Critical thinking has been on my mind, recently. For one thing, I oriented an “intro. to sociology” course I teach toward critical skills and methods. To me, it’s a very important part of university education, going much beyond media literacy.And media literacy is something about which I care a great deal. Seems to me that several journalists have been giving up on trying to help the general population increase and enhance their own media literacy skills. It’s almost as if they were claiming they’re the only ones who can reach a significant level of media literacy. Of course, many of them seem unable to have a critical approach to their own work. I’m with Bourdieu on this one. And I make my problem with journalism known.As a simple example, I couldn’t help but notice a number of problems with this CBC coverage of a new citizenship guidebook. My approach to this coverage is partly visible in short discussions I’ve had on Aardvark about bylines.A bit over a week ago, I heard about something interesting related to “making technology work,” on WTP (a technology podcast for PRI/BBC/Discovery The World, a bit like Search Engine from bigger media outlets). It was a special forum discussion related to issues broader than simply finding the right tool for the right task. In fact, it sounded like it could become a broad discussion of issues and challenges going way beyond the troubleshooting/problem-solving approach favoured by some technology enthusiasts. Given my ethnographic background, my interest in geek culture, and my passion for social media, I thought I’d give it a try.The first thing I noticed was a link to a critique of the OLPC project. I’ve personally been quite critical of that project, writing several blogposts about it. So I had to take a look.And although I find the critical stance of this piece relatively useful (there was way too much groupthink with the original coverage of the OLPC), I couldn’t help but use my critical sense as I was reading this piece.Which motivated me to do some Diigo annotations on it. For some reason, there are things that I wanted to highlight which aren’t working and I think I may have lost some annotations in the process. But the following is the result of a relatively simple reading of this piece. True to the draft aesthetics, I made no attempt to be thorough, clean, precise, or clear.http://www.miller-mccune.com/business_economics/computer-error-1390.print
http://www.miller-mccune.com/business_economics/computer-error-1390.print
appealing World Economic Forum 50 percent of staff were being laid off and a major restructuring was under way
The dramatic version which sends the message: OLPC Inc. was in big trouble. (The fact that it’s allegedly a non-profit is relatively irrelevant.) the project seems nearly dead in the water
A strong statement. Stronger than all those “beleaguered company” ones made about Apple in the mid90s before Jobs went back. And that may be great news for children in the developing world.
Tadaa! Here’s the twist! The OLPC is dead, long live the Child! lobbied national governments and international agencies
Right. The target was institutional. Kind of strange for a project which was billed as a way to get tools in the hands of individual children. And possibly one of the biggest downfalls of the project. Negroponte and other techno-luminati
Oh, snap!
It could sound relatively harmless an appellation. But the context and the piece’s tone make it sound like a rather deep insult. Innovate
Ah, nice! Not “create” or “build.” But “innovate.” Which is something the project has been remarkably good at. It was able to achieve a number of engineering feats. Despite Negroponte’s repeated claims to the contrary, the OLPC project can be conceived as an engineering project. In fact, it’s probably the most efficient way to shed the most positive light on it. As an engineering project, it was rather successful. As an “education project” (as Negroponte kept calling it), it wasn’t that successful. In fact, it may have delayed a number of things which matter in terms of education. take control of their education
Self-empowerment, at the individual level. In many ways, it sounds like a very Protestant ideal. And it’s clearly part of the neoliberal agenda (or the neoconservative one, actually). Yet it doesn’t sound strange at all. It sounds naturally good and pure. technology optimists
Could be neutral in denotation but does connote a form of idealistic technological determinism. Child school attendance
“Children who aren’t in school can’t be learning anything, right?” trending dramatically upward
Fascinating choice of words. tens of millions of dollars highly respected center
Formulas such as these are often a way to prevent any form of source criticism. Not sure Wikipedians would consider these “peacock terms,” but they don’t clearly represent a “neutral point of view.” they don’t seem to be learning much
Nothing which can be measured with our tools, at least. Of course, nothing else matters. But still… international science exam
Of course, these tend to be ideally suited for most learning contexts… There’s no question that improving education in the developing world is necessary.
