February, 2009

Noticed — No Comments
25
Feb 09

SILS seeks applicants for Dean position

Looking for a new job?  SILS is on the market for a new Dean:

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill invites nominations and applications for the Dean of the School of Information and Library Science. The Dean, a senior level administrator, reports to the Executive Vice Chancellor/Provost. The position is a tenured academic appointment.

The Dean is expected to:

  • Provide dynamic leadership for the School’s academic programs, research, funding, faculty and staff development, and service to state and national constituents,
  • Demonstrate an awareness of the dynamic and complex nature of the field and assist in maintaining the School’s leadership role,
  • Possess successful management experience,
  • Demonstrate a commitment to a consultative, decisive, and responsive deanship,
  • Articulate the vision of the School for the University, state, and national and international communities of information professionals,
  • Provide personal commitment and leadership in pursuing an effective advancement program for the School,
  • Collaborate with faculty, staff, and students to translate the School’s vision into achievements in research, teaching, and service.

Find out more and apply here.

Noticed / Software / Teaching / Thoughts — 17 Comments
23
Feb 09

Twitter as Courseware

David Silver is using Twitter in his media studies classes (check out the amazing “Eating San Francisco”).  Twitter is the class’ main mode of communication, and he writes that Twitter has replaced three classroom technologies:

twitter has replaced the class listserv. for years, i’ve used a listserv (alternatively called a mailing list or discussion list) to extend our discussions beyond the classroom. these days, when we want to continue conversations, the 12 students in DMP, the 17 students in ESF, and i use twitter.

twitter has replaced email announcements. in the past, if something’s come up, or i want to add a reading, or we have a location change, i would send all the students in class an email. these days, when i have something to announce, or when my students have something to announce, we use twitter.

twitter has replaced the cardboard box i used to bring to class on due dates. in the past, my students would print out their papers and bring them to class; i’d collect them in a box and take them back to the office to grade. these days, my students write blogs, design flickr sets, upload video, and post works-in-progress. when finished, they tweet about it so that i – and, more importantly, their peers – can check it out.

This is instructive for designers of educational technology.  The “traditional” trajectory of educational technology is specialization and feature-creep.  For example, a class must have an email list, a forum, website/CMS, each with its own space and identity.  When I log into BlackBoard, I see about 30 different things I can do, and for each I have to click a link and go to a page to do the action.  Twitter strips away the features, instead using an inherently flexible textual space to facilitate communication, accomplishing the same goal of other feature-ridden “course technology.”

I see Twitter’s artificial limit on post size as an important factor in classroom success.  First, it keeps the information space managable, meaning information is economized and easily retrievable.  Second, and this is pure speculation, but I see Twitter’s short form as a communication equalizer.  In any class, you’re going to have verbose individuals and quiet individuals – the same applies online.  Twitter forces the verbose to be concise, and it makes it easy for the quiet/reluctant to contribute “normally.”  To illustrate this point, let’s imagine a traditional class forum.  Our verbose individuals may contibute multi-paragraph posts.  Our quiet individuals may look at those long posts, struggle to replicate them, and end up not enjoying or participating in online communication.  We’ve lost “communication” because a student struggled to replicate a “form.”  In the case of Twitter, the difference between the verbose and the quiet is 140 characters.  Form goes away, more or less, and the forum focuses primarily on the communication of raw ideas.  Again, this is just speculation – but there’s plent of research in CMC on media richness and form effects that might provide theoretical basis for this sort of research question.

In my class, we’ve used Facebook groups for discussions with (in my opinion) great success.  We’ve also experimented with Ning, where that success was not replicated.  I believe that Ning suffered from the problems endemic to BlackBoard and other CMS – too many functions, too many buttons to push, too many markup styles to remember.  This “overfunctioning” leads to a segmentation of communication, and in an online discussion where communicants may be reluctant, segmentation is death.  Twitter is the opposite of segmentation, forcing all communication through a single, flexible channel.  This creates the impression of activity, again stimulating discussion.

