This morning, a few of us are talking about Born Digital and related issues on WFPL, public radio in Louisville, KY. It’s a great show, called State of Affairs. They’ve even made a video, hosted on Blip.TV, about how young people use the technologies.
For a glimpse into the technology world in Louisville, check out Michelle Jones‘ Consuming Louisville. It’s a fun and interesting site, and Michelle’s one of the guests on State of Affairs.
Update: the archived show is here.
There’s a lot of energy coming out of the Collins/Skover/Rubin/Testye workshop of a few weekends ago on the next-generation legal casebook. It’s the sign of a great gathering: after you’ve landed at your home airport, you are still thinking about the issues that you were kicking around at the conference. I think it’s also a sign of the strength of the idea: something of this sort *will* happen if we keep that energy up.
One follow-up is a call that Gene Koo and CALI has organized to see if cyberlaw law professors would want to be first up. It’s a very practical next step, and one with promise. As one such cyberlaw prof, I’m definitely in. This specific project is an obvious follow-up to much of what JZ has been working on for years, through H20 and otherwise.
Seattle University School of Law is hosting a workshop on the “Future of the Legal Course Book.” It’s a very nicely organized, timely session, brought together by Prof. David Skover, Ron Collins, and deans Ed Rubin of Vanderbilt and Kellye Testy of Seattle University. On the table: how should we rethink the legal case book in the name of improving pedagogy in law schools?
It occurs to me is that the key conceptual shift is that virtually all information – whether or not related to the law – is now created, stored, and shared in digital format for starters. Our students, too, are “born digital.” Our students have a very different relationship to information today than they did a generation ago. They were small children when the DVD replaced the VCR. Research, for our students, is more likely to mean a Google or Lexis search from a web browser than a trip to the library. They rarely, if ever, buy the newspaper in hard copy, but they graze through copious amounts of news and other information online. (Even some law professors are now more comfortable in the use of online tools for legal research and analysis than in the system of Reporters and Pocket Parts.) Law school community members are learning, accessing information, and expressing themselves in new, digitally-inspired ways – sometimes good, sometimes not so good. Others outside our community are increasingly learning about us and what we do from our web presence.
Five to ten years from now, I think it’s likely that legal case books, too, will be born digital — and then rendered in a variety of formats, whether a good old-fashioned book or a Kindle/eReader file or a series of web pages and interactive exercises. Updates could happen online, wiki-style (or not, if authors want to lock things down into a single format or series of files). Faculty and teachers could click and unclick cases and lessons and questions that they’d like to use in class. One could imagine that some students would click “buy in paper” and would get a print-on-demand version of the book sent overnight to them in the mail (say, for $49.95). Others would click “buy it for my Tablet/Reader/Kindle/Whatever” (for $49.95 minus some discount). Still others, perhaps hearing-impaired students, would click on “read it to me,” and so forth.
There are surely reasons why such a future may not come to pass. Some have raised concerns about legacy IP rights, strong interests by publishers in the current regime, and so forth, as barriers to such a future. I think that the primary question to ask is about new investments: the bulk of our new investment in teaching materials and platforms be placed in materials that are cleared in a way that facilitates this future. The barriers we should focus on are those that stand in the way of our shifting (at least some of) of new investments (of time, money, etc.) from one primarily oriented toward the analog to one that has a substantial digital emphasis in the first instance.
To be clear: Books remain important. Books are not going away anytime soon; nor should they. Hard-copies of books are important on many levels. Many people prefer to read hard-copies of books to digital forms of books, despite massive ongoing investments in technologies like the Sony Reader, the Amazon Kindle, and new technologies at the MIT Media Lab; we like to curl up with them in bed, collect them on bookshelves as signals of our knowledge (or for easy access), take them to the beach, and so forth. Books represent a stable format, unlikely the constantly-changing digital formats that imperil digital record-keeping processes over the long-term. Books are the cornerstone, for now at least, of the large and important publishing industry, whose leaders play an important role in democracies and cultures around the world. Books have the advantage, under United States law at least, of being covered by the first sale doctrine (you can give them away, or lend them, or sell them in a secondary market). But books have downsides, too – the “slow fire” phenomenon, the high cost of production (compared to their digital counterparts), and the high cost of storage and distribution. And, as many have pointed out here in Seattle, the presumption of *only* the traditional form of the book for case-based law teaching is inhibiting experimentation with new pedagogies.
