Sci&Tech History

If you facing a lot of job, what would you prefer: going online or offline? In one hand, going online help you gain a lot idea through chaotic idea that cross over your eye, but on the same time, a lot of distraction made you unproductive, especially when you open social networks websites and chatting rooms. There are another possibilities to reduce distraction i.e: by going invisible, but I failed the temptation of changing my status on fb. Yeah, I must admit it, I’m a little bit lousy facing things related with discipline.

So here I am, still opening several windows, chatting, writing, and make concepton note on the same time. Don’t we love living in a paralell world?

Happy monday everyone…

Post to: delicious, Digg, ma.gnolia, Stumbleupon

Currently, I’m working a paper on ICT for development. The study delivers me to ask about ICT and development relation: are we improving ICT for development or are we developing for ICT? Looking The Digital Divide Report launched by UNCTAD, ICT development tends to answer the second possibilities. Our success is represented by number of internet per person, not by its use. To explain this tendency, Harindranath and Sein (2007) divide ICT for development into four paradigm. First, functionalism: modernisation perspective of development and neutral view of ICT. Second, social relativism: modernisation perspective of development and situated view of ICT, third, radical structuralism: alternative perspective of development and neutral view of ICT, and last, neo-humanism: alternative perspective of development and situated view of ICT.

What happened in ICT development in Indonesia shows that we tend to develop ICT as a neutral tool. There are several good cases as seen in reformation era when internet was used as communication tools among activst, but there are also unexpectedeffect as pornography. The question arose: those ICT really neutral? By comparing internet and e-government, we can see that ICT is not neutral. The medium is the message.

As Onno W. Purbo said, “The barrier [is] actually not the tool. The barrier would be the education process. To educate the society to share the knowledge within the society, to encourage the society to produce their knowledge in local languages. That’s a major barrier. So, it’s not the tool, it’s not the money, it’s not the funding, actually the education process would be the barrier. Of course, the government also creates some sort of barrier in the public regulation. We need to liberalize the regulation to enable community broadcasting as well as low cost Internet access.”

Post to: delicious, Digg, ma.gnolia, Stumbleupon

Yesterday afternoon, my colleague asking my facebook activity. He said based on a research, facebook (and maybe some other social network activities) is time-consuming and caused someone to be unproductive. Commenting on people status, change their profile, make some notes, request someone to join an online game are several out of many facilities offered on the social network. What do we get from those activities? Income, new friend, business opportunity? Maybe the answer is only one word: fun.

In a network analysis, a person tendency to join or choose a product can be seen from their relatives. If all of your friends join facebook, it is a kind of unusual if you don’t follow them. Using cluster mechanism, you can find factors that identify them as a group. This mechanism has been used in several online bookstore which completed with statistical data from customer habit. A person who buy Harry Potter for example, also like Twillight. The next customer who see this statistic will followed this tendency and usually it works.

A movie based on behavioural research and how to manipulate people through data can be watched in Hitch. A matchmaker who run his activities through observation.

Post to: delicious, Digg, ma.gnolia, Stumbleupon

By the end of 2003, John Kelly, who was executive for IBM’s Technology Group, gathered 10 executives to IBM’s chip factory in East FishKill, New York. His intention was made clear: IBM need to share its most advanced semiconductor research with allies. After a long heated debate, Kelly prevailed. Soon thereafter, IBM’s built what it calls an “open ecosystem” of chip R&D with nine partners, including Advanced Micro Devices, Sony, Toshiba, Freescale Semiconductor, and Albany Nanontech, a university research center. “We could all envision nightmare scenarios of a decade of research value being lost,”[1] said Bernard Meyerson who ran research and development for chip division.

What Meyerson worried make sense. Result of decade research can ruin in a crack if not supported with a clear regulation and strong organization structure. Further, different culture bring resistances in the adoption stage, though been accepted in the conception stage. In general, those problems have the same root: actor role in a collaborative network. In competition for instance, how a scientist placed themselves among their partners: friend or foes? What kind of incentives needed to encourage scientist as an individual but also foster the community knowledge? How can a scientist/corporation contribution measured in the new technology created? What kind of freedom does the scientist have in a community?

To answer those questions, a reflexive awareness needed. Rather count on a rigid formula, reflexive awareness proposed feedback mechanism, anticipative scenarios and a more precise calculation. For example, if a policy doesn’t converge to the desirable goal, the actors have other scenarios that can direct them to condition wanted.

Off course it is easier to say than do as seen in Crollers2 chip research alliance. Netherlands-based nxp Semiconductors, Freescale and STMicroelectronics, partners in the alliance, went on their own ways because interest divergences. Later, two of three companies who leaved Crollers2 alliance decided to join IBM’s. Gregg Bartlett Vice President of Freescale said consideration behind the collaboration was based on IBM’s experience. “They have a lot experiences, and there won’t be any surprises,”[2] said Bartlett.

