The definition of digital divide suggests that digital divide is dimensional in space, time, and context. As a result, recourse to the fields of demography and design science is a requirement for understanding these dimensions.
Demography as the study of size and composition of population, internal changes to the composition , and the relationship between the sociophysical changes and the environment. The demographic arm will provide qualitative and quantitative handles to explore the space and time dimensions of digital divide.

If digital technology is artificial then it could be treated as a work of art. With design science, a clearer insight into designing can be gained. Design science is a system of logically related knowledge, which should contain and organize the complete knowledge about and for designing. This knowledge will facilitate the understanding of digital technology in context. Is digital technology a misfit? Watch out!!

Likewise, design science as a system of logically related knowledge, which should contain and organize the complete knowledge about and for designing is crucial to the understanding of digital technology in context. Is digital technology a misfit? Watch out!!

Bibliography
Notes on the Synthesis of Form by Christopher Alexander
Demography: The Study of Human Population 2nd ed. by David Yaukey and Douglas L. Anderton
Digital Divide by Pippa Norris

Further reading: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: ‘The Computational Theory of Mind’ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/

Cartesianism: Cartesians view the mind as being wholly separate from the corporeal body. Sensation and the perception of reality are thought to be the source of untruth and illusions, with the only reliable truths to be had in the existence of a metaphysical mind. Such a mind can perhaps interact with a physical body, but it does not exist in the body, nor even in the same physical plane as the body. In general, Cartesian thought divides the world into three areas of existence: that inhabited by the physical body (matter), that inhabited by the mind, and that inhabited by God.

LAI ‘succeeds’ in many ways as it’s “performance-oriented or constructionist not mimetic.” p150
We don’t really need  to do what a human would in a certain situation (have opinions, insights, intuitions, mistakes, etc), though we can emulate the good (problem-solving) bits. ]]> http://blog.soton.ac.uk/comp6044/2012/10/22/philosophy-and-computing-101-the-cartesian-ai-and-materialistic-monism/feed/ 0 http://blog.soton.ac.uk/comp6044/2012/10/22/gift-giving-in-freemium-from-napster-to-soundcloud/ http://blog.soton.ac.uk/comp6044/2012/10/22/gift-giving-in-freemium-from-napster-to-soundcloud/#comments Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:21:00 +0000 Caroline Halcrow http://blog.soton.ac.uk/comp6044/?p=1677 In the online ethnographic (or netnographic) study by Markus Gielser[1], he describes Napster the original peer-to-peer music sharing service, operating between 1999 and 2001, as a consumer gift-giving system meeting classic anthropological requirements. Giesler details the key qualities which define the service as a gift-giving system: social distinctions, e.g. between gift-giving to build social cohesion and commercial exchange; the norm of reciprocity, i.e. the basic exchange rules identified and owned by Napster users and embodied in the software; and the rituals and symbolisms, e.g. the meaningful user names chosen by people to indicate their musical areas of expertise.

Where else do gift-giving systems exist on the web, other than in peer-to-peer file- sharing systems? In Open Source, where time and intellectual capital is shared freely in software development groups? In online user communities around products and services (e.g. Mac Forums[2]) or question resolution and advice giving sites such as Stackoverflow[3] and Quora[4]?

Do web businesses deploy gift-giving systems in the permutations of the Freemium[5] business models used for services with online communities? And if yes, are they used to build social cohesion, is there reciprocity and is there evidence of rituals and symbolism? In the popular music sharing service Soundcloud[6] users upload original music and seek and give comments from and to peers. The heart of the basic free service is the online community in which people with meaningful identities  reciprocally gift-give, according to unwritten rules of exchange, both music and critical appreciation to develop social networks.The premium upgrade does not provide additional community features, it gives increased music file storage to support promotional use by professional musicians. Soundcloud exemplifies how the Freemium model can both support classic group gift-giving behaviours and use the commercial exchange model in a complementary way.

For some time I have been very interested in how people use the Web at work and the discussions surrounding this practice at different levels in the organisation. Over the years many have talked, written and passionately lobbied about the many issues that have emerged. I also joined this discussion and tried to present a balanced argument for the Web in the workplace, even if only for personal use. Yet, there still seems to be some confusion about how to best manage Web usage in organisations.

Taming the Web in the Caribbean Workplace

In the Caribbean, there is a predominantly negative perception of Web usage at work, especially among the management of large established organisations. There is a very real fear that Web usage in the workplace makes the organisation vulnerable to taking legal liability for related unlawful activities, security breaches, bandwidth drain and productivity losses. As a result, many organisations in the region have adopted an approach where they rather be safe than sorry. Unfortunately, based on my experience, measures used to manage risk are then usually excessive and outweigh the amount of risk posed.

Organisations have attempted to manage employee Web usage utilising several methods. Sometimes blocking and or requiring written permission to access certain sites and services, using monitoring software to enforce strict policies and providing training to employees on ‘proper’ Web usage in the workplace. However, barriers to unrestricted access are quickly being removed with the introduction of affordable 4G mobile Internet access and very strong adoption of smart phones (e.g., iPhone and Blackberry) by employees in the region. Unsurprisingly, this has prompted some organisations to respond by taking an even tougher approach to managing Web usage in the workplace on any device.

My Lens: Finding Responsible Ways to Embrace the Web in the Workplace

The above scenario, though somewhat extreme, does not only exist in the Caribbean region but is also likely to be present in organisations all over the world in varying forms. Given this, I have chosen to explore the disciplines of technoethics and risk management and their inherent approaches to the current issue. There is also hope to discover new ways organisations can go about creating effective strategies to encourage employees to use the Web at work in more responsible ways that does not put the organisation, themselves and the Web at risk.

Notes

This & Last Week’s Plan

1. Identify the simplest books to read that will give an easy to understand introduction to the disciplines you picked.
2. Make notes on books read.
3. Even if it is the last thing you do, prepare a blog post that gives an overview of what you want to work on by Monday.
4. Publish a blog post that introduces technoethics.
5. Publish a blog post that introduces risk management.
6. Outline a reading plan for moving forward.

Current Readings

• Ethics: A Very Short Introduction – Simon Blackburn
• Handbook of Research on Technoethics – Rocci Luppicini & Rebecca Adell
• Risk: A Very Short Introduction – Baruch Fischhoff
• Fundamentals of Risk Management Understanding, Evaluating and Implementing Effective Risk Management – Paul Hopkin

This essay aims to examine to what extent consumers’ behaviour in cyberspace differs from the ‘real-world’ behaviour and whether concerns about privacy as well as scepticism about how marketers use data prevent consumers from disclosing personal information. The fact that marketing is based on the study of the psychological characteristics of consumers who engage in voluntary self-disclosure, combined with the application of psychological theories and techniques to marketing, indicate the close relationship between these two disciplines.

In order to unfold the different approaches on the abovementioned issue, I decided to first get myself familiar with the basic concepts and techniques of psychology. Psychology is both an applied and academic field that studies the human mind and behaviour. Research in psychology seeks to describe human thought and behaviour, explain why these behaviours occur, predict how, why and when these behaviours will occur again in the future and modify and improve behaviours to better the lives of individuals and society as a whole. There are three types of research methods, causal, descriptive and rational, while psychologists use a range of techniques including naturalistic observation, experiments, case studies and questionnaires. Topics and questions in psychology can be looked at in a number of different ways; some of the major perspectives in psychology include the biological, cognitive, behavioural, evolutionary, humanistic perspective.

Given that the web has created a new type of society where the presence of other human beings is implied rather than actual, I particularly focused my interest on the discipline of Social Psychology which aims to understand and explain the impact of the social environment on the thought, feeling and behaviour of individuals. A basic concept of social psychology that describes our everyday interactions is the concept of self-disclosure which is defined as ‘the voluntary making available of information about one’s self that would not ordinarily be accessible to the other at that moment.’

Self-disclosure has received considerable attention from consumer psychologists as it plays a vital role in relationship development and maintenance. Although self-disclosure research has shown that people are reluctant to divulge information about themselves, one notable exception to this rule involves the norm of reciprocity which refers to the tendency for recipients to match the level of intimacy in the disclosure they return with the level of intimacy in the disclosure they receive; people are more likely to engage in self-disclosure if they first become the recipients of such disclosures from their conversational partners. A few researchers have suggested that consumers interact with the source of electronic communications in the same way they interact with other people; therefore reciprocity could make consumers more involved in self-disclosure even in cyberspace. Thus, theoretically, in order to trigger the reciprocity principle, a company would first have to reveal some information about itself to the consumer.

Botha, B., Strydom, J., Brink, A. (2004) Introduction to Marketing. South Africa: Juta and Co Ltd

Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: Science and practice. New York: HarperCollins.

Derlega,V. J.,& Chaikin, A. L. (1977). ‘Privacy and self-disclosure in social relationships’. Journal of Social Issues, 33, pp. 102–115

Gross, R. (2010) Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour. London: Hodder Education

Hill, C. T., & Stull, D. E. (1982). ‘Disclosure reciprocity: Conceptual and measurement

Issues’. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, pp. 238-244

Holtgraves,T. (1990). The language of self-disclosure. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley

Joinson, A.N. (2001). ‘Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of selfawareness and visual anonymity’. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, pp. 177–192

“The most scientific of the humanities, the most humanist of sciences”

Eric Wolf (in Erisken 2010, p. 1)

Source: http://markandrews.edublogs.org/page/2/

All the authors reviewed place anthropology at the intersection of social sciences and humanities. Peoples and Bailey outline 5 subfields of the discipline: physical/biological anthropology, archaeology, cultural anthropology, anthropological linguistics and applied anthropology. For the rest of this project, I will equate anthropology with the cultural anthropology subfield, which is also sometimes known as cultural and social anthropology (to satisfy both the American and British strands which emphasise culture and society respectively (Monaghan & Just, p. 12)). Eriksen defines anthropology as ‘the comparative study of cultural and social life’, with a focus on the ‘whole of human society’. He states that the discipline is about ‘how different people can be, but it also tries to find out in what sense it can be said that all humans have something in common’ (Eriksen 2010, pp. 1-4). This latter aspect of the discipline is highlighted in all three readings as something deeply fundamental.

Before proceeding to consider the approaches and methodologies of the field, I thought it would be useful to go through a brief history of anthropology, to emphasise preconceptions and misperceptions. Eriksen (2010, p. 10) notes its recent origins as an academic discipline during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.  All the authors reviewed recognise that there is a romanticised version of the anthropologist as the intrepid explorer, out to discover and study ‘unspoilt’ societies. This, they agree, might have been true until the 1970s when all of this changed (Peoples & Bailey 2000, p. 6). The traditional focus of anthropological research on, small, non-Western, ‘exotic’ societies (to demarcate it from the discipline of sociology which traditionally focused on large, Western ones) was abandoned and topics such as American bodybuilders, the decline of the middle class and family life at Silicon Valley now form part of contemporary anthropological research projects (Peoples & Bailey, p. 6). This, coupled with the fact that anthropology is no longer the prerogative of Western scholars, is important to note in our study of the discipline itself, but also of its perspective on the topic of the global digital divide.

Next week I will present the various approaches and methodologies prevalent in the field.

References 

Eriksen, T. H. (2010) Small Places, Large Issues: An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology 3^rd edition, New York: Pluto Press

Monaghan, J. and Just, P. (2000) Social and Cultural Anthropology: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Peoples, J. and Bailey, G. (2000) Humanity: An Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, 5^th ed., Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning

As our world is overrun by hackers and a growing abundance of readily made hacking software and programmers keen to get their hands on whatever they seek it seems bizarre that we still are ready to advertise ourselves on the likes of Facebook, Twitter and many other ‘self-branded’ web sources. The web is such an intrinsic part of our everyday life that we become so wound up in its beauty that we are unaware of any imminent attacks on our personal data.

From e-mail to database systems, from banking to business data, we are inundated with those who wish to hack into our lives for every penny and every piece of information that we hold dear. From recent personal experience, I had been faced with the dilemma of attempting to redeem my own personal e-mail account from those who ‘hacked’ it. I believed this to be an arduous task that is morally, socially and, potentially, financially unacceptable. After this event, I felt that I would like to pursue an understanding of it from a different perspective and realised that this would be the perfect opportunity to do so.

I have now chosen two very different subjects: moral philosophy and politics. From my initial understanding of moral philosophy is an ethical analysis of the self, and the awareness of ethical (mis)representations of action or communication. From further reading, it is believed that moral philosophy is dependant on a number of different issues including cultural values, heritage, environment and obligation (Schneewind, 1992). The cultural values specifically interest me as it is not without doubt that the varying cultures will determine various perceptions of what is morally acceptable.

My second subject is in politics, which a subject that can both be the cause and consequence of societal change in any nation. This subject helps to define our understanding of culture, psychology, finance and communications and reveals itself as a tug-of-war between power and peace (Morgenthau, 1993), greed and ethics. Furthermore, it can help to define a nation and its outlook on the rest the world through the ideologies of various political leaders whether in a dictated land or otherwise.

It appears that subjects would have, although different, solid perspectives on communications hacking and extenuate the need for this issue to subside.  I will follow up my research by looking into how moral philosophy develops according to nation, race and culture. I will also seek further knowledge of political advances on e-mail hacking, whether they use it for unfair advantage or whether it is heavily moderated.

Guyer, P. (1992). The Cambridge Companion to Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Morgenthau, H.J. (1993). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Boston:McGraw-Hill

My initial reading of this text has prompted my decision to change my topic of discussion from “cryptography” to “citizenry on social media”. Having decided on Politics as my topic area over Politics Science; this offers the ability to make a variety of historical comparisons and contrast the developments of states and their relationships with their citizens against the development of social media sites and their relationships with users.

The book gave a relatively detailed account of the varieties of social organisation that have been implemented throughout history ranging from ancient despotism and feudalism to modern dictatorships and democracies. There are clear distinctions to be drawn between different components of these organisations and the emergence of social media. However, it is interesting how the development of end-user agreements and the rights that they hold/with-hold have mirrored some aspect of the development of many political histories.

Not wishing to miss out on a greater level of factual content I also completed readings of “Very Short Introductions” to “Democracy” and “Communism” and intend to look briefly at “Socialism”, “Human Rights” and “The United Nations” to bolster my contextual knowledge. I have also looked into the further reading of undergraduate texts on globalisation with a view to contrasting the interaction and relationships of states with the interactions between and relationships of users with different social media sites.

This week I have also completed notes on the topics of:

Jean Baudrillard
Marxist Sociology
Ethnocentrism
Emile Durkheim
The Chicago School of Sociology   
Critical Theory and
Post-Structuralism

I will be looking to do some study on the nature of social media this coming week along with developing my knowledge of “modernity” in sociology with a particular focus on the nature of Post-Modernism.

In order to being this project I started with geography and a book called “Key Methods in Geography”, 2nd edition, edited by Clifford, French and Valentine.  On first reading the introductory chapter was very reassuring and outlined research methods that I was already familiar with from applied social science.  Research can be quantitative or qualitative and seems to be split between physical and virtual geographies.  Virtual geographies would seem to be a mix of psychology and anthropology and may or may not relate to the physical world.

Quantitative research would appear to relate to positivism and suggests a very traditional scientific methodology, whereas as qualitative research recognises that human behaviour is messy and humans do not always follow the rules.  Other critiques of positivism in geography include Marxist geographers who suggest that capitalism is reproduced in positivism; post-structuralist and feminists geographers would critique both positivist and Marxist geographers for failing to acknowledge multiple realities.  A Humanistic approach to geography would take into account representations in popular culture.

However, these approaches are not polar opposites and can be combined.

Geographical research can also be regarded in terms of extensive or intensive.  Extensive deals with large data sets and looks for patterns and regularity, whereas intensive studies small or single case studies.  Time and cost often have implications on which type of research is undertaken and extensive research often uses secondary data sets.

This reading has been mainly detailing different methodologies for use in geographical research and I need to undertake some research into theories and principles in geography.

“Engineering Psychologists who study and try to improve, the relationships between human beings and the computers and other machines they use” (Bernstein and Nash, 2002, p. 6).

However I thought that this was already specific enough for the study of web science and wouldn’t offer much scope to creatively combine relatively new disciplines. I was nevertheless occupied with the idea of cognition within Psychology, which “emphasizes mechanisms through which people receive, store, retrieve, and otherwise process information” (Bernstein and Nash, 2002, p. 17).  Carlson et al. (2007, p.7) elaborates on the idea of the cognitive psychologist: “the events that cause behaviour consist of functions of the human brain that occur in response to environmental events”. This idea of behaviour being affected by the way that the human brain responds to information to do with the environment is particularly interesting. Furthermore, social cognition “involves our perception and interpretation of information about our social environment and our behaviour I response to that environment.

Already my study of psychology has led towards an environmental concern and obviously there are obvious overlaps with the discipline of Geography. For example, “humanistic geographers were concerned with the meaning that a place conveyed o an individual or, as it has been called, ‘a sense of place’” (Bradford and Kent, 1993, p. 9). Thus I decided to drop Geography and choose Astronomy instead.

“Astronomy is the only one of the sciences which gives man some knowledge of the entire visible universe” (Fath, 1955, p. 1) and is thus an interesting subject to combine with psychology. Since the Web is considered a virtual world which is invisible it is interesting to use an astronomical approach to explore the Web. Astronomers use light “to understand what is happening in the rest of the universe” (Holliday, 1998, p.1). Astronomers use light and similarly, web users use code.

The dominant research approach in Astronomy is through observations. Since the internet cannot be seen directly this mode of approach is problematic. In the following weeks I will explore how the web can be seen as a psychological world by which astronomy can be used to see the ‘real’ effects of this world.

I’ve started my reading with two introductory Economics textbooks. One aimed at A-level students and one aimed at undergraduate students. This has worked really well so far as it has allowed me to gain a more shallow but wide overview from the A-level textbook, and when I’ve found a topic that I want to delve deeper in to I can look it up in the more detailed undergraduate textbook.  Fortunately the contents page of the two textbooks are almost identical, both covering the same topics just in differing levels of detail.

So far I have learnt that Economics is split in to two sections, micro and macro Economics. Microeconomics is the study of economic decisions made by particular individuals and businesses, e.g. whether buying a piece of new tractor is worth the investment for a farm. Macroeconomics is the study of the economy and the whole and focuses on economic decisions made by governments, for example asking questions like ‘will investment in education now mean the nation will have a more skilled workforce in 20 years time?’.  These two approaches seem separate but are actually interdependent, with many issues overlapping; economic decisions made by governments effect small businesses, and how small businesses perform effect the government’s decision making. Effectively microeconomics takes a bottom up approach to studying the economy whereas macroeconomics takes a top down approach.

The web issue that I will focus on is digital piracy. I’m not sure at this point whether I will look at this generally on all types of digital content or pick a media to focus on. I’m leaning towards focusing purely on music piracy. Demand curves described by the textbook speak about how as the price of a song drops, the buyer will purchase more songs. A rise in price will always mean a drop in demand and a fall in price will always cause an increase in demand. However the relationship between demand and price is not linear becuase willingness to buy more of a product drops as the number of purchases increases, this leads to what is known as effective demand. At first glance this seems like a theory that can be applied to the change in how music has become available for people to access either more cheaply or free (an economic view wouldn’t take in to account that the free option is illegal, it changes demand none the less), which may help explain the recent decline in the music industry.

In the following week I will start reading about Philosophy, the idea being to get a broad understanding of how philosophers approach problems, and then with a view to look at how moral philosophy can apply to illegally downloading music on the internet.

An alternative way of dividing up philosophy is to describe the different kinds of subjects that philosophers look at. This taxonomical approach has the advantage that it does not try to divide up philosophical approaches according to the arguments that are made: it is merely divided up by subject, not by the views taken on that subject. For instance, we might say that there are philosophers interested in questions of epistemology (knowledge), logic, politics, aesthetics, metaphysics, morality, and so on. This way of dividing it up does not say anything about what views the philosophers are taking on these different questions. So you could have the realists and the non-realists all lumped together into one category: the question of logic, say. However there are also problems with this way of describing philosophy as a discipline. Many of these areas overlap into each other, and there doesn’t seem to be any particularly objective reason, other than the causal whim of the observer, why we would divide these categories up in this particular way rather than any other.

From a personal perspective, I am inclined to describe the subject of philosophy in the way that it is often divided up in the university faculties, and the way that it is often divided up in the textbooks. You have things like philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, philosophy of language, philosophy of politics, philosophy of history, and so on. The discipline doesn’t have to be divided up this way necessarily; it just happens to be that it often is.

The particular area of philosophy that I am really interested in for this course is philosophy of law, and especially how this speaks to the internet. To some extent internet is still in its formative period. This is a time when internet legislative and constitutional precedent does not yet exist for the most part. So now is our opportunity to try to make decisions about what these precedents should look like. This is an area that I have never studied before and while there is a large amount of literature of philosophers commenting on law and legal procedures (sometimes known as jurisprudence) I do not know whether there is any substantial commentary by philosophers on internet law specifically. I did find one book by the philosopher Gordan Graham, ‘The Internet: A Philosophical Enquiry’. The book is quite out of date unfortunately (1999) but it is the only text I have been able to find so far on this subject. In general I liked the book and would recommend it. It is reasonably well written, though it is very wide-ranging and swings from one thing to another. But I think this is OK. Graham talks a little about the history of the internet, some of the technical aspects (not so relevant now perhaps) and puts this in the context of the history of technological development generally. Then he really lets it rip and has lots of fun talking about obscure and pretty much unrelated things like democracy and the internet (offering a dashing sweeping critique of democracy along the way), the nature of reality (is the internet a new form of ‘the real’?) and questions of the changing human experience (what has internet done to human individuality and community?). While this does seem a little bit all over the place, I think there are many really interesting ideas in here. The main point I take away from the book is the question of: to what extent should law on the web be different from law in the ‘real’ world (by which I mean the world off the web)? I mean, laws in the non-webby world are supposed to legislate over non-webby things, right. But the question is, how great is the disparity between webby stuff and non-webby stuff? And how great is the disparity between webby law and non-webby law? At this early stage, I am inclined towards the view that perhaps the disparity is a very big one indeed, much bigger than we had thought. This is something that we should probably find quite disconcerting. Do we need a set of laws for the ‘real’ world, and another set of laws for the virtual world that we have created?

Started off by reading Brookshear, which was pretty clear and basic. Also looked into the Descartes, which is fairly basic philosophy and might be a little too general, but has some good points about reason and the mind. Philosophy and computing has a chapter on AI (hard and soft), and is more advanced/specified.

Notes on Brookshear -
So you get an agent, which needs to respond to environmental stimulus. Some of this is easier than other to programme, and how much of it actually indicates ‘intelligence?’ Like a plant grows towards light as a response to stimulus but that hardly makes it intelligent or aware. That said, human behaviour could also be a collection of stimulus responses that have evolved (respond correctly = survive to reproduce (1) respond incorrectly = die (0))

The Turing Test has, by now, pretty much been passed. What does this indicate?

There are some things which computers find really hard to create an appropriate response to; things which are super easy for humans, for example interpreting visual information and also double meanings in sentences. There are various ways to try to get around this, such as semantics webs constructing context in order to generate appropriate ‘understanding’.

Some people argue that computers will never be properly intelligent in the way that humans are, but others argue that the brain is just lots of different components performing different tasks, which a computer kinda is.

Also Strong AI and Weak AI are different. Should probably concentrate on just one as I only got 2500 words here.

It’s hard to get agents to reason. You can give them a goal though.

Inference Rules allow new statements to be made from old ones p475

And then there’s Heuristics (getting something/someone to learn for itself/themself)

“Another approach to developing better knowledge extraction systems has been to insert various forms of reasoning into the extraction process, resulting in what is called meta-reasoning – meaning reasoning about reasoning. An example, originally used in the context of database searches, is to apply the closed-world assumption, which is the assumption that a statement is false unless it can be explicitly derived from the information available.”

I decided the best way to start the process of research was to avoid looking at my topic in much depth and focus on grounding my knowledge in the two disciplines I’ve chosen. My reasoning was that this would better allow me to think about the cryptography within the context of my disciplines rather than read cryptography first and then need to refresh my understanding within new contexts of my chosen disciplines.

Whilst I am still undecided as to whether I will choose political science (a more theoretical approach to the nature of politics) or simply politics (closer to political history) but I am certain of my decision to examine the discipline of sociology. Having previously been heavily cognition/neurology oriented within psychology and less socially minded I felt this was a perfect opportunity for self development and so the choice of sociology was a ‘no-brainer’. Whilst psychology might be often associated with sociology, being that they are both social sciences, my particular psychological background means sociology is by all means a good distance outside my comfort zone.

I searched initially for “undergraduate sociology reading list[s]” and located an undergraduate reading list from City University London, University of Warwick and Brunel University London all of which touted Ken Plummer’s Sociology: The Basics as providing a sturdy foundation for undergraduate students. As such, this has been my first textbook on the topic of sociology.

The book establishes a basic description of sociology as a lens through which to view, examine and interpret the world. It is noted that “social” in sociology can have two similar but distinct interpretations. The first interpretations is “social” meaning the social ‘entity’ or ‘agent’. The second interpretation recognises “society” as a cumulative entity comprised of multiple agents. To make an analogy; this is the difference between describing the ways in which individual birds in a flock are influenced by their surroundings and describing the seemingly single entity that all the birds, moving together, appear to form.

In this way sociology offers two key opportunities. The first is to discuss issues such as the nature of culture, religion, ethics and any facet of social life in an both an abstract and society wide sense. The second is to allow for observations to be made of the ways these abstract concepts may influence the social world of the individual agents. In this way the discipline of sociology appears to be inherently interdisciplinary in and of itself; drawing on everything from medicine to theology in order to adequately represent the complex nature of social interactions.

I have encountered several topics of interest that I will research further:

Modernity: the discussion of the sociology of “modern” societies. In particular the idea of “multiple modernities”: as societies have advanced together technologically many have diverged in their modernisations forming new cultural and societal differences. The ways in which these differences interact with differing modernisation is the subject of this specific approach.

Discourse/Discourse analysis: The approach of analysing communication. This can be done from a variety of perspective to achieve ends. These ends include making theories about the interactions of humans or to further contextualise cultural expression within a wider societal context.

I am looking into what politically oriented undergraduate text would offer the strongest foundation and have identified several potential candidates using a similar approach of consulting University undergraduate pre-/reading lists:

Some limitations of this alternative such as cyber-security issues that could facilitate electoral fraud or issues of competence of the population in certain ‘sensitive’ decisions have been put forward in several debates on this topic.

This essay will attempt to explain how the collaboration of two different academic disciplines, namely Political Sciences and Electronic and Computer Sciences can address two issues on which the essay will be focused. One is an alleged ‘digital divide’ that could leave apart certain sectors of the population that cannot access a connected computer or do not have the skills to vote electronically. The other one has to do with the above-mentioned technical problems related with security that can arise from the use of this voting system.

To do this, I will start looking at how political scientists analyse public participation in democratic systems by reading a textbook on democracy and a report for an independent enquiry institution.

The book is titled Models of Democracy, written by David Held (2006). It is a suggested reading for a unit in the Politics and International Relations degree in this university, called Democracy and the Modern State. I expect find there what methods of enquiry are the most commonly used in this discipline.

I am also reading a report for the Power Enquiry by Graham Smith, the title of which is Beyond the Ballot: 57 Democratic Innovations from Around the World (2005), where I also expect to find out how this discipline analyses current political phenomena and tackles the questions raised in the assignment.

The ‘technological side’ of the issue will be looked at a few weeks later.

The intention in the assignment is not to ‘answer the questions’, but to show how these two disciplines can work together towards it. Therefore, special emphasis will be put on the research methods that both of them use in order to find solutions to the problems they encounter.

On 11 March 2011, coincidentally the launch day of the Social Brands 100, an earthquake struck Japan with devastating consequences. During the earthquake and in its aftermath, my Japanese friend was stuck in her office building for a few days, regularly posting Facebook updates to reassure friends and family that she was alright.

The possibilities for using social media in times of crisis seemed great. There were already forays into the idea with platforms like Ushahidi  which enables crowdsourcing of information during crises via various channels (another 2011 Social Brands 100 nominee!)… But all this got me thinking that those whom such platforms or ideas could help the most were often those without access to the Internet of the Web.

Now the purpose of this assignment is to focus on particular disciplines and the approach each would take to evaluate the issue rather than on the issue itself, but we still need to define what we will look at through the disciplinary lenses. I have chosen to examine the disciplines of management and anthropology, and over the course of the next few weeks will attempt to get an idea of their epistemologies and ontologies, the basic theories that underpin them and see whether it is helpful or beneficial to combine them to understand some of the issues around the digital divide. For Chen and Wellman (2004, p. 40) ‘the digital divide involves the gap between individuals (and societies) that have the resources to participate in the information era and those that do not’. It is a complex problem characterised by wide ranging aspects – socioeconomic, technological, linguistic factors, social status, gender, life stage and geography (Chen and Wellman 2004, pp. 39-42). Going into too much detail at this stage is not necessary, as the relevant issues to be examined will be framed through each discipline, but it provides a useful starting point.

So next week I will start with Thomas Hylland Eriksen’s Small Places, Large Issues: An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology (3^rd Edition) Pluto Press, for Anthropology and for management, David Boddy’s (2008) Management: An Introduction, 4th ed., Prentice Hall.

Reference

Chen, W. and Wellman, B. (2004) ‘The Global Digital Divide – Within and Between countries’ in IT & Society Vol.1(7), pp. 39-42.

What helps us understand our gift-giving tradition is Anthropology. It studies group behaviours in communities and has an extensive body of theory derived from ranging fieldwork across the globe in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. An important base of theory is focused on systems of exchange and their significance. The sociologist-anthropologist Marcel Mauss analyses gift-giving systems in his work An essay on the gift: the form and reason of exchange in archaic societies¹. He demonstrates that early exchange systems are based on reciprocity in order to build social connections between groups. A classic example of reciprocity is the exchange of sisters in marriage that took place in e.g. the Bambuti society in the Congo. Or another, the Kula ceremonial exchange system in the Trobiand Islands which created social cohesion and was distinctly different from their commodity exchange approach.

Now the web science question which is begged is can we apply these theories to online user behaviors outside of the Christmas context? What is happening in the online communities within and around internet services deploying the Free business models coined and analysed by Chris Addison²? Is there evidence of the classic anthropological gift-giving system between users and entrepreneurs?

Find out more in my next instalment!

http://youtu.be/VOMWzjrRiBg

And in this case, the ISPs aren’t necessarily bad – if you are a struggling writer, musician or artist then if they are called upon to help you protect what you would think of as yours, you’re not really going to complain. (Speaking as someone whose household gets to buy stuff from royalties coming in from the British Performing Society.) However, most struggling artists, musicians and writers are (perhaps because they’re struggling , perhaps because it’s part of the creative process), also avid ‘collectors’ of what they might not necessarily have paid for… Obviously the issue is far more complex than this.

Certainly BT and TalkTalk have requested the review because of concerns about privacy (n.b. BT and TalkTalk took up a diametrically opposite stance on this very issue when it came down to Phorm and RIPA - perhaps they are now more wary of some of these issues). It certainly brings to the fore the issue of what is property on the web, what is private property on the web, and how far a government should allow intrusion into people’s lives in order to monitor or recover what might be defined as private.

John Stuart Mill wrote:

‘The things once there…mankind, individually or collectively, can do with them as they please. They can place them at the disposal of whomsoever they please, and on whatever terms…Even what a person has produced by his individual toil, unaided by anyone, he cannot keep, unless by the permission of society. Not only can society take it from him, but individuals could and would take it from him, if society…did not…employ and pay people for the purpose of preventing him from being disturbed in his possession..’ (From Heilbroner, p.129).

Mill saw that the principle of private property had not had a fair trial, and that reform could make changes to outdated laws, without recourse to outright revolution. He feared that Communism would stifle individual thinking and feared ‘whether there would be any asylum left for individuality of character; whether public opinion would not be a tyrannical yoke; whether the absolute dependence of each on all, and the surveillance of each by all, would not grind all down into a tame uniformity of thoughts, feelings, and actions…no society in which eccentricity is a matter of reproach can be in a wholesome state.’ (Heilbroner, .p132).

The doodle is JUST a doodle, it’s not good graphic design and it’s very messy.

]]> http://blog.soton.ac.uk/comp6044/2011/12/31/quick-digital-economy-act-scribble/feed/ 0 http://blog.soton.ac.uk/comp6044/2011/12/30/economics-overview-part-1/ http://blog.soton.ac.uk/comp6044/2011/12/30/economics-overview-part-1/#comments Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:16:10 +0000 me1g11 http://blog.soton.ac.uk/comp6044/?p=1503 Economics is a social science or discipline that analyses the production, consumption and distribution of goods and services, or from another perspective, ‘wealth.’ It often asks what is valuable at any one point in time by evaluating the worth of goods and services as they are exchanged. (Drawing on the notion of a point in time, and what we know about the modern capabilities of quantum computing, might suggest that any failure to properly understand where value lies and of what it consists, in immensely complex chains – for example in stock-market deals – could result in hugely disastrous market crashes.) Where this evaluation may be difficult to accomplish (for a number of reasons) this would seem to make economics a normative discipline. Schumacher suggested that its models and theories are based on value systems and embedded views of human nature and referred to meta-economics, as some of these values are not made explicit in the discussion of wealth and its distribution.

Schumacher actually compared two different economic systems in order to illustrate this point: one was the western ‘materialist’ system where the standard of living is measured by the amount of annual consumption – and which therefore seeks to achieve maximum consumption along with optimal patterns of production. The other was a Buddhist economics based on the notion of the ‘right livelihood’ and the ‘middle way’ – aiming for the maximum of human well-being with optimal patterns of consumption.

It is interesting that presently there seems to be more media attention given to research on economic notions of ‘well-being’ and even the search for drivers of happiness.

History:

Economics emerged in and around the 17th century, in line with a value system that differed markedly from those in existence in medieval times. Until then most of what was needed to survive was produced and exchanged locally, within ‘tribes’ or local populations. Robert Heilbroner makes a distinction between markets, where food, materials for building shelter, and clothing might be traded, and ‘the market system’. (The Worldly Philosophers, p.27.) ‘For the market system is not just a means of exchanging goods; it is a mechanism for sustaining and maintaining an entire society.’ Markets existed, and not just for barter, but generally, profit was frowned upon (seen as ungodly) and there were severe restrictions on those who attempted to sell to promote their own self-interest.

There are of course, examples of early traders who did undergo long voyages, (and thus were trading globally) but the suggestion is that these voyages were an end in themselves, and as much about discovery and adventure – ceremonial, bonding and social voyages – rather than for the ultimate motive of profit. A corollary to this might be that these ends are still in existence today (i.e. the bonding of the boardroom, the religious pursuit of profit, Thatcher’s yuppies who took to heart the free market forces and the limitation of the state’s role, and took the role of competitive individualism as their mantra for professional activities.)

In line with the emergence of economics, Beinhocker says, of the period between 1750 and the mid-eighteenth century,

‘According to data compiled by the Berkeley economist, J.Bradford DeLong, it took 12,000 years to inch from the $90 per person hunter-gatherer economy to the roughly $150 per-person economy of the Ancient Greeks in 1000 BC. It wasn’t until 1750 AD, when world gross domestic product (GDP) per person reached around $180 that the figure had finally managed to double from our hunter-gatherer days 15,000 years ago. Then in the mid-eighteenth century something extraordinary happened-world GDP per person increased around 37-fold in an incredibly short 250 years to its current levels of $6,600…’ (p.9).

The evolution of economics:

Earlier it was called political economy, but then it was suggested in the 19th century that ‘economics’ as the short form of economic ‘science’ seemed to suggest a wider scope for the subject.

There are basic contrasts between micro and macro economics – where the micro involves households, individuals and firms and macro looks at ‘entire’ economies and growth, unemployment, fiscal policy, inflation etc.. Normative economics looks at prescriptions – how economics should work, while positive economics looks at describing what occurs. As suggested above, the distinction between these two might not be as clear-cut as one might expect.

There is also economic theory and applied economics, rational and behavioural economics, mainstream and heterodox economics, econometrics (where economic theories are tested empirically, i.e. through observation, as opposed to via controlled experiments) and experimental economics.

Classical political economy

Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations described land, labour and capital as the three drivers of production and wealth. He also recognised that the division of labour could create great efficiencies, while perhaps causing problems for the common man whose world view was created by the day to day features of his job.  Smith was the originator of resource allocation theory, suggesting that in a competitive but self-regulating space, resource owners will deploy these most profitably – resulting in an equal rate of return and satisfaction of economic needs of the people. The market was seen as a ‘mechanism’ (note Newtonian tone) acting as an ‘invisible hand’ paradoxically leading people selfishly pursuing their own interests to create social benefit. Self-regulation meant that the market was its own guardian, and didn’t need the interference of government. Prices are kept from ranging away from the cost of production via public demand. The market also encouraged risk, creativity and invention. Smith also referred to two laws: the law of accumulation and the law of population. Via the accumulation of capital society could benefit as money was invested in more machinery and means of production. However, while more machinery would mean more workers, which would in turn mean higher wages that would then dissolve profits – the law of population meant that ‘the demand for men, like that for any other commodity, necessarily regulates the production of men.’

Other early  political economists were Malthus, John Stuart Mill and David Ricardo. Ricardo (writing just after the introduction of the Corn Laws, which practically broke Britain, in order to protect the landowners’ interests) looked at the distribution of income and conflict among landowners, workers, and capitalists. Ricardo saw that resources such as land are limited, and would result in problems emerging from the growth of population and capital, keeping wages and profits down while increasing rents. He grasped that the interests of landowners and capitalists were at odds and that the landowners were at war with the community. This position made Ricardo very popular with industrialists…

At a time when people were starting to question whether nationhood could be linked to population numbers, Malthus saw that human populations tended to increase, outstripping food production. One increase was geometric while the other was arithmetic. He also questioned the idea that a market economy could naturally create employment, suggesting (like Keynes in the 1930s) that savings (Smith’s accumulation) would create unemployment as countermanding spending. Malthus’ views were very unpopular. Malthus’ view was that, ‘Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to provide subsistence…that premature death must in some shape or form visit the human race.’

It is of note that (as Beinhocker points out, p.17), while some modern economists generally agree that economics should be studied as a complex system, and others agree that it has much in common with the idea of evolution, it was, of course, Malthus who inspired Darwin’s thinking, and that in fact much of our thinking about evolution derives from early economic ideas on wealth and population.

It is often important to account for the analogies and metaphors inherent in and between disciplines as these can account for some circularities and blind passages that seem to recur. Just as cognitive psychology might have suffered in part from its reductionistic reliance on the ‘brain as computer’ analogy (when the sorts of computers referred to in the analogy were created in order to attempt to replicate just one small part of how our minds work), so it is possible that thinking on economics might have been held back by earlier hesitation about exploring ideas about complex adaptive systems. There have been many works written on this subject: Veblen, Alfred Marshall, Schumpeter and Hayek, Nelson and Winter, for example, but it is generally agreed that mainstream economics has mostly been concerned with the model of economics as a form of self-governing mechanical system.

Although it seems that Smith, Malthus and Ricardo were opposed to one another, in fact it seems that partially where they differed was at the level of focus that they applied their thinking to. However, they saw social systems driven by the search for profit, market roles, a place for government and the force of competition. They also applied their thinking to technology. Smith described in great detail the ways in which pins were made, and how the division of labour and application of technology had their part in this process, but his thinking seemed to focus on a closed technological system. Malthus and Ricardo however were present when technology started to explode upon the scene, as more innovation came in, (the steam engine, the spinning jenny, iron working) it became apparent that with such innovation might come an upset to the ordered mechanisms of self-governing economies.

John Stuart Mill (worth writing about in far more detail) differed from these three thinkers in that he came of a more utopian approach. The social changes that were fostering early economic thinking had produced factories where social conditions were utterly appalling. Worse, because of an insistence on mechanism and natural law, it seemed to some that these appalling conditions were just a natural consequence of the market, and that while there was horror running through the fabric of these workplaces, it was akin to that of ‘nature red in tooth and claw:’ impersonal laws at work with no need for intervention.

Mill, following Robert Owen, Saint-Simon and Fourier, was convinced that a better way could prevail. Rather than encouraging the lower classes to revolt as did the Communists, utopian idealists wished to persuade those who held the power to change their ways, to reform. While the means of production might be functioning according to the laws described by Smith, Malthus and Ricardo, what happened to what was produced was actually down to a number of factors that could be controlled – and was not subject to natural law.

For completeness sake:
• E-business refers to the integration, through the Web/Internet, of all an organization’s processes from its suppliers through to its customers. For example, a company may use a website to manage information about sales, capacity, inventory, payment and so on – and to exchange that information with their suppliers or business customers. In other words, they use the internet to connect all the links in their supply chain, so creating an integrated process (what is termed “Management in Practice’).
• E-commerce refers to the activity of selling goods or services over the Web.

As discussed last week, networked information systems enable companies to coordinate joint processes with other organizations across great distances. Transactions such as payments and orders can be exchanged electronically, thereby reducing the cost of obtaining products and services. Many such systems use Web/Internet technology, with labels such as extra-organizational systems, e-commerce, e-business systems and supply chain management systems (collectively, inter-organizational systems).

The relationship between a company and its channel partners can be fundamentally shifted by the Web/Internet (or by other applications of inter-organizational systems). They can create new relationships between an organization, its customers, suppliers and business partners, redefining organizational boundaries. Firms are using these systems to work jointly with suppliers and other business partners on product design and development and to schedule work in manufacturing, procurement and distribution.

This fact is because electronic networks can help to bypass channel partners – so-called disintermediation. Disintermediation is when intermediaries, such as distributors or brokers (whose function is to link a company to its customers), are removed. For example, a manufacturer and a wholesaler can bypass other partners and reach customers directly. The benefits of disintermediation are that transaction costs are reduced and that it enables direct contact with customers. This also makes it possible to increase the reach of companies, e.g. from a local presence to a national or international presence.

Disintermediation can be contrasted with reintermediation (the creation of new intermediaries between customers and suppliers by providing (new) services such as supplier search and product evaluation helping customers to compare offers and link them to suppliers: examples are Yahoo and Amazon).

From a management perspective, the challenge of transforming a company into an e-business lies in reorganizing all the internal processes. A major concern of companies moving towards e-commerce or e-business has been to ensure they can handle the associated physical processes. These include handling orders, arranging shipment, receiving payment and dealing with after-sales service. This gives an advantage to traditional retailers who can support their website with existing fulfilment processes. Given the negative effects of failure once processes are supported by inter-organizational systems, it seems advisable to delay connecting existing systems to the new system until robust and repeatable processes are in place.

Kanter (2001) found that the move to e-business for established companies involves a deep change. She found that top management absence, short-sightedness of marketing people and other internal barriers are common obstacles. Based on interviews with more than 80 companies on their move to e-business, her research provides ‘deadly mistakes’ as well as some lessons, including:
• Create experiments and act simply and quickly to convert the sceptics.
• Create dedicated teams, and give them autonomy. Sponsor them from the wider organization.
• Recognize that e-business requires systemic changes in many ways of working.

Earlier, I identified the management job as being to add value through the tasks of planning, organizing, leading and controlling the use of resources. In particular:

• Planning – this deals with the overall direction of the business, and includes forecasting trends, assessing resources and developing objectives. I also introduced Porter’s five forces, widely used as a tool for identifying the competitive forces affecting a business. Information technology can become a source of competitive advantage if a company can use them to strengthen one or more of these forces. Managers also use IS to support their chosen strategy – such as a differentiation or cost leadership. IS can support a cost leadership strategy when companies substitute robotics for labour, use stock control systems to reduce inventory, use online order entry to cut processing costs, or use systems to identify faults that are about to occur to reduce downtime and scrap. A differentiation strategy tries to create uniqueness in the eyes of the customer. Managers can support this by, for example, using the flexibility of computer-aided manufacturing and inventory control systems to meet customers’ unique requirements economically.
• Organization – This is the activity of moving abstract plans closer to reality, by deciding how to allocate time and effort. It is about creating a structure to divide and coordinate work. Information systems enable changes in structure – perhaps centralizing some functions and decentralizing others. For example, Siemens have used the Internet to bring more central control.
• Leading – This is the activity of generating effort and commitment towards meeting objectives. It includes influencing and motivating other people to work in support of the plans. Computer-based IS can have significant effects on work motivation, by changing the tasks and the skills required. >>>
• Controlling – Computer-based monitoring systems can constantly check the performance of an operation, whether the factor being monitored is financial, quality, departmental output or personal performance. Being attentive to changes or trends gives the business an advantage as it can act promptly to change a plan to suit new conditions.

The Web, like other new technologies, also enable processes of international business, since firms can disperse their operations round the globe, and manage them economically from a distance. The technology enables managers to keep in close touch with dispersed operations – though at the same time raising the dilemma between central control and local autonomy. This internationalisation effect also makes possible working interdependently with other organizations: previously this was constrained by physical distances and the limited amount of information that was available about the relationship. As technology has advanced, interdependent operations become more cost effective – most obviously through outsourcing and other forms of joint ventures. Companies can routinely exchange vast amounts of information with suppliers, customers, regulators and many other elements of the value chain. This implies that managers need to develop their skills of managing these links (to foster coordination and trust between network members).

In summary, the Web enables radical changes in organizations and their management. It enables management to erode the boundaries between companies, through the use of inter-organizational systems. They can then develop systems for e-commerce and e-business, ultimately connected with all stages in their supply chain.

As well as transforming the internal context of organizations, the Web also affects the external context (hand in hand with internationalization and other factors) to transform the competitive landscape in which firms operate. The Web has enabled companies offering high-value/low-weight products to open new distribution channels and invade previously protected markets. These forces have collectively meant a shift of economic power from producers to consumers, many of whom now enjoy greater quality, choice and value. Managers wishing to retain customers need continually to seek new ways of adding value to resources if they are to retain their market position. Unless they do so, they will experience a widening performance gap (when people believe that the actual performance of a unit or business is out of line with the level they desire).

I have also considered how people introduce change to alter the context, with management attempting to change elements of its context to encourage behaviours that close the performance gap. For example, when supermarkets introduced on-line shopping, their management needed to change technology, structure, people and business processes to enable staff to deliver the new service. Thus there is an interaction between context and change: with change affecting context but also context (organisational culture) affecting change.

The only constant is change. Heraclitus, 500 BC

A global crisis was predicted by Prof Beddington at the Sustainable Development UK 2009 conference because of the 50% food and energy jump, rise of 30%  of fresh water need and climate change by 2030 when the population will reach 8 billion. The United Nations Environment Programme predicts widespread water shortages across Africa, Europe and Asia by 2025. The amount of fresh water available per head of the population is expected to decline sharply in that time.

In the introduction of the Future Society envisioned by the Science Community report the following problems are identified:  In its “Japan Vision 2050”, the Science Council of Japan (SCJ) points to “global environmental degradation”, “population growth” and “the widening North-South divide” as major global problems of the 21st century that seriously threaten the sustainability of human society. As a way of solving these global problems, the SCJ proposes that steps should be taken to achieve a “balance between environment and economy“. In recent years, the creation of innovations has been attracting interest in many countries. This is due to the expectation that breakthroughs forged by science, technology and innovation could solve these major global problems of the 21st century, and could achieve sustainability for humankind.

The ideal society envisioned in the year 2025 will be a society in which people can live in health and safety, a society in which highly advanced information technology (IT) systems are widely used, a society in which Nature has been restored and local communities revitalized, a society in which efforts are made to solve the problems of the global environment and energy, and a society in which a suitable response has been found for the problems of water and food supply. This Report highlights innovations that should be promoted with a view to realizing this vision.

The suggested solutions are presented in 2 chapters out of which we only selected some of them:

1. The ideal society of the future and the innovations to be promoted
   To achieve a society in which everybody can live in good health by the year 2025, society will need to be given the means to address the problems of declining birthrates, aging and population shrinkage.
   Biotechnology, information technology, and others must be integrated with a view to creating innovations that offer sufficient levels of medical and health care.
   Here, I must add my short article written for the Bionanotechnology lecture about this life-saving technology.

By integrating the development of artificial rainfall technology, desalination plants powered by solar batteries, water-retentive gel technology, and others, it will be possible to prevent desertification and create green areas in deserts.

By launching satellites that can convert solar energy into microwaves and transmitting those microwaves to Earth, photovoltaic power will be generated in outer space and the power used on Earth as a clean and efficient form of energy.

A voice-recognition portable automatic translation device will be developed to assist smooth communication between people from different parts of the world, greatly enhancing cross-cultural understanding.

