Exploring Interdisciplinarity

Do you remember this song? I do. We sang it every year in my grammar school assemblies. It encapsulates all that I love, and remember, about Thanksgiving. In fact, my memories of Thanksgivings are not so different from the dinner scene portrayed by Dylan Thomas in his story, A Child’s Christmas in Whales, especially as it is narrated by Aubrey Davis at the annual Celtic Christmas Concert.

Perusing google to gather some background about the holiday, I was disturbed to find that not everyone feels as I do. In fact, some posts seem to have deliberately set out to debunk–one by one–all of the stories that, over the years, have come to constitute the lore of Thanksgiving. Surely, facts are important. But history–as Fernand Braudel might be the first to point out–is a living, on-going process.

the original Thanksgiving Story might best be conceived as a well fertilized seed kernel that has evolved and by hybridized over time in the course of our history.

Accordingly , the original Thanksgiving Story might best be conceived as a well fertilized seed kernel that has evolved and been hybridized over time throughout the course of our history–a point that sociologist, Edward Shils, has emphasized in his book Tradition. From this perspective, we can understand how, today, the Thanksgiving holiday has become a truly American legend, incorporating and embracing many diverse groups which–each in their own ways, and according to their own traditions–celebrate the essence of the tale–thankfulness, generosity, family, openness, and kindness towards others.

Beginning on Wednesday, my husband and I began to reenact our own Thanksgiving traditions. I had taken the day off so as to have time to clean the house, do baking, polish silverware, and cut and prepare a wonderful assortment of root vegetables in advance of the big day.

Next morning, we arose early, giving us time to carry out our own annual rituals. To begin, we reread the section on cooking poultry in our well-worn, and seasoned, cookbook The Joy of Cooking, just to be sure that we avoided the many pitfalls my mother had so emphatically warned me about in my youth, as I helped her prepare Thanksgiving dinner. Then, with the turkey stuffed, and well wedged into the oven, we set out, with our dog Sparky, for our traditional hike in Rock Creek Park. The sun was out, the air was crisp, and everyone we met along the way was full of smiles, greeting us with “Have a nice Thanksgiving!”. We arrived back home, just in time to lay the table, put out the ordeurves, call our absent family members, and have a glass of wine before the guests arrived. They were a diverse and enthusiastic group, and together we made merry. Even Sparky joined in the fun.

Of course, not all Thanksgivings are without their mishaps. Most memorable to me was the year that my in-laws and their relatives joined in the festivities. The plates were laid, the food was on the table, and we were about to say thanks when the structure supporting the table came out of place. It was only the strong knees and will of our guests that kept my grandmother’s Limoges china–not to mention the turkey dinner–from falling on the floor. Then again I shouldn’t forget the year I put the turnip skins down the garbage disposal, only to have them erupt some hours later, together with–to my horror–a lot of other extraneous materials.

This year, on Thanksgiving, I believe that we have something to be especially grateful for–the election of Barack Obama for President. In fact, just as in the true meaning of Thanksgiving, doesn’t Obama epitomize, and in many of the same ways, the very best of America? As they say at the end of services in the Episcopalian Church, “Thanks be to God!.”

On Technorati: Aubrey Davis, Celtic Christmas Concert, Dylan Thomas, lore, myth, Obama, Thanksgiving, tradition

I have often heard tell that my husband, Brock Evans, is a legendary person, but then seeing is believing.

I have often heard tell that my husband, Brock Evans, is a legendary person, but then again seeing is believing. Last week, I saw for myself.

The event was The Endangered Species Coalition annual awards reception. As President of the Endangered Species Coalition, Brock’s ostensible role at this function was to present the Brock Evans Award to the renowned environmental leader Roger Schlickeisen, President and CEO of the prominent national environmental organization, Defenders of Wildlife, and prime architect of the conservation’s movement’s greatest electoral victory–the defeat of arch enemy and far right anti-environmental Congressman Richard Pombo in 2006.

