Category: Uncategorized

UPDATE 11/26 — Today, Matthew was released and ‘pardoned’ though apparently still labelled a high level spy. Leaving the original post here for posterity.

Matthew Hedges, a doctoral student at Durham University in the UK must have been happy to secure funding for a field trip to UAE to conduct interviews for his dissertation on civil-military issues in the context of the Arab Spring. This is how significant research data is gathered, it takes time, effort and no little disruption to one’s normal life. Imagine then his horror when, at the airport to return to the UK, he is arrested and thrown in jail. Allegedly, an informer reported that he asked suspicious questions and the suspicion was enough to flout all rules of legal and civic propriety. He was arrested in May this year. He’s been in jail since, in solitary confinement, accused of espionage.

You might think this is punishment enough, but the horror is really only getting started. This week, in a five minute court ‘trial’ where he had no legal representation, Matthew Hedges was sentenced to life imprisonment.  Do you really need to know more?  Read the response from the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies  and write a letter/email to the addresses provided. You can read a Guardian article too. This is no time for shyness — speak up.

We had an excellent colloquium speaker today as Dan Sholler, a postdoctoral researcher at Berkeley, presented results from his work on open science initiatives and the challenges involved in ensuring reproducibility and replicability in practice. His work involved interviews with key players in journals and research programs and raised in my mind some serious questions about the almost blind rush to adopt open practices.

I think we can all accept that it is important for science to justify claims and allow appropriate data to be shared, especially where public funds have enabled the research, but I have to ask what exactly is it that we are trying to ensure?  Outside of the very real concern about the narrowness of what constitutes ‘science’ in this movement (clue – it has to involved lots of numbers), and the effort involved in adding another layer of effort to support the further checking of results and data sharing, what would we gain here?

Many (most?) research studies are dull and let’s be honest, don’t make strong claims at advancing our knowledge. Should we insist that their data be provided anyway? Where claims are major, there’s already a process within normal science practice to require replications and further studies to support the claims. For such work, I think the values of reproducibility and replication are high and normally expected. But such work is not the norm. Applying the same standards for all work that we require for strong claims is likely more a burden than an enhancement.

More pernicious to me is the problem of fraud. I can engineer data to fit results if I want, and then sharing that data with another researcher who replicates my analysis will only add confirmation to a lie. I’d like open science to shine a light here. Right now, offering badges for good practice and letting the workload fall on reviewers and coders to check data deposits is likely to result only in slowing down all science.

Food for thought today, definitely, and another reminder that an ‘obviously good thing’ often comes with a price. Now, where can I find a good measure for data quality?

 

A couple of years back I gave a keynote at the PPR conference and joked that the days of us all being chipped would happen soon. Well, of course, ‘soon’ is a a nice word, sufficiently elastic not to be held to account for a prediction that does not transpire. But in today’s news from the weird and wacky world of users, NPR reports that Swedes are volunteering to get chipped so as to take advantage of the world of devices requiring their ID to operate. Doors, cars, payment systems, legal forms, you name it. Why sign it or use a key if you can embed the means of identification within yourself and trigger the device with a swipe, a touch or your very nearness. Oh darling. It’s come to pass. Full story here

Outsell Inc held a session in the impact of Brexit on the information industry. You can view the slides here

Of course, nothing quite accounts for the lack of accurate information disseminated to the British people prior to the vote. Seems there’s plenty of claims that search traffic relating to queries of what the EU actually was, how Brexit might work etc increased significantly after the vote, though some dispute this is really accurate (but of course, that newpaper was pro-leave so…..). Friends and family there do tell me that most discussions of the vote were confusing, so clearly an information gap really did exist for ordinary voters. What this tells us about the modern information infrastructure and the average citizen’s access to reliable information is one for scholars to mull in the years ahead.

“In the new economy, computer science isn’t an optional skill — it’s a basic skill, right along with the three ‘Rs.’” — President Obama, Jan. 30, 2016.

President Obama’s comments should not be a surprise to most of us as the abilities needed to work intelligently with computers are considered pretty essential by most employers. What is needed however is not so much an emphasis on computer science as a discipline but on a broader educational immersion in coding and application of computational skills to problems. While I think it is certainly productive to think in terms of curricular offerings at high school and even lower, I wonder if the framing of this as ‘computer science’ is really what we need if the goal is develop a skill as basic as reading and writing?

