Too broke for a bank account?

We have talked in this class about how mobile phones have brought banking to many who have never had that option before. However what about those people with access to banks, but without enough money to make having an account worthwhile. The fees that come with banking in the US make it difficult for some people to bank accounts. This article from nbcnews.com discusses this problem.

Big Data and Twitter Sentiment

I have been intrigued by Twitter for sometime. When the Library of Congress announced in 2010 that it would archive public tweets some scoffed, but I cheered. Sure there is a great deal of inane tweeting going on out there, but also this is a huge resource that could be a boon for numerous researchers. With this massive amount of data surely some trends, ideas, and conclusions can be reached on many subjects. It is all a matter of figuring how to do so. This is why the article we read in class "Sentiment in Twitter Events," (Thewall, Kevan, Paltoglou, 2010) really piqued my interest. The authors devised a study of a month of English Twitter posts to assess whether "popular events are typically associated with increase in sentiment strength." They found strong evidence that important events in Twitter are associated with increases in average negative sentiment strength. This is just one study that deals with a small cross section of data.

I was curious to find what tools are available  to assess the glut of Tweets. One that I found was Sentiment 140, which came out around the same time as this study. It can be used to "discover the sentiment of a brand, product, or topic. I search for "library" and it assessed Tweets for the last 3 minutes with library as a topic. The analysis for those 85 tweets were 55% negative and 45% positive. I could scroll through to read the Tweets that were analysed and I agreed with how it calculated positive v. negative. There are many, many more and Sentiment 140 provides a listing of many other similar sites.

So that might be interesting to see, but how can it be applied? I used to see how positively/negatively my employer (VCU) is viewed on Twitter. It provides an illuminating snapshot of user sentiment. However this type of tool can be employed on a much larger scale as was seen during the 2012 presidential election. The University of Southern California used Twitter to track in real time public sentiment leading up to the first presidential debate.

Not everyone is sold on the idea of tracking Twitter sentiment. In the article  "Why the trick to analyzing Twitter data is more data," that came out during the elections last fall, there are several reasons why Twitter may not be very effective in gauging public sentiment. While it does indeed offer a vast amount of data there are drawbacks including:

• It's a large sample size, but still just a fraction of the population.
• Even among internet users, Twitter skews toward a younger, more-connected demographic.
• Twitters undercounts total tweets when the system can’t make a link between tweets and a given event.
• The number of tweets per minute on any topic will naturally rise as Twitter’s user count rises.
• Tweeting may be a sign that someone is less engaged in an activity (e.g., watching a presidential debate) than someone watching intently.
• Sentiment analysis can be skewed by who’s tweeting about an issue (e.g., ardent supporters only, adversaries only, or the public at large)  From Carl Bialik, The Numbers Guy, WSJ

So while Twitter can be a great source of information on popular sentiment it cannot be used as the sole source of data. It must be analyzed in conjunction with other data sets in order to provide context.

The article does mention one area where Twitter might be a better tool for gauging sentiment and that is consumer  satisfaction. A Twitter user can quickly offer up their unvarnished opinion on goods and services. This takes much less time than telephone surveys and focus groups to gauge opinion and consumers are often more honest about their experience when limited to 140 characters. Many companies have created  Twitter feeds to address consumer complaints. I have vented my frustrations about Verizon on Twitter a few times. I did not get any satisfaction other than letting off some steam, but some consumers have found resolutions for their problems via a Twitter rant.

Sources:

Bachelor, Lisa. "Complain on Twitter for an instant response," The Guardian, 12 May 2012.

Bialik, Carl. "Timing Twitter," WSJ 28 Sept 2012.

Gross, Doug. "Library of Congress digs into 170 billion tweets." CNN, 7 Jan 2013.

Harris, Derrick, "Why the trick to analyzing Twitter data is more data," Gigaom, 2 Oct 2012.

Sentiment 140, http://help.sentiment140.com/home

"Ahead of Debate, USC Project Uses Twitter to Measure Political Sentiment." SocialTech.com, 3 Oct 2012

Cloud computing and libraries

The reading I found most interesting for this week was Winds of Change: Libraries and Cloud Computing by Matt Goldner. In this paper he discusses the opportunities that libraries have if they move to cloud computing. One of the most obvious is that it can free up time, money, and people for focus on other areas. Many resources are spent just trying to keep servers and software going. Cloud computing makes all of that much easier while allowing great utility of the data that is stored in the cloud. The library where I work recently moved to Alma, an ExLibris product that is the future of library management systems. It is suppose to make workflows better, optimise data sharing and collaboration, and actually reduce the overall costs of maintaining the library's infrastructure. All of this sounds really wonderful and so far there have been some benefits, but it is still too early to tell how this product will pan out.

