I have been writing about evidence and transparency and expertise recently, and found a new definition that may help end the week with a laugh.

While in Oxford recently, I went into Blackwell’s and, after browsing for the 15 minutes I had before I leaving to catch my train to London, I bought a copy of The Philosopher’s Magazine (more about this publication coming soon). While looking through it, I came across an ad for an interesting-sounding book written by two of the editors, Ophelia
Benson and Jeremy Stangroom. The book, The Dictionary of Fashionable Nonsense: A Guide for Edgy People, is a work of comic relief that plays with various terms from a postmodern (or cultivated?) perspective. As many aspects of my life in the last year can be labeled as nonsense, I thought perhaps this may be the book for me.

As a converted postmodernist, this book made me laugh out loud, especially from the first word that I opened to when I flipped through it: Evidence. They portrayed “evidence” as (p 38):

1. Something that can be tailored to the requirements of my arguments.
2. A tiresome thing that may conflict with something that I believe.

How clever. I recently worked on an academic editorial of the concept of “evidence” from the perspectives of various disciplines, and while most sources want to use evidence, there is not exactly consistency of what this may encompass or how it may be clearly and universally defined. Rather, we have a shifting perspective of what may or may not constitute evidence from this or that source, time, experience, context, belief, and framework. With all that, voilà–I am right back to Benson
and Stangroom’s definition. Interesting how things work like that at times. 

Now, before this goes to far, a quick look at the Merriam-Webster definition reveals that evidence is “an outward sign.” Upon second-glance, is that “official” definition any clearer, more definitive, or better?

I think their little book can offer many profound (or overly-simplified and common-sensical) twists on terms encountered by the modern academic or cultural traveler. For the rest of us, it is simply funny.

Technorati Tags: Blackwell, Blackwell’s, Dictionary of Fashionable Nonsense, expertise, Jeremy Stangroom, Ophelia Benson, evidence, transparency

One of the interesting blogs I have recently started reading is Talking Philosophy: The Philosopher's Magazine Blog. Aimed more at scholars and practitioners alike who are interested in applied philosophy (with articles that are readable by and for a wider audience of laypeople), some of the editors have been presenting at a camp associated with The Center for Inquiry, and I posted a question and have been participating in a discussion there about liveblogging the experience.

As liveblogging conferences (particularly academic ones) have recently captured my interests, I asked if they have considered doing so. In the process, I found myself reflecting on the differences between getting a transcript / recording of a presentation (like the news or a dvd) vs. studying the internal learning and change process while attending the sessions themselves (liveblogging) vs. the writing or posting that can be done after enough processing of the information (traditional journalism and academic writing).

I find myself finally beginning to articulate why I am interested in liveblogging as a learning experience in itself, and in this capacity just posted a response on their blog about this that I want to recount here (in part so I can then readily index them later for this ongoing research and reflection):

I am not so interested in recordings or the transcripts, since I personally have trouble reading / paying attention to them without being involved in the tone and setting of the experience.

My interests are more about how learning occurs and how information and experiences are processed during the attending of the sessions themselves . . . I am interested in seeing how ideas develop from a comment here and a feeling over there with some content from this one and a paper I may read from that one–all of which happens simultaneously at times. When we write things later about how we have come to understand something, it takes all of the initial work and shows us the results. My interest in this is in the initial work and process itself.

My theory is that the more we learn about the process, the more we can take that into account while we are presenting our work to help our attendees and learners see what we are trying to communicate.

So, as I am developing my work in liveblogging, it seems it is oriented toward understanding the personal and reflective learning process to better be able to communicate. Ahh, this is an exciting development . . .

Technorati Tags: Talking Philosophy, The Philosopher's Magazine, liveblogging, The Center for Inquiry

I applaud Chris Garrett's post today, Forget About Perfection, Just Do It. If we wait to blog or write or publish until everything is perfect, we may well miss the opportunity to have anything ever written at all. Chris' guides include keeping momentum, the benefits of now versus later, striking while still being original, and reducing opportunity cost. They are all valuable. 

Even if we want to be seen as an authority, which is a theme I am beginning to come back to again and again, then we still need to start someplace. If I did not begin writing about expertise last week, I would not have noticed the pattern I just noticed and now have a third reference to it in this post. Now I have something else to say and develop about it, as I have the beginning of some track record in this area (cf. Chris' momentum, benefits now, etc.). 