2. Conditions, environments and systems for creating innovations

Deepening our understanding of science and technology, investigating “social
technology” and the nature of systems that allow science and technology to fully demonstrate their social character

Teachers’ ability to pass down the pleasure and fun of learning to their students should be fostered

As we pointed out in our previous post, there is an imbalance between the technological overdevelopment and the social underdevelopment in our society. As the number of young unemployed reaches a record level in the UK and as the education taxes increase, the situation is not becoming any clearer and confusion and uncertainty reigns. We are going to explore the main factors of these problems and some solutions to them in the following and next post.

Globalization, Uncertainty and Youth in Society by Hans-Peter Blossfeld, Erik Klijzing, Melinda Mills and Karin Kurz published in 2005 seemed to predict the economical problems facing the world 3 years later. The main factors are:

• internalization of markets
• liberalization within nations
• accelerated diffusion of knowledge and the spread of global networks that are connecting all kinds of markets on the globe via new information and communication technologies
• rising importance of markets and their dependece on random shocks occuring somewhere on the globe ( e.g. major scientific discoveries, technical inventions, new consumer fashions, major politcal or economical upsets)

The authors mention that the markets are becoming more dynamic and more less predictable. The national institutions meant for reducing this uncertainty are employment, education and family systems as it can be seen in the figure below.

In the next post we will look at the 2007 Future Society envisioned by the Science Community of Japan report to find solutions to these global problems and to diminish uncertainties.

Game theory assesses the game with a matrix, see below:

There are two rows and two columns relating to each of the two criminals. Each players ‘payoff’ is a ranking of his most preferred outcome. In this game we are to assume that the players main intention would be to reduce the time spent in jail. The core of Game Theory is the opinion that everybody is ultimately selfish and will always do what is best for them, when confronted with the option to do so. ‘ Game theory does not force players to believe that this is case, as critics frequently claim’. GT simply analyses the options and assembles the most likely strategy for each player based on the potential outcomes.

The most preferred outcome in this case is worth 0, the least is -12 and everything else is representative to the game being played. These values are irrelevant to the outcome of the game however, as they can be replaced with other sets of numbers such as 1-4 representing the most and least preferred outcomes see below:

We are able to see from both tables that the preferred outcome for both players is to confess. There are more complex tree structures and matrix diagrams to go, but for now this is Game Theory 101.

The Long Tail – Chris Anderson

The tail refers to the long end of the curve on the graph that depicts the popularity of all products. As you can see from the image above, ‘the head’ is short and contains the most popular of products. These are things that everyone wants, think of it is the top 40 songs in the charts. ‘The tail’ is much longer and consists of every other product in existence (or every song that is not in the top 40!). These things are much less popular, but there is a lot more of them. Money can be made by just selling products from the long tails, you would sell maybe one of each product rather than millions of one product as is seen in ‘the head’.

Companies do still aim for a business model that targets ‘the head’ rather than the long tail. For example radio stations tend to play the popular music at that moment in time, but there is a suggestion from Chris Anderson that the radio is dead.

Why the radio is dead:

1. Radio stations need money so they need advertising and therefore need listeners. To get the most listeners you need to appeal to the majority who like what is popular at that moment in time (‘the head’).
2. The rise of technology in the form of MP3 players. You can listen to any music you want at home, on your PC, on my personal MP3 player and even take that into your car and connect it to a modern car stereo.

Chris Anderson also suggests that “The Long Tail is full of crap.” Which is it…It does contain everything! But the compelling thing about the long tail is that there is something for everybody that they would not be able to find and purchase otherwise.

The Internet and the Long Tail

The internet has given us unprecedented ability to access products never before available so quickly and easily. The Internet is the best example of how globalisation can reach everyone. Someone who makes Doggles (goggles for dogs), or other niche items, can become a millionaire.

A real shop on the high street may have trouble making money if it was taking advantage of the long tail. Not just for the reason that it cannot reach as many customers as an online shop, but for more practical reasons that it would be difficult to sort through all of the many niche products. Being able to search through the ‘crap’ and filter to get to the information you actually want is very much a benefit you can see online. Social media may also help with this, we often see suggestions for other items we might like on online shops like Amazon. Folksonomies consisting of lots of tags collaboratively created may also assist with finding things you want and things that are similar to it.

Does the Internet bring down the barriers for businesses?

Eric Schmidt on the long tail

Is Globalisation good for the small business?

Yes and no, it depends on what you are selling. There is the potential for more sales through having greater access to a wider market. This is especially true for niche items and products where in some situations they may sell nothing if they are not based near their market. The Internet definitely assists with globalisation based on geography. There is also the benefit that selling products online is very cheap to set up and use. Google Analytics is also a nice tool to assist with marketing and improving your own business website.

However, with the benefits of reaching more people, large businesses will also receive this benefit. Large businesses may be able to give better prices due to mass production, but this shouldn’t effect niche businesses where large businesses do not offer so many niche products.

I kick off with a consideration of Google as an illustration of the impact that the Web/Internet has had on competition between businesses. Google exemplifies a company created to use the Web/Internet – it is a pure e-business company built entirely around information technology. Since the search engine serve is free, it generates revenues by providing advertisers with the opportunity to deliver online advertising that is relevant to search results on a page. The advertisements are displayed as sponsored links, with the message appearing alongside search results for appropriate keywords. They are priced on a cost-per-impression basis, whereby advertisers pay a fixed amount each time their ad is viewed. The charge depends on what the advertiser has bid for the keywords, and the more they bid the nearer the top of the page their advertisement will be. Google has rapidly expanded the range of services it offers.

Pure e-businesses such as Google which focuses on search processes (other examples include easyGroup which exclusively sells its services online and eBay which facilitates online transactions) can be contrasted with companies existing before the Web/Internet but which use it to support many of their activities. They may still perform the same functions, but the Web/Internet often enables them to offer new services through an additional distribution channel online (such as banks).

As well as offering new ways of doing business, the Web/Internet also affects the way services are created and delivered. Examples include: delivering media content; satellite freight tracking services; and, social networking sites. Picking up on this last example in particular, social networking sites (types of community systems) enabling people to exchange information have grown very quickly. Setting up blogs is one major use, as are websites through which people with particular interests exchange information. They are significant for businesses even if they extend beyond the firm, since customers can use them to exchange positive or negative information about the company. These applications affect the strategy and competiveness of organization.

The publishing industry (compare music, film and journalism) is an example of a business model founded on information (its gathering, processing and dissemination) for whom the Web is the biggest threat. As digitisation and the Web have reduced the cost of the dissemination of information, it undermines the value proposition of those industries built on its premise.

There is also an internal business impact of the Web in terms of changing various aspects of organisational activity. Common information systems based on the Web/Internet move information between organizations, often having direct links with customers. This is part of a broader assessment of how information technology, in general, is affecting the way that business is carried out.

One way to consider the impact of the Web/Internet on business is by geographic reach. Inter-organisational information systems link organisations electronically by using networks that transcend company boundaries. They enable firms to incorporate buyers, suppliers and partners in the redesign of their key business processes, thereby enhancing productivity, quality, speed and flexibility. New distribution channels can be created and new information-based products and services can be delivered. In addition, many information systems radically alter the balance of power in buyer-supplier relationships, raise barriers to entry and exit and, in many instances, shift the competitive position of industry participants.

From an alternative perspective as an information system, the Web/Internet has had wide effects on managing data, information and knowledge. It can, for example, be used to integrate processes, from suppliers through to customer delivery. Managers must ensure that their organisation makes profitable use of the possibilities that the Web/Internet offers in a way that suits their particular business; and, not just as a technology challenge, but also as a ‘people challenge’. For example, network systems help people to communicate and interact with each other, but they do not define how they should do so (such as who should gain access to which part of the system or who is responsible for responding to customer comments on a blog – these are matters to be implemented and modified in the light of experience).

A useful distinction can be made between intranets and extranets. The former is a private computer network operating within an organisation, using Web/Internet standards and protocols and security protected. An extranet is a closed, collaborative network that uses the Web/Internet to link businesses with specified suppliers, customers or other trading partners. It can be linked to business intranets where information is accessible through a password system.

The simplest Web/Internet applications provide information, enabling customers to view products or other information on a company website; conversely, suppliers use their website to show customers what they can offer. Web/Internet marketplaces are developing in which groups of suppliers in the same industry operate a collective website, making it easier for potential customers to compare terms through a single portal. The next stage is to use the Web/Internet for interaction. Customers enter information and questions about, say, offers and prices. The system then uses the customer information, such as preferred dates and times of travel, to show availability and costs.

Another use is for transactions, when customers buy goods and services through a supplier’s website. Conversely a supplier who sees a purchasing requirement from a business (perhaps expressed as a purchase order on the website) can agree electronically to meet the order. The whole transaction, from accessing information through ordering, delivery and payment, can take place electronically.

Finally, a company achieves integration when it links its own information system to customers and suppliers: it becomes an e-business. Dell Computing is an example. Other companies use the Web/Internet to create and orchestrate active customer communications (e.g. Kraft, Intel and Apple). These communications enable companies to become closer to their customers and to learn how best to improve a product/service much more quickly than is possible through conventional market research techniques.

In conclusion, the Web/Internet is radically challenging many established ways of doing business. Combined with political change, this is creating a wider, often global, market for many goods and services.

Next week, in my final post, I will round up on the topics of e-commerce and e-business and the associated challenges faced by businesses in managing innovation and change.

Cognitive psychology/artificial intelligence along with constructivism in learning. Is it possible to compare constructivism with the concept of a filing system in a computer? For example where we talk about scaffolding in education, is it is similar idea to rural and a filing system in a computer? In a computer, there is a short-term memory as well as a long-term memory. RAM and ROM, and that’s what it’s all about.

Social cognition dealt with a lot on the behaviour of an individual in a social setting. It dealt with how the individual looks at oneself, how they perceive the characteristics of a group, and how they behave accordingly. Could it be that is part of this awareness is what drives the popular uptake of social networking? If this were so, how much of that can be gleaned and adopted for collaborative learning via the Internet?

As I began reading, it became clear to me that the so-called individual cannot be properly and fully understood in abstract isolation from the social. Even in the most minimal of social groups constructed in the laboratory, the group has meaning because of the network of social relationships in which participants are implicated.

I have also come to conclusion that humans do actively construct their own social environment. Exactly how this is done, people seem to differ in their own opinion. Some resting on a realist philosophy of science suggests that it is possible to build a theoretical knowledge of the world which resembles truth. They assert that some theoretical accounts can be judged to be more true than others. However the discursive perspective does not accept that view, and differences between different theoretical accounts arbitrated, by recourse was to empirical data. Rather, one account prevails over another because of the attitude of the social and political processes of negotiating shared understandings of the world, not because of its greater truth value.

I cannot decide between the two viewpoints. However, what is clear to me is that social psychology cannot proceed without all thorough and more adequate analysis of the truth and reality. The bottom line from me is, it may well be the case that one theoretical or empirical account of the social issue prevails because of the social and political processes of negotiating shared understanding rather than because of the ability of data, but that date are themselves are also an important part of the way in which understandings are negotiated.

Social cognitive models describe self as a piece of knowledge and considers how particular kinds of self representation are assessed in different situations. There seems to be a lengthy discussion on the ideal and the ought self as opposed to the actual self. Discrepancies between the ideal and the actual or the ought and the actual are said to be responsible for the positive or negative effects on self-esteem. The plan is that people have for achieving this eternity of cells in the future, as well stay current discrepancies from them, are considered to be important contributors to people’s experience of themselves in the present. In addition, it is noted that people engage in processes of self-evaluation and self regulation, the assessment of how one is doing compared to others, and intentional efforts to modify aspects of one’s self. All these models have something to do with the ways in which the knowledge that people have about themselves becomes a relevant in particular circumstances, and how these guides are their behaviour accordingly.

On the other hand, social identity as a contrasting model considers how the social groups of which we are members impact on our sense of self. According to this model, all experiences in children live Kurds continuously from interpersonal to intergroup interaction. It is believed that there is the further we move towards the intergroup situation, the more depersonalise our sense of self becomes. In other words, we begin to think of ourselves more and more in terms of those characteristics that we share with other group members. This in turn is closely linked to personal attitudes and perception of group identity.

This new model has led to further research into ways that people share representations of self within the groups. In particular, they consider the ways in which socially shared representations of the self and of the social groups that contribute to one’s sense of identity shape the context within which people develop their self concepts. Of course, individuals may differ in the extent to which elements of particular social representations are incorporated into their self concepts, the importance of social representations in forming a shorter and vermin surrounding these selves means that social representations cannot be reduced to individual difference variables.

Finally, I have touched on the work of social constructionist. Some seem to believe that the conditions of contemporary life are undermining the notion of an integrated and stable self. However, others have also argued that the constructed the nature of the self is being reviewed in the ordinary experiences of everyday life, and is provoking the prices as the ontological basis of cells apparently unravels. Therefore, the challenge for people in this world is to construct a sense of identity which does not require the self to be a faithful reflection of inner capacities and qualities but which, rather, sees the self as a constructed achievement of relational social life.

Moving on

This is my last reading based post on this blog. In view of the time left, my next blog will focus on summarising and recollecting what I have learned so far, and will begin to move towards a synthesis version of all the information presented. In particular, these will be discussed or analysed in relation to E learning.

Marketing can be conducted a different levels of segmentation:

Mass-marketing – no segmentation.  This is not necessarily a bad strategy.  It spreads costs across the largest possible number of customers and makes for a consistent brand image.  It does however tend to lead to competing on price which may lead to low profit margins.

Segmented markets – this would be something like the over 55s – quite broad and usually with a lot of competitors – but nevertheless defining some characteristics of the market e.g. interested in holidays during the school term, not interested in low cost mortgages or nappies!

Niche marketing – quite specific groups within a market segment such as the over 55s gay and lesbian niche (yes there are companies addressing this niche).  Often an unexpected group with little or no competition.

Local marketing – marketing to a specific town or even store.  A supermarket chain may authorise local managers to stock and promote products specific to their store.  Can be effective but have to be wary of costs and diluting brand.

Individual marketing – this has always existed at a local level.  If the village shop stocks vegemite because you are the one Australian in the village who buys it – then that is individual marketing.  Famously the web has enabled large companies to do mass customisation i.e. mass individual marketing.  The paradigm example being Amazon.

How does this relate to my research question? The trend in science communication with the public over recent years has been to move away from science communication – which is a mass market one way process – tell them the truth which we scientists are the authorities on – to public engagement. Learn how the public uses scientific knowledge and how local knowledge can integrate with and enhance scientific knowledge.  This implies segmentation – possibly down to the individual marketing level.

As mentioned in my post on management studies from a few weeks’ back, right strategies (the ways in which organizations address their fundamental challenges over the medium to long-term) are crucial for businesses to survive and beat the competition. Strategic-minded thinking includes comprehensive consideration and reflection upon a business’ mission statement and its vision. For both economists and management theorists, therefore, the aims of a business determines its strategy. Equally relevant, however, for both disciplines are internal capabilities and industry structure/conditions.

Like management theory, economists adopt Porter’s five forces model of competition (Michael Porter, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, 1980) which set out to identify those factors which are likely to affect an organization’s competitiveness. These five forces are:

• The bargaining power of suppliers
• The bargaining power of buyers
• The threat of potential new entrants
• The threat of substitutes
• The extent of competitive rivalry

I will be returning to these five forces next week in the context of considering, specifically, how they apply to the effects of the Web. In the meantime, it is worth pointing out that the five forces model does have limitations. For example, it is a largely static model whereas conditions change over time requiring strategy to evolve over time. Notably, also, Porter’s model suggests that success is dependent on competition rather than the potential for collaboration and cooperation (such as with those downstream vertically from a supplier).

Value chain analysis is also closely linked to the five forces model (according to the definition of Sloman, Hinde and Garratt, value chain “shows how value is added to a product as it moves through each stage of production from the raw material stage to its purchase by the final consumer”). Analysis of the value chain involves evaluating how each of the various operations within and around an organization contributes to the competitive position of the business). Ultimately it is these value-creating activities, which can be primary or support activities, that shape a firm’s strategic capabilities.

Turning to growth strategy, it is worth making a nod here to vertical integration (this will become more relevant when considering the effects of the Web in facilitating disintermediation of value chains over the next two weeks). There are a variety of reasons why forward or backward vertical integration might lead to cost savings (such as through economies of scope and scale), including: production economies; coordination economies; managerial economies; and financial economies. The major problem with vertical integration as a form of expansion is that the security it gives the business may reduce its ability to respond to changing market demands.

Other points of comparison and dissimilarity between management and economics can start to be drawn. For example, a point of difference is economics’ focus on theories related to short-term/long-term profit maximization. There is much debate among economists about whether profit-maximizing theories of the firm are unrealistic (largely due to a lack of information or lack of motivation). This focus is where costs concepts and graphs (demand curves in particular) come in.

A more practical illustration given by Sloman, Hinde and Garratt in respect of the search for profits is the video games war where there are high costs, but also high rewards, from a long-term perspective. In considering the secret of success in the market, online gaming capability and global connectivity are significant factors. Moreover, connection to the internet has facilitated a move towards the use of consoles as ‘digital entertainment centres’, in which users can download content. These developments are likely to continue as long as broadband internet connectivity improves and remains fairly cheap to use.

Finally, in economics, there are various theories of strategic choice (such as cost leadership, differentiation and focus strategy). These strategies can be combined. For example, Amazon had a clear niche market focus strategy – to sell books at knockdown prices to online customers – and this has become a mass market with the spread of the Web and due to lower costs.

Next week, I want to move the focus firmly onto the impact of the Web on business competition as I move on from broad principles of management/economics to specifics. I will kick off with a consideration of Google’s business model.

In short, the answer is no. Even though intellectual goods aren’t scarce like land or labour, they are made artificially scarce through government policy. This creates a market for them.

To see why intellectual goods aren’t scarce, consider this quote from Benjamin Franklin (17??)

“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.

Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.”

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Isaac McPherson, 13 August 1813

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html

An important difference between intellectual property and non-intellectual property (such as money, houses or land) is that the former tend to be what economists call non-rival while the latter tend to be rival. A rival good cannot be used by one without diminishing the ability of another to use it. My consumption of a pizza prevents you from consuming the same pizza. My use of an idea, a design or technique, on the other hand, does not diminish your ability to use that same idea (so long as in implementing the idea I do not use up the only resources available to implement that idea). We can both use the idea of a pizza to make our own individual pizzas without interfering with each other. Such intellectual goods are non-rival – they can be enjoyed by more than one person at the same time without losing value.

This difference is not absolute, however. Some non-intellectual goods are non-rival. Traditional public goods, such as clean air, are non-rival, but they are certainly not intellectual goods. However, most goods that are traditionally the objects of property rights, (money, houses, land) are rival. Similar qualifications apply to intellectual goods, which can sometimes be rival in certain ways. We might call them non-rival in consumption; your ability to consume an intellectual good is not affected by my consuming the same intellectual good. However, your ability to use the good in other ways may be affected by my use of it. My ability to profit from stockmarket tips (which I would classify as intellectual goods) depends on how many other people are using the same tips. My ability to profit from selling you a book depends on whether or not you have already read it.  More generally, the ability to profit from an intellectual good is compromised if others are able to consume it for free. However, with these qualifications in mind, two generalisations can be made. Intellectual goods tend to be non-rival, at least in consumption. In contrast, the kind of non-intellectual goods that are typically the objects of property rights – houses, land, vegetables – are rival.

A popular defence of intellectual property takes the maximisation of innovation as the relevant end. This version is assumed in the economic literature and reflected in the wording of United States law on intellectual property:

“to Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

Another kind of defence takes the protection of individual creator’s rights as the most important thing an intellectual property regime exists to do. According to this view, people have the right to control the things they create with their mind. This includes preventing others from using their ideas.

• How the prices of labour, capital and land are set, and how they are used to allocate resources
• How the financial markets behave and how they allocate capital to the rest of the economy
• Distribution of income and how the poor might be helped without reducing growth
• Impact of government activities on growth
• Studying swings in production and unemployment and how policies can encourage growth
• International trade
• Growth in developing countries and how to encourage efficient use of resources

Returning to the above definition, we can see that without scarcity – i.e. if there were always enough goods to satisfy every person’s every desire – there would be no need for economics, because everybody could just take what they want and need without depriving anyone else. The desire for efficiency is also essential to economics; if we didn’t care about satisfying as many needs and desires as possible, then we wouldn’t need economics to tell us how to most efficiently distribute scarce resources. The economy is producing efficiently ‘when it cannot increase the economic welfare of one person without making someone else worse off’.

A QUESTION/ DIGRESSION

As an aside, I disagree with / don’t understand this definition. Imagine an economy where most of the resources are in the hands of one person (call him Bill). Imagine, reasonably, that in such an economy no-one’s economic welfare could be increased without making Bill worse off. According to Samuelson’s definition, then, this society is efficient. But surely, you want a notion of efficiency which allows decreases in welfare of one person so long as they result in proportionally greater increases in the welfare of others. If Bill’s income tax for the year is £1 million, and that revenue allows government spending, which stimulates GDP, perhaps it could make 10,000 people £20 richer – a net gain for society. Wouldn’t this be a more efficient use of resources?

From a Google search, I think the notion of ‘pareto-optimal’ captures my pre-theoretical intuition about efficiency – where a pareto-optimal situation is one in which no individual’s welfare can be improved without making another individual’s welfare proportionally even worse off. Imagine that taxing Bill £1 million makes 9,999 other people £10 richer. But this would not count as pareto-optimal, because Bill would have lost more than the combined gains of others (£1 million vs £99,990). That’s what I had imagined an economist’s notion of efficiency referred to, before reading Samuelson. But perhaps I’m jumping the gun here!

…back on topic:

Microeconomics is the study of individual entities such as markets, firms and households. It considers how individual prices are set, the determination of prices of land, labour and capital, and market efficiency.

Macroeconomics came around in the 1930′s when John Maynard Keynes decided to look at the overall performance of the economy. He analysed what causes unemployment and downturns, investment and consumption, the management of money and interest rates by central banks, and why some economies thrive and others fail. These days the distinction between the two is less important, with microeconomics being applied to studying unemployment and inflation.

Economists observe current economic phenomena as well as historic data and make theoretical predictions and broad generalisations on that basis. They also use econometrics, which is the application of statistical analysis to economic data, allowing them to identify the relationships between different factors.

The kind of economy one has depends on three things:
• What goods should be produced
• How should they be produced
• For whom will they be produced

Factors of production are things that are used to create goods and services, and come in three categories:
• Land (and other natural resources)
• Labour – human time
• Capital – goods which can be used to create new goods

“attitudes are defined at least implicitly as responses that locate ‘objects of thought’ on ‘dimensions of judgement’ ” (McGuire, 1985, p.239)

“an attitude is a general and enduring positive or negative feeling about some person, object or issue” (Petty and Cacipoppo, 1996, p.7)

It is interesting to see from this definition that we all have an attitude toward something. It is normal. Most importantly, having an attitude in an academic sense is not wrong. An attitude can be positive or negative. Even negative attitude is not always wrong. For example, having a negative attitude toward murder is generally socially acceptable. This concept of right and wrong, or social acceptance brings us to another closely related topic: Cognition and Behavioural relationship.

Cognition and Behavioural Relationship



The above model is commonly known as the ABC model for obvious reason. This model was first proposed by Hilgard in 1980 and has since became the fundamental framework for further research. For instance, many have investigated the relationship between behaviour and beliefs. It has been found that behaviours are modified by the peers, identity of self with the peers and perceived social norms.

This is an interesting findings because it backs up the social concept of “peer pressure” and shed light on how these pressures function/ affect an individual. The book then went on to discussion several theories regarding the factors involved, such as: theory of reasoned action, and planned behaviour, social identity, self-categorisation, social norms, group definition and discursive theories.

Time would fail me if I was to detail all of them here. It should be sufficient to say that these theories were used to describe the results obtained from various experiments. It is particularly interesting to see how these theories interact with each other and compliments each other.

Moving On

In view of the time remaining, I will be reading up more on self and identity as I have found this topic rather interesting. That will then be my last post based on text book reading. Further posts will concentrate on multidisciplinary approach and migrate towards final report style thinking/ writing/ blogging.

I was going to use economics as a focus, as I think it perhaps represents something that might be wrong with how we talk about knowledge in general and reasons for studying, working together, collaborating – ultimately: trust.

A lot of work that we do is tied into research programs that are underwritten by governments as being part of some economic promise. For example, the last Labour government’s education policy was predicated partly on the premise (stemming from research in the 1950s that re-emerged in the 1970s (need to find and cite)) that countries with a more highly educated population tend to do better economically. Thus following Tomlinson’s recommendations, the Diploma system was introduced, only partially, which in fact had the consequence of introducing a system that did the opposite of what he had intended.

This however, being loosely accepted: that the more highly educated a population is, the more wealthy their country, it would seem to follow that it makes sense to make use of emerging technologies to help to educate this population. There is a body of research on this – how technology can be ubiquitous; it can get to the places that teachers can’t, and can help to make learning something that is always ‘on’.

There are actually so many problems with these assertions that it would take a whole other blog post, or perhaps even, essay, or perhaps even, thesis to go into them – but I’m happy to accept that 1) learning is basically a Good Thing and that 2) technology can help to mediate it. I might perhaps then reluctantly accept that it’s possible that if you have a lot of learning, you might end up creating more wealth for your country, however some of the data for this is possibly correlative rather than strongly causal.

But to get back to my original question, it is whether there might be said to be an economics of ontologies? Could we find out whether there are some subjects that lend themselves, via their objects of knowledge to be shared and studied on the web? And that therefore are more accessible and therefore might end up generating more money?

It seems at first glance, that physics might be one of these subjects. Physics research can be large scale and tend to be carried out by large communities who share resources.  Is there something about the nature of physics that makes people more likely to collaborate? Are they perhaps true seekers after knowledge who are less motivated by economics / reward than say, chemists? (Apologies to all you pioneering, truth-seeking chemists out there.) Would this then mean that by the very nature of a subject, if it attracts more people who care more about discovery, or truth, then they may well as a result, collaborate more, and could easily use technology in order to do this, but they care less about creating wealth, so that all web-based subjects that can easily or practically use the web to be studied are never going to be worth funding by governments who only care about short-term goals?

This seems on the face of it, rather facile, but it does intersect with another debate about why there still seem to be less girls studying physics, and in general, science subjects. (This debate appears worldwide, but I shall for now confine myself to the UK.) There was recently some speculation about whether the Big Bang Theory was attracting more people to the subject, but this generated some scathing responses from researchers who had determined that take up of physics was in fact governed by early influences.

In Castells‘ last volume of his trilogy, End of Millenium, the author begins with examining the Soviet Union collapse, then discusses the problems faced by Africa and the so called rise of the fourth world as a result of social exclusion. Africa is presented as the exponent for the Fourth World which consists in millions of homeless, incarcerated, prostituted, criminalized, brutalized, stigmatized, sick, and illiterate persons. [..] But, everywhere they are growing in number, and increasing in visibility, as the selective triage of the information capitalism, and the political breakdown of the welfare state, intensify social exclusion. In the current historical context, the rise of the Fourth World is inseparable from the rise of informational, global capitalism. Probably, some good examples in the western world would be the French riots in 2005 or UK riots of this year.

On the other side is the example of Japan where the income inequality is one of the lowest levels in the world. Although the social landscape was transformed by modernizing without Westernizing, Japan’s cultural identity was preserved. We discussed the importance of cultural attibutes of the information society in our previous post about The Power of Identity.

The most fundamental political liberation is for people to free themselves from uncritical adherence to theoretical or ideological schemes, to construct their practice on the basis of their experience, while using whatever information or analysis is available to them, from a variety of sources. [..] The dream of Enlightenment, that reason and science would solve the problems of humankind, is within reach. Yet there is an extraordinary gap between our technological overdevelopment and our social underdevelopment. Our economy, society, and culture are built on interests, values , institutions, and systems of representation that, by and large, limit collective creativity, confiscate the harvest of information technology and deviate our energy into self-destructive confrontation. [..] There is nothing that cannot be changed by conscious, purpseive social action, provided with information, and supported by legitimacy. If people are informed, active, and communicate throughout the world; if business assumes its social responsability; if the media become the messengers, rather than the message; if political actors react agains cynicism, and resoter belief in democracy; if culture is reconstructed from experience; if humankind feels the solidarity of the species thoughout the globe [..] maybe then, we may, at last, be able to live and let live, love and be loved.

We explored Castells views, the marxist leading analyst of the Information Age and the Network Society. In the following posts we will look into a more scientific book called Globalization, Uncertainty and Youth in Society by Hans-Peter Blossfeld, Erik Klijzing, Melinda Mills and Karin Kurz, in order to identify some key problems of our current society and find solutions to them.

1)      Empirical Research: using data collected by the various methods we described before sociologists use statistical analysis to draw conclusions about social class, gender inequality etc.

2)      Theorists:  these sociologists try to develop an understanding and context for the empirical research.  To theorise qualitative methods of research are employed and the social theorists paints a picture which explains why the world is the way it is.

3)      Critics:  this type of sociologist criticise common sense views of the world and carefully dissect social norms which are taken for granted.

4)      Educators: they provide students, governments, corporations with information and advice about human interaction, in particular these types of sociologists are found in the media and they try to drive change.

There are several other roles which a sociologist might take and they often assume different combinations of the four roles described above.

Limitations of Sociology

Sociology is the study of human interaction and society, but human interactions and society are part of a changing evolving world.  Furthermore a sociologist studies a moving target, any finding as part of some empirical research or a theory may only be relevant for a limited time. 

Also, however hard they try; sociologists cannot look on the world objectively.  Part of the study of the social is the study of you, thus it is hard to part with the preconceptions about society which we are born with.  For example, on a very basic level, it is unlikely for a Chinese and an American sociologist to share a similar theoretical approach.

Another limitation is that social knowledge or theory is fed back into society and then will affect that society.  For example, evidence that crime rates are soaring makes the population more aware of crime so they report more crimes; a recursive process.

The museums by themselves have different processes and meanings for the population and institutions.  Through these classifications of museums, we can provide a more accurate linkage in between the object of study (or exhibited) and the audience.

Cultural Theory

Through contemporary cultural theory we can incorporate all sort of art practices into the everyday life. This will create our culture. So culture is becoming something less separatist in which art or culture itself no longer belongs to the educated or rich classes. The cultural theory is now being implemented more and more within museums, specially in social history and contemporary collections (Macdondald, 2011). Contemporary cultural theory seeks to utilize culture from a pluralistic perspective.

We inhabit a culture in the sense that we share a certain amount of knowledge and understanding about our environment with others.

We have evolved into a society that shares what Stuart Hall (1997: 18) in Macdonald (2011:18) defines “cultural maps” which makes us question or make judgements the value, status and legitimacy of products or cultural practices.

Within museums we are trying to materialize values and trying to give meaning to objects. For this reason museums within cultural theory are public spaces in which their values and the culture creation is always under debate.

Main theoretical apporach

In order to give meaning to something, we depend on a social construction of a signifying system that creates a shared understanding. The semiotic research of Ferdinand de Saussure, indicates that signifiers and signifieds relate arbitrarily. This means that perhaps the meaning or classification (curation) system to an object could be completely different  from the perspective of a different culture.

When an artifact is being curated, this is attached or linked to an interpretation system that could be attached to a single cultural ‘string’.  Taking the post-structuralist approach, we can provide a structure of interpretation that adapts to the cultural needs of the artifact or the audience. The attempt to materialize culture and present how an object can change through time,  tends to fit to the vision of the post-structuralist thinking.

For this project this could be the way in which post-structuralism becomes the main way of presenting an object of study.  A multi curated object presented from different cultural backgrounds and within different cultural audiences. Although the object can be presented with several meanings, “poststructuralist theory does not automatically imply that the material world ceases to exist” (Macdonald, 2011:21), but it will be understood from different perspectives or meanings.

V&A Mark Lane Archway (Gallery 49)

The Object

Before photography, multimedia and all the new technologies, the object by itself was the way to present the culture or places which it came from. For this reason I think that the object presented should contain enough information to communicate or represent the specific qualities of a culture. When the object is unique it will be a challenge to transmit the embedded information to a replica that could be presented somewhere else.  The use of modern manufacture technology and prototype making can assist with this process.  But it will be the correct adaptation of the object and its environment what will be able to make the correct communication to the audience possible.

Bibliography

MACDONALD, S. 2011. A companion to museum studies, Malden, MA ; Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell.

PEARCE, S. 2001. Interpreting Objects and Collections, Andover, Routledge, 2001.

As outlined in my posts on management studies from previous weeks, firms are greatly affected by market environments (particularly when it comes to pricing strategies). The more competitive the market, the greater the domination of the market over firms (e.g. resulting in ‘price takers’ nearer the model of the ‘perfectly competitive’ market when price is entirely outside a firm’s control, rather than ‘price setters’ nearer the model of the monopolistic, ‘imperfect’ market).

Although price is often at the heart of competitive strategy, the significance of non-price factors of competition should also not be underestimated. By differentiating one firm’s products from another’s, such as through design and marketing/advertising, firms seek to influence demand. Of course, the most dramatic growth in advertising expenditure over the last decade or so is on the internet (which increased from virtually nothing in 1998 to nearly 20% of all UK total advertising expenditure in 2008 based on data in the Advertising Strategic Yearbook 2009).

The better a firm’s knowledge of a market, the better it will be able to plan its output to meet demand. In particular, knowledge related to the size and shape of current and future demand choices by consumers is critical to the investment decisions that businesses make (Philip Collins, OFT Chairman, Speech 2009). Such predictions include the strength of demand for a firm’s products followed by responsiveness to any changes in consumer tastes (particularly when the economic environment is uncertain). Collecting data on consumer behavior is therefore highly valued by businesses, assuming it can be analyzed properly so it can be used to estimate price elasticity and forecast market trends and changes in demand. Price elasticity as a concept is the measure of the responsiveness of quantity demanded to a change in price. Methods for measurement include market observations, market surveys and market experiments.

Conversely, consumers face a similar problem when they have imperfect information about, in particular complex, products/services. In finding ways for consumers to trust information provided by sellers, establishing a reputation and third parties helping firms to signal high quality can assist. For example, Sloman, Hinde and Garratt refer to the online auction site eBay providing a feedback system for buyers and sellers so they can register their happiness or otherwise with sales.

The supply side of the market is just as important as the demand side. Businesses can increase their profitability by increasing their revenue or by reducing their costs of production. Both these concepts are subject to economic theorizing to discover the particular output at which profits are maximized. The answer in any one case is heavily dependent on the amount of competition in the market which is measured, in turn, by concentration levels.

E-commerce is a force at work undermining concentration (dominance by large consumers) and bringing more competition to markets. Its effects include:

• Bringing larger numbers of new, small firms to the market (‘business to consumer’/B2C and ‘business to business’/B2B e-commerce models), which can take advantage of lower start-up and marketing costs.

• Opening up competition to global products and prices, resulting in firms’ demand curves becoming more price elastic particularly when transport costs are low.

• Adding to consumer knowledge, through greater price transparency (e.g. through price comparison websites) and online shopping agents giving greater information on product availability and quality.

• Encouraging innovation, which improves product quality and range.

On the other hand, e-commerce disadvantages still include – for example – issues around delivery (such as timing) and payment security. Furthermore, larger producers may still be able to undercut small firms based on low cost savings from economies of scale.

Sloman, Hinde and Garratt provide an interesting case study of the challenges to Microsoft by the antitrust authorities in the EU and the US – something which I am very familiar with as a former competition lawyer. This example is illustrative of the balancing exercise required when assessing the virtues of allowing very large firms to be unfettered in terms of their potential exclusionary practices, versus allowing smaller firms a more even playing field to challenge such large firms which could dampen the latter’s investment in innovation over the long-term.

Of course, new internet-only firms (such as Facebook and Google) have very different business models from that of Microsoft, including the provision of numerous free products as part of a desire to create large networks of users and heavy dependence on tailored advertising revenues.

Next week, I will look at business strategy this time from an economic (rather than management) perspective.

His opening example is on reversing the ‘game’ we play when we go to buy a car. When you sit in front of a salesperson in a car showroom they are holding all the cars, at the end of the deal they ask you how much you want to pay – which might require the salesperson to ‘go and check with the manager’ and you might think you are getting a good deal. Mesquita’s plan is about reversing the power in the game, which he, his family and his students use when buying a (new) car. First you research the car, its average value and be very specific about which model you want and what extras you want with it. Then the fun begins; call up every dealer with that car and starting with the first one you say… ‘At 5pm today i will be buying [the car], I am calling every dealer in the area and whoever gives me the cheapest price will get the check.’ Some dealers refuse to ‘play’ but most go with it, it changes the situation and requires the dealers to do what is in their own interest – offer the cheapest price without knowing what they are offering it against. A blind auction if you will, but with the essential ingredient of game theory at the centre; everyone acts in their own best interest.

Swirling around in my mind with all this my recently gained knowledge and some understanding of Actor Network Theory, also (of course) are the constant swirling thoughts of data visualisation. I am off to play with Processing and some XML stuff, having decided that Logic will be the subject of my next, imminent post.

Methodology

Although sociology is also a social science similar to my other subject choice of economics they work in different ways. Economics uses data to predict future spending etc, but sociologists are researchers and theorists. There is a degree of overlap, but the range of sociology is much wider and so sociology methods are more varied. Researchers find data, from experiments or data from everyday life (such as population statistics or Census data), and use is to draw conclusions about the world and society, Theorists go further and want to understand how this data fits into ‘the grand scheme of things’ and want deeper understanding of what is going on. Data alone cannot speak for itself and a wider understanding is necessary to gain real insight from the data. Theorists in sociology develop these wider ideas and help develop theoretical explanations for the data and how it fits in the world.

Although there can be some problems with the way sociology is studied. Firstly they are part of a changing world, one finding may be true one day, but not the next. Secondly, sociologists are part of society so it is difficult to remove oneself from what you are studying. Lastly, sociology knowledge becomes parts of society as it is known and therefore changes society. This cycle of knowledge has an impact of society itself.

Origins of Sociology

The Enlightenment caused a change in society. There was a move to rational thinking, empiricism and science and there was more focus on the individual.

Auguste Comte wanted to understand the ‘human drama’ of his time. He believed that if people had the knowledge of how society operates they would be able to build a better future. He divided his new discipline into two parts: how society is held together; and how society changes. From the Latin ‘to study society’ Comte descried his study as sociology.

Previous to Comte philosophers had been imagining the ideal society, not measuring and analysing society as it was. Comte wanted to develop a scientific approach to study society, thus he was proponent of Positism – to understand the world based on science.

Society is always changing and there have been many great leaps in society and how we look at it, for example during the Industrial revolutions. However, there is a more recent change that is of current interest to my research question: The Cyber Revolution. The Cyber Revolution is linked to the development of digital technology and the spread of information technologies that affect how we communicate and how it has become mainstream. The World Wide Web is a great example of this, launching recently in 1991 it is already embedded in all of our lives and is considered an international technology. This changes surrounding this digital age is a rapid change with large effects on society. The textbook tries to break down these changes:

The Digital Age: The shift of computerisation of life. The way there are computers is most everyday things.

The Cyborg Age: The way humans are becoming more adapted to using these technologies.

The Information Age: The rapid growth of production and availability of information and data.

The Network Society: The change in the way we are networked together through mobile phone and the internet.

The Virtual Age: The mediated nature of reality. We live in a world that is increasingly less direct and instead of face-to-face we communicate through computers and phones.

Another large aspect of sociology is that there are different theoretical perspectives of looking at things which guides thinking and research. Below is a simplified map of Western sociological theory, 1700-2000.

Classical/Traditional Perspectives of Sociology

Functionalism

‘Functionalism is a framework for building theory that sees society as a complex system those parts work together and interconnect.’ This perspective looks as social structure (finding stable patterns of human behaviour) and social function (all social structures have a function in society, either it be a handshake of family life). Merton also speaks of social dysfunctions, which cover any social patterns that have undesirable consequences for the operation of society. The critique for this perspective is that although this perspective was dominant until recently it presumes that society is stable and orderly. It also does not take into consideration inequality, such as class/gender/ethnicity issues.

Conflict perspective

‘The conflict perspective is a framework for building theory that sees society as an arena of differences and inequalities that generate conflict and change.’ This perspective complements Functionalism as it focuses on division and inequality. The critique of this perspective is basically the opposite of the Functionalism critique. The Conflict perspective glosses over the shared values and interdependence in society and focuses on the conflict and inequality. Both the Conflict and the Functionalist perspectives could also be criticised for being too broad and glossing over the smaller factors that make differences in society such as family and class.

Social action perspective

Contrary to the broad views of society seen in both Functionalist and Conflict perspective, the Social action perspective focuses on the smaller factors. One founder of social action theory is Max Weber who emphasised looking at a setting from the point of view of the people in it. His approach emphasised how human meaning and action shape society. A critique for this perspective is that this perspective helps us understand how people experience society and how they do things together. But by focusing on these smaller details broader social structures may be missed.

There are also contemporary perspectives such as feminism (looking as gender difference), Anti-racism (looking at race differences), postmodernism (looking at differences and complexities) and globalisation (looking at the larger world and how societies fit in it). The next post will further explore globalisation because I believe it is an important in relation to my research question. The globalisation of industry and society may lend some answers to why independent music can survive if the music industry has been made global.

Information and graphs summarised from:

Macionis, J.J. & Plummer, K. (2008). Sociology. A global introduction. Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.

O’brien (2007) defines an Information system (IS) as any kind of organized combination of people, hardware, software, communications network, data resources, and policies and procedures that stores, retrieves, transforms, and disseminates information in an organization.

The Framework.

There are 5 main areas that build the framework for the information systems.  All these elements play an important role in the process of building the research project.

Foundation Concepts

To develop an information system, it is important to understand the behavioral, technical, business and managerial elements in order to develop the components for the Information System.

Information Technologies

In this area we will focus on the hardware, software, networks and data management that will affect the project in regard of its development, concept development and management.

Business Applications

Concepts like e-commerce can influence or provide ways of how the management can be implemented in an Information System like the one required for the Museum application.

Developments Processes

This will be focusing on the planning, development and implementation of the system(s) to meet the requirements of the problem or situation.

Management Challenges

Through this process, we will focus on delivering and managing effectively the information technologies at the end-user, business or int this case a multiuser/global institution.

Inside Management Systems

There are several types of Information Systems. They are usually classified into two different groups: Operations Support Systems and Management Support Systems.

Operation Support Systems:

• Specialized Processing Systems
• Transaction Processing Systems
• Process Control Systems
• Enterprise Collaboration Systems

Management Support Systems:

• Management Information Systems
• Decision Support Systems
• Executive Information Systems
• Specialized Processing Systems

There are five major resources focusing on the relationship with the IS and the products (O’brien, 2007)

• People Resources
  • Specialists – software developers or system operators
  • End Users – the person who uses the IS
• Hardware Resources
  • Machines – computers, monitors, drives, printers or scanners
  • Media – Storage, disks or paper forms
• Software Resources
  • Programs – operating systems, editors or payroll applications
  • Procedures – data entry procedures, error correction, paycheck distribution procedures
• Data Resources
  • Communication media, communication processors, network access, control software
• Information Products
  • Management reports, business visual display and paper forms

All these elements and areas can help us to visualize the complexity of the development of an Information System. We need to know what do we want from the organisation (system) to do? An organisation that includes people is more complex to manage than one that doesn’t (Wilson, 2001). For this, it is important to analyse the system implemented.  Users or a human response will vary which will vary the judgement of the system.

To avoid judging problems we have to follow a specific methodology.  We have to define a problem first of all. From here we can start gathering the appropriate techniques to solve this problem. The implementation or application of these techniques will allow us to go to the next step if effective or back to the previous one if unsuccessful. We also have to analyse the cost/effective solution.  After these steps we can finally implement the solution.

So we have to solve a problem. But, who is defining the problem. What seems to be problematic for one person can not appar to be so for another one. Wilson (2001) explains that instead of focusing on a person’s problem or a problem, we have to focus on defining a situation that is problematic. I believe this will help the project not to isolate on a single person’s perspective.

Bibliography

O’BRIEN, J. A. & MARAKAS, G. M. 2007. Introduction to information systems, Boston, Mass., McGraw-Hill.

WILSON, B. B. 2001. Soft systems methodology conceptual model building and its contribution, Chichester ;, Wiley,.

Macionis is a professor of sociology and a Prentice Hall distinguished scholar and works at Kenyon College in Ohio and is considered one of the most prestigious liberal arts colleges in the U.S.  Professor Ken Plummer works at the University of Essex.

Sociology is the study of the forces of social integration and how they change in space and time.  According to Macionis and Plummer sociology is

“the systematic, sceptical and critical study of the social.”

So it challenges preconceived ideas about the world like any decent science but what is the social?  For example we mostly think of ourselves as individuals who make our own decisions whereas many sociologists, such as Durkheim (1858-1917), believe that many of the decisions we make are contingent on social factors.   Durkenheim noticed a correlation between the less socially integrated (single people, men, the rich) and higher suicide rates.  He argued that people would have made different decisions had they been born a different gender, social class, in another time or another space.   

Sociologists are interested in the way that different groups (ages, gender, racial etc.) are affected by society as a whole.  In particular, the definition of gender or age or race differs depending on location in space and time.  For example in the Victorian era in Britain, women were expected to dress much more conservatively than they are today.  Maconis and Plummer sum this up succinctly,

“At the broadest level, sociology sets out to show the patterns and processes by which society shapes what we do.”

I think that the word “show” here is very important, it deftly avoids the question, as a sociologist, am I required changing the world or just observe it?  Or are critical observations enough to change it?

Methodology

Sociologists claim some statement and then build up an argument which supports this statement.  To build an effective argument sociologists use a variety of methods such as case studies, statistical analysis, questionnaires and interviews.  For example Durkenheim (above) used statistics to back up his claim that individual decisions are often not that individual and are contingent upon society

This is a vital concept if we are to understand how people will react to information we provide via the web. We have to be wary of using our schema and our own motivations to interpret what we see and try to understand the likely schema and motivations of potential audiences. If we provide information on MMR and autism then it is not sufficient to give people the facts. We need to understand who the target audience is and “where they are coming from”. Very likely we have to provide the motivation to stop them relying on prior schema and become less like cognitive misers.

The web as a medium can be seen as both a challenge and an opportunity in this respect. The “cues-filtered out” model implies that we may have less opportunity to understand the schema of our audience and motivate them. On the other hand, unlike say television, the web does give the opportunity to interact and customise the way information is presented. So at least there is the potential to address a large audience in a customised way.

Social Psychology seems to resonate in all sorts of ways.

I am primarily interested in scientists public engagement with science and over the last couple of weeks this has become a bit more precise – how can the scientific community use the web to help non-experts distinguish good science from non-science.

Social psychology hits because:

1) Subject matter – it studies (among other things) how people form opinions and attitudes and how they communicate

2) Methodology – social psychology combines qualitative and quantitative methods in a way I find convincing.  In particular it recognises the primacy of the experiment as a method and that  with only qualitative data you have ideas but not evidence.

3) It is an example – it is itself a science which needs undertake public engagement and differentiate science from non-science.  In fact it is more prone than most sciences to misinterpretation.

So Social Psychology here we go.

The scientific method

The hypothetico-deductive aspect of the scientific method focuses on the observation.  This observation leads to a guess or logical guess called the hypothesis that tries to explain how a system works.  From there, some predictions are made from this hypothesis and the experimentation or tests begin to try to prove it.

After the experimentation, the results can only be either consistent or inconsistent with the hypothesis.

These sets of experimentation will allow the hypothesis to be more consistent with the implementation of the project.  But it is important to link the results properly with the hypothesis.  This is where the statistics come in.

Statistics

Statistics are use in many different industries. Statistics will allow us to make decisions about large numbers of subjects which we can be able to group into some sort of systems.  This way we can see patterns or data that is not visible through ‘static’ numbers.

It is extremely important to understand how statistics work.  This is due to the necessity to analyse the information inside them.  If we can not produce a proper statistical model, perhaps we won’t be able to make a good decision about our project. Also, if we can not understand statistics, there is no way we can see errors or disprove a theory or result.

Graphs

Once we have developed the statistical models we also have the option of visualizing this data. Or perhaps analyzing more in depth the information provided.

Mean, Error, Percent Error, and Percent Deviation

All these arithmetical/statistical tools can help us to understand our data.  For example the Percent Deviation will allow us to understand or to see the whole extent of the data, not only the mean number.

σ =

∑d2 n-1

Percent Deviation

All statistical models are methods of obtaining the probability of success of our experiments which will help making a decision about our hypothesis or group analysis

Reporting Experiments

Through the report is where the explanation about the study. Peter Harris (2008) points 5 elemental items for the report.