One issue I did have with Goldner's article is that he focuses very little on the possible downside of cloud computing. He does mention that libraries should do their due diligence and make sure that it is the right move. Users should also be aware of data ownership and make sure they can access and extract all their data at any time should they decide to move or if the company goes out of business. Also you need to know where your data is being stored and how to make sure it is secure. While he mentions all these issues he does not go into great detail about them and he misses some other possible problems.

A post on Venture Beat by Casper Manes titled The Downside of Cloud Computing: 4 Reasons to Think Twice, offers more insight in the possible problems. Some people seem to think that putting everything in the cloud means an end to the hassle of onsite hardware and severs. That is not the case. Cloud computing may reduce the need for some of these things, but not necessarily. Another important point that Manes makes is the you are no longer in control. In other words there is a another layer added  when you use a cloud hosted product. As Manes put it when it runs on your own servers then the IT department can find out or fix things quickly or you can go lean on someone until they help you. With cloud computing IT now has to go to the host to find information or get answers so it is another level of bureaucracy in a way.

Another area of concern for cloud computing is security. Many users assume that their data is secure; however, you cannot necessarily rely on the cloud service to keep your data secure. Often it is up to the user to ensure their data is secure. This technology is evolving so rapidly that the security issue is lagging behind. There are all sorts of new stories about the breaching of cloud data. Below are a few examples from recent days:

Amazon S3 breach underscores cloud data security needs, 29 March 2013

Data Leakage Risk Rise with Cloud Storage Services, 27 March 2013
The biggest danger: Employees using apps such as Dropbox, Box and SugarSync for tucking away business documents to take home for work

BYOD, Data Loss Top List of Cloud Computing Challenges, 27 March 2013

Also there is a recently released 2013 Security of Cloud Computing Users study to see how cloud security has progressed over two years. Click on the link to the infographic below to get the summary.

Ponemon Research Study Infographic: Who's Minding Your Cloud?

This is a huge issue that must be address and explored. Does this mean that libraries and other should forgo getting into the cloud? I think not, but it does mean that it is necessary to assess your needs and the pros and cons before jumping in. You must know the risks and take steps to minimize them else you are setting yourself up for problems. As with any new and developing technology it is not perfect and probably never will be, but is is also changing rapidly to meet the needs of users and will likely overcome some of these problems in due course.


Sources:

Alma by ExLibris: http://www.exlibrisgroup.com/category/AlmaOverview

Manes, Casper. "The Downside of Cloud Computing: 4 Reasons to Think Twice," Venture Beat, 16 Jan 2012.

Ponemon Research Study Infographic, published 1 March 2013.

Business Informatics

Lots to think about it this past week regarding business informatics. As we discussed earlier in the semester many products have been aimed at the bottom of the pyramid. However as Karnani's paper shows many of those products are not at a price point that is affordable for the poor. Major corporations are not finding a vast untapped market that they thought they would fine. Yes there are people who would like to have these products, but they cannot afford them and cannot even afford to meet their basic needs.

The product with the most potential for making a change for those at the bottom of the pyramid is the the cell phone. Corbett's article "Can the Cell Phone Help End Global Poverty," from 2008 had some great insight. During the past decade it has become much more commonplace for people to have a mobile phone, but not a land line. This is greater among the poor as they could not afford a land line, but have leapfrogged to the mobile phone. Jan Chipchase of Nokia the subject of the article has a theory "that in an increasingly transitory world, the cellphone is becoming the one fixed piece of our identity." It really is a unique identifier that I had never thought of before. Many people may share the same name, but not the same number, unless it is shared among a household or group. Even greater than this identity is the way that it can help lead people out of poverty; provide opportunities they never had before. The fact that people have devised a way to transfer money using a phone and without access to a bank is fascinating to me.  Or that women have set up shop as phone operators by letting other use their phone for a nominal fee.

