Industrial IT group

Stupidity in the age of information

From the Computer Desktop Encyclopedeia we learn that copy refers to:

“To make a duplicate of the original. In digital electronics, all copies are identical, which is both a blessing and curse. The blessing is that data can be maintained and remanufactured accurately forever. The curse is that anyone can duplicate copyrighted material and send it around the world in seconds. It all depends on which side of the fence you sit…”

Some artists from one side of the fence outlined their argument in yesterday’s DN debatt. I was hoping this debate had evolved more than this, but once again: digital products are, by definition, open for being copied. This is the essence of the notion of digital. While some see this as a curse many of us see this as a blessing. Reinforcing laws surrounding filesharing comes at a prize and I see it as neither possible nor desireable to fight filesharing. In fact filesharing is a highly innovative practive and has also encouraged innovation among some media producers in terms of new business models and creative use of filesharing networks as effective distribution channels. You can probably view the whole chorus about protecting intellectual property as an attempt by the usual suspects to scare kids, but I’d prefer to focus on dealing with the real issues.

Filed under: Current events, Innovation, Filesharing on November 14th, 2008 by Jonny | Comments Off

Change in direction for Swedish research policy?

Research and education are arguably the most important factors for economic growth, and the interplay between research and the surrounding society therefore constitutes a driving force in the development of society. Not only do they provide the basis for economic growth, competitiveness, and employment, but also ultimately the prosperity of a country and its citizens. So now when the Swedish government has laid the foundation for research policy in Sweden for the coming years we need to ask what vision there is in the foundation and if the implementation plan is realistic. Having read through the budget proposal my first reaction is a positive one. First, the overall strengthening of the research funding is welcome. Second, the underlying vision is concerned with research quality and its practical implications. The level of funding is based on criteria related to research quality. And funds tied to the strategic areas of concern identified (medicine, technology and environment) will only be rewarded to excellence centers that manage to combine research quality with societal relevance.

A key question, which presents itself and should be discussed, is: what implications will this have on Swedish research praxis? I see several important aspects emerging from the budget proposal:

- There is a centralization of research funds to the larger universities. Some early comments from the smaller universities are critical towards this and a debate is likely to emerge. An underlying issue is probably the move from small-scale research (individuals and small groups) to large-scale research (larger research groups working coordinated with other large research groups).

- There is a strong policy support in the move from mode 1 to mode 2 research, e.g. a trend towards need-driven research.

- There will be an inevitable debate related to citations as quality criteria. I strongly believe that good research will be published and cited, if not then I guess it is just not good research. But there is a difference in publication and citation culture between different fields. This has been discussed in some early comments and will probably be much debated from here on.

My interpretation of the budget is thus that we are moving in a direction towards large-scale need-driven research with a strong publishing agenda.

Filed under: Science and knowledge production, Research policy on October 25th, 2008 by Jonny | Comments Off

Kalle Lyytinen award lecture

Kalle Lyytinen will give his award lecture on october 17th, the lecture is entitled Digitalization, social order and change – the new disciplinary challenges. To me, Kalle is a true role model for how to conduct theorizing in the informatics discipline - constantly exploring new technologies and building theory to better understand them. The schedule for the lectures can be found here. Kalle will formally be given his honorary doctorate at Umeå University on the ceremony in Aula Nordica on the 18th.

Filed under: Presentations/Seminars on October 16th, 2008 by Jonny | Comments Off

How can Social Science Research Matter?

The construct of social science research is rapidly changing. There is a growing concern about the gap between theory generated within university research and practice. Across several disciplines university-based research is perceived as becoming increasingly irrelevant. To this end there is a persistent call for research to address the world of practice and produce actionable knowledge. For the social sciences, such a call must be taken seriously albeit by building on the particularities of the social sciences. Bent Flyvbjerg, a professor of planning at Aalborg University in Denmark, has written a very important book - Making Social Science Research Matter - focused on the social sciences and how/why it matters. Flyvbjerg argues that the social sciences have been held to the standard of the natural sciences, which is the discovery of knowledge that is universal, context-independent, and cumulative. By this standard, the social sciences are at best viewed as poor imitators of the natural sciences. I guess “imitating the natural sciences” is one way of responding to the call for making research more relevant, but not a very intelligent way.

In his book Flyvbjerg is articulating a more intelligent response as he is pushing for replacing scientism (i.e. values promoted by social scientists in the shape of wannabee natural scientists) with phronesis. In the context of phronesis, the purpose of social and political science is not to develop epistemic theory but to contribute to society’s practical rationality in elucidating where we are and where we want to go. The goal of the phronetic approach becomes one of contributing to society’s capacity for value-rational deliberation and action. Pursuing such ambitions social scientists actively ensure that their work be relevant to praxis.

I have just read the book once but was impressed by its level of ambition and found it very relevant in relation to the ongoing debates in IT research. Looking at the debates during the last few years (most notably in JAIS) the practical relevance of much IT research has been seriously challenged and it seems as if we have adopted a research paradigm that has not worked very well, a paradigm that has produced very reliable results about things that are ultimately unimportant. I do feel we have some promising results stemming from our ProcessIT projects that are building on a social science logic while they are relevant to practitioners too. Having read Flyvbjerg’s book I feel inspired to reflect deeper about the ways in which our projects are organized and what methodological contributions that can be drawn from our experiences.

Filed under: Literature, ProcessIT, Science and knowledge production on October 15th, 2008 by Jonny | Comments Off

Bonniers goes open innovation

As the Internet and new social-networking technologies are allowing companies and their customers to co-create with unprecedented levels of richness and reach, most organizations find themselves on the sidelines, hoping it all is a trend that will blow over soon. However, some leading organizations are using this opportunity to draw customers into the heart of the value-creation process. In a day and age where people are seemingly overstrained by information overload and spend a lot of time for filtering and seeking for “the right information” we see a trend from hierarchical information flows to personalized feeds (by means of sites like netvibes for instance) and - in more general terms - a move from information consumption to information co-production.

Bonniers are arguably as traditional as they come in the media world, but they seem to be moving from “the best ideas are created in-house” towards an open innovation stance. In a very intersting interview in the most recent issue of Internetworld Sara Öhrvall, CEO of their new R&D department outlines their visions for the next few years. She acknowledges that new technologies/services have not emerged from traditional media houses and Bonnies have thus created B Vision as a platform more suited for innovation. I guess the future will tell if this is a good move or not. Meanwhile, I must say I find our own living lab to be one of the most promising platforms for open innovation initiatives I have seen. Drawing from research on IT in peoples’ everyday lives we have created an open innovation environment that is likely to produce a steady stream of new insights, products and services. Looking at the way in which traditional media houses raise similar initiatives only confirms my belief that we are moving in the right direction.