• What you did
• Why you did it
• How you did it
• What were your findings
• What do you think it shows

This can then be translated to a formal document presentation like this:

• Title
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Method
• Results
• Discussion
• References
• Appendices

So, through this report we are intended to provide the information and the appropriate material. For this we also have to consider our reader.  Who is intended to see our information. This is important because perhaps we will have to give an introduction to our area of study. If we are presenting the document to Computer Scientists, perhaps we need to give and induction to Heritage or Visual Communication.

Within museums

The statistics and the report provided is also an intrinsic part of the analysis. Before even starting to provide model experimentation, it is important to provide a hypothesis.  Something like:

• What are the main reasons why small museums don’t have access to big collections?
• How many visitors does each museum have per year/per day/per month?
• How many times does an expensive collection travel through different museums?

It is important to start analyzing this type of information in order to visualize the real requirements not only of the project but also of the museum. problem or situation.

Bibliography

Brookshear, J. G. (2010). Computer science an overview. (11th ed.). Addison-Wesley,.

Harris, P. (Peter R. ). (2008). Designing and reporting experiments in psychology (3rd ed., p. 284). Maidenhead :: Open University Press,

McKillup, S. (2006). Statistics explained an introductory guide for life sciences (p. 267). Cambridge :: Cambridge University Press

1. Legimitizing identity – introduced by dominant institutions e.g. nationalism
2. Resistance identity – generated by the dominated minorities opposed to the institutions of the society
3. Project identity – based on some cultural values, a new identity is built

e.g. feminism challanging patriarhal family, reproduction, sexuality and personality on which societies have been historially based

e.g. green culture, smart meters, preserving nature

In the final chapter called Conclusion: Social Change in the Network Society, Castells sees the information networks we presented in our previous post as the organizers of activity and sharing information, as producers and distributors of cultural codes.

I see a similarity between Castells’s forms of building identities and Nietzsche’s history types:

1. Monumental history – study of nation’s heroes conducted in order to invoke them in all their greatness [1]
2. Antiquarian history – local history of specific social and civic communities [2],  history as consolation and reassurance, as the positive continuity that provides a people with its identity [1]
3. Critical history – the sort of history one utilizes when the monumental structures fail to inspire and when antiquarian musings become mired in unproductive thoughts and a conservative motionlessness [2]

Wikipedia differentiates identity as personal and social, where social identity is defined as a  person’s conception and expression of their individuality or group affiliations  (such as national identity and cultural identity).

In our next post we will look into Castell‘s last trilogy volume End of Millennium.

References

[1] F. Nietzsche, Untimely meditations

[2] Blogpost, Nietzsche’s Three Types of History in Literature: Stephan Heym’s THE KING DAVID REPORT

My starting position is to look at the essence of economics: how to get the best outcome from limited resources. In other words, economics tackles the problem of scarcity which is a central problem faced by all individuals and societies. Demand and supply and the relationship between them are central to this analysis. Also key is the concept of choice (known as “opportunity cost”): the sacrifice of alternatives in the production or consumption of products or services.

Economics is traditionally divided into two main branches: macroeconomics and microeconomics. Macroeconomics examines the economy as a whole at a national or indeed international level (i.e. aggregate demand and supply), whereas microeconomics examines the individual parts of the economy. The latter includes all the economic factors that are specific to a particular firm operating in its own particular market. As microeconomics explores issues surrounding competition between firms, and due to limits in time, I will not be looking at macroeconomics in any detail (other than indirectly via a general awareness of the factors that affect economies as a whole, which in turn affect individual firms as an important determinant of their profitability).

From a microeconomics perspective, the choices made by firms are studied alongside their results. Such choices include how much to produce, what price to charge, how many inputs to use, what types of inputs to use and in what combinations, how much to invest etc. Making such choices involve rationality in weighing up the marginal benefits versus the marginal costs of each activity to best meet the objectives of the firm.

It is worth pausing at that point to make a comparison between the relevance of economics to business decision-making and the contents of my previous blog posts on management study’s approach to business activities and competition between firms. Both use similar terminology and look to the structure of industry and its importance in determining firms’ behavior. They also both look at ranges of factors that affect business decisions and consider the wider environment in which firms operate (including conditions of competition in relevant markets) in helping to devise appropriate business strategies. For example, Sloman, Hinde and Garratt also refer to how the pace of technological change has had a huge impact on how firms produce products and organize their businesses, together with a ‘PEST’ – political, economic, social and technological – analysis (compare my previous blog entry ‘Management 102’).

Where economics (more specifically, we can call it ‘business economics’) differs from management is its focus on how firms can respond to demand and supply issues. In other words, its emphasis is more on internal decisions of firms related to achieving rationally efficient outcomes and the effects of such decision-making on a firm’s rivals, its customers and the wider public.

In keeping with the theme of efficiency, economics has traditionally considered that business performance should be measured against a structure-conduct-performance (structure affecting conduct affecting performance) paradigm measured by several different indicators. Performance is also determined by a wide range of internal factors and external factors other than just market structure, such as business organization, the aims of owners and managers.

In returning to the theme of how economics differs from management/business studies, economists have traditionally paid little attention to the ways in which firms operate and to the different roles they might take. Firms were often seen merely as organizations for producing output and employing inputs in response to market forces. In other words, virtually no attention was paid to how firm organization and how different forms of organization would influence their behavior. This position has changed as economist interest in firms’ roles with respect to resource allocation and production (and how their internal organization affects their decisions) has increased.

Economists have also conventionally assumed that firms will want to maximize profits. The traditional theory of the firm shows how much output firms should produce and at what price, in order to make as much profit as possible. While it may be reasonable to assume that the owners of firms will want to maximize profits, it is the management (as separate from the shareholders) that normally takes decisions about how much to produce and at what price. Management may be assumed to maximize their own interests, which may conflict with profit maximization by the firm. In summary, the divorce of ownership from control implies that the objectives of owners and managers may diverge and hence the goals of firms may be diverse.

In their introductory section on business and economics, Sloman, Hinde and Garratt include an interesting case study on the changing nature of business in those countries where economies are knowledge driven and innovation is therefore central to business success. They include a quote from a European Commission publication (Innovation Management and the Knowledge-Driven Economy, 2004) on this point:

“With this growth in importance, organisations large and small have begun to re-evaluate their products, their services, even their corporate culture in the attempt to maintain their competitiveness in the global markets of today. The more forward-thinking companies have recognised that only through such root and branch reform can they hope to survive in the face of increasing competition.”

Thus, it is suggested that the dynamics of knowledge economies require a fundamental change in the nature of business. This is an interesting comment in considering the impact of the Web on competition from an economical viewpoint. Knowledge is fundamental to economic success in many industries. The result is a market in knowledge, with knowledge diffusing and cutting across industry boundaries. Another result is the increasing outsourcing of various stages of production and collaborations across industries. Furthermore, whereas in the past businesses controlled information, today access to information via sources such as the Web means that power is shifting towards consumers.

Next week I will turn to the concept of markets from an economic viewpoint and how competition is assessed via the theory of the market.

I’m finding this very intriguing, especially in relation to one of our courseworks that involves outlining the process involved in searching for and (hopefully) finding material on a randomly selected question that has something to do with the web at its heart. It is interesting that although we think of searching as ‘seeking’ there is sometimes an element of filtering or of looking for material that might reinforce one’s original ideas.

Have also been reading on economics in Afghanistan, Intelligent Agents (not secret ones), hypermedia, (just discovered The Humument – an old favourite of mine is about to be released as an app) bots (including narrative bots and social bots – here’s one I made earlier) and privacy. At present these don’t strictly appear to be to do with my original question, but some of the topics keep re-presenting themselves to me and so I’m keeping an eye on them, to see if they might develop into a personal theme. Have also been reading on spimes, hyperreality and skeuomorphs, and came across this blog from Matt Jones on The Internet of Things.

Have a good introduction to Sociology (Giddens) but need to also check to see what isn’t in it, as it’s quite an old copy.

Strategic plans apply to the whole organization or business unit, setting out the long-term goals and objectives of an enterprise (effectively, where it wants to be and how to get there). It will usually combine an analysis of external environmental factors with an internal analysis of the organization’s strengths and weaknesses. This can be referred to as a SWOT assessment (bringing together reflection on internal Strengths and Weaknesses and external Opportunities and Threats). It includes drawing information as described in last week’s post as Porter’s five forces analysis of the competitive environment in which organizations are situated.

Forecasting is relevant in dynamic and complex situations but encounters problems when the sector is marked by rapidly changing trends. So-called scenario planning is an attempt to create coherent and credible alternative stories about the future. For example, consideration might be given to how the internet (as a major force in the external environment) might affect a company’s business over the next 5-10 years. According to Boddy, this process can bring together new ideas about the environment into the heads of managers, thus enabling them to recognize new and previously unthinkable possibilities. This, in turn, facilitates the development of contingency plans to cope with outcomes that depart from the most likely scenario. On the downside, the scenario planning process is time-consuming and costly.

Once a plan has been formulated, the next stage is to identify what needs to be done by whom. New technological projects often fail, for example, because planners pay too much attention to the technological aspects and too little to the human aspects of structure, culture and people. Good communication and implementation structure are therefore key.

Hand-in-hand with planning is the topic of decision-making under management theory, including the ability to recognize a problem and set objectives in trying to find a solution. A company facing rapidly changing technological and business conditions needs to be able to make decisions quickly. Boddy gives the example of managers at Microsoft being slow to realize that Linux software was a serious threat which caused a delay in competitive reaction.

There are various decision-making management models, including: computational strategy (rational model); compromise strategy (political model); judgmental strategy (incremental model); and, inspirational strategy (garbage can model). It is interesting to make comparisons between economics and the first aforementioned model which suggests that the manager’s role is to maximize economic return to the company by making decisions based on economically rational criteria. Developments in technology have encouraged some observers, says Boddy, to anticipate that computers would be able to take over certain types of decisions from managers. It is true that new applications are used in many organizational settings when decisions depend on the rapid analysis of large quantities of data with complex relationships by using rational, quantitative methods (such as in utility companies). Such automated decision-making systems “sense online data or conditions, apply codified knowledge or logic and make decisions – all with minimum amounts of human intervention” (Davenport and Harris, 2005). Of course, a behavioral theory of management decision-making – as well as economics in general – is also possible.

Understanding strategic management decisions also helps to analyze an organization’s perceived relationship with the outside world set against the particular features of the market in which it competes. In the early stages of a market’s growth, there are often few barriers to entry and establishing customer loyalty is all-important, but this changes as the market matures and customers become familiar with the products being sold. Markets also vary in their rate of technological change. At one extreme, firms experience a slow accumulation of minor changes, while at the other they face a constant stream of radical new technologies that change the basis of competition. Managers need to identify the core competences that an organization has or needs to compete effectively. Analysis of the separate activities in the value chain can assist in this respect: the firm’s cost position and its basis of differentiation from its competitors to add value being two main sources of competitive advantage.

It is a moot question to what extent strategy perspectives developed when the competitive landscape contained only offline firms are still relevant in the internet age. The Web allows firms to overcome barriers of time and distance, to serve large audiences more efficiently while also targeting groups with specific needs, and to reduce many operating costs. However, it has been argued (Kim 2004) that some things stay the same – such as the need to invest in a clear and viable strategy. On that basis, generic strategies of differentiation and cost leadership still apply to online business. Nonetheless, a focus strategy (involving targeting a narrow market segment, either by consumer group or geography) is not as relevant to online firms as it is to offline ones because the Web enables companies to reach both large and tightly defined companies very cheaply. Indeed, Kim (2004) argues that online strategies may be proposed as forming a continuum of cost leadership and differentiation as an integrated competitive strategy rather than as alternatives as they are sometimes conceived (think of how Ryanair and British Airways now compete in closer proximity to one another due to the online effect).

Marketing has been defined as a social and managerial process by which individuals and groups obtain what they want through creating and exchanging products and value with each other (Kotler and Keller 2006). Its basic function is to attract and retain customers at a profit.

In order to identify customers, and select the marketing mix that will satisfy customer demands and succeed in achieving organizational objectives, managers need information about consumer demands, competitor strategies and changes in the marketing environment. Marketing is, therefore, an information-intensive activity involving understanding buyer behavior. Aware of a need, consumers also search for information that will help them decide which product to buy.

A marketing channel decision for companies is whether to make purchases of their products available online. This channel allows easy gathering of data for marketing purposes. This decision has been embraced by many businesses such as easyjet and lastminute.com. Using electronic channels of distribution is a differentiation tool, on the grounds that consumers prefer online convenience and see this as a product feature. Indeed, for many companies, online product distribution is a complementary channel used to widen product access to geographically remote markets (e.g. supermarkets, which often offer discounts over store prices).

This point ties in more generally to issues around how existing physical businesses can take advantage of the opportunities that the Web offers. For example, Virgin managers were quick to pick up on the fact that their businesses were ideally suited to e-commerce in the early internet years. To exploit this potential, they decided to streamline their online services with a single Virgin web address. This general topic is one to which I would like to return (in particular, I have taken out a book from the library by Groucutt and Griseri entitled ‘Mastering e-business’ which I would like to work through).

However, in the interests of balance, next week I turn to my other discipline and field of interest: economics 101.

I was writing in my previous post that we don’t really realize where we are heading, but the change is already here, we are already in this cybersociety. At the London Conference on Cyberspace last Tuesday, Neelie Kroes, the European Commissioner for the Digital Agenda emphasised the social benefits of being online. She stressed that it was vital to deal with the 30% of Europeans currently not online.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15544517

In the forward of the book Engines of Creations by K. Eric Drexler, Marvin Minsky says the following: How can we predict where science will take us? [..] It is virtually impossible to predict which alternatives will become technically feasible over any longer period of time. [..] It is equally hard to guess the character of the social changes.

Probably one of the best fortunetellers of today, Manuel Castells, Professor of Sociology at Berkley University, is widely regarded as a leading analyst of the Information Age and the Network Society. In the following blog posts we will try to pick up his main ideas by selectively reading through his famous trilogy.

Castells defines space in The Rise of the Network Society, the first volume of his trilogy, as being the material support of time-sharing social practices. Further he explains by time-sharing social practices I refer to the fact that space brings together those practices that are simultaneous in time. [..] The space of flows is the material organization of time-sharing social practices that work through flows.

1. The first layer, the first material support of the space of flows is actually constituted by a circuit of electronic exchanges (micro-electronic based devices, telecommunications, computer processing)
2. The second layer is constituted by its nodes and hubs. [..] A “global city” is the production site of the informational global economy
3. The third layer refers to the spation organization of the dominant, managerial elites (rather than classes) e.g. Google, Facebook

In the Conclusion chapter of the book, Castells says the new economy is organized around global networks of capital management and information, whose access to technological know-how is at the roots of productivity and competitiveness. [..] Our species has reached the level of knowledge and social organization that will allow us to live in a predominanty social world. It is a beginning of a new existence, and indeed the beginning of a new age, the Information Age.

In Marketing to the Social Web, Larry Weber suggests the following methods for promoting the community that you built around your product:

• doing marketing research by following what users blog or post about your product
• minding the gap between the different ages, income or whatever might differentiate customers and focus on a target
• actually contact and offer incentives to good customers
• use search engine optimization
• promote the URL of your website through traditional or multimedia ads
• increase the benefits of your services by constantly adding new features

Social Marketing compared with traditional Marketing is personalized, more targeted and I think it is more cost effective and efficient.

In the next post, we will take a look at Castells’s second volume of his trilogy, The Power of Identity.

I know I shouldn’t be looking to understand these subjects completely, that would be impossible, but reaching conscious incompetence is equally challenging. I will attempt to give an overview of Game Theory on the next post.. (!)

Social perception starts off with very simple ideas. To start with, these theoretical model says people perceive the world with categorised ideas, which is known as schema. These schemas include categories for people, self, events, and roles. These schemas are fairly self-explanatory. For example, person schemas contain all the abstract conceptual models of personality trades or person prototypes that allows a person to categorise and make conclusions from past experience of interacting with other people who are in this category. A typical statement will be, ‘ so you are a farmer, I have met a farmer before and he was like these are like that ’.

Regarding self-schemas, is how we look at ourselves, our past experience, and how we relate to the world around us. Event schemas is concerned with the sequential organisation of events in everyday activities. These would include anticipating events, setting aims and objectives, and making plans. Finally, role schemas are concerned with behaviour and traits of people with specific rule positions in society.

Schemas and stereotype and prejudice

This is an interesting concept. If fundamentally the way we process and understand the world is by categorisation and the use of schemas as suggested, then generalisation is unavoidable. For example, we may have a role schema for a senior medical consultant, or we may have a role schema for a young teenager. Each of these roles would have different characteristics and personalities, and likely as these characters are mentioned, each and everyone of us would have formed a picture of what we think these characters would look, dress, and behave. Under this understanding, stereotyping is both normal and necessary.

However, stereotyping is generally thought of negatively. For example, racism is a form of stereotyping. Discrimination of any kind has an element of stereotyping. Commonly, schoolchildren are taught not to judge a book by its cover so to speak. This creates a necessary conflict between theoretical models, human behaviour and generally excepted moral norms. The question is, does this mean we have to natural tendency to discriminate?

Fortunately, this is not always the case. It is argued that categorising in itself does not automatically mean discrimination. It is largely dependent on and the attitude of the individual towards members of the category. In other words, does it make any difference whether people are categorised according to age, gender or nationality? People are being put into categories all the time. In most cases, categorisation has not caused any problems. However, problems arise when unfair or even aggressive attitude is shown towards a particular group.

Take skin colour for an example. In a country where both the black and white mix well and see no distinction between themselves, skin colour categorisation has no problem. However, in countries where the blacks are seen as born to be slaves, categorisation becomes a problem. Or in a company where all the women are considered less capable and dedicated than their male colleagues, categorisation becomes a problem. Therefore, it is argued that attitudes is the determining factor.

Moving on

I am thoroughly intrigued by the idea of schemas and perception and attitudes. I will be following this up and see what I can find about formation of attitudes.

There are several main ideas under cognitive models. One of which is how we can use metaphors to describe the cognitive processes. For example, these processes can be described as an information processor. Another metaphor also commonly used is a naive scientist model. Under this model, people I said to understand the world around them in the manner of a scientist. They make observations, to hypothesise, they observe again, and eventually coming to a conclusion. Although many other metaphors are also used, information processor and the naive scientist model are by far the most common.

Another approach is called perceptual cognitivism. Under this theory, nothing sensed by the person can be said to be true or absolute truth. Everything sensed by any person is a perception of reality. However, it is argued that given the enormous amount of stimulus around us, it will be impossible to process them all. Therefore, it was proposed that schemas exist to allow categorisation of different stimulus, which in turns allows the person to reduce the amount of processing. This is called mental representations.

Under identity theory, a distinction between personal identity and social identity is made. Fundamentally, personal identity is strictly personal and does not involve any other individuals. For example, statements such as ‘ I am hungry ’, ‘ I am hot ’ and ‘ I love swimming ’ are strictly rational and does not involve any other individuals. By contrast, statements such as ‘ I am Chinese ’and ‘ I am a web scientist ’ shows aspects of social identity. Social identity is concerned with how an individual views his or her own relationships with other members of the group.

It has been shown that where categorisation exist, typical expectation or stereotype within the category is often exaggerated while those that are counter stereotyped behaviour are often underestimated. It has also been known that depending on how the individual perceive he or she compares with the other members of the social group, he or she may evaluate him or herself differently.

Moving on

I will be summarising what I have learned about social perception and attitudes in the next blog.

Robert Kirkpatrick’s Strata Talk (Sept’11)

In the interests of understanding the whole process, from raw data to final (useful) output, I will need my two chosen disciplines to reflect the data-in and the data-out (post information-graphic phase).

So, the initial first choice for investigation is statistics / quality of data / epistemology and/or maybe graph theory? The second will be about the usefulness of the output visualisations which at the moment is leading me to game theory. But who knows, it was human rights, law and sociology a week ago.

Starting from the essential bibliography for this research, there are some elemental concepts that the readings from Frederick Brooks (1995), Peter Harris  (2008) and Brian Wilson (2001).  The methodological process to undertake this project will be very important.  The interdisciplinary quality will bring big challenges in the managerial aspect of the project. At this early stage, I believe the project being an intrinsic part of Web Science will invite collaborative work from Computer Science, Museology, Business Management and Visual Communication among others.

Developing Software?

I will argue that the project will contain a product similar to a computer software product.  This product I believe will be develop similar to software, by this I mean a “collection of programs and the algorithms they represent” (Brookshear, 2010).

The complexity within the development of any kind of software of application requires an understanding of the methodology and the environment in which these products are created. It is also important to learn how to communicate with the team and how to make the team communicate with each other as a managerial task (Brooks, 1995). In the development of software, Brooks (1995) defines some essential tasks:

• Planning
• Coding
• Component test and early system test
• System test, all components in hand

Its about time!

It is important to know how to calculate the time needed for the development of the project and the time needed for each one of the tasks, not only for the implementation of these digital tools, but also for all the research tasks of the project.  If there are some ‘hold backs’ within the project, Brooks (1995) explains that bringing more man work will not only be the solutions due to the tasks required for the development of software.  Therefore it is important to analyse and understand all the different solutions applied within the Computer Science discipline and all the other disciplines involved.

It is recommended to use as little people as possible for the construction of a ‘soft system’. This is due to the managerial problems that big teams create. But sometimes small teams won’t be able to cope with the workload. Based on this, I will argue that it is also important to plan correctly the size of the teams in order for the research project to flow smoothly and with minimum communicative problems.

Assembling the team

It is my perception that is important to understand how a big system team is built in order to continue or to blend the methodological process into that work structure.

Although there are other organizational proposals, the one that seems more traditional is where we find a chief programmer defining the original program and codes and even testing the software. Followed by a co-pilot working as a second hand. There are other team members like the administrator, the editor, secretaries, program clerk, toolsmith, language lawyer and the tester (Brooks, 1995).

Problem solving

The main objective of a program or software is to solve a problem (Brooks, 1995; Wilson, 2001; Harris, 2008).  For this it is essential to define the problem.  What is this set of tools or applications going to solve. Wilson (2001), defines two types of problems: hard problems and soft problems. “The design of a piece of software to meet a given specification is a hard problem (as long as the specification is ‘a given’) whereas the specification of information requirements to meet business needs is a soft problem…”.  The perception of what is a problems is also important.  Being a multidisciplinary project means that what seems to be a problem, it could not mean anything to the person working in the museum or the audience or even the cultural heritage manager.  To solve this, Wilson (2001) suggest that instead of trying to solve a problem, it would be more helpful to try to solve the situation that is creating the problem. For this he proposes the next methodology.

1. Define the situation that is problematic
2. Express the situation (top mapping, rich picture, etc.)
3. Select concepts that may be relevant
4. Assemble concepts into an intellectual structure
5. Use this structure to explore the situation
6. Define changes to the situation (i.e problems to be tackled)
7. Implement change processes

Its all about the good manners.

Both Wilson (2001) and Brooks (1995) express the importance of the way to communicate with other team members.  The ‘hierarchical’ level of communication. During the production of this research project (and any other), which I completely agree is to break the ‘tree’ system in which one person is the boss and the people below are reporting or working for this person.  The responsibilities have been already defined and in the communicative structure, everybody is allowed to participate and to provide solutions to the situation problem solving.

Bibliography.

Brooks, F. P. (1995). The mythical man-month essays on software engineering (Anniversar., p. 322). Reading, Mass ;: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Harris, P. (Peter R. ). (2008). Designing and reporting experiments in psychology (3rd ed., p. 284). Maidenhead :: Open University Press
Wilson, B. (Brian). (2001). Soft systems methodology conceptual model building and its contribution (p. 260). Chichester ;: Wiley

In returning to the main research focus – how the Web/Internet is changing the nature of competition between businesses – an open system emphasizes how objectives, plans and solutions must adjust rapidly to changes in the external environment. These changes can come from a variety of sources. Boddy gives examples of the increasingly global nature of the economic system at large, deregulation in certain industries, the closer integration between many different areas of business (such as telecoms and entertainment), increasing consumer expectations and computer-based information systems. Many modern-day organizations operate in non-linear systems in which small changes are amplified through many interactions with other variables so that the eventual effect is unpredictable. In other words, management decisions should be grounded in the external context in which the organization is situated and the long-term consequences of a management decision can be majorly disrupted by circumstances in the outside world in an unforeseen manner.

Boddy goes on to introduce the idea of the competitive environment (defined as “the industry-specific environment comprising the organization’s customers, suppliers and competitors” or “micro-environment”). He distinguishes it from the “general environment (defined as the “political, economical, social, technological, (natural) environment and legal factors that affect all organizations” or “macro-environment”), as illustrated below:

Together, they make up the “external environment” or “external context”. Forces in the external environment become part of an organization’s agenda when internal or external stakeholders pay attention to them and act to place them on the management agenda. In turn, these demand a response (see next week for more on management theory related to the type of response).

In terms of analyzing the competitive environment, Porter put forward a theory of five forces which most directly affect management and the ability to earn an acceptable return. These are also found in economic theory and competition law: the ability of new competitors to enter the industry, the threat of substitutable products, the bargaining power of buyers, the bargaining power of suppliers and the rivalry amongst existing competitors. This analysis can also be applied at an industry level to determine overall profitability, being factors which influence prices, costs and investment requirements, as illustrated below:

To give one example, technological change can affect the proximity of competition between products which in turn can constrain a firm’s ability to raise price (Boddy gives the example of YouTube threatening established media companies and online recruitment threatening the revenues that newspapers receive from job advertisements).

Where management differs from economics is the nature of the response. Through analyzing the forces in the competitive environment, managers aim to seize opportunities, counter threats and generally improve their position relative to their firm’s competitors in the future. Like economics, however, management also looks at trends, such as the state of the economy which is a major influence on consumer spending and capital investment plans. Sociological trends can also be relevant. For example, many consumer businesses are changing direction from a strategy aimed at mass market towards developing much small brands directed at small, distinctive groups of consumers. This reflects the growing diversity of the population, with many personal and individual preferences more apparent (such as through the Web). Again, in turn, this shift has severe implications for media that relied on advertising from mass market advertising. There are also many examples of digital technologies affecting established markets (such as DVDs, MP3s, broadband services offering delivering online content, VoIP and digital photography).

In summary, critical reflection on business environment conditions is essential to the type of management strategy adopted. Next week I turn to theories of generic management activities of planning and decision-making, including strategy and marketing (to lead into discussions of how e-marketing has revolutionized the business world).

Haraway, the other theorist besides Castell discussed by Bell, is a professor at the University of California in the History of Consciousness. She published in 1985 a cyborg manifesto suggesting enhancing our human bodies to transgress the boundaries of nature. She is recently interested in the links between humans and animals.

A quick browsing through the Cyberculture Theorists google book http://goo.gl/yS4n1 brought me to Carl Popper‘s World 3 about which I read last year. Popper’s elegant philosophy explains the world on 3 levels:

World 1: the world of physical things
World 2: the world of mental events and objects
World 3: the world of abstract objects produced by the mind such as scientific theories

Bell states that world 3 is sometimes referred to when cyberspace is discussed. Cyberspace is a term coined by William Gibson in his novel Neuromancer. In this novel cyberspace is entered as disembodied consciousness by joining the network which is the battleground over ownership and access to data, much like today’s internet where Google, Facebook and other players are crunching user data to provide the best sponsored ads.

People like to spread information and social networks, microblogging  helps them do that easily through webpages like Twitter or status updates on Facebook. For example, 100 billion updates are processed each day on Facebook. People care what others think, more than what Google thinks. This is why rating appeared recently on Wikipedia and that is what the Facebook Like button is all about. Socialnomics, Erik Qualman

The Zeitgeist, the spirit of the age, our common consciousness is the one leading us in this connected, common, social direction.

By selectively reading through these books, I think that the most comprehensive is the Sociology book. I was particularly interested in the chapters about the future of society and the internet. It contains valuable information regarding these topics. I have the feeling they are all predicting the future. We don’t really realize where we are heading, but the change is already here, we are already this cybersociety.

I also read 3 chapters on Social Marketing (Marketing to the Social Web – Larry Weber), but I couldn’t find some valuable information, something that Qualman didn’t mention in his book – the main idea emphasized is what I already mentioned in my previous post – that the new marketer’s perspective should take into account the customer,  he should be an aggregator and not a broadcaster.

I will keep on reading about Social Marketing and Sociology.

I am particularly interested in this because it would seem very easy now to say how obviously mistaken this view was. However, it goes on to say that ‘Stakeholding is no different in essence from interventionist and redistributive taxation, its only difference is its lesser transparency, which therefore deceives people into believing it to be innocuous.’ Although he then apparently goes onto argue that it destroys incentives (the meat and blood of economics, according to ‘The Armchair Economist’ ) I’m initially quite interested in the transparency issue.

When I worked for a FTSE100 company that was quite concerned about corporate governance and hence ‘transparency,’ a word which we hear all too often nowadays, the other word that was always brandished was ‘stakeholders.’ Generally the more your job was to do with explaining figures and processes to people, the more you had to take ‘stakeholders’ into account. This actually meant not just anyone who had a right of some sort (surely just one’s bosses in a monolithically hierarchical company structure?) to poke their nose into what was going on, but those who felt that they ought to have a right. Or those, like me, who were just very, very curious about how it all worked. The more stakeholders there were (in a PLC serving most of the country’s households, that was at least 18 million) actually the less possible it became to be transparent. I’m increasingly convinced that the possibility of transparency decreases exponentially in any very small company (say, 7 or fewer employees) or any company that has over say, 300 employees, just because of organisational factors. I’m also wondering whether this is not accidental, but actually deeply tied into company size (depending on its structure, or how the power gets passed around). So am quite interested to read this book and see what comes out.

Am reading it alongside ‘The Armchair Economist’ which is interesting, but is leaving me feeling vaguely unsatisfied at present.

Criminology draws from an amalgam of subjects such as law, sociology, phycology, psychiatry, history and anthropology in order to answer questions like, what are the causes of crime? What are the ethnographic s of certain deviant groups? What can we learn from case studies of individual criminals? Can we predict future crimes and future perpetrators of crime? Why are some people criminals and others not?

This begs the question, why did Criminology become a discipline in its own right? Maguire, Morgan and Reiner suggest that it was contingent upon the exertions of discipline forming institutions and dominant individuals.
They then go on to discuss the emergence of criminology as a discipline. It is suggested that criminology is the synthesis of two schools of thought. The first is government – who want to know how to best create laws and govern with respect to crime and criminals. The other school of thought comes from an Italian anthropologist Cesare Lombroso(1835-1909) who thought that people could be divided into two category, criminals and non-criminals, Lombroso went so far as to claim that there is a biological difference between criminals and non-criminals.

With a hard science a scientist or group of scientists produces a theory and evidence to back it up. Then they write it down in the form of a paper which is peer reviewed and then either accepted or not accepted into the scientific community. If a theory is accepted within the scientific community it is then accepted in the general public for example the theory of Black Holes. On the other hand a scientific theory accepted in the criminology community is not always accepted by the general public. The “common sense” view of the world is often much more powerful.
In order to understand the principles of Criminology it is useful to detour into some History.
 

A Brief History of Criminology

The history of criminology turns out to be a fiercely contested, vague and ugly. In fact the word criminology was only coined in the 1890’s and what we think of as criminology today (the current paradigm if you like) only crystallised in the 1960s and 70s, and even that’s debateable. The history of criminology is further confused, because what was thought of as “criminology” differed in France, Germany, England, Italy and the U.S.

To illustrate the history of criminology I have created a timeline with significant events and the socio-economic backdrop for these events. My apologies, especially to Paul and Javier that it’s not fantastically beautiful! Hopefully the timeline helps to elucidate the history of criminology, which is contingent upon sociological events. For example, criminology, it is argued by Maguire, Morgan and Reiner, really started in the 18th century, which was also the time when a network of insane asylums and doctors attending these asylums emerged in Europe. Maguire, Morgan and Reiner further argue that since a significant proportion of inmates in the asylums were also criminals, for the first time doctors were concerned with understanding the criminal mind.

Then throughout the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th prisons were invented and governments became stronger. As a result governments, especially in the UK, became interested in how to control their citizens and demanded reports about criminal behaviour, crime rates prisons and laws. As a result most of the work done in the UK was modest and respected legal principles.

Then WW2 happened and shortly afterwards the modern British welfare state was created. There was a political move towards greater social and economic equality. Coupled with this many great crime researchers came to Britain from Germany where ideas about social demographics and crime were far more advanced. Add into the mixing pot a government and public fear about juvenile delinquents in the 50s and it should come as no surprise that criminology entered the academic arena in 1961 in Cambridge.

Since then criminology has pulled away from a study into how to cure/correct a criminal towards a more interdisciplinary subject concerned with social, philosophical and psychological aspects of crime.

“The question at the heart of most legal textbooks is: ‘how does the rule of law affect individuals within the environment over which this law is effective?’”. However IT Law is, by necessity, the other way around. Namely, it asks ‘How does the web affect the law?’, rather than how the law effects the web. This is because technology changes so quickly that the rule of law cannot keep up. Instead, old laws must be interpreted to deal with new situations.

This presents a small challenge for me as a novice trying to understand the basics of Law through it’s application to the web. If Murray is right, and IT law is an inherently atypical topic within Law, it won’t generalise to other topics and so I’m bound to get a warped idea of what Law is. However, by reading up on some of the basic concepts, terminology and key statutes etc., I should be able to develop an understanding of how my topic can be approached from a legal standpoint – even if that approach is slightly different to that taken by legal scholars working in other areas.

With that in mind I’ve also been trying to familiarise myself with the basics of Jurisprudence, the theory or philosophy of Law. I’ve chosen to look at this first for two reasons. The first is partly down to intellectual cowardice: given my philosophical background, it should be less of a challenge than other aspects of Law. Second, and more importantly, I think Jurisprudence will be an important aspect of understanding my topic. The Wikipedia entry for Jurisprudence divides it into two areas:

1.) Problems internal to law and legal systems as such.

2.) Problems of law as a particular social institution as it relates to the larger political and social situation in which it exists.

Because my topic is about the way an aspect of law (intellectual property) relates to a social phenomenon (information goods on the web), the second area is particularly relevant to me.

Within this area, there are several approaches to understanding what drives the law. The oldest tradition is ‘Natural Law theory’, the dominant position for much of the history of jurisprudence. According to its proponents, man-made laws are attempts to reflect or approximate natural moral laws. These are moral truths which exist independently of human judgement or reasoning. They could be understood by theists as derived from a deity, or by atheists as simply a feature of reality. The important point is that our man-made laws should reflect these pre-institutional moral realities. Indeed, if they do not, they aren’t real laws at all. A common maxim of natural law theory is ‘lex injusta non est lex’; an unjust law is not a (real) law.

An example of natural law theory in action today can be seen in the idea of universal human rights. According to their proponents, human rights exist independently whether or not there are man-made laws protecting them; indeed, they are most important where such laws are absent. There is also an understanding amongst human rights advocates that man-made laws should approximate these independently existing moral rights.

Legal Positivism is now the dominant position amongst legal theorists. Unlike Natural Law theory, it does not assume that man-made laws must approximate independent moral laws. Rather, it splits the question in two. Whether or not a law is valid depends on how it was formulated, whether it went through the socially sanctioned systems and processes put in place to create laws. This is not the same as the question of whether or not, morally speaking, it is a just law. A law might be valid, having gone through the appropriate formulation, but we might judge it to be unjust according to some non-legal moral standard. For instance, homophobic or racist laws may be valid in the context of a particularly time and place, but this doesn’t mean they aren’t wrong, morally speaking. Conversely a law might be invalid because, for instance, it contradicts a state’s constitution, but this doesn’t mean it is not a good law, morally speaking.

This distinction between the institutional validity and moral worth of a law may prove important in debates about content on the web. Online ‘piracy’ may be morally wrong, or it may simply be illegal. Likewise, certain uses of information goods on the web may not be illegal, but nevertheless morally wrong. Parties on different sides of the piracy debate frequently allude to both moral and legal considerations – usually adopting whichever is strongest in a particular context. And since most legal theorists adopt some kind of positivist approach, and few adopt the natural law approach, assessments of intellectual property on the web do not usually take the form of moral arguments.

During the last week, I have continued reading the book “principles of cognitive psychology”. More specifically, I have focused on the chapters dealing with long and short-term memory including the study of forgetting. The theories themselves were quite interesting to read. However, since the book traces the different theories that were developed over time, I have found myself constantly struggling with new ideas and new theories all the time. This shift in believe of what is going on in our brain reminds me of our lectures on paradigms shift. Therefore, in this blog I will first of all summarise what I have read so far, and then discuss what I think of paradigms shift in the context of what I have read, followed by comparison with my own personal experience in the field of engineering. I will then conclude with a reflection on multidisciplinary research methods followed by plans for future reading.

Summary of cognitive psychology — long and short-term memory

Theories of short-term memory

One of the earlier models for short-term memory is called multi-store model. According to this model there are three types of memory store. They are sensory stores, short-term store, and long-term store. The sensory stores are modality specific, and hold information very briefly. The short-term store has very limited capacity. Information is lost from the store because of interference, diversion of attention, and decay. Evidence from brain-damaged patients supports the distinction between short-term and long-term memory stores. The memory stores differ with respect to temporal duration, storage capacity, and forgetting mechanism.

However, this model is thought to be oversimplified in its account of the unitary short-term and long-term stores, and the notion that access to long-term memory occurs only after information is processed in the short-term store. In addition, the role of rehearsal is also exaggerated.

In view of the shortcomings, a new theory was proposed — working memory. The working memory system consists of a central executive, a phonological loop, and a visuospatial sketchpad. Two tasks can be performed successfully together only when they use different components of the working memory system. A phonological loop consists of a passive phonological store and an articulatory process. Its primary function is to assist in the learning of new words. The visuospatial sketchpad consists of a visual cache and an inner scribe. It is possible that there are separate visual and spatial system rather than a single sketchpad. The central executive is involved in various functions such as switching of which revealed plans, time-sharing, selective attention, and temporary activation of long-term memory. There may be relatively separate verbal and spatial working memory systems. The working memory approach has the advantage over the multi-store model that it can be applied to most cognitive activities rather than only being of relevance to memory tasks.

Another interesting theory is the theory of levels of processing. According to this theory, long-term memory is better remembered when information is processed deeply or semantically at the time of learning. In addition, elaborate on this rehearsal improves long-term memory and maintenance rehearsal does not. Some evidence supports these theoretical assumptions. However, long-term memory depends on collaboration and distinctiveness of processing as well as on depth of processing. Long-term memory depends on the relevance of the stored information to the requirements of the memory test. The theory is more applicable to tests of explicit memory than to those of implicit memory. Finally, the theory provides a description rather than an explanation of certain memory phenomena. In an updated account of levels of processing theory, it was argued that depth of processing and transfer appropriate processing jointly determine long-term memory performance.

Theories of long-term memory

It has been argued that there is an important distinction between episodic and semantic memory. There is evidence from PET studies that Steve prefrontal cortex is much more involved in episodic memory and then in cemented memory. It remains unclear whether there is a fundamental distinction between episodic and cemented memory, in part because there are several similarities and interconnections between them. There is a major distinction between explicit and implicit memory. PET studies have reviewed that a rather different areas of the brain are activated in explicit and implicit memory tasks. There is increasing evidence that there are different types of implicit memory.

Theories of forgetting

The forgetting function is generally logarithmic with a few exceptions. The is evidence of a repression like repressors, and controversial evidence concerning recovered memories of childhood abuse. There is convincing evidence of the existence of proactive and retroactive interference. However, special conditions required for substantial interference effects to occur, and interference theory is relatively uninformative about the process involved in forgetting. Most of forgetting seems to be due to dependence, and is greater when the contextual information present at retrieval differs from the contextual information stored in memory.

Multidisciplinary issues: Paradigms shift

Overall, I have seen how one theory was proposed based on certain observations or experimentation results. It would appear that this theory stands as long as there are no contradictory observations proposed. That theory represents in the latest knowledge in the area of study. For example with short-term memory, the multi-store theory stood for a long time. However, with new information presented, new theories were proposed and the old ones replaced.

This cycle has happened quite a few times during my reading of this book. It is beginning to dawn on me that the nature of cognitive psychology is such that proposed theories can only be as it is theories. In other words, because we cannot open up the brain and start probing, we cannot be hundred percent sure how things work inside. Because of this very nature, we are forced to accept the theory that best represent our current knowledge and observations. Until such a time when a better model or theory is proposed, the older theory stands true.

This idea of paradigms shift just does not happen in the field of engineering. Therefore, this is a multidisciplinary issue. In engineering, we are predominantly concerned with creating a solution to a problem. It may be creating a new product, or improving the efficiency of a certain procedure. Whatever it may be, there will always be a final answer of right or wrong. For this reason, there is no such thing as paradigms shift.

For instance, the good old television may be using CRT whereas modern day TVs are probably LCD flatscreen. Just because there is a shift of consumer preference, designer preference and so on, the older theory still stands true. It is a case of preference, the old theory does not become wrong because of a preference shift. In the case of at least the part I have read in cognitive psychology, when the new theory replaces the old, the old is considered wrong, incomplete or un-usable. This is more than just a case of preference which is quite different to the field of engineering.

Moving on

Having read that much of the book I have tried to scan read what is left. Since I realise that detailed information therein is not of interest, and the original purpose of reading this book to understand the typical research methods in cognitive psychology has been fulfilled, I have decided not to continue with this book.

Instead, I have picked up from one of the guest lecturers and interesting sub branch of cognitive psychology called social cognition. I am not too sure exactly what it is about yet. However, a glance through of the table of contents seems interesting. It covers theoretical foundations of the subject including social perception, attitudes, attributions, self and identity, prejudice, and ideology.

Since I am interested in the web and education, I think this book will help me to identify how and why people behave on the online education environment.

In this post I will start to list some of the bibliography to be used to get familiarized with essential concepts and ideas that will allow the project to be carried in the most optimal manner.  The bibliography was chosen from the BSc Information Technology in Organizations fron University of Southampton and readings from Museum Studies and Museology.

Due to my visual communication background the Museum Studies readings I will be focusing on the more challenging theories instead on the basic methodology.  On the other hand, IT in Organizations I will be focusing on basic readings to be able to get familiarized with basic concepts.

Information Technologies in Organizations

Tools and Techniques for IT Modeling

• Peter Harris. Designing and Reporting Experiments in Psychology (2nd ed). OU Press
• Steve McKillup. Statics Explained. Cambridge

Collaborative Projects

• Brooks, FP, The Mythical Man-Month, Addison-Wesley, 1982.
• Checkland, P, and Scholes, J, Soft Systems Methodology, Wiley

Human Computer Interaction

• Dix A, Finlay J, Abowd G and Beale R, Human-Computer Interaction, 3rd Edition. Prentice Hall, 2003
• Norman DA, The Design of Everyday Things, Basic Books, 2002 new edition

Information Systems Strategy

• Bocij, P. et al. (2005) Business Information Systems Technology, Development and Management in E-business. Pearson Higher Education FT Prentice Hall.
• Turban, E., Rainer, R.K. and Potter, R.E. 3rd editon (2004) Introduction to Information Technology: John Wiley and Sons
• Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (2002) The Social Life of Information. Harvard Business School
• Simon, J.C. (2000) Introduction to Information Systems. New York: Wiley

Museology and Museum Studies

• Sharon Macdonald. A Companion to Museum Studies, Malden, MA ; Oxford : Blackwell Pub., 2006
• Pearce, Susan. Interpreting Objects and Collections. Andover:Routledge, 2001
• Hein, George E. Learning in the Museum (Museum Meanings) Boulder, Co. netLibrary c2001-c2003
• Poli, C. Mobility and Environment: Humanists versus Engineers in Urban Policy and Professional Education. Dordrecht; New York, Springer c2011

I believe that the approach I will take within these disciplines will create an amalgamation of skills that will enable projects like these to be implemented and future proof.  I am looking forward to collaborate with other museum institutions and curators around the world and perhaps change the method or concept of how we see a museum artifact or a museums in general.

In considering what ‘management’ is, an important component is innovation. Computers and network (the new agents of communication) has propelled management into the new economy through innovation. To give one simple example from Boddy, the use of emails has sped up communication enabling managers to strengthen their interpersonal roles.

Thus, it seems to me that technology (including the Web) is both an external and internal force upon management: it facilitates innovation to beat the external competition; while also providing an opportunity for corporate entities to streamline themselves internally via more efficient working practices. In the nature of a double-edged sword, however, it may also be the undoing of those businesses that do not use them efficiently.

As Boddy points out, everywhere the Web is enabling great changes in how people organise economic activity, equivalent to the Industrial Revolution in the 19/20th century. This includes the challenges of coping with the transition to a world in which ever more business is done on a global scale. Those managing a globally competitive business requires flexibility, quality and low-cost production. Thus managers want production processes that help them to organise as efficiently as possible from a technical perspective.

In terms of different models of management, at a basic level we can think of management as the way in which enterprises add value to inputs. Building on this, several perspectives can be taken with no single model offering a complete solution. Models reflect their context in terms of the most pressing issues facing managers at the time. To give one example, sometimes manufacturing efficiency is necessary but not sufficient. Drucker (1954) observed that customers do not buy products, but the satisfaction of needs: what they value may be different from what producers think they are selling. Managers, Drucker argued, should develop a marketing mindset, focused on what customers want, and how much they will pay. As a consequence of business becoming more global (again partly as a consequence of the Web) managers need to react quickly to international trends of changing customer needs and how to scale up to take advantage of global opportunities.

Boddy also discusses the concept of the corporate organization from a management perspective. Just as the Web is compared to the neural functions of brains, organisms, culture, machine, so is a business.

I was also struck by the interdependent links drawn between management and technology (as mentioned above) as compared with our discussions with Cathy in relation to science and technology. For example, operational research teams set up to pool the expertise of scientific disciplines are now used to help run complex civil organisations.

But, like with the Web, technology is only part of the solution. A key plank of management is human relations. Management solutions lie in reconciling technology and social needs (i.e. appreciating that work systems are socio-technical in nature). So whereas I had previously been concentrating on the Web in its influence on external business strategies, this can only be appreciated by considering how it has also revolutionized internal operations, in addition to the links between the two and the outside world which provides inputs (what Boddy calls the ‘open models’ system conception of an organisation).

In a nutshell, I have learnt that management is about relationships between subsystems and whole systems. To what extent, I wonder, is the Web breaking down the boundaries between these and blurring the conceptualization of an internal world / external world hard-line divide in business (i.e. now that consumers can become producers of certain products/services and more flexible and freelance working practices are becoming the norm)?

Economics is a large area is we take into consideration individuals, businesses and entire societies; therefore it is broken up into Microeconomics (individuals and business choices) and Macroeconomics (national and global economy).

One of the most common economic phrases is “supply and demand”. Demand refers to the relationship between how many people want a product and how much it costs. Supply refers to the relationship between the quantity of the product created and its price. An increase in demand would mean an increase in price and quantity supplied. An increase in supply would mean a decrease in price and increase in quantity required.

Household consumption choices are limited by income. The budget line is a way of seeing income that can be spent and how it can be spent. If prices of items you buy drop or income increases the Budget Line will change.

Indifference curves are used to show within what combinations of goods the consumer is indifferent to having. For example someone may not mind swapping a packet of cigarettes for an extra drink at the bar or even extra chocolate during the week at work.

Marginal Rate of Substitution is the rate someone will give up n of x to get n of y. If the rate is high an individual will give up a large quantity of x for a small quantity of y. This works the other way round if the rate is low, they will only give up a small quantity of x for a large quantity of y. However, we must be aware that the substitution must compliment or be a fair substitute for the item. If you are very thirsty and are offered a truck load of peanuts for one can of drink you may still decide to keep the drink!

By using these three ideas we can develop a model to predict consumer behaviour. We assume someone will pick the point that benefits them the most, so if it fits inside the budget line (indicating it is affordable) and it lies on the indifference curve (indicating it is a option someone would be happy with) and has a marginal rate of substitution that is equal to the relative price of the items desired, this gives the most affordable point and hopefully that is what someone would choose.

Elasticity is the measurement of how variables can affect each other. An example would be lowering prices to sell more.

Market power refers to the ability to influence the market. A monopoly is when a company has goods or services with no close substitute and has a barrier stopping other companies selling similar products or services. An example would be energy suppliers or the Post Office. Barriers stopping other companies could be a government contract or patent or copyright issues.

Advertising increases total cost of a product, but if the advertising increases sales the total cost of a product will fall.