Still with all the promise that can come with a mobile phone the biggest barrier is still affordability. Chipchase has spent years working to find out what the needs of the customers would be. This way they can design and market a phone to the bottom of the pyramid. The product needs to be fairly simple so that it can be used by the illiterate, rugged to  withstand environments that are prone to flooding, or rough handling. It also must have a long battery life to be used in places with little or no reliable power sources. Even stripped down it would be difficult to create a phone that can be afforded by people who make less than $1 a day. When this article was written in 2008 there were plans by Nokia to attempt a phone that would cost just $5. However as of 2012 the cheapest phone in the company's history was released at a cost of $21. The phone was designed with a sturdy housing and protects the keyboard against scratches and dust, has an FM radio, a flashlight,  and a phonebook for up to 500 contacts. It has a standby time of 27 days and 11 hours of talk time. It is a step forward, but still well outside of the $5 target dreamed of in 2008.

Nokia was certainly headed in the right direction going out to talk to those who would be users of their product. They should consider going deeper as products that are co-created with the population that will use them have a greater chance at success.  Rather than repackaging products in to single use items with the illusion of affordability they must be a real effort to create products that are needed and suited to the needs of the BOP. This is where co-creation comes in. According to the blog post Bottom of the Pyramid - A Decade of Observation co creation will be needed for future innovation as well as partnerships between multinational corporations and local businesses. The key will be research and knowing what is really needed, not just throwing a stripped down phone or a single use item the poor.

Sources:


Corbett, Sara. "Can the Cell phone Help End Global Poverty?" NY Times 13 April 2008

Ip, Melissa "Bottom of the Pyramid - A Decade of Observation" Social Enterprise Buzz 21 Jan 2013.

Kar, Naveen.  "Nokia Targets the Bottom of the Pyramid with $21 Mobile Phone." Youth Googly 14 April 2012  

Karnani, Aneel. "Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: A Mirage" 14 July 2006. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=914518

Turning an iPhone into a microscope!

Today I read an article on using a smart phone as a field microscope: Scientists use smart phones to get the poop on worm infestations.  This method has been fairly accurate at detecting certain types of infestations and can be even better once it has been tweaked a bit. This is a great example of frugal engineering and yet another example of how mobile phones can make a huge difference in rural and poor areas.

                                                                                            Isaac Bogoch/Toronto General Hospital

Governance and Social Media

In our last class we discussed social media and government (local, state, federal). Can social media be a useful tool for government or is simply throwing window dressing up to make it look as if  government organizations are keeping up with trends without adding any real benefit? I found a couple of interesting articles about it on Mashable. They are older, but do discuss some interesting ways that social media is used by government with discernible impact.

The first is Five Ways Government Works Better with Social Media, from 2010. Twitter has become a useful tool for swiftly communicating information about all sorts of things from what you had for breakfast to organizing a protest. The EPA supposedly harnessed the power of Twitter to relay information about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The agency had a special web page set up for the disaster and had a dedicated Twitter account. This sounded very promising, but when I went to Twitter to explore the account @Oil_Spill_2010 it yielded 3 tweets and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's account, @LisaPJackson which was also set up during the Gulf Oil Spill had no activity. Not sure this is a stellar example of government communication and transparency.  I did however find a Flickr account that showed the EPA's efforts in the Gulf. Maybe the article should have highlighted that.  Perhaps a better example of government agencies making use of Twitter is the second on in the list which includes FEMA, the Virginia Department of Emergency Management, and the National Weather Service using Twitter to communicate emergency information and also to gather weather information.

The article also points to how the government might spin off their own versions of social media tools to facilitate communication and collaboration within an agency. One such venture is Spacebook. This was launched in 2009 as "an internal expert networking site for NASA employees that allows new and established staff to get to know the agency's diverse community of scientists, engineers, project managers, and support personnel."

A second Mashable article titled How Social Media Can Effect Real Social and Governmental Change, by Craig Newmark, the founder of craigslist, discusses how social media can aid in government efficiency and transparency. It focuses more on how API platforms like the ones that social media tools are built on can be used by third parties to create tools using government data. Once such tool that I found very interesting is SeeClickFix. Using this app a citizen can report problems such as a pothole or stoplight outage by taking a picture and adding a geotag and uploading it. They can also use it to receive alerts or to start conversations about needs in the community. Of course the local government would have to adopt such a service, but it would be another way to communicate with local citizens and make it easier to report problems.

