Follow me on Twitter

For my blog readers,

You can follow me on Twitter @tryreason.  I regularly tweet about web development, with occasional tweets on productivity, economics, philosophy, science, and other cool stuff. 

I call this research.  No seriously!  I'm starting a research project on using social media in business.  In order to fully understand the platforms, I have to actively engage in them.  Don't worry, I'm not collecting any data from this profile ;)

Another MIS major

A couple weeks ago I was snagged by the assistant dean while walking down the hall.  She wanted me to talk with a bright young student interested in the MIS degree.  So myself, the assistant dean, and the associate dean (all MIS faculty), spent 30 minutes answering the student's questions about MIS in general, our program, and job opportunities.  This week, I received the following note (hand written, no less) in my mailbox.

***********************************
Prof. Drake,
Thank you so much for taking time out of
your schedule on Friday to meet with me
about MIS.  The information you provided
was invaluable and thanks to you, I am
strongly considering changing my major to
MIS.

Thanks again,
[name withheld]
***********************************

Apparently, what we said had an impact.  Looks like we might have another MIS major starting next fall at ECU! 

Research in universities - the good and bad

I've heard a number of folks condemn research at universities.  They say that they publish or perish institutions with little to no emphasis on teaching.  To some extent they are correct.  But then why has research gained such wide influence in academia?  Indeed, why do research at all?  And where does it go wrong?  Here are my thoughts.

Let's start with the reasons for research:

• Research is necessary to maintain and grow knowledge.  When I research, it is impossible for me to get published unless I stay abreast of what is going on in industry and within academic journals.  I must read tons of articles, discerning who has said what, why it is important, and how it applies to my thoughts and industry.  Research requirements force me to learn.  And as knowledge expands over time, new discoveries often replace old ideas.  By staying current with research, I stay in better touch with reality.
• Research (usually) pushes professors to think objectively and scientifically.   I have received rejections from a number of journals.  Sad, but true.  Often these rejections highlight flaws in my thinking or flaws in the way I present my claims.  While I occasionally disagree with reviewer comments, they have in large been well done.  Their comments push me to improve my research methods, thinking, and writing skills to avoid biases, subjective interpretations, and sloppy writing.
• Research helps verify that a PhD was not an accident, fluke, or an aberration from a diploma mill.  Because let's face it, not all PhD's are equal.  The research requirements at many universities independently verifies a professor's knowledge and ability to think.  By using blind peer-reviewed journal publications, universities can better assess a professor's expertise while avoiding conflicts of interest, confirmation biases, and group think. 
• Related to the previous points, research output becomes a measure of expertise.  This expertise is not always what academics like to pretend it is, as I explain later, but is important in assessing a professor's competence.   It establishes a professor as an expert in their field.

So where do these noble ambitions go wrong.  Let's me start with what I believe every university core mission should be - education.  Surprisingly (or maybe not that surprisingly) that's not always true.  Be that as it may, most of my concerns center around this issue:

• To a large extent, and often contrary to many university missions, research is still emphasized more than teaching.  I have not heard of a single university that requires new faculty to take an introductory course on "how to teach". That's not to say I haven't had some excellent classes on certain techniques and technologies, such as writing in the curriculum and online education technologies. But there has been no single introduction to teaching course required. Even during my interview process, only one school required me to teach a class in front of students. And when it comes to tenure decisions, research can make or break you, but "adequate" teaching skills often suffice.
• Research can often be tangential to what you teach.  This is in part because research is so specialized that its difficult to find topics that readily translate into class topics.  In my web development class, I spend maybe 95-98% of my time talking about technology and business processes that have existed for 10 years or more.  It is important that I do that, so the students understand the fundamentals.  Yet, in most academic journals, 10 years ago is old news and not worthy of publication.  While I do research in the area I teach - web technologies, most of my topics are so specialized that no undergraduates and few graduates could comprehend the topic, much less appreciate the new knowledge. 
• By its nature, research emphasizes depth not breadth of knowledge.  I get zero credit for my background in science, nor my significant reading and understanding of philosophy or economics.  And yet those experiences help me develop examples for class material that integrates knowledge across disciplines, enriching the education experience. 
• Nor do I get credit if I develop an external websites, do significant consulting, or create popular workshops or seminars in my field.  These can all be used as means of demonstrating expertise (assuming I am in demand), but are rarely considered in tenure decisions.  This is unfortunate because often some of the richest learning occurs when doing an activity, not just observing someone else doing an activity.  What better way for a professor to build his understanding of a subject than to actually do it.

