March 8th class
What I liked: "An attitude, not technology" This adage brings into focus the essence of library 2.0. Library 2.0 isn't about what technologies libraries have adopted but how they apply the philosophies of web 2.0 into a new service model. It's a classic "can't see the forest for the trees" situation that I, myself, have a tendency to slip into. Instead of being concerned with what tech fads to jump on, we should be continually aware of how to incorporate the concepts of openness, sharing, participation, content creation, and user-centeredness. Technology isn't the goal, it's the medium.
What I agree with: I very much agree with the idea that libraries are in the midst of a necessary change, and that libraries that do not change become obsolete and risk closure. Libraries have always been an information provider, a place to serve information needs. For a long time, libraries enjoyed the security that came from relatively unchanged information behavior and environment -- wanted to learn something? Then you needed to go to the library to get a book.
But now, thanks to a new information environment through the internet, information behavior has drastically and irrevocably changed. Libraries are now a secondary (or tertiary) source of information - but that's OK (it has to be). Libraries now have to adjust their missions and find their new service models, not to compete with the internet, but to compliment it.
What I disagree with: Even though libraries should adopt new library 2.0 service models, I don't think it should completely eschew traditional services. The libraries brand is still books and we should not forsake that perception. Even though there is a definite shift to digital, there will always be at least some demand for traditional services. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I'm still curious about: Libraries are still in midst of change, so like most library professionals, I'm curious what the library will look like when the dust settles (or if it ever does). From now on will libraries be in a constant state of flux due to continually adjusting to meet evolving information needs or will it find a relatively stable niche?
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Microfinance: a balanced approach
Argument: Microfinance isn't always a good thing, but it's not bad either. It can have have both positive and negative effects, varying greatly by context.
Microfinance is good: MFI's have done well in establishing that microfinance is a boon to the poor. It is fairly easy to see and is basically the popularly accepted position:
Microfinance is good: MFI's have done well in establishing that microfinance is a boon to the poor. It is fairly easy to see and is basically the popularly accepted position:
- Most MFI's report positive effects and extol the virtues of microfinance. See the Grameen Bank, Bandhan, or Kiva websites to get an idea of the noble intentions behind the service as well as some positive figures. For instance, Grameen points out that over 9.4 million people have been helped through their MFI partners and that more than 1.1 million micro-loans have been generated.
- Research such as "Measuring the impact of microfinance in Hyderabad, India"generally shows positive effects of microlending, particularly starting or investing in a business.
- Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank anda major innovator in microfinance won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize.
- In their paper "The miracle of micro…nance? Evidence from a randomized evaluation" Banerjee, Duflo, Glennerster, and Kinnan conclude "While microcredit succeeds in affecting household expenditure and creating and expanding businesses, it appears to have no discernible effect on education, health, or womens' empowerment."
- In another randomized evaluation, Karlan and Zinman has a few surprising finds: marginally creditworthy microentrepreneurs who randomly receive credit actually shrunk their businesses, access to credit increased profits for male but not for female microentrepreneurs, and increased access to credit didn't improve subjective well-being
- Chuck Waterfield's research points out the difficulties in understanding microfinance prices due to misleading information and how lenders can end up paying far more than is initially apparent.
- Media reports including this Boston Globe article draw on research to paint a negative picture of microfinance, saying things such as "by most measures, microcredit does not offer a way out of poverty"
- Do the business investments evidenced in the existing research lead to additional development outcomes over a longer time? Will incomes rise and poverty rates fall as borrowers continue to operate their businesses? Will new studies be able to replicate earlier positive results about social outcomes?
- To what extent do loans and savings programs alleviate the day-to-day uncertainty of life below the poverty line?
- Will additional studies in alternative settings find similar positive results of microsavings programs?
- Can insightfully designed lending programs lead to positive outcomes for the very poorest borrowers?
- What about the macroeconomic effects of microfinance program? Is there convincing evidence of effects on poverty rates, rates of inequality, and economic growth in a variety of settings?
Reflections: Financial Inclusion
March 1st Class
What I liked: As someone who is financially stable in a developed country it's easy to take financial inclusion for granted. Checking, savings, direct deposits, debit cards, online, and mobile banking are all a fixture in my life. Class this week helped me to understand the severity behind the widespread issue of being "unbanked". 2.9 billion people in the do not hold bank accounts, making it more difficult for them to fully participate in the economy. However, in class we didn't just discuss the problem, we also took a look at an innovative solution: microfinance. Through small loans and other financial services coupled with innovative collection techniques, microfinance institutions have been able to extend financial services to those in poverty who did not previously have access. I enjoyed being introduced to these innovations.