As these examples demonstrate adopting social media tools just for the sake of saying you are using them helps no one and just bogs down a slow moving bureaucracy  even more. If used in a more appropriate and thoughtful manner social media can add value and help speed government service and aid in communication.

With that in mind I will leave you with what I think can be viewed as both window dressing and an actual stab at involving the citizens in their government: We the People. This is the White House website that allows anyone to begin a petition that, if it garners enough signatures in the allotted time, will be responded to by the government. There are some legitimate petitions and some that make me weep for humanity. I was glad to see however there is some levity: This isn't the petition response you're looking for.

Education Informatics

Of all our readings for this particular week the one that struck me most was When the Future Finally Arrives: Web 2.0 Becomes Web 3.0 by Matt Crosslin. Trying to imagine what the internet will be 10 years down the road is an intriguing prospect. The author is wondering how Web 3.0, the semantic web, and 3D web will change the classroom of the future. It is hard to say precisely since much of what has come to pass with Web 2.0 is not necessarily what was expected. Who could have predicted the creation and popularity of Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, or Instagram 10 or 15 years ago? Technology changes so rapidly it is difficult to know if what we invest in today will be viable several years down the road. That makes it even more difficult to decide what to invest in in terms of education.

Before we can really speculate about how new technological advances will effect education another more basic issue must be resolved: the digital divide. We have already discussed this topic, but it bears repeating due to the impact it has on education. Last week I posted an article from the Washington Post addressing the  gap in internet access between rich and poor. Even while technology and the internet are becoming essential in the modern classroom there is still disparity in access.  The Pew Research Center, which conducted the survey, found that "92% of teacher said that the internet has a 'major impact' on the their ability to access content, resources, and materials for teaching." The survey also found that the "teachers of the lowest income students are more than twice as likely as teachers of the highest income students (56% v. 21%) to say that students' lack of access to digital technologies is a 'major challenge' to incorporating more digital tools into their teaching." Even as we speed along incorporating  new technological innovations into teaching we may be further adding to the gap between rich and poor by not moving quickly enough to close the digital divide.

                     From How Teachers Are Using Technology at Home and in Their Classrooms

Of course throwing technology and the internet into the mix does not necessarily mean that the students are receiving a better education. Technology used without any real purpose other than just to have the latest gadget does not equal quality learning. In fact sometime technology can have a negative impact. While the teachers surveyed mostly agreed that technology has had a positive impact 76% did "strongly agree" that search engines have "conditioned students to expect to be able to find information quickly and easily." Also 60% agreed that “today’s digital technologies make it harder for students to find and use credible sources of information” While we should worry about students' ability to determine what a credible source is, should we worry about their dependence on Google and other search engines? I think yes, because they should learn that not every problem has a clear and quickly found answer. They also need to learn that not everything can be found online even though it may seem that way. 

I will leave you this week with a recently added TedTalk by Sugata Mitra titled Build a School in the Cloud. It is about creating a learning lab in India, where children can explore and learn from each other -- using resources and mentoring from the cloud. This is an innovative idea that combines self organized learning and technology to create a new kind of learning environment, one where the children teach themselves.This could could be part of the future of technology and education. As he says "it is not about making learning happen, it is about letting it happen."  

Sources:

 "Survey Finds gap in Internet access between rich, poor students," Cecilia Kang, Washington Post 27 Feb 2013.

"How Teachers are Using Technology at Home and in Their Classrooms," Purcell et al. Pew Internet and American Life Project, 28 Feb 2013.

"Build a School in the Cloud," Sugata Mitra, TedTalk, Feb. 2013.

Washington Post article about gap in internet access for rich, poor students

I saw this article today and thought it would be appropriate to post as we have been discussing this issue. A few points from the article that stand out:

"Half of all students in higher income families have access to the Internet at home through a computer or mobile device. The figure drops to 20 percent for middle income children and just 3 percent of students from poor homes, according to the survey of 2,462 teachers by the Pew Internet & American Life Project..."

"The growing disparity of Internet access is leading to a gap in performance, about 56 percent of teachers said. About seven in 10 teachers say their students now rely on the Internet to complete their assignments."

"But three-quarters of teachers surveyed also said Google and other search engines have conditioned students to expect to find information quickly and easily and discourage children from using a wide range of sources for research, according to the report."

More to come when I post about our most recent discussion on education.

