Over the past few weeks I’ve been involved in numerous discussions with enormous amounts of diverse individuals. At the same time, I have had the pleasure of participating in several group discussions focusing on the future of our Agency and how important openness, collaboration, creativity, and innovation are to the future.
During these various discussions it became apparent to me how inhibiting our technological tools can be. How limiting they can be and how they can clearly divide people from within. I wanted to take the opportunity to present my observations and open a discussion on this topic so that I may further understand how beneficial these tools are compared to the detriment they cause to a collaborative group.
At the Next Generation Exploration Conference (NGEC II) held at Ames Research Center, the participant led conference included the use of laptop computers, blackberries, second life, and various other technologies. During this time-frame and throughout my participation in this event I was reassured by how these tools enabled people from around the world to participate in a conference that they would otherwise not be able to contribute. By allowing a connection through second life, questions presented to the speakers were not only beneficial to those whom had asked but to the whole conference and truly demonstrated how beneficial technological tools can be.
On the other side of the coin, however, I recently had the opportunity to participate in a work-shop and many follow-on working sessions in which laptop computers, blackberries, and other technological tools were utilized. Initially I was not opposed to the use of these tools because I have seen how clearly beneficial they can be. Unfortunately, I was surprised and given a wake-up call regarding the detrimental affect they can have. During one particular session, it became apparent that upwards of three or four conversations were occurring at the same time. Something that would never happen without these collaborative technological tools. Some would argue that this is a good thing. They would aregue that this ability enables people to feel empowered and included in the discussion because they have an outlet for speaking their opinions. Many may argue that it is essential to collaboration and innovation.
I have a different observation. I saw people fragmenting into smaller groups. I saw people focusing on their own conversations and becoming distracted, pulled away from the main discussion that brought everyone together. I saw people who were clearly excluding the rest of the group and merely focusing on their own little club of people invited to participate in their discussion. What I saw was the ability to disrespect, disregard, and dismiss others in a passive way.
I find myself engaging in this same behavior. I often grab my blackberry during a meeting or group discussion because I have a comment or thought or response I have to make to another item that just popped up. When sparked with an idea or concept, I see how quickly I’m able to access the wealth of information, through the internet, to better make my decision. I would agree that these tools have enormous benefit to me and my ability to constantly remain in contact with many aspects of my life, all at the “touch of a button.” Although I see these technological advances and tools as extremely useful and beneficial to meeting the growing demands we place on ourselves, I also see how I affect a conversation. I recognize how I ignore others when I pick that new-fangled device up off the table. I see in their face how I affect their confidence and perception of self-worth when I dismiss them in an instant. I see how these technological advances and tools divide and separate me from those whom I wish to collaborate and engage.
So I pose a few questions…
Is the value of these tools and abilities worth the price we pay? Is there no value in a face to face conversation? Does our behavior (disconnecting in the here and now) speak louder than what we’re allowed to say via the particular technological tool we choose? What benefit do we get from the use of these tools? Does it allow us to vet our ideas in confidence so that we feel more confident before speaking it out loud? Does it allow us to feel like we’re apart of a group (exclusive group)?
Lastly, can we combine the two? Does allowing people to hold splinter conversations truly enhance the groups ability to focus and develop a collaborative idea?
March 14th, 2008 at 2:35 am
As pointed out in this post, technology can be counter productive if not properly understood or used. Here’s an interesting article that talks about the use of new social media and Web 2.0 technology in the workplace as a way of creating better workplace communities, engagement and communication.
Management-Issues article: http://tinyurl.com/yqwbls
March 14th, 2008 at 3:42 am
I think this is a very real and significant observation, not necessarily one of technology, but one of respect, culture, indvidual perception, and ettiquette. Throughout history as cultures grow in isolation, they develop a culture. When they interact with other cultures, the perception of each others actions becomes unpredictable and often causes conflict. It could be because of perceived or actual disrespect, but the reaction is the same - alienation. Without an understanding of each other’s background, a rift between the two is likely.
The same holds true for new technologies, except that physical isolation is not required in order to create a rift. All you need is the creation of a new culture by one group using different technologies over time. When the interaction begins between two individuals from different technological backgrounds, a conflict is just as likely.
