You Are Here: A Field Guide for Navigating Polarized Speech, Conspiracy Theories, and Our Polluted Media Landscape

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Whitney Phillips and Ryan M. Milner: “Our media environment is in crisis. Polarization is rampant. Polluted information floods social media. Even our best efforts to help clean up can backfire, sending toxins roaring across the landscape. In You Are Here, Whitney Phillips and Ryan Milner offer strategies for navigating increasingly treacherous information flows. Using ecological metaphors, they emphasize how our individual me is entwined within a much larger we, and how everyone fits within an ever-shifting network map.

Phillips and Milner describe how our poisoned media landscape came into being, beginning with the Satanic Panics of the 1980s and 1990s—which, they say, exemplify “network climate change”—and proceeding through the emergence of trolling culture and the rise of the reactionary far right (as well as its amplification by journalists) during and after the 2016 election. They explore the history of conspiracy theories in the United States, focusing on those concerning the Deep State; explain why old media literacy solutions fail to solve new media literacy problems; and suggest how we can navigate the network crisis more thoughtfully, effectively, and ethically. We need a network ethics that looks beyond the messages and the messengers to investigate toxic information’s downstream effects….(More)”.

Ideology and Performance in Public Organizations

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

NBER Working Paper by Jorg L. Spenkuch, Edoardo Teso & Guo Xu: “We combine personnel records of the United States federal bureaucracy from 1997-2019 with administrative voter registration data to study how ideological alignment between politicians and bureaucrats affects the personnel policies and performance of public organizations. We present four results. (i) Consistent with the use of the spoils system to align ideology at the highest levels of government, we document significant partisan cycles and substantial turnover among political appointees. (ii) By contrast, we find virtually no political cycles in the civil service. The lower levels of the federal government resemble a “Weberian” bureaucracy that appears to be largely protected from political interference. (iii) Democrats make up the plurality of civil servants. Overrepresentation of Democrats increases with seniority, with the difference in career progression being largely explained by positive selection on observables. (iv) Political misalignment carries a sizeable performance penalty. Exploiting presidential transitions as a source of “within-bureaucrat” variation in the political alignment of procurement officers over time, we find that contracts overseen by a misaligned officer exhibit cost overruns that are, on average, 8% higher than the mean overrun. We provide evidence that is consistent with a general “morale effect,” whereby misaligned bureaucrats are less motivated….(More)”

Digitally Kind

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Anna Grant with Cliff Manning and Ben Thurman: “Over the past decade and particularly since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic we have seen increasing use of digital technology in service provision by third and public sector organisations. But with this increasing use comes challenges. The development and use of these technologies often outpace the organisational structures put in place to improve delivery and protect both individuals and organisations.

Digitally Kind is devised to help bridge the gaps between digital policy, process and practice to improve outcomes, and introducing kindness as a value to underpin an organisational approach.

Based on workshops with over 40 practitioners and frontline staff, the report has been designed as a starting point to support organisations open up conversations around their use of digital in delivering services. Digitally Kind explores a range of technical, social and cultural considerations around the use of tech when working with individuals covering values and governance; access; safety and wellbeing; knowledge and skills; and participation.

While the project predominantly focused on the experiences of practitioners and organisations working with young people, many of the principles hold true for other sectors. The research also highlights a short set of considerations for funders, policymakers (including regulators) and online platforms….(More)”.

We’re Beating Systems Change to Death

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Kevin Starr: “Systems change! Just saying the words aloud makes me feel like one of the cognoscenti, one of the elite who has transcended the ways of old-school philanthropy. Those two words capture our aspirations of lasting impact at scale: systems are big, and if you manage to change them, they’ll keep spinning out impact forever. Why would you want to do anything else?