Source: "Survey Finds gap in Internet access between rich, poor students," Cecilia Kang, Washington Post 27 Feb 2013

Women in Information Society: "Math Class is Tough" Barbie

I have been ruminating on the this topic since last week and for some reason the same thing keeps popping into my head. In the early 1990s the Teen Talk Barbie was introduced. One of her many phrases was "math class is tough." Now I was a teenager at the time and even while part of me agreed that math class was indeed tough, hearing Barbie say that made me angry as it did many other people. I knew that even if some girls had problems with math that there were boys who were having the same trouble just as some of the best math students in my class were female. I also knew that it was wrong to have this message sent to millions of little girls. It always bugged me that I was not very good at math because I never wanted this deficiency tied to my gender. It had nothing to do with being a girl I just was not very good at it. (FYI Mattel did come out with Computer Engineer Barbie a few years ago)

Just as girls have been stereotyped as not being good at math they have also been steered away from the world of technology and computers. It has been deemed a male domaine and I think that has put many women off of pursuing a career in IT. You would think after many years of telling girls they can be anything and seeing women work their way into visible positions as CEOs, politicians, and everything in between that more women would be present in the world of technology. Geek has become chic, but only if you are a male geek. Women get the "idiot geek girl meme."

For all the strides women have made it is hard to understand why it is still difficult to make a significant dent in this field.  In fact women were making good progress in the 1980s, but then the trend reversed according to Nora Denzel of the Anita Borg Institute for Women in Technology. A ComputerWorld article from last year says she called it "a revolution in reverse." The high of 1985 where women made up 37% of CS undergraduates to only 18% in 2010. Why is this? Our discussions and readings show that there is a downward trend in the field for both men and women, but especially for women.

The ComputerWorld article provides several reasons for the lack of gender diversity in the field. One reason is because girls are often not exposed to computer science in high school. It is not typically a required part of the curriculum. If more girls were encouraged or if the course was made mandatory then that would be a good first step. Another reason is because of the historic lack of diversity. It is hard to feel comfortable in an area when there is no one else like you. You need trailblazers to pave the way. There has been some of that, but the field of ICT for better or worse is still viewed as a boy's club. Another reason that is tied to this is the culture within this world. The long around-the-clock type sessions of work are not appealing to many especially those, both men and women, who have or want to have families.

There is some light at the end of the tunnel however. The article states that shifting skill sets may favor women. There is a need for more social and user centered products, project management skills, and higher level analytics that open the door for women. One area that is given as an example is healthcare IT. I have experienced this in my own work. Health informatics is an emerging field that blends information science, computer science, and health care. As is mentioned in the article you cannot just drop one on top of the other there is a need to understand the health care systems workflows. There needs to be someone who can bridge the communication gap between IT and the health care professionals.

This is not an issue that will be solved overnight. Until we really understand why women are not choosing this field we cannot hope to recruit them to it. Some of the articles I have read give some reasons for this, but nothing has provided a clear picture. Until then we need to work to expose girls and boys to the world of computer science at a young age and strive to make it a gender neutral enterprise. Studies have shown that innovation happens most often in a heterogeneous environment. Future breakthroughs are more likely to come when diverse groups that include both genders work together.

Crossing the Digital Divide

I just got around to reading the latest American Libraries Direct and there is an article that is relevant to our recent discussion on the digital divide. Mike Cassidy's article MacArthur Foundation researchers find a new digital divide that is hard to cross discusses the opportunities and drawbacks that come with technology. The research finds that kids are learning a great deal outside of school and much of that is from their interactions on the internet. This can lead to them forming new ideas and interest that they might otherwise have not been exposed to. However they still need guidance to channel their experiences properly and "...connect their new media engagements toward more academic, civic, and production-oriented activities." And of course there is the problem of those children who attend poorer school and are from poor families. They are much less likely to get the access and guidance they need. Just something else to think about.

Digital Divide

I have a difficult time remembering what it was like before I had access to the internet. So much of my work and life depends on it that it is hard to imagine life without it. Increasingly more and more of daily life takes place online. Being online is no longer a luxury; in many cases proficiency using the Internet is vital for education and employment opportunities. Social networking appears to be an imperative cultural norm and it seems every product and service has a website, Facebook page, Twitter feed, etc.  It sometimes feels as if everyone is “on-line;” however, access and use is far from universal.

