It's Deja Vu All Over Again
Friday, September 26, 2003
High Ed Statistics
I've been looking at some statistics I have around my apartment and they just shocked me. (Yes, I keep Educational Statistics Digest next to my bed). It's stuff I see all of the time, but just took another look at.
Here's something to think about:
National Center for Educational Statistics, Digest of Educational Statistics 2001. Put out in 2002 by the Dept.. of Education
As of March 2000, the Highest Level of Education attained by persons 25 years and older:
Not high school graduate: 15.9%
High School Graduate: 33.1%
Some College: 17.6%
Associate: 7.8%
Bachelor's: 17.0%
Master's: 5.9%
Professional: 1.5%
Doctor's: 1.2%
Notes from Graph in book:
Note: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding
Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, unpublished data
Only 25.6% of our population has a college degree. Only 51% of our population attempts college.
I'll bring the book if this type of information fits into anyone's research. The racial breakdowns are even more bothersom. There is a section in the book on computer and technology use in education and the workplace.
popular press, tenure, and more
Well, I have been thinking about the popular press and academia. An interesting case is Marshall Mcluhan. Wasn’t his work considered popular writing? Then think aout how he informed academic research.
Another example I had in mind is Deborah Tannen. See the link for her books, including those published by popular press (the earliest was 1986, maybe she already got her tenure then).
We also mentioned the only type of books published by R&C scholars of popular nature – textbooks. That is interesting because if we look at the most regarded journals: CCC and CE, we will easily find they both have a key word “COLLEGE” in them! I was thinking this can be an ethos issue. I remember very clearly what Pat said about what people consider to be the realm the R &C and some people would include freshman composition and academic writing only. To quote Pat:
“That is what we do, but what we do is not who we are.”
Thursday, September 25, 2003
Popluar Press...
I think I want to begin this post by taking up Samantha's question of why it's important that we as "professionals" need to be reading books appearing in the popular press (e.g, Rheingold, Dibbell, et al.). I think that my response to that is framed by a conversation I had with Pat last year, when I came to talk to her about how things were going with my professional writing course (she was my mentor). What follows is a VERY rough, pretty much fictional transcript of the latter part of that conversation:
Pat: You know, it's important to be able to teach this group of students.
Karl: Why?
Pat: Because if you can reach them, if you can get these managers, and engineers, and PR and international relations people to listen to you, you have a shot at actually becoming a public intellectual, like Bill Moyers.
Karl: Oh.
Yes--it's the public intellectual that's at stake in these kinds of books. Granted, Rheingold's book isn't probably on Aunt Edna's bedside table at Sunny Days Retirement Home. Nor is it likely on many of our parents' shelves (I know it's not on my parents' shelves). However, there is a forum and a market for these types of popular-press, public (even quasi-)intellectual debates. When we shut ourselves off from them for not being "real scholarship" (as the charge was leveled at Rheingold's book before MIT Press picked it up for a 2nd ed.), we really risk making our own "real scholarship" even less relevant than it was before.
A problem that arises from the publishing end of things, though, is that we "real scholars" often find publshing popular-press books to be verboten. That is, having a book published without rigorous citation, without the trappings of "real" scholarship--in short, a book intended for people who do not have and most likely never will earn PhDs--people who will one day or already have sent their sons and daughters to be taught by us. Verboten by whom? By tenure and promotion committees, mainly. But even verboten by upper-eschalon administrators as well...
The grand exception to this rule is, of course, certain "rock stars," most of whom appear in the sciences. Stephen Hawking stands out as a prime example (imagine what an appearance on Star Trek would do for, say, Thomas Rickert's career--probably not much, not yet anyway). And of course Stephen Hawking has many books--A Brief History of Time stands out---which, while widely bought, are probably not often read, simply because they maintain that too-much academic trapping to them. (The fact that they're about conceptual physics doesn't help much, either).
But why are there no books about computers and writing for the popular press WRITTEN BY someone in our field? Or heck, even just a book about writing in general? Textbooks, of course, are OK, but those are written by professionals in the field, to be used under controlled, academic settings by other professionals. So you go to the "writing and poetry" section of Barnes & Noble, and there, big as life, is Stephen King offering sage advice on how to write.
OK--so to pull this rant back on track, my basic argument is this: if we are not allowed to write popular press books, the next best thing we can do is to at least read them, perhaps even cite them in our "real scholarship." The real double-bind here, the reason that we risk becoming completely irrelevant in our work, is that while it may be OK to critique and implement popular discussions into our "real scholarship," it is NOT OK to enter and become part of those debates. It's a community of discourse that we, by a stamp of professionalism (and probably other things that my young, naive eyes are too blind to see just yet), cannot enter. We can only watch...and even then...
