The Professor's Notes

Writing as an academic, I desperately want to get my hands on (the demand data for) the iPad.  Specifically,  I wonder about the “pre-order” demands that have been placed.

I am not writing this as a “hater” or critic of the iPad.  I just would love to see if the demand spiked on the first day and dropped precipitously, or whether the demand over the 21 days prior to shipping stayed relatively constant, or even ramped up as we approached the 3rd of April.

Here’s what I wonder:  people who are early adopters, and the first to get in line and wait for days for a new product, are by all anecdotal evidence I have heard the ones who pre-order, and pre-ordered on the first day they could.  And in the case of my brother, ordered it as soon as the Apple Store made it available.

If my supposition is true, then the demand for pre-ordered items would have been heavily front-loaded.  Conversely,  I would find it quite interesting if demand for the iPad through pre-ordering had any sort of ramping to the demand pattern.  If the demand was increasing, then the big question of the day would be:  Why?

The next question is are the people who would normally stand in line to get the next “really cool product” the same who would want to pre-order right away (and thus reduce or eliminate lines at the stores) or is the psychology of waiting in line for a “cool new product” palpably different from the psychology of “getting” it?

Anyone have any thoughts or insights into this?

(I am currently teaching a Service Operations Management course for our MBA program, and part of the requirements for the course is for students to blog weekly on service experiences they have had, and relate and assess that experience as it directly relates to the recent chapters covered in class.  In that spirit, I am offering some of my recent service experiences on my blog.)

My wife is an insulin dependent diabetic, and has been using the Medtronic “pump” for several years now.  In addition, she has the “continuous glucose monitoring” (CGM) sensors, that talk with the pump, and allow her to get information far more quickly about changes in her glucose levels.  ¹

As part of that treatment regimen she has to order supplies on a regular basis.  Of course, these supplies are only available from the manufacturer.   Our insurance company picks up the tab for much of the supply cost, and as part of the typical healthcare regimen, we pay our portion of the bill as well.  I typically call  Medtronic, or at least their billing contractor, and make the payment over the phone with a credit card.

In December I called, and quickly dispatched with the task, paying the balance owed on the bill, and writing down the confirmation number.  Then, in January, we received another bill, for the next set of supplies received, and I called back.  This time, they told me I owed for the new supplies, and that I still owed the (now late) payment for the prior supplies.

Here is where things could have gone terribly wrong, with accusations, recriminations, and the like being passed back and forth.  But instead, things went terribly RIGHT. (um… is that possible?)

I dug around, and found my copy of the previous bill, with the confirmation number written on there (in traditional, Air Force “Memo for Record” fashion.  Old habits die hard.)  I read the customer service representative the number, and she looked it up.  And then she gasped! “I was the person who took the payment!”

She immediately sprang into action, verifying that they had, indeed, taken my call on that day, and that I had indeed paid my bill.  She went to her supervisor whom I was told was “as we speak” taking the paperwork to the accounting office to straighten them out.  We then proceeded to take care of the rest of the business, and process the payment for the balance owed.

At the end of the call, I asked if she wouldn’t mind sharing her name with me, just in case I had any other issues.  She was very gracious and agreed to that.

So, Esther, thank you for your gracious and attentive support to your customers.  It is very appreciated!

This post is from my “Archives of Incomplete Thoughts” but I wanted to share them with you all…

I have been pondering for a while the use of the eBooks (and specifically the Kindle) in Academia.  Ever since I considered purchasing my first eReader (the Sony eReader 505) I have found the convenience of having several books at my finger tips, without weighing me down, to be the most obvious benefit.  That said, I believe there are many others, and some which can result in the elusive “win-win” situations for producers and consumers alike.

• Affordability of textbooks
• Desk Reference/Review copies
• Physical size/weight relief
• notetaking and highlighting

Need to rethink old views:

• why see “a page”?
• how do I “flip” through a book?
• what is the focus/purpose of an “illustration”?
• are there other ways to “illustrate”?
• How do we do “citations?”

Challenges:

• How to compare two separated pages (i.e., pages 57, and 106) (side by side?)

Issues I want to see if they have added/changed:

• Highlighting:  does the menu appear next to where I clicked? How is that interface changed?
• can we move/sync highlights/notes between devices?

Have you given much thought to the changes we can see with Digital Textbooks?  What are your thoughts? Please share them in the comments.