If I were going to build a CMS (Course Management Software), I would start with Twitter as the prototype, and only add features to the dashboard screen.  In this sense, the CMS would only have one page, and everything would tie into and key off the communication sream (i.e I would join Twitter with something like Facebook’s News Feed).  If I were to employ Twitter in my classes, one thing I might ask for is “Groups” or “Rooms.”  It would be a challenge for me to keep track of all of my student communication (though a second Twitter account would probably suffice).

Hacks / Noticed / Research / Software — 1 Comment
20
Feb 09

BibTex and Word Documents

Via Academic Productivity, I’ve been looking for this forever:

BibTex4Word is an add-in for Microsoft Word that allows the citation of references from a BibTex database. BibTex4Word will insert a bibliography into your document using your choice formatting style.

It is intended for three types of user:

1. LateX users who need to use Microsoft Word. BibTex4Word allows you to use your existing BibTex database and favourite bibliography style.

2. Word users who can’t afford a commercial bibliography package but need to insert citations and bibliographies into their documents. Everything you need to manage references is available free.

3. Word users who have a commercial bibliography package but who don’t like it. BibTex4Word is lightweight, transparent and doesn’t mess up your documents. It is also free.

I’m completely married to Bibdesk as my reference manager, but the lack of Word integration has always caused headaches.  I’m very excited to have found an answer.

Noticed / Research — 1 Comment
20
Feb 09

Want to get funded? Be prepared

An article in this month’s Academy of Management Journal looked at the effect of passion and preparedness on venture capitalist funding decisions.  Chen and colleagues (2009) constructed two scales, one that represented “affective passion” (energetic body movements, speaking with varied tone/pitch, etc.) and one that represented preparedness (presentation had substance, it was coherent and logical, etc.).  The researchers then looked at the effect of these two scales on a positive VC funding decision.

In two studies, the researchers found that preparedness was a significant factor affecting VC decisions, whereas passion was not.  In the current economic climate, one can only imagine the impact of preparedness increases.  Notably, the research found that having taken public speaking lessons was a significant factor, indicating that communication skill, if not passion, was still important.

Chen, X., Yao, X., and Kotha, S.  (2009).  Enterpreneur Passion and Preparedness in Business Plan Presentations: A Persuasion Analysis of Venture Campitalists’ Funding Decisions.  Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 199–214.

Noticed — No Comments
19
Feb 09

Palfrey, Calvert, Jones to discuss “Cyberspeech”

Somehow I missed this:

UNC School of Law First Amendment Law Review will host its seventh annual symposium, “Cyberspeech,” on Feb. 20, 2009, in collaboration with the UNC Center for Media Law and Policy. Check-in opens at 9 a.m., and the event is from 10:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the UNC School of Law, 160 Ridge Road, Chapel Hill.

Paul Jones will be stepping in as the guest keynote speaker, replacing former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.

Speakers include

  • Susan Brenner, NCR Distinguished Professor of Law and Technology , University of Dayton School of Law
  • Clay Calvert, John and Ann Curley Professor of First Amendment Studies and Co-Director of the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment, Penn State University
  • Robert Frieden, Pioneers Chair and Professor of Telecommunications and Law, Penn State University
  • John Morris , General Counsel for the Center for Democracy & Technology’s Internet Standards, Technology, and Policy Project
  • Dawn Nunziato, Associate Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
  • John Palfrey, Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law and Vice Dean for Library and Information Resources, Harvard Law School
  • Robert Richards, Distinguished Professor of Journalism and Law and Co-Director of the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment, Penn State University
  • Hannibal Travis, Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law
  • Alfred Yen, Professor of Law, Boston College Law School

The symposium is open to the public. Lunch will be provided on-site. UNC-Chapel Hill students, faculty and staff are admitted free; students from other schools are admitted for $5; other guests may attend for $40.

Noticed / Research / Thoughts — 10 Comments
18
Feb 09

How Facebook Should Address User Rights

Earlier today, Mark Zuckerberg announced that Facebook would be significantly revising the new Facebook terms of service.  He writes:

Going forward, we’ve decided to take a new approach towards developing our terms. We concluded that returning to our previous terms was the right thing for now. As I said yesterday, we think that a lot of the language in our terms is overly formal and protective so we don’t plan to leave it there for long.