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
real community, or why you wish I still wasn't posting...
D-F argues that the replacement of "real" communities by virtual communities
is a bad thing--but why?
His repeated use of the word "matter" to speak of the real, the actual
community interested me. As I have been reading all about these virtual
communities, I have wondered what becomes of our other communities: home,
school, neighborhoods...why do I spend evenings talking to people from all
over the world and not even know the names of everyone in my apartment
building?
Last night as I was reading, I developed a stomach-churning headache. Of
course I could have MOOed or checked WEB-Md... but instead I called my
neighbor, Lindsay, who invited me over, gave me tylenol and water, a heating
pad, and entertained me with pics of this libertarian castle in colorado
(those libertarians...) This is the kind of embodied comfort I am talking
about--the kind that comes from having "real" community with the people around
you.
But I suppose my greatest concern, which may or may not be tied to these
virtual communities, is that it is our "real" immediate communities that are
still most responsible for supporting our needs as embodied beings. It is in
Lafayette that I buy and prepare and serve all of my meals. It is from
Lafayette taps and wells that I drink my water. I rely on PUSH for my health
care. It is folks here that I call when I need to chat or get a beer or want
to watch a movie. And virtual community (or a mediated virtual reality)
cannot provide for my needs in these ways. Look, people in Africa aren't
dying of malnutrition because they don't have computers. They are dying
because they live in a place without a sustainable means of getting themselves
enough good food--is the solution more aid $$ or peace corps volunteers, or is
the solution to give these people tools for building community--for sustaining
economic growth that will allow them to feed themselves?
(To tangent in Colin style: When I am worn thin by the Purdue community, I
will drive to Chicago to be with my family. There is something about this
being-home that is more than phone calls or email or photos or the artificial
booth of touching. My family is more than the sum of sensory experiences.)
Individuation and Domestication
I also thought a lot about D-F’s remark that “electronic media both individuate and globalize.” Actually I have been thinking about what is going on in those reality TV series: Survivor, Big Brother, American Idol. There is so much obsession with winning and becoming rich (and these symbolize personal success). Even on CBS news (and of course on the Oprah show), there is an established theme” “everybody has a story.” The Internet definitely makes it muck easier for everybody to tell his/her story and share it with many people.
On p.17, D-F calls the use of technologies a kind of domestication because we are dependent on technology provided by others. Does that contradict his earlier call for “steering the Net” (xii)? I think what is interesting is that all the scholars we have read argue that we need to decide how to use technologies, calling for the need to gain control. Meanwhile they admit, to a certain extent, that “the medium is the message.” So what exactly is the media-literacy that Rheingold calls for? Just some thoughts.
Well, in a sort-of response to Jennie’s question about how we ‘read’ each other online, I would like to pose another question: How do we compose ourselves online? I understand there are theories – some of which D-F tries to address regarding the net as “removing us from our localities,” but I think that what he and others overlook is that just maybe our identity online is our own composition of what we want to be. So then the net does not remove us from our localities, but we as technoutopians have a desire to create our own identity – and have the venue to do so. Maybe this creates a split personality, but then again, D-F has a hyphenated name and…..how does that happen to a guy?
So, to continue the line of questioning, how does reading each other and composing ourselves relate? Lets think.
Designing the Space: A Conversation with William J. Mitchell: Syllabus
This might be an interesting bit for the group project.
Designing the Space: A Conversation with William J. Mitchell: Syllabus
Monday, September 22, 2003
Doheny-Farina
heyall--just a few early mornin thoughts on immersion, individuation, and space:
While D-F may eventually convince me that his position is a complicated one that avoids technoutopianism or neoLudditism, he frequently deploys a protective relationship with "matter" (beginning on xiii) and a characterization of cyberspace as seduction (does this give cyberspace a masculine or feminine connotative value in your minds? (just curious)).
tangent1entrance: D-F's reference to Katz and his critique of Sale's book is a practical way for D-F to position himself in relation to a technoutopian thinker. It caught my attention, though, because Katz is out of his frigging head if he thinks that working from home (through technology) returns the dis-in-familied to their homes. One of the reasons i've stopped checking email as frequently as i was (for job-related messages) at home is because Ian developed a sad-email face: Is mama/papa working on email.
But this is one way that we, especially technoutopians (yeah, i'll use D-F's word one mo time), measure progress: by bringing work into a non-work place: by increasing the potential for productivity, by colonizing "family" spaces with "work" matter.