Uncertainty and Risk

Uncertainty is linked to how certain you are of an event occurring. For example a farmer can never be certain crops planted will grow because they cannot be certain of the weather and other factors that could affect crop growth. Risk is a situation where more than one outcome may occur and the probability of those happening. Probability can be measured accurately or we may have to look at past experience and make a judgement called subjective probability. The cost of risk can be accessed from these probabilities. A person’s attitude towards risk can be assessed using their wealth and how much utility someone attaches to a given amount of wealth. The more wealth you have the higher the utility and the larger risks can be made.

Microeconomics

If the aim of a company is to maximise profit. They can be in any of the below modes of operation:

• Make an economic profit (average total cost is less than the price of each product)
• Make a normal profit (where economic profit is zero)
• If the price is between average total cost and average variable cost the company is loss-minimising. By continuing to produce it may still recover, if it stops it will lose money.
• If the price is below the average variable cost the company should go into shutdown. Losses are minimised by not producing more (wasting money of products that are selling at a loss).

Information and graphs summarised from:

Parkin, M., Powell, M., & Matthews, K. (2008). Economics. Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.

From a Psychology background I can’t help but stick this in to reflect upon. In order to utilise economics you are assuming that the consumer or the company has the aim of maximising profits and that they will always make the best rational decision. However, luck and cognitive dissonance may be more of a factor than simply “working out the numbers”. Daniel Kahneman: How cognitive illusions blind us to reason.

My research questions are (currently):

How can we make an effective mathematical model of the web?  How can we make an effective mathematical model of social networking sites? How can we best use these models to “understand” the web and how people use the web?

These questions are rather vague and hopefully they will be refined over the next four years.

In order to make such a mathematical model we must decide what basic properties the model should have.  This argument appears circular, needing to know properties of the web in order to make a model which will inform us of properties of the web!  However, we are really investigating the (sometimes hidden) effects of these known properties and what they mean for the web.

For example we might want to model Facebook.  We could associate Facebook with a graph G by assigning people to nodes and then draw an arc between two people if they are friends.  Since it has been shown that two people with mutual friends are more likely to be friends themselves than two people with no mutual friends, one property of G is that it has an abundance of triangles.  This means that if node A is joined to node C and node B is joined to node C then it is likely that node A is joined to node B.

In practice drawing G would be virtually impossible because Facebook changes constantly as new friendships are created and destroyed and people join and leave Facebook we make a model graph M (a more convenient graph which we generate and can control).  In order to be a good model M must have an abundance of triangles.

Note that the seemingly abstract mathematical property, an abundance of triangles, comes about for a sociological reason.  What other properties should the model graph have?  To find this out it will be vital to understand how people use the web, so I have chosen to study sociology/philosophy as my first discipline.

Such mathematical models could be used to find the most efficient route from node to node (in the Facebook example from one person to another and be useful at looking at the spreading of ideas).  These models could also be used to measure the resilience of a network from attack, (i.e. how will a network cope if we knock out some nodes?) hence I have chosen criminology as my second discipline.

Coming from a Sociological background, my overarching interest in this particular area is on how relationships are altered between doctors and patients due to the use of online health ‘facilities’; however, I have chosen to follow a more psychological route with this piece of work – namely, the effect of health websites on the individual, and whether this leads to what has popularly been termed ‘cyberchondria’. Furthermore, I will be locating literature from health sciences that I hope will complement not only the psychological findings, but which may also tie in with the literature from sociology that I have already read.

In order to do this, I first located readings that specifically referred to health anxieties and the web, which gave a few relevant readings, and the next step will be to follow this up with looking for introductory readings for psychology.

The second subject from Health Sciences is still provisional, and currently I do not know if I am going to persist with this. Some of the literature I have read has a slant towards Media Studies and other communicative media which seem highly interesting.

So many decisions, and currently feeling overwhelmed!

And, more importantly, the reading paves the way for a discussion on the social construction of technology ie. it is in contrast to the technological determinism that seems to abound in the media. (Especially the Daily Mail!) Have just got slightly side-tracked here looking at the Wikipedia entry for social constructivism, or social construction. I’m not sure I entirely agree with what’s said there, especially as I have come to social construction in the past from psychology. (This is going to turn into a giant aside, might need another post to link to here. But in essence the entry seems to be framing social construction in terms of by-products of choice, rather than natural laws,  which instantly seems to create one of the countless dichotomies that litter psychology and philosophy. Am not certain that such a dichotomy is necessary. )

So, as a part of our reading around the philosophy of science, we looked at a number of thinkers like Lakatos, Feyerabrand, Kuhn and Popper. We also looked quickly at Bloor. In defining a strong programme in the sociology of knowledge, (sorry, am referring to what he says he’s doing, not the title of the article which is the same), he says that rather than trying to define what knowledge is, independently of how people construct it, ‘knowledge for the sociologist is whatever people take to be knowledge.’ He also, rather magnificently, says that, ‘The cause of the hesitation to bring science within the scope of a thorough-going sociological scrutiny is lack of nerve and will.’ He then acknowledges this to be a psychological explanation, although depending on perspective, I think there can be failures of nerve and will that run through entire societies – in which case the treatment of what must apparently then be epistemological deficits cannot be (or at least, should not be?) purely bounded by psychological explanations. My thinking this also points to, I imagine, the fact that I think he’s correct but should perhaps be less apologetic in his approach. The paragraph that instantly caught my eye was the one that began, ‘how is knowledge transmitted, how stable is it, what processes go into its creation and maintenance, how is it organised and categorised into different disciplines or spheres?’ This, for me, was yet another ‘Oh Wow’ moment, as this description first, really mirrors what I wrote above on how knowledge is treated on the web, and second, is actually very similar to the way we talk about curating or maintaining web-pages. (And once I get more advanced, hopefully, how I might start looking at hypermedia, about which I know very little, but I can now see, after today’s lecture, is something I NEED to know about very urgently.) For Bloor’s sentence on knowledge above, it’s entirely meaningful to add ‘on the web’ to everything he says – instantly casting the web as something that is very strongly to do with knowledge, a cognitive extension.

So, I now have some words from sociology (although alluding to or perhaps also sitting within philosophy of science)  that fit quite snugly around my set of questions to be refined.

Bloor sets out four conditions that make for a strong framework, which are: causality, impartiality (surely a little question-begging?) symmetricality, and reflexivity. I don’t necessarily think systems of knowledge have to be reflexive: by definition if not everything is founded in inductive, scientific, detached knowledge, then the things being described or observed don’t really need to bootstrap themselves up via the same cantilevered mechanism. (He does discuss this, as I will.) However, I love the idea of the same types of cause explaining both true and false beliefs. Again, I would hedge my bets about causation since almost everything physics seems to tell us is that our notions of cause and therefore of explanation are local, but I think that a lot of what we see and understand in the world is most elegantly alluded to by what we don’t see, what we misunderstand, the ways in which we are wrong about things, the shadows left by a lack of light and the ways in which our explanations break down.

After the class on Wednesday, one nice colleague boroughed me the book Social Psychology by Brehm, Kassin, Fein with the suggestion that I could also look into Sociology. As I was reading through this book and thinking about the topics, I came across the The Self-Concept which is just another term for self-consciousness. We can describe self-consciousness by looking at the main methods through it is achieved:

1. introspection = looking inward at one’s thoughts and feelings
2. perceptions of our own behavior = analyzing your own behaviour you can find out how you react in certain situations
3. influences of other people = identifying yourself through comparison with others
4. cultural perspectives – depending on the origin of the individual he might be an individualist (its values are independence, autonomy, self-reliance) or a collectivist (its values are interdependence, cooperation and social harmony)

So point 3. states that self-consciousness is influenced by others. In the Royal Society presentation called Understanding social and information networks given by Professor Jon Kleinberg: http://royalsociety.tv/rsPlayer.aspx?presentationid=499 the speaker shows the probability of joining a group based on the number of friends already joined:

The web is now a social phenomenon, it isn’t just a place to access and share information, it is a world of its own where people interact, live and change. This is an unprecedented phenomenon in human history.

And as the world changes, the way of doing business also shifts from the traditional marketing techniques to a more valuable, customized approach. A suitable quote from Socialnomics by Erik Qualman would be the following:

Marketer’s Philosophy Yesterday

• It’s all about the sex and sizzle of the message and brand imagery
• It’s all about the message; good marketers can sell anything
• We know what is right for the customer – we are doing the customer a service because they really don’t know what they want

Marketer’s Philosophy Today

• It’s important to listen and respond to customer needs
• It’s all about the product; it’s necessary to in constant communication with all the other departments
• We never know what is exactly right for the customer; that is why we are constantly asking and making adjustments

The topics that I touched in this post (and will in the next ones) were the self-concept and how it relates to the social-self, new ways of doing marketing taking into account this new type of individual. Until the next post, I will

• have a look into Sociology to understand the driving forces of social networks
• read more from the book Socialnomics because it describes how social media transforms the way we live and do business (this is actually the book subtitle)
• look into more social marketing books to find out the methods of doing business in this brave new world

So, to expand the first blog post a little: what I think is nagging at me is this sense of a range of ‘objects,’ of pieces of ‘knowledge-meat’, or ‘currency’, that are consumed or traded within their own disciplines. Sometimes these objects of knowledge have the same names in other subjects, but they mean different things. And across disciplines the means of making them edible, civilized, tradable can be hugely different. Traditionally these bits of ontologies, of data (they are sometimes data) are going to somehow be examined, discussed, prodded, perhaps measured: quantified or qualified in some sense. In the past this might have been described on paper. These days, some of us (perhaps not that many, globally) have the web as a means of mediating discovery and knowledge acquisition. There are many things that can be done with knowledge on the web: it can be hidden, it can be spread, it can be created, it can be pushed around. If tiny bits of data somehow fit with the tiny little pieces of the structure of the web, then one might suppose that a sort of true picture emerges. However, again, something that has nagged at me is how so much of our thinking is analogical, or metaphorical. So that true pictures are actually very hard to locate using reductionist mapping – see Wicked Problems, for example.

What I think might be part of one of the questions I want to pursue, is to do with how the web might change the analogies that are implicit or embedded within disciplines. Sometimes the process of collaboration can bring out these assumptions. Sometimes, collaboration is hugely impeded by them.

For example, one of our widely used assumptions or analogies that fascinates me, is that which describes electricity. Electricity has long been portrayed as a commodity. Walter Patterson (a physicist by trade) has written at length on this subject, in a book called, ‘Keeping the Lights On.’ The traditional picture of electricity is of something that ‘flows’ like water, and can be cut off, traded, conserved, or wasted. Entire forests have been destroyed in the pursuit of the subject of electricity and our consumption of it. Generations of schoolchildren have suffered sleepless nights, worrying (somewhat misguidedly) about global warming’s fatal pendulum hanging over the Polar Bear every time they put their heating on (along with the location of the calorie  - another rather elusive and misleading concept.)

Patterson says, “How many times have you heard or read some energy specialist refer to ‘energy production’ or ‘energy consumption’? These people are supposed to be experts. Surely they ought to know one unbreakable law, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy. No one produces energy. No one consumes energy. The amount of energy in the whole universe remains the same.”

He then goes on to describes a host of assumptions that arise incorrectly out of our making electricity a commodity to be traded, the most simple being that arising from the regulators who are allegedly looking for the best deal for the household market – a low unit price does not equal a low bill – the holy grail for the ‘consumers.’ To me, having worked with the UK’s largest energy company and, in particular, with their hard and soft data, it’s clear on a fairly elementary level that describing our relationship with electricity like this is going to cause anxiety for the ‘consumer’. It describes a selfish market. It’s all about measuring how much we use, and not the quality of our relationship with it. Too much = red, not very much = green. It’s almost a little bit childish. Imagine designing an app to somehow map our relationship with energy. It would have reds and greens, wouldn’t it?  It would be about ‘a lot’ (scolding) or ‘a little’ (caressing tone of voice- well done.) It would be great to break from this model and look at different ways of being technical about how we are with energy.

Even as I’m doing my preliminary, slightly distracted, coffee-table pre-reading, this strikes a chord with me. A book I picked up a couple  of weeks ago, written by Stephen Landsburg is called, ‘The Armchair Economist.’ (In the manner of many inhabitants of armchairs he keeps disappearing just when I want him. I’m also wondering if The Spy in the Coffee Machine can see him from the kitchen, and if so, whether they should talk. Never mind.)

The first chapter of this book starts boldly with, “Most of economics can be measured in four words: ‘People respond to incentives.’ The rest is commentary.” He then goes on to describe, or perhaps, hypothesise, how making cars more safe kills more people, as people drive more safely in more dangerous cars. Landsburg continues by saying that economics begins with the assumption that all human behaviour is rational. I’m presuming that part of the rest of the book is to decry this notion triumphantly. It is very fashionable nowadays (and seems to cause great joy for the evolutionary psychologists) to show how entirely irrational we are; however I can’t help feeling that there is sometimes a confusion in the literature between say a system of perception, or of governance that overcorrects, and the net result that that has for the movement and/or survival of its owner. (I know, feeling something isn’t really academic: it’s another question to explore.)

So, now I have economics and markets intruding a little into my original speculation about how the concepts or metaphors embedded in disciplines might be creating pictures that aren’t entirely correct. It’s certainly the case that while markets have their own language, they also trade in the languages used by the disciplines that come together to create the products or objects on sale. And now, for some of us, the sorts of things that can be traded, over the net for example, are elusive objects, which it might be worth while trying to pin down a little further. I’m worrying that some of this sounds as though I’m just talking semantics. I do intend to explore this further and show how it’s not just trivial misunderstandings, but deep ones that maybe re-cast our notion of the world to some extent.

As far as a methodology goes, my approach to research is often about contingency. Particularly interdisciplinary research. I don’t believe that using a wholly empirical, top-down filtering method is always going to work, as this assumes that there is an explicit pool of knowledge out there to be refined. My very subject matter says that this might not be the case. So, although I intend to use the traditional method, and my next step is to get my text books on economics and psychology/ sociology, and to read and annotate findings from them, I will  also read a lot of not-quite academic, coffee-table stuff that gives me a feel for whether I would be happy to say, sit and have lunch with the people who are writing. And, more immediately, I’m suffering from a nagging sense of not having figured out what the correct referencing procedure for blogging is. I’m used to using hyperlinks and checking they’re still live every now and then. Suspect I might need proper references.

I also haven’t yet drawn out my reasons for an interest in psychology, but, quickly, this is because I think that in the pursuit of truth (which should arise somewhere when looking at how subjects are affected by the web), it is is probably going to be interesting to look at what drives people to co-operate and trust each other when working together within specific subject areas that use specific ontologies that might or might not be affected by the emergence of the WWW.

I am now releasing these thoughts into the wild, where they can roam about in a  sort of purgatory of waiting for approval.

The questions are not just the if or the how in a psychological or physical sense but also a philosophial consideration of the greater impact and entering the terriroties of cognitive extension and the web. Is this a dangerous notion or a good one and should we encourage it or discourage it? If we are truly outsourcing not just our memories but our thoughts and indeed, our thinking processes themselves, where does this leave us in ten years time? This of course leads back to the psychological concerns of what is actually happening internally within ourselves, are certain facilities for thought being replaced by others? What have we given up when we pick up a SatNav system or an iPhone to help guide us rather than a map and a compass (particularly relevant after having spent a weekend doing Duke of Edinburgh learning to navigate without such technology!) or when we let Facebook decide what it thinks is important for us and intersting to us so we don’t have to?

To begin this journey of explanation, I shall thus be diving deeper into the realms of both psychology and philosophy to explore the question – what is the web doing to our minds?

Having missed the lecture it appears I am behind on my blogging. Also never having blogged before this is a new concept to me, but I shall give it my best shot!

After much deliberation and thought I decided to go along the lines of thinking that if I am going to be researching a new topic perhaps I should choose something that has always been of interest to me, but as of yet I have not had a chance to study.

On this bases, my chosen research area will be the gameification of warfare. I hope to expand on this further in later blogs.

The two topics that I have chosen will be War Studies and Physiology.

Linking these two subjects will pose an interesting challenge after doing some brief research in Physiology I believe the following schools of thought will be of particular interest to me area of research;

BEHAVIOURISM

COGNITIVISM

And perhaps;

Neuro psychology

READING LIST – Psychology

Breedlove, S.M., Watson, N.V., Rosenzweight, M.R., (2010) Biological Psychology: An Introduction to Behavioural, Cognitive, and Clinical Neuroscience, Sinauer Associates.

This book is a comprehensive survey of the bases of behaviour that is authoritative and up-to-date. It offers a very broad perspective – encompassing lucid descriptions of behaviour, evolutionary history, development, proximate mechanisms and applications.

Crisp, R.J., Turner, R.N., (2010) Essential Social Psychology, 2nd Edition, Sage Publications, London.

Essential Social Psychology gives an accessible and thorough grounding in the key concepts, the fundamentals and the essentials of social psychology, while providing a lively introduction to the major theoretical debates, new approaches, and findings in the discipline.

Eynsenck, M.W., Keane M.T., (2010) Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook, 6th Edition, Psychology Press.

Traditional approaches are combined with the cutting-edge cognitive neuroscience approach to create a comprehensive, coherent and totally up-to-date overview of all the main fields in cognitive psychology. The major topics covered include perception, attention, memory, concepts, language, problem solving, and reasoning, as well as some applied topics such as everyday memory.

Goodwin, J.C.,  (2011)  A History of Modern Psychology, 4th Edition J. Wiley and Sons

This book explores the modern history of psychology including the fundamental bases of psychology and psychology’s advancements in the 20th century. Contains substantial information including ideas and concepts, history on the applied areas of psychology; philosophical antecedents and physiological antecedents  and history in the 20th century.

Gross, R. (2010) Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour, 6th Edition, Hodder Education.

All the major domains of psychology are covered in detail across 50 chapters . A final section on issues and debates casts a critical eye on the research process, explores the nature of psychology as an evolving science, and provides an understanding some of the ethical issues faced by psychologists.

Slater, A. and Bremmer, G. (2011) An Introduction to Developmental Psychology (BPS Textbooks in Psychology) 2nd Edition, J. Wiley and Son

In the first section of the book, developmental theory and methodology is discussed with special emphasis on the complex nurture–nature transactions shaping the child’s development. In a closing section educational and clinical implications of developmental research are presented. The book covers both European and American contributions to developmental science. Anecdotes about children, graphs of empirical results, pictures of experimental apparatus, and a set of discussion points at the end of each chapter facilitate the understanding of developmental achievements.

How has the law evolved (or not) in response to the shift from print to web-based media? How and why has consumer behaviour changed with regards to content on the web? How do the two relate to each other? Is the current intellectual property regime in inevitable conflict with the economic decisions of content consumers?

I’m going to start by reading some textbooks. So far (with thanks to Alison), I have begun to leaf through Information Technology Law, by Andrew Murray (in particular, Part III: “Digital Content and Intellectual Property Rights”). I imagine that after attempting to read the whole IT law textbook I’ll end up having to get some more basic understanding of the law from additional sources. I’m also hoping to get in contact with some people who Alison recommended, namely:

• Professor Steve Saxby (head of IT law research in Southampton)
• Laura German (2nd year Phd Web Science, from a Law background)
• Dr Roksana Moore (who gives lectures on IT law this term)

As for economics, I’m going to read the straightforwardly titled Economics, by Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus (apparently a classic introductory textbook). I also have Modern Industrial Organization, Dennis W. Carlton, Jeffrey M. Perloff, in particular, Chapter 16: “Patents and Technological Change”, again thanks to Alison.

Finally, because my interest is in consumer behaviour and economic decision-making with regards to the consumption of digital content, I would also like to look at ‘behavioural economics’. An Introduction to Behavioral Economics, by Nick Wilkinson and Matthias Klaes, will hopefully give me the relevant background. I also hope to get in contact with Professor David Gill from Southampton’s Economics department, who specialises in behavioural economics.

Over the course of my time here studying Web Science, I would like to do some in depth research into distributed currencies. A distributed currency is a form of money with no centralized processor or controlling authority. At the moment there are only a handful of distributed currencies in existence, and the majority of them stem from Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a “totally” anonymous and distributed online currency. It’s similar to PayPal in that you can use it to buy things online and send/receive currency quickly and conveniently.

PayPal is the opposite of a distributed currency, it’s centralized. PayPal handle all the processing of transactions, and they are also the authority for all transactions and for this service they charge a small fee on each transaction (varying from 2% – 8% of a transaction + a fixed 20p.) If PayPal doesn’t like a transaction, it will slow it, stop it or outright take your money away (googling PayPal took my money returns over 6million results.)

A distributed currency is not centralized. The transaction processing is handled by anybody who chooses to use the currency which normally involves running some client software. Because it’s running on anybodies computer, the currency must be designed in a secure way that doesn’t allow individual clients to tamper with or reverse transactions. The implications of this are a totally unregulated currency where nobody can decide what is right or wrong.

The pro’s of this are that people can make transactions for anything they want, without the worry of their account being frozen or their transaction being blocked or slowed or outright refused by a regulatory authority like PayPal. There is no single point of failure (or corruption.) Also, there is no mandatory fee’s to use these currencies or make transactions. The open distributed nature utilizes the internet in the way it was intended. It could be argued that centralized services governed by one authority undermine the entire point of have the internet (a distributed network) in the first place.

Bitcoin is totally anonymous also. If you want to receive money, you give someone a wallet address. You can have as many wallet addresses as you want which has the end result of it being impossible to link transactions to people. However, combine anonymity, money, and no regulation or authority and sure enough, you get criminals.

Bitcoin received a lot of publicity after the launch of a website called silkroad which was described as “the Amazon marketplace of drugs” which allowed users to by all sorts of illegal items including drugs and weapons – all paid for by the anonymous distributed currency Bitcoin. As well as Silk Road for weapons and drugs, there have also been suggestions that Bitcoin is used to trade in other illicit things such as hiring bot nets, hitmen, slaves, prostitutes and more.

Because there are supposedly a large amount of criminals using Bitcoin, there is a lot of fraud. Browsing Bitcoin forums and it’s not hard to find posts of people frustrated at being scammed out of several hundred Bitcoins (the current conversion is 1btc = $3) because there is no regulatory authority to reverse fraudulent transactions.

However, that’s not to say everyone that uses Bitcoin is a criminal or that every transaction is related to an illegal item. The idea of totally free online transactions should appeal to anybody that sells online, as it could result in lower product prices for the end user.

Over the course of my research, 1 of the many aspects of distributed currencies I would like to look into is ways of making a distributed economy that is less risky to use (e.g. reducing fraud and scams, it maybe that this means reducing anonymity) but maintaining the benefits of free transactions and no single point of failure/corruption.

My 2 subjects of research

My background is in computing science, I think it would be useful for me to also have a better understanding of economics and and criminology for the aspect of research above. Why?:

Economics: wikipedia described economics as “the social science that analyses the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.” I believe a deeper understanding of this and the methods associated with economics would allow me to conduct more informed, appropriate and educated research and to account for and explain the necessity of currency, trade and economies. Specifically I would like to look into online/cyber economics as it’s important to understand the differences (if any) between how people trade online vs. in the real world and how to cater towards these differences and incorporate them into my future research.

Reading Material
I’m not sure yet, I’ve been looking for economics books relating to the web and internet but have been unsuccessful in finding any so far. If anyone has any suggestions, please don’t hesitate to put them forward!

Criminology: wikipedia describes criminology as “the scientific study of the nature extent, causes and control of criminal behaviour in both the individual and in society.” In order to protect something against crime and fraud, I believe it’s important to first understand why people commit crime and fraud in the first place. Specifically I would like to look into cyber criminology to try and get an idea of the research methods used to access and understand such a dark corner of the web. I’d like to learn if and how researchers in this area get full, truthful and honest answers from an area that is inherently full of people willing to mislead.

Reading Material
Not 100% sure on this one yet, but here’s a few ideas:

Cyber Criminology: Exploring Internet Crimes and Criminal Behaviour (2011)

http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781439829493

“Approaching the topic from a social science perspective, the book explores methods for determining the causes of computer crime.”

Cyber Forensics and Cyber Crime: An Introduction (2008)

http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Forensics-Cyber-Crime-Introduction/dp/0132447495/

“It includes and exhaustive discussion of legal and social issues, fully defines computer crime…provides a comprehensive analysis of current case law, constitutional challenges and government legislation”

Having started out as a right is what it is like to do is to I got my god what is it about a bit of a and studied the second section of the book “principles of cognitive psychology” under the heading of “perception and recognition”, I am beginning to wonder how much of cognitive psychology overlaps with the study of artificial intelligence. In this blog, I am going to give a summary or an overview of what I have read and understood so far, and then compare it with my personal experience in working with electronics and artificial intelligence. I will therefore divide this blog up into two parts: A) perception and recognition in psychology, and B) image processing and identification in electronics and artificial intelligence. As with previous blogs, this article will conclude with a short reflective paragraph together with plans on future reading.

Part one: perception and recognition in psychology

To begin with, the book describes how the pathways of light starts from the object entering into the eyes and finally reaching the cortex in the brain. This part of the discussion is no different to what we learn at secondary school in physics and biology. The book then moves on to discuss the various visually related phenomen such as: simultaneous contrast, dark adaptation, colour processing, motion processing, visual illusions, pattern recognition and object recognition. For each of these phenomena, there is a summary of proposed the theories along with their supporting evidence. However, as noted in previous blog, these theories are not definitive as we shall see in this blog.

Simultaneous contrast

Simultaneous contrast refers to situations where a certain colour looks darker or lighter depending on the colours of the background. It was suggested that our eyes and brain are more sensitive to the relative difference of illumination than the actual colour itself. This theory has been used to explain how a person can be colour blind and yet able to perceive visually.

Dark adaptation

Dark adaptation is where visibility increases in the dark over a period of time. Unsurprisingly, the enlargement of the pupils was discussed in the book. Although a wide range of experiments proving the existence of dark adaptation are described in the book, there are no further explanation offered. At this stage, I began to question whether I am reading physics and biology or psychology. Nonetheless, just for the sake of amusing myself and out of the determination to find something new, I continued reading.

Colour processing

Colour processing as its name implies is concerned with our ability to distinguish different colours. The book is in the dangling out of the brain scans will use together to study this topic. It has been noted that certain area of the brain known as V4 had an increase of 13% of blood flow when a coloured stimulator is presented. This increase of blood flow in the area is considered as evidence of brain activity in order to process information triggered by the stimulator.

Motion processing

Motion processing is to do with identifying moving objects. I was surprised to find that different parts of our brain are responsible for seeing stationary objects and moving objects. There is an area of the brain commonly known by the profession as V5, which is responsible for identifying all moving objects. Again, brain scans and monitoring of blood flow were used to identify the area. Interestingly, patients with brain damage in area V5 cannot see moving objects. In other words, stationary objects can be seen normally, just like everyone else. However, as soon as the objects begin to move they become invisible. Some patients have reported difficulty in pouring tea or coffee into a cup, because the fluid appeared to be frozen. They cannot gauge when to stop pouring, because they simply cannot see the fluid. In order to gauge accurately, they have to guess when to stop pouring, stop, wait, and look inside the cup when there is no movement. Then, and only then, can they decide accurately whether they need to stop pouring tea or coffee.

Visual illusions

The book then moves on to discuss how visual illusions work. Again, many theories were proposed, but none are definitive. For instance, the Ponzo illusion was explained by three-dimensional vision. In this theory, it is suggested that our brain automatically interprets two-dimensional images as a representative of the three-dimensional objects. In the case of this illusion, the lines that represent a train track gives the illusion that object A is further away from us then object B.  One therefore assume that if both objects are of the same size, the one further away from us would be smaller when presented in two-dimensional format. Since this picture shows that both objects are about the same size on a two-dimensional plane, one would assume that object  A (the one further away) is actually bigger. Of course, this will not be the case if one was to measure it on paper, which is two-dimensional.

However, if this theory was true, one would expect our judgement in three-dimensional situations to be perfect. However the book spine experiment shows that visual illusions occurs in three-dimensional situations as well. In this experiment, three books are placed so that the spines of the books are equally spaced between them all. The two books on the left are opened up facing each other while the third book is opened up facing away from the other two books. Although performed in three-dimensional situation, we arrived at the illusion that the two book facing each other much closer than the other book. Once again, this book finishes this section of discussion without definitive theory or explanation to the phenomenon.

Pattern recognition

Pattern recognition is concerned with recognising single patterns such as letters and  numerical symbols. When there are so many variations in orientation, typeface, size, and writing styles, how does the brain actually recognise these patterns? One theory suggests that the brain uses different for each pattern when a given pattern matches a template, a recognition is said to have occurred. In support of this theory, computational experiments had been set up to demonstrate the use of templates for pattern recognition. For instance, it has been shown that computers can correctly recognised 69% of numerical digits with only a handful of different templates installed per digit. With increasing number of templates per digit, higher accuracy of recognition is also achieved.

However, this method of recognition does not account for variations in writing styles. Therefore, an alternative theory known as feature theory was proposed. According to this theory, we recognise patterns by identifying key features of the pattern. For example, the letter ‘A’ can be described as two straight legs and a connecting crossbar. However it has been shown that word patterns of letters were made up of smaller letters, recognition of the letters is not always consistent with the theory. Once again, the book exits the discussion without a concrete theory in place.

Object recognition

Object recognition is concerned with how we identify objects. According to the theory of recognition by components, we recognise objects by studying the edges of the object. For instance, by looking at the curvature, combination of parallel lines, symmetry and straight lines, we associate what we see with the objects we know. In support of this theory, simple pictures were drawn and subjects were asked to identify these objects. Gradually though, various features of these pictures were removed and success rate in identifying these objects were recorded. It was found that information pertaining to the edges of the objects were crucial to successful identification, whereas those pertaining to surface features such as decoration and patterns make no difference to the performance.

Part two: image processing and identification in electronics and artificial intelligence

While I was working as an electronics engineer, I was working on a project dealing with CCTV footage. The goal of the project was to use the camera footage to monitor a warehouse. Although it would seem to be a simple task, we were asked to design a program that could control up to 50 cameras to home in into problem spots from different angles. It is hoped that by doing so, the company would stand a better chance of capturing crucial features of the intruder from different angles. However, this is easier said than done. For example, one could argue that all we need is a motion sensor. If the movement is detected, then move nearby CCTV to focus on the detection spot. However, what if a cat passes by? Or what if there are more than one person involved in breaking into the premises? How will the system cope? Therefore, our task involved studying CCTV images and identifying a way of recognising common objects.

In this case, the CCTV images are equivalent to retinal images. These images on its own have no meaning whatsoever, or at least not until the brain or the computer has processed the information and interpreted it. In this respect I find what I have been reading in cognitive psychology remarkably similar to what may be called artificial intelligence.

Part of the work that I did, we use edges for object identification. More specifically, we have looked at significant changes in colours to identify edges. The underlying assumption here is that the edges of an object can be identified by colours. For example, a white car that is parked in the middle of the park would have green surroundings around it. Therefore, if we draw a line between colour contrasts, we would be able to trace the shape of the car.

Identifying the shape of a car or any other object was not too difficult. Since many of these objects have common dimensions and size, engineers can use 3-D vectors and are the mathematical tools to identify objects. However, before these mathematical tools can be employed, first we need to know the dimensions that of the objects. Of course, this means interpreting two-dimensional images. This again is a problem. Take a book for example, if the book was placed near the camera, it will look bigger; if however the book is placed further away from the camera, it will look smaller. This is where the study of aspect ratio comes in. Typically, engineers will include objects with known size in their images so that they can calculate the size of the object of interest by comparison. In our project, we made sure that all our cameras can see certain fixed size objects that will help us in our calculation.

In terms of motion detection, we have tried to compare images captured five seconds apart. For the most part, where things are stationary they should not be any differences between the two images. However, if a person is walking by, we should be able to detect the motion by comparing the images before and after. By comparing and generalising the changes observed, our program was able to detect motions and predict future movements.

Reflection

As I began reading this book, I was very worried because I did not know where I was going. It appeared to me that I was not learning anything new or other than basic secondary school level of physics and biology. However, as I read on, I am pleased that my patience paid off. On reflection, I have found the explanation of motion perception and object recognition remarkably similar to the work I have done in the field of electronics and artificial intelligence. I am pleasantly surprised with what I found.

At this point, I am faced with the dilemma. I am absolutely fascinated by the similarity of cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence. Of course, with my background in electronics, I am inclined to investigate this area further. However, it seems to me that doing so will be defeating the objective of this exercise. For this reason, I have decided to stick with this book and just make my own observation and draw my own parallels with electronics and artificial intelligence as I go along.

Moving on

Looking at the table of contents of the book, the next few sections will be dealing with memory, languages and decision-making. No doubt there will be a lot of similarity with what I’ve done before, but until I finish reading the book and summarising my findings on this blog, I shall refrain from going back into my comfort zone.

Perhaps worth noting at this point, in the back of my mind, I am beginning to wonder how much of this overlap with what I personally know as electronics and artificial intelligence is also an overlap with web science.

Two disciplines: Economics and Sociology

The Web has a large influence on the popularity and reach of music, this is true now more than in previous decades. In terms of Economics I will be exploring how the Web has improved the access to consumers and how this has affected small bands. In terms of Sociology, the Web is not just useful for providing products to a large group of people, it is also used to build social networks which may have an impact on small bands.

The reason behind choosing these two disciplines is that money and society are two large factors in how much an independent musician can ‘achieve’. Using Economics, I will explore how social networks interact with the current economic models for pricing and making profit for the bands. Using Sociology, I will examine the idea that social networks allow larger connection of music fans to each other and to the bands that they are fans of. I will also explore how social networking impacts on the bands’ popularity and reach.

In order to start researching these topics I have visited the library and borrowed introductory textbooks on both Economics and Sociology.

cognitive psychology is generally understood to be a part of psychology, but specialises in studying the internal mental process of perception, memory, and decision-making. In the book “principles of cognitive psychology”, it is described as:

“a study of the main internal psychological processes that are involved in making sense of the environment and deciding what action might be appropriate”.

Challenges of studying cognitive psychology

cognitive psychology is a difficult subject to study, not because it is intellectually challenging, but the subject of study is invisible to human eyes. In addition, the processes involved within our brain are not always clear.

For example, there was a time when it was believed that thinking process works in a sequential manner. In other words, it was believed that we process information one at a time and those processes never happen in parallel. This idea however cannot explain how human can multitask. This has now been replaced with the theory of parallel processing.

Similarly, it was believed that stimulus always generate a response. According to this theory, a piece of reading material can be a form of stimulus, which in turn triggers some response or action that can be measured. This conceptual framework is called top-down processing. However, many experiments have been designed and shown and that people miss read statements because of the brain is not reacting purely and simply to the stimulus. To the contrary, we have our own perception and expectation, which may interfere with the way we process the stimulus information. We were given an example of a statement which says, “Paris in the the spring”. It has been shown through similar experiments with the repeatable results and observations that many people read the statement as, “Paris in the spring”. The fact that the word of “the” is repeated is often missed out. This is an example of bottom-up processing of the brain. In other words, the brain is not just reacting to the stimulus as an independent trigger of response, but perception and expectation has a role to play as well.

Overall, there is a strong message in these introductory chapters that the main challenge in cognitive psychology is to identify the exact process used by the brain. In engineering terms, one can describe the situation as a study of a black box, where inputs and outputs can be controlled measured but opening up the blackbox is prohibited. Or perhaps in mathematical terms, one can describe the situation as a study of a function box, where again the inputs and outputs can be measured but the precise mathematical function of the box is not known. In both analogies, we can see multiple possibilities and theories can be developed for any given set of inputs and outputs. Therefore, we can never be sure that the proposed process represents the way the brain functions. At best, we arrive at a conceptual model that helps our understanding.

Four main research methods in cognitive psychology

Given that we’re studying the blackbox that we may not open, the next logical question is how does one study it? It would appear in the area of cognitive psychology, there are four main ways of studying cognition: A) by experiment, B) by comparing brain-damaged patients, C) by developing computational models, and D) by brain scans.

Experiment

out of all the methods, the experimental methods is the easiest to understand. There are usually conducted in a controlled environment, which lends itself to scientific studies of data. However this type of approaches are commonly challenged for two reasons: A) as explained before, these can only provide indirect evidence about the internal processes involved, and B) given the context of a controlled environment, which is highly artificial, it is often difficult to justify or believe that the subjects will behave in an identical manner in real life.

Comparison

the comparison method is an interesting one. Essentially, cognitive psychologists look for brain-damaged patients and compare what they can or cannot do with other patients. For example, if they have patients who can speak very well but cannot hear, they can then conclude that the processes involved in speaking are independent of those for hearing. This method is most conclusive when patients with opposite skills matrix occur. For instance, if a group of patients can do task A very well but not task B, and another group of patients can do task B very well but not task A, we can then conclude with confidence that the processes involved in task A or B are totally independent of each other.

This method has its own limitations though. For example, where patients can perform part of the task, can we still make a conclusion? Also, this issue is that there is only one or two of the brain that contributes to a certain function. However, more often than not, unless the task is exceptionally simple, different functions of the brain will be invoked. Take matching shapes as an example. Young children are often given toys which required them to recognise different shapes. This is a very simple task in its own right. However, it involves long-term memory (remembering the instruction given), short-term memory (what their eyes have just seen), decision-making, and motor skills. It is often very difficult to isolate these processes as totally independent of each other.

computational models

computational models are closely akin to a branch of computer science called artificial intelligence. Feeding by the information gathered through previous methods, programmers builds computational models to represent cognitive processes. Although cannot guarantee to be representative of the exact cognitive process involved, it does allow a systematic way of investigating the processes. Usually, the programmers involved use what is known as the connection networks, where there are input links, processing units, and output links. Unlike computer networks where there is specific location for memories, connection networks in psychology have memories distributed over the network.

brain scans

finally, the last approach makes use of a modern technology in brain scanning to establish where and when cognitive processes happen within the brain. This method of study has been very useful in areas where processors function in discreet ways. However, it has been less successful in higher order cognitive functions such as reasoning and decision-making or where cognitive functions and processes do overlap.

Reflection

it has been very interesting to read through the introductory chapters of my first book in cognitive psychology. I have found the definition and scope of cognitive psychology very helpful and the chapters discussing the four major approaches informative. I was very surprised to see how brain-damaged patients can help in research. And of course technological advances has made it possible to probe into the blackbox itself.

Moving On

This book then continues to discuss cognitive psychology in four main study areas: A) three chapters on recognition and perception, B) two chapters on memory management, C) two chapters on language comprehension and production, and D) three chapters on problem solving and decision making. I will be updating my blog as I read and reflect on the material as I consider these areas one at a time.

Go to library by subject

This is great for pointing you at databases of journals but not so hot for basic textbooks.

Search Webcat for subject + introduction

Better … .  My two disciplines are marketing and either film studies or journalism. It worked quite well for marketing  and film studies – only about 10 to choose from – although they were mostly on loan.  Not so well for  journalism – not at all obvious which were solid introductions to the subject.

Search on Amazon for subject + introduction

Again worked OK for marketing  and film studies – the comments allowed me to confirm the  books in the library were good choices.  Journalism produced a rather long list and it was hard to tell which were good and also how to get hold of them without spending large amounts.

Looks like it is going to film studies!

Research question:

Something on the lines of:

How do scientists use the web to communicate with the public

Main Concept

I believe that museums should be able to collaborate with other museums. Not only in their same country but also around the world.  The Museums Association (MA), along with The Museums, Libraries & Archives Council (MLA) in the UK, indicates that a museum should “enable people to explore collections for inspiration, learning and enjoyment.”

This means that the cultural motivation or agenda of the museum can be manipulated by different factors like: political, economical, location, etc…
The different agenda that the museum can follow, motivates me to approach the problem from different perspectives and disciplines.

The main two disciplines

Within Web Science, my main two disciplines will be:

• Museum Studies / Museology
• Information Technology for Organizations

Museum Studies

Through the museum studies, I will be attempting to explore the different museum methodologies but focusing mainly on the purposes of the museums and how the response from people. Peter Vergo mentioned in 1989

… too much about museum methods and too little about the purpose of the museum …
(Vergo, 1989: 3)

This indicates how it is not only important the methodological approach wich is directly related to Graphic Design and Visual Communication; which is my area of expertise.

The MLA indicates a basic typology of museums that can be able to target the different approach for the museum purpose within the UK.

• National museums
• Local authority museums
• University museums
• English Heritage museums
• Independent museums
• National Trust properties
• Regimental museums and armouries
• Unoccupied royal palaces

Being a Web Science research, this typology will have to be challenged and extended in order to globalize the museum typology throughout the world.

Through my research I will attempt to develop a new approach of how museums exhibit to their public by extending their exhibition material through different collaborative processes.

Information Technology for Organizations

Within the IT for Organizations, the technology developed can be able to adapted for the requirements of the institution or organization.  Through this discipline I believe I can target a different problematic of museum collaboration. Issues like: e-learning, disabled IT access, gaming, security system, etc..

A full technological approach with a sociological combination will allow the research to preview different areas of improvement. Areas in which museums, institutions and academics can be able to benefit from it.

My next step

Throughout the next days I will start to gather the essential bibliography for this research.  I will start posting the main theories and methods gathered from these books and start finding people that relate or can be able to collaborate with my research.  Ultimately I will like to find some institutions that are keen is promoting these kind of ideas to provide support to smaller museums that are struggling to get ‘out there’.

Apologies for my lack of blogging, I’ve been doing some reading over christmas (I trust everybody had a good christmas) and I wanted to share my thinking on the methodological approaches of both psychology and complexity. I think there is a fundemental issue here as to how we approach Webscience (are we going with Webscience, webscience Web Science or web science these days?) and the role of the different subject areas we’ve be learning about.

The traditional psychological approach shares much with the type of research we learn about in research methods. The positivist idea of isolating a variable and testing it either in the lab or via observation. Complexity differs as components (people, web pages) are affected by their interrelationships. So, isolating a particular part of the system for testing makes little sense as the effects of one variable in isolation say nothing about the collective effects.

If you watch the September Royal Society presentations, Nigel introduces webscience as a multidisciplinary area covering a whole range of subject from the structure of the web to humanities. In the complexity literature, however, there is a fundemental rejection of a positivist approach to dealing with complex systems. This is not to say there is no benefit to be gained, just that the two subject areas are tackling different questions;

Positivist experimentation – what happens at the interface between the web and the individual

Complexity – how does the network function as an entitiy in itself

So the question I have is what are we actually studying when we talk about webscience? Are we taking what we know of complex systems formation and then working out what effects that will have on people or, are we viewing people as part of the system in which case removing them to conduct experiments is impossible without altering the system.

My essay writing efforts have been along these lines – what are the methodological constraints of each approach and can they inform each other in a holistic explanation of the system…

Psychology uses the scientific method, containing three core types of research: observation (in natural environment, e.g. Darwin); correlational studies (observation with formal measurements and examination of relationships between measurements); and experiments (making things happen and observing the results).

Experiments are seen to be the most rigorous, and five stages are described for all research of this nature:

• Identifying the problem and creating a cause-effect hypothesis
• Design the experiment – define the independent and dependent variables
• Conduct the experiment – record observations
• Examine data collected and evaluate hypothesis
• Communicate the results

While observations are commonly used in psychology, it is experimentation that quantifies behaviours and is the only method that can determine whether theories are correct (although the importance of qualitative research has increased since the 1970s). Experiments are likely to include an ‘experimental group’ on which the study is aimed, and a ‘control group’ which is used for comparison and uses techniques such as administering placebos to replicate the conditions of the experimental group (when the research knows who is receiving a placebo, this is called a single-blind study. A double-blind study is when neither the participants nor the researcher knows who is receiving a placebo).

An experiment may use independent groups (between-groups) where each group of participants is tested in a slightly different way, or repeated measures (within-groups) where every participant is exposed to the experiment in the exact same way. Experiments may be classed as laboratory experiments where the researcher is in control over all variables, or field experiments which occur in the natural or normal environment, and in which the research should not interfere.

Whereas my other discipline (anthropology) involved studying a single particular society or community, psychology aims to explain features of behaviour more generally and so research must make use of samples to infer findings across a larger population. Random sampling is typically used. In some scenarios however, single-case study is used to focus on individuals and this uses either experiments or correlational studies. Correlational studies are studies used when there are variables which are needed to be studied but cannot be manipulated by the researcher e.g. social class, income, sex, personality etc.

Some qualitative research used in psychology includes semi-structured interviews, discourse analysis and grounded theory. However qualitative research is still rejected by many psychologists as it is too subjective for this field.

Animism

A belief that a body is controlled, or animated, by a mind or spirit. Although this is a rather basic and historical theory, there are still links to modern explanation of behaviour, with a person’s will now being seen as the cause of certain behaviour. This is not, however a scientific explanation, as a person’s will cannot be studied.

Dualism (Descartes)

Belief that reality can be split into two separate entities: mind and matter. Proposed the theory that mind and body interact. Influenced introspectionism and behaviourism.

Empiricism (Locke and Hume)

“Pursuit of truth through observation and experience”. Suggested that all knowledge must come from experiences, rejecting the belief that children were born with ideas in their mind.  Simple ideas connect to form complex experiences. Positivism (Hume) – “All meaningful ideas can be reduced to observable material”.  Ideas influenced behaviourism.

Idealism (Berkeley)

Ideas come from senses – “knowledge is the result of inferences based on the accumulation of past experiences derived through the senses”. Materialism (Mill) – Mind as a machine, part of the physical world.

More modern theories regarding psychology were then covered, and can be reduced down to and summarised as:

Structuralism (Wundt)

Mind could be broken up into the components which formed it to be studied (introspection).

Functionalism (James and Angell)

Study of conscious activity such as perceiving and learning. Thinking as a function to influence behaviour.

Psychodynamic Theory (Freud)

Theory of personality. Concepts of ego, superego and id. Included structures and emphasised function.

Behaviourism (Thorndike, Pavlov and Watson)

Followed from Functionalism. Relation between environment and behaviour. Cause-and-effect relationships. This theory relies on observable behaviour. Belief that reflexes can be conditioned. This developed further into radical behaviourism: All behaviour comes from interactions with the environment, with reinforcement influencing the responses to stimulus.

Genetic Epistemology (Piaget)

Interested in how a developing child acquires knowledge.

Gestalt Psychology (Wertheimer)

No longer exists, but has been adapted into other areas of psychology. Attempted to discover how cognitive processes are organised and interact to form perceptions.

Humanistic Psychology

Argument against behaviourism and psychoanalysis – conscious processes should be studied. Focuses on “experience, choice and creativity, self-realisation and positive growth”.

Cognitive Revolution

Behaviourism too restricting, more focus on memory and more personal ‘private’ events.

Biological Revolution

Focus on understanding the brain, and locating which function occur in certain parts of the brain.

Topics blogged about previously:

• Ethnocentrism
• Cultural realism
• History:
  • Diffusionism
  • Globalisation
• Ethnography
• Emic and Etic
• The Social Person/Human Existence
• Statuses and Roles – Goffman
• The Self – Brian Morris (1994)
• Socialisation
• Anomie
• Social systems and social structures
• Habitus (Bourdieu)

The topics in bold are those I believe Keesing and Strathern cover to complement Hylland Eriksen. A couple of interesting points that I also noticed while skimming through Cultural Anthropology are that Anthropology is a lot less scientific than other social sciences – it is difficult to apply questionnaires, experiments etc when carrying out an anthropological study so research techniques have fallen back on how to “learn, understand and communicate”. Scientific method is often inappropriate – as there is “nothing to measure, count, or predict”.

This post was really just about summarising what I have covered in Anthropology so far, as I would now like to move on to Psychology having not touched it so far. I think a lot of the basic theories and ideas have strong links to sociology, but there is a definite cultural twist on them. I aim to cover the basic principles of psychology in the next couple of weeks, and then relate both disciplines to Identity once I have this understanding.

I’m thinking the Memex, for example, which was to support and supplement one’s memory, is a cognitive extension just as the notebook of the person with Alzheimer’s during his visit to the Museum (those who understand that reference, know what I’m talking about).

Similarly, the NoteCard computer environment wasn’t built to replace the intellectual creative process, but to support it. To help make sense of ideas, manage and present them.

So is the Web a tool a cognitive extension?

Last week, the complexity lecture was on Autopoiesis – an attempt to create a non-circular definition of life. It defines it as a self-sustaining system with it’s own semi-permeable boundary to the outside world, containing various processes that both sustain themselves and maintain the membrane. This leads to the extraction of nourishment from the external environment and excretion of waste. Whilst this was designed primarily to clarify the distinction between life and non-life at the microscopic level, the analogy to human groups (such as, for instance, the Catholic Church) may be of some interest to my topic in terms of answering – what is it that makes a group (such as one formed online to solve a problem) sustainable?