Although, there could be a question or two about this. Not politically expedient, perhaps. But still… powerful argument
Tools in a rhetorical process. instinctive appeal
Even the denotative sense is polarized. precious little evidence
Switching to the “studies have shown” mode. In this mode, lack of proof is proof of lack, critical thinking is somewhat discouraged, and figures are significant by themselves. circumstantial evidence
The jury isn’t out, on this one. co-founder of J-PA
Did Esther co-write the article? Honest question. the technology didn’t work any better than a normal classroom teacher
A very specific point. If the goal of tool use is to improve performance over “regular teaching,” it’s a particular view of technology. One which, itself, is going by the wayside. And which has been a large part of the OLPC worldview. the goal is improving education for children in the developing world, there are plenty of better, and cheaper, alternatives.
A core belief, orienting the piece. Cost is central. The logic is one of “bang for the buck.” the teachers simply weren’t using the computers
We’re touching on something, here. People have to actually use the computers for the “concept” to work. Funny that there’s rarely a lot of discussion on how that works. A specific version of “throwing money at a problem” is to “throw technology at” people. few experimental studies to show a positive impact from the use of computers
Is the number of studies going one way or another the main issue, here? Can’t diverse studies look at different things and be understood as a way to describe a more complex reality than “technology is good and/or bad?” substituting computers for teachers
Still oriented toward the “time to task” approach. But that’s good enough for cognitive science, which tends to be favourably viewed in educational fields. supplement
Kept thinking about the well-known Hawthorne effect. In this case, the very idea that providing students with supplementary “care” can be seen as an obvious approach which is most often discussed in the field instead of at the higher levels of decision-making. The OLPC concept has been pioneered in a number of school districts in the United States over the last decade
From a 2005 project targeting “countries with inconsistent power grids,” we get to a relatively long series of initiatives in individual school districts in the USofA since last century. Telescoping geographical and temporal scales. And, more importantly, assigning the exact same “concept” to diverse projects. Negroponte has explicitly derided
Not the only thing Negroponte derides. He’s been a professional derider for a while, now.
Negroponte’s personality is part of the subtext of any OLPC-related piece. It’d be interesting to analyse him in view of the “mercurial CEO” type which fascinates a number of people. It must be said
Acknowledging the fact that there is more to the situation than what this piece is pushing. academic
In this context, “academic” can have a variety of connotations, many of which are relatively negative. teachers limited access to the computers
Typically, teachers have relatively little control in terms of students’ access to computers so it sounds likely that the phrase should have read “had limited access.” But, then again, maybe teachers in Hollow’s research were in fact limiting access to computers, which would be a very interesting point to bring and discuss. In fact, part of what is missing in many of those pieces about technology and learning is what access really implies. Typically, most discussions on the subject have to do with time spent alone with such a tool, hence the “one…per child” part of the OLPC approach. But it’s hard to tell if there has been any thought about the benefits of group access to tools or limited access to such tools.
To go even further, there’s a broad critique of the OLPC approach, left unaddressed in this piece, about the emphasis on individual ownership of tools. In the US, it’s usually not ok for neighbours to ask about using others’ lawnmowers and ladders. It’s unsurprising that pushing individual ownership would seem logical to those who design projects from the US. had not been adequately trained
In the OLPC context, it has been made as a case for the dark side of constructionism. The OLPC project might have been a learning project, but it wasn’t a teaching one. Some explicit comments from project members were doing little to dispel the notion that constructivism isn’t about getting rid of teachers. Even documentation for the OLPC XO contained precious little which could help teachers. Teachers weren’t the target audience. Children and governments were. not silver bullets
Acknowledging, in an oblique way, that the situation is more complex. surveys of students
With a clear Hawthorne effect. parents rolling their eyes
Interesting appeal to parenting experience. Even more than teachers, they’re absent from many of these projects. Not a new pattern. Literacy projects often forget parents and the implications in terms of a generation gap. But what is perhaps more striking is that parents are also invisible in coverage of many of these issues. Contrary to “our” children, children in “those poor countries over there” are “ours to care for,” through development projects, adoptions, future immigration, etc. evaluation of an OLPC project in Haiti
Sounds more like a pilot project than like field research. But maybe it’s more insightful. Repeated calls and e-mails to OLPC and Negroponte seeking comment on OLPC did not receive a response
Such statements are “standard procedure” for journalists. But what is striking about this one is where it’s placed in the piece. Not only is it near the end of the argumentation but it’s in a series of comments about alternative views on the OLPC project. Whether or not it was done on purpose, the effect that we get is that there are two main voices, pro and con. Those on the con side can only have arguments in the same line of thought (about the project’s cost and “efficacy,” with possible comments about management). Those on the pro side are put in a defensive position.