Where did things go wrong?  The traditional research paradigm developed when the humanities and hard sciences represented the core of higher eduction.  At the time, research was not as specialized, so new findings were far more applicable to undergraduate and graduate courses.  As universities included more professional development programs, like engineering, business, medicine, and law, scientific research continued to serve as the primary determinate of expertise.  Simulatenously, the basic theories and frameworks became well established, so new research focused on ever more abstract and abtuse subjects. 

There is no question that professors need to deeply understand the concepts in their field (be experts) and universities need verification of that expertise.  Because there are established and rigorous methods for judging expertise, those measures are emphasized.  But who says they cannot adapt new means of measuring expertise.  Let's not forget that establishing expertise is only part of the problem.  Professors need to know which of their fields' core concepts are most important for students to understand. They need to know how best to present those concepts.  And they need to do it effectively.  These pedagogical skills are not adequately emphasized. 

I'm not sure I have an answer to what I see as a dilmema in higher education today.  I certainly see room for more pedagogical research, especially in schools nominally claiming to be "teaching" oriented.  I also think more consideration should be given to establishing objective measures of teaching effectiveness.  The current system of student evaluations is widely known to be useless, yet it persists.  I also see room for more avenues establishing and maintaining expertise within a given field, especially in the business schools where I reside. 

What do you think?

Objectivist Round up

Welcome to the January 19, 2012 edition of Objectivist Round-up.

Objectivism is a philosophy for living on this earth.  For me, that is especially poignant because my grandfather passed away yesterday.  He was a good man who valued his family and treated them accordingly.  A story I heard at my grandmother's funeral (his wife for over 60 years) shows the character of this man.  Please indulge me while I tell it.  On a family vacation many years ago, my grandma, grandpa, dad, and uncles were traveling through Florida and enjoying the warm weather.  My grandma, the always cheerful, caring woman, had one desire on that vacation - to see the sun rise over a particular bridge in Florida.  My grandpa, the matter of fact, focused, purposeful man that he was, wanted to get on the road and driving to the next location as soon as possible.  He packed the car and loaded everyone up at 5 AM, well before sunrise and took off - driving over the bridge where my grandma wanted to watch the sun come up.  As they were nearing the end of the bridge, my grandma was in tears, afraid she was going to miss this one sight she had dreamed of seeing.  My grandpa, seeing her crushed, pulled over to the side of the road and waited for over an hour for the sun to come up.  In spite of his desire to hit the road, he could not stand to see the person he loved most in such pain.  This love was evident throughout their marriage. 

When I think of this story, it reminds me of the importance of maintaining a rational selfishness - of recognizing your highest values and acting accordingly.  It reminds me of staying true to reality, and not pretend that the person sitting next to you is not crying, when in fact they are.  It reminds me love requires the best within us.  In short, it reminds me of why I am an Objectivist.  I will miss him.

I don't wish to usurp the round-up, so here are other great stories and articles by Objectivists.  Read, enjoy, and find that inspiration to be the best that you can be.

Jim Woods presents An Open Letter to Gary Johnson, Libertard for President posted at Words by Woods, saying, "Based upon C-SPAN's series "The Contenders", how can a flawed candidate without a chance of being elected run a campaign that could be historically significant?"

Darius Cooper presents Are Americans spendthrifts? posted at Practice Good Theory, saying, "I look at America's personal savings rate"

Paul Hsieh presents Why Is Creating Value Good, But Profits Bad? posted at We Stand FIRM, saying, "My latest OpEd at RealClearMarkets discusses the morality of making a profit. In a free society, "creating value" and "making a profit" are just two sides of the same coin!"