Unfortunately my reading this week has been rather limited due to other work commitments and so for my politics research I have just read an article on the political philosophy of John Locke, in a return to the fundamental ideas and principles that have influenced political development: A Tuckness (2010) – Locke’s Political Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy).

John Locke (1632-1704) is particularly influential within the context of this research as he presented political ideologies in relation to the issue of privacy.  Locke purported a rather radical conception of political philosophy deduced from the principle of self-ownership and the collar right to own property. This is also based on Locke’s famous statement that a man earns ownership over a resource when he mixes his labour with it. He argued that Government should be limited to securing the life and property of its citizens and it is only necessary when problems occur that would make lives more insecure. Locke’s work – Two Treatises of Government in 1690 was a direct counter-argument to Thomas Hobbs’ Leviathan, in which Hobbes argues in favour of absolutist Government to prevent people from abusing property and privacy. Whilst The Second Treatise of Government is still influential today which has helped shape political philosophy and formed the basis for political doctrines such as The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. It places sovereignty into the hands of society.  His fundamental argument is that people are equal and invested with natural rights in a state of nature in which they live free from outside rule. Individuals can change some of their natural rights to enter into society with other people, and be protected by common laws and a common executive power to enforce the laws, having executive power to protect their property and defend their liberty. The civil state is bound to its people, and has power over the people only insofar as it exists to protect and preserve their welfare. Thus citizens have the right to dissolve their government, if that government ceases to work solely in their best interest. The government has no sovereignty of its own–it exists to serve the people. Locke sees personal liberty as the key factor of a society that works toward the individual’s and the state’s best interest.

For psychology I have collated the previous readings in order to attempt to provide answers for some questions that have arisen through the research. Such as within behaviour privacy is an important aspect, but is it important as an overall issue within psychology. I have identified that the areas within psychology that are most closely associated with privacy are self and identity however there are other aspect which can be associated such as: Social psychology, Industrial/ organizational psychology, and environmental psychology.   Ellen Berscheid (1977) stated that social psychologists have studied many topics that address privacy-related issues “but which are often overlooked as privacy related.” She included social facilitation, attitude formation and change, social influence, deindividuation, and social comparison processes, among other topics.  I am also of the opinion that deception and disclosure could be linked to this area. In particular the latter has been linked to privacy for nearly 30 years.  (e.g., Derlega & Chaiken, 1977; Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993). Bella DePaulo et al, 2003) and Andy Johnson (1974) have made persuasive cases, respectively, for linking privacy and deception and privacy and psychological control.

Next week I intend to do further reading into the areas of democracy and behaviour.

My principle texts have been:

Psychology – The Science of mind and Behaviour by Richard Gross
Psychology by Bernstein et al
Psychology by Neil Martin

The clearest definition that i managed to find in the three books was in Gross, and states that psychology is the scientific study of behaviour and cognitive processes. There is also an interesting proposition in Bernstein and Gross that we can all be considered psychologists insofar as we all develop theories about what other people are like, and use these theories to help us explain / understand, predict and control other’s behaviour. The discipline is also branched into a number of distinct but interrelated areas; i’d heard of several of these (Behavioural, Cognitive, Clinical and Educational), but was surprised to learn there is such a thing as Biopsychology. I briefly scanned the definitions of each in order to have a fuller understanding of where i might like to concentrate my reading after i’ve got a firmer grasp of the basics, and at the moment i’m thinking of Behavioural and Cognitive (although Personality Psychology sounds like it could be relevant if it is sufficiently widely recognised as a distinct area.)

I then found that these different branches are themselves sub-branches of a divide further up the chain between ‘basic’ and ‘applied’ psychology. I was beginning to get a bit lost, as each book seemed to have a slightly different take on where the divisions lay, but the first chapter of Gross seemed to provide the clearest explanation. His way of distinguishing between the different aspects of psychology  quotes Legge (1975), and gives a good flavour of the overlaps and interconnected nature of the discipline: research carried out under the banner of psychology can be divided into that which focuses on processes or mechanisms underlying various aspects of behaviour and those which focus more directly on the person.

The Process Approach

This consists of the biological bases of behaviour, learning, cognitive processes and comparitive and is often referred to as experimental psychology (with the term ‘experimental’ being used to distinguish scientific psychology from the philosophy from which it emerged.)

The Person Approach

This consists of social psychology, developmental psychology and individual differences. It is this branch which i believe will be of more use to me in terms of being able to apply the approach of the discipline to my research question, and as such i began to concentrate my reading in this area. In particular, social psychology seems like it will have much to offer.

Social Psychology

I managed to find a fairly succinct definition by Gordon Allport which seems to sum up the text books’  definition in their introductory sections: social psychology is concerned with understanding how how the thought, feeling and behaviour of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of other human beings. Given the nature of reputation, tied up as it is with trust and relationship building, I’m certain I need to concentrate on this area. A little bit of reading around the edges led me to find several chapters in Gross and one in Martin that discussed aspects of social psychology, but having gone through these I think it would be more useful to get several books that are specifically about it.

So i’ve managed to find the area i need to concetrate on, and have an appreciation of the distinctions that exist within the discipline. I’m feeling much more confident about psychology being useful to my question than economics! I will get some social psychology texts this week, and try and focus in further on the area that i think will be of most use.

                Primarily the goal of all firms is to maximise profit, failure to do this either results in the company failing, and going out of business or being purchased and subsumed by a more successful business (which ironically could be a good thing for small retailers and producers). The profit of a company is calculated simply by the total revenue of a company minus the total costs. There are always restraints on the total amount of profit that a company can make, the main three of these are technological constraints, informational constraints and market constraints. As discussed in a previous blog, economist define technology in a general way, as any method which influences the production of a good or service, as such the type of retail outlet chosen by a company is a technological constraint. For example the constraints on Novatech, a technology company, which relies on catalogue sales, differs to the constraints on Best Buy, a large superstore, which in turn differs from Maplins, which relies on many smaller stores, which further differs from the restraints on sellers based on Amazon and eBay. Companies are restrained by their nature as changing requires a large investment, which in turn affects future profits. Informational constraints occur as it is impossible for a firm to have all the information that may impact on its future growth and development, however gathering information costs resources including time. Workers are not robots and also may change productivity unexpectedly, furthermore it is not possible for a company to predict when a new technology, or new competitor may enter the market, all of these are informational restraints. The final constraint that a company faces is market constraint, this is constraints which occurs due to external market factors, for example if the global market suddenly shifts away from a product, increases a resource cost or any other external market factor. All factors influence the uncertainty level of firm.

                Firms help to gain profitability by ensuring efficiency, both technological and economic. To ensure technological efficiency, firms need to produce goods or services using the least possible inputs, that is a firm which requires fifty workers and 50 units of capital to produce a good or service is more efficient than a firm which require seventy-five workers and 50 capital to produce the same good. Economic efficiency occurs when the firm can produce a good for the least possible cost. That is a firm that can produce a good for £8 per unit is far more economically efficient than a firm than that can produce the same good for £10 per unit. It is far harder however to predict economic efficiency as it depends far more on the relative cost of resources and is not a fixed number, for example a company which relies on oil rather than synthetic fuels may be efficient when the cost of oil is low however may be inefficient after a price hike in oil. Inefficient firms do not maximise profit.

                When dealing with workers, companies help ensure efficiency by the use of two primary systems, command systems and incentive systems. Command systems rely on a company hierarchy to manage the workers, creating many hierarchs and layers in each firm. However managers may still have incomplete information regarding the workforce, and rely on the personal traits of the individual managers. Incentive systems work by offering incentives to workers for increased productivity. In a rather ironic system, incentive systems offer payment for workers who do their jobs! Many incentive schemes rely on share schemes to help motivate workers, however such schemes fail to have much impact if an individual has a negliable impact on the day to day operations of a firm. Alternatively several companies rely on a purely incentive pay system, where a workers pay directly correlates to their performance, despite still used considerably in the sales industry, this type of payment is on the decline due to minimum wage laws. The final action that companies use to try to motivate workers is the use of long term contracts, it is theorised that as the worker will be at a firm a long term it is beneficial to help improve the company and ensure its profitability, I have doubts with this however and can only see this working in a recession and when there is a limited number of job opportunities, in a booming economy workers are likely to be far more mobile and active in seeking an improvement to their current situation.

                 Most firms employ both systems to help ensure efficiency, as the management provide an easy way to disseminate information through the firm as well as a way to manage workers. Many companies also face a specific principle agent problem, ideally it is best that agents (workers and managers) work in the best interest of the principles (the firm), however agents often have their own agendas which may not benefit the firm as a whole, for example a manager may actively engage in behaviour to cast doubt on a superior to gain a promotion, this action however may not improve the firm as a whole, and may in the long run impede productivity. 

                It is also important to examine the types of businesses that currently exist in capitalist society. Proprietorships are lone traders, which tend to employ smaller workforces, in which the owner has unlimited liability. Unlimited liability is where the assets of the business and the assets of the owner are considered one and the same, including personal property, this means that if the firm owes a debt to creditors the owners personal assets can be seized to repay the debt, it is also likely that the firm would die when the owner is no longer capable of running the company due to ill health or death. The second main type is partnerships, which is effectively viewed as as coalition between sole traders, were all partners share risk and reward, these can be far more stable than lone traders, however may be slower to react as agreements may be hard to reach between partners. Companies are a mass coalition of share holders, all of which have limited liability, where the assets of the company are distinct from its owners, companies tend to be large, regional, national or global enterprises. Such large companies can however be inefficient in that decisions may be slow to agree on, and even slower to filter through the layers of company hierarchy. The company is however the most stable and long lasting options for investors.

                All firms must operate in a marketplace, with different marketplaces being qualitative different trading environments. Some markets are characterised as perfect competitive environments, this is where many retailers compete selling identical products with no trading restrictions, this is often seen in primary industries such as mining and farming. Monopolistic competition exists where large firms compete by selling very similar but slightly different products, such as sports shoe retailers, and is best characterised by large firms, who rely on reputation and product differentiation to gain sales, large firms also actively attempt to block entry to new firms due to their sheer size and market dominance. Oligopolies exists were a limited number of companies compete to gain market share, all selling qualitatively similar goods. Finally monopolies exist where one company dominates a market virtually to the exclusion of all competitors; the most apparent example of this is in computer operating systems where Microsoft dominates by a clear margin (with a market share of over 90%). In order for consumers to gain the most out of a market, perfect competition is desirable as it helps ensure lower prices and increased internal efficiency. Market share has tended in the past to be regionally based, however since the growth of the web buyers are free to purchase globally, allowing smaller retailers into market places, encouraging growth and competition between retailers, as each seeks to offer a better deal than its competitors.

                 As can be seen the internal operation of a firm are essential in its successful actions in the external business environment.

                Until next time.

• Social Systems: Sets of relationships between actors;
• Social Structures: The totality of standardised relationships in a society.

This definition of social systems relates to social networks – the relationships from a particular person, and the scale of these networks has to be considered in contemporary Anthropology as the Internet has meant that non-localised networks are of increasing importance compared to the traditionally studied small-scale societies. Rather than simply focusing on online research to study these networks, however, anthropology stresses an importance of collecting other forms of data: specifically on relationships between online activities, and other, offline, social activities. By doing this, it has been shown that the Internet/Web can surprisingly enhance people’s national and even religious identity, with the example of Trinidadians whose offline and online activities form a single entity – their identity does not seem to be being altered by the Web.

Grid and Group Classification of Societies - from "Small Places, Large Issues: An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology" Second Edition, by Thomas Hylland Eriksen, page 82.

The above image displays a classification system for societies that focuses on social control. The “Group” axis classifies societies according to their social cohesion, and “Grid” on the shared knowledge in a society. A strong grid, strong group society is explained as a strictly conformist society where an individual’s identity is constructed through the public system of rights and duties. The measures on this grid can help to explain how the identity of individuals in certain societies is shaped through the social control exerted by the social system itself. A typical industrial society could fall in the weak group, weak grid sector (although they can be spread out over the graph), where members are “individualistic and anonymous, and thus others exert little social control over ego” (page 83). A counter argument is that the influence of the state on a society means that they should fall into “Strong group”, so the variation in opinions here is vast and the classifications all seem uncertain and unreliable. It appears to have more value when classifying one particular society, rather than a group such as “industrial society” which is far too vague.

There are differing schools of thought that cover the link between society and individual actors:

• Individualist thought, associated with Max Weber where anthropologists try to find out what makes people do what they do
• Collectivist thought, associated with Marx and Durkhein where anthropologists are more concerned with how society works.

Theories that focus on the actor emerged to critique structural-functionalist models in the 1950s. In these models, the individual was mainly looked over, with focus instead on social institutions. This was criticised, as it was not clear how a society could have needs and aims, and because society can only exist because of interaction – this implies that social norms must be seen as a result of interaction, and not the cause. The author summarises by stating that while structural functionalism seeks to explain cultural variation, it only succeeds in describing interrelationships.

Finally, it is described how Bourdieu examined the relationship between reflexivity or self-consciousness, action and society, resulting in a theory of “culturally conditioned agency”. “Habitus” is the term used by Bourdieu to describe “embodied culture” which enforces limitations on thought when choosing an action, and ensures that “the socially constructed world appears as natural” (page 91). This raises the question of how much of what we do and who we are is just down to habits, conventions and norms imposed on us by the society we are born in to?

As the subject matter of the book is now beginning to move away from the core anthropological theories and on to more specialised areas I will start to focus my reading on specific chapters relating to Identity to build up my knowledge of this area, before moving onto some introductory psychology texts.

For the past couple of weeks I have been reading about Ecology, primarily from “First Ecology” (Beeby, Brennan. 2ed 2004).

The book says that “Ecology is the science that seeks to describe and explain the relationship between living organisms and their environment” and the study of “the mechanisms by which species evolve, flourish and disappear.”

Interactions between species are an important aspect of ecology. Interactions are driven by the need for organisms to acquire resources, and could be co-operative, competitive or otherwise. Collaboration between people on the web could be seen as analogous to a co-operative ecological interaction.

Organisms need resources in order to survive; these resources might include water, food, sunlight (for organisms that photosynthesise) or simply space. Competition for resources is at the heart of evolution, since the organisms best suited to their environment (and hence best at harnessing the available resources) are more likely to survive. However, it is not enough for an organism simply to survive, in order to be truly successful it must pass its own genetic information on, through reproduction. We can, therefore, think of the protection and transmission of its own genetic information as being the “goal” of any given organism. Such transmission is itself a crucial part of the evolutionary process.

To achieve this goal, species have developed a huge range of strategies; from fast reproduction that can monopolise a resource, to complex colonies with thousands of individual organisms that share much of their genetic information, to highly-specialised inter-species dependencies, some of which are mutually beneficial and others which are parasitic.

Complexity is an inherent part of ecology. The environment and organisms that live in it are highly interconnected, which poses similar problems to those faced by sociology and web science (as previously discussed). I’ve started looking into how Ecology deals with this complexity, but that’s another post. I also want to look into symbiosis and other highly-cooperative interactions.

This week I have been reading about the modern psychologists and the two main schools of though. I have been focusing on the cognitive revolution that occurred within psychology, from previous books that I have been reading over the weeks. The founding fathers of this epistemology are:-

• Wilheim Wundt who is mainly associated with structuralism, which was the first main school of thought within psychology. It involves the structure of the mind built from the elements of consciousness- thus encompassing ideas and sensations.
• Herman Ebbinghaus who purported the empirical approach of memory and the process of learning and forgetting.
• William James (1842 -1910) and James Angell (1869-1949) who are linked with functionalism which deals with the components of consciousness – including ideas and sensations. It is concerned with the process of conscious activity and perceiving and learning. It has biological significance in that it functions are natural processes.
• Charles Darwin (1809 -1882) – Theory of evolution and the ‘Origin of the species by means of natural selection’ (1859). This theory revolutionised biology with its concept of natural selection. Thus the consequences of an animal’s characteristics affect the animal’s ability to survive.
• Edward Thorndike (1874 – 1949) – ‘Law of effect’: Consequences of a behaviour act back upon the organism, affecting the likelihood that the behaviour that occurred previously will take place again.

I have also continued my reading into self –presentation, which although initially considered to be a topic of secondary importance in social psychology; has had notable interest afforded to it in recent years and as such provides invaluable information to my research. It is worth noting that successful self-presentation is usually dependant on the individual conducting accurate assessment of the impact of their behaviour on others and also on others impressions of them. Furthermore self-presentation is a function of both the person and the situation. The kinds of impressions people try to convey are guided by the individual’s motives and personality as well as the immediate social setting.

Within my politics reading I have encountered different topics which apply to governments on a global scale. Hence I am continuing to read about globalization. This week I have been reading The Globalization of World Polkitics – an introduction to international relations (2^nd ed.) – John Bayliss and Steve Smith. I found this textbook particularly useful as is helped me to question certain aspects of globalization rather than just accept information that I’ve been discovering. Firstly is globalization a new phenomenon / phase within world politics rather than just a continuing long – term feature of a long – established process. There are also many theories than can directly contribute to the explanation of globalization:-

• Modernisation (Madelski, 1972; Morse 1976)
• Economic growth (Walt Rostow, 1960)
• Economic Interdependence (Cooper, 1968)
• Global Village (Marshall Mcluhan, 1964)
• World Society (John Burton, 1972)
• World Order Models Project (1968)
• International Society (Hedley Bull, 1977)
• End of History (Francis Fukuyama, 1992)
• Liberal Peace Theory (Bruce Russett, 1993; Michael Doyle, 1983)

Regarding the latter theory, this is based on the notion that liberal democracies do not fight one another. This is exampled by no cases where democracies have gone to war. Due to the fact that public accountability is so central within democratic systems, publics will not allow their governments to engage in wars with democratic nations.

I have also started reading into theories of world politics and have started with realism which is considered to be the dominant theory of international relations. It provides the strongest explanation for the state of war (determined as the general condition of life in the international system by the realists). Realists also argue that the basic structure of international politics is one of anarchy in that each of the independent sovereign states consider themselves to be their own highest authority and do not recognise a higher power above them. Therefore domestic politics is often described as a hierarchic structure in which different political actors stand in super and subordination.

Sociological thinking has developed primarily in the post-WW2 years in order to make sense of an increasingly diverse yet inclusive society. Technological advances in media and transport have led to the emergence of a modern world where geographically distant cultures can interact and share norms with little or no regard for their geographical history and specific community development. Some sociologists, such as Jean Baudrillard, argue that this new world is one dominated by media and icons, where mass consumerism and ‘new media’ fosters a generic and homogenous culture driven by a small number of values and desires. While this is perhaps a slightly bleak view of modern society, these concerns highlight the importance of maintaining cultural identity in a modern world.

There is an argument to say that while we do indeed live in a world where the majority of human inhabitants are governed by the same laws and social norms (for example; neoliberal economic theory and consumerism) we are able, thanks to the advances in technology within our lifetime, to be aware of the existence of cultures and societies outside our own and attempt to foster relationships with one another. Michael Foucalt was a sociologist who specialised in theories of power relationships and the values that sprung out of increasingly connected networks. His work on changing ideas within medicine, from medieval to the mid 20th century, presents a view that societies establish values and ideals after a long process of expert opinion and debate. As networks grow and organise into factions, certain schools of thought emerge that promote different values. Once these schools gain a critical number of adherents, the value becomes a popular social value. It is important to note that these schools of thought begin life as fringe ideas, and expand to become socially accepted as their number of followers grows. To Foucalt, being familiar with a value is no basis for blind acceptance, and no society has a set of values which are unchangeable.

In a world dominated by capitalism and capitalist thinking, many people would be forgiven in assuming that the socialist ideas of Karl Marx no longer hold sway. However many sociologists believe that, while economic liberalism has put paid to Marxist economics, there is a need for a socialist way of thinking in terms of social organisation. Arguments for this way of thinking come primarily from contemporary sociologists Jurgen Habermass, Ulrich Beck, Manuel Castells and Anthony Giddens.

Habermass argues that the modern world and modern communication techniques have now little in common with traditional governmental institutions. Collective decision making and democracy now needs to capitalise on the new forums for discussion that are available, particularly the using of Internet technologies.

Beck identifies a similar theme of the changing nature of the establishment, and argues that the growing trend of ‘globalisation’ within economics and social institutions is promoting what he calls a ‘risk society’, whereby risks to society become globally connected, and the actions of one particular society, in one particular area, have far reaching consequences for all connected. Beck admits that this situation has always been the case, but in modern times the risks have grown to be truly global and potentially devastating. However, Beck sees hope in the emergence of widely coordinated and distributed networks of ‘activists’, people who share the same set of values and work to promote the acceptance of their values in political and social frameworks. Unfortunately these networks also have their dark sides, exampled by global terrorist networks, but these are unlikely to succeed in generating mainstream societal change, whereas issues such as the environment or poverty eradication have a large degree of success when it comes to establishing new social principles.

As a further example of the changing attitudes of Marxist thinkers, we can look to Manuel Castells. Castells has identified, like Habermass and Beck, the emergence of a globally linked societies, but his interest in Marxian economics leads him to identify the increasing role of telecommunications and computer networks as a basis for global capitalist production. This view differs from traditional Marxism which identifies the working class as the basis for societal change, and Castells argues that we are live in a world influenced by technological determinism, where technology is increasingly determining and enforcing the direction of societal progression. This concept is the subject of much contention is sociology, and stems from the “human action vs social structure” argument of classical sociologists.

Finally, Anthony Giddens has developed a school of thought, ‘Social Reflexivity’, which places a great amount of importance on the notion of trust within social organisation. Expanding on the ideas of Beck, Giddens agrees that the world we live in has the potential to operate outside of the limits of our control, but that by constantly being aware of actions and decisions regarding lifestyle choices, societies can exert great influence on the underlying economic, political and cultural principles which are endemic to their existence. Giddens sees the path to overcoming the ‘Risk Society’ as being one of transnational, global cooperation that develops not from inter-governmental relationships, but from the self-awareness and identity recognition of societies, both internally and externally through global communication networks.

What I have learned from my introduction to both classical and contemporary sociological thinkers is that sociology seems to be a discipline that is often in flux. The ideas of classical sociologists maintain core theories which lie at the heart of sociological research, but it is a merit of sociology that sociologists are able to adapt these principles to their own environments and time periods. That is not to say that one can simply make up sociological theories. The analysis of contemporary sociologists appears to show and adherence to principles, or an acknowledgement of past research and theories in their work. For this reason, the study of sociology is one that requires a sound understanding of all genres and theories within the field, relating as they do to all of the various levels and ideologies that exist in our societies.

In my earlier blog I talked about the rational actor model, however central to this is the classical school of thought. Ideas of the classical school argued that people are ‘rational creatures’ who look for pleasure while at the same time trying to avoid pain. Therefore, any punishment that is inflicted must significantly outweigh any pleasure that one might have achieved as a result of a criminal act, in order to deter people from committing crimes. The classical school can be thought of as having a significant impact on the influence on the modern day justice system because of the notions of ‘due process’ (Packer, 1968) and ‘just deserts’ (von Hirscg, 1976).
There were two key classical school theorists – Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham.

Cesare Beccaria (1738-94)
Was the author of an influential book that had a huge impact on European and US legal thought. He disagreed with inconsistencies in the government and public affairs Beccaria suggested that criminals owed a ‘debt’ to society and that the punishment for criminals should be in proportion to the seriousness of the crime. He recommended that capital punishments was no use and instead imprisonment should be extended, with the conditions of prisons to be improved. However, it is his theory of criminal behaviour that has provided the grounding for the rational actor model, using the concepts of free will and hedonism. Beccaria proposed that human behaviour is based on the pleasure-pain principle, so any punishment should reflect that. Beccaria’s ideas have had a significant effect on the modern criminal justice system and the doctrine of ‘free will’ can be seen today in the majority of legal codes, with a major impact on popular ideas of justice.

Jeremy Bentham
He attributed criminal behaviour to their incorrect upbringing or socialisation instead of innate inclinations to offend. Bentham considered criminals as ‘persons of unsound mind’ who have no self discipline to manage their passions. His ideas are similar to that Beccaria suggesting that people are ‘rational creatures’ who try to avoid pain while looking for pleasure. Likewise, similar to that before, punishment must outweigh any pleasure that is gained as result of committing a criminal act. However the law must NOT decrease the ‘greatest happiness.’ Bentham also believed in ‘free will,’ with his work proposing that criminality might be ‘learned behaviour.’

The influence of the Classical School
According to Hopkins – Burke (2005) the classical school is considered influential in legal doctrine that emphasises conscious intent or choice, (e.g. mens rea or guilty mind), in sentencing principles (e.g. responsibility), and in the structure of punishment (e.g. sentencing tariff). Particular this school can be seen in the ‘just deserts’ approach to sentencing. This includes four key ideas according to von Hirsch (1976):

• Only an individual found guilty by a court can be punished for the crime
• Anyone that is found to be guilty of a crime must be punished
• Punishment must not be more than the nature of the offence and culpability of the offender
• Punishment must not be less than the nature of the offence and culpability of the criminal

All of these are founded on the notion first suggested by Beccaria and Bentham. There is importance on the idea s of free will, and rationality, proportionality and equality, with an added importance on criminal behaviour that looks at the crime and not the actual criminal, in relation to the pleasure-pain notion to make sure that justice is done by equal punishments for crimes of the same nature.

According to Packer (1968) the criminal justice system is said to be founded on the balance between due process and crime control. Due process stresses that it is the role of the criminal justice to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, however the state has a duty to prove the guilt of the accused (King, 1981). This is based around the idea of innocent until proven guilty. This model requires the enforcement of rules that are concerned with powers that the police have and the use of evidence. This due process system recognises that some guilty people may get off scot free and remain unpunished. But this is considered to be acceptable if it means that innocent people are not wrongly convicted and punished. On the other hand, a high rate of aquittal gives the impression that the criminal justice system is inadequate and not performing their jobs properly, and therefore failing to deter criminals.

Contrastingly, a crime control model places emphasis on achieving results with priorities on catching, convicting, and punishing the criminal. In this model there is what’s known as a ‘presumption of guilty’ (King,1981) and there are less controls to protect the offender. It is seen as acceptable if some innocent individuals are found guilty. In this model it is the interests of the victims, and society that are given the biggest priority rather than the accused. Criminals are thought to be deterred due to the shift processing nature of the system, therefore if a person offends they are likely to be caught quickly and punished – therefore what’s the point?! The primary foundation of the crime control model is to ‘punish the guilty and deter criminals as a way of reducing crime and therefore creating a safer society,’ (Hopkins-Burke, 2005).

The brain and its components

The brain is the largest part of nervous system and contains 10billion -100billion nerve cells. All of the nerve cells are different sizes, shapes, functions they carry out and chemicals they produce. To understand the brain we need to look at the structure of the nervous system. The brain has 3 primary jobs: controlling behaviour, processing and storing information about the environment and adjusting the body’s physiological processes. There are two divisions which make up the central nervous system: the spinal cord and the brain. The spinal cord is connected to the base of the brain and runs along the spinal column. The brain contains three major parts:

The brain stem – controls physiological functions and automatic behaviours
The cerebellum – controls and coordinates movements
The cerebral hemispheres – concerned with perceptions, memories

The brain and spinal cord float in a liquid known as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) that provides a cushion like protection. A blood brain barrier, ensures less substances pass from the blood to the brain to reduce toxic chemicals. A cerebral cortex, which is a 3mm layer of tissue, covers the surface of the cerebral hemisphere and has a billion nerve cells. The brain works with the body through the peripheral nervous system.
Sensory information, decision making, and controlling muscles, are all sent to the brain through neurons which make up the nervous system. To receive, process, and transmit information neurons contain; dendrites, soma, axon, and terminal buttons. Support is provided by glia, that also produces chemicals required by neurons, remove chemicals not required and help protect neurons from infections.

Neurons communicate with cells through synapse. When a message is sent from the presynaptic neuron it is received by the postsynaptic. A neuron accept s messages for lots of terminal buttons which results in terminal buttons creating synapses with several all neurons. Communication between synapses is chemical producing called neurotransmitter. When the axon is fires an actions moves down an axon causing the terminal buttons to release the neurotransmitter chemical.

Drugs and Behaviour

Chemicals that can be found in nature can affect people’s perceptions and behaviours. But some of these chemicals can be useful and are used as therapeutic remedies. By understanding how drugs affect the brain, help us to understand disorders and how to develop new methods of treatment.

Drugs can be said to alter our thoughts, the way we perceive things, the emotions we have, and the behaviour we demonstrate. This is achieved by affecting the activity of the neurons in our brain. Some drugs can stimulate or inhibit the release of neurotransmitters (chemical that is realised when neurons communicate) when the axon is firing, e.g. the venom of a black widow spider. Some drugs can stimulate (e.g. nicotine) or block postsynaptic receptors (e.g. cocaine). Finally, some drugs can impede on the reuptake of the neurotransmitter after it has been released, e.g. botulinum toxin or block receptors all together e.g. curare.
There are two important neurotransmitters that help achieve synaptic communication:

Glutamate – has excitatory efforts, every sensory organ passes messages to the brain through axons with terminals that release glutamate. One type of glutamate receptor – NMDA can be affected by alcohol. This why some ‘binge drinkers’ sometimes say they have no memory of what happened the night before when they were drunk. Likewise if a person has been addicted to alcohol for a long time this receptor can become suppressed, making it more sensitive to glutamate. So if a person stops drinking alcohol then this can strongly disrupt the balance of excitation and inhibition in the brain.

GABA – has inhibitory effects. Drugs that suppress behaviour, cause relaxation, sedation, and loss of consciousness act on a certain GABA receptor. For example if Barbiturates are taken in large quantities they can affect how a person walks, talking, cause unconsciousness, comas and even death.

Muscular movements are controlled by Acetylcholine (ACh) as well as controlling REM sleep (the part of sleep where most dreams occur), activation of neurons in the cerebral cortex and functions of the brain that are concerned with learning. ACh receptors are stimulated by the highly addicted drug nicotine. However the drug curare can block Ach receptors causing paralysis.
Dopamine is important in helping movement and helps in reinforcing behaviours. People with Parkinson’s disease are often given the drug L-DOPA to accelerate the production of dopamine. Drugs such as cocaine and amphetamine stop the uptake of dopamine and with people abusing these drugs would suggest that dopamine plays a role in enforcement.
Norepinephrine is said to increase vigilance and helps control REM sleep. Serotonin helps to control aggressive behaviour and risk taking, and drugs that have an impact on the uptake of serotonin are used to treat disorders concerned with anxiety, depression and obsessive compulsive disorders.

Control of behaviour and the body’s physiological functions

Figure 1. A side view of the brain illustrating the four lobes of the cerebral cortex, the primary sensory and motor areas and the areas of the association cortex

Figure 1 shows how the cerebral cortex part of the brain is split up into four parts also known as lobes – the frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe and the occipital lobe. The areas of the cerebral cortex that receive information from the sensory organs are the primary visual cortex (concerned with visual information), the primary auditory cortex (concerned with auditory information), and the primary somatosensory cortex (concerned with information with regards to body senses).the area of the cerebral cortex concerned with the control fo movement is the primary motor cortex and the association cortex is concerned with learning, perceiving, remembering, planning and moving.

Some functions within the brain are lateralized both hemispheres are responsible for different functions. The left hemisphere takes part in analysis of information, and controls serial events (e.g. talking, understanding speed of other people, reading and writing). Whereas the right hemisphere is responsible for synthesis, puts separate elements together to create the bigger picture e.g. draw sketches, read maps. It is also involved in understanding the meanings of certain statements, and damage to this hemisphere can alter these abilities. Although they are responsible for different tasks, these hemispheres combine information through a bundle of axons connecting the two, known as the corpus callosum.

Behind the central fissure are lobers that are reponsisble for learning, perceving, and remembering:

Occipital lobe as well as lower lobes – information concerned with seeing/vision

Upper temporal lobe – information concerned with hearing/auditory

Parietal lobe - information concerned with movement/sensory

However these lobes also perform other functions such as processes concerned with perception and understanding of the body. the lobes situated at the front are responsible for motor movements, such as planning strategies for action. Similarly, the Broca’s area (left front of he cortex) is used to control speech.

Situated in the Cerebral hemispheres is the limbic system which is key when it comes to learning, memory and emotions. This is made up of lots of areas of the limbic cortex as well as the hippocampus and amydala, both of which can be found in the temporal lobe. The latter is concerned with emotions and such behaviour, e.g. aggression and the hippocampus takes part in learning and memory. People who damage the hippocampus are unable to learn anything new but can remember and recall past memories.

The brain stem is made up of three parts:

The Medulla – manages heart rate, blood pressure, rate of respiration

The Pons - manages sleep, and how awake someone is

The Midbrain – manages movements when fighting and when involved in sexual behaviour

Sensory information is received by the hypothalamus, this includes information about changes in the body’s physiological status, e.g. body temperature. It also manages the pituitary gland which is attached to the bottom of the hypothalamus. It also manages the endocrine system (endocrine glands).

Hormones are similar to neurotransmitters as there effects can be seen by stimulating receptors, but they work over a much larger distance. When these hormones combine with receptors they result in physiological reactions in the target cells (receptors in certain cells). The hypothalamus manages homoeostatic processes by its control of the pituitary gland and the autonomic nervous system. However, it can also cause neural circuits in the cerebral cortex to perform more complicated, learned behaviour.

My blog post on criminology will follow shortly

Figure 1 taken from http://samedical.blogspot.com/2010/08/nervous-system-cerebrum.html

                The first true sociologist was Auguste Comte. Comte was the first to coin the term sociology, which he introduced after his initial thoughts on social physics contrasted with the thinking of many of his peers. Comte argued that society conforms to invisible laws, and that by following these laws societies becoming functioning bodies. Comte suggested that sociology must follow an agenda of positivism, and be a positive science, that is sociology must use strict research methodology to inform its findings and theoretical models. Comte argued for the use of experimentation, observation and comparative studies on observable behaviour. It was observed that society has evolved from a theological perspective, society focusing on god(s) and religious practices, metaphysical societies, based on natural observations and natural science, observable in early renaissance societies, towards a positive society, based on scientific reasoning. Building on this, Comte suggested that theological religions should be disbanded, and replaced by a religion of humanity, based on a scientific and secular truth, this would fundamentally, in Comte’s view, improve society as “false superstitions” and a belief in gods and daemons were detrimental to society. Although Comte’s vision has not come into being, his theoretical ideas heavily influenced initial sociological thinking.

                A follower of Comte was Emile Durkheim, who also argued that sociology should follow an empirical methodology, however suggested that Comte himself had not acted or theorised in an empirical manner. Durkheim argued that the main focus of sociological study should be social facts. Social facts are any and all aspects of social life that affect individuals. Societies are gestalt constructs, which are more than a mere collection of individuals. Social facts act in a coercive nature to impose rules and regulations on individuals and impose order. Individuals’ who fail to follow the rules experience a state which Durkheim labelled as anomie, a sense of aimlessness and disenfranchisement.         

                Karl Marx signalled a departure from the approach of Comte and Durkheim. Marx argued that economic systems are central to the formation of societies. Marx suggested that capitalism was fundamentally composed of two factors, capital and wage-labour. Capital is a form of wealth such as goods and money, which can be reinvested to create more capital. Wage-labour is the work of individuals who compose of the proletariat, workers who lack insufficient capital to be employers themselves. Marx argued that this inevitably leads to a two tier system and society. Marx argued that this disparity inevitably leads to conflict between the limited number of capitalists and the much larger proletariat, who are forced into an exploitative relationship. Marx suggested that society is conceptualised by a material conception of history, whereby social change is prompted by economic factors, based on this idea, Marx argued that economic change is inevitable, and that as the proletariat outnumber the capitalists, it would be inevitable that capitalism would fail, to be replaced by communal ownership, in a system Marx labelled communism, a society which due to the lack of competition and conflict would be more innovative and productive, in many ways a utopian society. It is worth noting that theologically Marxist communism was not the same as the communism imposed in the U.S.S.R, by Lenin, and his followers, as soviet communism was still a two tier system with an empowered state, not a workers’ paradise. It is in many ways ironic that the web and the internet, with its basis in capitalism, western defence initiatives and ARPANET could (currently) be seen as a purely communist society, where fundamentally everyone is equal.

                Disagreeing with Marx, Max Weber suggested that despite economic factors playing an important role in the development of society, ideas and vales play an equally important role. Weber also argued, against the ideas of Comte and Durkheim, that society was formed by the actions of individuals, and does not exist outside these interactions, change emerges not from economic changes but shifts in cultural values. Weber suggests that rather than capitalism and class conflict producing change, a cultural shift towards rationalisation, organising society based on efficiency, has lead to large scale fundamental changes in social structures. Weber does argue however that this movement does lead to a danger of crushing the human spirit in a de-humanisation as workers become little more than robots, completing repetitive activities.

                The impact on sociology of the ideas of the founding fathers has be large, with schools of thought and styles of analysis developing around many. The most influential and preeminent school for much of the history of sociology has been functionalism, based on the ideas of Durkheim. Functionalists suggest that society is a set of complex relationships between individuals and groups, and often uses an organic analogy, that is society is a living object, made up of many objects, whereby if one part fails then the whole dies. It clear therefore that the functionalist approach focuses on peace and harmony between groups, drawn together by a morale consensus and agreement on the values that the society should promote. Merton suggests that functionalism can be extended to the individual actions of groups and individuals rather than just looking at large scale societies. Merton distinguishes between the manifest function of an action, and the latent function, manifest functions are the intended or primary function of behaviour, compared to latent function, as unintended or secondary functions, an example of this could be a football fan going to watch their team play, the manifest function of the behaviour is to watch the team, however the individual also gains secondary benefit as being a member of a social gathering and gaining connections to a wider community. Similar examples can be seen looking at online MMORPGs and MMORTS’s, where strong communal ties develop between players in addition to the players playing the games. Merton also suggests that any behaviour may have both functional and dysfunctional attributes associated with it, for example the football fan may gain positive benefit from being in a group, yet the group may engage in anti-social behaviour such as hooliganism. Merton stresses that it is the actions of indivi8duals which create society, rather than society existing as a directing force with a predetermined mandate.

                The second main approach is conflict theories, stemming from Marxist views. Conflict theories state that society is made up of many disparate groups, all of which are forced to compete for resources, such as goods and power. Although the main influence on conflict theories being Marxism, others have influenced this school, such as Dahrendorf who argues that as societies are not utopian there is an inevitability to conflict between groups in a perpetual power struggle, based on Darwinian views.

                The final main influential school is that of symbolic interactionalism, championed by Mead. Mead argues that society is a collection of individuals and groups that share common meaning between a large scale set of symbols, which form a fundamental point of agreement. This has lead Hochshild to suggest that changing social structures is due to a change in the nature of the symbols and the expansion of the accessibility of such symbols. Included she argues that the exchange of symbols has allowed the growth of an emotional labour market, whereby the symbol of happiness can now be made into a financial asset, to the point that many airlines ask stewardesses to complete smile classes.

                As can be seen sociologist have fundamental differences in their approach to answering questions. This gives a wide range of opinions, stimulating further research and diverse range of approaches, to tackling the many diverse issues facing modern society.

The first thing to understand is what is the problem that led to the birth of economics in the first place (what with economics being a man-made science). The main issue at the heart of economics is that we have infinite wants, but only finite resources with which to satisfy them. Therefore decisions have to be made (along with some sacrifices) and this applies to both individuals and, more conventionally, countries as a whole. Economies in general have 4 resources with which to work with…

1) Land: The physical land along with its minerals (for example oil or diamonds).

2) Labour: Number of people willing and able to work along with the skills they have. It is also important to consider here the value of knowledge and the effects of increasing it or sharing it.

3) Capital: Quantity and quality of capital equipment such as machinery and infrastructure.

4) Entrepreneurship: Ability of managers to think of new ideas and to take risks.

(With cyber-warfare in mind, 2 and 3 (and possibly 4) seem like the most important resources for this issue.)

Now we know what an economy has to work with, a number of decisions have to be made…

1) What is to be produced?

2) How to produce?

3) Who to produce for?

Naturally we can’t produce everything, in a manner that creates the best products all round and can be distributed to everyone. Therefore the problem of opportunity cost arises, that is to say what could be achieved in the next-best alternative? What do we forgo by acting in this way? Nevertheless these questions need answers and there are two diametrically opposed models for answering them: planned economies and the free market.

In a planned economy the government decides what goods and services should be produced, what combination of labour and capital should be used for any given industry and how the goods and services should be distributed. This however can lead to many inefficiencies, with the government not only having to gather lots of information as to what they need to do, but also actually going ahead and making the right decisions – they could easily produce the wrong quantity of a particular good or service. Similarly they have no pressure to run efficiently as the consumers of the goods and services have no alternative sources, which leads us on to free markets.

In the free market, the aforementioned questions are answered by the interactions of the market forces supply and demand.  The government does not intervene and leaves decisions to be made by firms and individuals. If there is demand for a good and a firm can produce it, and still make profit, then it will go ahead and start producing. Only what is demanded gets produced due to a firm’s desire to make profit and there is an incentive to act efficiently as firms are competing against rivals, with all firms in the market wishing to maximise profits. However, this model also has its problems – mainly that a profit cannot be made from providing many goods and services and yet these goods and services may be required. Therefore the government may need to step in and provide certain essential public goods such as street lighting, or, more importantly, education or health services. On the other hand, the free market may find a profit in providing goods, undesired by society as a whole such as guns or illegal drugs.

Therefore in reality, economies are neither completely free market nor completely planned, they include elements of both. Bringing this make to cyber-warfare, one wonders under which category it may fall in the future. If a country wishes to carry out a cyber-based attack on another – does this fall within something the government provides as is the case with conventional armies, or it could it simply outsource the problem to a more efficient company with its own private ‘cyber-army’?  Also, to bring this down from an international level, could cyber-warfare play a part in industrial espionage/sabotage? A powerful company in one market, may be able to stop smaller companies entering the market using a cyber-attack or harm its rivals already in the market. With cyber-warfare being so unlike traditional warfare in that it is much cheaper and less violent, companies could quite easily partake.

Back to Economics, another concept that is heavily drawn upon is that or marginal cost/benefit. This concept rather simplifies the process of making decisions: if the marginal cost of something is greater than the marginal benefit then don’t do it (although I suppose the problem lies in measuring the cost and benefit and trying to determine which is greater). This type of thinking may be taken into account when considering cyber-warfare however, with the marginal cost of cyber-warfare being much less than that of conventional forces – is the marginal benefit just as good however (e.g. key infrastructure could be taken out using either cyber or conventional means). Also if the marginal cost of warfare is much greater than the marginal benefit, this does not mean the warfare has to stop altogether, the costs could simply be rearranged so that it is at least equal to the benefit – cyber warfare may be a means to achieve this. (I feel I should point out at this point, I am not an advocate for warfare, but I am trying to see the situation from a warring economy’s point of view. In most situations the best way of reducing the cost of the war would be to end it!)

The final concept covered by my readings thus far is that of the production possibility frontier (PPF), a graph which shows rates of production for two different goods or services and how overall production changes when resources are shifted from the production of one to another. An example of a PPF is shown below (image taken from Wikipedia):

A production possibility frontier, highlighting some interesting points.

All points on the curve can be described as productively efficient. When the quantity of guns produced is decreased, the resources previously used can be reallocated, resulting in an increase in the production of butter. However a contradiction emerges here – gun making resources do not make butter. Therefore if the quantity of gun production lowers to that of point A, the quantity of butter produced may only be at point A and the economy operates within the PPF curve, representing productive inefficiency.

The PPF can also represent the advantages of international trade. Say, for example, the economy above is more efficient at creating guns rather than butter. If it reduces the production of guns by 10, the increase in butter may only be 5. However supposing another economy is more efficient at producing butter than guns; the 10 guns could then be sold on to the other economy instead in exchange for, say, 20 units of butter. This allows an economy to operate outside the PPF, as represented by point X. From the cyber-warfare point of view, could cyber-warfare be a service that one country exports to another? (political allegiances would also most likely come into play here.)

The PPF does not always have to be a curve either. The curve represents diminishing returns, with the amount you get from reallocating resources, decreasing the more you shift from one form of production to another. Straight curves are also possible to represent a constant rate of return. PPF curves are also able to shift either to the right or left, depending on a number of different factors. For example, resources can be taken out of production and invested to increase the productive capacity of the economy in the long run. Immigration can also shift the curve to the right, representing increased labour resources. Effects of cyber-warfare however may result in the curve shifting to the left!

This marks the end of my initial readings in Economics and although so far i have only covered the most fundamental concepts in Economics, ideas about the potential use and advantages/disadvantages of cyber-warfare are already starting to emerge.  Next time I shall return to Politics…

Giddens, A (2006): Sociology: 5^th Edition.Cambridge: Polity.

Singer, P (2000). Marx: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: OUP.

This week my reading has covered various sociological thinkers and their particular theories. The majority of the reading was taken from Giddens (2006), as chapter four of this book covers these thinkers at an introductory level. However, I feel it is important to cover both the thinkers and the theorists in detail, and so this topic is presented in two blog posts, both published this week. This first section details key classical sociological thinkers and their differences between one another. I’ve included below a description of common areas of dispute in sociology, and the arguments or particular authors regarding these disputes.

To begin, Giddens identifies core criteria for sociological thinking:

• Thinking should be counter-intuitive.
• Thinking should make sense of a problem.
• Thinking should be able to be applied to circumstances outside the original topic or study.
• Thinking should generate new ideas.

These criteria are commonly exampled in the works of the classical sociologists, and the below arguments show that sociological theories and thinking is more difficult than some may think, as a variety of approaches to theoretical thinking exist. Here are the common controversies in sociological thinking, according to Giddens, and their advocates and enemies in sociological thinking. This blog deals primarily with the theories of Max Weber, Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx, although other theorists are discussed briefly. For basic information regarding these three classical thinkers, please see my earlier blog post.

Human Action vs Social Structure.

Thinkers from both camps argue to what extent human lives are controlled by individual action and choice, or influenced by social pressures that exist outside of individual influence.

Max Weber argues in his principle work; The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, that the development of western capitalism was unique to western culture due to the religious, frugal roots of Protestantism and Puritanism in Europe prior to the industrial revolution. The ideals of these branches of Christianity encouraged hard work and allowed for the accumulation of wealth, but disapproved of luxury and spending. Thus those who accumulated wealth were inclined to distribute their wealth through a variety of investments, wages and business purchases, which in turn fuelled the acquisition of more wealth and the eventual creation of a social class of people with a propensity to generate wealth, capitalists.

This theory is important because it is an example of how social development can be influenced by norms and ideas that may at first glance seem distant, whether historically or ideologically.

In similarity with Weber, Emile Durkheim also claims that social structure influences societal development. He perceives society as far more than the sum of its individual components, and argues that the norms and rules that society constructs for us, long before our birth and existence, will have a lifelong effect on how we live our lives, without us ever having had a say or exerted any influence on their construction. Ideas of law, religion, communication and physical interaction have been created over a prolonged societal existence, and Durkheim claims that these societal systems will continue to function independently long after we are gone.

In contrast to these theories, more contemporary thinkers, such as Anthony Giddens, have critiqued the classical arguments and provided their own arguments for human action being the fundamental drive behind societal development.

Anthony Giddens has attempted to critique the social structure arguments of the classicists with his theory of ‘structuration’. Structuration argues that while structural models occur in societies, they are only maintained by the predictable behaviour of individuals. Giddens draws parallels with language to argue that rules of use are vital in any social structure. This idea is indeed complex, and Giddens notes the paradoxical ‘duality of structure’, whereby structure and actions are seen to presume one another. For this reason, arguments regarding social structure and human action are unlikely to be resolved, sociological thinkers must simply attempt to pick a side using well informed reading and analysis.

Consensus vs Conflict.

Sociologists are divided regarding the ways in which humans live in societies. Durkheim maintains that the existence of a society, itself made up of component parts, implies a general consensus of values and norms endemic to the society on question. Therefore if one were to adopt this argument, society is consensual. Families, institutions, governments and nations are all formed out of consensual agreement by their participants and the notion that organising communally brings benefit.

This consensual argument is refuted by Marx, who argues that the inequalities which exist in societal structure foster certain interests, desires and motivations in particular groups. These interests eventually manifest as conflicts within society. According to Marx, so long as these divisions exist, there is no such thing as a stable society, as the society is constantly in flux regarding the dominant group.

Gender ambiguity vs gender specificity.

This is a concern of many of social sciences and humanities. For much of history issues of gender have been treated with an undeniably male bias, for example Durkheim presents the female gender as being of less social significance than the male because the female is more ‘organic’, that is to say, closer to nature. Thinking in this way usually leads to a situation where, if not specifically excluded from study, females are usually perceived as de facto in studies of society and the results of male thinking or male exclusive research is simply applied under this catch all notion. This type of thinking was common to classical sociologists, with a notable exception being Marx, who viewed women to be a form of ‘male property’, and therefore slaves to class divisions in ways exceeding males.

