Tag Archives: information studies

Part 1: The Normative Approach to Citation Indexing

image_thumb[7]-2

This is the first part of three short critiques of citation indexing….

The first theoretical approach to citation indexing is the normative approach. However, much of the discussion around this approach remains fragmented as protagonists of the approach maintain an outlook that assesses normative measures by analysing codes and processes ‘within’ the practice of citing. Cronin (1984, 2) explains that “Implicit in this is the assumption that authors’ citing habits display conformity and consistency.” This view was originally developed by Garfield (1963) who argues for the use of citation indexes as quantitative and valuable if they adhere to scientific principles. The fact that this argument requires codified modes of behaviour demonstrates that the approach looks only at the processes of citing rather than asking questions about the value of citing itself and the motivations that encourage or dictate authors to cite in the first place. Once Kaplan (1965) argued for a citation approach that was sociological in that citations relate to other kinds of social data, Merton (1973) developed the normative approach to include four categories upon which this code can be identified and understood. These include: Universalism; Organised Skepticism; Communism; and Disinterestedness. These four categories were then expanded by Mitroff (1974) to eleven categories.

However, this method of assessing only an implicit code of reference within citation practices ultimately falls victim to hierarchy in which a few elite or powerful authors become dominant players in influencing new research. Whitely (1969, 219) argues that “The formal communication system also forms the basis for the allocation of rewards: instrumental and consummatory. Thus it is a means of exercising social control . . . Publication of an article in an archival journal signifies a degree of recognition for the author, while legitimizing the object of research and methodology.” Thus, the danger of any normative approach that relies on there being established rules or codes of practice that regulates citation practices, is that it is prone to become part of a system of control in which influential academics begin to benefit from a normative approach that acts as a kind of pyramid scheme. Cronin (1984, 12/3) seems to celebrate the concept that “Maverick ideas, or notions which are, scientifically speaking, revolutionary, are thus effectively debarred from the official record of science – the journal archive”. Storer (1966) highlights that citations will continue to be used out of a principle of self-interest in which scientists adhere to the norms because citations are necessary commodities in which colleagues share mutual interest. This monetization of citations is confirmed by Hagstrom (1971) who goes on to argue that citations coincide with the value of grants, funding and university rewards. However, the fact that academics are engaging in a discourse that commonly accepts the commodification of ideas within an education setting is ethically reprehensible. It also demonstrates a lack of real interest in exploring the core value of citation indexes because the academics in question are benefiting from being cited. It can clearly be seen from looking at the literature that there is an acceptance of the monetization of citations as part of normative practice. However, the normative argument is highly fragmentary in that it fails to acknowledge that the citing norms are only compliant to an underlying monetized hierarchy. All the norms do is reinforce a homogenous and hierarchal academic system. The approach cannot claim to be truly normative because the norms are actually imposed.

Mike Sosteric in his essay ‘Endowing Mediocrity’ takes a more holistic approach to the subject as he attempts to expose the narrative that underlies and informs the normative codes in citation analysis. In doing so he gives greater context to some of the above mentioned problems with the normative approach to citation indexes. Sosteric (1999) examines the influence of capitalism and cybernetics on bibliometrics, asserting that citation indexing creates a homogenous narrative that reasserts hierarchy within eduction. Sosteric expands upon Teeple’s (1995, 1) suggestions that the 1980s “signified the beginning of what has been called the triumph of capitalism”. Sosteric (1999) continues to argue that “as a result of the neoliberal push, universities are being colonized, both physically and intellectually, by capital, its representatives, and its ideologies.” What can be seen here is that the normative trends that regulate citation indexing are monopolized by capitalist processes. Senior or established academics at the top of the hierarchy directly benefit from the setting up of normative modes of practice because the more their work is cited, the greater the monetary and symbolic gain. Those less established academics cannot become more visible unless they pay tribute through normative citation practices to the established scholars and universities who exert significant authority over the career trajectories of younger and emerging academics and researchers. In this sense, normative practices within citation indexing is regulated under hegemonic control. And as Boor (1982) points out, it is highly susceptible to manipulation, especially now that it has come under the complete control of cybernetic processes insofar as citation counts can be ‘engineered’ through unfair means in order to create inflated citation scores. Therefore, Nelson (1997, 39) may refer to citation indexing as “academia’s version of applause”, and Grafton (1997, 5) may insist that it is codified by “ideology and technical practices”, but their assessment remains fragmentary. Once we assess the processes of citation from a more holistic approach, we must question the very ideology that is creating such practices and more deeply consider the true value that they have.