Unbeknownst to Brock, he himself was to receive an award from the Wilburforce Foundation for “outstanding conservation leadership.” Included was a substantial cash award, which he hopes to use to complete the research for his forthcoming book, making real the legends of the environmental movement–what he describes as the stunning achievements of ordinary people who rose up to defend the places they love. The result of all of these efforts over the past forty years, Brock says, is a beautiful legacy of over two hundred million acres of parks, wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges, which are the envy of the rest of the world.

Watching Brock receive this award, I remembered how much his tales about environmental victories had meant to me, personally. In fact, what I recall most about our courtship are the accounts that he would regale me with, inspiring me to strive for the ‘gold ring.’ Take, for example, the stories Brock often tells about the rescue of the mighty Snake River from dams, and the equally compelling account of protecting the valley of French Pete Creek, in the state of Oregon, from clear-cut logging. In both cases, the destruction of these places seemed to be a foregone conclusion. But Brock and his friends pushed back anyway, applying the techniques of what he calls endless pressure, endlessly applied. Notwithstanding the gloomy predictions of the pundits, they won! Both places are now federally protected wilderness areas.

So when I get discouraged, and think all is lost, I keep these stories in mind, and just press forward. I know that, when Brock completes his book, these same stories will inspire a whole new generation of environmentalists as well.

On Technorati: Brock Evans, Defenders of Wildlife, Endangered Species Coalition, French Pete Creek, legends, Roger Schlickeisen, Snake River, Three Sisters Wilderness Area

Today is a good day to blog. Outside the weather is gray, dank, and windy; time to stay close to the Hearth. Even more compelling, I am laying in bed, my dog Sparky at my side, nursing a wicked cold that the man, sitting in front of me on the plane coming back from Hungary, generously bestowed on me. Alternating between conscious and semi-conscious states, I have been day dreaming about the presentation I made in Budapest at the Central European University, entitled Complexity and the University of the Future .

In particular, I have been thinking about how I might extend my analysis by building on the readings that I had assigned for my Wednesday and Thursday classes. These include Michael Storper’s and Andres Rodriguez-Pose’s paper Better Rules or Stronger Communities? On the Social Foundations of Institutional Change and Its Economic Effects ( Economic Geography 82 (1); 1-25, 2006) as well as Chicago University law professor Cass Sustein’s Infotopia (2006).

Just as other organizations must adapt to their rapidly changing complex environments, so too must universities.

My original presentation drew upon evolutionary and complexity theory (draft paper forthcoming). It argued that, just as other organizations must adapt to their changing complex environments, so too must universities. As Rogers 1995, Uzzi 2006; Burt 2005; and Beinhocker 2007 might argue, one way of facing this challenge is to transcend existing university boundaries, both internal as well as external, so as to internalize complexity and thereby generate new, and hopefully more adaptive, ideas. This strategy might be problematic in a university setting, however. For universities adapted so well to the changing environment of the industrial age–which called for bureaucratic hierarchies as well as specialization and the division of labor–that their ivory tower culture and their disciplinary silos might have become locked-in over time. As Douglass North has emphasized, just like network technologies, organizations and institutions experience positive externalities and increasing returns, so they tend to become path dependent.

Sustein’s and Storper’s works raise questions about how such change might take place. Although these authors stem from very different disciplinary backgrounds, they both focus on governance, leading me to ask whether or not university governance structures will facilitate or retard adaptive behavior.

Recall that universities are, to a large extent, self-governed through processes of deliberation. But, according to Sustein, deliberation only works in keeping with democratic theorists’ analyses (such as those of Aristotle, Rawls and Habermas) under very particular circumstances. Specifically, for decision making groups to effectively aggregate diverse sources of information and transform them into good ideas, these bodies must be comprised of an accurate representation of people who are relatively equal in terms of status and power, and who adhere to norms that encourage open discussion and information sharing. When such is not the case, lower status individuals are likely to either be reticent or defer to their superiors. As a result, deliberative outcomes will be narrowly conceived, rash, biased, and polarizing.