The reality is that there are many people around the world and in the U.S who do not have access at all or reliable access to the internet. Those individuals using dial-up access or who lack any means of connectivity are at risk of falling behind, missing out on educational and employment opportunities, not to mention being out of step with the rest of society. This infographic 2012 Digital Divide Statistics breaks down some of the stats for the U.S. The last item mentioned on the list is the National Broadband Plan or NBP.  I wrote a paper on it in 2011 and I will share some excerpts here.

"NBP was a requirement of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was tasked by Congress to develop a plan to “ensure that every American has access to broadband capability.” Broadband is seen as a primary tool that is required for Americans to succeed and be competitive with the rest of the world. The only way to ensure that all citizens have access to broadband is with government assistance

Communication technology is essential for dissemination of information and to advance economic growth in the country. With broadband we are in the midst of the next technological leap forward.  The NBP lists the numerous advantages of broadband. It can overcome geographical and financial barrier to provide a wide range of educational, cultural and recreational opportunities and resources. 

The National Broadband Plans contains numerous recommendations to ensure universal access and use, but there are six core, long-term goals that the FCC will track over the next ten years to gauge progress. These goals are 1) 100 million U.S. homes with affordable access, 2) for the U.S. to lead the world in mobile innovation, with the fastest and most extensive wireless network, 3) affordable access to robust broadband service and the skills to use it, 4) every community to have affordable access to no less than 1 gigabit per second service broadband at anchor institutions such as schools, hospitals, and government buildings, 5) first responders to have access to a nationwide, wireless, interoperable broadband public safety network, and 6) the ability of every American to use broadband to track and manage real time energy use."

At the time of NBP's adoption there were approximately 100 million Americans without broadband access. That is about one third of the U.S. population. Of those 14 million did not have access to broadband infrastructure.  In addition it was found that most adults without broadband access were generally older, poorer, less educated, and more likely to be a racial or ethnic minority or disabled.

While I found the numbers quite astonishing I was not surprised by the characterization of those lacking access. It is the same story we hear time and again. When there is disparity it is often these groups who bear the brunt of it.

This plan was a great step in the right direction. There was some criticism at the time of adoption that it was not enough, but at least it was something. In the first year the plan was on schedule. Since then it appears to have stalled a bit with some wondering if the plan should be scrapped Do we need a new National Broadband Plan?  The problems are some of the same with any huge project: money and an inability to agree on how best to proceed. Should they continue to build upon old technology or base the upgrades on new technology? 

While the powers that be continue to hash out these issues we are left with a significant portion of our population that is without reliable or even any access to the internet. If you are interested in tracking the progress of the NBP then check out this site Implementing the National Broadband Plan, administered by the Benton Foundation. 

Resources


2012 Digital Divide Statistics Inforgraphic, AnsonAlex.com, 6 Feb 2012
Do we need a new National Broadband Plan? Matthew Laser, arstechnica.com, 27 July 2012
Implementing the National Broadband Plan, Benton Foundation, benton.org
National Broadband Plan 
National Broadband Plan: One Year Progress Report
“One Year Later.” Jamie Barnett, Blogband, 16 March 2011

Innovation and Frugal Engineering: "Value for the many"

I like to think for a bit on what we have discussed before I write my post. This week I am glad I did as during work this week our library director has us watch the keynote address from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). It was given by Walter Isaacson who has written biographies on Steve Jobs, Albert Einstein, and Ben Franklin. His talk centered around innovation which was timely since we have been discussing this. Unfortunately you need an account to view the entire talk, but there were a few things I picked out to share.  Isaacson discusses what makes these three people he wrote about unique. He says it was not that they were smart because smart people are a dime a dozen, it was that they were innovators. They were also good at getting people to do things they thought were impossible. He argues that while the founding fathers of the U.S. were extraordinary it took someone like Franklin to be the catalyst for combining their ideas and create a climate for compromise. More than one person said that Steve Jobs got them to do things by staring at them unblinkingly and saying to them "don't be afraid you can do it." When they would say no they cannot, he would repeat it again and again, until they did it. Also there is a short clip of part of his talk that can be seen here.

