I have a dream!

I read a great paper today given to me by Simon Lambert of Lincoln University. In it Katherine Gibson and Julie Graham (I think) discuss building and acknowledging "new", or perhaps unrecognised, forms of economy. It's quite heavy going, but it made me feel that perhaps I am a real social scientist after all.

Trouble with me is that I'm always being criticised for not being critical enough. But I don't always want to be critical, because to find new ways forward you have to be open and interested in the possibilities, not busy shutting them down. In effect then critique can be too limiting. But then again some critiques do interest me because they can offer new ways of looking at the world I'm focused on.

What excited me about Gibson and Graham was their argument that academics can help foster new forms of economy by focusing on interesting things that are going on already and illuminating them for others to see. Their argument is that we often get stuck on seeing the bad, but we need to find ways to find and highlight the good.

This reminds me of a conversation that I had with Marie McEntee of Auckland Uni. today, who pointed out that Martin Luther King was looking forward to what could be when he said "I have a dream", whereas all we hear environmentalists talking about is "we have a nightmare". Its easier for people to respond to the positive than the negative. Its a bit like the idea that when you are driving or mountain biking, you need to look hard at where it is you want to go (the space!) and not to focus on that which you want to avoid (the lampost, or the steep bank below!).

What then are our dreams for a better economic system or a better environment or a better society?

What's happening to our brains?

I"m intrigued by a number articles I've read and conversations that I've had recently that allude to our propensity to live faster and faster.

Richard Shaw of Massey University drew my attention to an article by Nicholas Carr at http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google which suggests a number of changes in the way we read and think as a result of the internet and the way in which we engage with it. He suggests that we are becoming "pancake people" flattening out our intelligence until it is wide flat and perhaps scattered. As he puts it at the end of his article " as we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence." Despite all this he does point out that this may not be the only interpretation. In reflecting on the reactions of intellectuals to the advent of technologies such as hand writing and the printing press, it is difficult to know what our "pancakeness" might mean for our own future thinking and learning processes.

The second article seems to me to be somehow linked. Written by Christine Rosen, and sent to me by Stella Belliss, the article can be found here. It looks at the way our brains respond to doing many things at once, and the fact that doing this many not be particularly conducive to learning given what we understand about the neuroscience of multitasking.

My wondering here is how are we affecting our own abilities to learn and enjoy life, given that many people can relate to feeling overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information available to them and the need to move quickly between projects just to keep up. In a world of increasing connection, and demands that we work together more, how should we best manage our time and our connections? Interestingly, I think that Kevin Shadix is asking something similar in a recent post on his Shady Learning blog.

Online or off line interactions

As someone relatively new to Web 2 and all that it entails, I"m still experimenting. I"m also uncertain as yet of the benefits of spending time on the Web relative to spending time with more direct forms of communication (face to face, telephone, and even email). As someone with an interest in the social processes around learning and change, I'm wondering about generational differences, gender differences, workstyle differences and cultural differences.

I want to reflect on the art/sci project mentioned in a recent post. Project group members were geographically dispersed and we had very little money for travel, so we developed our own online workspace. It became clear that contributions in the workspace were strongly linked to face to face interaction - so the group would meet, and then there would be a flurry of online discussion. Or one or two members of the group would talk by telephone or over the tea table and then put something up. We weren't that good at just keeping online conversations going. What might happen with a group of younger people? Was this something to do with our ages, our project, our own personal characteristics or even our wider work environment?

Three meanings of management

I read a paper this morning (by David Waltner Toews et al (2006))that outlined 3 different ways in which we use the word "manage".

I was fascinated because I recognised them all, and yet I hadn't really thought about it before.

First, there is the idea of command and control. This meaning is linked to the latin manus which means hand and is linked to the Italian word for training and breaking in horses!
Second, is the idea of stewardship, or caring for" and this, they argue is linked to menager which is French for "to use carefully;" and
Third, is the idea of coping as in "we're just managing to keep our head above water!"

"Of course!" I thought, "This is why I"m often at odds with some of the people I work with."

I generally use the term management to imply stewardship, caring or support, while others (like some senior managers I know) are using it in the sense of command and control which implies the idea of manipulating people and making them do what you want. Change in this view is about force at worst or manipulation at best.

Most, if not all of my work, is based on the idea of helping people to decide on the changes they want to make and then supporting them through the process of making them. Personally, I think this works better in terms of long term and meaningful outcomes. I must admit to that as someone who is managed - while it has been and unusuaul event- when I've actually had a manager with this supporting philosophy I've been much more inclined to do the very best I can for them!

Are you a lumper or a splitter?

I"m a lumper!
Tell me a few stories and I'll get excited by the linkages and the similarities. It's amazing how different disciplines give different names to the same phenomena. Geographers for example talk about liminality, whilst psychologists talk about anomie - both describe a sense of normlessness which can either result in a feeling of being lost or of being free of the normal constraints of everyday life. I'm amazed how often I hear different terms for very similar ideas related to the experience of being human.

Splitters on the other had always see the differences between theories and are anxious to point out the differences. From where I stand splitters can be really annoying. From where they stand, lumpers probably are! This is important because I reckon it helps to realise what is going on when the annoyance begins to arise, and to find ways to make use of the different skills involved in both activities.

Mixing Art, Science and Social Science to Learn about a River

I've been reflecting back on an amazing experience that I had a few years ago when I worked on a project aimed at mixing art and science. Two artists, two scientists and two social scientists worked together over a year or two to learn about our different perspectives and to apply our learning to a project centred around the Motueka River and its associated community in New Zealand. Check out the information about the project at: the project website.

There were a number of outputs from the project. The most obvious was an installation that brought together stories and images from artists scientists and community members. There was also a book containing some of the conversations that the group had through the process of getting to know each other and an evaluation of the collaboration process that drew out the learning we all did about working with people from such radically different perspectives - all available from the website above.

For me personally, this project opened up some new ways of thinking and engaging with people and the environment. It also reinforced my interest in learning from those in other areas of endeavour and with different experiences, and helping them to do the same.

I'd like to be doing something more with this experience and I haven't quite worked out how but I am thinking that perhaps it cannot be done working from within the limitations of the New Zealand Science system and or perhaps within the organisational framework within which I work.

Interconnections and problem solving

I"ve been away to meet with a group of social scientists from around New Zealand to talk about social science in New Zealand and how to raise its profile. One of the things that we discussed was interconnection in science which at the time translated into working across boundaries - disciplinary, cultural, social and professional usually to 'solve' complex /wicked problems.

We assumed that this is quite a difficult thing to do, but many people I encounter assume this is easy. I suppose that to some extent it might be when two people, who like each other and have some overlap in their backgrounds, sit down to work together particularly if they are both interested in the perspective of the other and are willing to listen. It gets significantly more difficult when there are multiple people with different perspectives, particularly if those perspectives have a different philsophical, epistemological or ontological bases. In such a case the social learning that needs to happen is greatly multiplied, while the likelihood that every perpective will be met with respect is greatly reduced!

The thing that gets in the way is an assumption that in fact everyone has, and should have, the same basic idea of what is going on when in fact nothing may be further from the truth!

C

The wonders of modern science

Science is a pretty amazing thing, really and every now and again I'm struck by how fast things are moving. The machines that go 'ping', the wonders of modern medicine and dentistry which I have to say really do make our lives (in the west at least) a great deal more comfortable.

And yet it seems that we are a long way of being able to work collectively to manage many of the modern problems that face us. I suppose given the success of modern science and engineering, it is natural to think that the answer lies in a technical fix, but even then, what if the technical "fix" that we need has to come from a mixture of different knowledges and experiences?

Why also do we assume that mixing up these different ways of knowing should be easy? In our science system here in New Zealand there is the implicit assumption that 'solving' complex problems is all terribly straightforward despite masses of evidence to the contrary!

There's an interesting looking conference on just this topic at: http://www.runninghot.org.nz/

C

Spring is here

I know this because for the first time this season, I got dive bombed by magpies today. One of them was pretty persistent despite my flailing arms and ducking head - he hit my helmet 3-4 times before flying off to watch for the next cyclist. It's times like these that I"m glad I wear a helmet!

Still its nothing on bears as the news item below mentions....

http://news.yahoo.com/s//ap/20080910/ap_on_fe_st/odd_bicyclist_vs_bear

although it sounds awfully like this is a pretty rare occurrence when compared with the frequency of Magpie attacks. (http://austinbikeblog.org/)

C

What of New Zealand Energy Policy?

They want to dam another wild river and understandably, I guess, another set of "they" want to fight it. The same goes for wind turbines, coal fired power stations etc. Well, I don't want to see a wild river dammed, but I"m wondering what we are balancing this up against? If we don't dam this river what are our options for managing our energy needs and who would do this?

It is asking for trouble to keep dealing with electricity supply in this way - on a case by case basis with little thought about how to manage New Zealand's energy needs. It may be for example that we can achieve a great deal by putting solar water heating in all homes in New Zealand or by fostering power saving behaviours, but this is not something the private sector is likely to do without some kind of policy support to drive it. Likewise, if we say no to this power scheme, how do we know whether it is better or worse than the last one. Will we back ourselves into a corner by refusing scheme after scheme until in desperation we get something that we are even more unhappy with because there is no other choice available?

We really need some strong policy process to help New Zealanders think through their options in the longer term and to decide what is overall the best way forward for the country.

C

Biofuels, oil and food security

I've just been looking at an interesting world bank report from the Guardian Website.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/07/10/Biofuels.PDF

There are many claims and counterclaims about the effects of biofuels on food prices and availability which highlights the need to do some serious thinking about our direction.

I continue to be amazed at the ongoing head-in-the-sand idea that biofuels are going to allow us to continue with life as usual in the west. As I see it, there is simply no way we can keep consuming energy at the same rate as we currently do (let alone a faster rate, as we seem to bve heading towards) using a renewable resource.

I guess I have a bit of a bias here but when I look hard at the technological solutions that many people are suggesting I"m left thinking ... actually we need to be working on fostering social change and helping people live within the limits. most technological solutions seem to be offered as a way for us to keep mindlessly consuming which in turn seems to making us even more intent on consuming more in search of some kind of elusive satisfaction. This seems like a bit of a vicious cycle to me!

C

Christchurch Science Fair

I had the privilege of judging the science projects of many Christchurch School children last Sunday. There were some great projects and excellent ideas. I was struck particularly by the project of one lad from Lincoln High school that tested some social psychological theory. His was the only real social science that I saw at the entire fair!

I was judging to give out an environmental award and decided that perhaps we give our school children the understanding that environmental problems will only be solved by science when in fact it seems to me that the causes and many of the cures for environmental problems will lie at least partially in the social sphere.

There is clearly some work to be done helping others to understand the importance of social science in helping to "solve" the worlds greatest problems!