Mathemagenic

Two different streams of ideas from around Online Information:

• First one, covered in the panel The Facebook generation and touched by other speakers is about digital natives, those who grow up online, and their differences from the rest of us.
• The second one, outside of the conference, over food and walking with Matt is about cultural stereotypes so deeply engrained that we don’t even know they are there until we experience something that triggers reflection.

Well, those two connected to today’s talk with Robert about our fist computing experiences. For me it personal computing started with AGATs and black-and-green screen Robotrons. We had a Robotron at home for a while and I helped my mom with her NGO work by doing some database programming. I also remember my dismay when my university freshman programming course was scheduled in a class full of Robotrons and not in those with newer and fancier PCs (of course I wanted newer and fancier machines to play with ;). The teacher then said that “if you can program on Robotrons, anything else will be peanuts”.

Now, looking back at my personal computing history I’m thinking that he was probably right. Not that I can program anything now (I’ve learnt that being good at programming doesn’t mean loving it :), but I’m happy having all those “old computing” experiences - text only black and green screens, points-and-nodes BBS culture, disconnected emails, fascination with those magic WWW letters… Those are not just romanticised memories - I’m happy to have those experiences as they help me to understand what new technologies bring (and what do they take away). It helps to make conscious choices about the aspects of digital cultures I want in my life, rather than growing with them and may be never discovering that some cultural stereotypes don’t serve me well.

Ewan McIntosh said he didn’t like the whole digital immigrants/digital natives terminology. I like it, exactly for the power of the metaphor. A piece from Watching the English (discussed in another context) on the Englishness of natives and immigrants:

For those of us without the benefit of early, first-hand influence of another culture, some aspects of Englishness can be so deeply ingrained that we find it almost impossible to shake them off, even when it is clearly in our interested to do so [ ]. Immigrants have the advantage of being able to pick and choose more freely, often adopting the more desirable English quirks and habits while carefully steering clear of the more ludicrous ones. [p.18]

The metaphor also brings other concerns - those of inclusion and exclusion, integration and cultural diversity. I hope that at least I can teach my own little digital native some of non-digital cultures :)

Technorati: OnlineInfo2007

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2007/12/08.html#a1964; comments are here.

No Comments yet »

Browsing my archives and realising that I’d better quote those comments to Context and attribution (12 Feb 2004!) in a blogpost, which is easier to find later.

By Alex Halavais (#):

This is, arguably, easy enough with words, but much harder when it comes to ideas. I came up with some thoughts that, I will assert, are my own. Someone noted that these followed closely some things you had written about in your blog. I am a regular reader of your blog, and I think it is likely that these entries–at the very least–prompted my thinking in a particular direction. This tendency to remember the ideas but forget their source–the “sleeper effect”–has been shown in communication research several times over the last 50 years.

You actually know about this, because someone else made the connection and hyperlinked it. But otherwise, I would have been abscounding with your ideas without due credit. As interersted as I am in encouraging hyperlinking as attribution, there has to be a limit.

I wonder whether a standing set of citations (your “Regular reads/dialogues”) constitutes a kind of “thought group”–an indication that your ideas are at least in some part attibutable to the people you communicate with every day?

By Piers Young (#):

Crikey - all sounds like we’re beginning to enter the murky world of Intellectual Proprty Rights. Have a few brief comments: 1) that this trail is happening at all is a good thing. It underlines the fact that there is value (however intangible) in blogging. 2) I don’t think the “thought group” idea’s is quite enough. Most, or at least many blogs have a “thought group” anyway: a blogroll. Most, or at least many bloggers have diverse interests: they may be into KM and skiing, KM and whiskey or KM and needlecraft or - you get the picture. One of the great things about links is that it allows me to get an idea which blogs most interest me. Without specific citations, I - as let’s say a needlecraft afficionado - would have to wade through a whole load of stuff on marketing, whiskey and skiing. Links, along with a whole load of other good things, help you filter. 3) That said, I agree there has to be a limit. In many cases it just isn’t practical to search all the citations and make all the links. But surely you do as much as you’ve got time for? And with the joys of trackback, bookmarklets etc, you almost by definition have time for one.

Alternating between typing, reading, browsing my weblog and walking around (usually means writing flow :)

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2007/06/12.html#a1908; comments are here.