So this set a good foundation for me to think about frugal innovation. Being smart is not the only component in fact it does not have to be a component at all. It is the will and the drive coupled with creativity to make something new out of something that already exists. A quick search yields numerous articles on the subject and one thing is immediately clear; India is the leader in frugal innovation and engineering. The concept of Jugaad, using what you have to make what you need, is behind this. This is not a new concept to me. Where I grew up we called this "hillbilly ingenuity." I expect you can find frugal innovation anywhere in the world where there is a lack of resources be it financial or material. The difference is in India there has been an explosion of this type of innovation leading to products that changes the lives of millions, not just the person who rigged something for their own needs.  As Vijay Govindarajan, a professor at Tuck School of Business stated, "Indian companies must innovate for domestic consumers... Instead of value for money, our mantra has to be value for many or frugal innovation..." 

In the article India Leads Frugal Innovation: Why this matters to you, made me realize something else. Frugal innovation applies not just to tangible products, but also to services. This idea of using what you have to create something new can and should be applied to services. That is why the Narayana Hrudayalaya Group, the heart hospital chain in India has been so successful, through using "the philosophies of mass production and lean manufacturing." Also frugal innovation and engineering does not mean that the product or service is automatically inferior. According to this philosophy of Jugaad things are made cheaper and also better. Along with this is the technology aspect. Just because something is cheap does not mean it must be low tech. The General Electric MAC 400 Electrocardiograph discussed in our readings and in this article is a good example of low cost meets cutting edge technology.

Of course with all the praise and practicality of frugal innovation it makes me wonder what is the downside? Most everything I have seen has been positive, but there does appear to be limits. While frugal engineering does not mean that quality has to be sacrificed there are limits. For example in The Limits of Frugality the Tato Nano which has been touted as one of the successes of frugal innovation has not been very successful in the market. Some automakers say that it is impossible to reach such a low price without lowering the quality. There are some things that customers are not going to do without. Also it might be morally and socially responsible to use frugal innovation techniques, but it is not necessarily profitable. This means that most companies cannot solely focus on the bottom of the pyramid, but must mix these ventures with profitable ones. Still if this is the only downside then there is very little reason that companies the world over should not explore frugal innovation and adopt it where  feasible.

Sources:
"India Lead Frugal Innovation: Why this matters to you," Social Enterprise Buzz, 6 N 12
"Innovation comes home to go global," The Times of India, 6 Apr 2012.
"Jugadd: Lessons in Frugal Innovation," InnovationManagement.se, 27 Feb 12
"The Limits of Frugality," The Economist, 22 Oct 2011 

Postscript to Gatekeeping, SNS, and Social Grooming

Today I came across a couple of TED talks that I think go along with the two previous posts I made and also our class discussions.

The first is Jeff Hancock: The Future of Lying. Interestingly enough he says that we are more honest online than we are when speak to people in person. That is actually the opposite than I would have thought, but it is because the written record will probably endure where the spoken word is gone in an instant.

The other TED talk is by Markham Nolan: How to separate fact and fiction online. In this talk he discusses how he and his group help to verify the authenticity of images using free internet tools. His last statement sums up a very important aspect of computer and human interaction:

"Truth is emotional, it's fluid, and above all, it's human. No matter how quick we get with computers, no matter how much information we have, you'll never be able to remove the human from the truth-seeking exercise.” (Markham Nolan)

Enjoy.

Social Grooming and Power

After our last class I am still mulling over the concept of social grooming. Social grooming was a discussed in "Grooming, Gossip, Facebook, and MySpace: What can we learn about these sites from those who won’t assimilate?" by Zeynep Tufekc and was a new concept to me. In the animal kingdom social grooming is an active behavior where the animals help to maintain each other and it serves to create bonds. The same occurs among humans as well. Humans raise it a step above through our verbal communications, but it is usually in tandem with visual cues. Social networking takes away the visual element. Without it is this social grooming 2.0 still effective? Is social grooming either in person or through SNS valuable? I believe the answer is yes.The creation of bonds is a form of power. Bonds, attachments, and collaborations all help to strengthen relationships.

Blogger Danah Boyd makes some points in her post from 2009 (click here to view) about the dismissal of Twitter.

"I vote that we stop dismissing Twitter just because the majority of people who are joining its ranks are there to be social. We like the fact that humans are social. It’s good for society. And what they’re doing online is fundamentally a mix of social grooming and maintaining peripheral social awareness."

She takes issue with studies which deem a large portion of tweets a pointless babble. It is true that many tweets when viewed by someone outside of that social group without context appear to be drivel, but that does not mean that it really is without value. It is part of the nuance of communication. Twitter and other SNS are an evolution in social grooming, another facet in the way we communicate. Communication is so much more than what is expressed in words. It is about context, expression, behavior, and interpretation.