Classical views may be flawed due to the ideas and social standing of women at the time of their writing, but they do present an indication of the acknowledgement, however implicit, of females and males being independent of one another, and perhaps not subject to identical social pressures and structures. With recent progress in identifying the legitimacy of female concerns, new feminist thinking has emerged which carries with it a dilemma not dissimilar to the problem of the male centric thinking. Do females, now being equals in society, simply remain de facto members of a study, but still not uniquely identified in societal studies, meaning men and women are not judged by gender, or do studies break down societal issues into components of male and female issues, identifying a divide? This question occupies many contemporary feminist thinkers, such as Judith Butler, who argue that gender grouping may ascribe incorrect identities to social groups, for example gay men and women, when developed primarily along biological lines. The role of gender in sociology is, again, a complex one, as it explores to a large degree conceptions and ideas that are rare or even taboo in many societies.

Questions of Modern Social Development.

Debates that arise in this particular area deal primarily in Marxist and anti-Marxist viewpoints, and are concerned with the underlying factors behind the development of the modern, post-industrial revolution society (this idea is confined to Western sociological thought). Marx’s ideas regarding capitalist economics and the migration of labour may influence many sociological, political and economic theories, but other theorists argue that they do not adequately address other factors, political, cultural, environmental, which may influence societal change. In this regards, debates in this field follow a similar argument to human action vs. social structure conflicts.

Marx places high importance on economic development and capitalism, specifically the appropriation and accumulation of wealth. Capitalism is inherently expansionist, as wealth can only be appropriated when someone else has it, and so capitalist markets expand to locate and collect this wealth. In this fashion, capitalism quickly takes over all spheres of a society, as capitalists, being the dominant class, exert political and cultural pressure on the society in order to make it conform to their ideals. With this dominance comes subjugation, and the world then becomes stratified into the divisions that, one could argue, we see today. The have’s and have-nots, rich and poor, labourers and factory owners. These are products of capitalism, and social structures will continue to be shaped by the tenets of capitalism, the search for and acquisition of wealth.

Those that argue with Marx, notably Max Weber, claim that non-economic factors, such as the aforementioned construction of a religious work ethic, are just as important in shaping modern society. Weber presents the concept of ‘power’ as an important tool in reinforcing established economic and social principles, and argues that the rise of western industrial economies, and the military power which they are able to wield, has enabled a global system to emerge which reflects the economic ideals of these particular nations, and not of universal grassroots capitalism in all societies. Weber also points to the rise of scientific and technological innovation in the 19^th and 20^th centuries, which have fostered a form of social efficiency regarding labour, communication and interaction which he calls “rationalization”. Whether this rationalization translates as technological determinism is not clear to me at this point.

Conclusions.

This blog post has unearthed some interesting theories and ideas regarding classical sociological thinkers and their disputes with one another. We can see that sociological theories are shaped themselves by the societies, time periods and general socio-economic climate in which they were written. The disputes of the past are of course important, but should serve to remind any sociologist of the need for caution when applying past theories to contemporary issues. That is not to say that these ideas are outdated, as Giddens points out in his criteria the need for theories to be adaptable, but that adaptation should be considered by the sociologist when applying such theories to social settings which were not considered during their inception.
It is also clear that sociology has much in common with economics and politics at an ideological level, and I am keen to explore further the writings of the classical sociologists, particularly of Marx and Weber, to see where their ideas may take my own ideological development and it’s subsequent application to research.

Part two of this blog post will arrive shortly, and I will concern myself with the ideas of ‘Postmodernism’ in sociology, and present more analysis of contemporary thinkers in this field.

As i mentioned in the last blog economics assumes that individuals act in their self interest; that is, they will do things in a way that will maximise their position according to their values. When you choose to enter into a transaction with person a as opposed to person b, you will do so because you perceive that transacting with person a will leave you in a better position than transacting with person b will. One of the considerations that may lead you to this conclusion will be the degree to which you believe person a will act with integrity, and this integrity will be externally demonstrable by their reputation.  Hence,  reputation can be considered something that affects competition, and the way in which economics deals with competition needs to be considered.

There are four market types in economics:

Perfect competition, where:

• many parties offer identical goods to many buyers,
• there are no restrictions on entry into the industry,
• existing vendors have no advantage over newcomers, and
• all parties to a transaction are well informed about the prices of products.

Monopolistic competition, where:

• a large number of parties compete by making similar but slightly different products,
• production differentiation gives each monopolistically competitive firm an element of monopoly power,
• barriers to entry are limited.

Oligopoly, where:

• a small number of firms compete, and
• natural or legal barriers prevent the entry of new vendors to the marketplace.

Monopoly, where:

• one firm produces a good or service for which no close substitute exists,
• natural or legal barriers protect the firm from newcomers to the market.

With these definitions in place it would be possible to draw parallels between the different types of market and instances on the web where reputation comes into play. As a very rough example, an expert forum on Visio could be considered a Oligopoly, as people will only listen to the advice of a small number of recognised experts, and in order to be considered an expert a user must have certain qualities (such as a long and illustrious posting history). Newcomers will struggle to impose themselves.

I next looked at game theory as a way of potentially understanding how people may try and to actively enhance their online reputations. Game theory is something i’d heard about previously, particularly the prisoner’s dilemma, but i’d not really explored it sufficiently to be able to see how it might apply to the issue i’m tackling. Very briefly, it serves as a tool for studying strategic behaviour; that is, behaviour that takes into account the expected behaviour of others and the recognition of mutual interdependence. To take this back to the reputation issue, people building a reputation do not do so in a vacuum; their reputation will only benefit them if it is ‘better’ than somebody else’s. As such, those attempting to enhance their reputation may decide to act in certain ways due in part to their perception of what their competitors may be doing.

. The prisoner’s dilemma is probably the example that most people are familiar with: two criminals have been apprehended on suspicion of committing a robbery and are being held in separate cells. The police know that the two together committed the crime, but lack sufficient evidence to convict. They are each therefore offered a deal - convincingly implicate the partner. If neither implicates the other, each gets no time in jail. If each implicates the other, each receives a short amount of time in jail. If one implicates the other but is not implicated, the implicator gets off (and gets a greater share of the proceeds of the crime) and the implicated goes to jail for a longer period of time. Each ranks the four possible outcomes, with the result that it is best to implicate your partner, next best to not implicate and not be implicated, next best to implicate and be implicated and worst to not implicate but be implicated. Abstracted, this suggests that co-operation is not in one’s best interest if the other party intends to co-operate (in the prisoner example co-operating meaning co-operating with each other by not implicating each other.)

Gaining an understanding of the economic constructs of markets, competition and game theory has certainly been an interesting exercise, and i’m glad i have had the opportunity to look at them in more depth, but i still worry that the link to my issue area is a little tenuous. I believe they could certainly add something to the understanding of one type of strategy actors may pursue when attempting to enhance and capitalise on their online reputation, but just as likely people could choose to completely ignore any notion of competing with others and still gain a positive reputation. I’ve discovered a little bit on social capital, which will hopefully fill in the blanks, and will write about this next week.

As my previous readings within Politics have led me to identify the areas of globalization and security as paramount in relation to the issue of privacy I have extended my reading to specific books focusing on this concepts.

Globalisation, Competitiveness and Human Security (1997) – Cristobal Kay ,states that globalisation can include political negotiations, cultural trends and increased internationalisation of economic activities. It is also the process whereby enterprises become interdependent and interlinked globally via strategic allegiances and international networks. The book  discusses changes occurring on a global level. Such changes are beyond the influence and henceforth the control of any individual person, community or even the government. It is therefore logical to link these dynamics to society experiencing feelings of insecurity over many related issues, including that of loss of privacy. After the end of the Cold War in 1989, which was predominantly viewed as a positive outcome as it reduced the fear of global military conflict which would have threatened peace and security, many political and economical reforms were instigated within developing countries and at the global level there was an overwhelming sense of security due to the dissolution of the threat of nuclear war. However it has been purported that there are new specific threats to human security, many of which have international or global dimensions as their root causes can be traced to events and processes occurring outside of their territories, namely globalisation and competitiveness. The UNDP (1994):23 produced a list which delineates all aspects of human security; on that list under political security was violation of human rights – privacy connotations. The implication is that globalisation and competiveness can be directly attributable to human development and to reduce people’s insecurities.

Globalization and insecurity – political, economic and physical challenges (2002) – Barbara Harriss-White, gave the definition of insecurity as ‘unsafe or unreliable’ and  determined that there are four areas of physical insecurity which are interrelated:

1. Threats to persons, property and/or environments
2. Economic and political autonomy of states
3. Instability, particularly of market
4. Vulnerability – a susceptibility to damage, closely but not completely aligned with poverty and inequality

This book also discusses globalization as a political process, whereby the main forces producing it have moved away from industry and weapon production towards instead, technology, information and communications, and financial control of everything else. It is suggested that it is the political project that causes insecurity via poverty, regulation of health and the reworking of national politics.

For the psychology part of my independent disciplinary review this week I have been reading : Self – Presentation Impression Management and Interpersonal Behaviour (1995) – Mark R. Leary. Self-presentation deals with the ways in which human behaviour is affected by people’s concerns with their public impressions. The norm would be that individuals would prefer that others perceive them in a flattering light rather than in an undesirable manner. Thus people may act in a certain way in order to make an impression on someone e.g. the job applicant in an interview. It is determined that generally people’s concerns with others’ impressions constrain their behavioural options and so individuals would be reluctant to conduct acts which would be seen as morally/ socially reprehensible in public. This is not necessarily negative though as a world where no-one cares about the opinions of others would be far more detrimental. Consider people saying or doing anything without considering the feelings of others etc. However it is possible for people to be too concerned with what others think about them which can lead to feelings of insecurity building up. The book also discusses the differences between exaggerations and lies in relation to the fact that individuals are multi – faceted and can therefore convey many different aspects of their characters, the majority of which may be genuinely true attributes, depending on the circumstances. Thus rather than lying per se, people may select the images they want others to form from their repertoire of true-self images.

There are two prevalent thinkers in relation to self-presentation: Erving Goffman who was a sociologist and wrote ‘The presentation of self in everyday life’ (1959) in which he determined that much can be gained by focusing on public behaviour, and Edward Jones (1990) ‘The study of impression’, in which he discussed management and self – presentation being an integral part of the study of interpersonal perception as it is not possible to fathom how people view each other without knowing the dynamic to self-presentation at the same time.

I will be continuing my reading further into these areas within my two disciplines as I feel that there is far more valuable information to be obtained towards the overall research.

]]> http://blog.soton.ac.uk/comp6044/2010/11/23/privacy-politics-psychology-%e2%80%93-blog-post-5/feed/ 0 http://blog.soton.ac.uk/comp6044/2010/11/23/how-to-evolve-a-cellular-automata/ http://blog.soton.ac.uk/comp6044/2010/11/23/how-to-evolve-a-cellular-automata/#comments Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:47:47 +0000 Jack http://blog.soton.ac.uk/comp6044/?p=802 This week, I’ve been pushing on with “Complexity: A Guided Tour”, and continued attending the Complexity lectures.  Their subject matter are converging towards “in what sense do real-world distributed complex systems compute?” (e.g. ant colonies or the Web).  This is very relevant to my key theme of collaborative problem solving. It builds on last week’s introduction to cellular automata.  Most fascinating was an experiment that used genetic algorithms to evolve cellular automata to perform global analysis despite being highly distributed.  The results was the emergence of Feynman-diagram like particles, operating at the abstracted level equivalent to the programming level of a traditional von-Neumann-style computer.  Obviously, computation has been a key theme throughout, so there’s a happy overlap with the theory of computation COMP6046 lectures.  I’ve enjoyed the introduction to information theory and Shannon entropy, and have chosen Comp Thinking coursework on encryption in order to build on that.  The other key ingredient this week has been thermodynamics, and this has been a happy stroll back to my time in Physics.   Above all the Darwin-like obvious-yet-brilliant central observation of Boltzmann that things will always tend toward the more common state – hence the mighty 2nd law of TD.  So, several really engaging themes have been weaving together.  Looking forward to what comes next.

Cryptography and Cryptanalysis

Cryptography is the study of mathematical techniques related to aspects of information security such as confidentiality, data integrity, entity authentication, and data origin authentication
Cryptanalysis is the study of mathematical techniques for attempting to defeat cryptographic techniques, and, more generally, information security services

Cryptography seeks to build a framework around the following four goals:

• confidentiality
• data integrity
• authentication
• non-repudiation. (p4)

A cryptographic primitive is a tool which is used to provide information security such as encryption schemes, hash functions, and digital signatures. A primitive is evaluated according to criteria such as:

1. Level of security
2. Functionality
3. Methods of Operation
4. Performance
5. Ease of Implementation

Functions

One-way functions are essential for public key cryptography. The definition from the book is:
A function f from a set X to a set Y is called a one-way function if f(x) is “easy” to compute for all elements x E X but for essentially all elements of the y E Im(f) it is computationally infeasible to find any x E X such that f(x) = y.

More specifically, a trapdoor one-way function is a one way function but with additional information (trapdoor information) it becomes feasible to find for any given y E Im(f), an x E X such that f(x) = y.
It has not rigorously been established whether any one way functions exist (according to the definition above)

How Encryption Works

Two parties Alice and Bob secretly exchange a key pair. Alice encrypts the message and then sends the encrypted message to Bob who can then decrypt the message. The key must be sent along a secure channel, but an adversary can see the encrypted message which is later sent.
An encryption scheme is breakable if a third party, without prior knowledge of the key pair can systematically recover plaintext from corresponding ciphertext within some appropriate time frame

See Kerckhoffs’ desiderata (p14) for the desirability of cipher systems (from 1883 but remain relevant today mostly)

Symmetric-key Encryption

Symmetric-key encryption has the difficulty of securely sending the keys between the parties. The encryption and decryption transformations must be kept secret because the decryption transformation can be deduced from the encryption transformation.

Public-key Encryption

Introduced in the paper “New Directions in Cryptography” (1976) Diffie & Hellman. Definition from the book:
The encryption method is said to be a public-key encryption scheme if for each associated encryption/decryption pair (e,d), one key e (the public key) is made publicly available, while the other d(the private key) is kept secret. For the scheme to be secure it must be computationally infeasible to compute d from e

There are still issues about the transmission of the public key, because an adversary can defeat the system without breaking it – see p28. This requires the use of digital signatures another purpose for which cryptography can be used.

Well for anyone who’s still reading this a few other issues that aren’t from “the book” (well at least that I’ve read yet anyway) are:

• People are stupid, that’s the way to get to an encryption method is attack the protocols etc.
• Means of attacking an encryption system(people/protocols, brute force)
• Issues with data permanence. With Moore’s law still going strong (is it?) how long can data be securely kept? DES was secure enough in its day, but now a message can be encrypted in less than a day
• I also plan to have a look at how some popular encryption schemes work, and at methods to break them

The Scientific Method in Psychology
Psychologists carry out three main types of scientific research: Naturalistic or Clinical Observation, correlational studies and experiments. The latter makes things happen and allows us to observe the results.’ This allows the person carrying out the experiment to identify the relationship between cause and effect. The researcher must first understand the problem they are trying to solve and come up with a hypothesis based on information gathered through naturalistic observations and previous research/experiments. When performing an experiment Carlson et al (2007) explains how independent variables are manipulated and dependant variables measured/observed.

Psychology – Evolution, genetics, and behaviour

Biological Evolution
A key, influential figure in the theory of psychology is Charles Darwin. Following his voyage on the Beagle and his thinking and research of artificial selection, he argued that organisms adapt to their environment by biological means. Darwin was not the first person to suggest a theory of evolution but he was the first to provide evidence. He believed that ‘selection was the foundation of mans success in making useful races of animals and plants’ (Darwin, 1887). However, Darwin was unable to work out how selection could be applied to organisms living in nature. It was after his reading of Malthus’s population that Darwin suggested that ‘selection’ would result in the production of new species – this was the idea of natural selection – in any population some members of a species will produce more offspring then other members. Some animals are likely to live longer and produce more offspring if they have characteristics that help them to survive or easily adjust to alterations to the environment. There are two key ideas central to Darwin’s theory of evolution:

Adaptation – the capability of a species to adapt to changes in the environment
Natural Selection – the process where differences in some species will be transferred from one generation to the next.

Darwin’s theory has four fundamental premises:
1. Plant and animal communities change over a period of time with some becoming extinct and other new forms emerging
2. The evolutionary process is steady and continuous with new species emerging slow and steadily.
3. Organisms descend from an original and common ancestor.
4. Natural selection also aims to maintain a status quo under constant environmental conditions and not just cause alterations in populations during changing environmental conditions.

There are two aspects of natural selection that determine whether an animal will be successful in reproducing:

Variation – this includes differences in physical characteristics (i.e. size, strength) and behavioural characteristics (i.e. intelligence, sociability) between members of a species. These differences are as a result of genotypes(genetic differences) and phenotypes (produced as a result of the interaction of its genotype with the environment).

Competition – because individuals of the same species share the same environment competition for food, habitats, and mates is to be expected. For example if a bird finds a mate then that is one less mate for other birds.
So basically, it can be said that natural selection works because members of different species have different phenotypes and these are caused by different genotypes, which some successful members will pass (their genes) to the next generation. Therefore competition for resources such as food will only allow the best adapted phenotypes to survive, and hence evolutionary change.

Natural Selection and Human Evolution
Ok so from this I have gained an understanding that there are some ‘pieces of the puzzle’ that we may never be able to find, and not all our questions on the evolution of humans will be answered. Natural selection has favoured two important human characteristics:

Bipedalism – the ability to walk upright on two feet – evolved over 4million years ago and meant ancestors had more mobility and meant the hands were free for grabbing, holding and throwing objects.

Encephalisation – an increase in brain size
The combination of these two characteristics led to improvements in tool making, food gathering and hunting. It further allowed humans to make use of new environments and develop well organised communities. These advances helped humans live longer. This also meant that because people were living longer older members of communities shared their knowledge to younger members through language. It meant others could be warned of potential danger, but also used to communicate a good location for hunting.
Most importantly, it reinforced the basis upon which all human cultures are built. Cultural evolution –i.e. changes in cultures as a result of changes in the environment over a period of time, has only be made possible because humans have been genetically gifted with a capacity for learning and language.

Heredity and Genetics
Genetics – the study of ‘the structure and function of genes in the way in which genes are passed from one generation to the next.’ This also includes how genetic make up influences physical and behavioural characteristics. Also related is Heredity – ‘traits and tendencies inherited from a person’s parents and other biological ancestors.’ Basic principles of genetics:
Genes – parts of genetic material known as DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). Our development and behaviour is only influenced through protein synthesis. Genes can be found in chromosomes which contain DNA and can be found in all cells. Every set of chromosomes contains a different combination of genes. As humans we inherit 23 individual chromosomes from our parents (i.e. thousands of genes) – so 23 pairs (46 in total). So our genetic blueprint is as a result of a combination of genetic instructions that our parents inherited from their parents previously.

Genetic diversity
Only identical twins are considered to be genetically identical. When changes in an environment occur, genetically diverse species have more of a chance of surviving and adapting to the new environment because some members of a species may have genes that will enable this survival.

The expression of a gene is affected by a person’s sex, interactions with other genes, and the conditions of the environment in which the individual lives. Mutation or chromosomal aberrations cause changes in genetic material.

Mutations – accidental changes in the DNA code, can have harmful effects or can result in characteristics that can benefit certain environments, they happen spontaneously or as a consequence of human related factors e.g. radiation.
E.g. Haemophilia – gene arose with Queen Victoria (1819-1901), more likely to bleed even from small, minor injuries.

Chromosomal aberration – alterations in the total number of chromosomes or in parts of chromosomesE.g. Down’s syndrome –have different physical characteristics such as being shorter, having a rounder face, broader skulls, and demonstrate impaired physical, psychomotor and cognitive development.

Behaviour genetics
Is the study of the effects of genetic influences on behaviour (heritability). It helps to provide reasoning for why people differ. Psychologists explore the relationship between genes and behaviour in human beings using artificial selection studies of identical twins, animals, and adoption.

                Supply is the amount of any good or service that a company is willing to produce for a set price. Building on this the law of supply states that all other things remaining equal, the higher the price of a good the greater amount which is supplied. Companies cannot produce every product demanded by the market due to supply constraints and the need to remain profitable. As such it’s imperative that companies calculate the required supply, and not to flood a market. The main factors affecting the supply of a good in a market are known as the factors of production, first among these is price, if a good is expensive to produce, less are made, furthermore if the price of producing a good increases, due to external factors, for example the price of producing a plastic toy will go up if oil prices rise, as such less toys will be produced. Competition and complimentary goods also affect the supply of any given goods, in highly competitive markets its prudent to supply a smaller number, if there are a large number of complimentary goods, supply goes up. The expected future price of a good also effects supply, if a good is predicted to rise in the coming months, the supply available now will be reduced to save supplies for later use, ensuring later profitability. Conversely if the price of a good is expected to fall, it is good to increase current supply as such to reduce the impact of the reduced price. The number of suppliers in any given market also governs the total available supply. The more producers there are the more that it is possible to produce and supply to the consumer. The final factor that economists consider affecting supply, is technology, this is a catch all term to describe pretty much any other factor, and can be concerned with actual technological issuess, for example, a company invests in a new machine which allows them to produce and supply twice of much of any product for the same price as before, supply will increase. Technology however could also include factors such as a natural disaster, which may reduce the availability of raw materials and hence reduce supply.

                Supply is based on planed sales of a product. Based on the relationship between the nature of demand (See blog 2) and its interaction with supply, all sales of any given product eventually reach an equilibrium, where the quantity of a good demanded equals the quantity of a good supplied. How much a product is demanded affects the overall selling price as individuals are willing to spend more money on the product, if a product is rare, for example a mint 50 year old comic, then demand goes up relative to the quantity available, and hence price goes up. A surplus or excess of any product will reduce the relative value of any product, and reduce price. Based on this relationship it  is important that businesses manage the available supply and demands of a product to ensure god returns. Advertising helps increase demand for a product, reduced supply increases price, as such if consumers value a product demand goes up, and if this available in limited quantity, price goes up. It is to be noted that sellers commonly reduce price to a point lower than the idea market cost to gain increased market share, this tactic is common among supermarkets, especially in the run up to large events such as Christmas.

                With markets always moving to achieve equilibrium, large scale shifts in supply or demand can lead to uncertainties in a market. The price elasticity of demand give a measure of how responsive the market is to price changes, some products are inelastic, such as alcohol and petrol, both products have consistently increased in price, yet demand has remained unchanged. Other products however are very elastic and are affected by minor shifts in price, for example if a large box of Dazz is sold at £18, demand and supply will settle at this price, if a similar box of Bold enters the market at £10 the demand for Dazz drops substantially. This occurs because Bold is a close substitute for Dazz and hence acts to increase the elasticity of the market. The web has increased the elasticity of many products, as it has allowed a greater awareness of many products substitutes, hence the relative price falls.

                Similar elasticity exists for supply, as the cost of producing any products may vary as a function of the quantity demanded. if the cost per unit of producing an item does not vary based on the quantity produced, its supply can be considered inelastic, if there is a price point that any quantity of units can be produced then the supply can be considered elastic.

                 So why do we care about supply? The web has turned most of the globe into one big market place, hence the supply of the majority of items has increased. This means that the relative price of products have fallen, allowing consumers increased power in the market. Consumers have freedom and power, potentially reducing the relative importance of traditional economic theory.  

Until next time!

The book describes a slight change in Anthropological research in recent times, with the majority of material collected in the past coming from in-depth ethnographical studies of local communities. However it has become common now that additional sources other than fieldwork now contribute to the research, including historical sources and the media. The main focus of the study remains on the “interrelationships between different aspects of social and symbolic systems through participant observation”, although there has been a movement away from the traditional focus on isolated villages in remote parts of the world. Local communities are said to have traditionally been the focus of studies due to them being “methodologically manageable units”, where participant observation is easy, and the anthropologist can become familiar with each individual and their relationships with each other. However, there is an increase in focus on larger social systems with unclear boundaries, but the techniques and theories used to study these are generally similar, supplemented by more methods other than participant observation.

My last post covered a section of the book focusing on people as individuals and their statuses and roles within particular contexts. My latest reading has covered the social life from the perspective of society. Socialisation – “the process whereby one becomes a fully competent member of society” is something that seems interesting, with many anthropological studies showing that child-raising is linked to the shaping of behaviour and thoughts in a society’s members. The concept of Anomie (Durkheim) where one becomes alienated by an inability to match the values of society has been shown to exist in many societies, even where the society is tightly integrated. Anthropological studies can also examine the traditions associated with how one’s identity changes over time, with members of a society transitioning from one stage of their life to the next through a rite of passage. The book suggest that the question of whether we are ‘the same person’ throughout our lives is a philosophical issue, with anthropology seeming to suggest that this is not so. It will be interesting to see the psychological perspective on this issue.

Now that I feel that I have established some grounding for myself within the subjects, this week I have resumed reading more into areas of politics and psychology that can be directly applied to the issue of privacy, which I am investigating.

Regarding politics, I have been reading ‘Contemporary Political Philosophy’ by Will Kymlicka. It was interesting to discover that dating back to key founding factors which led to Western civilisation, the dilemma of privacy rights versus public accessibility were clearly evident. Plato in his ‘republic’ predicted a society where the offspring of the ruling class would be educated in common and as such segregated from the normal family life. Envisaged as the ideal city – the kallipolis was made up of both men and women who, if they possessed the same assets, would receive the same education and have the same access to careers; with no emphasis on who would be the homemaker and child-carer in those circumstances. The implication is that both the feminine aspect of intimacy and the masculine virtue of honour should share equal importance if both genders have equal treatment, however Plato was actually scornful of emotional closeness and instead presumed that honour was all-important and that anyone regardless of their sex, would want to obtain it. This hegemony of males in the kallipolis has all the makings of totalitarianism (the annihilation of the private sector as in George Orwell’s 1984). Furthermore Aristotle’s ‘politics’ offers a contemporary distinction between the private family life and that of the ‘polis’, the democratic decision-making forum which voiced all the citizens’ voices. However, Aristotle thought that the private domain was dull and of no interest i.e. stagnant household governance; whilst the ‘polis’ was enlightening. This preference for public over private is preserved within etymology. The word private is attributable to the Latin ‘privare’ which means to deprive, thus the notion of privacy for the majority of classical thinkers was linked to deprivation rather than voluntary withdrawing.  These epistemologies have led me to start comparing principles such as Totalitarianism vs. Democracy and Self-Determination which I will research further into next week along with further reading into more contemporary issues such as security and globalization.

For the psychology part of my study I have been fortunate enough to obtain a recommended core text book from an Undergraduate psychology student. ‘Psychology’ by Martin, Carlson and Buskist. For all my previous psychology reading this book achieved the previously impossible! It provided me with a definitive definition of what is psychology. Therefore If I am to understand that psychology is ‘the science of behaviour’, literally interpreted as ‘the science of the mind’, it encompasses behaviour which can be directly observed and behavioural characteristics can be utilised within principles and theories to explain individual actions. Returning to the area of social psychology, in particular ‘self’ and ‘identity’, social psychologists are of the belief that people have many different selves in relation to different situations. Markus and Nurius (1986) determine that ‘selves not only describe how we are, but how we would like to be, called possible selves.’ The ‘self- discrepancy theory’ by Higgins (1987) distinguishes between ‘the actual self’ – how one really is, ‘the ideal self’ – how one would like to be and ‘the ought self’ – how one thinks they should be. Thus the first two are types of ‘self-guides’ which encourage a variety of self-related behaviours, whilst the latter engages ‘prevention’ behaviour in that we would strive to abstain from doing what may be frowned upon by society. In Sedikides, C. ‘The Self’, the theory of ‘the looking glass’ is purported (Goffman 1959) in which ‘people actively attempt to create desired impressions or appraisals of themselves in the minds of the social audience’. In accordance with this, Shrauger and Schoeneman (1979) determined that people ‘see through the glass darkly’ – individuals perceive themselves on what or how they think others see them rather than on how others actually see them. Robson & Harter (1991) also provided a theory about ‘self-worth’ being based on peer-pressure. Next week I will continue reading other seminal theories of psychological behaviour and ‘self and ‘identity’.

I have also read the journal recommended to me by Olivier  -Newell, P. B. (1995). Perspectives on privacy. Journal of Environmental psychology, 15(2), 87-104. It provides an excellent review of the psychological literature on privacy and within it  limits of all different conceptions about privacy in psychology are listed and explained in great detail.

I am also reading ‘The Second Self’ by Sherry Turkle. This book deals with psychology of computing and it is particularly insightful into how computers affect individuals’ relationships, how they perceive themselves and society in general. First published in 1984, it provides a historical account of computing behaviour but also can be applied to contemporary issues and development over the past two decades. I am mindful though, of not going off on a tangent about privacy and technology at this juncture and I am reading this in order to make a link between my issue and the Web within my final report.

Things that I found interesting: Adam Segal is a Senior Fellow on the council of foreign relations. He talks about attacks on other people’s infrastructure, websites, espionage, copyrights and so forth. As society we are mainly concerned with identity theft and someone taking our credit cards, however, in some places the individuals that get hold of this information are often used by the state for political reasons.  For example, attacks on Estonia. Some had relations to the Russian mafia. Similarly, attacks by Google were considered routine by security experts. It has been reported that China has been continuously trying to hack into GMAIL accounts of human rights activists.

 It raises the notion as to how much the Chinese government has gained from CyberWarfare thus far if “amateur hackers” with surreptitious affiliations with the state are blamed.

 According to Cyber experts, the criminals attack GMAIL accounts by a tactic known as “phishing” claiming to come from someone the user knows and trust. This highlights how easy it can be for individuals to get involved in releasing highly sensitive information without ever knowing. Therefore, for next week, I plan to learn more about understanding Computer Science and the common Cyber methods used compare it to my understanding of Moral Philosophy.

On Psychology, I’ve finished reading the relevant sections of Rupert Brown’s book on group processes, and am going to focus on research methods in social psychology.

So for criminology, this week I have been reading about the tradition of the rational actor model. This model can be traced back to a range of ideas (political, philosophical, economic, and social) that were developed during the seventeenth and eighteenth century. The model is based on the idea that people have free will and make a choice to commit a crime in the same way that they would choose to take part in any other behaviour. This tradition has two major sets of influences:

Social contract theories – this is the idea that a lawful government can only exist with the voluntary agreement of human beings who have been able to exercise free will. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1678) argued that the key basis of any social contract is the involvement of human free will. However, Hobbes had a somewhat negative view of humanity and felt that there was a need for a ‘ruler’ or ‘institute’ (Leviathan) to support social contracts and enforce laws. It was here that the idea of the modern criminal justice system first emerged. This meant that contracts that subjects made between themselves could be legitimately enforced.  Alternatively, it was later argued by John Locke (1632-1704) that people should not be subjected to a Leviathan as people acquire their ‘natural rights to life and liberty from the Christian God.’ Therefore, these rights are not theirs to transfer to another. He suggested that if natural rights were to be conserved, then it required institutions to clarify, codify ad maintain the rights to life, liberty and property.

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-78) argued that people were admirable, equal and free individuals in the beginning, but became morally corrupted as they came together in groups and societies and became dependent on each other. He argued it was necessary to create human laws that deem all to be equal and provide every individual with a free vote on the enactment of legislation. He also developed the concept of ‘general will’ – individuals also have a shared interest in the welfare of the community.

Therefore, when a human being chooses to freely enter into a contract to perform ‘civic duties,’ they can be seen as a ‘rational actor.’ To ensure compliance of contracts laws can be enforced, providing they have been approved by people who are party to the social contract.

Utilitarianism – This approach was developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, both of whom were political philosophers. It seeks to consider the rightness of acts, policies, decisions and choices by looking at the happiness of those affected by them. Bentham (1748-1832) suggested that morality was based on the actions of human beings that promoted happiness were to be seen as acceptable and those that produce the opposite were not. Happiness was considered to be pleasure and unhappiness pain. These were then assessed based on their intensity, duration, and proximity. The rightness of an act or policy was calculated based on the number of people experiencing pleasure and the overall balance of pain verses pleasure. This was accepted by Mill (1806-73) but he sought to define qualities and quantities of pleasure. He argued that the social consequences of an act or policy should be considered as the ‘good,’ and that some pleasures should rank higher than others. Both social factors and the quality of the act or policy were considered significant in providing reasoning for an individual’s behaviour. It was Bentham’s contribution that had the biggest impact on the rational actor theory, with his ideas of fear being the biggest control over a humans beings exercise of free will, and that punishment is considered the main way of creating fear, thus influences the free will of an individual and controlling their behaviour.

Next week I plan to try and achieve my aims set out in last week’s blog, ensuring that I cover enough reading but keep the blogs concise.

Titled “The Social Person” I had a feeling that this chapter could contain a lot of material that could be linked to Identity. Indeed one of the first issues covered is that of the different dimensions of human existence. These are divided into four categories in the following way:

Culture:            Cultural Universals            Cultural Variation

Nature:            Genetic Universals            Genetic Differences

The bottom two sections cover biological features in humans, which do not feature much in anthropologic research. However, the top sections are important and fundamental to anthropology, as there is much variation between humans that cannot be accounted for through genetic variation.

The next big point made is regarding language, and how although it is sometimes assumed that language is uniform across a whole group, it can be found that there is as much linguistic variation within the group.

The book then goes on to describe statuses and roles that account for the rights and duties that an individual may hold in relation to others, and which can vary depending on the situation. The example used to explain this is that of a bus driver, the driver’s status is ‘Bus Driver’, whereas his role is defined by what one does as a bus driver. The work of Goffman (1978 [1959]) is referenced in order to explain how one may switch between roles using “impression management” to appear a specific way in a certain situation. It is then stated that Goffman’s main idea is that social conventions define everything an individual does as a “social creature”. Everything one does follows culturally or socially defined rules.

One area that I read about last week, and didn’t include in my post is the distinction between a view from the inside of a culture, and the view from the outside. Two terms are used for this: emic and etic. Emic describes life as a member of a particular society experiences it, whereas the etic level is the analytical description of a researcher after observing a society. Taking this into account, Goffman’s role theory is an etic explanation as it as an abstraction of the processes of social life.

I was interested to read the next section, which moved on to talking about the Self. A distinction is made between the public and private self, with the “I” being the private self as seen from the inside, which isn’t easily assessed by anthropologists. This is something which I am certain will be covered when I begin to tackle Psychology, and will be an important area to compare and contrast the two disciplines. I am glad I decided to continue reading linearly, as with no reference to this section under Identity in the index I may well have missed it, although the concepts of the Self seem central to the issue of Identity. Maybe I am mistaken, and this will be cleared up once I read the main Identity section.

The biggest idea I took away from this section on the Self is the work of Brian Morris (1994) who distinguished three areas of personhood. Firstly, a person may be identified as a conscious and social human being, and is something which seems to be universal. Secondly, a person may be categorised as a cultural category, which the author explains may be more or less inclusive than the first point – some societies will exclude strangers for example from full personhood, but in others it may be that “non-human” entities may be included. Finally, there is the “I as opposed to others” component, which, depending on the culture, is interpreted differently.

Having advanced further into the realms of anthropology, I then decided to take another anthropology book, this time Cultural Anthropology: A Contemporary Perspective by Roger M. Keesing and Andrew J. Strathern, and skim through the opening few chapters. My reason for this was to ensure that I had covered the same basic points relating to anthropology. Familiar topics such as the difficulty in defining culture, ethnocentrism, ethnography and social roles all appeared, giving me a fairly good boost of confidence that makes me think I’m heading in the right direction with anthropology.

As part of my sociology reading, it was apparent that societies do not just exist in isolation, but rather are the product of thousands of years of traditions and culture. A central theme suggested by Gidden’s is that society is the product of uncertainty, when individuals work together they increase their chances of success. In response to this, society can be seen as having evolved in distinct epochs, hunter-gatherers, pastoral and agrarian societies, traditional non-industrial, post industrial or modern societies, and post modern information age societies. Not all societies evolve at the same pace, if at all, with external factors influencing their development. According to Kautsky (1999) traditional societies were based on the desire to create an empire, for control of limited resources. Post industrial revolution, there was a mass exodus of labour from the countryside and a migration in to cities which became large population centres, with this migration came a shift in social life, as people became one of many, the majority of relations became impersonal.

In response to the decline of traditional communities, a new community was formed, with the rise of the nation state, individuals felt part of a much larger society, as such rather than being a member of a village they became English, or French, or Spanish. (As an aside historically Italy and Germany became states long after most of Europe, and they remained city states far longer) The rise of the nation states gave far more influence to the relative governments, allowing for the start of national agendas.

The growth of nation states allowed for the expansion of western imperialism, founded primarily on fortune and firepower, nations were far stronger, both in terms of sheer productivity, and technology, such as gunpowder based military, than those who opposed them, the subsequent result was the rise of colonial superpowers, with the rise of the British and French colonial empires, based on trade. The Spanish empire, which had embarked on imperialism based primarily on looting rather than trade, had failed to innovate and was in decline by this time. Colonialism was driven primarily by economics, and central to capitalism was a growth of inequality and poverty, western powers became richer at the expense of indigenous populations, helping to create the third world. It has been found that societies that industrialised in the modern age have had some of the largest groths ever recorded, for example South Korea is now one of the worlds leading exporters of modern goods, despite being an agricultural society until post the Korean war, in the 1950s, of course western investment has acted to encourage this growth, with the US investing billions to turn the nation into a capitalist paradise, as a result of the Cold war.

So what causes theses societies to change? Unfortunately there is no one theory on this, but rather societal change is influenced by culture, physical environment and politics. Factors such as religion influences cultural, these can act to enhance or reduce the speed of change, such as the demands to translate the Latin bible into English in the sixteenth and seventeenth century, resulting in increased literacy rates for the average population. Culture is also influenced by communication technology, mass communication has encouraged the growth of societies, from the invention of the printing press to the development of the internet. One of the largest influences on culture is the individuals that govern, and influence them, leaders can be seen as an extension of societal desires, a true embodiment of the culture, leaders can be great war leaders, such as Napoleon, or Caesar, scientific and industrial innovators such as Newton or Brunel, or great social motivators, such as Ghandi, Washington or even Jesus. Physical environment motivates social trends due to limited resources, the ancient Egyptian empire relied on agriculture as there were insufficient  animals to hunt, whereas native Americans were never encouraged to develop farming based communities due to an excess of bison and buffalo, natural resources also encourage conflict as imperial powers attempt to gain advantage. The influence of politics is also a complex relationship, Marxist theory states that politics are a direct consequence of the economic nature of a society, however there are examples where fundamentally different political organisations have both used capitalists economies, such as Nazi Germany and the US. A far clearer link can be seen as the ultimate expression of political will and its affect on society, the military. Countries like the USSR and North Korea invested vast sums of capital into the development of military might, resulting in a twofold impact on society, due to limited finite resources, investment into the military reduced investment into the welfare and productivity of the nation, having a negative impact on growth, secondly strong aggressive military can lead to a reduction in individual freedoms, acting to reduce creative innovation.

 So how does all this relate to the modern world and economics? The western world has emerged due to a decline of traditionalism and a growth of rationalism, key to capitalism is the idea of self improvement, the same idea that drove individuals into the cities is still driving the desires of millions today, the growth of communication technology has freed the individual, people are free to develop their own distinct personality, and own identity. The growth of the same technology has increased the power of the state, allowing governments alter the lives of many in sweeping decisions, such as mass cuts to public spending. The society we live in today may be fundamentally different to societies of the past, but we are the product of our history.

The modern post industrial world is based on globalisation, driven mainly by the growth of ITC and the web. Globalisation has allowed individuals to transcend national borders and have a far greater sense of social responsibility across the globe, for example the web has allowed real time images of natural disasters on the opposite side of the globe, encouraging people to try and help, despite individuals ever likely to even visit the country in question. Wars are no longer fought with the aim of territorial gain, but to protect rights, usually based on western morality. Many have suggested that the web has brought the world closer, but all this has achieved is the flattening of culture, to be replaced by a global culture, based on an Anglo-American ideal, the British empire is far from dead, it just went digital. English is by far the global language of trade, the global language of the web, western imperialism could still be seen as alive and well. Globalisation is the complex marriage of society, economics, technology, and individualism, ideals which the west have long encourage and developed. Trade may have brought prosperity to many second world nations like China, but in an increasingly weightless economy (Quah,1999) the west still holds most of the trump cards.  

It is impossible to truly separate sociology and economics, they are intrinsically linked.

However, one problematic notion to Moral Philosophy, Is whether everyone can be moral? Imagine people that oppose morality. Mr X for example, an individual in despair and hopelessness. Why should I do anything?  Why should I care if my life is meaningless? A man that may not be persuaded. As society we could help him, give him some reason to care about something, or argue a point of view, but is reasoning going to make him?  He is to many moralists a real challenge to moral reasoning.

There are many other important areas that Williams addresses, such as Subjectivism, Relativism and Utilitarianism. As with Subjectivism there can be no objective moral judgement. For example, a man’s moral judgement is a mere state of ones own attitudes. Moral judgements, therefore, cannot be determined as true and so is inevitably subjective towards individual opinion. In regards to Relativism, what I found interesting was determining moral outlooks between two societies, because moral truth is defined by a collective view of values and beliefs shaped by society. Subsequently, people from different societies will inevitably have differing perceived “Moral Truths”; it is a rationale of how one should not criticise the values from another society. In regards to Utilitarianism, it  holds that there is just one moral principle, which is to seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Despite the lack of agreement about how the term is used. It addresses happiness as the one intrinsically good thing. It is thus a form of Consequentialism, which is interested in the idea of what one does has consequences.

My interest in this book is that the author and founder of the theory of fractal geometry described it fairly recently in a paper as the essential introductory text in the area. Fractal geometry is basically an attempt to define mathematically the difference between complex data at separate scales. So if you imagine the coastline of a country, then measure that coastline with a 1 meter ruler and you will get a shorter distance than if you measure it with a 1cm ruler, and again with a 1mm ruler etc etc. It’s taken me a while to read because, having not studied maths for a while the terminology is quite alien, the concepts are simple enough but what I’m really looking for is the tools used to define the differences between scale and so I want to understand the maths properly.

The central importance of fractals to the study of cooperation (or indeed any other social construct) is that it allows you a potential way round a central issue in economics which is that social data is not linear in nature. My interest in looking into psychology and complexity is in seeing how other subjects tackle this problem. To illustrate the point, if you recall the research methods lecture with the economics professor we had the other week he was attempting to model migration patterns by reducing migration data to single values and then add in probabilistic margins for error. This is a typical way for an economist to tackle a complex area, you might have seen Mervin King from the bank of England giving his economic forecast today along the same lines – we know the data is complicated, we have introduced these assumptions and we believe this is a sensible percentage error. Is their another more accurate way to model this complex phenomena?

The approach Mandelbrot takes is to find a scale and measure it as accurately as you can with the tools available, then take as many more scales as you can and calculate the trend of increased or decreased complexity between the scales. This is fundamentally different from what you do in economics, in economics you scale your data up in a linear fashion (e.g. you calculate GDP by adding up the domestic output for each industry sector) which doesn’t account for that scale may be a factor in itself, you then add in a margin for error to account for the fact that you cant understand how the interactions between the actors who produce your data may change with scale.

Now, it’s fair to say that if your data is linear – i.e. one change always has one effect on one thing then there will be no difference in approaches but if by changing one thing has an effect on several things which has an effect on several more then the linear approach quickly gets to rather large margins for error rather quickly. The fractal approach doesn’t.

To summarise, fractal geometry is about understanding the changing shape of data at scale which captures the relationships between many data points. So if you know accurately what happens at one scale and the fractal dimension your data scales by you can predict accurately what your data will look like at larger scales or visa versa.

I’m now going to go look how a psychologist/sociologist attempts to quantify the phenomena they observe as a comparison. Any psychologist want to point out a book for me?

I’ve been making my way through Economics by Parkin, Powell and Matthews, which i’ve found very accessible and easy to read. The authors try to illustrate reasonably complex concepts (for me they are reasonably complex, anyway) with simple analogies, the majority of which for some reason seem to include David Beckham. Below are the key things i’ve got from the first part of the book.

What is Economics? 
It is the social science that studies the choices that individuals, businesses, governments and entire societies make as they cope with scarcity and the incentives that influence and reconcile those choices.

Microeconomics & Macroeconomics
Microeconomics is the study of choices that individuals and businesses make, the way these choices interact in markets and the influence of governments. Macroeconomics studies the performance of the national and global economy.

Two Key Economic Questions
How do choices end up determining what, how and for whom goods and services get produced?
When do choices made in the pursuit of self-interest also promote the social interest?

Trade-Offs and Opportunity Cost
Trade-offs are a way of conceptualising the process of making a choice between alternatives. For example, when you choose to write your IDR blog rather than watchint the One Show you face a trade-off. By writing this blog i am (hopefully) becoming better educated and giving myself a better chance in doing well in this course, which may lead to a better career later down the line. But i am missing the One Show, so i am trading off current entertainment(?!) with my future ’performance’.  Linked to this is opportunity cost. If i want to go and see ‘Due Date’ this weekend, the cost of the ticket will preclude me from having a pub lunch on Sunday. Therefore, the opportunity cost of seeing Due Date is the pub lunch i won’t have; that is, the pub lunch is the highest valued alternative that i would have done if i did not go to the cinema.

Margins
If i study five nights a week instead of four, and my marks go from an average of 50 to 60, the marginal benefit of that extra night’s study is the difference between my old and new average – 10%. The marginal cost of getting that extra ten percent is the night i lose socialising. In order to evaluate the benefits, i would have to establish whether the extra marks outweigh the cost of socialising less.

Human Nature and Social Interest
There is an economic assumption that humans act in their self interest; that is, they make the choices that get hte most value for them based on their values. A question the book seems very keen on addressing is when self-interested acts are alos in the social interest.

How Economics is Studied
Economics is not an experimental science, ands as such has to be studied through other means. Given that you cannot really conduct bound economic experiments in the laboratory, the book details and describes methods used to study economics. These include Observation and Measurement, Model Building and Testing Models.

I’ve been necessarily brief; there really is a lot of material that i’ve tried to distill down to the core components. Thus far it’s a rewarding task, and i feel quite comfortable with all of the concepts above although i’m fairly sure i had at least an elementary understanding of most of them. I’m going to press on with this book for the next week or so, as it has only touched on social capital and i think this will be the area that i can most strongly link back to my topic area.

Reading:

Aitchison, J (1972): Lingusitics, An Introduction. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Thomas, L & Wareing, S (1999): Language, Society and Power: An Introduction. London: Routledge.

Trudgill, P (1983): Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. London: Penguin.

In my last blog post I outlined some of the basic principles of linguistics. This week I will be going into more detail regarding this discipline and attempting to highlight areas of relevance to my topic, Organisation. As I mentioned in both last weeks blog and my initial statement of my intent to study linguistics, I am interested in finding out how language shapes social organisation and forms bonds, both within and between different communities and cultures. This blog post will look at the how language exists and is structured, and then how it can be used on basic levels to encourage and enforce social interaction.

Understanding Language.

Noam Chomsky argued that anyone who has learnt a language must have, at some point in their development, internalised a set of rules regarding the proper use of that language. In some ways, language can be thought of as a game, with rules and players, as well as being turn based. Linguists see language as having a functional role in human life; some examples of these functions are;

• Obtaining information. Eg: “What colour is the sky?” “The sky is blue.”
• Creating action. Eg: “Come with me!”
• Enforcing social bonds. Eg: “Well done!”

Of course language is extremely flexible, and these functions often interact when we are communicating. For example, the conversation:

“Can you go outside and tell me what colour the sky is?”

“Yes…the sky is blue”

“Thank you”

shows language being used to first create action, then to supply information and finally to supply social kudos to the actor. Similarly, the sentence;

“Come with me if you want to live!”

is an example of information being supplied to influence an action. Such common multiplicity in language shows how useful it is in quickly dealing with many different situations which we find ourselves in daily. While many animals have ways of communicating information and action through sound (in fact, the sentence “come with me if you want to live” is one of the most commonly communicated messages in the animal kingdom, next to “we should have sex”), only humans have the capacity to construct complex meaning and abstraction in language. To elaborate, animals communicate what is immediately relevant, such as immediate observations and feelings;

“I am hungry, where is the food?”

“The food is in this tree”

whereas humans can communicate past and future experiences with a descriptive element;

“The banana I ate this morning was delicious!”

