This could be the penultimate post on this site. The PhD is in the bag, quite literally, for tomorrow morning I'll pick up the hard-bound copies from Joule library thesis binding service.
It's been quite a while since I last blogged. Almost two years. A symptom of being incredibly busy while finally rolling my sleeves up and writing the damn thesis. Regrettably, it came a little late, my funding ran out at the end of year 3 (autumn 2009) and rather unwisely I had to do most of my write-up in year 4 (2010). A lot happened in the run-up to autumn 2009, much of which was recorded on a blog elsewhere, but that's another story.
Whilst half-way through the write-up I thought paid employment would be a good thing and got myself a think tank policy wonk job. A year on, much blood, sweat and tears later, I can finally call myself a doctor. I don't think I was great company in the last 12 months or so, the pressure of it all got the best of me. But here we are, on the other side of the PhD experience.
In the last month or so I started in my new two-job arrangement. One with my old department at the university to pursue my academic interests, the other with the think thank. Consequently, I have no spare time to speak of and one really shouldn't continue like this for too long.
The PhD experience taught me a very important thing. Life is for living.
Thursday 16 June 2011
Wednesday 5 August 2009
Is there anything new about the Network Society?
My understanding of Castells' argument about the Network Society is that it triggers 'spatial transformation'.
The "new urban world" seems to be dominated by the double movement of inclusion into transterritorial networks and exclusion by the spatial separation of places. The higher the value of people and places, the more they are connected into interactive networks. The lower their value, the lower their connection.
The argument goes on, the networked people can by-pass the "local" thanks to their interconnectedness into these value-rich networks from which they benefit and from which the underprivileged are excluded.
"Gated communities", for example, are a manifestation of the Information Age insofar as they signal a "spatial separation" in the "space of places".
Value in our Information Society is increasinly transmitted and exchanged, or traded, via electronic networks that epitomise the "space of flows". The financial industry (and their infamous "masters of the universe" - most of whom are currently in hiding after the credit crunch) is a good example of what goes on in our world. The GDPs of certain metropolitan areas, such as New York, Paris and London exceed the GDPs of many sizeable nations (Brazil, Australia and Sweden respectively) (Graham, 2004).
Whilst hypothetically any place could have the connectivity in terms of infrastructure to facilitate the electronic exchanges required for economic success, why is it that only a handful of areas are "sticky" in that cash sticks to these elite "metropolitan heartlands". Low value activity, such as call centres, experience the "death of distance" thanks to ICTs, and are geographically removed from the place of consumption, but high-value activity, such as practised at the London Stock Exchange, remain in the central business districts of a handful of 'global cities'.
But what is new about this? Isn't this just another way of saying that the rich benefit from many privileges, whilst the poor have less choice? Is the Information Age adding anything new to this age old truth? And the argument about the select few places where all the money is made seems to support the view that "money goes to money". If the distribution of capital was less biased, we would be speaking of the Death of Capitalism, not the Death of Distance. Frankly, I can't see either showing any signs of fatal wounds.
"What about crowd sourcing, or the so-called long tail of the economy?" you might ask. Wasn't that supposed to transform the way the world works? Some people think the way Obama's political campaign was funded signaled a change in the realities of political economy.
I remain sceptical. Ok. Maybe there is potentially a lot of potential. I don't have to spell out what potential potential means, do I?
The "new urban world" seems to be dominated by the double movement of inclusion into transterritorial networks and exclusion by the spatial separation of places. The higher the value of people and places, the more they are connected into interactive networks. The lower their value, the lower their connection.
The argument goes on, the networked people can by-pass the "local" thanks to their interconnectedness into these value-rich networks from which they benefit and from which the underprivileged are excluded.
"Gated communities", for example, are a manifestation of the Information Age insofar as they signal a "spatial separation" in the "space of places".
Value in our Information Society is increasinly transmitted and exchanged, or traded, via electronic networks that epitomise the "space of flows". The financial industry (and their infamous "masters of the universe" - most of whom are currently in hiding after the credit crunch) is a good example of what goes on in our world. The GDPs of certain metropolitan areas, such as New York, Paris and London exceed the GDPs of many sizeable nations (Brazil, Australia and Sweden respectively) (Graham, 2004).
Whilst hypothetically any place could have the connectivity in terms of infrastructure to facilitate the electronic exchanges required for economic success, why is it that only a handful of areas are "sticky" in that cash sticks to these elite "metropolitan heartlands". Low value activity, such as call centres, experience the "death of distance" thanks to ICTs, and are geographically removed from the place of consumption, but high-value activity, such as practised at the London Stock Exchange, remain in the central business districts of a handful of 'global cities'.