One must wonder, then, how decisions will unfold in a university context, where benefits and rewards are allocated to a large extent on the basis of rank in a hierarchy of roles

One must wonder, then, how decisions will unfold in a university context, where benefits and rewards are allocated to a large extent on the basis of rank in a hierarchy of roles. Storper and Rodriguez-Pose suggest one possible way of assuring more positive deliberative outcomes, which might well apply in the case of universities. In their article looking at how societal institutions constrain community-based groups and vice versa, the authors argue that communities and societal institutions are complementary rather than antagonistic. In fact, when well conceived, formal institutions and societal norms can serve to inhibit–if not prevent–the type of co-optation of deliberative bodies by influential and powerful members as described by Sustein in Infotopia. In the university realm, the most powerful, influential actors are likely to be deeply embedded in its established culture, and so favor the status quo. Thus, if adaptation is to be successful, and Storper is correct, change will need to be inspired, not only by pressure from the outside, but also–and as importantly–from leadership at the highest level that formally determines the institutional rules of the game–that is to say, the procedures and processes by and through which university deliberative bodies operate.

Our CCT Program is presently undergoing a process of self reflection. We are actually considering the question of ‘What do we want to look like in the future?” With Storper, Rodriguez-Pose, and Sustein in mind, I will not only be participating actively in this process but also–along with my dog Sparky–be thinking about it from an analytical perspective as well.

On Technorati: Andres Rodriguez, Cass Sustein, deliberation, deliberative bodies, democratic theory, economic geography, Higher Education, Infomedia, Michael Storper, the CCT Program, university governance

Today, election day, everyone is watching for updates on news about the election. I clearly understand. Never before has so much been at stake! Having voted early, my husband, Brock Evans, and I were poised to leave for a trip to Central Europe late yesterday afternoon. However, unintended consequences got in the way! So while others are watching the polls, my focus is targeted on the latest news about open seats on Austrian Airlines.

How, you might ask, did this happen? Well, nursing two martini’s back at home, my Husband described it best to our travel agent, Steve Dalghren:

Hi Steve. By now perhaps John has updated you re the Perils and Peregrinations of Brock and Linda. He was very helpful in your absence, especially after that fiasco when–all early and bright, and packed and ready–I handed in my old expired passport, not my current one (hey, what’s the big deal; they are all the same color aren’t they?)

Still packed and ready to go, we will set out for the airport again this afternoon. Ojala! if all goes well, we will land in Vienna early in the morning, just in time for me to make my meeting at the Austrian Academy Science. I have been honored to have been selected as a member of their Institute for Technology Assessment. Looking over the agenda, and viewing complex topics such as those we use to analyze at the US Office of technology Assessment, I am nostalgic for the old days but at the same time I am very eager to participate in the Austrian venture–keeping the idea alive so to speak.

From Austria we go to Prague where we meet an old friend and ardent environmentalist Maria Hudakova. Working out of Slovakia, she heads an organization called VLK, which is dedicated to preserving wolves and their forest environments. Any wolf lover should check out the site, which is in the process of being translated into English.

From Prague on to Budapest, the final leg of our trip. In Budapest, where I have never been before, we will visit Central European University. This is a great opportunity not only for me, but also the Communication Culture and Technology Program. CEU has a program such as ours, and I will speak there about The Future of the University, a topic that has been on my mind these last few weeks, given the tremendous stresses of the financial crisis.

So much to anticipate; so much excitement! No wonder why we took the wrong passport. But today we have made a check list, checked it off, and now await the airport taxi. If all goes well, I will have much to report in about a week!

On Technorati: Austrian Academy of Science, Austrian Institute for Technology Assessment, Central European University, Culture and Technology Program, Linda Garcia, Maria Hudakova, the Communication, VLK

The former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan has had a long and distinguished career in public service, providing economic guidance to both Republican and Democratic Administrations alike.

Nevertheless, this explanation makes me question Greenspan’s–as well as his cohorts’–naiveté. 

And surely, his shock at the economic situation as well as his explanation as to why he failed to anticipate the problems with the market resonated with many other key decision makers: the economy had continued to perform well for forty years. Nevertheless, this explanation makes me question Greenspan’s–as well as his cohorts’– naivete.