Rachel Miner presents Trustee from the Toolroom Review posted at The Playful Spirit, saying, "A delightful book which I read after seeing Yaron Brook's recommendation. I share some thoughts that may spur you to give it a try."

Ari Armstrong presents Gary Johnson Can't Save the Libertarian Party posted at Free Colorado, saying, "Gary Johnson can't advance the cause of liberty while running with the Libertarian Party."

Diana Hsieh presents Video: SOPA and Online Piracy posted at NoodleFood, saying, "The "SOPA" and "PIPA" bills currently under consideration would threaten every web site with shut-down, if that web site contains so much as a single link to copyrighted material anywhere. These bills, if passed, would break the fundamental architecture of the internet, and enable Chinese-style censorship of the internet. Watch my webcast discussion, then call and e-mail your representatives!"

Jason Stotts presents The Logical Necessity of the Oxford Comma posted at Erosophia, saying, "The Oxford Comma is not only stylistically necessary, it is logically necessary and its absence can lead to absurdities."

I present SMART Goals and Philosophy posted here, saying, "Objectivism is a philosophy for living, so it should come as little surprise that some industry best practices in goal setting align with Objectivism's ethics and epistemology.  See how." 

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of objectivist round up using our carnival submission form. Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

Share |

Technorati tags: objectivist round up, blog carnival.

SMART goals and philosophy

It's funny how, sometimes, industry best practices align so nicely with Objectivism.  Take goal-setting.  Based on what I understand about Objectivism, I would suspect that an ideal approach would be setting goals that are based on your values, that are clearly identified, that are objectively defined, and do not contradict reality.  How does Objectivism relate industry best standards for goal-setting - to create SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound)?  Below, I discuss specific quotes from Rand that relate to these best practices. 

Any mistakes in this application belong to me and not to Rand.  I'm open to the fact that I might have screwed up, so please help me fix any errors or misunderstandings.

Specific:
Goals implicitly assume that something is changing.  They are changing from one point to another.  Those points can be identified.  What has Rand said about change?

"They proclaim that there is no law of identity, that nothing exists but change, and blank out the fact that change presupposes the concepts of what changes, from what and to what, that without the law of identity no such concept as“change” is possible."

My take: Epistemologically, identity proceeds change.  Is the reverse true?  Do man-made changes depend on conceptual identification.  Not necessarily.  Then again, what exactly are you changing into.  If the point of a goal is to induce change in a certain direction, then we have to know in what direction we are going.  Otherwise, we will only change randomly in any direction.  Based on this fact, if I want to induce change in some direction, I need to clearly identify and specify the end point.  The clearer I can identify that end point, the more focused my actions can be to induce the necessary change.

Measurable:
When setting goals, you are dealing with reality.

"When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in all aspects of human existence, is: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality."

Goals must relate to the facts of reality. This requires objectivity.

"Objectivity begins with the realization that man (including his every attribute and faculty, including his consciousness) is an entity of a specific nature who must act accordingly; that there is no escape from the law of identity, neither in the universe with which he deals nor in the working of his own consciousness, and if he is to acquire knowledge of the first, he must discover the proper method of using the second; that there is no room for the arbitrary in any activity of man, least of all in his method of cognition—and just as he has learned to be guided by objective criteria in making his physical tools, so he must be guided by objective criteria in forming his tools of cognition: his concepts."

How do we determine the specific nature of reality?  Measurement.

"Measurement is the identification of a relationship—a quantitative relationship established by means of a standard that serves as a unit. Entities (and their actions) are measured by their attributes (length, weight, velocity, etc.) and the standard of measurement is a concretely specified unit representing the appropriate attribute. Thus, one measures length in inches, feet and miles—weight in pounds—velocity by means of a given distance traversed in a given time, etc."

My take: From the section on specificity, we see that we must identify the relationship between where we are now and where we want to be.  This identification requires objectivity in defining the relationship, with direct reference to reality.  This relationship is measurable.  While the measurement may be difficult to evaluate, it exists and should be used to verify progress towards a goal.  The measurements should not be arbitrary, but correspond to the necessary conditions of the goal.  This also means that if a goal is not measurable, chances are it has not been objectively defined.  Setting a goal to be a "good reader" is too vague.  What does it mean to be a "good reader"?  The practical effect of non-measurable goals is an inability to track progress. 

