Find Me On

My Homepage

Google+

Twitter

Newsvine

Email

RSS Feeds

Search This Blog

Archives

Josh Braun’s Blog // I have it written down somewhere . . .

Preeminence, Progress, and Hurricanes Aug 7, 2012

A couple contrasting quotes on higher ed that I was struck by in the last few days…

Our continued preeminence and progress in space, and here on earth in other domains, such as bio-medicine and healthcare, clean energy, national security, advanced manufacturing—all of this depends on our commitment to science, technology, and innovation, and the passion for adventure that has driven us to explore new worlds.  By sustaining our investments in basic research and exploration, we ensure that America will remain at the forefront of the scientific frontier.

John P. Holdren, Presidential Science Adviser

Federal support for higher education remains at historically high levels, but states have cut back. To make matters worse, endowments (and their returns) have shrunk, money from philanthropy has dried up and those universities that provide need-based aid have suddenly found their students are needier.  All this suggests that colleges have good cause to worry about their debts. … Universities that fail to prepare for the hurricane ahead are likely to be flattened by it.

The Economist

 

Posted in Surviving (in) Academia | Tagged | Leave a comment

On Participatory Culture and the Moral Failings of Goldfish Owners Aug 6, 2012

Growing up, I was something of an aquarium hobbyist. Over the course of my childhood—and with more than a little help from my parents at first—I kept a whole aquatic menagerie in containers ranging from a one-gallon bowl to a heated 30 gallon tank. Recently, I decided to make a modest return to the hobby, selecting a single betta fish as a new pet. They’re attractive fish, to be sure, but more to the point bettas have famously low maintenance requirements—they’re almost impossible to kill.

Even so, I noticed after bringing the fish home that “Finley” spent his first few minutes lazing at the bottom of the bowl. Concerned, I did what I imagine many people do these days—I took to the web to learn more and see what I should do. I quickly found an answer (the water had yet to warm up completely and bettas park themselves on the floor when they’re feeling cold). But I found something else intriguing, as well—since I was a kid, the experience of becoming a fish owner seems to have changed dramatically.

When I started keeping fish, my father and I bought books on fish and keeping aquariums. I imagine that these days, most Americans with broadband access who are starting a new hobby will hop online for advice and to plug into the culture of their chosen pursuit—call it a fan culture, community of practice, or whatever you like.

But communities of fish enthusiasts are a different kind of introductory source from the beginner-oriented pamphlets that preceded them—the people creating sites on goldfish, bettas, mollies, and other aquarium fish tend to be the ones most taken with their hobby. Many research a fish’s native environment and provide extensive tips on how to recreate it in one’s apartment. Rather than minimum requirements, fish bloggers and forum admins instead provide thorough tracts about the ideal environment for their fish of choice.

And the contrast they provide to what used to pass for beginner’s advice can be somewhat striking. Pet stores, books, and magazines for instance, once more commonly marketed bettas as worry-free fish that could live in small containers, with very little maintenance or equipment (see the image above and to the right for a typical example). But consult an introduction from a contemporary betta hobbyist site and this is what you’ll read:

With enough education, less people will purchase…tiny containers and hopefully, one day, aquariums marketed to bettas will be filtered, heated, 3-5gal (12-20L) tanks with silk or real plants which will keep any betta safe and happy for their full lifespan.

Of course, even without referencing the web, casual hobbyists might easily guess that many of the “tanks” in which bettas are routinely kept—ranging from drinking glasses to flower vases to tiny novelty bowls made for office desks—are ridiculous and inhumane. But even goldfish, whose existence in one-gallon fishbowls once seemed so commonplace as to be axiomatic, are now being liberated by hobbyist communities. Take, for example, this introduction from a hobbyist site to keeping the common goldfish (Carassius auratus):

Ideally, this goldfish should be kept in at least 25–40 gallons of water. Although an aquarium heater is not required, it’s still a good idea too have one on hand for emergency. The water temperature for it should kept around 65-78′ F. One must also remember that goldfish must eat, swim, breathe, and drink in the same water that they live in, so water quality for the fish must be taken seriously. A good water filter is usually required in order to to keep goldfish healthy and to maintain safe water conditions for the fish. Some water parameters that need to be checked when setting up a new tank and also once the tank is established are the ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, and pH levels.

