taken form phdcomics.com

First and main motto should be something like “may the force be with you”. But if we are to take the question a little (which literally means, a little) bit serious, then, let’s rewind to a couple of days before when we had a little discussion about ways of writing and presenting academic papers, slides, and so on.

As a result of this discussion, Katharina Schlierf has asked some of us to answer to these quick (not so quick really…) demand in order to help her providing her first year Ph.D students at the Universitat de Valencia with some ideas / advise.

Not that I consider myself into a position of giving advise to others, but, I think that some points might be worth considering. Kata asked for three points. Which is a great number for make nice groupings of information. Nevertheless, I prefer to present an extended version and let people choose (as the pressure to make a workable top three listing is not really on. Is it?

Off we go:

• There is no such thing as a divide between content and it’s presentation form. You can not present the same content in multiple formats. Whether you chose to make an oral presentation, a power point or write an article, the way you “formally” present things are THE content. So, do worry about content and DO worry about presentation.

• Try to clarify the following as to have a crystal-clear (whenever possible) answer to; “what is your thesis about?”

  • Your theme (say: decision making in urban planning)

  • Main objectives (say: analyze failure in assumed good urban plannings projects)

  • Research question( say: why excellent urban planning projects fail in reaching all or some of their goals)

  • Theoretical Background (say: Urban Studies and Anthropology of the City)

  • Relevance of your topic: (say: amongst the last decade, in the urban planning department of La Seu d’Urgell several external consultancies have been contracted to design and implement dozens of projects. More than a half of these projects have failed to achieve their proposals. Whereas the city-council and the literature in decision-making and urban planning are eager to publish data on failure, we think it might highlight what the weakness as well as opportunities for improving decision-making are…)

  • As time goes by, you should be able to be more specific and provide and enlarge details for all these questions at your will. But this is because as time goes by you are likely to be more into your field-work. And thus, gain concreteness. So it is normal to not have that much to say at the beginning of your thesis. Expect concreteness to reshape what your main objectives were and your research question was.

• Learn to write a lot (a blog might be a good starting point)

• Learn to delete and get rid of what you just wrote. A text is always an open text. Expect to go back and forth in your thesis. Deleting a complete chapter of your thesis might be painful, but from a readers perspective, could be grateful.

• Research tools (software based or not) are your friends (and worst enemies if you do not back up your data). Do not be afraid to use them or to ask someone for help. (here you can find a bunch of them; http://digitalresearchtools.pbwiki.com/; always look for Free/Libre software alternatives)

• No one said it was easy. But this does not mean you can not enjoy. If you are not enjoying it, try finding out why. And if you can do something about it, do it. If, instead of doing that by yourself, you can do with others, then the outcomes are likely to be more enjoyable. (stressful does not lead to successful; enjoyable neither, but at least, you enjoyed something)

Hope it helps. Morgan Meyer made an awesome presentation on writing tips as an answer. I will find out if I can attach it here too…

Via P2P foundation’s blog I have found this initiative called DIYcity. Which is really interesting as it clearly points towards a more comprehensive way of dealing with city matters and, so far, they are trying to achieve that via open data / open systems. Taking benefit from all the apps and programs that have lead the so called web 2.0 phenomena. Here is the challenge:

” can we, working together, define and build a version 1.0 of the Do-It-Yourself City, a city that operates on open data flowing through decentralized, open source tools, that actively engages residents not only as users but as participants and owners of the system?” (DIYcity.org)

Is not that a great example of Citizen Management of Technology ?!

RAX!

The Bio-inititive report is a report on the potential effects Electromagnetic Fields and Radio Frequencies can have in our health. It addresses GSM microwaves as well as WiFi ones and, as far as I can tell, it is quite exhaustive; 610 pages.