What I agree with: I agree that those in poverty can (and should) benefit from financial inclusion. Being able to save, loan, and electronically send money is economically empowering and may be one way to improve the condition of the poor on a large scale. I also agree that providing financial services to the poor in remote areas can also be a challenge for finance institutions who need incentives and profitability to expend the resources on "last-mile" services.
What I disagree with: Many hold the opinion that microfinance should not be a charity and that developing countries do not need the benefaction of the West for microfinance to be viable and effective. This sentiment was made popular by C.K. Prahalad in his book "Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid". I agree that microfinance can stand on its own apart from charity, but I think microfinance through a charitable lens is also a good thing. I understand that for sustainability and longevity microfinance needs to be a financially viable investment, but charitable giving can also have a large positive impact on the poor. Pride may also be a factor in the eschewing of charity, but pride shouldn't get in the way of helping more people. Besides, low to no-interest loans are only a small form of charity, unlike traditional charitable donations.
Before this class, I was aware of Kiva, a charitable MFI, and the way they have been enabling individuals to provide loans to people in developing nations is inspiring. I am hard pressed to criticize their methods.
I'm still curious about: I'm still curious about the overall effectiveness of microfinance. Financial inclusion is a good thing, but does it lift people out of poverty? Microfinance is most prevalent in developing countries (where there is the most need), but is microfinance in effect here in America? Also, why are women the primary targets of microfinance? Does is just happen that way or are they the intended recipients? I would have thought that men, who traditionally are the ones to pursue business ventures would be more likely to take advantage of micro credit.
What I liked: As someone who is financially stable in a developed country it's easy to take financial inclusion for granted. Checking, savings, direct deposits, debit cards, online, and mobile banking are all a fixture in my life. Class this week helped me to understand the severity behind the widespread issue of being "unbanked". 2.9 billion people in the do not hold bank accounts, making it more difficult for them to fully participate in the economy. However, in class we didn't just discuss the problem, we also took a look at an innovative solution: microfinance. Through small loans and other financial services coupled with innovative collection techniques, microfinance institutions have been able to extend financial services to those in poverty who did not previously have access. I enjoyed being introduced to these innovations.
What I agree with: I agree that those in poverty can (and should) benefit from financial inclusion. Being able to save, loan, and electronically send money is economically empowering and may be one way to improve the condition of the poor on a large scale. I also agree that providing financial services to the poor in remote areas can also be a challenge for finance institutions who need incentives and profitability to expend the resources on "last-mile" services.
What I disagree with: Many hold the opinion that microfinance should not be a charity and that developing countries do not need the benefaction of the West for microfinance to be viable and effective. This sentiment was made popular by C.K. Prahalad in his book "Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid". I agree that microfinance can stand on its own apart from charity, but I think microfinance through a charitable lens is also a good thing. I understand that for sustainability and longevity microfinance needs to be a financially viable investment, but charitable giving can also have a large positive impact on the poor. Pride may also be a factor in the eschewing of charity, but pride shouldn't get in the way of helping more people. Besides, low to no-interest loans are only a small form of charity, unlike traditional charitable donations.
Before this class, I was aware of Kiva, a charitable MFI, and the way they have been enabling individuals to provide loans to people in developing nations is inspiring. I am hard pressed to criticize their methods.
I'm still curious about: I'm still curious about the overall effectiveness of microfinance. Financial inclusion is a good thing, but does it lift people out of poverty? Microfinance is most prevalent in developing countries (where there is the most need), but is microfinance in effect here in America? Also, why are women the primary targets of microfinance? Does is just happen that way or are they the intended recipients? I would have thought that men, who traditionally are the ones to pursue business ventures would be more likely to take advantage of micro credit.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Something to watch: Branch
"[It] enables a smart new brand of high quality public discourse. Curated groups of people are invited to engage around issues in which they are knowledge[able]. This service holds the promise of a new platform for dialogue on the web – a necessary departure from the monologues we have grown so accustomed to reading online."This innovation has to potential to positively influence the way people communicate and learn online and it's worth keeping up with in the coming months. For more information on Branch, check out the official Branch statement.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Participate in E-government
I attempted to formulate an argument this week based on e-governance issues, however, I struggled. I'm usually later in posting than my classmates and they made the same arguments I was thinking of discussing (in a much better way than I would have). I wanted to explore how governments need to respect the freedom of its citizens before social media protests could be effective, but L. Khoury already made a thought-provoking post on that topic. I also wanted to point out that the digital divide needed to be solved before e-governance could be effective, however, Laura Buell already brought that issue to light. I encourage the reading of both my classmates' blogs.
