A Political Note: Why I believe Brian Topp should not be the leader of the NDP

Posted on October 28, 2011 by Michael Steeleworthy

Why I believe Brian Topp should not be the leader of the NDP.

(Cross-posted to Google+ and to Facebook.)

1. I’m wary of anyone with no legislative experience running for the leadership of a political party. The House requires a very demanding, public lifestyle that isn’t suitable for everyone. I’m not saying that Topp doesn’t fit the type. I am saying that an Official Opposition, just like a Government, should not take on an untested legislator as their leader. It’s foolhardy to do so.

2. I’m a little offended by the way that Brian Topp talks about wanting to continue Jack Layton’s legacy. All the candidates will want to carry on Layton’s legacy. But what makes things so troublesome regarding Topp is the way that he makes it sound like he is Jack Layton Redux. If Brian wasn’t in the room when Jack Layton thought of any great idea being considered, then it seems like he’s trying to own a policy or platform as his very own when it was either Layton’s or the NDP’s as whole. Topp shouldn’t try to win the leadership by running on our collective memories of Jack Layton – he should try to win the leadership by presenting his own unique case for the leadership.

The first point is a political matter that shows why it makes sense for me, and other concerned NDPers, to vote for some one other than Topp. The second point is a matter of character that resonates with me negatively, which pretty much confirms that my vote will move in a different direction.

Addendum:

One more thing regarding Point no 2.: So long as Topp presents himself as Layton 2.0, there will be nothing unique or individual about his campaign, his motivations for the leadership, or his actual abilities to lead. It’s hard to differentiate his platform right now from the current NDP brand, i.e., I can’t look at Topp and figure out his vision for the future of the party since his vision for the future *is* the party line. You may think this is a good thing since it suggests that his principles are aligned with the party, but I see it as a weakness since it means that his principles are also all of his competitors’ principles. There is little there that actually sets him apart from the rest of the pack. I want love and hope and optimism, but I also want to see fresh ideas that will move forward our party and the values for which it stands.

Research in popular culture and in the classroom

Posted on September 28, 2011 by Michael Steeleworthy

There’s been a great thread on ILI-L this week that lists television programs and films that highlight how messy research can be at times. A number of interesting clips were suggested, ranging from Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Seven to use in our own lessons on information literacy, critical thinking and research. And hats off to Mollie Freier, who suggested the entire mystery and detective genre – now there’s an academic paper I could sink my teeth into.

This thread got me thinking about how research is presented in popular culture since the Internet and the search engine has become such a dominant part of our everyday lives. Some people feel that the scenes showing Twilight‘s Bella researching on the Internet reinforce the fact that there isn’t always one answer or dominant interpretation (this isn’t necessarily stated in the ILI-L thread – I’m speaking generally), however, I think research as we see it today is still glossed over in pop culture. Television and film don’t have time and space to feature the research process. The research process is broadly used as a device to push the plot forward, so what we often get are scenes that look like this:

I’m using this clip from Vampire Diaries as an example because it aired just last Thursday, i.e., it’s on television right now and its target demographic is watching it, big-time. If you don’t care to play the video, then let me tell you that Jeremy is telling Matt that he’s used the Internet to research how to contact his dead girlfriend, Vikki, who happens to be Matt’s dead sister. And, he’s found out some things, like that fact that he doesn’t need the help of a witch like Bonnie, his current girlfriend to call upon this spirit. Voila! Research is done! Thanks, Interweb!

(Vampire Diaries is actually compelling drama. You should look past my snark and watch it. And in Jeremy’s case, the directors have shown him conducting something closer to “real” research in the past, so he’d a good guy that librarians should appreciate in the end.)

Admittedly, there are better “research clips” than this one. The best clips will spend a lot of time on the research process or even make it the focus of the scene. But even the clips that show top-rate critical inquiry, evaluative reasoning, and strong synthesis will have to summarize much of this process in the interest of story’s plot and time. And our students know this already. So, instead of playing a clip that illustrates what parts of research are shown in the movies, I think it’s better to engage the students personally and research with them, on the spot, so they can learn by doing (which is especially important in a one-shot class). If films are “show and tell,” then I try to emphasize “do and learn” when I’m working with students.

So much of this comes down to teaching styles and the way we present ourselves to a class. I’m real comfortable interacting closely with students to put the focus on what it means to actually do critical thinking and researching on a topic, first-hand. Although I do use film clips from time to time, my own preference is to get the students actually “thinking about thinking” or even by doing some research with them in the classroom (or hopefully, in a computer lab). In the end, I want them to focus on what I’ve got to say and how they are applying this advice to their own work in front of them, so I make sure that I’m animated, personable, and approachable throughout the session.

Research, as we see it in popular culture, is glossed over. Watching it on film can’t show the full spectrum, so I try not to put too much of my time into these film clips. In the end, I want to help my students learn real, proven strategies on how to research effectively in their courses, so I prefer to keep my eye on the prize and give them what they’re looking for: lessons, advice, and hints to turn their neat idea for a subject into a well-researched, well-written A-level submission to the prof.

[Post-script: I'm not saying that I object to using film in class. On the contrary, I think film clips can be a great educational tool. For example, I've used television commercials to great effect when teaching critical thinking in the past. I played old Axe Bodywash commercials to help students analyze expectations and stereotypes surrounding sex and gender. By the end of the class, the students had conducted a "close reading" of these commercials and were well on their way to writing an essay on gender stereotypes in popular culture. But the difference here is that the film clip was the class's actual object of study.]