But what is new about this? Isn't this just another way of saying that the rich benefit from many privileges, whilst the poor have less choice? Is the Information Age adding anything new to this age old truth? And the argument about the select few places where all the money is made seems to support the view that "money goes to money". If the distribution of capital was less biased, we would be speaking of the Death of Capitalism, not the Death of Distance. Frankly, I can't see either showing any signs of fatal wounds.
"What about crowd sourcing, or the so-called long tail of the economy?" you might ask. Wasn't that supposed to transform the way the world works? Some people think the way Obama's political campaign was funded signaled a change in the realities of political economy.
I remain sceptical. Ok. Maybe there is potentially a lot of potential. I don't have to spell out what potential potential means, do I?
Friday 26 June 2009
"England is a very odd place" says Adrian Wooster from Community Broadband Network
So we discover that there is a certain urban advantage in England, which theoretically should benefit the majority of us (because ~60% of us live in densely populated areas). Us urban dwellers have a fighting chance of commercial development of next generation broadband (read: fibre). But - oh alas! BT owns an exclusive network of ducts in the ground in these urban areas, and there remains space within those ducts to accommodate fibre optic cables, so why would anyone want to take the risk and borrow a shedload of money to start digging up streets when BT could then (finally) decide to make a move? A bit anti-competitive, methinks.
Adrian Wooster Manch Euro
View more documents from Adrian Wooster.
Saturday 20 June 2009
"The internet is as vital as water and gas" (Gordon Brown, 2009)
In a guest pen piece for the Times, The Prime Minister spoke in favour of rolling out "superfast broadband" because it "must benefit us all, business and consumers alike, in every part of the country". Who would disagree with that? Everyone sings from the same hymn sheet when it comes to the benefits of broadband access.
It is now, as the PM puts it, "as vital as water and gas".
Being an aspiring academic, I must problematise this argument. I would say that the internet is not as vital as water and gas, not just yet anyway, but it WILL BE as vital because services (such as seen in the field of e-health) are migrating to the online environment. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Not in the too distant future, it is bad for your health, wealth and wellbeing not to have broadband at home. Your local services have all but closed, so if you can't do it online you probably face a considerable trek to wherever those services are discharged in a place-bound (old) fashion. There already are services which are delivered online only (not in the public sector though).
You won't know what's going on in your family or circle of friends unless you are part of their online social networks where they post their holiday pictures and their children's first utterings. Your employer, which could be a local authority even, might have forced to you work from home because your former work space is required for hot desking and you can only use it 2.5 days a week. Your colleagues have all opted for individualised patterns of work so you rarely see them for a catch-up, unless you chat to them online of course.
When did I become an internet pessimist? This is an inopportune time for me to adopt such dystopian views - having just upgraded my mobile phone to Nokia N96 which equips me with both 3G and wifi connectivity in the pocket (or handbag, more like).
That having said, I don't have gas or electricity in my handbag but water I do carry with me regularly.
It is now, as the PM puts it, "as vital as water and gas".
Being an aspiring academic, I must problematise this argument. I would say that the internet is not as vital as water and gas, not just yet anyway, but it WILL BE as vital because services (such as seen in the field of e-health) are migrating to the online environment. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Not in the too distant future, it is bad for your health, wealth and wellbeing not to have broadband at home. Your local services have all but closed, so if you can't do it online you probably face a considerable trek to wherever those services are discharged in a place-bound (old) fashion. There already are services which are delivered online only (not in the public sector though).
You won't know what's going on in your family or circle of friends unless you are part of their online social networks where they post their holiday pictures and their children's first utterings. Your employer, which could be a local authority even, might have forced to you work from home because your former work space is required for hot desking and you can only use it 2.5 days a week. Your colleagues have all opted for individualised patterns of work so you rarely see them for a catch-up, unless you chat to them online of course.
When did I become an internet pessimist? This is an inopportune time for me to adopt such dystopian views - having just upgraded my mobile phone to Nokia N96 which equips me with both 3G and wifi connectivity in the pocket (or handbag, more like).
That having said, I don't have gas or electricity in my handbag but water I do carry with me regularly.
Friday 5 June 2009
About the current crisis in government
Well I'm not sure actually that it is a crisis, as crises by definition should be sudden, unforeseen with some kind of immediate and severe impact on things in the short term. Take the economic crisis for example. Banks went under. People lost jobs. It was tangible. It was a crisis. People didn't see it coming. It was a shock to the system, like a decent crisis should be.