Computer Science departments face huge enrollment demands, and as a formal education it is an important degree program in many universities. However, pushing preparation down into the schools should not be confused with developing a new kind of literacy in our public educational system. If writing and reading were taught as distinct courses then I suspect we would not get very far (and yes, some would say we’ve not got far enough in our public schools in delivering these skills) and let’s not really consider how well mathematics is taught nationally (most recent data has us distinctly average in comparison to the rest of the world, to put it kindly) even though there is a real mathematics curriculum in all schools.

The challenge with basic skills is they need to be taught across a curriculum, immersed in multiple activities, not isolated as a separate course. Just as language permeates all subjects, students will deal with computers in geography, history, media studies, science and so forth. My son engages computers deeply in his video and music technology coursework, and rightly so. He has built his own computer and managed his own online video channel for years, but never took a ‘computer science’ course. No matter what career he follows, I know he’ll be immersed in computers as much as I am immersed in reading and writing, but I don’t think I ever took a ‘reading class’ after my first couple of years in school. The goal has to be immersion, dispersion and application of computers into all aspects of education across the years.

Moreover, there is a bigger challenge facing us in university education. Computer Science programs have struggled continually to recruit and retain women and minority students and faculty. This is not for lack of effort but the research I read on this by folks such as Lecia Barker suggest that subtle forces are at work in typical computer science programs that make it a greater challenge for some students to succeed and be recognized as such. Sure, a better prepared entering cohort might result from greater high school coursework in CS, but this might actually miss the main need. Computers are, as President Obama’s message suggests, such a basic part of productive living now that we need to rethink what it means to be computer literate. Not everyone needs to be a computer scientist or to quality from such a program. We need to put more effort into giving everyone basic coding skills as we do writing skills (we surely don’t imagine everyone needs to graduate with a degree in ‘writing’ now do we?). And we need to recognize that these wonderful tools are going to be immersed in our physical world as much as our social and cultural world permanently, and then to give everyone the skills and license to shape computation as they need it. Imagine a nation where coding was just like a form of arithmetic that every public school student was exposed to continually? It would be nice to see the US rank highly in that survey.

There’s so much to consider on this and the President’s initiative is a major step forward. However, the dialog on basic skills should not be overshadowed by a push to include more AP credits for computer science. Computers are far too important to be left to computer scientists.

 

I am delighted to announce the publication of the first book in our new UT Press series on Information Science, a superb edited collection from Diane Sonnenwald that gathers together a select group of authors from across the information realm to explore how theories are derived and applied in the information sciences. The goal was to reveal the experiences of established scholars struggling to develop theoretical insights so as to provide guidance to others on the challenges and steps followed in building theoretical insights in our field. Full details on contents and ordering can be found here at the UT Press site.  More books to come — if you are interested in contributing a book, contact me by email and we can discuss – imagination welcome.

The mood for reform of accreditation continues. In response to ALA’s creation of special task forces to examine aspects of the current process, ASIST has issued it’s own statement on their website:

ASIS&T Position Statement on the ALA Accreditation Process and the Future Collaboration between ALA and ASIS&T in the Area of Graduate Professional Education

February 10, 2016

As a professional association that bridges the gap between information science practice and research, ASIS&T counts researchers and practitioners from a large number of diverse fields in its ranks, including information science, library science, computer science, management, and education. The ASIS&T membership is also enriched by the contribution of members who deal with information in other fields, such as law, medicine, linguistics, chemistry, humanities, history, and engineering, to name just a few. ASIS&T’s inclusive and evolving character reflects the current state of the information field, and its international and diverse membership plays an ever more important role in shaping the future of the field. As such, ASIS&T is concerned with the education of information professionals and with the accreditation process of Library & Information Science (LIS) programs by the American Library Association (ALA). ASIS&T’s ongoing interest in and commitment to professional education is supported by the Education & Professional Advancement Committee, which is charged with reviewing accreditation guidelines for LIS programs and monitoring accreditation changes.