As law schools, I think our work in the area of academic computing should be to facilitate this bright future of course materials born digital and rendered in various formats. We need to make it easy for faculty to experiment with new technologies in support of their teaching, research, and scholarship — especially in an era of large-scale curricular reform at places like Vanderbilt, Harvard, and others.
And there’s a need for leadership across schools, too, to develop the platform that makes this future possible. There are building blocks coming together: CALI’s eLangdell, Rice’s Connexions, and so forth. Publishers have a role to play here, too, both through their own experimentation and participation with broader, open efforts. It will be fun to be part of such an effort.
Andy Oram, editor at O’Reilly, has posted something quite extraordinary on the wiki for our book and associated research project. It appears that he has read Born Digital and then posted his review on the wiki for comment before he posts it to the O’Reilly Media web site. I hope others will take up his challenge to comment on it; just the sort of conversation we’re delighted to have, in small measure, provoked. (For the record, this review-in-the-making is an effective critique of the book, which points at several of the inevitable soft-spots in our arguments.) Thanks much, Andy, both for doing the honor of reading and reacting in depth to the book, but also for doing it in this fashion.
The final book in the MIT Press/MacArthur series on Digital Media and Learning (well, final only in terms of my getting around to writing up a review of it on this blog!) is “Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility,” edited by Miriam J. Metzger and Andrew J. Flanagin. It’s not last because it is the least important or least good, but rather it’s the taken the longest time to think about it and its message.
The topic of credibility (and the related themes of information quality and access) is incredibly important — and also very, very hard to get a grip on. It turns out that my co-author on Born Digital, Urs Gasser, is among the world’s experts on this topic in law, so I was in luck. He did most of the research and drafting on our chapters on Quality and Overload. This work also bumps up against what we at the Berkman Center have been struggling with for some time in the context of old and new media and credibility, with our conference on Blogging, Journalism and Credibility and, more recently, the Media Re:Public project.
In their introduction, the editors start out with a summary of each chapter — abstracts, almost — which together serve as a helpful device for those readers who don’t hav the time or inclination to make it through the entire volume. Not suprisingly, the summaries are worthy and faithful to the articles themselves.
Together, the editors have also written a first chapter on opportunities and challenges in the context of online credibility. Their section on “Defining Credibility” and related context (pp. 7 – 9) is useful and could serve as a reference point for other articles on the topic. Their grounding, more generally, of credibility in the youth digital learning environment got me thinking hard about the power of the search algorithms (Google’s PageRank, of course, chief among them) and the impact that these engineering decisions have on what young people are learning and will be learning. A few people in the private sector may never have had such power over a key aspect of learning in history.
The second essay by Metzger and Flanagin also includes “a call to arms to researchers, educators, policy makers, and others concerned with these issues to understand how youth think about credibility in the digital media environment and to devise a plan to assist youth in finding and evaluating the information they need.” (p. 17) Sounds right, but also sounds like a huge challenge.
The summary finding from the editors that grabbed me the most: “Perhaps the most consistent theme across all these stakeholders is that digital technologies complicate traditional notions of hierarchies and authority structures.” (p. 18) Quite right: hierarchies and authority structures don’t go away, they are just shifted around, with new players in the mix. Hierarchy and authority aren’t gone, and won’t go, they’re just different, in ways we are only beginning to understand. (Hence, in my view, the growing importance of librarians and many forms of teachers.)
