyers and government officials, including the head of the House of Commons Fees Office Andrew Walker … FOI officer Bob Castle, the treasury solicitor and assistant and an outside barrister. All paid for with taxpayers' money.”

---

“….on 16 May the judges ruled in my favour ….”

---

“…Commons announced they would publish all MPs receipts in October 2008…October came and went and no expenses…”

---

“What's unforgiveable is that the House of Commons repeatedly obstructed legitimate requests”

Testing Our Sense of Social and Moral Responsibility with Social Technologies

Social technologies, in particular, Twitter has received much attention from the media recently. The value of most social technologies is that they enable people to connect and share, inform and generate content. Witness the political value, reaffirming that social technologies power to report demonstration in Iran as it unfolded. Thus, thinking that the ‘empowerment’ of users as one of the key attributes of the social technologies is not mistaken.

However, there are some worrying signs. For example, there have been some high profile suicide cases in South Korea resulted from the rumours that spread through the Internet network. Moreover, this networked online world has brought us an easy access to child pornography, religious extremists viewpoints etc. The Internet certainly has offered easy access to potentially everything. However, all these social ailments are not new at all. They have all existed but only a few had a means and interests to control over the content dissemination whether that was driven by political or business interests. Now then, what has changed?

Before the emergence of social technologies, we could blame the central power and their usage of tools in manipulating and forming of a public opinion. Edward Louise Bernays and the birth of PR has explain that very well. For example, in order to increase cigarette usage, presenting carefully designed stylish smoking female was all what they needed. However, such means and resources were only available to a few. Now that has changed.

With the emergence of social technologies, we can no longer blame the central power for propagating and manipulating our minds and behaviours. These new technologies have enabled us to check and give a balance to the power over information generation and its flow. Consequently, We now have only ourselves to blame. Our sense of social responsibility is now being put to a test. Can we free ourselves from information manipulation and propagation or are we ending up abusing the newly acquired power by ignoring social and moral responsibilities that individual users hold? Sadly, some of the examples I have pointed out in the above, paint a rather gloomy picture of future.

This is the testing time for all social technology users.

Challenging My Thinking Process…I am sure many more to come!

When Howard gave me a link to an article by Don Tapscott, ‘Higher Education Is Stuck in the Middle Ages-Will Universities Adapt or Die Off in Our Digital World?, my initial question was ‘Does it say anything we don’t already know?’ I skimmed it through and quickly came to two conclusions. Firstly, I agree with the needs of changes in the model of learning. There are lecturers who recognize such needs and offer students with choices and options to cater for their diverse learning styles. I do believe that these changes should be driven by University as a whole in a systematic way rather than an ad hoc response by individual lecturers. However, secondly, I disagreed instantly on the dismissal of the face to face lecture, the traditional teaching model. Labelling it as “Broadcast Learning”, a one way, linear information transmission, he suggests that such model is not suitable for the students of the digital age. I felt what we needed is a hybrid teaching/learning model that combines old and new that offers digital technology enhanced learning experience without losing human to human interaction (including lecture theatre experience).

Then I read the BBC article about Geoff Taylor who is the head of music industry body BPI, talking about the lack of music industry’s understanding of Napster when it emerged in 1999 or rather the inevitable social and technological changes coming ahead, directing and reshaping the music industry as a whole forever. We do know what happened to Napster. The music industry resisted and fought against it.

It made me question my response to the Tapscott’s vision. I was very quick to disagree with his devaluation of the traditional pedagogy model for future education. Why did I disagree with it? My university experience was based on lecture theatre learning/teaching that I was one of many students sitting in an imposing theatre where the lecturer taking a centre stage. Am I simply hanging on to that experience, just because that is what I know? Am I saying we need a hybrid educational model based on a rational decision through a careful examination of supporting evidence or saying it because I am unconsciously scared of a fundamental change? Am I resisting and fighting against such change by taking a hybrid stand without realising it?