In such cases, responsiveness is often key. Though Negroponte has been an effective marketer of his pet project, the fact that he explicitly refuses to respond to criticisms and critiques makes for an even more constrained offense/defense game. ironic
Strong words, in such a context. Because it’s not the situation which is ironic. It’s a lack of action in a very specific domain. the Third World
Interesting that the antiquated “Third World” expression comes in two contexts: the alleged target of the OLPC project (with little discussion as to what was meant by that relationship) and as the J-PAL field of expertise. a leader in
Peacock terms or J-PAL are on the Miller-McCune lovelist? There are
This is where the piece switches. We’re not talking about the OLPC, anymore. We reduce OLPC to a single goal, which has allegedly not been met, and propose that there are better ways to achieve this goal. Easy and efficient technique, but there still seems to be something missing. etting children in developing countries into school and helping them learn more while they are there
A more specific goal than it might seem, at first blush.
For a very simple example: how about homeschooling? proven successful
“We have proof!” cheap
One might have expected “inexpensive,” here, instead of “cheap.” But, still, the emphasis is on cost. deworming
Sounds a little bit surprising a switch from computer tech to public health. 50 cents per child per year $4 per student per year 30 percent increase in lifetime earnings technology-based approaches to improving student learning in the developing world
Coming back to technology, to an extent, but almost in passing. Technology, here, can still be a saviour. The issue would be to find the key technology to solve that one problem (student learning in the developing world needs calls for improvement). Rather limited in scope, depth, insight. show more promise than one laptop per child
Perhaps the comment most directly related to opinions. “Showing promise” is closer to “instinctive appeal” but, in this case, it’s a positive. We don’t need to apply critical thinking to something which shows promise. It’s undeniably good. Right? the J-PAL co-founder
There we are! $2.20 Remedial education A study in Kenya
Reference needed. it didn’t matter
Sounds like a bold statement, as it’s not expressly linked to the scope of the study. It probably did matter. Just not in terms of what was measured. Mattering has to do with significance in general, not just with statistical significance. expensive
Cost/benefits are apparently the only two “factors” to consider. quarter of the cost cheaper $2 per month $3 per month
Tag Archives: CBC
Actively Reading: OLPC Critique
Computer Repairs, Consumer Protection
This one has been making the rounds:
CBC.ca – Marketplace – What you should know before you call a geek in to fix your computer
Typical television story: Several computer repair technicians fooled by television team. Consumers be warned.
[Disclaimer: though I’ve been troubleshooting most of my own and some of other people’s computer-related issues, I’m no technician and have never been one. I do consider myself something of a power-user and enough of a fan of geek culture to half-jokingly call myself a “wannabe geek.”]
Comments on the show’s site are particularly numerous and many of them are quite virulent. Comments on the Consumerist page about the Marketplace piece seem more insightful than those on the CBC site. That might have to do with the Consumerist coverage of the Geek Squad scandal making Consumerist readers aware of the current debates about computer techs.
While I do agree with many of the comments about the report being biased/one-sided/skewed/sensationalist, there could be more discussion about consumer protection and about technical training. I even think that the show’s overall presentation style may have generated more knee-jerk reactions than reflections on the state of the computer repair industry. If so, that’s quite sad.
Come to think of it, the segment’s title could lead to something interesting: what is it that people should know before they get service from a computer technician?
A general idea could be: “computer repairs are often quite expensive, quality of service may vary, there are other issues to consider besides the cost of the repairs.”
The show itself mentioned a few pieces of advice from people with whom they talked:
- Fix it yourself
- Search online for tech advice
- Take control. Back up your data
- Keep virus and spyware protection up to date
- Get advice from support lines
- Get referrals
- Get more than one quote
All good advice, IMHO. Not that easy to implement, though. And several points remain, in terms of consumer protection.
This all reminds me of a recent episode (#69) of the Real Deal podcast about how to “Be your own IT department.” Simple yet useful advice on how to set things up for a friend or family member who may need simple tech support with their computer.
Some ideas popping in my head about computer repairs:
- Training in computer maintenance is valuable. Maybe it should be provided as a community service.
- Given the stakes (especially in terms of privacy), certification programs and hiring requirements for computer technicians should probably be as strict as those for other professions.