Our next version will be a substantial revision from where we are now. It will reflect the principles I described yesterday around how people share and control their information, and it will be written clearly in language everyone can understand. Since this will be the governing document that we’ll all live by, Facebook users will have a lot of input in crafting these terms.

Of the changes, Michael Zimmer writes:

Consider their declaration that “We won’t use the information you share on Facebook for anything you haven’t asked us to.” Ok, well, I never asked to be opted into an automatic News Feed, nor did I ask to be a part of Beacon, but Facebook used my data for these purposes without my informed consent. Will they do it again? Will a more robust behavioral targeting system be implemented? Will I have asked Facebook to use my proifle data for that purpose?

Zimmer’s comments reveal the fundamental conceit of this discussion – what is “our information” in Facebook and where does it begin and end?  Put another way, it is easy to imagine a photograph we upload as “our information.”  But what about the pokes we send into the ether, or even more abstractly, the deltas between our logins as recorded by Facebook’s servers.  All of this is “our information,” and all of this information would be coveted by marketers.

I would like to argue that the idea of owning one’s information in the context of third-party systems is impossible.  “Our information” is used, reused, extracted, archived, analyzed, recombined, logged and backed up in so many ways by third-parties, the idea of actually owning it (meaning we could “remove” it at our discretion) is an impossibility.  More practically, if we did own our information, we would be able to do just as Zimmer states – opt out of Newsfeeds, control how our information flows through Facebook.  I don’t forsee this happening any time soon.

To Facebook’s credit, I believe the terms update actually reflected this reality of information ownership dilemma.  There are so many derivatives of information, the company couldn’t reasonably promise ownership.  Information almost inherently shape-shifts in technical systems; this information-derivation “problem” affects everyone from Google and Yahoo to the lowliest blog.

How can Facebook address this issue?  First, Facebook needs to move the discussion away from this overarching concept of “information.”  Facebook cannot truthfully promise ownership of all of our information, at least to the extent is passes a “removal” test.  Second, Facebook needs to study user perceptions of information in the site.  For example, HCI literature shows us a number of gaps between “observable” information and systems- or backend-information.

A user may consider her pictures as information, but they may not consider their attention data as information.  By understanding the user’s conception of information, it can more accurately craft a terms of service that reflects user’s needs.  Facebook is ultimately responsible to its users.  While policy wonks may deride a system that does not promise “absolute” control, Facebook should focus primarily on user conceptions of information and start building the policy out from there.

Facebook should also adopt the following practical suggestions.  First, Facebook should place a reasonable lifespan (eighteen to twenty-four months) on information users identify as important.  Facebook should delete my pictures within two years from the time I remove my account.  Simple as that.  Second, Facebook should work with a few policy and ethics organization to create a Facebook code of information ethics.  A few members of this organization would comprise an external board that could review and approve that new features are in-line with the code of ethics.  Finally, Facebook should hire an ombudsman.  The ombudsman should be hired for a contractually-tenured period and be given a blog on a third-party server.

Mark Zuckerberg talks about Facebook as if it was a country.  If Facebook were a country, it would more accurately resemble North Korea or China than the United States.  Facebook must move forward aggressively to institute better corporate and ethical governance.  Facebook is in a very critical phase, where a new audience is flooding in.  Investments made into protecting user rights will be recouped many times over.  However, if Facebook does not act aggressively, or it simply pays lip service to the problem (e.g., just creating a Facebook group), they stand to alienate this increasingly older, more rights-aware audience.

Noticed / Research — 2 Comments
16
Feb 09

25 Things and Social Motives

The 25 things meme on Facebook has garnered a good bit of press coverage lately.  I spoke to Pat Reardon of the Chicago Tribune about the phenomenon:

This reciprocity is a new, more democratic wrinkle in the autobiography game, especially useful on Facebook, where a “friend” isn’t necessarily someone you know well. These notes help friends learn about one another. In addition, they address a problem that has long plagued an American society in which people often move from one place to another.