I think the solution is the desire for understanding on both sides, and an attempt for some sort of ettiquette. All of the cross-cultural courses I’ve taken teach us a bunch of obscure things we shouldn’t do because it will be taken as rude to the other culture. Once I show up in the other country, I find that merely the effort of trying to show respect goes miles - even though I usually mess up the tradition or common practice. But guess what - they know I’m an American and usually cut me some slack. They, too, have reached halfway and tried to adhere to some American cultural traits. The result then becomes learning and understanding - and usually finding commonality between the two cultures, which is where the truly important discoveries lie.
So I ask this - as different as those of us are who use Blackberries, laptops and chat rooms - what is the common thread between us and previous generations who used carphones, pagers, telephones, or the postal service as their most advanced means of communication. Did you use the carphone while on a date with your girlfriend? Take a pager to church? Answer the phone without a polite ‘Hello’? Write a letter with really sloppy handwriting? The volume of the new technologies is increasing, which means we need to be a little more nimble, because we will be faced with more cultures from many unexpected directions. But I think a little cross-cultural traning and simple understanding from both sides will do wonders, no matter what technology it applies to.
I’ll finish with a link to someone who was faced with a similar problem and had a lot of advice for the users of this “new technology”:
http://library.thinkquest.org/2993/phone.htm
March 14th, 2008 at 4:20 am
Huh. The situation you describe reminds me of something I read on Deaf culture:
http://www.coloroflanguage.com/getting_attention.htm
..with the allegories of electronic gadgetry to audible speech, and the real-life conversation to a signed dialog.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I’d like to put a word to what you describe: “multitasking.” I can’t do it. Not even close. So it really bothers me to see a room full of people (like at NGEC) working away on their computers during a presentation or a conversation, because my instinct says that they’re not paying attention to what’s going on.
Now, I appreciate the fact that some people CAN multitask, but I’d suggest that many more people think that they can effectively multitask than actually can. And I think we end up with less effective conversations about the topic at hand because everyone is really immersed in their own little worlds!
Actually, I would even go a step further and propose that the more folks get used to having laptops and blackberries, the more isolated we’ll become as a society. While people may become more connected superficially, I’m afraid that we’ll lose the ability to connect intimately with each other because we’ll be too busy participating in too many other relatively meaningless conversations.
March 14th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
A comment provided to me by one of my co-workers:
An observation was made during college: As an upperclassman I often wandered across the hall to my friends for an invitation to lunch…we would spark up a conversation, discuss some exciting topic and then head out for lunch. Our doors were always open and inviting…
As the new age of college freshmen entered into the residence hall I saw a glaring difference between us (upperclassmen and freshmen). They would remain in their rooms with the door closed and when wanting to invite another to lunch, they would send a text/AIM message to the guy across the hall.
Dialogue:
person 1 - “hey, wanna go to lunch?”
person 2 - “sure! when?”
person 1 - “now?”
person 2 - “ok…meet you in the hall.”
and shortly there after, these two would emerge from their cave to head off to lunch.
This depicts exactly how technology is allowing us to be “connected” but how the connectivity we have is limited to those who know our screenname….closing off the rest of the world.
March 14th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Replies to select questions.
“What benefit do we get from the use of these tools?”
One benefit that I see is how technology can add more “memory” into our lives. Memory as in long term archived data (analogous to a hard drive) and short term RAM data. When I go to a birthday party or meeting, I rely on meeting maker or evite to remind me where, what and when. This frees up my mind and allows me to think about other things. This use of technology lets me FOCUS instead of constantly reminding myself of things that I have to do.
“Is the value of these tools and abilities worth the price we pay?”
Yes, by recording and archiving all of our knowledge, we can transfer knowledge and expertise at an exponential rate. This blog, for example, includes compounded knowledge of various perspectives from at least 20, college educated scholars.
“Is there no value in a face to face conversation?”
There definitely is value in face to face. The value of EMOTION. By EMOTION I mean the tone of your voice, your facial expressions, and your body language. No matter how well you model your character in second life, its still pretty hard to display your current emotional state on an avatar. This EMOTIONal information is important because it adds context to our conversations. I remember reading an academic paper in my information theory class on how ineffective email is at communicating feelings and managing relationships (many misunderstandings were created).
“Does it allow us to vet our ideas in confidence so that we feel more confident before speaking it out loud?”
Anonymity does encourage more people to speak up because it removes the fear of liability. The recent event between the group Anonymous and Scientology illustrates this perfectly.
Great questions!
March 14th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
An insightful and honest post. As much as I use some of the technologies you mentioned and as helpful as they can be, there is still no substitute for face-to-face contact. We should always use the form of communication closest to that ideal, but when the ideal is not possible or practical, telecons, videocons, email, chat rooms, et cetera provide convenient alternatives. In my opinion, however, they never reach that ideal of collocated collaboration.