In reflexive awareness point of view, no surprises indicate calculable of an action and existence of anticipative scenarios. This awareness is gain through understanding and experience. The actors have anticipated the complexity earlier so they might conduct their assumptions and strategies to prevent their goal. IBM’s success doesn’t come instantly. In 1990’s IBM’s failed to collaborate with Germany’s Infineon Technologies and Japan’s Toshiba due to corporate cultures clashed. At IBM, people typically reached decisions by discussing problems in open meetings, while at Toshiba people prefer to make decision after the meetings. As a solution, IBM assigning people to take notes on the meetings and issue report later.[3]

Throughout the case study presented, I have shown the importance of calculable scenarios. As observed in IBM learning process related with difference corporate culture, the problem is how to anticipate the differences, not the differences itself. The same approach can used to answer interest divergences: how far the corporate are willing to collaborate, and how can these boundaries understood by other actors so they can make a collaboration based on their interest.

 [1] See http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/aug2007/id20070830_258824.htm

 [2] Ibid.

 [3] Ibid.

Post to: delicious, Digg, ma.gnolia, Stumbleupon

This morning I watched Doel Anak Sekolahan, an Indonesian soap opera about Betawi culture. Main character of the soap opera, Doel, was depressed since his coming to operate new machine cause several workers lost their job. The new machine bought by the factory owner make the workers selection are based on their capability to operate the machine. Several decades before Doel, a movement named Luddite has started their fight against machine in 1811. Machine inventions caused great number of worker lost their job, especially in textille industry.

Of course, it is possible for human to increase their capability. Go to school, gain some technicalities and skill, then get a good job and great income. The factory can run efficiently, and everybody will life happily ever after. Unfortunately, from the elementery school, there are some inequality emerged. It is hard for poor families to enter good schools completed with supporting facilities. Further, some parents use their child to get some additional income to support their life. As a consequence, their child can’t go to school.

In this sense, technology also play role as a human selector: to decide who can serve them. Hihi, now it sound a little bit creepy… First, since from it beginning, machine was designed to help human lifes. But in the reality, sometimes we help the machine, so they can run well. In order to be accepted in a job, we have to understand the manual book, standard operation procedur and any other things to make sure the machine can life well. Of course we can destroy the machine, but I bet you will get fired or lost some opportunity. Even we serve our handphone with pulse every month!!! Only for several numbers in the activation card or electric code.

Well, welcome to the data world, anyway…

Post to: delicious, Digg, ma.gnolia, Stumbleupon

In 1998, the European Union and the European auto industry association ACEA came to a voluntary agreement to reduce carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions (SAM, 2005). The agreement seeks to achieve an average of 140g/km of CO₂ in 2008 collectively by the members of the association. Having achieved only 160 g/km in 2005, European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E) argues that ACEA is failing their commitments. What T&E argued may true as the agreement assessed in association level, but as an independent entity Fiat Auto has reached the 2008 goal, three year in advance (achieving 139 g/km), Citroen 144 g/km and Renault 149 g/km in 2005.

Absence of incentive (and disincentive) in fostering car makers to reduce CO₂ emissions indicates poor management. As an entity that principally defined by the market-driven activities, technical change in car engine can not be separated from production (involve research and development) cost, market price, branding i.e: environment friendly image, and legal aspect. When an agreement or mandatory is addressed to association level, car makers who have not reach the target can rely on their relative. Still the companies who have achieved the target can gain beneficiary from it branding.

Environment issues can be tracked back since Industrial Revolution. Emergence of great factories and consumption of immense quantities of coal and other fossil fuels gave rise to unprecedented air pollution and the large volume of industrial chemical discharges added to the growing load of untreated human waste (Fleming, 2006). As a reaction, environmentalism grew out of the amenity movement to prevent bad impact of industrialization, growth of cities, worsening air and water pollution. The movement took effect globally. In the early 1990’s European Council began investigating methods for reducing CO₂ emissions from cars as broader strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global climate change which become foundation of ACEA agreement.

In one hand, car industries to develop ‘environment friendly’ technologies imply their openness to environmental issues. In the other hand, it also implies negotiation with nature and market. Rather use private car, it is better to use public transportation. Negotiation also seen when car makers reduce CO2 emissions by shifting their machine to diesel rather make radical change that need a huge R&D budget.

Is these a matter of time? Or does environment and economy can walk in a same direction?

Post to: delicious, Digg, ma.gnolia, Stumbleupon

Construction of knowledge can be explained through ‘cycles of accumulation’ where actors extend their network with collective hybrids. The cycle start with scientist and engineer conduct their research in the laboratory. The scientist and engineer make observation, write some notes on sketchbooks, leave the laboratory, make some calculation and come out with a formula. Next, scientist and engineer diffuse their formula among many of businessmen, policy maker and professional association explained effectiveness and efficiency of their formula. Giving a good performance, the formula is patented and well-adopted. Mass production helps the businessmen to increase their profit, while consumers get beneficiary from the low price. The cycles of accumulation involve scientists, engineers, scientific device, sketchbooks, patent office, formula, businessmen, and consumers. According to Latour (1987), behind all scientific text lie inscriptions, and all inscriptions are produced through instrument.