References:

Cronin, Blaise (1984), The Citation Process: The Role and Significance of Citations in Scientific Communication, Taylor Graham

Garfield, E. (1963), Citation indexes in sociological research, American Documentation, 14(4), 289-291

Grafton, A. (1997), The Footnote: A Curious History, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Hagstrom, W.O. (1971), Inputs, outputs and the prestige of university science departments, Sociology of Education, 44(4), 375-397

Kaplan, N. (1965), The norms of citation behaviour: prolegomena to the footnote, American Documentation, 16(3), 179 – 184

Merton, R.K. (1973), The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations, Chicago University Press

Mitroff, .I.I. (1974), The subjective side of science: a philosophical inquiry into the psychology of the Apollo moon scientists, Amsterdam: Elsevier

Nelson, P. (1997), Superstars, Academe, 87(1), 38-54

Sosteric, M. (1999). Endowing mediocrity: Neoliberalism, information technology, and the decline of radical pedagogy. Radical Pedagogy. http://www.radicalpedagogy.org/radicalpedagogy.org/Endowing_Mediocrity__Neoliberalism,_Information_Technology,_and_the_Decline_of_Radical_Pedagogy.html

Teeple, Gary (1995). Globalization and the Decline of Social Reform. Toronto: Garamond Press.

Storer, N.W. (1966) The social system of science, New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston

Whitley, R.D. (1969), Communication nets in science: status and citation patterns in animal

Digital Curation & Preservation: At what cost?

brainIt continues to astound me on this MLIS course how many ideas, theories and practices blindly press ahead with the supposed ‘advancement’ of the industry without ever addressing important fundamental questions about the underlying nature, impact and value of the work being undertaken. It also amazes me at how information studies academics continue to theorise while passively ignoring the poststructuralist theory that has been informing many other disciplines uninterrupted for the last 50 years. Reading Helen Shenton’s work has left me no less bemused.

Digital curation and preservation takes as its starting point the mantra ‘we must preserve’ without ever asking whether or not it is right, or indeed valuable to preserve. Poststructuralism has worked hard to ensure that history and culture are not controlled as homogenous entities, but digital curation is now threatening to undo much of that good work. Poststructuralism is a theory of language that denies words as static culture building objects, and instead views language as a highly dispersive subjective heterogenous experience. It is the theory that underlies so much of our achievements in the last 50 years. It lead to the feminist movement, to the reconceptualisation of history as a discipline, and to the destruction of periodisation in literature. With real world artifacts we still have the potential to make new discoveries about the past. However, with born-digital objects which only have a lifespan of up to 25 years, we will not have the capacity to re-write the past through new discoveries. As a result, the digital curators of today are essentially the historians of tomorrow. The files that they choose to save will create a static history that cannot be questioned in the future. Howard Zinn, a postmodern historian argued that history has traditionally been written by those who win wars. Digital Curation, which is funded by governments or private organizations, is in danger of destroying the culture it is aiming to preserve in what could be become a Big Brother like scenario.