Instead of drumming up an academic argument, I want to share the results of my personal reflection. In my reflection I explored why I didn't participate in e-government more often. From that thought, I set out to find out how I could participate, and now I want to share the resources I've found in my research. So, I guess my argument is "You should take this opportunity to participate in your government by accessing these resources"
E-government Participation Resources:
Register to vote: Register to exercise your basic civic duty. Hosted by U.S. Election Assistance Commission
Learn how to support federal candidates: A guide to supporting Federal candidates. Hosted by U.S. Election Assistance Commission
Become a poll worker: Volunteer to help at the polls. Hosted by U.S. Election Assistance Commission\
Find your representative: Find and contact your representative. From U.S. House of Representative's website
Find your senator: Find and contact your congressperson. From the U.S. Senate's website
Contact elected officials: Find contact info for any elected official. Hosted by USA.gov
"Like" the government: USA.gov's Facebook page
Follow the government: USA.gov's Twitter account
Social network the government: A wiki where you can discover the social media outlets of government agencies and officials
Petition: Create, discover, and sign petitions. Hosted by the White House
Affect regulations: Comment on proposed Federal regulations at Regulations.gov
Join data communities: Connect and network with research communities. Hosted by Data.gov
Solve challenges: Propose ideas and solutions to Federal challenges. Provided by U.S. General Services Administration
Request records: Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act and its related website, you can request Federal agencies records
Access government from your phone: List of government apps and mobile sites. Hosted by USA.gov
Instead of drumming up an academic argument, I want to share the results of my personal reflection. In my reflection I explored why I didn't participate in e-government more often. From that thought, I set out to find out how I could participate, and now I want to share the resources I've found in my research. So, I guess my argument is "You should take this opportunity to participate in your government by accessing these resources"
E-government Participation Resources:
Register to vote: Register to exercise your basic civic duty. Hosted by U.S. Election Assistance Commission
Learn how to support federal candidates: A guide to supporting Federal candidates. Hosted by U.S. Election Assistance Commission
Become a poll worker: Volunteer to help at the polls. Hosted by U.S. Election Assistance Commission\
Find your representative: Find and contact your representative. From U.S. House of Representative's website
Find your senator: Find and contact your congressperson. From the U.S. Senate's website
Contact elected officials: Find contact info for any elected official. Hosted by USA.gov
"Like" the government: USA.gov's Facebook page
Follow the government: USA.gov's Twitter account
Social network the government: A wiki where you can discover the social media outlets of government agencies and officials
Petition: Create, discover, and sign petitions. Hosted by the White House
Affect regulations: Comment on proposed Federal regulations at Regulations.gov
Join data communities: Connect and network with research communities. Hosted by Data.gov
Solve challenges: Propose ideas and solutions to Federal challenges. Provided by U.S. General Services Administration
Request records: Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act and its related website, you can request Federal agencies records
Access government from your phone: List of government apps and mobile sites. Hosted by USA.gov
Reflection: E-governance
February 23rd class
This week we talked about issues related to electronic governance. Much of the focus of the class was from an technical perspective: technology decisions, failures, and lessons. However, for me, its hard to talk about political participation without considering my role in it. Political participation is certainly a social issue, but it's also deeply personal.
It was shared that around 80% of government electronic initiatives are failures (similar to the amount of initiatives that don't make it to market - is it too easy for government initiative to "make it to market", perhaps?). This statistic leads us to examine the reasons behind the general failure of e-government to take hold. No doubt the major reason is lack of participation. No doubt the reasons why most Americans don't participate can be complex, so I start by examining myself.
I'm a young, tech-savvy person who votes and is generally interested in politics (I'm no die-hard, but I like to know what's going on). I don't participate much in the political process offline, where it's considered a bit more time and energy consuming. However, I don't really "participate" in the political process online either. I semi-frequently use government provided information and statistics services online, but I don't communicate with my representatives online, I don't follow politicians or government organizations through social media. I guess the reason why is I'm busy doing other things, or not necessarily busy, but I find more value in doing other things. Whether its working, schooling, or just watching T.V., I'd rather be doing that than e-mailing my representative or checking the governors twitter.
In a way, that's OK. That's partly the purpose of a representative system: we send people to represent us in the political world to free us up to do other, oftentimes productive things. On the other hand, thanks to the internet it's easier than ever to be connected. So traditional excuses don't hold up so well, anymore.
