Credibility & Socially Responsible Social Research

The two papers on online credibility were as clear as mud to me. Is it really necessary to write in this convoluted manner in order to be credible in the social sciences?

Personally, I do not find this kind of writing credible. I find it obnoxious. I feel like the writer is trying to impress somebody and I suspect that he or she may be bullshitting. The more names and dates the writer puts after a phrase (Whatshisname,1993; Whoosie, 2001; Otherguy, 2003; Blow, 1987; Doe, 2005) the more irritated I get. Reading papers like these leads me to make obnoxious comments like the following:

…..

RECIPE FOR A SCHOLARLY PAPER

Section 1. Say what others have said

Section 2. Say nothing

Section 3. Call for further studies

Section 4. Provide three pages of endnotes.

…..

Having gotten that off my chest, I have a somewhat more serious issue with social studies like these. I am sure that most social researchers have good intentions and simply want to understand people and their relationships. What concerns me is that there may be others who take these well-intended studies and use them to learn how to manipulate people.  For example, if a researcher writes a definitive paper on what makes people trust a website, what is to stop someone else from using the findings for nefarious purposes: to create a deceptive website that looks trustworthy and to give bogus information the appearance of credibility?

I guess I’m wondering why social scientists put so much time into researching things like Credibility and Perception. It seems to me that such research encourages people to treat these as separate entities from the people and institutions with which they are associated.  It encourages people to see them as commodities, to be created and managed separately from the things, institutions or individuals of which they are (or may not be) qualities.  Indeed, almost all large organizations these days have Public Relations Departments or even outside P.R. consultants who operate independently from the rest of the organization and frequently present pictures that are very different from reality.

I like to think that there was a time when people simply told the truth in order to earn trust; when a company strove to make fine products in order to be perceived as a good company.

Today I get the impression that people in business, government and academia are putting “truth” and “trust” in separate boxes; treating “quality” and “perception of quality” as separate things. Perhaps it is somewhat realistic to do this, but it bugs me. I feel like it this is a very cynical and negative way of looking at the world.  I feel that it gives perception too much value and is helping foster a society in which image and reality are separate things and dishonesty is encouraged.

Before embarking on projects, social scientists should do some soul searching and ask: what is the real value of this research? Will my findings help make this a better world, or just help people mess it up some more?  Am I really working for humanity and science, or just for con artists and big corporations who want scientific methods for screwing people? Like gangsta rappers or makers of violent films, social scientists can claim that they are merely “reflecting reality,” but by publishing a particular view of reality, they are in a sense promoting it and helping to shape new realities.

Gigabit Networks & Flash Journalism

The article on Gigabit networks was an exciting preview of what is to come for broadband digital communication. Let’s hope the U.S. keeps up with other nations in developing digital infrastructure. The article used two terms that I hear all the time but don’t really understand. Maybe someone can help me with these.

1. What is “the digital divide?”

2. Everyone is saying the U.S. is now an “information economy.” What exactly does that mean? How can you base an entire economy on information?

The article on Flash journalism was also interesting. It is wonderful that writers and photographers are using Flash and the Web to provide more in-depth coverage of their subjects than is possible in more traditional media.

I watched the PBS Flash slideshow about Speedo, a demolition derby driver. It was fascinating to me that this slideshow was created as an adjunct to a two hour VIDEO documentary. You would think that in two hours, with moving pictures, sound and music, you would be able to say everything there is to say about a demolition derby guy. As a video producer myself I know that you can’t. There is always stuff – often great stuff – that just won’t fit into your movie.

In this case, the stuff that didn’t fit were details about how Speedo modifies his cars. So the producers put together a Flash slideshow, using interviews with Speedo and a little bit of music combined with still photos. The result is very interesting, informative and entertaining. And so much easier to produce and edit than video!

I laughed a little because this format took me right back to Junior High School when I was in an elective class called slides and tapes, in which we produced little documentaries using Kodachrome slides and reel-to-reel tape recordings. The fanciest things we did were to use left and right stereo channels for two-track sound and to patch two carousel projectors together with a “dissolve” unit so that images would fade smoothly into each other. It seems primitive now compared to all the elaborate things we can do in video, and yet it was a great media. And here it comes again, called “Flash Media” and being hailed as the latest thing.

I think that a slideshow is the perfect media for a lot of projects. Video is fabulous but it is so difficult and time consuming to have to work with continuous, moving images synchronized with sound. The ability to use still photos roughly synchronized with sound vastly simplifies production, post-production and delivery over the Web, yet the results still pack a lot of audio-visual power.