What’s interesting to me is that as we increasingly turn to the internet to acquire new skills, from brewing iced coffee to making beds with hospital corners, guides like these are more and more likely to be one’s introduction to a hobby. Even if heated tanks and filtration systems aren’t the norm for “beginner fish” in real life, they’re now normative. While a range of opinions are represented, peruse these help sites for a bit and you’ll easily find examples wherein posters who’ve put their fish in lowly bowls are gently reprimanded—and occasionally even excoriated viciously—by tank-owning users for treating their pets inhumanely.

In some ways this is not unlike the sort of hierarchy we see hobbyists and fans imposing on one another across many communities, whether it’s self-described “birders” looking down their noses at casual “bird watchers,” or sci-fi fans debating the relative merits of “Trekkies” verus “Trekkers.” Unlike the cases of birders or Trekkies, however, there’s a particularly explicit and somewhat interesting moral appeal going on here to a third party—the fish and its needs.

First off, these appeals are not unconvincing. Read a little bit of blogger/fish journalist Lea Maddocks’ well-researched and scientifically grounded treatise on what hobbyists should know about the habitat requirements of bettas, and you’ll find yourself quite ashamed of your one-gallon fish bowl, which suddenly looks like an aquatic internment camp. By referencing research and the natural world, bloggers and commenters’ claims about a proper moral order trade on the authority of the scientific order. It’s a fascinating exercise both in moral philosophy and the sociology of knowledge.

Second, and not coincidentally, the moral imperatives set up by these narratives serve to push people further into the hobby. What better excuse to buy the 10-gallon tank you’ve been eyeing than this newfound responsibility for the immortal souls of goldfish, weightily resting on your shoulders. When successful, these narratives beget new hobbyists and perpetuate the norms of the community.

Lastly, from a bioethics perspective, it’s interesting to see the participatory culture of pet communities online intersecting with the larger societal trend of a rising perceived moral status for companion animals. Larger companion animals, like dogs and cats, now routinely receive levels of medical attention, from organ transplants to palliative care, once reserved for humans.

The moral status of animals, of course, is a fairly profound question. Many folks might scoff at the level of care hobbyists recommend for humble bettas and goldfish. But just in case, I’ll be checking the tag sales for a new aquarium.

[Image Credits: Clipping from Prevention Magazine; "Common Goldfish With Typical Colorations" from PetGoldfish.net]

Posted in Journalism, New Media & Digital Culture | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Curiosity Landing Sequence Aug 6, 2012

Was so happy watching this…

Posted in Clipped | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

"It ought always to be remembered, that literary institutions are founded and endowed for the common good, and not for the private advantage of those who resort to them for education. It is not that they may be enabled to pass through life in an easy or reputable manner, but that their mental powers may be cultivated and improved for the benefit of society." Jul 28, 2012

Joseph McKeen, 1802 Inaugural Address as President of Bowdoin College

This quote is emblazoned on banners around the Bowdoin campus.  It’s always good to be reminded that the debate in academia—as to whether educational institutions are serving consumers or producing citizens—isn’t exactly a new one.

Posted in Clipped | Tagged , | Leave a comment

On the Aesthetic of Rachel Maddow Jul 24, 2012

Now, it should be said that I’m not a Rachel Maddow fanboy.  But I spent some time with the program during my dissertation work and I do have a great deal of respect for the show and what it’s trying to accomplish.  Rolling Stone published a piece on Rachel Maddow last month that I think misses the point in places of her show’s influence and appeal.

I think the article gets right her attempt to craft a uniquely policy-focused discourse amid the monomaniacal horse-race orientation of the 24 hour political talk cycle (what media researchers call the “game schema” of political journalism).  But the piece concludes that her effort is crippled, or even undermined, by Maddow’s tendency for critical introspection:

There are moments…where you can see, just about, a sketch of an alternate, Maddow-ized model for television news—one in which the voices of outsiders and activists are given pride of place, in which explication trumps conflict, in which the media are invested in the idea of America but remain deeply skeptical of American power. And then, just as quickly as it takes shape, this vision recedes from view, and [her] anger turns inward once more.