Regarding generational/cultural issues, I think we can learn a lot from older generations and localized cultures. I can recall a casual conversation I was having with an older gentleman. The man turned his back to get something (he was multi-tasking) and was about 15 feet away from me. My cell phone rang (vibrated), and I answered it and started talking to the person on the phone without saying “excuse me” or something to the man I had been talking to. He got really pissed! I really should have at least said “excuse me” or something.
A similar thing happened recently with a friend about my age. He answered his phone several times during a conversation we were having. It didn’t really bother me because we are so used to it in our generation. …But if you really do think about it, it’s kind of rude and can certainly appear even ruder to people who are not used to it. To the best of our ability, we should give people our fullest attention whenever the opportunity arises to interact. I believe that principle is cross-generational and cross-cultural. All humans want to feel appreciated, respected, and loved. What better way than to give someone your undivided attention! (I fall short of that goal every single day, but I try to make up for it by forgiving others who do the same.)
Intentional communication always has a motivation, an objective, and a means. Conscientious human beings will tend to use the means that they think will best achieve their objective within their available resources. And if their motivation is good, then they will usually try to avoid a means that offends people (offending people usually works against the objective anyway). The problem is that as smart as we are, everyone forgets sometimes to fully consider the consequences of our communications.
Sometimes even if we do carefully consider the consequences, the effects are not predictable because there is at least one uncontrollable factor: how the recipient chooses to receive the communication, i.e. another human’s decision. Gerty is absolutely right that both the sender and the recipient have a responsibility. The recipient should do his or her best to understand the motivation or intention of the communication and forgive any mistakes in the means used or the unintended consequences.
March 15th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Great posts.
I particularly like Gerty’s comments about etiquette.
I’d also like to echo Rivers: When I check my email during a meeting, I’ve tuned out what is going on in the meeting. I can only assume that others do the same.
Nevertheless, I see the use of Blackberrys and mobile communication devices as necessary.
My employer would not furnish me with such a device, and yet still expected me to be on top of everything going on. That meant that I could spend all day running back to my office between meetings to check my email, or purchase my own mobile device.
I purchased my own device.
March 16th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
My aunt’s office policy was posted in her board room: “Be here now, please.” That meant you left e-toys @ the door when you came to a meeting; you had to be both physically AND mentally present—no answering emails, no texting 3rd parties. If you thought of something you had to do later, you jotted it down on paper, period.
Technology has made being “present” harder–our minds are constantly bouncing to other things. (Email is a perfect example: many argue it has led to a decrease in productivity because of our compulsion to continually check it. Each new message breaks your train of thought.) We’re so impassioned w/ forging a path to the future, but listening to what people are saying RIGHT NOW is often directly related to where we’ll be later, and it often gets ignored.
Telecomm was originally designed to talk w/ those who couldn’t physically be present, but the immediacy and ease that it imparts has somehow led us to slight both the receiver and those around us by tempting us to do other things @ the same time. However, neurologically speaking, humans are bad at multi-tasking; the limits to conscious sensory input are low, and something always wins out—therefore, one can’t *truly* listen intently AND read email, drive AND talk on a cell phone, etc. (There’s a reason states have outlawed cell phone use while driving.) More importantly: shouldn’t everyone to whom you speak deserve your full attention and respect, anyway, regardless of whether they’re across from you or on the phone? When did we decide that was no longer worth doing? When did plain old manners go out the window? (thanks, Gerty!)
The point is, technology is evolving faster than we know how to integrate it into our social etiquette. Cell phones in particular have been around for roughly 2 decades and are still a source of public irritation in theaters, libraries…but I especially notice this after a plane lands: everyone immediately pulls out their phones to see who they’ve missed. It feels like it’s all for a desperate need to feel important, included…but how do you feel if you don’t have any messages, while others around you respond to theirs? We shut off those in our immediate sphere in the process, often without realizing it.
I remember it being said that Laurel Clark of STS-107 would always stop by your office in person when she could have just as easily called or emailed. What a great example to follow. I do see value in the use of new technology if used with common sense, and in moderation, but we shouldn’t forget that the tried and true, old-fashioned way can still be the most effective.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
[…] media - and understandably so. We’ve even discussed the negative implications of technology here on openNASA. When it comes to corporate resources, time, money, and effort to try new activities takes risk. […]