- Some association/union/corporation for computer technicians could help deal with issues like these as is the case with other professions.
- Though analogies with other professions are tempting, there are issues which seem quite specific to computer techs (especially having to do with data privacy and value).
- Maybe we just need computers that are easier to troubleshoot.
Ah, well…
Judging Coffee and Beer: Answer to DoubleShot Coffee Company
DoubleShot Coffee Company: More Espresso Arguments.
I’m not in the coffee biz but I do involve myself in some coffee-related things, including barista championships (sensory judge at regional and national) and numerous discussions with coffee artisans. In other words, I’m nobody important.
In a way, I “come from” the worlds of beer and coffee homebrewing. In coffee circles, I like to introduce myself as a homeroaster and blogger.
(I’m mostly an ethnographer, meaning that I do what we call “participant-observation” as both an insider and an outsider.)
There seem to be several disconnects in today’s coffee world, despite a lot of communication across the Globe. Between the huge coffee corporations and the “specialty coffee” crowd. Between coffee growers and coffee lovers. Between professional and home baristas. Even, sometimes, between baristas from different parts of the world.
None of it is very surprising. But it’s sometimes a bit sad to hear people talk past one another.
I realize nothing I say may really help. And it may all be misinterpreted. That’s all part of the way things go and I accept that.
In the world of barista champions and the so-called “Third Wave,” emotions seem particularly high. Part of it might have to do with the fact that so many people interact on a rather regular basis. Makes for a very interesting craft, in some ways. But also for rather tense moments.
About judging…
My experience isn’t that extensive. I’ve judged at the Canadian Eastern Regional BC twice and at the Canadian BC once.
Still, I did notice a few things.
One is that there can be a lot of camaraderie/collegiality among BC participants. This can have a lot of beneficial effects on the quality of coffee served in different places as well as on the quality of the café experience itself, long after the championships. A certain cohesiveness which may come from friendly competition can do a lot for the diversity of coffee scenes.
Another thing I’ve noticed is that it’s really easy to be fair, in judging using WBC regulations. It’s subjective in a very literal way since there’s tasting involved (tastebuds belong to the “subjects” of the sensory and head judges). But it simply has very little if anything to do with personal opinions, relationships, or “liking the person.” It’s remarkably easy to judge the performance, with a focus on what’s in the cup, as opposed to the person her-/himself or her/his values.
Sure, the championship setting is in many ways artificial and arbitrary. A little bit like rules for an organized sport. Or so many other contexts.
A competition like this has fairly little to do with what is likely to happen in “The Real World” (i.e., in a café). I might even say that applying a WBC-compatible in a café is likely to become a problem in many cases. A bit like working the lunch shift at a busy diner using ideas from the Iron Chef or getting into a street fight and using strict judo rules.
A while ago, I was working in French restaurants, as a «garde-manger» (assistant-chef). We often talked about (and I did meet a few) people who were just coming out of culinary institutes. In most cases, they were quite good at producing a good dish in true French cuisine style. But the consensus was that “they didn’t know how to work.”
People fresh out of culinary school didn’t really know how to handle a chaotic kitchen, order only the supplies required, pay attention to people’s tastes, adapt to differences in prices, etc. They could put up a good show and their dishes might have been exquisite. But they could also be overwhelmed with having to serve 60 customers in a regular shift or, indeed, not know what to do during a slow night. Restaurant owners weren’t that fond of hiring them, right away. They had to be “broken out” («rodés»).
Barista championships remind me of culinary institutes, in this way. Both can be useful in terms of skills, but experience is more diverse than that.
So, yes, WBC rules are probably artificial and arbitrary. But it’s easy to be remarkably consistent in applying these rules. And that should count for something. Just not for everythin.
Sure, you may get some differences between one judge and the other. But those differences aren’t that difficult to understand and I didn’t see that they tended to have to do with “preferences,” personal issues, or anything of the sort. From what I noticed while judging, you simply don’t pay attention to the same things as when you savour coffee. And that’s fine. Cupping coffee isn’t the same thing as drinking it, either.
In my (admittedly very limited) judging experience, emphasis was put on providing useful feedback. The points matter a lot, of course, but the main thing is that the points make sense in view of the comments. In a way, it’s to ensure calibration (“you say ‘excellent’ but put a ‘3,’ which one is more accurate?”) but it’s also about the goals of the judging process. The textual comments are a way to help the barista pay attention to certain things. “Constructive criticism” is one way to put it. But it’s more than that. It’s a way to get something started.