Thanks to @gugnheim for tweeting this:

As you should know, I am a child of the space age, and a fan of space anythings for a long time.  Heck, my research areas have included Space Logistics, and Interplanetary Supply Chain Management.  So this REALLY caught my eye!

This website gives you plans to build your own paper model of the Space Shuttle!

From their site:

If you are a Space Shuttle model builder, this site is for you. Build a 1:144 scale Space Shuttle papermodel in several versions: Full Stack version with External tank and boosters or a single Orbiter with either a closed or open payload bay, for FREE! Also, Shuttle Payloads for every mission are available via PAYPAL. Check this site for new models every month.

Check it out–and if you make any of these, send me a picture that I can upload to the blog to share!

UPDATE: Thanks to Nathan Rein (see comments) for making me realize that my title is misleading. The discussion started with blogging under anonymity, but my thinking went beyond that into how academics blog. So please, read the following post less as a discussion about anonymity and more a discussion about rigor, reflection, and thoughtfulness in posting.

My brother has extended the ongoing discussion about anonymous and pseudonymous blogging yet again in his recent blog entry.

His conclusion got me thinking that perhaps there is more here than simply academics hiding behind anonymity or pseudonimity.  He wrote:

This is leading me to the growing conviction that academics should not blog anonymously. If we truly believe in the dissemination and  examination of ideas then we should also be willing to own up to our ideas. There is some risk, but we are living in an age and country² with tremendous protections. To you believe what you are saying? Then say it clearly and be willing to defend your views in the light of day.

As Chris mentions, as academics we are about the dissemination and examination of ideas.  This brings me back to the notion of the “double blind peer review.” The double blind process is in place to ensure that our ideas aren’t accepted, or rejected, out of hand simply by the history of the author, but rather measured by our adherence to rigorous methodologies and that our conclusions are supported by the literature, the data and the proper analysis. Through this “blind review” process we attempt to avoid both the Halo and the Horns effect. (see the great repository of knowledge, Wikipedia) Of course, once accepted for publication, the anonymity is removed, and we are allowed to heap praise, or criticism, on the person(s) who wrote the brilliance/drivel.

Perhaps a greater criticism of academics blogging is that, in addition to the anonymity, we tend to also stop writing as academics. Blogging seems to be a place where writers go to bloviate (to borrow from Bill O’Reilly) but not to provide much in the way of supporting documentation.

When academics blog, we tend to stop conducting and reporting on the review of extant literature. We stop providing supporting citations. (despite the ease with which we can do that in html.) We don’t discuss and defend our methodologies. And worst of all, we get defensive when our (often unsupported) ideas are challenged.

In short–we stop being academics.

Your thoughts?

Feyerabend’s book, “Against Method” stands as a critical look at science, and how we “know.”  As part of the domain “philosophy of Science” he stands as one of the interesting challengers to what we think we know, categorized often as an “anarchist.”  While the political scientist in me as a rule stops listening when I hear someone is an “anarchist” the use of the word in this case carries far different baggage.  That said, here’s the quote from his introduction, page 2:

“But if scientific achievements can be judged only after the event and if there is no abstract way of ensuring success beforehand, then there exists no special way of weighting scientific promises either–scientists are not better off than anybody else in these matters, they only know more details.  This means that the public can participate in the discussion without disturbing existing roads to success (there are no such roads).  In cases where the scientists’ work affects the public it even should participate:  first, because it is a concerned party (many scientific decisions affect public life); secondly, because such participation is the best scientific education the public can get–a full democratization of science (which includes the protection of minorities such as scientists) is not in conflict with science.  It is in conflict with a philosophy, often called “Rationalism,” that uses a frozen image of science to terrorize people unfamiliar with its practice.”  (emphasis his)

If you can take a few moments, read through this a few times, and think through what it is saying.

• The role of the public in Science, as many view the “public” as being too poorly educated as to be able to fully grasp science (Some have heatedly called the recent political era the “era of anti-intellectualism”)
• Perhaps think about it in the context of the discussions concerning stem cell research and the “promises” made by scientists concerning the cures that will come.
• Consider the discussions about the origins of man in the context of his point of the “philosophy … called ‘Rationalism’” and what appeals are made to authority on the various sides.

How do you view science and the nature of discovery?