Increasing interdisciplinarity and the imperative of creativity and innovation propel us in the direction of collaboration and partnership. With the field of information both composite and diverse, the development of accreditation standards should be a shared responsibility and a collaborative undertaking of several professional associations. ASIS&T is strategically positioned to contribute to the improvement of the accreditation process and, more specifically, to the development of more accurate and inclusive accreditation standards. ASIS&T’s extensive international reach and disciplinary diversity translates into a valuable contribution to the development of accreditation standards, which in turn reflects the dynamic nature and evolving educational expectations in the field. In this regard, ASIS&T makes the following statement.

It is imperative that accreditation standards be comprehensive and flexible enough to accurately represent educational requirements in multiple information fields, both in and outside of libraries, archives, and other longstanding information organizations. Accreditation must reflect the eclectic, diverse and pluralistic nature of the information field and must be fully applicable to an array of information professions. As a result, we call for the ongoing dialog between ALA and ASIS&T on accreditation issues.

The bedrock of professional education and professional accreditation is a fusion of values, ethics, and specific competencies. The latter includes field-specific knowledge and skills (e.g., computer science, library science, digital humanities) and transferable skills and attitudes (e.g., critical thinking, leadership abilities, creativity, problem solving, and so on). While the field-specific knowledge base varies from information field to information field, we call on ALA to recognize the commonality of professional values, ethics, and transferable skills in discussion and revisions of accreditation standards.

ALA has always conducted the accreditation process with the goal of “assuring quality, innovation, and value in library and information studies education” (http://www.ala.org/accreditedprograms/home). It is in the spirit of supporting this goal and the desire to take active part in this process that the ASIS&T statement is made.

And about time—

November 12, 2015

 

AAUP Joint Statement Opposing “Campus Carry” Laws
The horrific shootings at Umpqua Community College in Oregon and subsequent incidents of gun violence elsewhere have prompted renewed efforts to keep our colleges and universities both safe and open. One measure increasingly proposed is legislation—already approved in eight states—that would allow any licensed gun owner to carry concealed weapons on campus. Advocates of such so-called “campus carry” legislation contend that the presence of weapons in classrooms and other campus facilities will deter those seeking to wreak violence. Oregon is one state where “campus carry” is legal, but that did not prevent the tragedy.
Colleges and universities closely control firearms and prohibit concealed guns on their campuses because they regard the presence of weapons as incompatible with their educational missions. College campuses are marketplaces of ideas, and a rigorous academic exchange of ideas may be chilled by the presence of weapons. Students and faculty members will not be comfortable discussing controversial subjects if they think there might be a gun in the room.
William McRaven, chancellor for the University of Texas system and a former member of the Navy SEALs who rose to the rank of admiral, opposed passage of “campus carry” legislation in his state. “I feel the presence of concealed weapons will make a campus a less-safe environment,” he said. “If you have guns on campus, I question whether or not that will somehow inhibit our freedom of speech. If you’re in a heated debate with somebody in the middle of a classroom and you don’t know whether or not that individual is carrying, how does that inhibit the interaction between students and faculty?”
The undersigned organizations strongly support efforts to make college campuses as safe and weapon-free as possible for students, faculty, staff, parents, and community members. We therefore oppose efforts to enact “campus carry” laws and call for their repeal where they already exist. We encourage colleges and universities to embrace critical incident planning that includes faculty and staff and to advise all faculty and staff of these plans. We further call on these institutions to rely on trained and equipped professional law-enforcement personnel to respond to emergency incidents. State legislative bodies must refrain from interfering with decisions that are properly the responsibility of the academic community.
Signatories
American Association of University Professors
American Federation of Teachers
Association of American Colleges and Universities
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges

Oh yes, it’s time for those old HCI stalwarts Don Norman and Bruce Tognazzini to talk tough about Apple. Try this:

“Apple is destroying design. Worse, it is revitalizing the old belief that design is only about making things look pretty.”

And it gets tougher from there. Sort of hard to disagree if you have any education in human factors or user-centered design (that is, you actually studied it rather than just deciding to label yourself a UX expert because you were handy with a few tools). Read more HERE