The book also includes a second “call to arms,” this time in favor of “teaching credibility assessment.” (p. 155) Frances Jacobson Harris notes, quite rightly, that “meaningful access to digital information resources and systems in schools is about much more than a physical connection to the Internet. Digital natives are not necessarily skilled or critical consumers of digital information. Many are still novices when it comes to searching, selecting, and assessing the meaning and value of the information they find.” (p. 155) This is one of the key themes that we explore in Born Digital, and which has previously been built out effectively by Henry Jenkins, Eszter Hargittai, and others. Overall, this essay is totally wonderful: clear, compelling, and with a great conclusion. (pp. 172-3)
David Lankes, in “Trusting the Internet,” offers a nice piece on what he calls “information self-sufficiency” and its implications. It’s well-grounded in the technology and the tools under development on the net. (See especially pp. 115 – 7) I liked this line: “Just like libraries used to produce pathfinders and annotated bibliographies, users will soon be able to find a piece of information, such as a Web site, and follow that information to all of the other public information used in a given conversation.” (p. 114)
One of the sub-themes in the DML series has been the overlay of health and information in the lives of young people. That theme is picked up here in Gunther Eysenbach’s piece on credibility and information related to health online. He introduces and evaluates an interesting model, called DIDA, on the flow of information online. (pp. 132 – 3) The punchline, as one might imagine, is that many people go first to the Internet and second to their doctor for health information today; and there’s still a rich mix of people who consider online information credible and those who are more likely to be skeptical of it (certainly squaring with our own research on young people and digital media, to be sure). (pp. 125 – 6)
Fred Weingarten of the ALA’s Office for Information Technology Policy concludes the volume with a constructive essay on the (limited) role of government in respect to the credibility of information online, which he summarizes into three easy-to-understand categories. (pp. 181 – 2)
So, we are left with two clear calls to arms, some helpful frameworks, and a huge challenge ahead of us. The answer, as unfulfilling as it sounds, has to be to work on critical thinking skills through the schools, libraries, and traditional modes of parenting and peer-learning. Though technology can help, it won’t solve the problems and it may bring about some new problems of its own; I don’t think there will be any short-cuts. But the pay-off of serious engagement on this topic could be enormous in terms of acess to information and new ways of teaching, learning, and engaging in civic life.
Thanks, so much, to the team that Connie Yowell and the MacArthur Foundation and MIT Press put together to develop this series of six books. What a rich resource the collection is, as bound volumes; free downloads; and directions for future research and leadership.
After about four years of planning, research, and writing, Born Digital officially came out this week. Urs Gasser and I have so many people to thank; we have been blessed with such great teammates and friends and helpful critics along the way. (Much of the work that the team has done is recorded, and will be updated, on the project’s web site, wiki, and so forth.)
I admit to being very sheepish about what comes next. Several people have sent kind emails that say, basically, “congrats on the book coming out and good luck with the promotion.” Thinking about “promoting” ourselves and our book (wrapped up, now, in our identity, as “authors”) makes me very queasy. I much prefer the idea of our participating in an ongoing public conversation about youth and media, a conversation that is well underway with lots of brilliant people involved. To that end, I’ve been thrilled to see the first three web 2.0-type reactions to the book.
– The Shifted Librarian comments — by photo! — on buying Born Digital for her Kindle. This is so fitting, and cool. (As I commented on her post, I got teased at a book talk at Google the other day that the Kindle edition was initially priced at over $20.00, which was more than the hard-cover cost of $17.00 and change; it’s since come down some.)
– I am grateful to the Librarians! Law Librarian blog has a post, which (justifiably enough, and in a mere few words; very economical) juxtaposes the marketing description of the book against what we actually say inside its covers; and,
– A brand-new friend — who contacted my via Facebook about his blogpost — JohnMac is wondering about where he fits into the scheme. I suggested that he is probably a Digital Settler, which is a fine thing to be, (and thought I’d point out this post, in which I responded to critiques from Henry Jenkins and danah boyd and others about the terminology we work with in the book). I have a feeling we’ll be doing a lot of explaining, and perhaps defending, these choices of terms — but that, it seems, is in fact part of the point!
Thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion already, and looking forward to much more — some of it playing out in the public parts of cyberspace.
Day 2 tidbits from Navigate ’08 by the IAPP and team: JZ told us that Mrs. Beasley, his fabulous and famous dog, has two tracking devices: a RFID chip and a GPS device. Why? They serve distinct purposes. The RFID chip is for if she gets lost and shows up at a vet’s office, in which case they can scan her and find the wayward owner (here, JZ). The GPS device gives JZ Mrs B’s whereabouts at any time. It’s turned out to be useful twice.
On the substance of the sessions, I was surprised by what amounts to another tidbit: this high-level crew of participants — including leaders from private sector, public sector, academia, and from around the world — seemed to think that greater alignment of privacy rules is desirable and possibly feasible. The consensus was not in favor of perfect “harmonization,” but rather forms of alignment that respect cultural differences, help consumers, and enable commerce to thrive. Easier said than done, to be sure, but I was surprised at the degree of consensus. The two keywords that seemed to resonate most: “alignment” and “interoperability.”