In my last post, I put forward my argument for how digital textbooks can result in a win-win for publishers, students and authors. (Okay, so I didn’t mention the authors. I hope it doesn’t take much to realize that more copies sold by the publisher will result in more royalties paid to the authors. )

Part of my argument hinged on the elimination of the resale market in large part due to the robust DRM (copy protection) afforded by the digital books.  Unfortunately, when I presented this argument a few weeks ago, someone pointed me to a site that shared the (convoluted) steps necessary to break the DRM on the Kindle.  So much for secure. ¹

This forced me to think a bit further.

In this post, I hope to make a case for reasonably priced digital textbooks in an era of “cracked DRM” that can still result in a win-win. Read the rest of this entry »

Those who know me personally know I have a strong desire to see digital textbooks succeed.  I think it has the potential to deliver a Win-Win for most of the major stakeholders, including the authors, the publishers, the environment (potentially) and the students.¹ Perhaps the biggest challenge facing everyone in this is how to achieve that “win-win”and this involves a mix of pricing, availability, and convenience.  I hope to address that in this post. Read the rest of this entry »

A while back my brother and I asked in a Survey “How do you watch TV?”  The survey came from a discussion my brother and I were having about Hulu, and our curiosity surrounding how many people, and what types of people, watch TV through Hulu.  I have become a rather large fan of Hulu watching it through Boxee and through the web interface.  (I have installed both an Apple TV and the Ubuntu Linux OS’s on several machines, making this easier–perhaps more for another post).  As we continued the discussion, I suggested we use the Google Forms feature to toss together a quick survey, asking those we follow, and those that follow us, to take part.  (We sought input from “friends” on Facebook, Twitter, and our blogs.)  We acknowledge up front that this is a sampling of people we know, and thus may have selection biased introduced simply as a function of our relationships with others.

My good friend and Colleague Dr Swartz has since asked the age old question–”What were the results!?”

Well, I am here to tell you (and I will be assisted by the rather cool graphics generated by Google as part of their Google Forms functionality.) Read the rest of this entry »

In a recent blog post, Stevie Rocco wrote that “Professor X is a scribe.”  She wrote that as part of a larger conversation which grew from a critique of Cole Camplese’s presentation at the Chronicle of Higher Education’s Tech Forum and his defense, and I encourage you all to go read the post.

In reading her post, however, I find that while I agree that when it comes to “how” content is delivered a “professor is a scribe” may be correct, I believe that is unfortunately a rather narrow view of the role of the professor.

Back when the printing presses were gaining ascendancy, they replaced the scribe, because they were doing what the scribe was doing–copying someone’s words for others to read.  Scribes had to be worried, since printing presses ostensibly would make fewer *random* errors than scribes would. (That said, the printing presses could easily replicate the same error by the hundreds, and now millions.)

The people who at the time should have (and probably were) most excited by this revolution were the authors.  Those people who spent time thinking, researching, and writing the texts that were now being made available at a far faster rate.

Professors are not mere scribes.  Professors are experts in their field of study, who are contributing to that body of knowledge through that research, and then share that “research informed knowledge” with the world.  One way they share that knowledge is through publications, another through presentations and talks, and finally (and perhaps most importantly) professors share it by educating the next generation.

So professors are not scribes.

Who should be worried that they can be considered scribes?  Instructors.  Those people hired to teach materials developed by someone else, without having a rigorous, peer reviewed research stream of their own.  They are simply vessels through which others speak.  THAT can be easily replaced by well-designed technology.

That said, professors are certainly worried.  Rightly so.  Not that they will be replaced, but that people seem to think they can be.

As I have written before, I thoroughly enjoyed reading Andrew Keen’s book “Cult of the Amateur.”  He argues that experts are essentially being pushed out of the arena and replaced by those whom I will call the “dabblers.”  These are people that some would say “know enough to be dangerous” but are not well-versed in the detailed specifics to be experts, and therefore unable to deal with the nuances.  In fact professors, as an integral part of their earning their terminal degree, learn the research methods necessary to truly understand the data they are viewing.  Regardless of whether one is a Hebrew Literature scholar or a theoretical physicist, the opinions of the Professor are informed by their understanding of how to interpret their data. Without such a background all interpretations are considered valid, and truth becomes subjective.

I am anything but a technophobe, but I am concerned that, as we start touting the role of youtube, facebook, twitter, and Wikipedia as ways for students to share their knowledge about materials, we fail the students.  We allow them to elevate their views, their perspectives, and their understanding of the material while simultaneously dev0lving the role of professor as mentor, guide and expert.

Let’s all work to enable better ways of helping students grasp material, but please, let’s not make the mistake of thinking that professors are “just scribes.”