1 Comment »

There is part of my work that I hasn’t been writing much about over last two years. Not because it’s so confidential, but because most of the complexities that I had to face and to learn from are still too complex for a blog post. I am about to disengage from the project to focus on my PhD; I hope I’ll be able to reflect on the things properly one day, but I also need a placeholder for some of the lessons learnt (or, to be more precise for some things where I’ve learnt a lot without having an answer :)

• how your relations with specific people in a project implicitly define the commitments you make and how painful it could be if those unspoken ‘personal constellations’ are changed
• how important is time for developing a shared language, how much you should fight for an opportunity to have it and that the best way to do so is still doing things together and not talking about doing them
• how hard is facilitation of technology adoption, especially if you are already in a technology-mediated settings
• how to make sure things are on track without having the responsibility or means to ‘manage’ (and without doing them yourself ;)
• how to communicate online - hmm, more precisely: how to get ‘optional’ feedback online, how to make decisions asynchronously, how to orchestrate selection of media to fit everyone even if there is nothing there that fits everyone, how not to spam everyone, but still have everyone updated
• how not to be involved, even if it’s good for the project
• how to tame passion
• how to introduce things (slowly :)
• how to balance between decision-making and training
• how to make decisions about technology design with subject-matter experts who don’t know much about technology
• how to write difficult things in email without ruining the relation behind
• how shared working practices could grow in a heavily distributed project
• how to go back and forth between languages; how it is much more than the languages themselves and the need to switch, but the whole cultures and mindsets behind
• how to plan and manage things you can’t plan and manage (community life and support :)
• how to balance paid long-term members and recently joined volunteers in the same team

One day (when I finish my PhD and get back to doing things instead of doing research ;) I will be much better facilitator because of all the experiences above :)

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2006/10/11.html#a1843; comments are here.

No Comments yet »

Those who know me personally also know that ‘integration’ in a Dutch society could be a tough topic to touch: while accepting that there is a degree to what you have to conform to a local culture as a resident foreigner I always struggle to find where to draw the line for myself, how to conform to the local rules without loosing my own cultural identity. Like today.

Yesterday Dutch was nice - as nice as paved, clearly indicated bicycle roads and looking at old ladies cycling in a middle of heide (heather, which is almost at the end of its flowering season). Than I thought that may be it’s not that bad after all if we end up living in the Netherlands - I could easily imagine myself as an old lady cycling through heide on a sunny Sunday afternoon…

Today Dutch was sad - as sad as a pregnant woman in a train lifting her suitcase to an upper shelf and no man around offering to help. I usually bring ’suitcase lifting’ as an example of things that I don’t like about Dutch society: I just don’t get that sort of ‘being an independent woman’. I have found my own workarounds (keeping my suitcases on the floor ;), but I’m horrified by an idea that my kids could grow with an understanding that the situation above is normal.

Which brings me to a couple of quotes from Watching the English, the book I enjoy reading in so many respects. It’s on consciousness of an acculturation:

In fact, I would go so far as to say that Englishness is rather more a matter of choice for the ethnic minorities in this country than it is for the rest of us. For those of us without the benefit of early, first-hand influence of another culture, some aspects of Englishness can be so deeply ingrained that we find it almost impossible to shake them off, even when it is clearly in our interested to do so […]. Immigrants have the advantage of being able to pick and choose more freely, often adopting the more desirable English quirks and habits while carefully steering clear of the more ludicrous ones. [p.18]

Many of those who pontificate about ‘acculturation’ are inclined to underestimate this element of choice. Such processes are often described in terms suggesting that the ‘dominant’ culture is simply imposed on unwitting, passive minorities, rather than focusing on the extent to which individuals quite consciously, deliberately, cleverly and even mockingly pick and choose among the behaviors and customs of their host culture. I accept that some degree of acculturation or conformity to English ways is often ‘demanded’ or effectively ‘enforced’ (although this would surely be true of any host culture, unless one enters it as a conquering invader or passing tourist), and the rights and wrongs of specific demands can and should be debated. But my point is that compliance with such demands is still a conscious process, and not, as some accounts of acculturation imply, a form of brainwashing. [p.19]

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2006/09/11.html#a1830; comments are here.

No Comments yet »

Via Dina Mehta: Worldmapper, “a collection of world maps, where territories are re-sized on each map according to the subject of interest”.

Those maps (index) provide a great way to understand how different other parts of the world from where we are.

For example, those three maps (refugee origins, international emigration and tourist origins) show how different are the ways people of the world learn about other countries: those who are relocating abroad are not likely to have chances to visit their destination country before it.

It also adds a point to my recently frequent discussions with friends about controversial immigration exam in the Netherlands. Although I pretty much agree with those who say that it’s selectiveness, format and costs are raising unfair entry barriers for many, I can’t admit that it also raises cultural awareness of people who are about to move to another culture.

It’s only now I’m realising how unprepared I has been personally to live in a country with different culture, even given my interest in other cultures, travels abroad and almost a year in the Netherlands as a student. Given those experiences and all my readings on moving between cultures I’m starting to believe that deeper knowledge about other cultures (especially those there you are likely to spend the rest of your life) is essential if you plan a move. I can imagine how “immigration exam” in some form could be an important point in this process.