A number of years ago, when I was working on a graduate degree in English and American Literature at Hunter College, one of my classmates and future professional colleagues, Karen Graham said a profound statement that I come back to again and again. While we were struggling to finish our theses, she said (perhaps borrowing from a faculty member), that sometimes good enough is good enough. Excellent point. Sometimes we have to write and get it done and out the door as there are other things in life that demand attention, time, and resources. I may want to write the perfect blog post or Great American Novel or most sublime philosophical point that will have friends and colleagues alike in profound awe for years to come, but if I waited until then, I may as well remain illiterate.

After all, perfection is a long time in coming.

Technorati Tags: Chris Garrett, Karen Graham, Great American Novel, authority, expertise

I recently wrote a little on what constitutes being an expert, and just this evening, when I was catching up on some reading from the pile of magazines and newspapers I keep on one of my bookshelves, I read the Chronicle of Higher Education from June 15, where what to a surprise but an article by Michael Jensen on The New Metrics of Scholarly Authority (sorry, requires a subscription). While I am not claiming that he is an expert in the area of expertise and authority (though he certainly appears to be one), he did produce a really interesting list that e referred to as Authority 3.0 within the Web 3.0 world (where technology and networks are more present and immediate than now). I think his list is well worth considering, and have quoted it intact:

In the Web 3.0 world, we will also start seeing heavily computed reputation-and-authority metrics, based on many of the kinds of elements now used, as well as on elements that can be computed only in an information-rich, user-engaged environment. Given the inevitable advances in technology, remarkable things are likely to happen. In a world of unlimited computer processing, Authority 3.0 will probably include (the list is long, which itself is a sign of how sophisticated our new authority makers will have to be):

• Prestige of the publisher (if any). Prestige of peer prereviewers (if any).
• Prestige of commenters and other participants.

• Percentage of a document quoted in other documents.

• Raw links to the document.

• Valued links, in which the values of the linker and all his or her other links are also considered.

• Obvious attention: discussions in blogspace, comments in posts, reclarification, and continued discussion.

• Nature of the language in comments: positive, negative, interconnective, expanded, clarified, reinterpreted.

• Quality of the context: What else is on the site that holds the document, and what’s its authority status?

• Percentage of phrases that are valued by a disciplinary community.

• Quality of author’s institutional affiliation(s).

• Significance of author’s other work.

• Amount of author’s participation in other valued projects, as commenter, editor, etc.

• Reference network: the significance rating of all the texts the author has touched, viewed, read.

• Length of time a document has existed.

• Inclusion of a document in lists of “best of,” in syllabi, indexes, and other human-selected distillations.

• Types of tags assigned to it, the terms used, the authority of the taggers, the authority of the tagging system.

I think this is a great place to begin considering what may or may not make one authoritative (beyond star power, gossipability, and the kind of money it takes to buy the sources of news itself). This list accounts for primary sources, affiliation, reputation, and even peer-reviewability. I pay attention to these now, and am not sure how Web 3.0 will make them any easier to navigate or maintain for those seeking authority. I do appreciate seeing the conversation begin, regardless.

I can only wonder how a non-academic could ever navigate this list. Ahh, that is what Google is for, isn’t it?

Technorati Tags: expertise, Michael Jensen, New Metrics of Scholarly Authority, authority, Web 3.0

This weekend, I was able to spend some time outside working on a brick walkway that had to be adjusted since the driveway was recently paved. I rebuilt the end of the walkway, cutting the bricks and adding several bags of sand to fill the gaps and help hold everything in place. I thought this was a pretty good job for an amateur, especially as I have never been trained in laying bricks, landscaping, or even gardening. I read some books in cutting bricks, and then went off to the Home Depot, since they told me I can do it and they can help. Yes, I actually spent the little free time I had this weekend working on this project.  

Why would I want to do this? Most of the work I do all week is behind a computer or in front of groups of people. I do intellectual and academic work full-time, whether in instructional design, organizational communication, theory development, or research. I love working with all of this, yet it is rare I can ever see any immediate results of my work. I get excited with it, but the results are often far in the future with my writing and audience. 