imperialism

Helen Shenton’s work in ‘Virtual reunification, virtual preservation and enhanced conservation’ focuses on the digitisation of dispersed works. It is in many ways a hugely interesting project, but it needs to be taken to question about its real underlying value. It is disturbing that Shenton’s work has as its goal ‘reunification’. This word summons forth a whole litany of other terms like ’empire’, ‘colonisation’, ‘power’, ‘race’, ‘slavery’ and ‘control’ to name but a few. This word inherently references imperialism at a time when the breaking apart of the United kingdom has become a real possibility in the near future. The fact that some important texts exist in a dispersed format is in itself culturally significant because it is indicative of the breaking apart of empire itself. Bringing these texts together has the potential to create a false narrative and a homogenous cultural discourse, and in this sense Shenton, like many of her contemporary information professionals, uses an outmoded form of structuralism to inform her ideas. She argues, in relation to the Sinaiticus Project, that it requires ‘the production of an historical account of the document’ that needs to be objective. The very idea that a homogenous ‘objective’ narrative is being added to these documents is a regulating process that ignores the lessons learned in the arts through poststructuralism. Structuralism is also implicitly referenced in the layer of information in the form of digital links over the manuscripts, which again inherently asserts control and authority over the material. Shenton has not stopped to ask what is the cost of such a project. Nor has she asked why the British Library feel as though they have the right to oversee the reunification of material from different cultures around the world.

The British Library is not only collecting material, but they are seeking to play a role in culture building. I thought the function of a library was to provide non-judgemental access to information. Shenton talks about ‘enhancing’ culture through diplomacy insofar as cultural diplomacy can play a role in international relations. It shows that there is an implicit and dangerous politics behind these preservation projects. Questions need to be posed regarding for whom is the British Library attempting to play a role in international relations and to what end? This project seems to be going beyond simply collecting material, but is ‘using’ material to re-tell an old story of empire. It feeds into an attempt by governments to create and control fake grand narratives. Howard Zinn’s principle of postmodern history was a way of challenging power by telling history through dispersed narratives. Shenton’s digitisation project runs the risk of more easily cutting off avenues to the past for us here in the present, but more dangerously, for people in the future. It poses the danger of manipulating information in ways that reassert a new kind of imperialism, a new homogeny of information, and an oppressive future in which subjectivity is no longer valued.

01thegrandnarrative

IT = Innovative Management System or Panoptic Hegemonic Control

21st_Century_Panopticism_by_colinharbut

Fatat Bouraad, in ‘The Emerging Operations Manager’, puts forward the thesis that the increasing reliance on IT services and IT skills based staff needs a framework in order to develop new methods of management. This is because as IT becomes more prevalent, new methods of observing, evaluating and managing staff also emerges, allowing for shifts in management styles. However, I think it is important to ask whether we are managing staff through IT, or whether IT is becoming a mechanism for a more totalitarian style of management in which the machine allows for an even more strict top down management style?

I recently read an article by Mike Sosteric called ‘Endowing Mediocrity’ in which the author posits that IT in all forms comes from an increasingly prevalent surveillance culture within business, education and social media forms of expression. This surveillance is of course facilitated more easily through the use of IT, but rather than creating a more flat structure, it tends more towards a deceitful panopticism. Sosteric (1999) argues that “Panoptic systems thus function as systems of behavioural and ideational (hegemonic) manipulation and control.” So Bouraad may argue that IT allows for greater efficiency and a tendency towards a flat system, but he also argues for a framework through which this flat system should operate which is somewhat contradictory. There needs to be an understanding that as we move more into the realms of IT based systems, that all of our actions are constantly under surveillance by the hierarchy that we work within.

Snapshot 2009-08-07 15-32-18

Furthermore, modern communication systems were actually designed to create greater control over human targets. I use this language deliberately. Norbert Weiner is the father of modern IT based communication systems. He developed these as a way of controlling military missiles during flight so that they could become more accurate. The endgame was always to gain greater control over the end user/ target. The same system is now used in modern computing. In the ‘know how to be’ stage of regulating new operations management theory, Bouraad argues that employees must remain up to date in order to developed a continued propensity towards innovation. However, innovation rarely comes about within an environment of surveillance. Most companies are either trying to control employees or they are attempting to control the consumer habits of targeted customers. Information industries have been contributing to this manipulation of end user increasingly through the spread of Big Data and internet monitoring. These issues do have serious implications for libraries also as they move more towards digital and online forms of dissemination. We should of course embrace the many benefits that IT give us, but we should never lose sight of where this IT has come from and the negative impact it can have on the personal liberty of our information professionals and the public they serve.