Unfortunately, Greenspan’s lack of foresight reveals a major lack of hindsight. Forty years is but a blink of the eye in the course of time. Had Greenspan and others looked at the performance of the economy from the perspective of the longue durée– an approach advocated by the great French historian Fernand Braudel in his book On History (University of Chicago Press, 1980)– he certainly could have fathomed the market crash, even if he were unable to predict it.

One need only consider the insights of Eric Beinhocker, in his recent book, The Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics. (Harvard Business School Press, 2006) Beinhocker’s evolutionary approach is consistent with Braudel’s notion of the longue durée insofar as he emphasizes the on-going cumulative processes that converge in the course of history to yield discernible patterns over time. Pointing to the collapse of the English economy in 1315, Beinhocker notes, for example:

Depressions, recessions, and inflation are not exclusively modern phenomena: they are patterns that have recurred since the beginning of recorded history. There are other patterns in economics that are equally old, including the long-run growth in wealth per person. . . and the distribution of wealth. . . For these patterns to be so old, they must be the result of causes that are deep in the workings of economics, cases that are independent of the technologies, government policies or business practices of a particular age. (p. 161)

As the market crash makes clear: the time for interdisciplinarity is here!

Today’s understanding of the present market crisis should not, therefore, be attributed solely to the failure of politicians to regulate the market so as to promote not just profits but also the public interest. Academia is also partially at fault. As Geoffry Hodgson has argued, in How Economics Forgot History: The Problem of Specification in Social Science (Routledge 2002), understanding the economy as it has evolved over the longue durée requires not just a dialogue among disciplines but also new theoretical approaches that build on a long view of history and, thereby, provides a more realistic, while at the same time more complex, level of analysis. As the market crash makes clear: the time for interdisciplinarity is here!

On Technorati: Alan Greenspan, Beinhocker, complexity, economic crisis, economics, Fernand Braudel, history, Hodgson, the longue duree

During my undergraduate days at Syracuse University, I was fortunate enough to have Dr. Jim Price as my economics professor. A fresh graduate from MIT, and a Keynesian, Dr. Price did not view economics as a dismal science. To the contrary, he saw economics as a mental construct that not only approximated reality, but also–and for that reason–could be used to improve upon it.

he saw economics as a mental construct that not only approximated reality, but also–and for that very reason–could be used to improve upon it.

This idea came as something of a surprise to us, his students. For, although we had grown up in the relatively prosperous post war period, our parents had continually admonished us for overspending, recalling how the roaring twenties had given way–without notice–to the dreadful and enduring days of the Depression. When we asked Dr. Price about depressions, and their likely probability, he told us that we need not worry. Depressions were a thing of the past, he said: Now we have the Phillips Curve!.

asked about depressions, and their likely probability, he told us that we need not worry. Now we have the Phillips Curve!

Over the next few years, my enthusiasm for economics waned, not, however, for lack of interest but rather for lack of math skills. As a result–and much to my regret at the time–I chose to study international relations. To be sure, the subject matter was equally interesting and demanding; but, as compared to economics, the discipline’s problem solving ability and methodological approach seemed to me, at least at the time, to be a little fuzzy.

it was not long after, however, that I began to appreciate the decision I had made. For, in the context of the recession of the seventies, and the subsequent oil shocks, the prescriptions that I had learned in Economics 101 no longer seemed to fit. Although the United States still made economic adjustments according to the mathematically proven Phillips Curve, the results were becoming increasingly problematic. The outcome was not greater stability, as economists had led us to expect. Instead the economy suffered persistent stagflation–that is to say, higher prices and fewer jobs. As the late Jane Jacobs characterized this state of affairs (Cities and the Wealth of Nations, 1984), the United States was suffering from underdevelopment. The answer, according to Jacobs, was to shift our focus away from equilibrium outcomes, and to center our thinking on the problem of wealth creation and growth. Jacobs insisted that understanding cities, and how they generate wealth, was the place to start. A non-economist, who employed the wealth of all the social sciences to make sense of the failing US economy–well, that was enough of an inspiration for me.

