This blog is an introduciton to who am I am, and why I am here at CGU. My name is Chris Liapis, I am currently a second semester PhD student studying IS&T. I have a masters degree in computer science and by nature tend to be somewhat of a technical person. I am very intereted in strengthening my skills in research as I hope to continue through my career as a developer of new technologies.

In regard to the introductory readings, I'd like to point mention two pieces of literature. Specifically, the John Seely Brown paper and the 'Extending the Elgg' paper. I found a correlation to these papers in that they both veer far off from a position based on 'theory' and introduce alternative applications or methods in differential learning practices ("Learning to Be").

My question posed to the rest of class is, do you believe these intiatives are worth the time and research to experiment with, or is standard classroom learning the way we should continue to learn?

 

Thanks! 

Response to Brian’s comment on Sep 13, 2006

I like Brian’s writing style because his writing seems to have humor and something acute. He always used funny stories and expressions. Especially, in the blog for the book “Soul of Machine” he used one of episodes of The Simpsons to explain the definition of a soul. It made me laugh very much but was a brilliant simile. The idea to compare West’s project team to soul music groups was also a good simile, in that they both are people, enduring hunger and not enough money, who are doing what they want to do with tremendous passion. To add a little more idea to his comment, I think West and his team did not work day and night on their machine only for money. They were proud of their machine, and they achieved self-fulfillment and self-satisfaction. When we look for the meaning of the soul, I think we have to see not only the soul itself but also the continuous passion and efforts of human.

Response to Nicole’s comment on Sep 26, 2006 about the value of electronic documents

A mere 72 pages of Leonardo’s writing was evaluated over $30 million in 1994. About the question of asking the future value of the electronic media, Nicole’s answer was that if the replica of original in digital form proliferates, the value of original handwritten work would increase. I think this is a highly plausible and interesting theory. But, I have a different view about this question. Leonardo’s works are highly valued because of both its scarcity and its quality (or Lenardo's fame). But the work created originally by electronic media will be highly valued only by good quality of the work only when the intellectual property right is properly protected. This is because the original form of the work is electronic and the printed copy will have no value. Accordingly, I don’t think electronic documents will have value only for its scarcity in the future.

Response to Seth’s comment on Sep 28, 2006 about the benefits and drawbacks of technology

Seth described the drawbacks of technology precisely and correctly. I agree with most of his or her viewpoints. However, I kindly want to add my view about technology. How do our daily lives look like without such technologies? Today, we cannot imagine the situation without technologies, because we are accustomed to them. Let’s imagine the situation without cell phone and Internet. How can we contact our friends without cell phone when they are out of their home or office? How can we send urgent documents without Internet and e-mail? In my opinion, technologies have two aspects; beneficial and harmful. Whether it is beneficial or harmful depends on our usage. The Internet and technologies brought us the new economy and provided wealth through various economic effects. Moreover, they will keep evolving in the future, even though, as Seth noticed, they have harmful influence on our daily lives. The only thing we can do is to reduce the harmful effects and activities of technologies.
 

The most influential IS research article for me (thus far) has been one entitled The Identity Crisis within the IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline’s Core Properties by Izak Benbesat and Robert Zmud. This is one of those articles that almost anyone within the IS discipline has heard of – especially the CGU IS&T PhD students, as we were required to read it for one of our core classes (IS 360). This article spotlights the issue we all face as IS researchers when someone outside the discipline comes to any of us, asking that core and basic question “What is IS research?” Information Systems (IS) and Information Technology (IT) research, at is center, is concerned with computing of differing scopes and methods (from large corporate databases to your internet ready cell phone). Computing is everywhere, whether you are aware of it or not. Because of this, it is hard to draw the line between what is considered IS or IT research and what is not. This article is an attempt to provide guidelines for our top journal editors and researchers as to what we should consider true IS or IT research and what research would be better off published in the journals of other disciplines. For me, this article helps to establish what research is considered “publishable” by the “powers that be” in the top IS journals.