To Library Journal and The Annoyed Librarian: it’s about professional principles and codes of conduct

Posted on September 9, 2011 by Michael Steeleworthy

Should you print whatever you like if you own a press?

The Annoyed Librarian has whipped up a storm one again. The recent column that drew ridiculous connections between the University of Alabama‘s recent posting for an untenured First-Year Experience Librarian position and the history of the south, e.g., the Stand in the Schoolhouse Door; and southern stereotypes, e.g., constantly bad weather has turned into so large a controversy that LJ’s editor, Francine Fialkoff, had to write her own piece on the situation.

Librarians in the blogosphere followed suit, and here I am doing the same. I’m actually directing you to Andy Woodworth’s blog since what follows is a comment I left on his site:

But something also should be said about journalistic principles, Andy. Regardless of its profit-making motives (because face it, most organizations, are for-profit), LJ does have a role in what is written in the AL column. Making a connection between the stand in the schoolroom door and U of A’s FYE posting is not only illogical, but it is crass and border-line offensive. I could put up with how offensive it is if there was a real thread between the two, but there isn’t, so it perhaps shouldn’t have been written or published.

And this is where LJ comes into the equation. LJ should consider pulling the plug on the column, or at the very least have asked the AL to tone down this piece in particular. Some one might cry foul, yell “censorship!” or talk about first amendment rights, but frankly, LJ is completely in its right to edit for content in its own publication, and they should have in this instance.

Librarians of all stripes hold by professional codes of conduct. We have our ethical codes drawn up by various professional associations, and we **choose** to abide by them in one form or in varying degrees. The same can be said about journalism: LJ should hold itself to a higher level than it is doing here. It shouldn’t be crass simply to garner more hits, especially when what was written in the column was as outlandish as it is (i.e., satire is used to prove a point and not to find eyeballs). LJ shouldn’t think that they just because they only publish AL they can wash their hands of the means and methods that column uses to carry its opinions forward.

In the end, this issue has whipped up a storm because it’s speaking to professional values and principles in two different professions. There won’t be an answer on this and a consensus likely won’t be reached. But I don’t think we can let LJ walk away thinking that they have no part in this.

You can see that my concern lies with professional principles and codes of conduct. This is something I read about a lot and think we all should try to adhere to since we’re in the business of providing access to opinions, thoughts, and speech. It’s also something that is important to journalism, a profession that is equally concerned about access to opinions, thoughts, and speech.

What matters here is knowing when to draw the line. When is it wrong to write something? It is probably wrong to write something that is not factual, but columns often carry matters of fact as well as matters of opinion, which can be neither right nor wrong. But this is where oversight can be useful: the illogical connections the AL made in her piece should have been revised before publication.

To the Annoyed Librarian and to Library Journal, I say, “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.” To those of you who would tell me that I’m moving close to (self-)censorship or that I should just avoid LJ, I say that LJ is completely in their right to publish what they want, and for that reason we must hold them to account.

(Hats off to Brad Matthies, too, whose post got the discussion rolling between some of my own colleagues.)

What’s wrong with Facebook Messenger (beyond giving out your phone number to 750 million people)

Posted on August 10, 2011 by Michael Steeleworthy

Stop the press – the world is about to fall in love with Facebook Messenger! Wait a second, there’s something horribly wrong with this, and it’s not just about giving your phone number potentially to 750 million different FB accounts.

Facebook Messenger: How to stifle consumer choice

Do you like to text? Do you like to SMS? MMS? You love it, you really do. Well, guess what: If you shift all of your texting over to FB Messenger, then the way you text is going to be beholden to Facebook Inc. If Facebook decides that changes are needed to FB Messenger and you don’t like that, it will still change them. If Facebook decides to open up your privacy controls on FB Messenger, then hopefully you’ll get that memo before your creepy internet stalker figures you out. If Facebook decides it doesn’t like the way FB Messenger is working, even though you, do, it will still make those changes. Facebook owns the Facebook Messenger pipes, so the traffic you put on it is dependent on Facebook.

Look. Right now, you are texting from your mobile or smartphone on a long-established open standard that is used by every mobile/cell carrier around. That’s why I can text from my Canadian provider, Telus, to my father-in-law in California who is on Verizon, and to a good friend in the UK who is on Virgin. SMS is a standard that’s been agreed to and used for years by the entire industry. If you decide to go with FB Messenger, then you’re giving the keys of the castle to ONE COMPANY, who will make their own policies and decisions as it suits them instead of the consumer.

Don’t do that. Don’t give up on an open standard because FB Messenger seems like the greatest thing since Kanye and Jay-Z laid down a track together. Don’t switch over to FB Messenger, which conveniently went live one month before the start of a new school year everywhere in the west. Stick with your open texting SMS/MMS standard. Texting developed, works, and thrives because EVERYONE agrees to use it. Choosing FB Messenger will shut out out all the major players in the industry who built your smartphone, let alone the hundreds of millions of people in the world who actually depend on a mobile phone and texting for real communication.

I am not saying that Facebook is an evil empire. Facebook is as good (or as bad) at privacy as Google, Microsoft, or any other large web company. But Facebook’s products are very much closed and proprietary and built to improve their bottom line. This is bad news for the consumer. You are giving up your ability to choose between products and you are stifling innovation when you choose closed products. FB Messenger is not good for anyone but Facebook. So stick with SMS. Why? Because it’s something you all have already, and it’s still face better than what FB Messenger can offer.

(P.S. It shouldn’t matter AT ALL that FB Messenger is a “free app.” SMS texting is a standard feature on your phone already. Oh look – a green texting button: it came with my iPhone already…)