The flaw in this thesis, which concludes the Rolling Stone piece, is it assumes that self-assuredness and authority are what people want from their news providers.  If anything, Maddow’s success has come from a refusal to exude these qualities.  Her program’s editorial philosophy is, I think, better summed up by this quote she gave to The Guardian last year:

I think a lot of people of my generation are discomfited by the assertion of neutrality in the mainstream media, this idea that they’re the voice of God. I think it’s just honest to say, yes, you know where I’m coming from but you can fact-check anything I say.

Former CBS News chief Andrew Heyward has astutely pointed out that the success of contemporary anchors like Maddow is tied to a new and different relationship, real or imagined, to their audiences—something more akin to a peer relationship and less like Mount Sinai.  Maddow’s fans (and staff) tout the show’s blog-like aesthetic, online and on-air, as being at the core of its appeal.  Its narratives draw heavily from blogs and pro-am media, and the program makes honest attempts to involve viewers in meaningful ways.  As the Rolling Stone piece itself notes, the show’s look and editorial strategy are meant to convey accessibility, to humanize its host:

Most political talk shows are filmed so tightly that the heads of their hosts fill the screen, so that the host’s personality is front and center. The Rachel Maddow Show uses a far wider shot, so that Maddow herself occupies a smaller part of the screen, off to the side. The shift is subtle, but the message is starkly different.

This is not to say that Maddow never comes across as strong-willed.   Five minutes into the show’s A-block I’m often yearning for an alternative point of view.  But the point of the show’s editorial strategy and stylistic choices seems to be to always portray her as a peer with a strong opinion, rather than a superior; someone who will try to weave a case from facts, rather than status.  And within those bounds, strong-willed is by no means a bad thing.  It’s even a compliment.

So if Rachel Maddow is highly self-critical, or has at the very least a sense that her position is tenuously tied to a sense of peer respect between her and her audience, I fail to see how that’s a bad thing for her program or the type of discourse she’s trying to promote.

The Rolling Stone piece gets many key things right about The Rachel Maddow Show, but this idea that she is secretly self-loathing, or that critical introspection is a bad quality in a media figure—that part sounds like the thesis of another Rolling Stone article.  The one that gets tossed around in the film Almost Famous as a joke:

Tell [the editor] it’s think-piece about a mid-level band struggling with their own limitations in the harsh face of stardom.

Yeah, he’ll wet himself.

[Image Credit: "Rachel Maddow PrintCC BY-NC-SA 2.0 by artbymags]

Posted in Journalism, New Media & Digital Culture | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Chapter from Dan Kreiss' New Book Jul 16, 2012

Culture Digitally has posted a preview chapter of Dan Kreiss’ new book, Taking Our Country Back: The Crafting of Networked Politics from Howard Dean to Barack Obama.  The site has a nice burgeoning tradition of inviting scholars to talk over new works in the comments.  I offered a response, which I’m cross-posting here.

•••

Kreiss’ focus on infrastructure and attention to the socio-technical systems behind political campaigning make a wonderful and much-needed intervention in our discussion of media, political and otherwise.

First, and most obviously, they are welcome alternatives to the popular technological determinism we see so often in accounts of “technology changing everything” about our culture and our politics. Kreiss does a beautiful job of uncovering the intricate networks of personal, commercial, institutional, and political alliances that underpin the technologies of campaigning. He demonstrates how new media technologies are not merely something that “happens to” politics, but quite the opposite are often the result of it. At the same time, he also does a nice job of situating the very real affordances that these technologies provide—for example, making it simpler to connect likeminded individuals. There’s a nuanced argument here that, without belying the emergent qualities of online social networks, shows us how the tools behind them are carefully designed with these effects in mind, as well as how the results are managed in sophisticated ways by a growing class of online campaign professionals.

