The Professor's Notes

One of the challenges I face is figuring out how to share my various [work interests/hobbies] in a way that shows the relationship between them.  Especially as an academic, trying to show how my various apparently dissimilar research efforts were related posed a specific challenge.  Enter the concept of Venn Diagrams!

While perusing Gina Trapani’s blog from Smarterware.org, I saw she too struggles with sharing her varied, yet often inter-related, interests.

She writes:

It’s a tough question to answer, especially when you’re not working on a single thing. Last weekend at Foo Camp I failed miserably at explaining myself and my slash careers and how they all intersect. But at that same conference, I had the pleasure of attending a session by David Eaves, who eloquently explained that his goal is to apply his experience and training in negotiation skills to open source community management. On his site, he published a map of his past, current, and future work, and how those activities all interrelated. Cool!

When I read this I had one of those “DUH!” moments. It’s a brilliantly simple idea.  I like the way it forces some things into reductionism (you have to determine a fixed set of spheres–how many do you REALLY have?).  In addition, this approach can even help one find relationships between work that seemed “intuitively” there, but were never explicitly stated, even to oneself.  And finally, the approach David and Gina have both taken is to show how they are seeking the “greater good” (or a “Better world”) through their work.

The Venn Diagram David Eaves created is below.  To see the one Gina put together about her interests and work, go visit the link (really–you should!)  To see mine…. well, that may take a while longer.

Feel free to share yours here, or just put a link to yours in the comments!

Yesterday my brother posted a tweet, acknowledging that he is on 35 lists on Twitter.^{Crowdsourcing” and the “The Wisdom of Crowds.”}

As I understand it, Twitter added “lists” because people wanted a simple way of grouping the people they follow according to some sort of structure that made sense to them.  Tweetdeck had added that capability through “groups” and I had even started using that feature.  I had built groups based on my major categories of interest:  Family. Close (real) friends.  Local people. Educators.  Twitter took that idea, allowed us to create lists through them, and then also offered the option to make the lists “public” and subscribe-able.  People can see your public lists, and if they like them–follow them!

Once Twitter released that option I had actually abandoned the notion of groups and lists.  I wasn’t so sure about what I wanted to use them for anyway.  I have since gone back, adding a private list of just family and friends.

So here is what I am wondering as I peruse the 35 lists that have listed my brother, and the lists that have added me:

Are they all really that different?  And if not, are they a “waste” of time?

In my lists, I see I am listed on a number of Supply Chain Management lists.  And educator lists.  My brother’s lists are understandably predominantly discipline related, and education related.  There are a few others, but those dominate–and that’s the point.  There appears, on a curory look, to be significant overlap on these lists.

The concept of “Wisdom of the Crowds” and “Crowd-sourcing” is that crowds, when gathered together, make better decisions, and are more creative.  Potentially (and grossly oversimplified).   By building lists of people that share common interests we can see the views of others who are thinking about the same things, and get a wide range of perspectives. ²

So here are the “research questions” (or “investigative questions”) that I have:

1.  How many groups have identical or very similar themes? (Like “supply Chain Managers”)

2.  On similar lists, what is the membership overlap?

3.  How much time is spent developing these similar, and perhaps redundant, lists?

4.  Is there a better way to “share” lists, so people aren’t always reinventing the lists (and taking time to do that?)

5.  Is there some psychological need that gets filled by creating one’s own lists, rather than following someone else’s list?  Control? Ownership?

My brother and I had a discussion recently about how people watch TV, and to some extent, where.  It was, as is often the case, a conversation where one of us was driving and the other was in the office at a computer.  In this case I was driving.

I suggested that it would be a great idea to ask you, our readers, how you watch TV.  And a Google Form seemed the perfect vehicle for that.  So, while I was driving, I introduced my brother to Google Forms–and I think he did quite an admirable job putting it together.

We would love it if you would come take the survey. Thanks!

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 “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.”

On Tuesday, I gave a presentation on using collaborative tools as an integrated part of our research processes.  I recorded that presentation, and have it available here as the 22nd podcast in my series here.

I broke the presentation into three areas of collaboration:
1.  Data gathering (del.icio.us)
2.  Structuring of the research (wiki)
3.  Writing (Google Docs, Microsoft Live Mesh)

(note:  I say in the presentation that Live Mesh is Windows only.  Turns out I was a few versions wrong. It is now available for Mac OSX as well.)

Much of these tools allow us to work asynchronously, sharing information as we find it, and learning what our team has discovered as we have the time.  That said, I also talk about using communication tools such as Skype and Google Talk to work synchronously with your team when geographically separated.  I briefly referred to Twitter, but unfortunately, as much as I love Twitter (and you can find me on Twitter as @SCMProfessor) I don’t see it as a real engine to facilitate collaboration in conducting research.)

I also identified a few things that collaboration in research does:

1.  Fosters cooperation rather than competition
2.  Enables other researchers to share in the research (long discussion about what is and isn’t the outcome of our research).
3.  Speeds the cycle time of research (idea-data-analysis-draft-publication)

Finally, we discussed that the tools should:

1.  Be freely available
2.  Easily understandable audit trail
3.  Provide some levels of security

In the presentation I refer to a few documents (as Google Docs) that I have built to help my students collaborate in their research and project efforts.  First, I have the “Tools and Tutorials” document, where I provide links to not only the tools listed above, but links to helper sites for using these tools, as well as links to “really cool stuff.”

I also mentioned the document I give my students to guide them in the development of their podcast projects.  I even have a 12 step program for them!

So go, listen to the podcast, and please–come back and let me know how YOU are using Web 2.0 to work more closely with your colleagues.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download