(There were specific caveats: 1) not enough public awareness and not enough pain by businesses to get this done; 2) need to scrap the bilateral approaches in a world of cloud computing; 3) enforcement challenges will abound.)
It’s Day One at Navigate 2008. Trevor Hughes and his crack team at the IAPP have established a space for thinking not about what’s urgeny, but about what’s important when it comes to privacy. The key for the event is to think big about privacy. The goal is to contribute to the global dialogue. (For me, kids, technology, and the future are on the brain because of Born Digital coming out, so the frame I bring to it is the future systems that we are building to protect our children and grandchildren.)
Meta tidbit: Going meta, briefly, on the emerging art of conference blogging. I’ve been wondering: What’s the optimal amount of blogging of a conference, in terms of frequency, length, and topic? JZ says the goal should not be coverage, but to exposure worthy tidbits. That’s to say, as many as a few posts a day if there are worthy things to say, or no posts if the conference totally stinks. (JZ is blogging a key aspect of Hal Abelson’s provocation so we can see what he means by a “tidbit” when that’s up.)
Process/experimentation tidbit: there are three breakout groups, each using MindManager in the breakout rooms. From a mission-control, a few of us have a view across the three MindMaps through a networking tool called MindJet. It works great for viewing all the conversations as they emerge in real-time. It also lets one intervene from the center — but that is not necessarily welcome, it seems, as the MindManager scribes have enough to do to keep track of the conversation, and chatting with the curators doesn’t seem to help their focus much. It’s cool to be able to intervene and to ask clarifying questions, but not necessarily productive to the whole, it seems. It’s great to be trying this out in real-time, though.
Substantive tidbit: from the first session, part of MIT prof Hal Abelson’s provocation. In the end, the way to go is to build accountable information systems, says Hal. He cited a letter he (and many of us) got from Bank of America which said that data about some customers had escaped from a third-party location and that B of A is tracking our accounts to see if anything is going wrong as a result. Hal says that this may be lawful, but it’s not accountable. He wants to know more: who had the data, why they had it, what it was, what happened in the breach, what risks he is running as a result, and so forth. He also says not to worry so much about the collection or mining of the data, but rather about decisions made about you based on these data. (I have a sense already that this is not a consensus view among other attendees — to be tested out!)
A final Bostonian’s tidbit, off to the side: In the command-central room for IAPP, there’s a side conversation about the MBTA’s Charlie Tickets v. Charlie Cards. These are the cards you buy to go on the Boston-area subway system. If you use an Charlie Ticket, rather than a Charlie Card, you pay more per ride, but there’s little chance your movements could be tracked, so one way to see it is that there’s a explicit premium per ride for your privacy. Richard Stallman has an alternate approach, apparently: swapping zero-value CharlieCards to frustrate any user tracking while not having to pay the privacy premium.
Jonathan Zittrain and I are headed up to seacoast New Hampshire to be the “curators” of the IAPP’s new executive forum, Navigate, for the first few days of the week. It’s a beautifully organized program and a terrific line-up. It promises to be provocative and a lot of fun.
Privacy turned out to be a major part of our research into how young people use new technologies differently from their parents and grandparents. In our book, Born Digital (coming out in the next few weeks; and now the book’s website from the publisher is up), we started with a single chapter on Privacy and ended up with three: Identity, Dossiers, and Privacy. (Berkman summer intern Kanu Tewari made a video rendition of our Dossiers chapter; and the project’s wiki has a section on Privacy.) I look forward to testing those ideas with a bunch of privacy pros who will no doubt help to refine them.
As a special bonus: They’ve partnered with the MindJet people — makers of MindManager, which I love — to document the event and to extract key themes in an organized digital format. I’m looking forward to learning some MindManager tricks.
Kanu Tewari, a Berkman Center intern with us from Egypt for the summer, has produced a fabulous video on the topic of one the chapters — Dossiers — in our forthcoming book, Born Digital. Kanu’s blog post accompanying the video is here. (We build on the term “digital dossiers” popularized by Prof. Solove.) I couldn’t have imagined that our young interns like Kanu would prove to be quite as creative and thoughtful as they’ve proven to be. But so they have. Bravo, Kanu and team!
John Palfrey 