“I want a banana too!”

“Well you’ll have to go to the banana tree, climb it, and get one for yourself”

Imagining a solution to a problem is only useful to a society if it can be quickly and effectively communicated to members, and in this respect humans are extremely advantaged thanks to language.

Language construction and semantics.

Language, in its most basic format, is made up of phonemes, which are the smallest sounds which distinguish two words. For example p and b in the English language are phonemes, as they distinguish words such as pit and bit. Phonemes expand to create groups of consonants and vowels, which make up words. Words are then characterised with semantics. Semantics is extremely important in understanding language, as words are far from universally recognisable. Identical words can have far from identical meanings, and humans have evolved to carry out internal logical inference to assess the semantics of a word or sentence. For example, someone who heard the word “duck” while standing on a golf course may logically infer that they need to carry out an immediate action, and someone who heard the same word spoken by a child standing next to a lake might logically infer that the child is referring to the species of bird. Semantics, then, allows us to understand the language we hear and make decisions regarding its usefulness.

Of course, sometimes these decisions are wrong, no matter how logical the thought processes are, and language semantics can become very complicated very quickly. Many words in languages share common semantic components, for example “bull” and “man” both refer to adult male mammals, but we cannot use the terms interchangeably, except as similes. Humans get around this problem of this component overlap in language by working from established prototypes. When one thinks of a bird, one does not tend to think of a penguin, but of a robin, which is closer to the prototypical bird. However, because language is constantly evolving, prototypes can be endemic to certain social groups and certain social settings. If you overhear the word “bird” used by a group of men of a certain age in the local pub, you would be forgiven for assuming that these men are referring to a particular woman, and are not members of your local RSPB branch. This kind of word fuzziness makes logical inference so important when communicating, but shows that it can, on occasion, be incorrect. When humans are unfamiliar with words they hear in a language that they recognise, they can usually solve this problem by asking for clarification; “Excuse me, when you say bird, what do you mean?” and then storing this information as a new internal subset rule of language, something like:

IF SPEAKER= Simon, ENVIRONMENT= Pub, WORD=’Bird’ THEN INFER word= ‘woman’.

And in this way language semantics can constantly evolve and adapt as an individual moves through various social groups and environments.

Pragmatics

Continuing this discussion of the unpredictable nature of language, we can discuss pragmatics. Pragmatics is the study of unpredictable language use, and its creation is commonly attributed to philosopher Paul Grice (1913-1988), who identified efficient communication between humans in four maxims of conversation;

• Quantity: giving the right amount of information when talking.
• Quality: Being truthful when talking if the truth is known.
• Relevance: Relevant answers to questions or relevant statements to contexts.
• Manner: Clear and ordered structuring of communication.

Grice observed that these principles for cooperative communication exist in all languages and are so a core part of communicating,  for example when talking to a baby or animal which cannot respond, people will still communicate as if they were expecting a response, and follow one or more of the maxims. However, Grice also observed that the above maxims are often broken, and more commonly by certain social groups within a society. A politician, if we are being pessimistic, may be more inclined to mislead or respond irrelevantly to a question than a scientist. Pragmatic linguists note that when faced with random, useless or simply untrue information in language, humans will often try and draw reasonable conclusions and seek to understand the meaning of what was said, rather than simply rejecting the statement as a failed response. Our minds reason that only matters of extreme importance could cause someone to break the maxims of conversation, for example;

“Did you enjoy your day at school dear? Your maths teacher says that you have been LOOK OUT FOR THAT TIGER!”

And so often people, even when they are aware that laws of conversation have been broken, will allow the speaker to continue, accepting that there must have been a reason for the interruption in normal proceedings, even if the reason is not immediately known.

Pragmatic language therefore has much to say about the power of language, and this explanation of acceptance to broken norms can show us in part why skilled orators, such as lawyers, politicians and journalists, can coerce or influence certain social groups who may or may not be aware of the misuse of language directed at them. We have all seen interviews with politicians who evade certain questions, providing irrelevant answers or random information, and while this may enrage some members of a society, other listeners will assume that there must be a socially beneficial reason for the evasion. These listeners are often of a lower social status than the speaker and have less experience with language on a lexical level (they may not understand the words or the meanings that the speaker is using). I will discuss social classes and language further in two weeks.

What I hope this blog post has shown is that language has laws at a basic level. Language is a construction of sounds, created by humans to achieve certain results. As we evolve, so does the language we use and we are constantly updating our internal rulebook through logical inference to deal with new semantics, situations and social groupings that we find ourselves in. When it comes to use, as long as the basic construction rules are obeyed, language is found to be very flexible, and can be used by those skilled in communication to achieve a variety of ends. However, the basic principles of language and communication are still within us, and it is somewhat comforting to know that, even in a modern world where it new words are constantly created and old ones reinvented, that we still have core uses and needs for language that have remained more or less unchanged since our first words. Although I have not mentioned explicitly my topic of organisation, it is implied through much of the above analysis that language and communication is at the heart of our need to be close to one another, to express emotion, share ideas and survive as a community.

Next week, I will be returning to sociology to discuss sociological theorists and the idea of organisation.

So continuing on with my reading into two unfamiliar disciplines, it occurred to me this week that perhaps I may have been ‘jumping the gun’ somewhat by pre-empting the key areas within politics and psychology in relation to the issue of privacy, without obtaining a basic knowledge of what these two subjects are concerned with. Thus I have taken a step back from looking at the areas of ‘self’ within psychology and ‘security’ within politics and decided to read more about the basic underlying principles of each discipline instead.

For psychology I have been reading a number of books in order to gain an insight into the founding psychologists and the theories they presented.  In particular I have found the following helpful:

Psychology – Carlson, Martin & Buskist (2004)

Psychology: an integrated approach – Eysenck (1998)

Approaches to Psychology 2^nd ed. – Glassman (1995)

Beginning at the philosophical roots of psychology, I have been acquiring information about different theories and who conceived them, such as: Rene Descarts (1596-1650) – Dualism (the belief that it is possible that all reality can be divided into two separate identities: mind & matter), John Locke (1632-1704) – Empiricism (the pursuit of truth through observation and experience), David Hume (1711-1776) – Positivism (the concept that all meaningful ideas can be defined by observable material) and Bishop George Berkeley (1685-1753) – Idealism (the belief that knowledge of events in the world are not purely obtained from direct experience rather that knowledge is the outcome of inferences based on the accumulation of past experiences derived via the senses. Perhaps the most productive way to utilise all these concepts would be to correlate them and use them in a manner whereby they complement each other as it seems obvious to me that they all have basic similarities in that they are all concerned with the workings of the mind and the way in which individuals acquire knowledge.

Regarding politics, I have conducted similar research into the development of political ideologies and key theorists and resumed my reading of Political Thinkers: from Socrates to the present – David Boucher & Paul Kelly (2003). From here I have identified a number of important and influential schools of thought. Starting with the The Sophists, whose key ideas included moral and political issues and accepted a group way of thought such as justice being essential to society but also being beneficial to the individual, democracy being limited and justice being perceived as a convention as opposed to nature, which brings pleasure; law is unable to uphold justice thus it is better to be unjust wherever possible (Protagoras, Thrasymachus & Antiphon). Following on from the Sophists were the great thinkers Socrates (Elenchus – questions and answers leading to ignorance being admitted; Virtue – the basis of knowledge in conjunction with other virtues such as wisdom, courage, justice; Daimonion – the ‘inner voice’ which opposes active participation in politics; Techne – arts and crafts used as analogies for the basis of civil obedience) Plato (Forms – non- dynamic objects which are accessible to the mind but not the senses, providing reputable standards for good judgement and knowledge) and Aristotle (Human Nature – humans are social and political animas and in order to live a full life, require harmonious fellowship with others in a community) who collectively redefined a stronger case for justice. Already I am discovering that some theories have an underlying theme of human perception and also behaviour seems inherent as a recurrent theme.

The more I read into these two disciplines the more I am assuming that there may be some overlapping theories and concepts which can be applied to the issue of privacy and as such privacy on the Web. However I do not want to be too presumptuous or have too many pre-conceived notions without any evidence!

One of the things that I find most intriguing about Politics is the concept of Political Science, how something which to me seems fundamentally about how people interact with each other and make decisions can be studied in a scientific manner. The book starts by seemingly agreeing with me and makes a number of points on how Politics cannot be studied scientifically:

1) One cannot disprove theories such as “is democracy a better form of government that dictatorship”. It is rare that a political questions can be boiled down to a true or false answer. This is further complicated when many disagree on the definitions of certain concepts.

2) It is nearly impossible to replicate methods and results through experimentation or statistical methods. Most political experiments are severely hindered by ethical and logistical implications. There are often only a few number of cases that can be studied when conducting comparative analysis and the use of statistical data often falls foul of representative issue and disputes over the integrity of data sources.

3) Political science relies on visible and measurable phenomena. This is illustrated with the example of ‘false consciousness’ (in which individuals demonstrate a social understanding that is mainly false). One political thesis states that in capitalist societies, the working classes are always in a state of false consciousness, however it is not possible to prove that people are suffering from false consciousness and that as a result they do not act in their own interests.

4) When studying Politics it is essential to consider both facts and values and values may vary considerably between different societies and nations. It is very difficult to incorporate “fuzzy” concepts such as values in to scientific methodology.

5) Finally in social sciences there are no laws (or as the book points out, there are no laws yet). Political phenomena can be classified and probabilistic associations can be made between variables, but it is not possible to state causal relationships.

Therefore having established the constraints of what can and cannot be done when studying Politics (which may seem obvious to some readers, but having never studied a social science (except the rather mathematical Economics) is all quite new to myself) I then started to look into some of the issues that Politics concerns itself with, the first of which the role of people in Politics.

Upon seeing that the first chapter was about the role of the individual in Politics, I thought this had little to do with cyber-warfare and therefore maybe I should skip the chapter and head to some of the juicier stuff on international relations (at least I envisage it to be juicier). However the concept of the individual and identity (and I hope I’m not making too much of a faux pas by treating them synonymously) has cropped up a number of times in Web Science so far and so I thought I should read on and see how these ideas may apply to the Web.

First comes the question as to whether we should study individuals or structures? We can either treat these mutually exclusively, where the study of one does not infer things about the other and also introduces the concepts of individualistic fallacy (treating institutions as a single – large – individual) and ecological or systematic fallacy (treating individuals as if they take on the characteristics of their organisations). Both of these concepts I feel can be important to consider when studying Web Science and the groups and networks that form in the online world.

An alternative way of looking at individuals or structures is that of the reductionist, in which one set of variables can be explained wholly or in part by reference to another set. In this view collective structures are viewed simply as the aggregate behaviour and attitudes of the individuals. This strikes me as being similar to the construction of an object-oriented computer program in which the problem is broken down into smaller solvable problems which combined form the overall solution.

Thirdly there is the structurationist point of view in which structures are the product of day-to-day interactions of individuals. For example shoppers reproduce capitalism when they buy goods in shops even though they are not consciously doing so. This point of view can also seemingly be applied to the Web, for example social networking sites are products of the interactions between users (although I suppose the difference here is that the site is provided to allow people to interact rather than a production of the interactions). Nevertheless the social network site would fail without these constant day-to-day interactions.

To bring this back closer to the topic of cyber-warfare, Enlightenment, the process by which the concept of the individual came into being along with modernity, has also lead to some of histories worse atrocities. The concept of the individual can lead to some groups being excluded or persecuted for their collective attributes, with the book using the examples of the near genocide of the Native American peoples and the Holocaust. Could similar events take place online (without the horror or devastation caused by the aforementioned examples)? The online world can certainly be used to rally groups against other groups in society. The concept of the individual can also be used to illustrate how cyber-warfare could be used by a government against its own people, to restrict the level of individuality any one person may have (similarly to Georeg Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four) – the Web provides a medium with which Big Brother could easily monitor our actions. However it must also be taken into account that the Web helps to further a person’s individuality, giving them access to a wealth of new opportunities (aiding pluralism – a concept which many believe to be a contributor to a healthy political system).

This blog post has got quite lengthy now, however there are still many more points which could be discussed including the use of terror to control society, how the Web has effected citizenship and our rights and what impact cyber-warfare may have upon these issues and how the Web may change an individual’s political competence. The book so far has certainly made for some very interesting reading and its been fascinating to look at a subject which has a very different approach to study. Next I shall try and delve into Economics, before I get too carried away with Politics.

Haralambos and Holborn’s Sociology. Themes and Perspectives has been recalled back to the library. Sniff. So I am returning it today.  We’ve had some good times, but today I have to say goodbye.

So I’m starting to think, why am I doing this?  I’m reading these huge (heavy) textbooks and trying to find out what the sociologist’s think about gender and sexuality.  But what I have really been trying to concentrate on is why they think these things.  What methods have they used to come to these conclusions?  That is the most important part of this research, to try to understand how the discipline of sociology applies its methods to individuals and groups to try to understand about gender and sexuality.  It seems from this week’s readings that interviews and observation are the favourites for gender and sexuality.  There is a certain amount of scientific approach later on (80s onwards) when looking at sexuality, particularly the work of Fausto-Sterling, and this is refreshing, but it always goes back to the interview.  How far can a conversation with someone who says that they are a ‘female’, ‘transexual’, ‘male’ really help to explain what gender is I wonder? I’m going to outline, as I do every week, what I have been reading, but I really do wonder if I am going to find anything more about methodological approaches and methods of investigation for sociologists than I have already discovered in these first year undergraduate textbooks.  I think that I may need to up the level of reading a little if I am going to get anything more than a broad overview to methods, so far, it has not expanded form last week’s list of:

• participant observation
• quantitative research in the form of surveys, questionnaires and interviews
• qualitative research in the form of interviews and observations
• secondary data
• content analysis
• discourse analysis
• case studies
• life histories

I’m not saying that this isn’t a good list, in fact I think that it covers the social side of human quite well, but there are gaps, when looking at gender, in looking at the physical attributes of individuals and the effects of this on our understanding of gender.  What about the genes, and the body, and the brain?  Or is this just socio-psychology and I am never going to find the answer I want sitting amongst the sociologists?  Craig has given me a book on Social Psychology, which I have been so tempted to read all week; but I am trying to stick with pure sociology for the first few weeks… we’ll see how that goes this week.

Sexuality (and a tiny bit of gender)

There’s just enough time to give a quick review of the chapter on Sex and Gender (Haralambos & Holborn, 2008: 90-142).  The section begins with a critique of ‘malestream sociology’ based on the work of P.Abbott, C.Wallace and M. Tyler (2005).  There is a mention of the biological differences between man and woman; sexual diomorphism (Haralambos & Holborn, 2008: 92-93), where sexual diomorphism is biological fact (cf. Warton, 2005: 18) and the distinction that sex and gender are different (cf. Stoller, 1968).  The chapter discusses the rhesus monkeys from Goy and Pheonix’s experiments (1971) and the work of Archer and Lloyd (2002) on testosterone and criminal records, and goes on to outline Oakley’s criticism of the rhesus monkey experiemnts as not including the social context affecting the hormone levels (1981) and also Halpern et al. work on aggression and testosterone in teenage boys (1994) that shows there is no correlation between testosterone levels and aggression.  Archer and Lloyd say that although hormones contribute to aggressive behaviour, peer groups also affect behaviour, they say that there is an ‘interaction between biological and social processes (Archer and Lloyd, 2002).  I think that this is interesting when considering the representation of gender online as the communication between groups needs to be considered when thinking about the way that an individual is choosing to present themselves (or feels that they have to present themselves) online.

Haralambos and Holborn go on to discuss sociobiology (2008: 94-96).  This is a topic that I am going to read more into as I think that it will have a lot to say about the links between genetics and behaviour and therefore could be useful when thinking about the presentation of sexual identity online.  Barash applies Wilson’s worn on sociobiology to gender and sex (Barash, 1979; Wilson, 1975) saying that reproductive strategies produce different behaviours between males and females, resulting in different social roles.  Looking at the literature for this subject available in the University of Southampton library, sociobiologists seem to use animal behaviour to explain their theories, and it seems to me that this may not therefore wash when you move the theories across to humans.  Blier writes against sociobiology, saying that they are ethnocentric (1984), this is a really interesting point.  If studying different societies results in different behaviours of men and women being observed, does this necessarily mean that sociobiology is wrong? Or does it mean that there are other factors at play that have resulted in an exceptional situation occurring? I don’t agree with this, but I am saying it as the internet is an exceptional situation perhaps? And so the work of sociobiologists, whether true or false in its statements, becomes irrelevant when all of the social norms are being broken and the communities are abnormal?  Looking at whether communities online are abnormal or not isn’t within the scope of this little project; I wish it was as I believe that they are not abnormal and that the world online is an exact copy of the world offline.

Haralambos and Holborn go on to discuss the sexual division of labour (cf. G.P.Murdock, 1949) and also the cultural division of labour (cf. A.Oakley, 1974).  Oakley looks to disprove Murdock’s idea that biology determines the division of labour between the sexes, she does this by looking at the labour divisions of a range of societies (1974), but again, she is using the sociologist’s approach of studying the behaviours of societies and then concluding that they are representative of all of the individuals, past and present, on earth.  Oakley identifies where socialisation into gender roles occurs: manipulation of child’s self-concept; canalization of boys and girls using objects; verbal appellations for children; exposure to different activities (1974).  But, as Haralambos and Holborn point out, Oakley misses the other reasons for this behaviour; Connell points out that it is not always passive, consider the active seeking out of pleasure he says (i.e. wanting to wear high heels because they make you feel sexy)(Connell, 2002:138-141) – not sure about this one: why do you feel sexy in high heels? Because of the societal behaviours, this is not an active seeking out, this is a passive enforced behaviour, I think.

The chapter then moves onto gender attribution, in particular the work of Kessler and McKenna, ethnomethodologists who look at how people characterise the world around them, where gender is socially produced, and that there is therefore no way to tell between a woman and a man easily (Kessler & McKenna, 1978:885-7).  It seems to me that they come to some of their conclusions using interviews to think about how transsexuals remove their perceived sexuality by others from their actual physical attributes that may make an individual make an assumption about their sexuality.  This is done by: content and manner of speech; public physical appearance; information about their past life; private body and how to hide details of their body that would point to a particular sexuality (Kessler & McKenna, 1978).  This is very interesting in the online world. Where do these four processes happen when you are online?  The private body is easier to conceal, but I would argue that the manner and content of speech, the public physical appearance (assuming that it has to be chosen by the individual from a selection of possibilities, as in SecondLife) and the past life are all just as difficult to construct online as they are offline.   I think that we are just as constrained by these processes online as we are offline.

Haralambos and Holborn introduce Fausto-Sterling and the idea of transgendered people, where dualistic views of being either male of female are not appropriate (Fausto-Sterling, 2000), her work is also based in the social processes that create gender, she says that gender is ‘embodied’.  Key to this is that the development of neural processes in the brain is connected to the experiences we have, so our social factors and our body’s factors reinforcing one another so that gender is materialised within the body (Fausto-Sterling, 2000).  The section ends with Connell’s idea that biology and culture are fused together (Connell, 2002).

Next Week

Feminism is discussed in depth in the introductory textbooks that I am using for this early stage of my reading.  I am going to read through Abbott et al., 2005. An Introduction to Sociology. Feminist Perspectives, for this part of my research.   I know that I said that I would do it last week, but I have been quite surprised at how useful the undergraduate textbooks have been.  I am going to try to move onto biology also this coming week, I have the texts that I identified last week sitting on my desk staring at me.  I am loathe to start them as I think that I know already what they will contain…

So far, I’ve been introduced to coffee as the ultimate sociological artefact and three theoretical approaches to Sociology;  Functionalism, The Conflict Approach and Symbolic Interactionism.  I’ll try and explain my understanding of the three below, so that I might be corrected my someone who knows more about it.

Functionalism treats society as a set of parts that work together and interact.  One piece of society can be understood by looking at how it interacts with the other pieces,  the “function” that it performs.  Functionalism approaches sociology from the point of view that these different parts share some common goals or values, a “moral consensus”.  The functions performed by a “piece” of society (the book uses a Hopi rain dance as an example) can be broken into two subsets: 1) Manifest functions, or the function that is known or intended (to make it rain) and 2) Latent functions, or the functions that actually result in practice but which the participants are unaware (social cohesion).

The Conflict Approach sees society as a collection of distinct groups, but unlike functionalism it rejects the importance of a moral consensus and instead embraces the divisions in society.   Examples of divisions might include inequality, political power imbalance or membership of a particular religion.  Conflict arises when the interests (or at least the self-perceived interests) of two or more groups do not align.

Symbolic Interactionism (SI) focuses on the symbolic interactions between individuals.  A symbol could be a gesture, word, phrase, picture – Basically anything that has some semantics attached to it.  SI looks at the way in which meaning is conveyed by these symbols, via the shared semantics that are attributed to them by groups of people.  SI takes the view that social structures are the result of symbolic interactions – These interactions could be deliberately manipulated by one or more of the participants to create structures that work in their favour (the book uses the example of airline cabin crew being trained to smile – A deliberate symbolic gesture designed to convey certain semantics “I am happy to serve you drinks and peanuts”, with which the person smiling may not necessarily agree – “I don’t really enjoy serving you drinks and peanuts”.  In this case, the interaction helps to reinforce the steward-customer structure).

Despite the apparent differences between these perspectives, they are all based on an underlying positivist methodology that bases understanding on empirical evidence, observation, experimentation and comparison – Just the natural sciences study natural phenomena.  All three also go beyond just describing their observations and tackle the “why” question, by developing theories and models.

One thing that did strike me during my research is that, like web science, sociology operates within the same highly-coupled system that it is attempting to study.  Unlike the natural sciences, where it is often possible to isolate the object of study from external influence, doing so is not practical in sociology, and given the complex interconnectedness of society, observing or experimenting on one part could cause changes elsewhere or even feed back into the object of study itself.  That is not to say that the natural sciences are free from such problems (indeed, physics deals with observational interference on an elementary level) but such difficulties do seem to be particularly relevant to sociology and web science.

Next week I’ll move into the Biology/Ecology direction, but hopefully carry on with the sociology angle, too.

Psychology – What is Psychology?
Psychology can be defined as the science of behaviour – the discovery and explanation of the cause of certain behaviours. Psychologists try to explain these behaviours by studying its causes, to explain why people do what they do. Some psychologists also examine the behaviour of animals to help provide insights into factors that can affect human behaviour. Different psychologists study different behaviours and are interested in different groups of causes, but how do we study and explain human behaviour? In order to understand why we do what we do, psychologists must become familiar with what people do, and look at the events responsible for a behaviour’s occurrence. Carlson et al (2007) have recognised 12 approaches to understanding the causes of human behaviour:
Physiological psychology- examines the role of the brain in behaviour

Comparative psychology – explores the behaviour of various species of animals to try and explain the behaviour in terms of evolution.

Behaviour analysis – consider the effects of the environment on behaviour

Behaviour genetics – look at the responsibility of genetics in behaviour

Cognitive psychology – explores complex human behaviours and mental processes e.g. perception, attention, learning, memory etc.

Cognitive neuroscience – works alongside cognitive psychology and physiological psychology and is concerned with looking at brain mechanisms that are responsible for cognition.

Developmental psychology – is concerned with the development of behaviour throughout a person’s life. Includes looking at physical, cognitive, emotional, and social developments.

Social psychology – studies the results/effects that a person’s behaviour has on others.

Personality psychology – looks at individual differences in patterns of behaviour and a person’s temperament.

Evolutionary psychology- is the study of natural selection and how this can influence behaviour.

Cross cultural psychology – studies the consequences of how culture can affect behaviour.

Clinical psychology – is concerned with looking at mental disorders, problems of adjustment and the causes and treatments of these.

By studying behaviour and its causes – we can look at how to solve problems and simply fulfil our need to understand what makes human beings work. For example, excessive smoking, obesity, poor exercise, bad diet, and heavy drinking are all responsible for many illnesses, which could be reduced and peoples living conditions increasingly improved if people changed their behaviour. Psychologists can therefore, apply their knowledge of behaviour to a range of problems and provide a solution. In this way it can be considered a profession. For example school psychologists try to help students with behavioural problems, and consumer psychologists provide advice to organisations that offer a service or buy and sell goods.

Carlson, N. et al (2007) Psychology: The Science of Behaviour. 6th Edition. USA: Pearson

For my reading next week I am hoping to look at research methods used by psychologists and start to look at evolution, genetics and behaviour. I also hope to start my reading of the book: The Psychology of the Internet by Patricia Wallace.

Criminology – A Brief History
The idea that criminals are driven by forces beyond their control still exists today. However, prior to the modern age of crime and criminal behaviour, it was proposed that criminals were possessed by demons that forced them to do bad things beyond their control – known as ‘Demonology.’ There was little written law, and crime was associated with sin. This meant that the state felt they had ‘moral authority’ to use horrible methods of torture and punishment. The accused were subjected to closed trials, torture and harsh punishments – which were often inflicted on the physical body of the accused. The accused also faced the possibility of being tortured to death. Little use was made of imprisonment as prisons were mostly used for holding suspects and offenders before they went to trial or punishment. It was thought that the threat of cruel punishments administered in public and with theatrical emphasis would act as a deterrent for the ‘dangerous’.

The criminal justice system was ‘chaotic, non-codified, irrational, irregular and at the whim of individual judgement.’ It was only with the emergence of the modern era and new methods of viewing and responding to the world, that lead to a breakthrough in the way that crime and criminal behaviour was dealt with.

Defining the extent of crime

Crime can include a range of different activities such as fraud, theft, robbery, assault, corruption, rape, and even murder. Crime can often be thought of as the doing of wrong, but not all activities that some might consider immoral, are thought of as crimes. For example, parking in a disabled space when your not actually disabled is immoral but isn’t considered to be a crime. The easiest way to define crime is an act that breaches criminal law. This can be problematic because in English law some offences (i.e. murder, serious assault), re seen as ‘real’ crimes and can be described as ‘mala in se.’ But some crimes are ‘mala prohibita’ prohibited because they are for the protection of the public.

As with everything, legal definitions change over time and vary between different cultures. What may be legal in one country may be illegal in another. Crime can therefore be considered ‘part of a political process’ and a ‘social construction,’ which is increasingly seen in the media.

Explanations and research into criminal behaviour have emerged from studies which have been carried out on individuals from lower socioeconomic groups. It is considered this ‘dangerous class’ have been at the forefront of criminological thought since the start of modern society. But it is important not to forget the problem of what is known as ‘white collar’ crime or corporate crime which often involves a person of respectability and high social status.

Burke, R.H. (2005) An Introduction to Criminological Theory. 2nd Edition. Devlon: Willan Publishing.
For my reading next week I am hoping to look at models and traditions that attempt to explain crime and criminal behaviour.

So, on Craig’s advice, I’ve got hold of the hefty tome that is Paul Gross’s “Psychology”, and read the early chapters, deepening my understanding of the different major approaches to the subject, which will form the beginning of my review. The book is well structured and pretty clear, but seems light on research techniques.

Olivier recommended “Group Processes” by Rupert Brown, and I’ve been finding this an enjoyable read. After the early context, I’m focussing on the chapters on group productivity, which are directly relevant to my topic. It seems that research has focussed on trying to determine the relative advantage or disadvantage of doing things as a group as compared to doing them as individuals. They do this by statistically simulating groups actually made up of individuals working seperately, and comparing their performance to real groups working together. So far the results don’t look too complimentary for the collective, but there’s more to come.

On complexity science, I have attended another lecture and discussion, and I have raised my topic with the course leader, Seth. He’s agreed that it’s an interesting area, and complexity science has plenty to say about it. I hope to pick his brains further this week, particularly on reading.

Issues concerning the topic are philosophical, psychological, logical and practical, and Gillies refers to the Turing machine as an example of the latter two, and to the program BACON.1 as psychological and logical.

Gillies has identified the development of expert systems as the first major break-through in the field of AI, although he notes the need for rule-based systems to solve the knowledge representation problem. The first expert system DENDRAL was essentially a chemist; the first expert system to (arguably) pass the Turing test (in a matter of speaking) was MYCIN, which had a knowledge base of some 400 rules.  The main stumbling block here is known as the “Feigenbaum bottleneck”.

I do have a question. Sir Francis Bacon wrote about scientific research which could/would/ought to be carried out “mechanically”. His examples include a mention of  a (circle-drawing) compass, which allows anyone to draw a perfect circle – something which by free-hand is near impossible, at least to most people. I find myself asking the question  - is using a compass to draw a circle a form of cognitive extension, even if it is, say, purely for fun, i.e. with no desire or intention to study the circle, use it to solve any problem, create a piece of art, etc. Does drawing a perfect circle with a compass = using a calculator to solve an equation?

The next large theme handled was production, including 4 main factors of production, land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship. Land refers to the raw materials used in the production of goods, labour the work that individuals must complete in order to produce the good, capital the assets that a company must have to produce the goods and entrepreneurship, the organisation and goals the business possesses.  Simply by looking at these factors it is clear that the digital revolution would fundamentally change what, and by whom goods are produced. The increase in digital media means that companies, and increasingly individuals do not require large amounts of natural resources, for example, a mash up artist just requires a copy of the intended parent files. Additionally many digital users do not require vast assets to produce goods, many of which can be created using a PC, potentially with a key piece of required software, this is far smaller than the large production facilities which many companies are required to possess. It is clear therefore that just from a basic level that the web has altered or has the potential to alter the fundamentals of economics. The authors contend that the information revolution in the 1990s and the subsequent growth of the web has altered the lives individuals in much the same way as the industrial revolution of the 1700s and 1800s.

Economics does take a negative view of individuals, arguing that all individuals are fundamentally self centred and individualistic, who always act according to self interest.(As an aside, economics  seems to view individuals as being governed by the id, and pleasure principle in Freudian psychology) This action is taken as a given by economists, who argue that the role of the state is to manage the wants of the citizens, as no individual can ever be truly satisfied. Scarcity is a common to all, as individuals inherently want for more, they can never be satisfied, due to limit of resources, making every decision a trade-off. This is easy to see in everyday transactions, as individual only has a finite set of resources, as such we must make decisions on how best to use our limited source. Based on the notion of limited resources, economics also focuses on opportunity costs, that is the cost of not doing something else with the resources an individual possesses. Interestingly economists only look at this in terms of profit and loss rather than simply opportunities for other activities, for example an individual may invest a significant amount of time developing social bonds by spending time with a large group of friends, the individual has not gained a direct use of their capital, and as such they may have been better investing their time into completing required work. Sociologists could argue that spending time with others fosters the gain of social capital, a potentially valuable resource. The investment of resources is always a trade off between activities, as such actively investing in the future reduces the resources available now, in exchange for increasing the potential for resources in the future.

As Individuals only have a finite set of resources, it is obvious that individuals benefit from specialisation, individuals cannot be the best at everything, but by specialising and gaining expert skill levels in one subset, they can produce the best goods they can. If multiple specialists from different skill sets combine, they can then trade, allowing all parties to gain a benefit, and access to goods otherwise denied to them. Interestingly this is where the growth of the web contradicts with classical economic theory, many of the youtube sensations, or web mash up artists are not experts in these fields, and in the vast majority of cases are not trading their ideas for a form of capital gain, but simply to be a member of a community, or to express creativity, of course it is possible to argue that these could count as investments into the future but it seems very unlikely that this is the motivating factor behind such actions.

The next large economic theory I focused on was demand and supply, a key tenet in economics, central to demand is the law of demand, which states that if all other factors are equal, the lower the cost of an item the higher the demand. It is possible that this is where the web has fundamentally revolutionised consumer behaviour, the web has allowed individuals to access information, at a relatively low cost, that would have potentially remained inaccessible, Wikipedia has allowed everyone with an internet connection to learn about a variety of topics, e-commerce has allowed individuals to access goods otherwise denied to them at a lower cost. The web is used in rural areas of developing countries to check the global price of goods to ensure that the farmers are getting a fair price for the goods that they produce. People generally want greater value for money, demand more, and value innovation more. Of course it could be argued that these social trends started long before the explosion of the massed web, but the web has fundamentally changed the perceptions of value and the way the global game is played.     

The coming week I will be returning to sociology to see how sociologists can help explain these trends, and consider whether we are simply in the start of a snow ball, and whether this trend could continue indefinitely in its current state, or whether these trends are somehow doomed. The web has allowed the Djinn out of the lamp, and people don’t want him to go back in. If classical economics is based on the “Wealth of Nations”, written in 1776, is the coming age characterised by the wealth of the individual, with classical economics being resigned to antiquity?

I have been reading about Sociology and Gender from two main texts, Marsh et al. (2009) Sociology. Making Sense of Society and Haralambos & Holborn (2004) Sociology Themes and Perspectives.  Both have given me a really good broad overview into general sociological approaches, as well as more in-depth details of sociology’s approach to understanding gender.

I am particularly interested in the key issues as outlined by Marsh et al. of sociological perspectives in practice and how sociological knowledge is produced.

Sociological perspectives – key issues:

It seems from the readings that I have carried out so far that there is no unified body of approaches to/theories in sociology.  Sociologists seem to struggle to agree on concepts, I am particularly interested by Gouldner’s criticism describing social surveillance as ‘cow sociology’ (1975).

Sociology seems to claim to follow a scientific method to collect data with which it can make statements about behavioural patterns, but these tendency statements do presumably invest quite a high percentage of their accuracy on the dependency of regularity.  People are not necessarily always going to behave in a predictable manner, even if sociology has studied other individuals/groups in a similar situation in the past.   I like the idea of considering in every situation these factors: biological, psychological and social.  But, as my first book on sociology tells me, it is often difficult to distinguish between these factors.

Production of Sociological knowledge

Marsh et al. outline the cyclical trends in sociological research (2009:119), as highlighted by McNeill (1990), and also discuss the importance, as put by Pawson, in the differences between positivist and interpretivist approaches to understanding social research: “both qualitiative and quantitative approaches face identical problems and need to adopt common solutions.” (Pawson, 1989:31-2).

According to Marsh et al., sociologists like Karl Marx, Durkheim and Weber base their work on analysing second-hand evidence, such as historical sources and not on first-hand research.  Whereas Charles Booth and Seebohn Rowntree were all about the survey and qualitative research (Marsh et al.,2009:119).  So there seems to be a dichotomy with the forms of research most appropriate for generalising societal behaviours, or for making statements on a much smaller scale of individuals’ actual behaviours.

I wonder how this will all tie in with looking at gender from a sociological perspective. ..

Different approaches to sociology

Haralambos and Holborn’s publication has a good introduction to the differences between structural and social action theories (2004:855-856).  I found the outlines of functionalist (Durkheim, Merton and Parsons), social capital (Putnam), conflict perspectives, including Marxism (Marx), neo-Marxism (Gramsci), post-capitalism conflict theory (Dahrendorf), and social action and interpretive perspectives (Weber, Ritzer) really useful.  I struggled to understand symbolic interaction (Mead and Dewey) with its notion of the self (2004:881), although the argument put forward by Ropers that “the activities he [Mead] sees men engaged in are not historically determined relationships of social and historical continuity; they are merely episodes, interactions, encounters, and situations” (quoted in Meltzer et al., 1975) that Haralambos and Holborn include in this section (2004: 883) does make the approach of the symbolic interactionists a little easier to understand.  I loved the section on phenomenology (2004:885) (Schutz) with its wonderfully sensory approaches to understanding how people come into contact with the world.  As an Archaeologist, this is an approach that I have come across many times and feel quite comfortable with as a useful way to try to think about the way that knowledge is constructed and shared.  Humans creating their own idea that there is a society is something that I love the idea of, I wonder how far this approach could be used to think about the way that we understand our own gender and other individuals’ projections of their own gender (or notion of it)…

Ethnomethodology (Garfinkel) seems a bit off the wall (it was developed in the 1960s, so…).  It looks at social order as fiction, which I like, and which could be great when looking at gender constructs (can I say that it’s a ‘construct’ this early on; maybe not).  But I do not feel comfortable with the idea of social life as Garfinkel’s words here: “essentiall reflexive” (1967).  So an account of the social world actually constitutes that world (Haralambos & Holborn, 2004:885-7).  So that would mean that our attempts to define the world are what creates the world, and this really doesn’t sit well with me.  Haralambos and Holborn tell us that Gouldner was “scorn[ful]” of Garfinkel (1970) (I am liking Gouldner more and more), and Giddens apparently said that Garfinkel had little reference to “the pursuance of practical goals or interests” (1977).  I like to think that sociology will always look to try to understand why people behave in certain ways and look at the effects of external factors on individuals’ behaviours, and Garfinkel doesn’t seem to think that this is important.   Modernity, postmodernity and postmodernism (I had no idea that there was any difference between these two) are also outlined in this section of the book.

Postmodernism (Lyotard, Baudrillard, Philo and Miller) is discussed in terms of Lyotard’s work with language, knowledge and narrative (1984).  There is also a small paragraph tackling Lyotard’s  approach to computers and how they were the principal “force of production” (1984), and where knowledge has become commodified and will cause wars in the future.   Haralambos and Holborn comment that Postmodernism allows for the “possibility of tolerance and creative diversity, in which humans are not corrupted by some doctrinaire metanarrative” (2004: 893).  ‘High modernity and beyond’ is the subtitle of the next section, and this provided much opportunity for further reading.  The section looks at Giddens, with the heightened possibility for greater reflexivity, with sociology as “the most generalised type of reflection upon modern social life” (Giddens, 1991), the opportunities for globalization, and the transformations that were possible where capitalism becomes a ‘post-scarcity system’ – Are we there now with the web? I think I need to read a bit (lot!) more about this as it could be really relevant to the approaches to gender thinking about the ways that participation online is affected by ideas of who we are and what we want (of which I am sure gender is an inextricable factor).

Methods for looking at social life

Participant observation, Quantitative research in the form of surveys, questionnaires and interviews, and qualitative research in the form of interviews and observations are all outlined by Marsh et al. (2009:120-125).  Interestingly, there is also some time given in the book to the other methods of research, such as the use of secondary data, content analysis and discourse analysis, and case studies and life histories (2009:130-139), and these could be potentially very useful in looking towards understanding gender on the web.  I will look into these different methods in more detail as the weeks go on, but for now they have made me think about the tools that sociologists have available to them as being more than a survey, a questionnaire and an interview.  Even here, there has been a revelation, in the types of interviews possible: discussed by Marsh et al. as being: 1) in-depth, 2) interactive, and 3) the most fascinating for me, generative.  This comes from Gubrium and Holstein who say that both the interviewee and the interviewer are participants in a social process so the respondents are: “constructors of knowledge in collaboration with the interviewers” (1997:114).

References

Haralambos, M. & M. Holborn, 2004.  Sociology Themes and Perspectives, Collins: London

Marsh, I., M. Keating, S. Punch, J. Harden, 2009. Sociology. Making Sense of Society, Pearson Longman: London

Please note, I have not read the following books, but I have Googled the references that I have mentioned above from two books that I have read, so that if you are interested in looking up the various bits that I have mentioned in the whistle-stop tour of my reading this week, you can do so easily.

Garfinkel, H., 1970. Studies in Ethnomethodology, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ

Giddens, A., 1977. Studies in Social and Political Theory, Hutchinson: London

Giddens, A., 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in Late Modern Age, Polity Press: Cambridge

Gouldner, A. W., 1975. For Sociology: Renewal and Critique in Sociology Today, Harmondsworth: Penguin

Gubrium, J. F., & J. A. Holstein, 1997. The New Language of Qualitative Method, Oxford University Press: Oxford

Lyotard, J.F., 1984. The Postmodern Condition, Manchester University Press: Manchester

Meltzer, B.N., J.W. Petras, L.T. Reynolds, 1975. Symbolic Interactionism, Routledge & Kegan Paul: London

Pawson, R., 1989. A Measure for Measures: A Manifesto for Empirical Sociology, Routledge: London

Next week…

My plan is now to look a little more in detail at some of the sociological ideas that I have come across and to read some sections of general sociology books about Gender.  I’ll stick with Haralambos & Holborn and Marsh et al., but will also look at some more specifically gender related texts, including Abbott et al. (2005) An Introduction to Sociology. Feminist Perspectives, Backett-Milburn & McKie (2001) Constructing Gendered Bodies, and the one that I am most excited about: Case (1990) Performing Feminisms. Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre. That last one may seem a little off the wall, but I am thinking that the idea of feminist theory and theatre may translate quite nicely across to the web as at the moment I don’t see why actions within virtual communities can not be seen as being performative, and there are some good links to identity and gender online within these communities. I think.

My reading this week has focused on gaining a basic understanding of some of the underlying concepts on anthropology, before I turn to look at Identity from this point of view. I have started by reading “Small Places, Large Issues: An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology” by Thomas Hylland Eriksen, from which some of the elementary points I have gained are described below.

One of the primary issues described immediately is that of ethnocentrism which occurs when a researcher examines a subject from only the point of view of their own background, and will therefore only describe it from their own culture’s perspective. This can lead to the researcher believing that their own cultural group may be superior to the group which they are researching, as they are only looking at it in comparison to what they are familiar with (pages 6-7). In contrast to this, cultural realism would state that “Cultures are qualitatively different and have their own unique inner logic”, and that ranking can not be used to distinguish different societies. Ultimately, cultural realism would believe that as long as something makes sense in a particular context, then it is as good as everything else, and it is not likely that this is followed by anyone completely outside of their line of work (page 7).

The book then began to cover a brief overview of the history of anthropology, and one concept immediately struck me as having relevance towards Identity, but according to the book it has never been part of the mainstream anthropological thinking outside of Germany. Diffusionism, “the doctrine of the historical diffusion of cultural traits”, seems to have been left behind after the First World War when studies on societies where taken without looking into the historical development of those societies (page 13). In terms of Identity, I believe there must be something in this area about the historical basis of a culture’s identity, so it is something I will investigate – the globalisation theory is reminiscent of diffusionism and “attempts to understand the ways in which modern mass communications, migration, capitalism and other ‘global’ phenomena interact with local conditions” and will also be worth looking at.

The final concept I will cover in this post is ethnography, which aims to develop a thorough understanding of the culture or society being investigated (page 24). It is the fundamental research gathering technique used by anthropology, and is generally where differences can be drawn with other social sciences as the study will generally cover a long period of time. The author uses a good analogy to differentiate anthropological views and historical views: “Anthropology may be described as the process whereby one wades into a river and explores it as it flows by, whereas historians are forced to study the dry riverbed.” However it is stressed that the two should not be seen as mutually exclusive, throwing weight behind my theory that looking at diffusionism may be of value in this study (page 33).

Now that I have at least some understanding of the basic concepts behind anthropology, I will this week begin to look a bit more at how Identity is seen from this discipline, and what other areas of the subject I will need to look at.

In accordance with the area of ‘self’ there is the notion of ‘the reflected self’ whereby an individual adjusts how their behaviour appears to others. The chapter: ‘The Reflected Self: Creating yourself as (you think) others see you by Dianne M. Tice and Harry M. Wallace is especially insightful and informative in this area. They explore the idea provided by C.H Cooley (1902), that the ‘self’ develops in reference to others within the social environment; ties in with the concept that it is created by reflecting the views that others are perceived to have of that person. The theory of ‘the looking glass’ is also imperative in this study.

Already referred to in my previous Blog. I have decided to start my initial investigation into Politics and potential political theories and policies which may be privacy related; by looking at security matters. For this I have been reading ‘Contemporary Security Studies’. Firstly I have tried to establish what is security. A simplistic definition is ‘something to do with threats to survival’, however this encompasses a wealth of issues ranging from war and the threat of war to pandemics and terrorism. Particular theories that are appearing relevant at this juncture are Realism and Liberalism: traditional approaches which were the main focus for security studies during the 19th Century, Human Security: which focuses on the need for humans to feel secure and Securitization which was developed by the Copenhagen School’: which places primary importance on determining how an issue becomes that of a security issue by how it is articulated for e.g. something may become a security issue due to the fact political leaders and or Governments have convinced their audiences that it represents a threat to our existence and thus requires emergency powers.

I am also reading books about privacy in light of technological advances and I am currently halfway through ‘Blown to Bits’ and once I have finished with that I have ‘The Digital Person’ by Daniel J. Solove. Thanks to Olivier I also have Journal articles relating to privacy to peruse too, so I have plenty of information to digest over the next week…….

Giddens, A (2006): Sociology: 5^th Edition.Cambridge: Polity.

Aitchison, J (1972): Lingusitics, An Introduction. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Trudgill, P (1983): Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. London: Penguin.

My reading this week has focused on an introduction to the disciplines that I am studying, Linguistics and Sociology.

Sociology.

Sociology is a scientific study of human social life, our communities and the things we do as individuals within a community or as a whole society. In order to study sociology, one must possess what is described as a ‘sociological imagination’, in order to perceive the meanings behind actions. Individual actions, no matter how trivial, all have behind them a process of social development and decision making which has brought the actor to make the decision. For example;  A soldier might find himself in a foreign land, fighting a war for his country, as a result of a number of social factors and influences which have been impressed upon him since childhood, perhaps even before his birth. Sociology aims to identify these processes and record them, in order to discover and document what causes and sustains the societies we find ourselves in, and in many cases propose ways in which we might change or manipulate these causes, for the betterment of our individual lives and of our societies.

While it is hard to establish a birthday for sociology, it is commonly agreed that this science emerged and developed alongside the French and Industrial Revolutions of the late 18^th Century, and was initially an observational science, documenting the social changes that were occurring in these turbulent times of mass population migration and class stratification.

Sociology has several key theorists at its base. In brief, they are:

• Auguste Comte (1798-1857): Developed sociology as a positive (observational) science.
• Emile Durkheim (1858-1917): Developed empirical sociology. Durkheim was especially interested in community and solidarity, and was the first scientist to link the social environment to individual actions in a famous study detailing the causes of suicide.
• Karl Marx (1818-83): His ideas of capitalism and worker-capitalist relationships were a driving force in politicising sociology and identifying classes.
• Max Weber (1864-1920): Disagreed with Marx that sociology should focus on economics and social class. Sociology should focus on the ideas and beliefs that drive social change, whatever they may be. For example capitalism has its roots in advances in science, engineering and bureaucracy.

I will talk in more detail about these theorists and their contributions to sociology (as well as ways in which their theories relate to my topic of organisation) in later blog postings.

In more recent times, sociology has developed further theoretical approaches, such as functionalism (studying the underlying norms of society), symbolic interactionism (the role of language and symbols, such as smiling, in society), microsociology (individual actions) and macrosociology (large scale social systems). All of these approaches are identified by their own theorists and methodologies, but can be seen to adhere to an overarching rule of sociology, that societies possess external and internal norms which influence, if not dictate, their development. Sociology does not pretend to identify all these norms, but all fields of sociology are concerned with discovering these core rules.

Linguistics,

Linguistics is, first and foremost, not the learning of languages. It is the observational study of language as a tool for human communication. Linguists are very much concerned with observing the evolution, usage and semantics of language, and are not to be thought of as enforcers of a ‘best’ language. Indeed, linguists make it clear that all forms of language are equal in their importance; there is no one language better than the other.

Language is the pre-requisite for information collection; humans are born with the ability to learn language but, unlike animals, must be taught its use. Language varies widely over geographical distances, with different language structures existing over large distances, and over shorter distances, various dialects(grammatical differences) and accents (pronunciation differences), subsets of a common language. Differences in language can be used to show different perceptions of the world around us in various cultures and societies, a famous example of this being the many different types of word for “snow” in the Inuit tribes of North America, who live in an environment that necessitates a precise description for different types of snow.

Linguistics has a wide scope of study, concerned with understanding:

• Phonetics: the study of human speech sounds.
• Phonology: the study of sound patterns.
• Syntax: the study of word formation
• Semantics: the study of meaning.

And has many schools of thought within, such as:

• Psycholinguistics: language and the mind.
• Sociolinguistics: language and society
• Applied linguistics: application of linguistics to society.
• Stylistics: language and literature
• Anthropological linguistics: language in cross-cultural settings.
• Philosophical linguistics: language and logical thought.
• Historical linguistics: Language change.

Linguistics is, therefore, very much concerned with uncovering what its foremost contemporary academic, Noam Chomsky, calls the ‘Universal Core’ of language. The set of universal rules and norms which exist in all societies and form the structure of all language, distinguishing humans from animals.

In this preparatory reading, I have discovered that both sociology and linguistics share a common ground in terms of their quest to observe and record the changes in the social activities of humans. Sociology appears to ask “Why are humans social?”, observes the actions and consequences of social organisation, and attempts to identify the processes behind them. Linguistics asks “Why can humans be social?” and observes language as the information sharing glue that binds our society together and ultimately leads to the social actions and consequences which sociology observes. In sociology, language may be seen as one of many processes influencing an action, but linguistics sees language as the core building block of all that is social, and it is important to acknowledge this in order to separate the disciplines.