Faced with the prospects of an up-coming, serious depression, my students ask me what I think. Unlike Dr. Price, I don’t have recourse to an answer such as the Philips Curve. But perhaps this is fortunate. For although I cannot offer formulaic solutions–which may turn out to be wrong–I can provide something that was unavailable in my day–alternative ways of thinking about the economy. Thus, I can point my students to–among other things–Jochai Benkler’s discussions of cooperative growth strategies, which are designed not only to coordinate production but also to generate positive externalities (The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedoms) Likewise, I might direct them to Beinhocker’s The Origin of Wealth (2006) for a discussion of the complexity and non-linearity associated with economic interactions. Alternatively, I might suggest that they take a look at Samuel Bowles, Microeconomics: Behavior, Institutions, and Evolution, (2004) for a far more nuanced perspective on economic behavior.

Thus, as I see it, the situation is far from dismal. In fact, we have a learning/ teaching opportunity here. Experience has shown us that prescribed economic solutions, no matter how elegant, are typically situation specific. They are vulnerable to changes in the larger environment. Thus, in teaching about the economy, we must provide our students, not so much with answers, but rather with a menu of perspectives from which they can draw, when faced with fast-moving, unpredictable change.

On Technorati: Add new tag, Beinhocker, Benkler, Bowles, economic crisis, economics, Jane Jacobs, Phillips Curve

Network technologies have not only served to harmonize the world by fostering economic transactions–as Thomas Friedman argues in his book, The World is Flat (2004); as importantly, these technologies have functioned as media channels, providing a vehicle for promoting a common set of economic ideologies and business practices, which have helped sustain these global transactions. Friedman argues that, in a flat world in which all countries are operating on an equal playing field, the United States must become more competitive by enhancing its own human resources. A good principle, for sure.

However, what Friedman fails to take into account is that a flat world may–on its own account–be unsustainable over the long run!

However, what Friedman fails to take into account is that a flat world may–on its own account–be unsustainable over the long run!

When considering the shape of the world today, it is important to remember that the structure of information flows–and hence ideas and ideology–is anything but flat. To the contrary, it is decidedly asymmetrical. In fact, as Joseph Stiglitz has argued in Globalization and its Discontents (2002), the US, together with its allies in the IMF, and to a lesser extent the World Bank, have acted in a typically hegemonic fashion, employing their dominance of world-wide communication networks (both institutional as well as technological) to create precisely the same flat world that Friedman describes. Characterizing the negative impacts of the IMF’s policies, Stiglitz points out that the greatest mistake the world financial leaders made in response to the 1980 debt crisis was to unquestioningly adhere to their own economic fundamentalism, notwithstanding its failures, and to insist that one size–that is to say the Washington Consensus–fits all.

the greatest mistake the world financial leaders made… was to insist that one size–that is to say, the Washington Consensus–fits all.

Like Stiglitz, the evolutionary economist Geoffrey M. Hodgson takes issue with the notion that capitalist systems will converge. Pointing to the stickiness of cultural aspects of economic behavior (which he defines as the impurity principle), Hodgson argues that diversity in the global economy is likely to persist (Hodgson et al, 2001, chapter five). In fact, as he contends, just as in the biological world, such variation is essential for survival. For, if, as Friedman suggests, the world is really flat, where can we look for alternative, adaptive strategies in the event of major economic shocks and upheavals in our environment.

For if, as Friedman suggests, the world is really flat, where can we look for alternative, adaptive strategies in the event of major economic shocks and upheavals in our environment.

The rapid spread of the global financial crisis, from one nation to the next, provides one illustration of some of the dangers inherent in an increasingly flat world. Of course, it is still far too early to anticipate how extensive the damage will be. However, the crisis itself provides essential and long-needed feedback about the dangers of pursuing a singular approach, especially if it is wrong. As the leaders of the world meet to develop strategies to address the present financial crisis, the mistakes of the 1980’s debt crisis should not be repeated. All voices need to be heard, and a variety of approaches (insofar as they are congruent with one another) should be tolerated.