While I wouldn't consider measurability an absolute necessity, the process of identifying a measurement focuses the mind on specifying the goal objectively. 

Attainable:
The point of goals is that they are something you are working toward.  If it is not attainable, then how can you work toward it?  While the purpose of this goal setting practice is primarily psychologically focused, it also has philosophic implications.

"The Law of Identity (A is A) is a rational man’s paramount consideration in the process of determining his interests. He knows that the contradictory is the impossible, that a contradiction cannot be achieved in reality and that the attempt to achieve it can lead only to disaster and destruction. Therefore, he does not permit himself to hold contradictory values, to pursue contradictory goals, or to imagine that the pursuit of a contradiction can ever be to his interest."

My take: Contradictions kill goals in their tracks.  As Rand notes, pursuing contradictory goals will end in failure.  Goals can also contradict reality, including the reality of who you are and your access to resources.  For example, I could set a goal be a billionaire by next Christmas.  While not meta-physically impossible, the facts about my skills and knowledge contradict the necessities for completing the goal (at least at the present time).  But note, I can improve my skills and knowledge and so as to bring the attainability of that goal closer in subsequent years. 

There is also a far amount of research that shows that setting goals that slightly stretch your abilities leads to the best results.  In other words, pick goals that are attainable with slightly more effort than you think you have.

Relevant:
Goals implicitly identify what's important to an individual. 

"The key concept, in the formation of a sense of life, is the term“important.” It is a concept that belongs to the realm of values, since it implies an answer to the question: Important—to whom? Yet its meaning is different from that of moral values. “Important” does not necessarily mean“good.” It means “a quality, character or standing such as to entitle to attention or consideration” (The American College Dictionary). What, in a fundamental sense, is entitled to one’s attention or consideration? Reality."

She goes on to say:

“Important”—in its essential meaning, as distinguished from its more limited and superficial uses—is a metaphysical term. It pertains to that aspect of metaphysics which serves as a bridge between metaphysics and ethics: to a fundamental view of man’s nature. That view involves the answers to such questions as whether the universe is knowable or not, whether man has the power of choice or not, whether he can achieve his goals in life or not. The answers to such questions are “metaphysical value-judgments,” since they form the base of ethics."

Rand makes clear that the base of ethics is not some arbitrary, subjective notion, but based on the facts of reality.

“There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.”

My take: When it comes to goals, Objectivism clearly concludes that goals should not only be relevant in general, but relevant to our own life.  For examples, when I identified my 5 year goals, I made sure they were relevant to my situation and were the most meaningful.  This is the only life I have, so I should make the most of it.  Goals direct the self-sustaining and self-generated action.  If however, your goals contradict the necessities of life, they will harm your ability to survive.  A goal to see how much poison I can drink without dying is just stupid on its face.  Equally stupid might be a goal to see how much beer I can drink in one night.  In a business, a relevant professional goal would be one that corresponds with the corporate strategy (is important).  It becomes a win-win solution for both the individual and the organization.

Time-bound:
Change implies something occurring over time.  Here Rand has the least to say other than to acknowledge the role of time in achieving values.

"Since a value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep, and the amount of possible action is limited by the duration of one’s lifespan, it is a part of one’s life that one invests in everything one values. The years, months, days or hours of thought, of interest, of action devoted to a value are the currency with which one pays for the enjoyment one receives from it."

And in the realm of productivity:

"Agriculture is the first step toward civilization, because it requires a significant advance in men’s conceptual development: it requires that they grasp two cardinal concepts which the perceptual, concrete-bound mentality of the hunters could not grasp fully: time and savings. Once you grasp these, you have grasped the three essentials of human survival: time-savings-production. You have grasped the fact that production is not a matter confined to the immediate moment, but a continuous process, and that production is fueled by previous production. The concept of “stock seed” unites the three essentials and applies not merely to agriculture, but much, much more widely: to all forms of productive work."