Stutzman points out that many people older than 25 are using Facebook and these 25-things notes to reconnect with people from their past. These short autobiographies can provide a quick overview of the writer’s life.

“Maybe Facebook is filling a need we’ve never been able to fill before, enabling reconnection with the people we left behind,” he says.

Among recent adopters of Facebook, reconnection is a dominant activity.  As compared to college adopters who connect with their existing friend networks, older users are using Facebook to reconnect with friends they’ve left behind during life transitions.  In a sense, Facebook is enabling an ongoing virtual class reunion for recent joiners, something Classmates.com has long used as a profit center.

Regardless of age or recency of adoption, it is my opinion that social information gathering is a core activity driving use of a network.  College students use Facebook to conduct a fleshing-out of the identities of people they are meeting (i.e., they’re background checking new friends).  Recent, older adopters are engaging in the same behavior – they’re just fleshing out the last 25 years in which they didn’t keep contact with the connected individual.  Seeing pictures of the kids, reading the life story – these informational motives for use are just as strong among older users as they are among college students.  At the center of this phenonenon is a core social motive – people care about one another, and want to learn about/engage with one another.  Social networks afford us new ways to address this social motive at computational scale.

This analysis begs the question: what happens when we’ve reconnected with everyone?  As I wrote last year, Facebook is riding a network cascade, in which a certain segment of the population is incented to create a profile and articulate connections in the network.  Facebook can expect months of solid growth, and users can expect ongoing stimulation as individuals further out in their social networks reach out for reconnection (i.e., you’ll be looking at baby pictures of increasingly random ex-friends for quite some time).  But when it is all said and done, when we’re all connected, what happens?

To answer this question, we might turn to existing technologies that are used for connection and reconnection.  We’ve used the telegraph, telephone, email and IM (among many, many others) to create, restart and maintain relationships with people we care about.  We’ve all had the email or telephone reconnection with an old friend – after you have the getting-reacquainted conversation, is it really practical to re-integrate the individual into your life?  More often than not, it simply isn’t practical (especially if geographic distance is a factor).  This doesn’t take away from the wonder of reconnection and the warm feeling it produces – it just means that mediating technologies don’t change everything.  Our everyday needs and processes exist higher up in the hierarchy of needs, and reconnection and maintenance of an extended social network is time-consuming.

I say this not to take away from Facebook, but to view the current phenomenon through an historical lens.  We should note two key characteristics that differentiate a social network as a reconnector.  First, due to video/pictures/applications, an individuals profile can be much more information-rich than previous technologies allow.  Whereas you used to have to send pictures in the mail or email, one can browse endless galleries on a social network site.  This increase in “social presence” potentially affords a new, deeper connection for people reconnecting (and it certainly makes the process more efficient).  Second, newsfeeds have dramatically changed the nature and magnitude of reconnection maintenance.  A phone-call or email reconnection is 1 to 1, intentful and requires effort.  Watching old friends’ status messages a posted galleries breeze by in a newsfeed is a completely different experience.  This raises two questions: 1) Does the lack-of-intent of newsfeed maintenance negatively affect the sense of connection afforded by the technology?  2) Is there a point in time in which we’d rather be finding out information about our present cohort, i.e. do we eventually know “enough” about our reconnected friends?  You might be able to tell I’m working on some research in this area!

I mentioned Classmates.com earlier in this post.  It strikes me that reconnecting users of Facebook are using the service very much like the Classmates.com model.  Of course, the Classmates.com model is broken – it affords minimal meaninful social interaction, the site is frustrating, the service isn’t free, and it is spammy and evil.  That said, Classmates.com managed to sign up 40MM accounts (their report), largely based on this incredibly powerful social motive for reconnection.  Classmates.com is AOL when it was charging per the minute.  Facebook is AOL with a flat fee.  And because of that, Facebook will now completely eat Classmates.com’s lunch.

← Older Entries