After finding this website http://www.absel.org/, it reminded me of the essential need to make education more fun and interactive. There is a place for lectures, but it is a small place, reserved for pure conceptualizing. Universities in general like to think of themselves as institutions that specialize in conceptualizing. The problem is, they do it poorly. So students graduate with poor abilities to think and poor skills to perform.
Students learn skills best when they enjoy the process of learning. This link is well understood by most students and teachers. Yet the teachers don't do it and the students have come to expect it not to be. This needs to be rectified at all levels of education.
9.29.2005
9.28.2005
MIS Research
For today's seminar, our class had to read an article by Peter Keen. In this article he discusses reference disciplines, dependent variables, relationship of MIS research to computer technology, relationship of MIS research to practice, and where to publish.
What was particularly distressing about this article was its truth about the state of research in MIS. Unfortunately, most departments and major journals encourage traditional positivist research and discourage case studies and practitioner oriented writing. Its as if to say, we want to keep research as distant from reality as possible. Let's make it irrelevant, so we don't have to worry about being wrong.
This is not the type of research I'm interested in being involved with. I want to attack philosophic questions about how technology changes our life and how our values influence the use of technology. From a management perspective, I want to address what technologies are most appropriate for what contexts. I want to write proscriptive articles, not observational articles.
Unfortunately, those types of articles are difficult to get published. So following my dreams will limit my access to research institutions. I may be able to pull it off, but it would certainly be difficult. Not that I've stepped away from difficult projects before. But it is certainly something to give me pause. Is that battle worth fighting? Could I find happiness in a teaching school? I'd still want to write, but where would be my outlet? I need to find the answer to these questions.
What was particularly distressing about this article was its truth about the state of research in MIS. Unfortunately, most departments and major journals encourage traditional positivist research and discourage case studies and practitioner oriented writing. Its as if to say, we want to keep research as distant from reality as possible. Let's make it irrelevant, so we don't have to worry about being wrong.
This is not the type of research I'm interested in being involved with. I want to attack philosophic questions about how technology changes our life and how our values influence the use of technology. From a management perspective, I want to address what technologies are most appropriate for what contexts. I want to write proscriptive articles, not observational articles.
Unfortunately, those types of articles are difficult to get published. So following my dreams will limit my access to research institutions. I may be able to pull it off, but it would certainly be difficult. Not that I've stepped away from difficult projects before. But it is certainly something to give me pause. Is that battle worth fighting? Could I find happiness in a teaching school? I'd still want to write, but where would be my outlet? I need to find the answer to these questions.
9.27.2005
Trust
I'm trying to find a better definition and description of trust than the one typically used in management and organizational behavior research. While there are many variations on the definition, they generally fall into "Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing." This definition doesn't sit right with me. I know there is a better definition for it, it just alludes me right now. I just need to sit down and have my little brain think through it.
A definition of trust should capture the essential nature of that concept. When I use the phrases:
"I trust my doctor's diagnosis."
"I trust my kids to make the right choices."
"I lose trust in you when you lie to me."
"I trust you'll do what you say you'll do."
"I trust my order at the store will be delivered in a reasonable amount of time."
What do they have in common?
It goes beyond just a firm reliance on integrity, ability, or character. Certainly these moral traits are important, but are they essential? Are there other virtues that are involved with trust? Some of the scholarly papers that discuss trust lump honesty with integrity. Yet these two virtues are distinct.
Discussion of ability begs the question, what makes someone able? Its a combination of rationality, productivity, and their current knowledge base. While having a large store of knowledge isn't itself virtuous, that knowledge when applied to solving problems is virtuous. But to solve problems requires rationality, internal honesty, independence, and integrity. So essentially, ability is heading down the right path, describing virtuous behavior, but is not essential to the definition of trust.
Is not an estimation of the morality of the object of trust needed? The rationality, honesty, integrity, justice, independence, self-esteem, and productivity are all part of trust. In order to trust someone, we must know their rectitude.
But trust assumes more than just an estimation of someone's morality. It assumes we are dependent upon, in some form, their morality. Solely dependent upon it. In other words, we must make a decision based solely upon the moral character of an individual, in the absence of facts to the specific context in question.
So my working definition of trust will be:
"Reliance upon the moral character of an individual when making decisions."
A definition of trust should capture the essential nature of that concept. When I use the phrases:
"I trust my doctor's diagnosis."
"I trust my kids to make the right choices."
"I lose trust in you when you lie to me."
"I trust you'll do what you say you'll do."
"I trust my order at the store will be delivered in a reasonable amount of time."
What do they have in common?
It goes beyond just a firm reliance on integrity, ability, or character. Certainly these moral traits are important, but are they essential? Are there other virtues that are involved with trust? Some of the scholarly papers that discuss trust lump honesty with integrity. Yet these two virtues are distinct.
Discussion of ability begs the question, what makes someone able? Its a combination of rationality, productivity, and their current knowledge base. While having a large store of knowledge isn't itself virtuous, that knowledge when applied to solving problems is virtuous. But to solve problems requires rationality, internal honesty, independence, and integrity. So essentially, ability is heading down the right path, describing virtuous behavior, but is not essential to the definition of trust.
Is not an estimation of the morality of the object of trust needed? The rationality, honesty, integrity, justice, independence, self-esteem, and productivity are all part of trust. In order to trust someone, we must know their rectitude.
But trust assumes more than just an estimation of someone's morality. It assumes we are dependent upon, in some form, their morality. Solely dependent upon it. In other words, we must make a decision based solely upon the moral character of an individual, in the absence of facts to the specific context in question.
So my working definition of trust will be:
"Reliance upon the moral character of an individual when making decisions."
9.15.2005
Zeroed in
Well, I've finally taken the plunge and started a blog. I'm not really sure how much time I'll have to add entries, but it would be a nice place to record my thoughts. We'll see how it goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)