Academia, Capitalism and Bibliometrics

Slide3

Many of the ideas/ concepts within academic scholarship are quite simple, however, they are often dressed up in quite complex discourses. This paper aims to reduce Cronin’s article to its more basic ideas and to then assess the validity and relevance of these. It is interesting that the article is framed by the title ‘Symbolic Capitalism’ and yet Cronin never makes explicit reference to the capitalist contradictions inherent in scholarship. All capitalism, no matter what tag or label you add to it, is concerned with a monetary system. Academics cannot claim to be interested only in collecting symbolic status because this status inevitably leads to greater monetary gain. Bibliometrics in this sense is an extension of a longstanding hierarchal system of the ‘economy of attention’ within academia in which politics overshadows the search for truth. Furthermore, Cronin’s semiotic approach cannot really add much value to the debate until he moves it more fully into a promotion of Open Access and Open Source modes of publishing.

Cronin is essentially attempting to validate the value of bibliometrics and citation indexes in assessing the significance of scholarship. It is for this reason that he draws a distinction between “enduring scholarly impact […] and, on the other hand, web-based measures of ‘transient group interest’”. The idea that citation and referencing provides a more relevant account of a scholar’s status than his/her media celebrity is accurate, however, there is no doubt that the two are deeply connected. Scholars sit in university chairs, but they also do consultation work across a wide spectrum of public and private enterprises. They sit on funding allocation committees, on external examining boards, on the boards of private companies and government advisories. They accumulate a media profile in much the same was as they do through bibliometrics and the one informs the other. Those academics at the top of their fields do hold quite a lot of influence over the career trajectory of those who are just entering the hierarchy. Citation in this sense then does not take place on the actual merit of scholarship, but on the necessity to network by acknowledging the work of those academics that might become influential in work being funded, published and promoted.

cartoon

The real contribution that Cronin’s article makes is in his semiotic approach to understanding citation and referencing. He suggests that citations act as signposts within a discipline to authoritative and meaningful scholarship referring to citations as “frozen footprints in the landscape of scholarly achievements.” This is drawn from Saussure’s structuralist approach to linguistics in that, like Saussure, Cronin views language as stable and static as in the structuralist tradition. Following on from this approach, Cronin can argue that citations retain ‘enduring’ characteristics in that they are quantitative in culture building. The problem here is that structuralist models were quickly replaced by post-structuralist principles within which language is no loner seen as permanent, rather, language is seen as dispersive and highly manipulatable. Or more metaphorically speaking, seasons change and alter the shape of those ‘frozen footprints’ if not melting them altogether. The Structuralist approach suits Cronin’s purpose in that he views academia as a closed off community in which cultural norms and significances are established by the participants. However, the politics of academia as mentioned above is one driven by capitalist gain in which citation indexes become a more globalized form of academic hierarchy. This happens because bibliometrics does not change the politics. A young scholar cannot get published within his/her discipline if they write a paper that does not reference the hierarchy of that discipline. Why? Simply because that work will be considered incomplete by the hierarchy itself. Structuralism will tell us that consistent referencing and citation leads to more authority in assessing an author’s contribution to a discipline. But post-structuralism will be highly suspicious of this word-game in that language becomes a tool of hierarchal control over a discipline to allow established scholars earn more money. Culture then is simply a construct of hierarchy.