But the current crisis in government? That has been ongoing since the undemocratic appointment of Mr Brown as PM, following the long overdue departure of Mr Blair. There has been speculation and calls for the PM's beheading ever since, to the point of it becoming a bit boring. The Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee has been urging Labour to have a leadership contest for longer than I care to remember, and some sacrificial lambs in government have jumped ship along the way, crying out loud their disquiet about Mr Brown's leadership in their 15 seconds of coverage in the main news, soon forgotten about.
So now some more senior people have jumped ship (e.g. Smith, Blears, Purnell, Hutton). But the rebels have not been joined by the "presidential guards" as pointed out in the Guardian today. A revolt now is not a real threat to Mr Brown's premiership. By contrast, the next election will be. Polly, you have ask yourself, who in their right mind would want to take the Labour Party to the next general election? Gordon Brown, obviously, and the senior types are going to let him. Why would they want to be the leader for a few months only to lose the imminent election and get blamed for the defeat? Oh no, they're going to allow Mr Brown take the full hit. Alan Johnson, Toynbee's favourite leader-in-waiting, has emerged as the new Home Secretary in the current reshuffle.
My main problem is that it looks like we're going to have to live with a popular conservative administration for a while anyway, and that's not cricket.
But the current crisis in government? That has been ongoing since the undemocratic appointment of Mr Brown as PM, following the long overdue departure of Mr Blair. There has been speculation and calls for the PM's beheading ever since, to the point of it becoming a bit boring. The Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee has been urging Labour to have a leadership contest for longer than I care to remember, and some sacrificial lambs in government have jumped ship along the way, crying out loud their disquiet about Mr Brown's leadership in their 15 seconds of coverage in the main news, soon forgotten about.
So now some more senior people have jumped ship (e.g. Smith, Blears, Purnell, Hutton). But the rebels have not been joined by the "presidential guards" as pointed out in the Guardian today. A revolt now is not a real threat to Mr Brown's premiership. By contrast, the next election will be. Polly, you have ask yourself, who in their right mind would want to take the Labour Party to the next general election? Gordon Brown, obviously, and the senior types are going to let him. Why would they want to be the leader for a few months only to lose the imminent election and get blamed for the defeat? Oh no, they're going to allow Mr Brown take the full hit. Alan Johnson, Toynbee's favourite leader-in-waiting, has emerged as the new Home Secretary in the current reshuffle.
My main problem is that it looks like we're going to have to live with a popular conservative administration for a while anyway, and that's not cricket.
Thursday 9 April 2009
It Is Not Easy To Set Alight a Van
But, fear not, the people of Levenshulme have good skills and will rise to such a challenge no bother.
Last night I was woken up by the sound of a fire engine about 30 yards from my bedroom window extinguishing the handiwork of Levenshulme's finest.
Ironically, this followed my efforts in the community front earlier in the day by organising a screening of the environmentally-conscious film WALL-E at a local primary school. I personally applied for a cash grant from the city council for this event, thinking it would be a good thing to do when the kids are bored during school holidays. The sponsporship enabled us to throw in a nice buffet for everyone afterwards.
Speaking to the Police Community Support Officer this morning who knocked on my door to ask if I had seen anything, I wanted to know if it was just a random act of vandalism. "We're treating it as such" the PCSO replied.
Yesterday's lessons are two-fold:
- yes, the kids ARE bored during school holidays
- no, organising an event will not make a blind bit of difference because it's all the good kids who come, the bad ones will be out and about trying to get their hands on petrol and other supplies required for a succesfull van-cum-bonfire.
Last night I was woken up by the sound of a fire engine about 30 yards from my bedroom window extinguishing the handiwork of Levenshulme's finest.
Ironically, this followed my efforts in the community front earlier in the day by organising a screening of the environmentally-conscious film WALL-E at a local primary school. I personally applied for a cash grant from the city council for this event, thinking it would be a good thing to do when the kids are bored during school holidays. The sponsporship enabled us to throw in a nice buffet for everyone afterwards.
Speaking to the Police Community Support Officer this morning who knocked on my door to ask if I had seen anything, I wanted to know if it was just a random act of vandalism. "We're treating it as such" the PCSO replied.
Yesterday's lessons are two-fold:
- yes, the kids ARE bored during school holidays
- no, organising an event will not make a blind bit of difference because it's all the good kids who come, the bad ones will be out and about trying to get their hands on petrol and other supplies required for a succesfull van-cum-bonfire.
Sunday 1 March 2009
The tangled web of social networks
If you are reading this, then you probably have also heard about the recent debate on the health warnings about the extensive use of web 2.0 by our youngsters. The storm that raged about the use of social networking sites in particular took place in a teacup called the House of Lords, whipped up largely by one Baroness Greenfield .