On Technorati: evolutionary economics, Geoffrey Hodgson, global economic crisis, Joseph Stiglitz, The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman, Washington Consensus

Last weekend, instead of posting a blog, I attended the annual meeting of TPRC (formerly known as the Telecommunications Policy Research Conference), which was held at George Mason University Law Center.  TPRC has a long and distinguished history. The first such conference was held in November 1972, and its participants included federal employees from the Departments of Justice, Commerce, and Defense, as well as 15 academics, 13 of whom were economists, 2 lawyers (Owen 2004: 351).

Relatively speaking, I am an old-timer at TPRC, having attended my first meeting in the mid-eighties. During that time, I have witnessed the Conference expand not only in terms of the number of participants who attend, but also with respect to their backgrounds and the types of issues being addressed.

. . .I have witnessed the Conference expand not only in terms of the number of participants who attend , but also with respect to their backgrounds and the types of issues being addressed.

Taking these changes into account the conference name was changed to the Research Conference on Communication, Information, and Internet Policy.

This transformation was not always easy, however. Having become fast friends, who take great pleasure not only in each others’ company but also in a common body of scholarship, participants have tended to reinforce one another, quibbling only at the margins, and confining the agenda to familiar, well honed issues and tested methodologies. Of course, new ideas and interests have been introduced, but not without substantial resistance.

The case I recall most vividly was the session in which Bob Kahn, grandfather of the Internet, laid out his vision of the future–a virtual library that would house information accessible to everyone.

The audience was skeptical to say the least. “Who will pay for it–the government,” someone asked? When Kahn said the Department of Defense, everyone snickered. Some attendees actually walked out. I was totally embarrassed. But Kahn was undaunted, not to say prescient. Several years later, the Internet–and the wide range of social, economic, and political issues associated with it–have come to the fore at TPRC, the subject of much research and debate.

The TPRC gathering held last weekend ushered in another breath of fresh air, but this time–perhaps due to the financial crisis–participants appeared much more receptive to the new ideas making their debut. The discussion began on Friday, the first day of the conference, when Rob Atkinson, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, called for a new ‘innovation economics,’ which takes into account the complex nature of the economy. Jonathan Cave, from the Business School at Warwick University in the UK, expanded on Atkinson’s call for action, laying out the requirements for studying the new, complex economy. His presentation, which was awe inspiring, was echoed throughout the day in conversations in the halls and over drinks and dinner. As well, it provided a back drop for the next day’s session, entitled Telecommunications as a Complex, Adaptive System. Perhaps it is understandable, given the nature of the topic, that most of the speakers at this session were relatively new to TPRC. They included, Richard Whitt from Google Inc.; Stephen Schultze, from MIT; Pierre D Vries, from the University of Washington; and my co-author Ellen Surles, also from CCTP at Georgetown. All of us endorsed the idea that telecommunications in particular, and communications policy in general, needed to be addressed through a lens of complexity.

The paper that Ellen and I delivered in this panel– The Rise and Fall of Media Ownership Issues: A Network Perspective of the Policy Field–was in keeping with the theme of complexity. First, it employed complexity theory and social network analysis to illustrate how issues related to media ownership not only arise on the policy agenda, but also are transformed into legislative outcomes–which we characterized as issue cascades. Based our our extensive data set, we showed that issue cascades occur depending on the size and shape of the interface linking actors involved in policy framing, researching policy solutions, and policy making. When these actors overlap insufficiently, they are unable to overcome their ‘cultural/linguistic’ differences and hence cannot reach a common ground. On the other hand, when policy actors are too closely overlapped, their views are redundant, and so they are unable to achieve innovative and productive ideas.

TPRC had become an effective policy interface–just the right size and shape.

Sitting at lunch with our panel participants, as well as others, we continued the conversation. I was struck by the moment! Here we were, policy framers, policy researchers, and policy makers–many who had never spoken before–discussing complexity and the new economy. The conversation could not have been livelier, nor more engaging. TPRC had become an effective policy interface–just the right size and shape.

On Technorati: complex adaptive systems, issue cascades, media ownership, new economy, TPRC