In this sense, it does not really matter how Cronin dresses up bibliometrics in semiotic garb. It may add to the ways in which citations and references produce meaning, but only insofar as this meaning is retained within a closed academic framework. But of course, Cronin is acutely aware of this closed community and, in fact, supports it. He acknowledges that bibliometrics is playing a role in commodifying academia and that academia has always been a commodity. He goes so far as to compare scholarship citations to the stock exchange. It is in this sense that he draws on Stanley Fish’s idea of ‘interpretative communities’. Fish in particular relies on a kind of ‘ganging up’ in forming community. His theory posits that readers do come to a consensus about what texts mean. However, this consensus is often dictated by those within a hierarchy that wield more power. This issue is even more acute within a closed community group such as an academic discipline community within which scholars are clamoring for university chairs and research funding, and now, positions on citation indexes. In actual fact, Cronin’s use of Reader-response is antithetical to his structuralist approach. Fish is indeed a Reader-response proponent, but Reader-response theory is itself a highly dispersed field of study with often contradictory ideas contained within it. Cronin’s use of the term is far too general to be meaningful. In any case, Fish’s ‘interpretative communities’ don’t adapt very well to academia. This is because it is extremely difficult for those outside of academia to become contributors to meaning within it and the core tenet of reader-response is that more readers build greater consensus. This is because of the inaccessibility to academic scholarship and journals. These are expensive to access and are usually only subscribed to by interested bodies such as universities and research institutes. In order for, say, an internet blogger to enter the debate, they would have to somehow gain access to scholarship. A subscription to just one discipline in Jstor, for example, costs more than $6000 per year. And Jstor is only one of very many journals.

Finally, the structuralist approach adopted by Cronin, coupled with reader-response theory does allow Cronin to open up a new way of assessing and conceptualizing the validity of citation and referencing indexes. However, his essay really only moves to reassert the status quo within a hierarchal academic system. I believe that an adoption of post-structuralist theories, coupled with a move towards Open Access and Open Source scholarship is the only way of achieving scholarly work and a bibliometrics that is truly meaningful based on the merits of the work and not its political/ monetary motives. But this idea would not work within Cronin’s framework of ‘Symbolic Capitalism’ because it would deny direct monetary reward for academic scholarship and would open scholarship up to a new world of scholars that exist outside of the university/ research system, thus dispersing homogenous hierarchal systems and allowing real innovation to emerge through new contexts. This is self-evident in Cronin’s essay because his work is written for a traditional academic audience who might not be so quick to read it if it had put forward a pro-open access argument. I believe maintaining the status quo is one reason why scholars are quick to distinguish the ‘impact’ of altmetrics from the more ‘enduring’ effect of bibliometrics.

[Perhaps we should cease citing and referencing altogether, as a protest against ‘Academic Capitalism’]

Leadership and Organizations with an Anarchist ‘Soul’

Mathew R. Fairholm in his article ‘Leadership and Organizational Strategy’ makes a clear distinction between ‘strategic planning’ and ‘strategic thinking’, the latter being more concerned with a downward focus on ensuring that employees throughout the company understand the values and purpose of the company as a whole, thereby leaving them with a greater sense of connection to the company or institute. In this sense, strategic thinking leans more towards leadership than traditional management. Fairholm’s theory is particularly interesting in that he emphasises the leader’s abilities to ‘see and feel’ important issues within a company. It is a theory that promotes a great deal of trust between employees and the company. In a more practical sense, the best experiences I have had in my 10 year teaching career have taken place in schools/ companies that I have had a trusting relationship with. This is because this trust allowed me to connect more to the companies’ ethos.

calvin_anarchism

Given my interest in postmodern discourses, I am particularly impressed with the ‘Why-What-How Approach’ to strategic thinking. Postmodernism is inherently concerned with the dispersal of homogenous discourses and the ‘Why-What-How Approach’ sees the world as non-linear allowing organizations to focus on its relationship with the whole. Leadership in this sense gives an organization more ‘soul’ in that the dispersion of homogeneity allows, in a self-consciously contradictory postmodern sense, for the organization to have greater identity from top to bottom. I recently listened to a lecture by Simon Sinek in which he repeated the mantra which he believes allows some companies to succeed when equally strong competitors fail: ‘it’s not what you do, it’s how you do it’. Sinek argues that a company’s belief in itself is its greatest marketing tool. In this regard, strategic thinking that allows all employees to feed into the belief system of the organization only adds to the organization’s purpose. Employees then, add to the ‘values’ of the company/ institute rather than only to its objectives, thus allowing them to become more connected and involved.

