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.