There’s a problem, though. “Systems analysis” is an elegant and useful way to think about problems and get ideas for solutions, but “systems change” is accelerating toward buzzword purgatory. It’s so sexy that everyone wants to use it for everything. …

But when you rummage through the growing literature on systems change thinking, there are in fact a few recurring themes. One is the need to tackle the root causes of any problem you take on. Another is that a broad coalition must be assembled ASAP. Finally, the most salient theme is the notion that the systems involved are transformed as a result of the work (although in many of the examples I read about, it’s not articulated clearly just what system is being changed).

Taken individually or as a whole, these themes point to some of the ways in which systems change is a less-than-ideal paradigm for the work we need to get done:

1. It’s too hard to know to what degree systems change is or isn’t happening. It may be the case that “not everything that matters can be counted,” but most of the stuff that matters can, and it’s hard to get better at something if you’re unable to measure it. But these words of a so-called expert on systems change measurement are typical of what I’ve seen in in the literature: “Measuring systems change is about detecting patterns in the connections between the parts. It is about qualitative changes in the structure of the system, about its adaptiveness and resilience, about synergies emerging from collective efforts—and more…”

Like I said, it’s too hard to know to what is or isn’t happening.

2. “Root cause” thinking can—paradoxically—bog down progress. “Root cause” analysis is a common feature of most systems change discussions, and it’s a wonderful tool to generate ideas and avoid unintended consequences. However, broad efforts to tackle all of a problem’s root causes can turn anything into a complicated, hard-to-replicate project. It can also make things look so overwhelming as to result in a kind of paralysis. And however successful a systems change effort might be, that complication makes it hard to replicate, and you’re often stuck with a one-off project….(More)”.

Re-Thinking Think Tanks: Differentiating Knowledge-Based Policy Influence Organizations

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Adam Wellstead and Michael P. Howlett: “The idea of “think tanks” is one of the oldest in the policy sciences. While the topic has been studied for decades, however, recent work dealing with advocacy groups, policy and Behavioural Insight labs, and into the activities of think tanks themselves have led to discontent with the definitions used in the field, and especially with the way the term may obfuscate rather than clarify important distinctions between different kinds of knowledge-based policy influence organizations (KBPIO). In this paper, we examine the traditional and current definitions of think tanks utilized in the discipline and point out their weaknesses. We then develop a new framework to better capture the variation in such organizations which operate in many sectors….(More)”.

Knowledge Assets in Government

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Draft Guidance by HM Treasury (UK): “Embracing innovation is critical to the future of the UK’s economy, society and its place in the world. However, one of the key findings of HM Treasury’s knowledge assets report published at Budget 2018, was that there was little clear strategic guidance on how to realise value from intangibles or knowledge assets such as intellectual property, research & development, and data, which are pivotal for innovation.

This new draft guidance establishes the concept of managing knowledge assets in government and the public sector. It focuses on how to identify, protect and support their exploitation to help maximise the social, economic and financial value they generate.

The guidance provided in this document is intended to advise and support organisations in scope with their knowledge asset management and, in turn, fulfil their responsibilities as set out in MPM. While the guidance clarifies best practice and provides recommendations, these should not be interpreted as additional rules. The draft guidance recommends that organisations:

  • develop a strategy for managing their knowledge assets, as part of their wider asset management strategy (a requirement of MPM)
  • appoint a Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) for knowledge assets who has clear responsibility for the organisation’s knowledge asset management strategy…(More)“.

The New Breed: What Our History with Animals Reveals about Our Future with Robots

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Kate Darling: “For readers of The Second Machine Age or The Soul of an Octopus, a bold, exciting exploration of how building diverse kinds of relationships with robots—inspired by how we interact with animals—could be the key to making our future with robotic technology work.

There has been a lot of ink devoted to discussions of how robots will replace us and take our jobs. But MIT Media Lab researcher and technology policy expert Kate Darling argues just the opposite, and that treating robots with a bit of humanity, more like the way we treat animals, will actually serve us better. From a social, legal, and ethical perspective, she shows that our current ways of thinking don’t leave room for the robot technology that is soon to become part of our everyday routines. Robots are likely to supplement—rather than replace—our own skills and relationships. So if we consider our history of incorporating animals into our work, transportation, military, and even families, we actually have a solid basis for how to contend with this future.