Can SNS inhibit authentic interaction? Maybe, it depends on what you define as authentic. Many encounters via SNS are superficial, but then so is gossip or discussing the details of last night's game in the break room at work. That does not make it any less beneficial. Humans are social creatures and this is part of the way in which we make sense of each other. Tufekc's article focuses on those who chose not to participate in SNS. It is not that these people are less social they simply create or reinforce their social bonds in a different way. In fact their lack of participation is a way of forming a bond among those who are like them. So you could say that participation and non-participation are both forms of social grooming.

There is still so much to explore on this topic that I will continue to read on the subject and hopeful have more to post outside of my regular class postings.

Gatekeeping and Social Networks

In this week's class were are discussing "Gatekeeping and Social Networks." We had several articles to read all of which were quite interesting, but I will focus on one in particular in this post. The article is "Grooming, Gossip, Facebook, and MySpace: What can we learn about these sites from
those who won’t assimilate?" by Zeynep Tufekci. You can view the article by clicking here. I will most likely post more after we have our class discussion, but I found this article interesting first of all because of the attempt to quantify this information. It seems difficult to devise the survey questions for this, but as far as I can tell the method used for data collection seems sounds.

 I am most interested in the notion of "social grooming" that was discussed in the article. This is a new term for me, but it makes sense. The author refers to Robin Dunbar's ideas on the subject which stated that "gossip,people-curiosity and small talk, all of which are seemingly non-functional and are often popularly understood as mere distraction or deviation, are in essence the human version of social grooming in primates: an activity that is essential to forging bonds, affirming relationships, displaying bonds,and asserting and learning about hierarchies and alliances." Based on the conclusions drawn by the author of this article those nonusers of Social Networking Sites (SNS) are not as interested in social grooming even though it is an important piece of the establishing bonds. On the flip side just because the nonusers of SNS are not participating in this behavior it does not mean they are antisocial or have less friends. The survey shows that users and nonusers reported similar numbers of close and somewhat close friends.

In trying to find predictors as to who is more likely to be a SNS user gender was a factor as women are more likely to use SNS. The only other predictive factor related to this social grooming aspect. Those who use the internet for expressive purposes like reading blogs, creating web content, etc. are more likely to be SNS users. These activities have a link to social grooming something that non SNS users do not readily identify with. Instrumental use of the internet, meaning using it for activities such as research or banking, is not a predictive factor for SNS use. Both users and nonusers are likely to engage in this behavior.

So according to the results of this study it is not that these nonusers are uncomfortable with technology or are antisocial. On the contrary the nonusers seek authentic or genuine interaction be it in real life or online. It is the "social browsing" they do not understand which is what they believe is the purpose of SNS. I would compare this to people watching. The nonusers would not understand the act of observation without interaction.

More to come after our discussion in class.

What is Social Informatics?

I have to admit I signed up for this class not really having a clue as to what Social Informatics means. Since it stumped me I decided I needed to take the course so I could learn something new. The closest I have come to the subject is health informatics which is the intersection of information science, computer science, and health care. If informatics is defined as the science of processing data for storage and retrieval aka "information science," and social is referring to society and culture then my first thought would be that Social Informatics explore the intersection of data, technology, and culture. 

Rob Kling, a professor of information systems and information science at Indianna University provides the following definition: 

"A serviceable working conception of "social informatics" is that it identifies a body of research that examines the social aspects of computerization. A more formal definition is "the interdisciplinary study of the design, uses and consequences of information technologies that takes into account their interaction with institutional and cultural contexts."

So I suppose my parsed out definition is not so far off the mark, but I think I have a great deal to learn this semester.

Greetings

This is my initial post for a new blog. This blog has been created for a class on Social Informatics that I am taking at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. I am a graduate student in the Information Sciences program. I chose the title of the blog to reflect how I feel about being an archivist in a library program. Sometimes I feel like I have stepped into a world that is similar yet very different from the one I am used to. I feel like I am always coming at things from a different perspective which is good and bad. I was very excited to take this course as it is something that I have absolutely no knowledge about and I love to learn new things. So for my classmates and anyone else who may stumble upon this blog I hope you enjoy the adventure of learning about social informatics with me.

Oh and in case you are wonder what social informatics is (are?) click here for an explanation by the Robert Kling Center for Social Informatics at Indianan University: