gap between have and have-nots

This week's discussion question from class, and my tangential response...

How will globalization influence the gap between the haves and the have-nots?

The digital divide is the media catchphrase used to describe the widening gap between the have and have-nots, within countries and between countries. The "haves" benefit from globalization and get richer while the "have-nots" are suffering from the effects from globalization and getting poorer. Based on what we've been reading and hearing (in class as well as in the media), it seems like everyone agrees this gap between have and have-not is increasing. A question to ask however, is what exactly do the "haves" have access to?

The obvious answer might be technology -- that is computer and communication systems. The late Rob Kling (Center for Social Informatics, Indiana University) realized there are actually two components of access: technological access and social access. Technological access refers to physically possessing equipment: computers, networks, wireless devices. Social access refers to possessing the knowledge and resources to use technologies to fulfill needs. In essence, the "haves" possess both technological access and social access.

It's clear that having one without the other won't work. For example, initiatives like putting a networked computer in every classroom, library, or household sound grand, but without a plan to do something with the equipment, what good is really accomplished? Without a social context, technology sits idle and unused. In the opposite case, if we know that technology can solve a certain problem in a society and it's physically not available -- immunizations and medical equipment in third-world nations come to mind -- it doesn't do any good either.

In regions that do possess both the technological access and social access, there is interplay between the technological element and the social element. Technology impacts the social environment -- but that's only half the story. The social environment also affects how technology develops. Hence, new fields such as cognitive systems engineering focus on what is now termed socio-technical systems: systems composed of technical components, affected by workers, within some organizational or management infrastructure, operating in some environmental context
(Vicente 1999). Sounds like a mouthful, but an example of a (very large) socio-technical system might be an electrical power system. Note also how each layer of the system can affect the other.

• Technical components: energy collection, generators, grid wiring network, switches, computers, etc.
• Workers: high-voltage line riggers, residential technicians, customer support specialists, software developers, energy traders, technical trainers, etc.
• Management infrastructure: Corporation, shareholders and investors, energy suppliers, energy buyers, residential consumers, etc.
• Environmental context: governmental regulation, industry regulation, federal and local taxation, land right-of-ways, competition, severe weather, consumer demand, etc.

Relating this example back to the issue of haves and have-nots, it's pretty obvious bringing power to a region that doesn't have involves a whole lot more than building a power plant. It involves a whole lot of people and infrastructure and is affected by political factors. Finally, as power technology comes online, it will affect how people do things in their daily lives, and as a result the power technology will be affected with change to meet new needs and demands imposed by the people. That is, the power system consists of both technology and people.

If we plan on addressing the gap between the haves and have-nots, we must consider the problem holistically. Time and time again, we find that simply giving technology to have-nots doesn't help to close the gap. We've spent millions on bringing the computers and the Internet to every classroom, but science and engineering enrollments continue to decrease, not to mention a fair number of these computers go unused because teachers do not have the resources and guidance they need to leverage technology to enhance learning. We go to countries and build state-of-the-art sanitation systems to stem disease and health problems, but they go unused because the local residents don't recognize a need to
change their habits. Warehouses of food and medicine sit full because logistical knowledge and distribution networks do not exist -- and this doesn't just happen in sub-Saharan Africa. If you recall, trucks loaded with food, water, and relief supplies sat in parking lots right here in the United States in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina -- the physical resources and technology were there, but the social element was disastrously missing.

On the contrary, we also find successful programs to deliver needs to the have-nots. The Carter Center's campaign to eradicate Guinea Worm (a parasite found in water that grows up to three feet in the human body before bursting through skin) consists of distributing technology (a very simple filter cloth) as well as the social element: educating local residents on the disease, how it's caused, how to prevent it by filtering their water, and encouraging the entire community to partake. Similar efforts by the Gates Foundation recognize and address the socio-technical needs in aiding the have-nots with respect to public health and education.

The bottom line is, if we plan on doing something to narrow or close the gap between the haves and the have-nots, it's going to involve a whole lot more than dumping money and technology at the problem (the literal meaning of "redistributing wealth"). It's going to require a serious personal level of involvement to guarantee that any technological contribution to the have-nots is met in kind with a social contribution.

critical thinking

These are some notes I jotted down way back when in Bryan Pfaffenberger's class back at UVA. These are things I still keep in mind today as I'm reading and writing about technology, globalization, and culture...

Seven Attributes of Critical Thought

1. Awareness of potential distortion in the way the world is presented by others.
2. Awareness of limitations in our own perception of reality.
3. Ability to recognize mental blocks, overgeneralizations, and false rationalizations.
4. Ability to be honest with oneself.
5. Ability to be persuaded by the facts, once established.
6. Ability to think independently of peer pressure.
7. Whole-brain thinking.

Considering social, political, and ethical contexts

• Who are the stakeholders?
• Where is the action taking place?
• What are the stakeholders' interests?
• Why are they pursuing their interests?
• How are they pursuing their interests?
• Who will lose?

Argue a thesis, present supporting evidence, consider the opposing side to the argument, and assess the implications of what you've argued.

challenges of global education

The discussion topic for this week, and my response:

Responding to the challenges of global education.

It's pretty clear from the lectures presented so far that education is a critically important factor in determining success in the era of globalization. Academic thinkers (Robert Reich, Gary Downey, et al) understand the correlation between liberal education and success in a global society. Industry leaders (Robert Chiusano, Adel Zakaria, et al) recognize the need for science and engineering education in determining success in a global marketplace. But what about our institutions themselves -- do our schools and universities "get it?" How have institutions of learning adapted to the demands of globalization?

In my (somewhat controversial, but strong) opinion, most educational institutions today are metaphors of the industrial era assembly line. Quoting Henry Ford, "People can have the Model T in any color - so long as it's black." This was for one reason: there was no room for customization on the linear assembly line. Educational institutions are modeled after such assembly lines: going from one grade level to the next, or one course after another to hit a milestone of graduation, which used to guarantee a lifetime of stable work.

Nowadays, we know that careers change over time and we need to be prepared for it. Reich mentions the notion of lifelong learning, both in the classroom and at the job. However, secondary and to a certain extent, higher education has been slow to adapt to these changing needs. Reich also mentions that everyone learns a little differently -- and I agree with his claim that the education system needs to be flexible enough to help everyone learn.

In essence, our educational institutions need to address two issues if they plan on adapting to our global society. First, we need to abandon the assembly line, one-size-fits-all model of education. Like everything else we buy today, education needs to be customizable to meet the needs of each learner. Second, we need to think about what is important to impart in each of our citizens' education. What are the skills everyone needs to be successful in a global society? Everyone needs to learn transferable skills that are universal to every job: critical analysis, communication, negotiation, to name a few, as well as specialty skills that give us a competitive advantage: whether it be math, science, engineering, business, and even music and art, as each provide value and fulfill a need at some level in the global society.

Solving the problem of reforming education to suit the needs of a globalization era instead of the industrial era is a difficult one for sure, but we know it’s important, and if we want a chance in staying competitive, we'd better get started soon.

By the way, there are two pretty good articles in Issues in Science and Technology that take a crack at this issue (on the higher education/university level):

Warning: Information Technology Will Transform the University -- Time has come to recreate higher education to capitalize on the technology that is here or soon to come.

Envisioning a Transformed University -- Change is coming, and the biggest mistake could be underestimating how extensive it will be.

attributes of a successful leader

Another in a continuing series of discussion questions from class with my response.

What qualities or attributes does it take to be a successful leader?

I find myself agreeing with my colleagues here on this thread for the most part. I agree that leadership and management are two distinct concepts. For instance, a manager uses her leadership skills to manage her team. In addition, there is a semantic difference between a “good” leader and a “successful” leader. Clearly, precisely defining leadership is difficult. However, we all know the difference between a successful leader and one who is not. What attributes determine successful leadership? Robert Chiusano (VP, COO Rockwell Collins Commercial Systems) presented some excellent examples in his lecture, but I think it boils down to one of his final points: balance.

In "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People," Stephen Covey, the author, mentions that leadership is based on a balance of courage and consideration. That is, the courage to express one’s vision (thoughts, feelings, convictions) balanced with the consideration for the thoughts and feelings of others. Courage focuses on achieving the goal, while consideration ensures all the stakeholders and contributors benefit.

If we consider Chiusano's final points on interpersonal leadership, "Leader of People" in the context of Covey’s:

Chiusano 1: Take Them To Where They Won't Normally Go By Themselves
Covey 1: Courage to express where you want them to go, consideration to
understand why they wouldn’t go there themselves.

Chiusano 2: Mentoring
Covey 2: Consideration to ensuring your team benefits by learning and
developing professionally and personally.

Chiusano 3: Understand the Culture of People
Covey 3: Consideration, by definition.

Chiusano 4: Focus On Customers and People
Covey 4: Consideration for your customers needs.

Chiusano 5: Conduct Yourself with Ethics And Integrity
Covey 5: Courage to stand firm with personal and professional ethics and
integrity.

There must be a balance between the two though. More courage than consideration leads to strong personal with plenty of ego (not the best leader in my experience as resentment tends to build in the team). More consideration than courage could lead to a case where one is so considerate of one’s ideas, they won’t have the courage to express their own ideas (in other words, the team does not progress towards a goal or vision).

Balance of courage and consideration, the fundamental attribute of leadership, extends beyond just interpersonal leadership or management in the workplace. This balance exemplifies maturity, which lends to personal character, which then helps in all facets of life: at work, at home, and individually.

The only point I disagree with my colleagues on, respectfully, is Bobby Knight being a successful leader. His style of leadership is definitely big on courage, little on compassion. (In other words, ego-driven.) He might have taken his team to a good number of championships, but in the end, his demise was just like the demise of the morally bankrupt executives in the headlines. Were they leaders? Perhaps. Successful? I think not. It's not so great when you lead your team into a hole in the ground and/or get fired in shame and the public views it with repugnance. Bobby Knight didn't leave Indiana as a leader, but rather as a disgraced figure.