Whether I have more of an obligation to participate politically, it's good to know that when I want to, it's there. Perhaps I (an other people) just need to get fired up about something before I jump.
This week we talked about issues related to electronic governance. Much of the focus of the class was from an technical perspective: technology decisions, failures, and lessons. However, for me, its hard to talk about political participation without considering my role in it. Political participation is certainly a social issue, but it's also deeply personal.
It was shared that around 80% of government electronic initiatives are failures (similar to the amount of initiatives that don't make it to market - is it too easy for government initiative to "make it to market", perhaps?). This statistic leads us to examine the reasons behind the general failure of e-government to take hold. No doubt the major reason is lack of participation. No doubt the reasons why most Americans don't participate can be complex, so I start by examining myself.
I'm a young, tech-savvy person who votes and is generally interested in politics (I'm no die-hard, but I like to know what's going on). I don't participate much in the political process offline, where it's considered a bit more time and energy consuming. However, I don't really "participate" in the political process online either. I semi-frequently use government provided information and statistics services online, but I don't communicate with my representatives online, I don't follow politicians or government organizations through social media. I guess the reason why is I'm busy doing other things, or not necessarily busy, but I find more value in doing other things. Whether its working, schooling, or just watching T.V., I'd rather be doing that than e-mailing my representative or checking the governors twitter.
In a way, that's OK. That's partly the purpose of a representative system: we send people to represent us in the political world to free us up to do other, oftentimes productive things. On the other hand, thanks to the internet it's easier than ever to be connected. So traditional excuses don't hold up so well, anymore.
Whether I have more of an obligation to participate politically, it's good to know that when I want to, it's there. Perhaps I (an other people) just need to get fired up about something before I jump.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Augmented Reality Coming Soon
Argument: Technology that will allow us to overlay information to the world around us will become widespread for personal use within the next 2 years.
Evidence in Support:
Evidence Against:
Balanced Discussion:
The argument could be made that augmented reality technology is already widely used and accepted for personal use. However, I think AR applications and use has nowhere near hit its peak and will gain more traction soon due to Google's upcoming release.
The dreamers among us see the possibilities of the technology and may be tempted to think it will be easy to implement, however, the realist see several issues that must be addressed before the technology can be valuable and efficiently implemented. Companies are no doubt working on solving the technical concerns, but we may very well be in the early days, far from having all the kinks worked out.
I have no doubt the kinks will get worked out. Admittedly 2 years is just a wild guess on my part, but at this point in the development of AR technologies the hardest argument to make is that AR technology won't be revolutionary in the future.
Evidence in Support:
- Some personal augmented reality technology is already available: Thanks to the iPhone we already have some augmented reality apps available. The Nintendo 3DS and the Playstation Vita handheld gaming systems also incorporate augmented reality features.
- Groundbreaking smart technologies are set to be released soon: Google is set to release heads-up display glasses this year. From the article: "The glasses will have a built-in camera that will be able to monitor the world in real time and overlay information about locations, surrounding buildings and friends who might be nearby." And as mentioned in a previous post SixthSense is doing amazing AR work with major implications, although it's still in the prototype phase.
- Upcoming technologies will be relatively affordable: The New York Times reports that, according to Google, their upcoming HUD glasses will cost "around the price of current smartphones". Also, SixthSense says their prototype can be made for approximately $350.
Evidence Against:
- New technology might not take off: Google has a long history of innovations that don't take off and certainly don't revolutionize. See: Google Plus, Chromebooks, and the list of Google flops.
- Easier said than done: John Parkinson's CIO Insight article "Enterprise Mobility: a Fresh Perspective" offers technical challenges that must be overcome before AR technology to become reliable. Concerns include: coverage, bandwidth, security, synchronization, multi-user viewing, and pricing.
Balanced Discussion:
The argument could be made that augmented reality technology is already widely used and accepted for personal use. However, I think AR applications and use has nowhere near hit its peak and will gain more traction soon due to Google's upcoming release.
The dreamers among us see the possibilities of the technology and may be tempted to think it will be easy to implement, however, the realist see several issues that must be addressed before the technology can be valuable and efficiently implemented. Companies are no doubt working on solving the technical concerns, but we may very well be in the early days, far from having all the kinks worked out.
I have no doubt the kinks will get worked out. Admittedly 2 years is just a wild guess on my part, but at this point in the development of AR technologies the hardest argument to make is that AR technology won't be revolutionary in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)