Ian's understanding of school-email-work as what takes us away from him is a limited example that probably has little transferability across technologies or parents. But it makes me question Katz, and anyone else who sees the spatial effects of technology as simply additive.tangent1exit
Beneath D-F's concerns with virtual communities (and what do ya think of his consistent image-building with his intros, his virtual scenes from memory?), i get the feeling he doesn't like the Obsession ad reference (9; CP 42) that links to his geographic experience at the university. He's scared by the mediated experience, I believe, because he does not (in the pages I've read) recognize fantasy as a way of existing in the world, of testing the future before acting, as a fundamental part of being human. If he did, placelessness wouldn't be so haunting--it'd be a given, not just of physical geography, but of human geography. Though i doubt VR (as in "Wild Palms") will ever escape it's automatic re-valuation of human contact (can we all imagine for a second touch-bars, or "skins," as a future trend?), i am fascinated by how D-F links individuation and space. but i need to think more about this linkage later this morning...
independent journalism, the Net, and blogs
Hi, all. Here is a story from BusinessWeek. Looks as if what Rheingold said about citizenship is going on here because of the technology made possible by the net. The journalist got a donation of $14,334 through his Web site, Back-to-Iraq.com for “independent journalism.” That came from a social network made possible by a common interest. Wow. The last couple of paragraphs in this article also talk about “blog” as a “flourishing Net trend.” Happy Reading!
JULY 28, 2003
MEDIA
By Spencer E. Ante
Commentary: Have Web Site, Will Investigate
It was early April, war had just broken out in southern Iraq, and freelance journalist Christopher Allbritton was trying to get into the country. The borders of Iran and Syria were closed. So Allbritton spent $3,000 for a Kurdish guide to take him over the fortified and mountainous Turkish border into the land of Saddam Hussein. Thirty-six grueling hours later, he stumbled into the country. He then spent three weeks reporting from Iraq, breaking news on the fall of Tikrit and highlighting the "Yugoslavia-style" ethnic tensions between Kurds, Arabs, Turkomen, and Assyrians.
Allbritton didn't have a juicy contract with The Washington Post or CNN. Rather, his trip was funded by 320 people who donated $14,334 through his Web site, Back-to-Iraq.com. Months before the conflict began, the former Associated Press reporter posted a notice on his site: He wanted to cover the war and asked for readers' financial support for "independent journalism." As the cash rolled in, Allbritton hit the road with his laptop computer, filing via a satellite phone or Internet café. Donors were put on a premium e-mail list, so they received stories early and got extra reports and pictures. They also passed along story ideas and occasionally berated him for overheated metaphors. "Readers were my editors," he says.
Is this the future of journalism? The New York Times may have nothing to worry about, but Allbritton's story hints at a new business model that could remake the lesser tiers of the media world. Call it pay-to-read journalism. Reporters, individually or in groups, could use the Net to raise money directly from readers interested in specific stories or journalistic styles. That could be independent journalism, in the spirit of the old Village Voice, or withering cultural criticism, a la The Baffler. Instead of aiming for the mass market, journalists have a way to target an audience of thousands, more easily pursuing stories that lie off the beaten path. "The good news is, there's more information," says Charles Lewis, founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit that raises money for public-service journalism. "A talented young journalist can do great journalism. And that's a great thing."
Although no one tracks the number of pay-to-read Web sites, there are probably a few dozen today. Like many successful Net technologies, reader-subsidized publishing is a grassroots phenomenon. Consider freelancer David Appell, a physics PhD who has written for Nature. After seeing Back-to-Iraq.com, he asked the public to donate $20 apiece to fund his investigation of the politics of the sugar industry. So far, he has raised $425. "I thought I would raise $50," says Appell. Subscribers should receive the story in a week or so.
Ultimately, pay-to-read journalism may have its greatest impact overseas, in countries that are more starved for information. The best example is OhmyNews.com, an online publication in South Korea that generates 80% of its news from more than 25,000 citizen-reporters who are paid depending on how a story is ranked by editors. The barely profitable site has been widely credited with helping elect the country's new president, Roh Moo Hyun, formerly a little-known human rights attorney. OhmyNews.com gets 8% of its $1.7 million in revenues from donations.
Allbritton and others are building on a flourishing Net trend: Web logs, or blogs. These are do-it-yourself sites where writers publish diaristic articles that anyone can read, typically for free. Now, some entrepreneurs see a future in pooling the work of bloggers and charging for it. The Blogging Network, a site started this January by ex-dot-commer Mihail S. Lari, charges readers $5.95 a month for articles on topics such as business or religion. Lari says he has raised about $40,000 to be distributed among the most popular bloggers.
True, pay-to-read journalism won't replace the Times. But it offers an increasingly powerful megaphone for the little guy.
Ante, who covers technology, is looking for a few good blogs to fund.