“Human beings are bioelectrical systems. Our hearts and brains are regulated by internal bioelectrical signals. Environmental exposures to artificial EMFs can interact with fundamental biological processes in the human body. In some cases, this can cause discomfort and disease. Since World War II, the background level of EMF from electrical sources has risen exponentially, most recently by the soaring popularity of wireless technologies such as cell phones (two billion and counting in 2006), cordless phones, WI-FI and WI-MAX networks.”(bioinitiative report, 2007)

The truth is, that our households are increasingly being penetrated (aka exposed) by a larger number of devices transmitting microwaves at different frequencies. You can run a quick scan of wifi networks each year and state the difference by yourself. Now, as an exposure to something (as was being exposed to charbon-based heat or smoke filled discotheques), I guess medical evidence will highlight what the dangers (or benefits) are.

Regardless of how dangerous EMF are or might be, it is interesting to note how accurate the management of collective health and collective awareness of “threatening invisible signals” (such as microbes; not only microwaves) has become. One of the CSI students here at l’Ècole des Mines, Julien Gauthey, made my day by helping me discover two words;

“electrosensibles”; aimed at people who are more affected than others by EMF or RF. and:

“expologie” (with and “y” at the end instead of the “ie” for an english conversion): sort of science of those being exposed to threatening signals. Sort of epidemiologie carried by other means. Signals and alerts, for instance.

Now, it would really be a great paradox to start seeing “wifi free” areas instead of “free wifi” ones now that so many effort is being made to populate the EMF

Time will tell (everyone is willing to be connected to digital networks, no one is willing to get a cancer. No perfect drug (NIN dixit) for the time being)

Before ending this post, it is worth noticing that although the term wifi appears on the bio-initiative report webpage and in quoted text here also, it should not be equaled to GSM and other EMF radiations that are far more powerful than wifi. In deed, if one reads the report conclusions;

The lower limit for reported human health effects has dropped 100- fold below the safety standard (for mobile phones and PDAs); 1000- to 10,000-fold for other wireless (cell towers at distance; WI-FI and WLAN devices). The entire basis for safety standards is called into question, and it is not unreasonable to question the safety of RF at any level. -they further elaborate and propose a minimum threshold-; A cautionary target level for pulsed RF exposures for ambient wireless that could be applied to
RF sources from cell tower antennas, WI-FI, WI-MAX and other similar sources is proposed. The recommended cautionary target level is 0.1 microwatts per centimeter squared (μW/cm2)** (or 0.614 Volts per meter or V/m)** for pulsed RF where these exposures affect the general public.”

But a cell tower IS NOT a WiFi tower. I think we shoud be able to distinguish the intensity and power of those radiations so as to have a comparison scale. Because otherwise we might leave room for unnecessary alarmism concerning wifi (wich is NOT gsm).

RAX!

Now that Obama is searching for a Chief Technology  Officer (CTO), it is worth remembering what other CTO’s have asked from some creative industries / labs. For instance, in Apps for Democracy (via istrategylabs), when asked (I am quoting them now); “how we could make their revolutionary open Data Catalog useful for the citizens, visitors, businesses and government agencies of DC” (/end quote). we can read the following statement as a response;

“You can do one of two things. You can spend years and millions of dollars contracting this out to big consultancies – and you’ll end up spending twice what you thought you would and get half the quality you hoped for…which is what governments do now. Or, the other way is to have an innovation contest where we put the data in the hands of the people, and give them cash prizes and recognition for their efforts.”(Corbett, 2008)

which, IMHO, is revelatory of the ways and trends creativity is being fashioned form and for government driven proposals. What value has to be attributed to collective intelligences working together for a final result (be it an app, be it a urban planning project)? How do we dignify the effort of collaborative work such as we saw in Free / Libre Open-Source Software ? With a single price to some of the participants? If what governments did was getting half the quality for paying double (then it would be trouble – The Clash dixit), what do they  do now (again, this is a rather huge “they” to account for the many differences between governments, but we can not forget or refuse to see that many governments do mirror themselves and tend to adopt similar strategies for mastering the “one to the multiple” type of relations)? rewarding half price and doubling the quality?