what_is_anarchism__by_shanethayer-d5clpx0

In many ways, Fairholm’s reference to the unleashing of information over the controlling of it, along with his principle of working with ‘unmeasurables’ reminds me of ‘Anarcho-syndicalism’. I don’t want to turn readers away with the mentioning of Anarchism (I wish they had named it something less aggressive!), a term which does carry a lot of negative reactionary connotations. Anarcho-sydicalism supports the idea that workers should be self-managing and that they should be empowered to make decisions within an organization independently of hierarchy. This is because all decisions that they make for the organization directly affects themselves. Allowing workers to have this kind of empowerment is perhaps the most effective way of allowing them to add ‘values’ to the organization as a whole, to connect to it, believe in it, and to essentially give it ‘soul’.

Sources

Fairholm, Mathew R., ‘Leadership and Organization Planning’, The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 14(1), 2009, article 3.

Sinek, Simon, ‘How Great Leaders Inspire Action’, http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action?language=en

Environment, Hierarchy and Cultural Stagnation

Culture 3

Chapter two of Management Basics for Information Professionals by Evans and Alire (2013) examines the ways in which an organization’s environment influences behavior. I noticed a pervading trend within the chapter’s discussion of libraries as organization, and that trend is that all environments are retained within a hierarchal structure based around the external and parent environments. I can certainly see how a public or educational library could be considered as ‘placid-clustered’ in terms of it adopting long term goals with some short term objectives that are determined by environmental factors. However, I can also see how this kind of structure may well be limiting within a library also. Long term goals tend to be quite rigid and strict and I think there is a danger of suppressing innovation in so far as the manager is rigidly focused on the pre-established long term goals. In times of a funding lull, this may well mean that a long term project may need to be paused. An example of the negative impact that this strategy can have was given by Katherine McSharry of National Library when she spoke to our class about pausing the digitization project of photographs in Ireland. There is always the danger in an ever-diversifying information age, that long term goals blind organizations to more innovative opportunities.

I say this in agreement with Childs and the anti-environmental argument. It seems to me that a major flaw in many organizations is that they see themselves as subordinate to the ‘whole’, or parent/ external organization. However, there is scope within any organization to influence and shape the whole to the demands and innovations of the organization itself. I think the concept of relevance is important here. The parent organization would like to find ways of operating that are more efficient and effective. Libraries should not wait for the parent company to set the parameters of policy, but should look to find ways to influence the external environment. Companies have often been revolutionized by innovation that has taken place within just one small department.

I think the fact that culture is mentioned in this chapter is interesting. In many ways, there is a defeatist mentality involved in many discussions of culture in which culture is seen as something unchangeable. All too often we throw our hands up in the air and say ‘that’s just the culture!’. There is a sense in this chapter that playing with cultural norms is too dangerous for managers to contemplate, as though all culture is inherently good. I have worked in organizations that have been destroyed by an adherence to negative cultural norms. As someone who has taught English Literature at third level, I am always amazed at the collections of English Literature in university libraries. There are usually hundreds, if not thousands of books gathering dust on the shelves of academic libraries. Many of these books are wasted. Examine the curriculum of UCD’s Department of English in relation to the library’s collection of literary texts. I think 80% of those books will never be read by any students or staff at UCD. But there is a culture within libraries to hang on to and accumulate objects. Maybe many books were donated by a sponsor and the library feels obligated to retain the books on the shelves even if they are not useful? It is useful to ask how much waste exists in our libraries as a result of culture. How could that space be used in ways that are more useful? Could the opening of that space lead to more innovative use of it that might alter the environment (internal & external) for the good of the library and the parent organization? Culture, if seen as a homogenous unwavering influence can be highly destructive to an organization’s development. However, I believe that if it is seen as a heterogenous malleable condition that we can move away from its limiting influence on our learning environments.