You will not be surprised that the Daily Mail jumped on the bandwagon to broadcast the headline “Social websites harm children's brains: Chilling warning to parents from top neuroscientist“
Nor will it surprise you that the scientific evidence to support this claim has since been brought into question, and indeed Catherine Bennett had a go at Baroness Greenfield on the Comment page in the Observer today.
The problem I have with the entire debate is that of course the liberal front will attack the Baroness for expressing such “antiquated” opinions and borderline prejudice towards technology - that is the cool stance to take. And the House of Lords is an easy target. It is uncool, and just so 20th century, to be a sceptic when it comes to the infiltration of modern ICTs into our daily lives.
Simultaneously (paradoxically), it is hip to be very critical indeed of the use of ICTs by governments and the diffusion of (mass surveillance) technology. The division of labour in this debate is such that the cool kids warn us of “the erosion of freedoms” whilst the government officialdom are seen as the crude Orwellian technocrats who in their endless pursuit for more power (of information) will drain society of civil liberties (read about it here).
To point out the paradox, in case you wondered what it was, those who defend web 2.0 and social networking will happily plaster personal information about themselves all over the net, whilst concerns have been raised in another “cool camp” about the exploitation of this giant pool of data (volunteered by individuals) for commercial purposes (or indeed for something altogether more sinister). In fact, my own recent status update alerted fellow facebookers to this piece of news. (erm, no one batted an eyelid)
Make what you wish of this debate, or choose a side even. What I am going to do instead is to add another, a rather more blogite, layer to it.
I want talk about the perils of social networking, not because I believe that it is going to “rewire your brain” (which is what Baroness Greenfield would have you believe) and therefore make you suffer from permanent ADHD. Nor because it looks like facebook might sell the right to access your personal information to faceless multinationals.
The subject of this post, admittedly after a lengthy introduction, is the potential personal cost of exposure to online social networks. I am about to discuss some observations made since giving up on my resistance to join the facebook frenzy back in October 2007.
A personal and well, yes, at times funny, article by Georgina Hobbs-Meyer appeared in the Guardian a while ago about the break-up of one marriage and how it all played out on facebook. Reference was naturally made to the infamous case of Chelsy Davy’s relationship status update. Albeit slightly naively written from the perspective of a 24-year old (/young) woman discovering her husband having an affair with a "younger woman" aged 19 (yes, it's all relative, isn't it?), it made me want to add my tuppence worth on the broader topic of social networking.
Today’s comment in the Observer by Catherine Bennett touches very lightly upon a previously uncharted territory of twittering about the end of your life – something she (surprisingly) attributes to “an older subscriber” - "looking down at my grey motionless body". I was struck by that assumption made about the nearness of death and old age particularly as none of us has been spared from the poor Jade Goody making a very public affair of her terminal cancer.
A friend of mine has become a twitter fan of Stephen Fry, Russell Brand and “Wossy” (who all tweet generously) and therefore I, too, have some exposure to the sort of things these gentlemen choose to broadcast about their daily lives. If Jade Goody was a twitterer (I don’t know if she is) her tweets would surely make a good case study of this emerging concept of web 2.0, social networks, exhibitionism and death. Then again, due to the very nature of web 2.0, there’s no money to be made from twittering your cancer diary (the attention economy has nothing to do with cash exchanging hands) - a fair assumption then that Jade Goody does not twitter, about her illness anyway.
Back to my sentiments/observations about facebook – or should I say fakebook: people post updates and photos portraying an image of them as party animals, looking gorgeous and being on top of the world generally. I heard recently of an encounter where a friend had met someone in the flesh and could not have recognised them on the basis of their profile picture (looking like a sex goddess, the truth being far from it). I, too, know of one or two people who might be guilty of faking it on facebook. That having said, I don’t know of any women who would post an entirely unflattering image of themselves, but there is a distinction to be made between flattering and unrealistic. Mind, once on facebook most of us are exposed to (un)helpful friends tagging us in photos looking… well… realistic.
Georgina Hobbs-Meyer’s account talks about discovering your husband having cyber-sex, thus she writes quite scornfully about the hedonistic side of facebook, and also of the dark side of becoming obsessed with using the tool to consume every bit of information you can about someone else.
In my social network I have witnessed an ex-lover hacking into their former love interest's facebook account and causing havoc. Another person inadvertently disclosed to a number of people through facebook about their recent miscarriage, and for good measure the same thread contained intimate details of her friend’s relationship break down. Not so much a slip of the tongue, but a slip of the finger. Thanks to facebook’s functionality, emails were sent to a whole host of unintended recipients.
The tangled web of social networks is such that it could happen to you - be warned.