And, once I’m at it: a point from another side. Sometimes I’m suprised to find out that well-travelled Dutch friends and colleagues actually never travelled outside the “Western civilisation” (Europe and North America) and that they do they know much about dramatically different cultures (I mean: knowing about culture beyond food and goods). I guess in the global world everyone should take some kind of “immigration exam”, even those who stay in their own country…

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2006/04/10.html#a1760; comments are here.

No Comments yet »

It’s feels strange realising how much my PhD research is influenced by experiences in domains that don’t have much to do with my focus. Since it’s so strong I tend to think that it’s true for other researchers as well and then feel even more strange not finding much traces of those “other domains” in their published work. This, in turn, reinforces my feeling that there is always some degree of “constructedness” in research published – and the more rigorous and logical it looks the more I suspect that the logic was reverse-engineered (no offence meant - this is how I feel even if logics says the opposite :)

Anyway, back to the originally intended topic of this post… Now, getting back into my PhD research and deeper into sorting out methods and methodologies, I realise that my recent reading of Third culture kids (context) provided me with a frame for thinking about my research next to insights of more personal nature.

Between other things the book stresses the influence of growing up between cultures for forming TCK personalities and the world outlook. While we are growing up, our identities are forming against particular cultural backgrounds – specific norms, values and practices are picked up, tried and tested, and, regardless of their “stickiness” in our lives form who we are (you don’t need to drink vodka to be Russian – in anyway your attitude regarding it would be heavily formed by observing those who do, knowing about effects of it, rituals and “safe” good practices of drinking as well as having to deal with the “outsiders” who think that it’s a bigger part of everyday life than it actually is ;). Background culture provides scaffolding by consistent stimulators and reactions. This consistency is important – it’s like a tree that always there for an ivy to crawl around or like a firm arm of your dance partner that is necessary to lead in a way that could be followed.

Growing up between cultures means that another life could be just one flight away, and then everything is changed – the way elders are treated, food is prepared and eaten or friendships are formed. Relocating while growing up means that there is sufficiently long time to absorb each culture, but not enough to be formed by any specific one… Those culture changes bring not only broad outlook on the world, flexibility and knowing exotic languages; they also turn someone into restless and rootless, someone who is always in transition, moving, but never settling, someone who doesn’t know who he is and where he belongs.

Reading the book made the difference clear to me – despite of a few years living abroad I grew up Russian and know where my roots are. In my case multicultural values and practices, although landing on a fertile ground of growing up in a family of mixed ethnic origins, are still just add-ons to the pretty stable core.

However, being mixed up and searching for own people is part of my life – in a totally different context. I feel as “third culture kid”, restless and rootless, research methodology wise.

I guess there are two reasons to it. First, it is doing research (and being enculturated methodology-wise) in a multidisciplinary research institute rather than being a part of a university group with clear set of norms, values and practices regarding research approaches. The second has something to do with weblogs.

Some time back we played with an idea of blogging as distributed apprenticeship, articulating own practices and learning from others often transcending time, distance and disciplinary boundaries. For me blogging has been exactly that – an opportunity to lurk and learn, going beyond expertise and practices available in my immediate surroundings.

Now it bites back. For me reading weblogs of researchers coming from contexts very different from my own brought a permanent exposure to “other” research cultures while I’m still trying to figure out what are the norms and practices of my own tribe (and what is my own tribe, by the way?). In this respect I feel like a kid who moves between different cultures while growing up. I know a lot about differences, fascinating local examples, needs to adapt and to speak the right language, but I don’t know where I belong and which values to stick to. I know that whatever research paradigm you are in the consistency is important, but sometimes I wonder if I can find it wondering in my own kunstkamera* with bits and pieces of research from other worlds…

* Here refers to Kunstkamera in St. Peterburg, founded as a collection of curiousities by Peter the Great and later turned into an ethnographic museum.

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2006/03/14.html#a1738; comments are here.

1 Comment »

Just came back from a week-long meeting of multicultural project crowd (context)… One of of the big things regarding project management in this case is about recognising cultural differences of the project partners and establishing working practices that work across those differences.

There is a lot there to reflect upon, but for now I’d like to focus only on one aspect of it: time-frames in relation to planning. The example I’d like to use is a bit personal - it’s about wedding planning.

Last January we were looking for locations for two wedding parties - in Moscow and in Enschede - for beginning of May. The reactons of restaurant people were surprisingly similar. In Moscow they were laughing - trying to book a restaurant in January for May didn’t make much sense to them. In one case they were not sure if the place would exist, almost everywhere they were not prepared to discuss the prices saying that everything could be different in May.

In Enschede restaurant people were surprised as well - we were too late to start looking for a location :)

I guess that the reasons for those differences are not because restaurant business is so different in Russia and in the Netherlands; it represents a deeper cultural differences in relation to long-term planning.