Second, as I indicate at the start, I love the book’s attention to socio-technical systems. Again, the book treats campaigns and their tools not as isolated social or technical objects, but as complex assemblages of actors—commercial, technological, social, political, etc.—working in unison to bring about desired ends. Kreiss tells us a story not just about how these systems work, but also how they emerge, break down, and evolve over time. But one of the most important aspects of the lenses provided by the history and sociology of socio-technical systems for our cultural moment is that the methodologies necessary for these studies are particularly notable in their lack of a priori assumptions about who is (or should be) involved in a particular system. The involvement of different parties and actors is instead part of the empirical question a scholar of systems begins with. In studying online television distribution, I’ve found this to be a special virtue in a time when an array of non-traditional actors, from pre-teens to defense contractors, are playing important roles in the circulation of television products online. Already, in the introduction to Kreiss’ book, we can see how important the “discovery” of a wider array of non-traditional actors, tools, and organizations is going to be to studies of contemporary politics, and his work looks to be an auspicious start to such examinations of political infrastructure.

Lastly, and on a related note, despite the ambitious nature of the book, Kreiss is admirably frank about the limitations, or rather the specificity, of the political socio-technical systems he is studying. They are, he notes, massive, multi-faceted projects designed to optimize the collection of money and votes. Nothing more and nothing less. They were not put in place to enable arguably higher forms of political participation on the part of citizens, such as input into policy making. In other words, online campaigning has not thus far enabled a revolutionary new form of politics, as has sometimes been claimed, but is—for better or worse, and to the frustration of some participants—in many ways simply a more efficient means of executing traditional campaign goals. This is an important distinction, and helps, I think, to sell the book’s narrative. Kreiss’ enthusiasm for liberal politics is evident in both his writing and his method (the book’s account of the Obama campaign is partly that of a participant observer), but his underscoring here of the limits of the political infrastructures and objectives he discusses shows a critical edge. The manner in which he balances his complicity with scholarly critique in this opening chapter sells the book as a work of skilled ethnography. I think it likely that Taking Our Country Back, along with R.K. Nielsen’s new Ground Wars, will become a core text in courses and discussions of 21st century political campaigning.

Lastly, a few questions the chapter left me wanting to think more about:

The book, in part, links successful campaigning for office to a huge infrastructure, built up across nearly a decade, and proprietary to the Democratic Party, its candidates, and particular companies sympathetic to them. I’d love to know more about what, say, the Republican response to this infrastructure has been, or how the sort of sociotechnical systems we’re discussing compare to those in countries with other political systems.

Finally, if this massive infrastructure is for garnering money and votes, not a machine for supporting higher orders of participatory politics, might it still have an impact on those other forms of political participation? For instance, I can see an argument that this expensive concentration of infrastructure assembled by the Democratic Party, private companies, and the Obama campaign might further tilt the already impossibly skewed playing field away from third-party candidates whose attempts at policy-making might be more egalitarian. And, at the very least, what is the impact on our political culture of having infrastructure that, in the end, treats money and votes as signal, and other forms of political participation as noise?

Posted in Reviews, Opinion & Commentary | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Book Talk by Rasmus Kleis Nielsen May 7, 2012

It was my pleasure recently to get to host my friend Rasmus Kleis Nielsen when he came for a talk at Quinnipiac University on his new book, Ground Wars: Personalized Communication in Political Campaigns.  The video’s now up on YouTube and, as with most things Rasmus delivers, worth watching and listening to.

Posted in Journalism, New Media & Digital Culture | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

"The world has a nasty habit of being more complicated than is imagined by those who seek to put it right…of escaping our schemes to make it better." May 2, 2012

—John Law, “Heterogeneous Engineering and Tinkering” [PDF]

Posted in Clipped | Tagged , | Leave a comment

On Sales of Set-Top Boxes Apr 13, 2012

NewTeeVee has a nice roundup of stats surrounding various set-top box products

The total number of Boxee Box users is around 200,000…still in line with an industry-wide trend: Smart TV set-top boxes haven’t reached a wider audience, and sales have often been below expectations. … [T]here are less than one million Google TV devices being used in people’s households. Roku recently fell short of its own goal to sell three million boxes, instead selling 2.5 million devices in three years, despite a recent massive marketing campaign. The only company able to move higher numbers has been Apple. The company revealed in January that it has sold 4.2 million Apple TVs.