Several of the competitors I’ve seen do come to ask judges for clarifications and many of them seemed open to discussion. A few mostly wanted justification and may have felt slighted. But I mostly noticed a rather thoughtful process of debriefing.
Having said that, there are competitors who are surprised by differences between two judges’ scores. “But both shots came from the same portafilter!” “Well, yes, but if you look at the video, you’ll notice that coffee didn’t flow the same way in both cups.” There are also those who simply doubt judges, no matter what. Wonder if they respect people who drink their espresso…
Coming from the beer world, I also notice differences with beer. In the beer world, there isn’t really an equivalent to the WBC in the sense that professional beer brewers don’t typically have competitions. But amateur homebrewers do. And it’s much stricter than the WBC in terms of certification. It requires a lot of rote memorization, difficult exams (I helped proctor two), judging points, etc.
I’ve been a vocal critic of the Beer Judge Certification Program. There seems to be an idea, there, that you can make the process completely neutral and that the knowledge necessary to judge beers is solid and well-established. One problem is that this certification program focuses too much on a series of (over a hundred) “styles” which are more of a context-specific interpretation of beer diversity than a straightforward classification of possible beers.
Also, the one thing they want to avoid the most (basing their evaluation on taste preferences) still creeps in. It’s probably no coincidence that, at certain events, beers which were winning “Best of Show” tended to be big, assertive beers instead of very subtle ones. Beer judges don’t want to be human, but they may still end up acting like ones.
At the same time, while there’s a good deal of debate over beer competition results and such, there doesn’t seem to be exactly the same kind of tension as in barista championships. Homebrewers take their results to heart and they may yell at each other over their scores. But, somehow, I see much less of a fracture, “there” than “here.” Perhaps because the stakes are very low (it’s a hobby, not a livelihood). Perhaps because beer is so different from coffee. Or maybe because there isn’t a sense of “Us vs. Them”: brewers judging a competition often enter beer in that same competition (but in a separate category from the ones they judge).
Actually, the main difference may be that beer judges can literally only judge what’s in the bottle. They don’t observe the brewers practicing their craft (this happens weeks prior), they simply judge the product. In a specific condition. In many ways, it’s very unfair. But it can help brewers understand where something went wrong.
Now, I’m not saying the WBC should become like the BJCP. For one thing, it just wouldn’t work. And there’s already a lot of investment in the current WBC format. And I’m really not saying the BJCP is better than the WBC as an inspiration, since I actually prefer the WBC-style championships. But I sense that there’s something going on in the coffee world which has more to do with interpersonal relationships and “attitudes” than with what’s in the cup.
All this time, those of us who don’t make a living through coffee but still live it with passion may be left out. And we do our own things. We may listen to coffee podcasts, witness personal conflicts between café owners, hear rants about the state of the “industry,” and visit a variety of cafés.
Yet, slowly but surely, we’re making our own way through coffee. Exploring its diversity, experimenting with different brewing methods, interacting with diverse people involved, even taking trips “to origin”…
Coffee is what unites us.
Leave a comment | tags: arbitrariness, artifice, attitudes, barista championships, baristas, Beer Judge Certification Program, BJCP, breaking out, brewed coffee, camaraderie, Canadian Barista Championship, CBC, coffee brewing, coffee community, coffee consumption, coffee producers, collegiality, comradeship, conflicts, culinary institutes, debriefing, Eastern Regional Canadian Barista Championship, evaluation, feedback, French restaurants, hobbies, homeroasting, Iron Chef, judging, martial arts, personal attitudes, quality control, reality checks, specialty coffee, tensions, Third Wave Coffee, trip to origin, tudes, WBC, World Barista Championship | posted in amateurs, arrogance, Beer, beer scene, Beverages, blog comments, cafés, Clueing, Coffee, coffee scenes, comment-fishing, Communities, community-building, consumption, craft, cuisine, culinary, DoubleShot Coffee Company, espresso, Food, food and culture, food and society, food philosophy, French, geek crowd, geek culture, groupthink, homebrewing, Institutions, podcasts, ramblings, shameless plug, specialists, specialization, taste, tasting, wishful thinking