Cycles of accumulation become unstable when new actor(s) come and put nature into account. The existing cycles turn from closed (countable) to open set (uncountable). UN Secretary-General, the elected US President, environment NGO’s came out as the nature spokesmen urged need of Green New Deal.

As a consequence of an open set, the cycles of accumulation lost it accountability and validity. To be calculated, Callon & Muniesa (2005) formulate three-step process: (1) In order to be calculated, the entities taken into account have to be detached; (2) Once they have been detached, the entities considered are associated with one another and subjected to manipulations and transformations; (3) It is necessary to obtain an accomplished calculation. In other word, the existing regime become unstable when there are an uncounted actors who want to put into account. Returning to the topic of environment problems, a new cycle start from nature spokesmen (often labeled as environmentalist) diffuse their findings on climate change and air pollution to policy maker, businessmen, consumer, etc.

Then, through interaction and negotiation… a new knowledge emerge

Post to: delicious, Digg, ma.gnolia, Stumbleupon

Being a constructivist makes me wonder about absolute truth: if everything in this world can be negotiated, do we still have any place for the truth of physical world? This question arose when I entered environment discourse focused on bio energy. One group said that bio energy support environment and energy sustainable, while another group argued bio energy development tends to deforestation, also it fertilizer gives bad impact to the environment.

Apart from environment issues, how can this ‘truth’ broadened by including producer, consumer, policy maker, farmer, businessmen, car industry and other actors take into account? In Economization, Callon & Caliskan refer economization to the actions, devices, analytical/practical description assembled by social scientists and market actors. In this sense, environment can be included as an economy element. Actually this problem also appear in science-technology discourse, but differently from nature, technology often seen as part of human second creation, the social of human, rather than environment that placed as human ‘enemy’ as occurred in ancient time when people have to survive against the wild nature.

This is why (in my sense) environment issues always involve heterogeneous actors, from scientist to artist, rather technology debate which dominated by the scientist/engineer.

Post to: delicious, Digg, ma.gnolia, Stumbleupon

On December 2008, United National Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon calls for a “Green New Deal” to tackle the twin challenges of climate change and the financial crisis. Ki-Moon speech in the opening of the UN Climate Change Conference in Poznan stressed the need to act now and avoid any backsliding on commitments to tackle these threats.[1] The elected US President, Barack Obama during his campaign answered Ki-Moon calls. He pledged to cap carbon dioxide emissions and reduce them 80% by 2050 and to have 25 percent of US energy come from renewable sources by 2025 by investing $150 billion in clean energy in the next decade.[2] In UK, pressure to set up ‘Green New Deal’ came out from non-government organisations such as Greenpeace, New Economics Foundation and Friends of the Earth.

Supported by world leaders and international organizations, Green New Deal became a buzzword resonating among many bureaucrats, scientist, policy maker, environment activist, businessmen, economist, and politicians. Drawing inspiration from President Roosevelt comprehensive response to the Great Depression, Green New Deal tends to renewable revolution, create thousands of green-collar jobs and rein in the distorting power of the finance sector while making more low-cost capital available for pressing priorities.

Before Green New Deal, shifting to put nature into account has also emerged among the environmentalists.[3] James Scott (1998) argues that engineers, planners, and other professionals, who are committed to applying science and mastering nature tend to reduce a complex, multi-variable problem to an abstract, quantifiable simplification (Hughes, 2004). Scott argument rise a question on nature spokesmen: if engineers, planners, and other professionals accused to simplify nature, how can the nature be represented? Who are the nature spokesmen? Are scientists and engineers the villains?

[1] http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29264&Cr=Climate&Cr1=

 [2] http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2008/11/24/obama_urged_to_create_green_new_deal/

 [3] In Kissimmee River case, the Corps of Engineer simply replacing the meandering Kissimmee river with a straight canal and in constructing dikes and levees to control water flow, they ignored the complexity and variety of the environment-sustaining ecological system (Hughes, 2004: 166)

Post to: delicious, Digg, ma.gnolia, Stumbleupon

In news about war, we can see how bombs kill children and women. Justification of those action was not far from its a consequence of war. The technology can not choose its specific target. Only by one click, someone can kill thousand life. Clean, easy and brutal. The situation has changes radically from the time when war still force people to face their enemy directly. They can choose who they want to kill, it need more sadistic feeling to kill children or even a men.

In food production, technology also help human to kill animal in a huge canning factory. We can avoid the bloody process and eat meat without seeing the killing process. We are clean, but the killing process still continue. We are free from facing the children cry, but it still hapened outside without we are to arrogant to care. We become more mechanistic since we use the medium. We absence in the tragic moment, and we choose to not know.

Post to: delicious, Digg, ma.gnolia, Stumbleupon