The NewTeeVee story, from Janko Roettgers, paints the numbers as a disappointment for Boxee, but whether that’s the case is an interesting question.

While Boxee may have sold only 200,000 boxes, it has a total user base of 2 million when you count the users of its other non-flagship devices and the now-moribund desktop version of its software.  In particular, a lot more people are using the free desktop application—even at this late stage—than buying the dedicated Boxee hardware.

This result isn’t surprising if you look at Boxee’s initial two-step business strategy, which was to (1) make it’s interface as popular as possible by disseminating it for free to users who wanted to turn their ordinary computers into HTPCs, and then (2) turn around and use this hopefully loyal audience to convince consumer electronics manufacturers and content providers to use its platform.  By this metric, Boxee managed to convert around 10 percent of its audience to “paid” customers who bought the set-top box—perhaps a bit more, if we assume a handful of those users a Boxee-powered device other than the flagship box.  And while I’m not an economist, this probably isn’t a terrible figure, considering that this all occurred during a period when Americans had a rather meager expendable income to drop $200 on a  set-top box.

Of course, by removing the availability of its free desktop software, Boxee may be killing the goose that laid the golden copper egg.  No longer will users be able to try the interface out for free before deciding to buy.  And the Boxee Box is sold primarily through Amazon, which further limits the ability of prospective customers to try it before they buy it.  The upside here, for Boxee, is that it no longer has to offer multi-platform support for its software (which was available on Windows, Linux, and OS X in addition to the set-top box).

Related, and perhaps more important to Boxee, it can appease content providers, who demanded heightened security features be built into the set-top version of the software that conflicted with those built into the partially open-source and highly user-modifiable desktop version of the software.  This meant that cross-platform support became an even tougher proposition, since the technical specifications of the desktop and set-top versions of the application would begin diverging over time.

The tradeoff is a clear one: selling a set-top box is a one-time proposition.  Once those boxes are sold, if you want to continue making money off the customers, you have to continue selling them services and subscriptions—and hence, Boxee figured, it had to appease the content providers behind those subscription services.  Whether Boxee can continue to sustain itself and grow its user base without the exposure and word of mouth that the desktop software provided is an interesting and open question.  Two-hundred thousand purchasing users may not seem like a lot by the entertainment industry’s standards, but supporting two million non-paying users indefinitely isn’t necessarily a sustainable business model either (though numerous counterarguments could be made here, that’s another post).

In the meantime, game systems may end up owning this market—there are, after all, 66 million Xbox 360 units in the wild right now, dwarfing even moderately successful products like the Apple TV.  And as Cory Bergman notes, those Xboxes are now used even more often for music and video than for gaming.  Plus, while Microsoft is doing a handy business here and has an excellent interface, Sony’s PlayStation and Nintendo’s Wii probably also have respectable figures when it comes to their use for non-gaming content.

What’s more, gaming boxes like the Xbox and the Wii are helping to push the envelope when it comes to the sort of “ten-foot interface” design that’s necessary to comfortably use a set-top device from your couch.  As many commentators noted earlier this year while perusing various voice- and gesture-controlled television devices appearing at CES, one of the most frustrating aspects of using an internet-connected TV has been the fact that you so frequently have to type—to log into services, to execute searches, and so forth—on keyboards that are either microscopic or not designed for text-entry at all.

As usual, though, this has a lot more to do with the complex socio-technical system arrayed around the way we watch television, than with gadgetry by itself.  Gadgets are artifacts with politics.  As Daniel Chamberlain has argued, the values and politics of many actors are “invested and contested” in the design of the various knobs and twiddly bits that make up our connected television interfaces.

And with so many companies (and users) out there, all with different levers they can pull, it’s going to be interesting to see where this goes.

[Image Credits: Boxee remote by Boxee.tv; Xbox 360 image by Microsoft; Cross-posted to Hacktivision]

Posted in digital television | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

We Cannot Escape Ourselves Apr 12, 2012

This has already turned up on Jezebel, so I’m sure it’s everywhere by now.  Still, I couldn’t resist. :)

Posted in Clipped | Tagged | Leave a comment