Laying bricks? I can see the results of my labor immediately. If they are not what I wanted, I can redo them (as I in fact did several times). I can get it just right and then stop. Not so with theory. Not so with project plans. Certainly not so with communication or research. Ironic that to get immediate satisfaction and sense of accomplishment, I have to spend my free time doing strenuous, physical labor. This is not what I thought would be the case before I started working on and finishing the four graduate academic degree I have. What they never tell you in college . . .

Technorati Tags: communication, instructional design, laying bricks, physical labor, what they never tell you in college, theory development

Alan Contreras, writing in the current issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, raised the issue as to what makes a person an expert. Why do we always run to various people who have been deemed an expert or a spokesperson for some cause, and more importantly, how do people get recognized in this capacity. Education does not seem to be the clear answer, An example he gives is Noam Chomsky, who is deemed an expert in everything (especially in “world affairs and the human condition”). I can think of many others, such as Al Sharpton, Ed Koch, Michael Musto, and even Steve Jobs. They all have knowledge and experiences, but in some way they all manage to get in front of the cameras when there is a need.

Perhaps this is a symptom of the postmodern condition? I think of Lyotard’s definition of postmodernity in his book The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, as “incredulity toward metanarratives.” What made somebody an expert before (such as lectures or degrees or education) may not hold the same weight now (with television, always-on technology, and blogs that allow anybody to publish to the world).

I wonder what this may mean for the future of higher education?

Technorati Tags: postmodernity, Alan Contreras, Chronicle of Higher Education, Ed Koch, Jean-Francois Lyotard, Michael Musto, Noam Chomsky, Steve Jobs, incredulity toward metanarratives

I just learned that an academic colleague of mine, Deb Fisher, passed away last week. She was completing her PhD at the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I met Deb several years ago at an AHRD conference in Estes Park, Colorado. We worked together on the Scholar-Practitioner Committee there when it was first
formed, and afterward had the chance to get together one day when I was visiting Chicago with Michael for some research. We walked a lot, visited the Art Institute of Chicago, and ate some wonderful Chicago deep-dish pizza with the mandatory scribbling on the walls. I saw her again recently at the Indianapolis AHRD Conference, but we did not have the opportunity to spend more than only a few minutes catching up. I remember
her for her endless energy and quirky way of looking at all sides of an issue to bring the most out of what she faced.

May she Rest in Peace. 

Technorati Tags: AHRD, Deb Fisher, Scholar-Practitioner Committee, Art Institute of Chicago, UIUC

When I was in Oxford a little over a week ago, I spent a grand total of 90 minutes walking around taking in the sites and history and academia all at once. One of the things that most impressed me was the Bodleian Library. While I did not have the time to go into the spectacular reading rooms and see the impressive architecture from within, I was able to take some pictures that I uploaded to Flickr.

By the way, they have a great shop there, too!

Technorati Tags: Bodleian Library, Oxford

Read the rest of this entry »

Monica Lee — Plenary Session

She was one of the founding members of UFHRD (University Forum of Human Resource Development).

She will talk about what she means by a holistic perspective, global changes, effects of change, holistic perspectives and implications for HRD.

SHe has had trouble putting into words what she has been trying to say, and this language problem is being addressed through the help of chaos theory.

I wish she would use the microphone more, as she id difficult to hear.

She discussed issues that were deliberately outside of HRD:

1. Climate Change - she referred to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 2007 Draft Summary. She then gave several slides of data that described the predictions for what this climate change will mean.
2. Technology Change — affecting data management and communication, and it is increasing social division. SHe made a political comment about how the poor are being asked to pay for the power consumption of the rich (though I am not sure I understand this).
3. Population Growth and Decline

She has a soothing voice and an appealing speaking tone, but I cannot follow her thesis / main idea. I feel like I am in a lecture. I am not sure she is aware of how people in the back (where I happen to be sitting) are fidgeting and losing touch with where she is going. I have trouble focusing right now. At this point, this is enough blogging for the day.

Now she is back to her initial issues, and has slides that are a bit full and complicated. Now she is speaking to the slides. Ok, enough blogging for the day, as I want to try to end on a positive note.

Alas, at least there is the formal dinner tonight (but only so formal as me not wearing suit).

Technorati Tags: Monica Lee