You will not be surprised that the Daily Mail jumped on the bandwagon to broadcast the headline “Social websites harm children's brains: Chilling warning to parents from top neuroscientist“
Nor will it surprise you that the scientific evidence to support this claim has since been brought into question, and indeed Catherine Bennett had a go at Baroness Greenfield on the Comment page in the Observer today.
The problem I have with the entire debate is that of course the liberal front will attack the Baroness for expressing such “antiquated” opinions and borderline prejudice towards technology - that is the cool stance to take. And the House of Lords is an easy target. It is uncool, and just so 20th century, to be a sceptic when it comes to the infiltration of modern ICTs into our daily lives.
Simultaneously (paradoxically), it is hip to be very critical indeed of the use of ICTs by governments and the diffusion of (mass surveillance) technology. The division of labour in this debate is such that the cool kids warn us of “the erosion of freedoms” whilst the government officialdom are seen as the crude Orwellian technocrats who in their endless pursuit for more power (of information) will drain society of civil liberties (read about it here).
To point out the paradox, in case you wondered what it was, those who defend web 2.0 and social networking will happily plaster personal information about themselves all over the net, whilst concerns have been raised in another “cool camp” about the exploitation of this giant pool of data (volunteered by individuals) for commercial purposes (or indeed for something altogether more sinister). In fact, my own recent status update alerted fellow facebookers to this piece of news. (erm, no one batted an eyelid)
Make what you wish of this debate, or choose a side even. What I am going to do instead is to add another, a rather more blogite, layer to it.
I want talk about the perils of social networking, not because I believe that it is going to “rewire your brain” (which is what Baroness Greenfield would have you believe) and therefore make you suffer from permanent ADHD. Nor because it looks like facebook might sell the right to access your personal information to faceless multinationals.
The subject of this post, admittedly after a lengthy introduction, is the potential personal cost of exposure to online social networks. I am about to discuss some observations made since giving up on my resistance to join the facebook frenzy back in October 2007.
A personal and well, yes, at times funny, article by Georgina Hobbs-Meyer appeared in the Guardian a while ago about the break-up of one marriage and how it all played out on facebook. Reference was naturally made to the infamous case of Chelsy Davy’s relationship status update. Albeit slightly naively written from the perspective of a 24-year old (/young) woman discovering her husband having an affair with a "younger woman" aged 19 (yes, it's all relative, isn't it?), it made me want to add my tuppence worth on the broader topic of social networking.
Today’s comment in the Observer by Catherine Bennett touches very lightly upon a previously uncharted territory of twittering about the end of your life – something she (surprisingly) attributes to “an older subscriber” - "looking down at my grey motionless body". I was struck by that assumption made about the nearness of death and old age particularly as none of us has been spared from the poor Jade Goody making a very public affair of her terminal cancer.
A friend of mine has become a twitter fan of Stephen Fry, Russell Brand and “Wossy” (who all tweet generously) and therefore I, too, have some exposure to the sort of things these gentlemen choose to broadcast about their daily lives. If Jade Goody was a twitterer (I don’t know if she is) her tweets would surely make a good case study of this emerging concept of web 2.0, social networks, exhibitionism and death. Then again, due to the very nature of web 2.0, there’s no money to be made from twittering your cancer diary (the attention economy has nothing to do with cash exchanging hands) - a fair assumption then that Jade Goody does not twitter, about her illness anyway.
Back to my sentiments/observations about facebook – or should I say fakebook: people post updates and photos portraying an image of them as party animals, looking gorgeous and being on top of the world generally. I heard recently of an encounter where a friend had met someone in the flesh and could not have recognised them on the basis of their profile picture (looking like a sex goddess, the truth being far from it). I, too, know of one or two people who might be guilty of faking it on facebook. That having said, I don’t know of any women who would post an entirely unflattering image of themselves, but there is a distinction to be made between flattering and unrealistic. Mind, once on facebook most of us are exposed to (un)helpful friends tagging us in photos looking… well… realistic.
Georgina Hobbs-Meyer’s account talks about discovering your husband having cyber-sex, thus she writes quite scornfully about the hedonistic side of facebook, and also of the dark side of becoming obsessed with using the tool to consume every bit of information you can about someone else.
In my social network I have witnessed an ex-lover hacking into their former love interest's facebook account and causing havoc. Another person inadvertently disclosed to a number of people through facebook about their recent miscarriage, and for good measure the same thread contained intimate details of her friend’s relationship break down. Not so much a slip of the tongue, but a slip of the finger. Thanks to facebook’s functionality, emails were sent to a whole host of unintended recipients.
The tangled web of social networks is such that it could happen to you - be warned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)