Leo – In reference to your observations on Leonardo’s Laptop, I also had some misgivings about this book, though not the same ones you mention. In reading your blog entry, I agree with you that Schneiderman presents his concepts of “old” and “new” computing as non-overlapping stages, rather than two complementary goals for which all technologies should  strive to meet in order to be the helpful and usable technologies for those who use them. Looking at technologies with a focus of what the technologies can do versus what the user can do (and therefore the technology will support) separates these two very integral concepts from one another. In supporting a user, a technologist must look at what the user needs done and incorporate this with what the technology can do. A quick note as to my earlier reference about my personal misgivings in regards to Leonardo’s Laptop. When reading this book, I was struck with two different ideas. One was that this book is filled with a lot of the hype about technology that tends to precede each new technology, except it spans the horizon in terms of the technologies and expectations for the future. My other thought was that Schneiderman’s call for consumers to “demand” better of the technologies they use is a nice thought, but in this day and age where John Q. Public cannot be persuaded to vote for the issues and candidates (s)he spends time complaining about, how can (s)he be persuaded to demand better from organizations where direct input is not solicited (as it is in elections) such as the private firms that supply much of our technology?

Nathan – When reading your reactions to Blink, I was struck with your insight as to the connection between rapid cognition and its effect on research. When I read Blink, I read it in terms of how to improve my personal cognition. To me, the main message was that in order to have really good rapid insights, we need to become experts in the fields we are in. I did not think of the implications for survey or interview data collected that asks participants to explain why they do something or how they reached a conclusion. It would seem that most people, even those who make really good snap decisions (such as those featured in Blink) have a hard time verbalizing the internal mechanics of their thought processes, therefore it may be unfruitful to question participants on this.

Nimer – In your favorite/least favorite gadget section, may I assume that your least favorite gadget is your desktop computer and not your physical desktop? :) I’m not sure your desktop, meaning the top of your desk, counts as a “gadget” In reading your response to one of the Leonardo’s Laptop questions, I felt really bad for you in reading your seemingly endless list of technology horror stories. It looks like you have scrapped 2 computers due to viruses/spyware/malware? What a bummer:(

 My favorite gadget is probably my laptop. Despite being an IS major throughout my college career (bachelors, masters and now PhD), I bought my first laptop computer last fall. The freedom it allows me in terms of working where ever I am, combined with the availability of wireless internet signals in more places than ever before makes this, easily my favorite gadget. Although in terms of laptops, mine is really nothing special, I guess you always have a special place for your first…whatever:)
 

My least favorite gadget would have to be my cell phone. I have an older flip phone type of cell phone. Lately it has taken to not closing completely with the cover on it. There’s nothing technically wrong with it, but I look forward to buying one of the newer ones. In terms of general technology, I have not found a wireless setup for my cell phone that is comfortable. With my new cell phone, I will look into a Bluetooth wireless headset for my phone. This will hopefully be a better setup than the wired ones I have tried in the past.

When Mr. Wicker was speaking about the Berger & Luckmann portion of our readings, and Leo questioned the idea of alternate realities, a thought struck me. I remember as a child wondering if the world would continue to exist if I was not there to view it. I thought, without realizing it, that I was the only “real” person and the others I interacted with were players in my reality. This thought pattern stemmed from the fact that we all see the world through our individual sets of eyes, much like a video recorder records the world around it.

Mr. Wicker spoke of social reality – the idea that two people “learn” to interact with each other and generate routines for interacting with each other. “This is the way we do things around here.” When other people outside this one-on-one reality come into the picture, they need to learn the patterns of interaction that the two within the original reality have learned and sometimes mastered to the point that words are unnecessary for interaction.

I liked Mr. Wicker’s quote: “Treat memory as a pest.” – To me this means do not hold to routines generated by past experiences. These will limit your thinking and creativity. It seems hard to ignore your natural tendency to ritualize your experiences; but it will help keep your mind and thinking open. 

<<thinking, totally off the subject>>Mr. Wicker has a really small bottle of waterJ

The Convocation was an interesting roadmap of where CGU is headed for this academic year. The beginning was an overview of the financial status of CGU, in looking back  at the last 5 years or so and extending the trends forward. In shorthand, the budget is balanced (your tuition dollars hard at workJ), the endowment fund is on the rise, FTEs (Full –Time Equivalent – see Wikipedia for a “quick and dirty” definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-time_equivalent) are on the decline (less students), but applications for admission are forecasted to be on the rise this next school year. Bad news (for students anyway) – tuition is set to increase by 4% (but this is less than the national average). And for those roughing it in our on-campus housing, the housing project was approved and is set to break ground October-November of this year, to be finished by December 2007, welcoming its first set of inhabitants in Spring of 2008.