Not-so Flat Management?

Today’s post focuses on the main ideas contained within Chapter 14 of Management Basics for Information Professionals by Evans and Alire. The chapter begins with the assertion that younger generations are more likely to engage in teamwork based on a more inclusive, team-centred upbringing. This is an idea that I would like to return to in a few moments and to discuss in relation to a social media generation.

However, before I do that, it is important to give an outline of Evans and Alire’s position in this essay. They put forward the argument that teamwork is more productive and effective than traditional management styles, so long as the teamwork is organised and set up effectively. This means that a clear goal needs to be established at the beginning of the task by an external team manager; that team members need to be then selected according to their skills, attitudes towards team work and their personal characteristics; once the team is selected, they then need to undergo some training to ensure that they communicate effectively, that they give feedback in an open, honest and transparent way, that they understand the concepts of accountability and empowerment, and finally that they are prepared to collaborate effectively within a team rewards system.

I am not going to go into the chapter details any further, but part of the argument is that this kind of structure should see traditional top-down management being replaced by a ‘flat’ system in which people collaborate on collective goals. However, I can’t help but to think that the model outlined by Evans and Alire is not so flat after all. I mean, it seems to me that there is a lot of management and organisation required to set up a team project. I would argue that their model is certainly ‘flatter’ than traditional models, but it is still highly structured and systematic at the same time, perhaps representing a more tightly packed hierarchy rather than an actual flat system. I am not altogether sure that a truly flat system is possible within an institution in that institutions rely quite heavily on pre-established rules and regulations.

Of course, as someone who is interested in postmodernism, I do believe that a flat system works best, but one in which true autonomy is granted to a group. This can perhaps only really happen with a new start-up company in which the parameters have not already been set; I believe there are many tech companies that qualify, as well as the open source movement. Teams within institutions are always working within certain parameters. Institutions can of course change the rules a little, but they never throw the rule book away. I don’t disagree with Evans and Alire. Their model certainly would work best within an already structured organisation, hence the need for so much planning and organising of human resources. Their essay needs to be considered within this context rather than seen as a truly flat model. However it is assessed, Evans and Alire’s model still retains an external manager who in turn may well be subordinate to a top-level manager also. Hierarchy still exists and the external manager is still responsible. If the team fails, then there will be questions as to whether or not it was set up effectively. The team of course will always be aware of this and so will, perhaps, not be as accountable as the external manager may like. It is a flatter hierarchy, but a hierarchy all the same.

taylorism

 

I would like now to return to the idea that younger generations are more prone to succeed at teamwork than their older counterparts. Younger generations certainly are more comfortable with the idea of community if we consider the range of social media that they/we (I am 33, do I count!?) engage with. But at the same time, is this really community? And does such social network community really prepare people for collaborative efforts?

Social media definitely does help people to connect, and does so while increasing cultural sensitivity and inclusiveness. But then again, think about the nature of social media. Most sites (twitter, Instagram, WordPress, etc.) are set up for people to become followers. Even Facebook’s ‘friends’ does not truly mimic a professional team in that you very often, within an organisation, do not get to choose your team. Is this model really conducive to being part of a team? I believe that Evans and Alire are promoting a team within which people do not simply follow, but who become co-leaders in the completing of a task. Social media ventures usually have people only engaging on a superficial, surface level. These platforms really lack the depth of personality that is required for effective teamwork.

I accept that Evans and Alire did not mention social media in their examples, but it is interesting to consider whether or not, as social media becomes more and more apart of how we connect, whether it is fostering individual innovation and responsibility, or whether it is simply another part of the ‘brain-drain’ of technology.