My take: It takes time to be productive and work towards one's goals.  And given our limited time alive, we should choose those goals carefully.  While time is just another "measure" and should be included with the measurable section above, without it, we wouldn't get the cool acronym SMART.

Conclusion:
While Rand had little to say specifically about goal-setting, I would imagine she would find these industry best practices to be congruent with her philosophy.  Choose goals with the most relevance to our long term happiness.  Choose goals that we can attain and do not contradict our other goals, nor reality.  Choose goals that are measurable, to ensure objectivity, and choose goals that are specific, to ensure identity.  Do these things to create SMART goals and you will be well on your way to a happy, successful life.

Tenacity in Goal Pursuit

I just finished watching this great video on how to tenaciously pursue difficult goals.

 

There is really little have I have to add to what Dr. Hsieh mentions, except perhaps to expand on one of her suggestions - the usefulness of sharing your goals with others.  Amongst many entrepreneurs and business owners, the concept of a master mind group essentially performs the same purpose.  I don't like the name, but the concept is sound and I have been using it myself over the past year.  Essentially, in a master mind group, you gather together a group of 2-5 individuals with similar goals and regularly discuss progress towards those goals.  It informally creates a system of accountability.  There have been months where, before we met, I start feeling rather sheepish because I did not complete the goals I had set for myself.  Knowing that I was to meet and discuss my failure prompted me to get my butt in gear and actively work in ernest. 

I really liked her disclaimer at the beginning though, about how tenacity is important, but only if you have the right goals.  Tenacity toward bad goals is still bad.  One of the reasons I have written so much about goal setting is because I realize just how important the selection of goals is to a happy, successful life.

When goals flounder - review your Central Purpose

This past week, I've been avoiding a thorough review of my goals as I had a sneaky suspicion that I had failed at a number of them. That seemed debilitating and counter-productive. But as I forced myself to start writing this post, I began to realize just how much I had accomplished and more importantly, I came to realize that most of the failed goals floundered because I had not stayed true to myself.  In the end, I had a major revelation.  By confronting my anxiety, I destroyed it.

Last January, I had 3 major goals that were in part contingent on a number of factors.  One of course was the pending job candidacy with ECU.  As to those three goals, all were accomplished.

After our move to North Carolina, I re-wrote my year end goals (why? I'm not quite sure.)  A number of those goals I did not accomplish.  It left me wondering why not.  Had I lost my mo-jo?  Were the goals unrealistic?  Was I not motivated to accomplish them?  The truth is mostly the latter in part because I have been misleading myself away from my central purpose in life (CPL). 

After numerous talks with some friends of mine, I have been re-conceptualizing the direction of my career to integrate my research, teaching, consulting, service, blog writing, and potential business ventures.  Until just about 30 minutes ago, I had been considering two different directions, each of which seemed plausible for establishing that integration.  I thought that by focusing on one of those two directions, I could stay true to my CPL.  I was wrong!  My original CPL already established the direction - to teach others how to make better decisions, specifically in designing, building, maintaining, and using information systems.  Today, I see no reason to pick one of the two different directions.  The goals I was failing were all connected with choosing between these two directions.  I need to web development knowledge in order to make better decisions.  I need philosophic knowledge in order to make better decision.  I need to understand how habits, information technologies, values, analysis and design techniques, epistemology, rationality, psychology, and productiveness can impact decision making.  In short, my CPL already integrates these two passions of mine.  Instead of picking one, I just need to remind myself of my ultimate passion - helping others to make better decisions.  The rest follows. 

So why did I fail at these goals?  They failed because they met a mental block.  Although crafted with my best intentions, I couldn't find the motivation to pursue them with the passion they deserved.  Something just didn't seem right, although I couldn't put my finger on exactly what.  The cognitive dissonance I experienced (and hence my failure to act on a number of projects/goals) stemmed from my mismatch between the reality of my CPL and the inappropriate goals I was setting.  Contradictions cannot exist.  My subconscious identified the contradiction first.  It wasn't until today that my consciousness caught up.

So how to move forward?  Rather than being frustrated with myself for not accomplishing my goals or falling behind in projects, I need to review all my projects and decide which ones will help me accomplish my CPL best and cut the rest.  And that is my very next project!