A deeply original analysis of our technological future and the ethical dilemmas that await us, The New Breed explains how the treatment of machines can reveal a new understanding of our own history, our own systems and how we relate—not just to non-humans, but also to each other….(More)”.

Innovation in Real Places: Strategies for Prosperity in an Unforgiving World

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst
Innovation in Real Places – Strategies for Prosperity in an Unforgiving World - Oxford Scholarship Online

Book by Dan Breznitz: “Across the world, cities and regions have wasted trillions of dollars blindly copying the Silicon Valley model of growth creation. We have lived with this system for decades, and the result is clear: a small number of regions and cities are at the top of the high-tech industry, but many more are fighting a losing battle to retain economic dynamism. But, as this books details, there are other models for innovation-based growth that don’t rely on a flourishing high-tech industry. Breznitz argues that the purveyors of the dominant ideas on innovation have a feeble understanding of the big picture on global production and innovation.

They conflate innovation with invention and suffer from techno-fetishism. In their devotion to start-ups, they refuse to admit that the real obstacle to growth for most cities is the overwhelming power of the real hubs, which siphon up vast amounts of talent and money. Communities waste time, money, and energy pursuing this road to nowhere. Instead, Breznitz proposes that communities focus on where they fit within the four stages in the global production process. Success lies in understanding the changed structure of the global system of production and then using those insights to enable communities to recognize their own advantages, which in turn allows to them to foster surprising forms of specialized innovation. All localities have certain advantages relative to at least one stage of the global production process, and the trick is in recognizing it….(More)”.

The concept of function creep

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Research Article by Bert-Jaap Koops: “…Function creep is a phenomenon familiar to most scholars in the fields of Science & Technology Studies, law and technology, and Surveillance Studies, and to many other scholars interested in how technologies and information systems are used and regulated in society. It is so familiar that authors typically use the term without feeling a need to define or explain it. At most, they briefly describe the phenomenon in a few words, assuming that readers will know what they are referring to. We all know it has something to do with a gradual expansion of the functionality of some system or technology beyond what it was originally created for.

But why exactly is ‘gradual function expansion’ a concern, and why do authors label this phenomenon – pejoratively – ‘function creep’? The widespread use of the term indicates a prevalent concern with something going wrong, or at least not quite right, when a system1 acquires new uses. Apparently, function creep is something to be addressed, and therefore, an important phenomenon in our effort to understand and regulate technology. ‘Creep’ has many different connotations (e.g. slowness, invisibility, stealth, uncanniness), and the literature is not at all clear or coherent on what exactly is wrong with function creep and what should be done about it. Wherein exactly lies the ‘creepiness’ of function creep? If we do not understand the core of function creep, it will be hard to find suitable responses to address the concern that many authors voice when calling something ‘function creep’.

Surprisingly, the concept of function creep has never been analysed, at least not in any real depth. No literature is available on defining ‘function creep’ or explaining why it causes concern….(More)”.

Foundations of complexity economics

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by W. Brian Arthur: “Conventional, neoclassical economics assumes perfectly rational agents (firms, consumers, investors) who face well-defined problems and arrive at optimal behaviour consistent with — in equilibrium with — the overall outcome caused by this behaviour. This rational, equilibrium system produces an elegant economics, but is restrictive and often unrealistic. Complexity economics relaxes these assumptions. It assumes that agents differ, that they have imperfect information about other agents and must, therefore, try to make sense of the situation they face. Agents explore, react and constantly change their actions and strategies in response to the outcome they mutually create. The resulting outcome may not be in equilibrium and may display patterns and emergent phenomena not visible to equilibrium analysis. The economy becomes something not given and existing but constantly forming from a developing set of actions, strategies and beliefs — something not mechanistic, static, timeless and perfect but organic, always creating itself, alive and full of messy vitality….(More)”.