Five blocks away from “Apps for Democracy” we can rescue an excerpt form an event held on November 2006 @ Institute of Network Cultures named MyCreativity. (thx to Ptqk for letting me know). As the introduction goes we read;

“Despite the proliferation of the creative industries model, it remains hard to point to stories of actual “creative innovation”, or to be even sure what this might mean. What is clear – if largely unacknowledged – is that investment in “creative clusters” effectively functions to encourage a corresponding boom in adjacent real estate markets. Here lies perhaps the core truth of the creative industries: the creative industries are a service industry, one in which state investment in “high culture” shifts to a form of welfarism for property developers. This smoke and mirrors trick is cleverly performed through a language of populist democracy that appeals to a range of political and business agents. What is more surprising is the extent to which this hype is seemingly embraced by those most vulnerable: namely, the content producers (designers, software inventors, artists, filmmakers, etc.) of creative information (brands, patents, copyrights).” MyCreativity.

Two particular ways of understanding and accounting for creative demands are appearing here. Aren’t they? Haunted shores for a creative river

guifi.net is seemingly taking advantage of the open-innovation trend to start getting grants and funding for keeping and extending it’s network. Aware or unaware of these debates, focusing on the results, innovation and creativity are increasingly becoming a vocabulary to account about the projects one develops or participates in (specially in ICT’s). I am being creative or not? IMHO, asking this sort of question might be just as silly  as looking into a mirror and wonder if  “I am normal or not?”. the annoying thing here is the existing and overwhelming demand to prove it.  A virus-like effect is expected to arrive into theaters next to you; at the work-place (Be Creative), at the coffee shop (Be creative), at the supermarket (Be Creative), at the office (Of course), when drawing dazzling lines while hearing a telephone conversation (Be Creative), when posting in a blog (Be Creative), and so on. Shall we expect a reward?

RAX!

I recently knew about the “Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies“. Which could be a good place to publish things related to WiFi. However, reading it’s aims and scope;

“The Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies (CJCS) is committed to publishing research and scholarship on the analysis of media and culture. The journal pays particular attention to original research related to the Catalan cultural and media systems or to any broader issue in this field of specific interest from a Catalan perspective.

Media, communication and cultural studies have experienced significant growth in Catalonia and the broader Catalan-speaking area. An increasing number of universities now offer courses at degree and Masters level in these fields. Academic activity is flourishing at research centres and departments dedicated to Journalism, Television, Radio, Film, Advertising, Public Relations, Popular Culture and Cultural Studies. CJCS aims to provide an international discussion forum for critical thought and study in these fields.” (extracted from upper link)

I started to wonder whether it is more fruitful for Catalan researchers as well as for Catalan research promoters to encourage people to publish in already existing English journals. [As the journal seems concerned with the reach of an international profile (assuming English as a lingua franca for international researchers).]. I don’t have the answer. But I know that the publish or perish dictate does allow for a lot of superfluous and duplicate communications and papers. Just by the need to publish something. Nevertheless, it is true that a lot of things are being done and little is told about them. But,IMHO, publishing in a Catalan Journal for Catalan readers may not be the best way to reach it’s aim and scope of internationalization. Plus, if something interesting is flourishing out of Catalan media and communication landscape it is certainly not only in Academic grounds. For instance, our resarch draws on guifi.net! who won the catalan 2007 telecommunications national award and was granted membership to the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) and, by the time, had little to do with academia (except most of his members are highly skilled people).

But, hey, it is just a quick thought

meanwhile, I have enjoyed the way these people (DonesTech) have “internationalized” their research about gender inqualities and technology uses (and practices, and plays, and angers, and…) which is great;  see  http://subvideo.tv/player.php?id=88&sv=70 (subtitles available in Catalan, Spansih, English and French) and http://www.donestech.net/ca/doculela_in_words

Enjoy!

RAX!