In the Netherlands you have to plan well in advance. It’s more easy to get used that with busy colleagues you will not have a chance to schedule something for coming two weeks, than learning to plan a dinner with friends two months in advance (recently I did :). People also tend to rely on their schedules and to get irritated when something has to move to another moment.

In Russia its different. You can try making longer-term appointments, but usually it would be “let’s call each other closer to the date and see”. Things are changing fast and everyone knows that planning for the future doesn’t make much sense (”Man proposes, but God disposes” says everyday wisdom). Uncertainty is part of the equation and any changes in schedules are tackled as something usual.

As a result planning horizons are dramatically different. The “fun” starts to happen when there is an event with both sides involved. Russian people could suggest rescheduling an internationa project meeting one month in advance, while Dutch people have to plan it half a year before to be able to make it. Or a wedding with Russian and Dutch guests (in Russia an everage wedding is planned and prepared 2 months in advance, while in the Netherlands it’s 12)…

Could you imagine how scared I was when 2,5 months before the date the wedding register office in Moscow decides to move a working day from Wednesday to Sunday because it’s more convinient to work before a national holiday and not after it? It wouldn’t cause any problem if I would be in Russia/with Russians only, but our Dutch party had to be booked earlier and our Dutch friends booked their tickets to Moscow already…

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2006/02/22.html#a1733; comments are here.

No Comments yet »

Somewhere last October I tried to search for the roots of my unsettledness and something that could help me to understand what does it mean to travel between cultures and to live far away from those who matter to you. One day, jumping between posts of Nancy White and Beverly Trayner I’ve learnt about global nomads and TCK (Third Culture Kids) - those who grow up travelling between cultures as their parents move around the globe.

I spent a few hours then browsing through websites and book descriptions, fascinated how much I could learn there.

My first book was Intercultural Marriage: Promises and Pitfalls (review). Since I’m in an intercultural relation anyway and it’s going to last I wanted to be prepared for the things to come (”food, friends, and other frustrations” as one of the chapters calls it ;). However, those were not that scary and many resolved or at least thought about…

Now I’m at Third Culture Kids: The Experience of Growing Up Among Worlds (review). This one is a thrilling journey of recognising own experiences, thinking over explanations of things I couldn’t understand myself and even being a bit scared of the challenges to deal with in the future. It focuses on the specific case (kids who grow moving between different cultures), but provides a good foundation for understanding much broader issues about cross-cultural experiences, mobility, identity, relation building…

I definitely see quite a few connections with my research and hopefully will blog about it (although recently my promises to blog are not very reliable :)

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2006/01/19.html#a1721; comments are here.

No Comments yet »

Things used to be simple, but not anymore. I’m spending Christmas with one family - European way, New Year with another family - Russian way. But there will be some work in between: since Russian Orthodox Christmas is two weeks later Russian holidays are starting only 31 December. A bit confusing :)

Anyway, happy holidays regardless of when/if you stop working!

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2005/12/23.html#a1719; comments are here.

No Comments yet »

A bit more comments on the statement of my previous post:

Many KM concepts and practices still have not reached Russian business world (and academia as well) – apart from a few exceptions most of the KM talk there is still about why it could be useful to invest in something like that, rather then deciding what and how to do. Communities of practice, while there as a reality, is not part of conceptual thinking about management and not a format that organisations would deliberately support with some business gains in mind.

I had to talk on this issue several times while being in Russia, so I thought of sharing it here as well.

Communities of practice, as informal groups of people bounded by common problems, exist regardless of what we think or do about them. They support horizontal knowledge flows and idea generation across departmental or organisational borders, but they are not necessary recognised or supported by an organisation.

From another perspective, communities of practices could be a (knowledge) management instrument. In this case it’s about an explicit effort of supporting and strengthening communities within a company or across several companies with some kind of business benefit in mind.

I tried to illustrate the difference in the picture. It’s a bit straightforward, so necessary caveats:

Most likely the business benefits of communities of practice are not monetary ($), but in any case there is more or less clear understanding of a business value of it behind supporting communities as a management strategy.

By supporting communities I mean providing resources and developing processes and policies. I don’t believe communities can be planned and managed; it’s rather an act of nurturing a living organism (which still can have a lot of science and workflows in it ;).

It’s difficult to predefine an impact of communities in an organisation, but from what I’ve seen in companies I would say that there is definitely some degree of steering communities by providing more resources to those of them that are better aligned with specific business needs of an organisation.

Coming back to the situation in Russia: many companies are only in the beginning of the process of recognising the business value of communities and developing an infrastructure to support them. Communities of practice are there, but they still have to become an explicit part of management practice.

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2005/12/19.html#a1716; comments are here.

No Comments yet »