The more interesting portion of the Convocation (at least to me) was President Klitgaard’s speech on the future of CGU. He framed this upcoming academic year as a year of “Change and Renewal.” Of course, intellectual trespassing and transdisciplinarity were major focui, but he also brought up some emerging trends in doctoral education, such as challenges to the way PhD programs prepare students to face real-world challenges and he outlined how CGU is meeting and exceeding these challenges. He brought up a book called More Like Us, in looking at adaptation. The central idea is that we need to capitalize on our strengths in order to meet the challenges ahead. All in all it was an interesting speech (although I personally think the President is an excellent speaker, so all of the speeches I have seen him give are interesting) and a good set up for the new school year.

1. Is "Soul of the New Machine" a qualitative study based on the six criteria outlined in "The Enlightened Eye?"

Yes. Kidder’s book encompassed the six criteria in the enlightened eye for qualification as a qualitative study. These criteria include: field focus, researcher as an instrument, interpretive work, expressive language, attention to particulars, and insight and coherence. Kidder, in researching The Soul of the New Machine took a field focus in that he was immersed in the environment he was writing about. Kidder was using himself as an instrument in that he The Soul of the New Machine has all the last four qualities of qualitative work in that it is a very detailed oriented (remember the descriptions of what characters were wearing?), with language that gives the reader a full picture of the situation, characters, and their environment. Kidder’s insight into the motivations of the “characters” (I place this in parentheses because the story reads like fiction, but is in fact non-fiction) is amazing and gives you, as a reader insight into the events depicted in the book that is unusual in non-fiction works

2. What are the similarities and differences between non-fiction, documentary films, and naturalistic social science in explaining knowledge about every day life?

All three approaches are attempts at presenting an environment, in its fullest form for a viewer/reader to experience. The documenter aims at showing an everyday situation (such as the documentary about the city of Havana referred to in the Wicker article) in a way that supports their core topic or central theme. The non-fiction writer aims for something similar to the documentary film-maker, but uses writing as the outlet, versus film-making. The social science researcher aims at confirming a hypothesis (an educated guess as to the why of a phenomena) or exploring a topic of study.  The aims of the documenter/writer/researcher are different, therefore the output is different. The way in which the documenter/writer/researcher presents their information differs also, based on how the documenter/writer/researcher views themselves in relation to their subjects/participants. The non-fiction writer and documentary film-maker feel free to interject their own personal view or spin on the situation. For the social science researcher, this type of creative freedom is not really permitted or called for.

1. This book gives a reasonable argument in regards to what really happens when we “listen to our gut” and make snap decisions. For me it sheds light on the mechanics of rapid cognition and intuition. I, for one, have never really trusted my intuition to a great extent, holding faith that, as conventional wisdom holds, the more information I have about a situation or person, the better my decision or judgment will be. For first impressions of people, I still believe this to hold true. Thin-slicing people, to me, is a very shallow representation of the actual person, and I try to re-evaluate my “database” of information about a person as I add interactions and information to what I know about a person. In retrospect, I believe that most people do this, at least when it comes to other people. Problems exist when people are blinded by stereotypes of others based on physical or other first-impression type of information and when they never re-evaluate their “database” to try to get a fuller picture of someone beyond those shallow thin-slices. As a researcher, this knowledge can inform your research, helping to broaden your thinking in regards to the decision-making process of most people. Good rapid cognition is not necessarily a natural ability, but is a result of intensive training in your field. Maybe as a result of our training here at CGU, we can all develop excellent rapid cognition in our chosen fields – much like Hoving and Harrison in the arts, Van Riper in military strategy, and Civille and Heymun in food tasting.

 

2. I found all the stories presented in the text interesting and surprising. What I really liked was that many of the stories were examples of the findings of research studies where the concepts of the text were supported. My favorite story was that of Tomkins and Ekman where they had successfully classified each possible movement of all the muscles of the human face and matched the combination of muscle movements to emotions. Their side conclusion that the face is more than a representative of or inner emotions was surprising to me. Again conventional wisdom holds that you feel an emotion (anger, happiness, anguish) before your face registers it. But what you can be conduced to feel (at least at a physiological level) an emotion because your face registers the emotion – that people who frown for extended periods of time exhibit the same physiological indicators as a person who is actually sad?

 

3. Like my classmates, I was unable to “spot the CGU scholar” in my readings of Blink.

 

Just a side note – there is apparently a book entitled: Think: Why Crucial Decisions Can't Be Made in the Blink of an Eye that is a refutation of Blink. I learned of it when looking up Blink on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_%28book%29