It is clear that both these subjects have much to tell us about the concept of organisation, and in later blog posts I’ll be linking their relevance to the World Wide Web.

For my next blog post, I’ll be discussing linguistics in more detail, in particular the structure and purpose of language, and how important it is in defining social groups.

This is from Wikipedia:

Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that is used in the social sciences, most notably in economics, as well as in biology (particularly evolutionary biology and ecology), engineering, political science, international relations, computer science, and philosophy. Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behaviour in strategic situations, or games, in which an individual’s success in making choices depends on the choices of others (Myerson, 1991).

My only problem now is limiting myself to two disciplines only.

Initial Reading
A Guide to Game Theory by Fiona Carmichael

I want to emphazis on two aspecst, ethical and technical.

About the ethical issues to collect data which are still unclear if it is public or private (or any other conceptions). This point  will be more linked with law and understand which is allowed or not in collecting information about users.

The technical aspect will try to see and understand which kind of tools are already available to collect datas, but also which are their limits and what is possible to analyse the information.

For certain this is a well trodden path, but drawing on Sociology and Psychology as it must, it is certainly new to me. I have never having formally studied Sociology and last touched Psychology at A’level.

Therefore, I feel that these subjects are both sufficiently new and distant to warrant investigation.

Particularly of interest are the necessary factors that a movement must possess, in order to move from the underground to the overground.

Multiple studies of mass movements, will have investigated peer pressure, elements of conformity, the necessary perceived benefits and advantages, as well as other influences that must combine, for crowd behaviour to succeed. Conversely, I would like to look into that which might be absent when such ‘crowds’ fail.

I think there’s something here that is of interest. However,  there’s an element of it that doesn’t quite ring right, as far as the idea is concerned. Plainly, I’m wondering if it appears ‘weak’ as an attempted combination.

I’m definitely out of date with my reading:  Many searches against this topic (Crowds/Popular movements) throw up politics and revolution. In order to filter these for Sociological and Psychological factors, whilst avoiding purely classical Marxist interpretation, further investigations will have to take place (by w/e Nov 7th).

1) The tipping point : how little things can make a big difference
Author :Gladwell, Malcolm, 1963-

2) The wisdom of crowds [electronic resource] : why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations 1st ed.
Author: Surowiecki, James, 1967

For the sake of this assignment, I’m using collaboration to mean co-operation to achieve some aim – Whether that is the production or something or simply survival.  On the web, such collaboration is the basis of Wikipedia, open source software, films (via the blender foundation) and even the technical standards that we use to engineer the web (via the W3C, RFCs, IEEE etc.)

Biology

Collaboration is exhibited, in various ways, by numerous organisms.  From swarming organisms like ants or termites, to complex colonies of specialised organisms that appear to form a single unit, like the Portuguese Man o’ War.  The majority of my research will focus on Ecology, as this is the branch of biology that deals with interactions between organisms and their environment, but I’m not averse to stepping into other areas of Biology (to explore, for instance, the theory that some cell organelles such as Mitochondria started off as distinct micro-organisms).

Sociology

Collaboration is governed by social interactions.  In the case of ants these interactions are explained (or at least studied) by Biology, but in the case of humans these interactions are more thoroughly explained by the study of society, sociology.  In fact, the mere existence of something that we term “society” is the result of the collaboration of individuals.

Reading List

I’ve put together an initial reading list, that will hopefully give me a better idea of where to go next.  I’ve included the library shelf numbers, for my own benefit.

Approaching sociology : a critical introduction - Coulson, Margaret Anne. (HM 51 COU)

Sociology – Giddens, Anthony. (HM 51 GID)

An introduction to evolutionary ecology – Cockburn, Andrew

Ecology : from individuals to ecosystems - Begon, Michael. (QH 541 BEG)

Ecology - Krebs, Charles J. (QH 541 KRE)

While i think the  tie in with psychology is reasonably clear, the economics link is possibly somewhat more tenuous. I think exploring  the concept of social capital and its relative worth could prove fruitful in the company example, but whether or not it will have any relevance to the forum user I’m not at this stage clear. It could be the case that i have to abandon economics in favour of sociology once i get a bit further in with my reading, but for now I’m going to keep my fingers crossed i can find enough linkages to make the exploration worthwhile.

My current reading list is as such focused on economics:

Economics, Parkin, Powell & Matthews (Seventh Edition, 2008)

The Winner’s Curse: Paradoxes and Anomalies of Economic Life, Thaler, 1994

Liquid Love, Bauman, 2003

What I intend to do is research how people who model complexity atempt to define structures in which cooperation is considered stable (i.e. it is the most likely outcome based on the conditions of the model) and compare this to what psychologists would think of as the conditions in which people would cooperate with each other or trust each other.

Thus far I have read this from the reading list of the complexity science DTC:

Geard, N. (2001). An exploration of NK landscapes with neutrality. MSc thesis, University of Queensland.

NK landscapes were origionally developed as models for looking at evolution. It’s basically a way of calculating how the interelatedness of genes effects the ability of a gene pool in finding the best genome (gene = 1 bit of DNA coding for 1 characteristic, geneome = all the genes together in one individual, gene pool = all the genes of the species). For example, if the expression of one gene causes all the others to change to a different value is this better than if they all went about their business as individuals.

The basic conclusion of the model is that when there is no interelatedness you can evolve slowly to a peak fitness for the gene pool which isnt amazing but is still pretty good. If you add a little bit of relatedness fitness increases but more than a little bit and you get what is termed a catastrophy of complexity where fitness decreases as compliexity increases.

Looking at cooperation this is interesting because you would intuitively expect that a system with massively high levels of interconnectedness would be more stabe and cooperative than one without. The task now is to try and find work that deals with a more specific ‘real world’ scenario than one as abstracted from my topic as this.

Still, an interesting method for researching these issues I think.

Reading wise, I’ve been told that it would help to look at number theory in order to better understand cryptography. I’ve had a little look at “A friendly introduction to number theory”, and also have got “Handbook of Applied Cryptography” which is on the recommended reading list for Stanford’s cryptography course. So it must be good. For the economics bit, I picked up “The Economics of IP law” which seems to be quite suitable given the subject choice. There are 4 volumes but I imagine that I’ll probably limit the scope to copyright (volume 1).

After much consideration the two disciplines that I have decided to examine are Criminology and Psychology.  After exploring the underlying principles of both these disciplines, I hope to conclude whether they support each other or conflict with regards to the issue of cybercrime.  Similarly, I will also take into account the challenges that cybercrime presents to each discipline, and conclude whether these perspectives offer any solutions to the problem.

As these are both disciplines I have never studied before I am going to look at reading undergraduate text books and basic introductory books as recommended by my peers. I have decided to start my research on criminology by reading the following books:

The Oxford Handbook of Criminology by Mike Maguire, Rod Morgan, and Robert Reiner

An Introduction to Criminological Theory by Roger Hopkins Burke.

For the physiology part of my review I am going to be using the books listed below:

Basic Psychology by Henry Gleitman et al.

The Psychology of the Internet by Patricia Wallace

Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behaviour by Dennis Coon and John Mitterer

I have also come across the following book which I will use to do some background reading on the issue of cybercrime :

Cybercrime and Society by Majid Yar

I think this topic is important given the context of this MSc, and also given the buzzwords of our generation:  “Network” “Interconnected” and “Global” all have their roots in the term ‘organisation’. It’s important, therefore, to look at organisation in its basic form, and I’ll be looking at organisation through the lenses of two disciplines; Linguistics and Sociology.

Linguistics was chosen because it seems likely that the roots of human social organisation lie in the construction of language and communication. I know very little about linguistics, so it will be interesting to develop this hunch through an understanding of the core principles of the topic. The development of language and speech has surely played a key role in our development to the highly connected society we see today, and perhaps this approach will let me go far back in time and evolution to find the roots of organisation.

Sociology was chosen because a brief look at sociology shows it to be full of interesting ideas and theories regarding the dynamics, structures and meanings behind organisation. Humans have organised for various reasons over the centuries, sometimes unknowingly, sometimes deliberately, sometimes against their will. It will be interesting to see what sociology has to say about the motivations behind these cultural, political and economic forces that lead to organisation. Again, this is all uncharted territory for me, but the foundation texts seem promising. In sociology I may also find some philosophy, which again I have little experience with, but which may evolve into a sub category of my research. It seems you can never get away from the connections!

I know that there will be a fair amount of crossover between these two disciplines, but I hope that they will remain distinct enough to allow for a conclusion that shows what each discipline has to say about the topic ‘Organisation’.

My current reading list:

Wardhaugh, R (2006): An Introduction to Sociolinguistics: 5^th Edition. Oxford: Blackwell

Giddens, A (2006): Sociology: 5^th Edition.Cambridge: Polity.

Thomas, L & Wareing, S (1999): Language, Society and Power; An Introduction. London: Routledge

Aitchison, J (1972): Lingusitics, An Introduction. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Trudgill, P (1983): Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. London: Penguin.

BIOLOGY

Longenbaker, Susannah Nelson. (2008) Mader’s understanding human anatomy & physiology. 6^th Edition. McGraw-Hill: London

Mader, Silvia S. (2009) Human Biology. 10th edition. McGraw Hill: London

Smith, Stephen W. and Ronan Deazley (eds.) (2009) The legal, medical and cultural regulation of the body : transformation and transgression. Ashgate Publishing: Farnham

SOCIOLOGY

Abbott, Pamela, Claire Wallace and Melissa Tyler (2005) An introduction to Sociology. Feminist Perspectives. Third edition. Routledge: London

Haralambos, Michael and Martin Holborn (2008) Sociology. Themes and Perspectives. Seventh edition. Collins: London

Marsh, Ian, Mike Keating, Samantha Punch and Jeni Harden (2009) Sociology: making Sense of Society. Fourth edition. Pearson Education: London

Not the whole books of course; just the most relevant bits.  Then I am going to pull out of those books, some ideas for key approaches, and therefore key texts, around gender from those disciplines’ perspectives.  I have a list in my head already of books that I think look relevant (from Google searches and a couple of visits to the university library), but this may change as I work through the introductory texts.  In fact one would hope that it will, as that is in a way the whole point of this task, to develop our understandings of these disciplines.

So at the moment, I think that I am going to be reading something like this when I start to look at the disciplines when applied broadly to the topic of Gender:

BIOLOGY and GENDER

Baron-Cohen, Simon (2004) The Essential Difference. Penguin: London

Fausto-Sterling, Anne (2001) Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. Basic Books: London

Keller, Evelyn Fox (2000) The Century of the Gene. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA

Schiebinger, Londa (1995) Nature’s Body: Gender in the Making of Modern Science. Beacon Press: Boston and London

SOCIOLOGY and GENDER

Archer, John and Barbara Lloyd (2002) Sex and Gender, Second Edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge

Backett-Milburn and Linda McKie (2001) Constructing Gendered Bodies. Palgrave: Basingstoke.

Butler, Judith (1993) Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’.Routledge: London

Mills, Sara (ed.) (1994) Gendering the Reader. Harvester: London

But who knows.  This is an exciting experiment in learning something completely new and anything could happen…

This is a pretty broad concept, but as such it should offer a lot of contact points to explore the basics of the two nominated subjects.

My first subject will be complexity science (CS). A fair bit of CS is about how systems composed of independent agents (e.g. real ants, or simulated people) adapt to challenges presented by their environment.

My primary source of info on this are the “Introduction to CS” lectures I am attending.

The identity of my second subject hangs on a final chat with our “ambassadors” from each: sociology, psychology, economics or innovation studies.

On the topic itself, I’m starting here:

http://www.communitywiki.org/odd/CollectiveProblemSolving/CollectiveProblemSolving

According to Michael Chertoff, former head of the US Department of Homeland Security, he mentions how it is the least understood threat and the one where our doctrine is least developed”. Therefore, we have only just touched the surface from what is known now, into what is possible. The threat is a real one. Hospitals can be shut down, Power Grids closed and Children targeted. It raises the notion of what is sociologically acceptable within the 21st Century of Cyber Warfare.

Therefore, I hope to find individual ethical stances from governments and societies from different cultures across the world. For example, targeting children at Schools could be deemed unanimously unethical. Similarly, there will be different national stances of perceived legitimacy. Subsequently, this information could be used to help nations understand the repercussions of going against another nations ethical stance, which may be enough to deter the oppressor.

In conclusion, the 21st Century calls for a new multi-lateral agreement, with the unanimous codes of conduct between international communities ratified; similarly, the code of conducts between individual nations could be used as a deterrent if met by a Tit-for-Tat response. Therefore, I plan to understand these existential threats and incorporate them into my study of Moral Philosophy, touching other disciplines such as Sociology and International Relations.

Reading

Tanenbaum, A. (1985) Computer Networks, 4^th Ed. US: Prentice Hall.

Clarke, R. (2010) Cyber War: The next threat to national security and what to do about it.  US: Ecco.

Singer, P. A. (1993) Companion to Ethics. US: Wiley- Blackwell

Williams, B. (1993) Morality: An introduction to Ethics. UK: University Press.

The first subject, Economics, can be viewed from two viewpoints. Both the Economics from the aggressors point of view and the victim’s. Wtih cyber-ware being conducted in virtual worlds, does this make warfare much cheaper to conduct than the more conventional methods and what effects might this have? Will conducting warfare become something that is much more readily pursued than traditional warfare if the costs of starting a war are much lower? Also will this have an effect on the structure and focus of a nation’s economy as a whole with less money being spent on conventional forces and more being redirected to research into cyber-warfare and cyber terrorism? From the victim’s point of view, what effects can a cyber-attack have on an economy? With infrastructure such as power stations and possibly airports being targeted, how might this damage an economy and what lasting effects may it leave in its wake?

Politics also comes into play, in particular the area of International Relations. Cyber-warfare gives politicians new avenues of attacking or maybe even controlling external powers. Cyber-warfare also allows for a certain degree of anonymity allowing one nation to effect another without the source of the attack being known. How might this affect international relations both with allies and enemies? Will the new and potential future developments lead to relations changing in unforeseen and unpredictable manners? Also cyber-warfare may allow for many such developments to remain hidden from the general public, allowing politicians to keep (more) secrets from those that elected them into power.

What’s evident from the range of questions brought up here (and there are many more not covered in this blog post) is that cyber-warfare covers an awful lot of areas in these two disciplines alone (not to mention many other disciplines that could also be looked at). In the hope of possibly answering some of these questions however I aim to look into some books covering the basics of Economics and economic infrastructure as well as the economic motives behind international relationships. From a Politics perspective I shall aim to read into the world of International Relations and the scientific theories that help to explain them.

Will

I am attempting to ascertain the psychological and political concepts and epistemological principles relating to the issue of privacy and in accordance how they can be applied to conceptions of privacy matters on the web. My aim will be to determine whether or not these disciplines compliment or contradict each other in relation to this issue.

For the psychology part of my study I am largely going to undertake my research in the area of ‘The Self’ which is an established psychological school of thought, specifically the notion of the ‘Private Vs Public Self’. There could be a contrast between the two perceptions of individuals characters which the web could be helping to masquerade. For e.g. A person could have a hectic ‘online’ life and appear popular with lots of friends on Facebook or Myspace and not be concerned about their personal and sensitive information being apparent for all to see but in the real world be a closed and private person. On the other hand someone may utilize the web to conceal the parts of their self that they don’t want to share, thus they would be more anxious about themselves being afforded adequate privacy on the web.

Core textbooks –

• Leary, R. & Tangney, J.P. (2003),Handbook of Self and Identity, The Guildford Press: New York.

• Sedikides, C. The Self

For the political part of my studies I am focusing on core undergraduate textbooks in order to obtain a basic understanding of the main principles relating to political matters which can be applied or linked to privacy issues. I am making a start in the area of security networks and I have a particular interest in establishing the fundamental principles and ideas that influence the development of these networks. What are there priorities and what are there goals? Also with all the current furore of Governments ‘snooping’ on its citizens via technological means is it possible to determine whether national security is paramount over individual privacy?

• Boucher, D. & Kelly, P. (2003), Political Thinkers – From Socrates to the Present’, Oxford University Press.

• Collins, A. (2007), Contemporary Security Studies, Oxford University Press.

I am also conducting some reading of books which deal with establishing the notion of privacy and how this concept has differed in light of growing technological advances. The two books which I am currently reading are:

• Kieron O’Hara and Nigel Shadbolt,

  The Spy in the Coffee Machine – The end of privacy as we know it.

• Hal Abelson, Ken Ledeen and Harry Lewis, Blown to bits –

  Your life liberty and happiness after the digital explosion.

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

After not-so-much brainstorming and much more just blurting out half-baked ideas, I have made the decision to go with a topic that I am very excited about. The two disciplines that I’m going to dip into are Psychology and AI. I’ve started doing some preliminary reading but nothing that I would confidently add to the bibliography as of yet…The most promising leads are from the seminar on Cognition and the Semantic Web I attended at Soton.ac.uk before term started, as well as some of the material we covered with Craig in his “Psychology 101″ session last week in the coffee room. Having read some of the other blog posts as well, I’m hoping to chat to some of you in the next couple of days.

I will begin by reading the basic textbooks in each area:

• Handbook of Self and Identity by Leary, M and Tangney, P
• The Self by Sedikides, C
• Cultural Anthropology A Contemporary Perspective by Keesing, R and Strathern, A
• Small places, large issues : an introduction to social and cultural anthropology by Eriksen, T

Hopefully these will be a good start and direct me to other important books in this area!

I plan to investigate the changes in consumer behaviour and a shift towards a more open economy which have been facilitated by the web. I plan to look at this from the perspective of both the consumer and the producer/ retailer, possibly going towards discussing the growth of the prosumer, for example within the entertainment industry. I also intend to look at the growth of online auction sites, such as eBay and consider whether the growth of such sites it solely due to them allow the consumer to access specific goods, at generally lower price, or whether being a member of such community has its own non tangible benefits, possibly talking a slight detour discussing whether or not such sites allow for the development of a social identity, and rank, and whether or not this can be considered a unique selling point, and benefit of using such a service.

One of the disciplines I plan to use to discuss this with is sociology, discussing how a change in social norms and attitude has facilitated the changes. I intend to look at both large scale macro theories, such as functionalism and Marxism but also looking at more specific and detailed micro theories, such as the development of social norms within online communities. It would also be interesting to look at whether there is a global shift or whether the changes are limited to key small populations or demographics, it may be that many lack the skills, time or equipment required to take advantage of the cheaper prices available online, and as such are still locale bound. If many are not taking advantage, it would be prudent to look at why not.   

The discipline I plan to contrast this with is economics, discussing the models that are available to illustrate the paradigm shift. For example discussing how the growth of the web has allowed suppliers to outsource parts of their business, allowing for lower prices, which could be passed to the consumer or held as greater profit margins, alternatively how companies do not need to rent shop spare or hire large teams of retail staff if they are primarily operating online, this further reduces company cost, allowing for them to retail such goods at lower prices, allowing to consumer to purchase more. As I currently know very little regarding academic economics, I hope this will provide a far more mathematical reasoning and will hopefully contrast well with the methodology and theories of sociology. It would also be interesting to do some future gazing, we all know that due to the recession businesses are facing increasing hard times, with consumers having considerably less disposable income, and expenses such as rent/ mortgages growing, is it inevitable that the vast majority of transactions will migrate to being online in the coming decades?

Upon deciding which disciplines to investigate I started to read through Sociology, Themes and perspectives, by Haralambos and Holborn, which focuses on the main macro theories of sociology and applies them to a variety of variant topic areas, I needed to look at this type of work as I have not looked at this topic area before, I intend to look at more specific works once I have established a grounding. I have made considerably less progress with my reading regarding foundations economics, progressing little further than reading the Wikipedia entries for both economics and game theory. This week I intend to build my economics foundation to allow to start to look at more specific texts.

Some of the questions that I have been thinking about in the lead up to putting together my research question and looking to identify the best approaches to tackling these questions:

In some instances, is gender constructed online and then reified in the real world, rather than, as we would imagine, the other way round?  Are the possibilities identified in online communities really a way to escape hegemonic gender representations?  Does removal from the corporeal constraints of the real world allow for a reaffirmation of notions of gender, or do the social constructs that bind gender in the real world apply within those worlds that we have created on the web?  What are the differences online between actual and perceived gender and how do these manifest themselves? How would we begin to look at these from different perspectives to try to analyse the effects of adopting different genders online, or the effects of having to abide by the gender rules online, to which you are traditionally bound offline?

Themes in online communities like dynamics, harassment, recommendations, are all impacted on by understandings and interpretations of gender.  Sociology seemed like an obvious approach to tackling this issue, and I have chosen also to look at gender (and therefore identity) from the perspectives of biologists.  I think that this will provide me with two seemingly diametrically opposed perspectives to the construction of gender in the real world (although I am sure that this will not be the case when I start digging into the methods and methodologies of these two disciplines), and this could lead to some useful tools for looking at the construction of gender in the online world.  The use of gender to compartmentalise online users of virtual communities, for targeted advertising, gaming experiences, etc. could benefit from a better understanding of the ways in which gender can be constructed, and also deconstructed, online from both sociological and biological perspectives.

That’s all a bit repetitive!  I am going to put together a more concise research question and a list of expected key readings and key discipline perspectives later, I just thought I’d get my first thoughts up while they were fresh in my mind.

This blog allows you (the registered students) to provide a weekly update of the reading that you have undertaken. Partly it is a way of being disciplined and making sure that you are putting in the required hours, and partly it is a way of recording your emerging understanding by explaining it to your fellow students so that your “dissertation” writes itself over the period of the module.

Interestingly one thing that is often spoken about in organisations is team-work. I had hoped to include a small paragraph about why organisations are keen to promote good team work and value members or employees with good team work skills. I couldn’t find any good chapters from either psychology or sociology to define it or discuss the mechanisms involved. This led to my own late realisation (rather than any serendipitous discovery) that teamwork is really a buzz word, an undefined concept, that has gained some traction. Fortunately from all reading I have done so far as part of this module I can formulate some of hypothesis for mechanisms behind ‘team work’.

The reasons for group of individuals working as part of a team can be explained using social psychology terms like goal theory, social facilitation and emotions. Even homeostatic theory could arguably be involved as humans can have a daily optimum level of contact or communication with others that they wish to fulfill. So, the next time you are asked at an interview or performance evaluation about what you understand by team work you can say that ‘team work is a complex social phenomenon in which individuals co-operate during activities in order to achieve certain goals, as well as fulfil a certain required level of some personal need, such as to communicate with others. Also, team work is product of social facilitation as it often causes individuals to become more involved and emotional about an activity because they are in the presence of others.’

Returning to why this is relevant for understanding groups, I had initially wanted to look at group behaviour and how it affects outputs. It now appears that fundamentals from sociology and psychology of human behaviour are base of most of the behaviours involved in groups. Applying abstract labels such as team-work can be a useful term to categorise the behaviour of a group working as a team, but looking at fundamentals is essential to understand actions of individuals working as part of a group.

A often cited experiment for understanding group behaviour, especially in relation to prejudice and conflict resolution is the

Robbers’ Cave’s experiment. This involved two groups, each of which were allowed to form a group identity and spend time engaged in some cooperative activities within their group. Later, both groups were entered to directly compete for prizes. Conflicts then quickly developed between the groups after losing rounds of the competition. Conflict resolution, and a reduction in intra and inter group prejudices was achieved by designing co-operative activities where the goals could only be achieved through co-operation of both groups.

I hope you enjoyed the blog posts, the final written report will contain the best of the blog posts plus some other ideas, and the what conclusions I have came to when comparing fundamental information about groups offline to online groups.

The last few weeks I have focused my reading on certain textbooks from both Sociology and Psychology, but also on some books regarding privacy specifically (I discussed the second option with our lecturer and have taken his approval).

As far as Sociology is concerned, I read certain chapters from “Sociology” textbook by Giddens, that refer to social networks, as well as “The Power of Identity” by Castells. It was of great interest to my research finding out the differences between social networks and groups. “Thinking Sociologically” by Bauman helped me understand their differences more in depth, as the author describes in detail the way social groups are formed and behave towards other groups.

The “Power of Identity” along with a book entitled “The Invasion of Privacy”, written in the ’70s, helped me both to understand the relationship between people’s privacy and the State and the steps that the State has or hasn’t (??) taken towards protection of privacy from the ’70s till today.

As far as Psychology is concerned, I continued reading the “Social Psychology” textbook, which helped me focus more on the Self, his characteristics and the way the self regulates people’s behaviour. A book entitled “Between Public and Private – The Lost Boundaries of the Self”, helped me get a grip on further concepts that deal with the self and privacy, such as intimacy. Reading another textbook entitled “Applied Social Psychology” helped me understand the importance of material possesions in exerting control over other people and showing a social status.

Another book that appeared to be valuable to my study was “Privacy” by Young, which focused on several concepts that are related to privacy, such as anonymity, solitude, loneliness and confidentiality.

Finally, I have begun to focus my research on comparing the two disciplines and their relation to the concept of privacy. Psychologists place privacy at a micro scale, they consider it a problem of each individual, whereas sociologists locate it at a macro scale and regard privacy as a social issue. Which one is right and which one is wrong? Or are they both correct? More on this matter, in my final report…

]]> http://blog.soton.ac.uk/comp6044/2010/05/09/privacy-6th-post/feed/ 0 http://blog.soton.ac.uk/comp6044/2010/05/08/e-democracy-and-the-web-freedom-governance-civil-society-and-elections/ http://blog.soton.ac.uk/comp6044/2010/05/08/e-democracy-and-the-web-freedom-governance-civil-society-and-elections/#comments Sat, 08 May 2010 11:11:25 +0000 el3e09 http://blog.soton.ac.uk/comp6044/?p=514 Having discussed democracy as a form of government, it is only natural to continue with the concept of freedom (or liberty). Freedom is most often defined by using is opposite, that is freedom is the absence of constraint. Although freedom is considered intrinsically good, there are sometimes legitimate reasons to limit freedom in order to protect other values, so even in a democracy, there is no such thing as complete freedom. Even though democracy seems closely related to freedom, there are examples of democracies limiting freedom, albeit with sufficient reasons.

A type of constraints of freedom which are relevant to e-democracy, are economic impediments. Due to the economic inequality of society, not all its members are free to participate in political affairs, and more importantly, may not even have access to the internet.

Another matter that needs to be discussed is freedom of speech. Even though the web offers anonymity, there are cases of “imperfect democracies” where activities and websites with political content were deemed subversive by the regime and access to them was terminated. There is also the case of developed democratic states that have passed legislation that terminates internet access to users that have broken the law online. This could be argued that it limits their freedoms in an overwhelmingly excessive way and thus constitutes unfair punishment.

One interesting aspect of the Web is that it can enhance the -already high- efficiency of state bureaucracy. According to Weber, its characteristics are amongst others precision, speed, unambiguity, reduction of material  and personal cost. All this advantages can be augmented by the Web and that is why states have invested a lot in this direction, trying to establish an online bureaucracy and e-government portals. This is in part done in order to improve the quality of governance, according to the elements of “good governance” which are the following:

• Participation in making and implementing decisions
• Clear legal frameworks with respect to human rights
• Transparency in decision making
• Responsiveness towards social needs
• Consensus-oriented
• Equal opportunities for all
• Effectiveness and efficiency
• Accountability of decision makers

Some of the above elements can be clearly enhanced by the Web, while others are still bound to the offline realm.

Civil society is the framework that those without political authority live within. It stand apart from political authority (and even commercial institutions), however no clear boundary can be drawn between them. It is composed of voluntary civic and social organisations, for example non-governmental organisations. The Web has been used extensively by such organisations, which understood its benefits faster than governments.  Better horizontal communication as well as the ability to organise in online communities have enabled them to become larger and better coordinated. Faster mobilisation of supporters helped organise protests and activist ‘instant mobs’. There is also the use of blogs to post alternative versions of events, as mentioned above when discussing freedom of speech. Of course, as always, there are also negative effects. Political blackmailing, propaganda and libel were also used by some organisations, sometimes by posting anonymously on blogs and there are extremist groups recruiting in this way.

Finally, a concept that fits with my previous post about democracy. Voting is a mechanism for making collective decisions where the majority preference dictates the final decision. In the case of representative democracies, the representatives are also elected by vote. So far there have been various attempt to use electronic voting, with mixed results. It seems though that, being cost-effective and fast, it will eventually replace traditional voting. This however has little to do with the Web, as it just uses the internet. However, the Web has played a role so far in elections: it has facilitated the communication of political manifestos to voters, gave additional chances for debates and even helped candidates approach their voters directly with the use of social networking sites. As mentioned in the previous post, it remains to be seen if the Web can play a larger part in decision making. It has to be added that there are two schools of thought as to how electronic decision making should be used. Some propose using it as an efficient way for representatives to ask directly for the citizens’ opinion by referendum. Another more direct, albeit more small scale proposal is to have local communities try a direct version of democracy, perhaps as a pilot for larger scale adoption. Again, there is criticism that stems from the long identified problems of direct democracy, which current technology cannot so far alleviate.

Over Easter I looked at some general textbooks from both disciplines, including:

Giddens, A, ‘Sociology: Introductory Readings,’ (Polity Press, Cambridge, 1997)

Giddens, A, ‘Sociology,’ (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2006)

Morrison, W, ‘Theoretical Criminology,’ (Cavendish Publishing, London, 1995)

Maguire, M, Morgan, R. and Reiner, R, ‘The Oxford Handbook of Criminology,’ (OUP, Oxford, 2007)

From these textbooks I centred my Sociology reading on the theories behind ‘Gender’ and for Criminology I did the same, looking at the role of identity in crime. I hope by examining the theory behind my research questions in the offline World, I can build on them to better understand how the Web may have impacted on these areas.

I have been reading ‘Theories of Communication Networks’, Noshir Contractor and Peter Monge (2003) a more complex book that references fundamentals from sociology, psychology, maths and computer science, that describes and help the reader understand complex communication networks involving large groups of people. It has become more and more apparent during my reading that it is increasingly difficult to look at a subject from just two disciplines, in my case, sociology and psychology. Some fundamentals from other subjects like maths, computer science, or philosophy are necessary so as not to have a one sided, or in this case two dimensional, view, thus highlighting the multi-disciplinary nature of web science topics. For the IDR though I have found ample material in ‘Theories of Communication Networks’ from sociology and psychology to describe groups and the communication mechanisms within them:

There are 2 branches of theories as to how groups internal behaviour can be modelled. These are:

• homophily theories – where individuals select others to communicate with who are similar to themselves.
• contagion theories – are based on the assumption that exposure to networks (groups) increase the likelihood that individuals are influenced by others and will then develop beliefs, attitudes and assumptions similar to those of others in their network.

These two theories are very useful for describing how groups form, and how individuals in groups are influenced.

Crowd psychology is one of the subclasses of social psychology, and social science books are interested in this aspect of psychology as it concerns how sudden and large scale social changers can be brought about because of large groups of people. There are a lot of interesting theories put forward over the past century about how large groups of people (crowds) behave,  by psychologists such as those by Carl Jung who coined the term ‘Collective Unconscious” that described a shared, universal psychic system identical in all individuals. Many people since Jung then have expanded this concept, such as blogger and researcher Kevin Kelly, who describes many Internet groups starting to exhibit a ‘Hive mind’. Sigmund Freud also has a theory known as his ‘Crowd behaviour theory’ that describes that people who are in a crowd act differently towards people than those who are thinking individually.

One of the most interesting and often challenged theory of modern day sociology is the theory of cognitive limit for the maximum number of people in a person can have a inter-personal relationship. In 1992, Dunbar published a theory that the neocortex size of the brain was a constraint on group size in primates. Dunbar predicted that human cognitive limit for relationships was 150 based on the size of the human neocortex. This is known as the Dunbar Number and is now widely referenced and cited, despite how Dunbar based his observations on primates other than humans along with information about human network sizes in less developed countries. Dunbar’s methodology appears to have observed that tribal village sizes, military units, company sizes average around 150. In light of this perhaps humans have hard wired limits in their brains, limiting the number of individuals they can have interpersonal relationships with – and similarly the number of groups they can participate actively in. Thus even the most highly social individuals, or those with strong psychological desires such as goal theories or homeostatic drives to participate in groups, will only be able to network effectively with fixed amount of people. Thus social and psychological desires for group participation come up against physical hard limits if Dunbar’s Number theory based on neocortex size is correct. It shows how social research on primate groups, along with some statistical and network analysis, can lead to interesting extrapolations of the limitations of human mind, and the limitations of relationships within a social group.

To understand the society, firstly we should put the eyes on the broader range of areas. Throughout the world, the multinational company became a phenomenon after World War II, and strongly promoted the process of economic globalization. Nowadays, multinational companies are considered as the core of economic globalization. Through the bridge multinational companies offered, markets and trades are linked closely between different countries. Trading information are transferring frequently from one country to another breaking the barriers of time and spaces.

However, in this globalization trend, the participants are just involving the companies or a small part of people who are conducting this business. For most people, maybe they can use the cup made in thousands miles away from their hometown, however, they have not opportunities to participate this amazing project until the Web came out. Because the main members of the society have engaged in the information global sharing activity, the globalization has been infiltrated into people’s daily lives. The Web is the main force to push and accelerate the process of globalization. The information explosion covers every detail of the lives across the world. People have the channels to obtain and publish information about what they like, what they want, what they are doing and so on. The information is mass but has intangible value inside. At that movement, BBS became a huge container to gather people of like interests. Usually, one BBS is organized by subjects, such as music, food, feeling, education and so on. Members of this BBS will around those subjects to leave their comments and reviews. For wisdom marketers, they know that better understanding of their customers is one of the best ways to gain competitive advantages. Therefore, through those BBSs, they can refine the contents and pick up the useful part for their business. (Of course, there are some issues about online fake information or advertisements, but at this stage we just assumed the number of them is quite few which can be ignored.) Unfortunately, at most situations this kind of job is heave, especially when operated manually. But the platform that presents the people’s interests throughout the world and the way to find out valuable ideas about the business and market is worth firmly.  The Web provides a creative platform to gather information generated all over the world, which is valuable for the economic globally. Google’s success can be explained by this information aggregated. They provide the accurate search results for people based on the search key words, while putting the related advertisements on the same web page. This business model helps Google gain high profit. However, this kind way of putting advertisements based on the search engines is relatively passive for the potential customers, as it needs people to search firstly and then see the related information. Therefore, the issue put in front of us is that which way will be better to get information accurately and directly and how to build a positive business model.

To be continued…

Some of the most interesting work has come from Helen Margetts, who has been looking at e-government and its integration into society, and possible cultural barriers that are being faced. Looking at some of the figures collated by Helen has given some indication of the use of e-government and related services in the London Area. The stats look at the type of people and other demographics. Interestingly, Helen found that although Gender or Race did not play a role in who was using e-government services, Age, social class, and education attainment was extremely influential. For example, people who only obtained GCSE’s were 47% likely to use the services, where as people with A-levels or above were 85% likely.

The OII also has conducted research which further explores the cultural barriers to e-government discussed the 4 myths of Technology and discussed possible reasons to why the government has developed a negative attitude to ICT. Broken down into Supply side barriers (i.e. the Government) and demand side barriers (i.e. the individual) the research suggests that the lack of e-government is a combination of the two sides. This comes from a mix of reasons, from the government’s bad experiences in the past with technology, overrunning projects and close mindedness. Also looking at supply side barrier such as social exclusion, where Rich and Poor are part of the digital divide. What is also introduced is the terms e-Elite and e-underclass, where the e-underclass would be more likely to trust or rely on e-government.

An interesting argument is one suggesting that the formality of e-government Websites could deter individuals away from using them. However in countries such as Holland e-government websites stress the fun factor.

What has been recognised from this research is that cultural barriers do exists, however they’re may be possible solutions to help overcome them, for instance providing incentives for staff to recognise the potential benefits of electronic media, trying to reduce the mindset of technology capricious employees. For citizens, providing incentives, financial and educational may increase the use of such services, and also lighten the attitude of the Websites providing a more informal approach.

(Source: “The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, Crowding by I. Altman)

Personal Space refers to the distance that we maintain from other people, in order to feel secure and not threatened. It ensures that we are reaching a satisfactory level of privacy. A definition given by Goffman describes it as “the space surrounding an individual where within which an entering other causes the individual to feel encroaced upon, leading him to show displeasure and sometimes to withdraw.” Basic attributes of personal space are the following:

a. It is an ‘invisible’ boundary between ourself and other people.

b. It is carried everywhere a person goes.

c. In different situations the boundary of personal space is different, so the process of regulating it is a dynamic one.

d. If someone crosses the boundary of our personal space, we often feel threatened and stressed.

Edward Hall, an anthropologist, proposed the theory of proxemics, a theory that refers to the way people use space, in terms of communicating with others. He proposed 4 different spatial zones:

Intimate distance (0-6 inches – close phase, 6-18 inches – far phase);  “wrestling, comforting and protecting” distance

Personal distance (1.5-4 feet); intimate relationships

Social distance (4-12 feet); business and general social contact occur

Public distance (12-25 feet); formal occasions or public speaches

Furthermore, Hall observed that there are cultural differences in the use of space for communicating. He examined how different cultures treat personal space.

Personal space does exist online, but with a different form; people have their own virtual personal space, where they want to be able to maintain a certain distance from others, but at the same time interact with them. They log on to social networking sites to communicate with their friends, maintain their personal blogs or web sites etc. However Hall’s theory does not exist online, as there is no physical contact among people online.

Us and Them

(Source: “Thinking Sociologically” by Z. Bauman)

This chapter begins with an extremely interesting comparison between the number of people who influence our lives and the way we live and the people we actually know. There are uncountable multitudes that influence directly the way we live and we do not notice them, but there are also multitudes that put constraints to the way we live (e.g. pollution). If we now compare the number of people we know with these multitudes, we will realise that the difference is huge and that the people we know are very few.

The author separates people from his social intercourse into 3 groups:

a. People that we meet quite often and we have an intimate relationship with.

b. People that we meet on occasion (e.g. we meet our professors in the classroom for a lecture). The relationships we maintain with these people are called functional, as meeting these people serves a specific purpose of an activity. We are not interested in learning more things about these people, outside the function that they perform in our lives and we expect from them to do the same (e.g. we do not ask about the hobbies of our doctor). If they did actually ask more about ourselves, we would consider this as an intrusion of our privacy, says the author. It is a case of breaching an unwritten rule about the terms of our relationship, which is only an exchange of a particular service.

c. People that we hardly meet at all. We know their existence, but as they are not a direct part of our every day lives we do not pay particular attention to them.

As far as the second case is concerned (people we meet on occasion), I would add that this is not always how the things are. People do not always consider that being asked more personal questions is an intrusion of their privacy. For instance, if a person goes to the doctor for his annual checkup and the doctor asks him something personal (e.g. How’s your family doing?) it may not be considered by the patient that his privacy was breached. Instead he could go on and answer the question and perhaps make the same question to the doctor. This discussion may start, because people are interested into one another, or simply it may be a way to break the ice. And definitely the way people feel about being asked questions from people the meet on occasion, is affected by their cultural background (as Hall previously pointed out).

This is a longer post than usual as I wont be blogging over next week. If you only have time for quick read, you can skip right on down to the end to a nice paragraph titled “summary and conclusions” which sums up the blog posting and has some evaluation. For all others with time and some interest you will gain more by reading the whole blog posting.

On to main part of my reading for this week:

Joining a group and group development: Newcomers usually go through a period of assimilation and model their behaviour on established members, while the group accommodates the newcomer. Bruce Tuckman (1965, 1977) proposed five stages of group development:

1. Forming – group members orient themselves towards the group.

2. Storming – members try to influence the group according to their needs.

3. Norming – members try to reconcile the conflicts produced by storming.

4. Performing – members perform and maximise group’s performance

5. Adjourning – members disengage from the group.

Other theories of group development do exist however. Connie Gersick (1988, 1994) observed that groups tend to operate in series of starts and stops rather than through uniform stages. Perhaps online groups could help provide primary research material to revisit group development theories as the cost of recording group activities and developments is lower than in offline groups, and theories of Tuckman or Gersick could be given more authority or challenged.

According to Forsyth 1990, all groups can be described in terms of three components: roles, norms and cohesiveness. Robert Bales, 1958 proposed two fundamental roles that have yet to be disproved. An instrumental role is one that helps a group achieve its tasks, and an expressive role gives emotional support and keeps moral high. Roles can be formal or informal and the same person can fill each role, however roles that are ambiguous or cause conflict can lead to stress and loss of productivity.

In online groups there are often a number of different formal roles, that could be those of users, administrators and moderators. Although the title of each may imply a different role, keeping Roberts Bales idea of fundamental roles in mind it can be argued that membership doesn’t define the role. Moderators, administrators or users can each perform instrumental or expressive roles, or a combination of the two, within a group. (My own social categorisation here is open to comments – perhaps others see different roles in online groups other than my simple ‘mods, admins and users’, if you do have a different view please leave a comment at end.)

Norms establish rules and code of conduct group members should conform to. Rules can be informal or formal.

Cohesiveness refers to the forces on a group that push its members closer together. They can be internal such as group pride, number and intensity of interaction or external such as an unusual environment or threats from other groups. Cohesiveness and group performance are causally related and either can influence the other. Positive norms can improve cohesiveness and lead to increased group performance, however negative norms coupled with high cohesiveness can lead to decreased group performance. Both offline and online groups should strive to promote positive norms and improved cohesiveness if better group performance is to be realised.

In prior blog postings it was noted that a group was two or more persons perceived as related because of their interactions over time, membership within a social category or a shared fate. Using that definition, we know that humans perceive and sort objects in the world around them into groups. The process of people sorting each other into groups is known as social categorization. People often use their perceived groupings to make inferences about all group members. This is one of the formative causes for stereotyping. People tend to overestimate the differences between groups and underestimated the differences within groups.

The groups that a person identifies with are called ingroups, and a group outside of these are called outgroups. The consequence of perceiving the world as “us” and “them” leads to the phenomenon of the outgroup homogeneity effect. This effect describes how perceivers assume greater similarity between members of outgroups than between members their own groups, to the extent that members of outgroups are perceived as homogenous. One of the reasons for this is that people do not often notice subtle differences in outgroups as there is little contact with them. The media plays a big role in how we categorize social groups and people learn stereotypes through group norms, role models and their peers.

Culture can play a part in ingroup – outgroup distinctions. People from collectivist cultures often perceive ingroup homogeneity more strongly than those from individualistic cultures. Online groups are not limited by geographical boundaries and can have large numbers of members from both collectivist cultures and individual. An open question could ask how this situation affects group dynamics where some group members perceive homogeneity and others value the differences? It may be the case that endurance of online groups with members of different cultures depends heavily on conformity and rules, as otherwise different perceptions would affect cohesion and group performance adversely.

Summary and conclusions

I particularly liked the terminology of ingroups and outgroups and the definitions from the book I read last week. It put into words things myself and probably others perceive and know but never give it a name. If you have ever read or seen, Lord of the Flies or even the popular American series ‘Lost’, or at very least supported a football club, you will be familiar with the idea of “us” and “them”. Now you know it is about ingroups and outgroups, the reasons behind this categorisation, and that probably everyone makes social categorisations everyday.

Brief overview of what has been read:

This week’s blog is a continuation of looking at Andrew Chadwick’s Internet Politics book. Last week I looked at Chadwick’s description on Conceptual tools, with this week focusing in more detail regarding E-democracy.

What will be discussed is how the Web has played a role in enhancing community cohesion, political deliberation, and participation, i.e. E-Democracy. What will be looked at is community networks, development of online political communities, and uses of online mechanisms to involve citizens.

Knowledge gained and relevance to issue:

To start with let’s looks at some theoretical foundations of E-democracy, the UK Hansard society takes the view that it is:

“The concept of e-democracy is associated with efforts to broaden political participation by enabling citizens to connect with one another and with their representatives via new information and communication technologies.”

From this, two major conceptual offshoots have formed from the many attempts to enhance political participation, the Social Capital, and the Public Sphere.
The Social capital, defined by Robert Putnam as: “the features of social organisations such as networks, norms, and trust that facilitate co-ordination and co-operation for mutual benefit”. This assumes that all groups, political or social enhance overall levels of political awareness. It is also argued that increased participation between civic associations increases the level of trust amongst citizens. Furthermore for such communities to occur, it is assumed that contributions will be reciprocated at a later stage, without this, communities would not exist.

The Public Sphere, another influential approach to understanding the role of communications in encouraging citizen’s engagement. Jurgen Habermas’s concept of Public Sphere suggested that since the early-modern capitalistic age, the new forms of communication and media has given cultural enlightenment, allowing for information to be much more freely disseminated. This level of media has allowed citizens to form political opinions. Lincoln Dahlberg used the Habermasian theory to form 6 main conditions that e-democracy schemes must try to fulfil if they are to genuinely create deliberative public spheres.
To begin with, there must be Autonomy from the state, and economic power. This means that discourse must be from citizens concerns not that of the media or corporations. Furthermore, situations or concerns must be reasons, not asserted. Another key condition is participants must reflect on their own cultural values, interests and other personal views, and also take note of the larger social context. This then implies that participants must see an argument from all viewpoints, being respectful and listening to each other. To be able to view all sides of the argument, all information and knowledge must be learned, which leads to the next consideration. Finally, all participants must be treated equally, and entitled to participate in deliberation.

Community Networks
Community networks, first appeared in the 1970’s, with relatively small numbers. But with the cost of electronic goods, during the 1990’s they began to grow tremendously. Bruce Tonn defines a Community network as:

“A Computer based system or set of systems designed to meet the social and economic needs of a spatially-defined community of individuals.”

Three main features which could be argued that are needed to form a Community network are: a high speed network, offered free of charge or at a subsidised rate, some are of centrality for the technology, i.e. servers, and thirdly, an emphasis on providing content specific to the local community.

Although modern community networks are more technologically advanced than their ancestors, they still rely on the basic principle that for people to shape the production of information about their local community, the must be willing to volunteer. Relating back to Social Capital, almost all community networking projects have been inspired by the idea that virtual community can improve geographical communities by creating new social ties and reciprocal trust.

One view is why ‘join’ citizens together who already happen to live in the same neighbourhood, instead why not encourage ‘real’ interaction. However many of the proponents of community networks come from a background in urban planning and are therefore acutely aware of the history of attempts to generate community through the physical world. It is suggested that contemporary life erodes the possibility form such ‘real’ interaction, driving the need for web based community networks. Tom Petrich suggests 5 areas of contemporary life which forms these constraints. Work-related constraints, where working hours play a large role. Another constraint is consumerism, where time is spent on goods and services, i.e. Playstation, Cinema rather than interacting. There are also social capital constraints, where local social networks are insufficient to create communities. Delving more towards the individual, there are personal constraints, confidence and skills are issues when meeting in the real world. Finally there are the constraints due to the real world, i.e. no meeting places.

Although there are hundreds of virtual communities, to begin with there was a total lack of state led virtual communities. However, central and local governments have slowly started to experiment with online forums, which have specific interest groups. A space for deliberation that are relatively unconstrained by corporate and state influence, inspired by the need for increasing citizen deliberation have opened up, some believe (Grossman) showing the true potential of the web in bringing about true participatory democracy.

Political Influence
The influence of such community networks and other forms of e-democracy has introduced the web in-to a rich set of projects, from this two broad models have been defined, Consultative and Deliberative models.

A consultative approach stresses the communication of the citizen’s opinion to the government. It is assumed that information is a resource which can be used to provide better policy and administration. Furthermore, governments can seek voters opinion from such information. A good example of use of such a model is the U.S. Federal governments e-rule making program. This was designed to allow citizens to air their opinion on specific agency rules that are being developed.
The deliberative model takes a different view on communication between the government and citizens, where a more complex multi-directional interactivity occurs. These models are thinner on the ground than their consultative counterparts.

From what has been discussed it can be seen that the impact that the Web has had on Communities, political deliberation is indeed significant. The use of the Web is a way to allow people to maintain social ties or extend them where possible. Furthermore, political interests have now started to be transferred online; furthermore the views which are being given in an online world are now transferred to an offline world.

The question of is the Web increasing Social Capital, allowing for more opportunity for public political participation? Chadwick argues that it is doing both, communities of interest tend towards being homogeneous echo chambers. However, what needs to be remembered is that individuals have more than one interest, and this creates the problem that the e-democracy is creating more complex communities, deliberation and political participation.

Those of you who have chosen sociology as a discipline should have had some individual comments from Cathy on your reading. Here are some more general comments for everyone to think about:

1. Most have chosen a mix of books ranging from the gen