Category: Media / Sociology

A recent piece in The Observer (The real cost of the smartphone revolution) started to get at a very interesting notion — that we’re oblivious to the implications of the information revolution that is going on around us.

Strangely, our problem is not that we are short of data about what’s going on; on the contrary we are awash with the stuff. This is what led Manuel Castells, the great scholar of cyberspace, to describe our current mental state as one of “informed bewilderment”: we have lots of information, but not much of a clue about what it means.

The author then goes on (citing Zittrain) to describe how the power of companies like Apple, Facebook, and network providers have locked hold extraordinary power over the shape and use of this technology.

This might not seem a big deal – after all, it’s just capitalism doing its thing. But what it means is that with every new smartphone subscription we take another tiny but discrete step towards a networked world dominated by powerful corporations that can not only “regulate” the system in their own interests, but also control the speed of technological innovation to a pace that is convenient for them rather than determined by the creativity of hackers and engineers.

I agree with this conclusion, but not the defeatist attitude. The early internet was filled with walled gardens, with networks like AOL and Prodigy, and hardware that was closed to experimentation (hello, Mac Classic). While they realized some success, their more open and standardized counterparts (the Internet and the PC) found much greater success.

The problem of today is that companies like Facebook, Apple, and Google offer such great experiences that it is difficult to envision things any differently. The shortcoming of these experiences, however, is that they have all taken a “one size fits all” approach — if you don’t like the design of any of these tools, you either don’t use them or break the terms of service.

Open source products (like Linux or Diaspora) are taking a long time to evolve, but I believe that over time their flexibility will win people over. Rather than killing off e-mail, people will look to an open standard for social networks to make disparate tools work together. Rather than succumbing to digital locks, the urge to tinker will defeat efforts to keep a curious mind out of the iOS lockbox.

I think innovation depends on it. Hopefully the opportunity has not passed us by.

It’s pretty rare that a single article can change how you think about an issue. For me, the Times’ take on business’ use of analytics to boost sales did just that (How Companies Learn Your Secrets). The article describes how Target (a “home town” company for yours truly) uses analytics to lead customers to new products and services. Most interesting was that their model was largely proactive — their goal was to look ahead to a particularly susceptible points in a customer’s life, and target specific promotions during that short period of time.

The approach reminded me a great deal of Thaler and Sunstein’s book, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. The authors argue that benevolent social engineers can use cues to “nudge” people towards good decisions (for example, putting health foods in easy reach at a cafeteria). While some have criticized the work for perhaps a paternalistic approach, I think their ideas might stimulate useful design. Rather than put no thought into a design (or worse, to base the design purely on profit), a designer might look for points at which we make decisions — and use those opportunities to steer people in the right direction. This might be especially powerful when the design is backed by data.

Most of the models of analytics that I have heard of in the realm of Higher Education are reactive. A student gets a bad grade, or is not logging in to the learning management system, and then someone contacts the student to attempt to intervene (after the fact). I think Target’s use of “analytics to nudge” might be a better model. If you’re collecting analytic data on student interactions, why not use that data to help them make better decisions. Perhaps an incentive, like a badge, could inspire a lagging student to visit the library. Perhaps some students would find links to useful resources (like counseling or help with study skills) after they trigger some kind of early-early warning.

I think a more proactive and positive model of analytics would be much more productive than a reactive or fix-it-after-it-has-become-a-problem approach. If only schools could devote the same kinds of resources to these efforts as our colleagues in the private sector.

Edit

Here’s Stephen Colbert’s humourous take on the story (on Ash Wednesday):