writing

What a PhD feels like

Itâ??s Friday. This is my last weekend before I defend. I have not been thinking a lot about what happens after Friday but I have naturally been curious about it. Previously, I have asked a people about the actual experience. Most of them seem only to have vague memories of the actual defence. This is not because they defended so long ago as not to remember. It seems to be common not to remember much of the actual defence. It might be the stress or the focus of the occasion but the result is that the audience seems to have a clearer memory than the defender.

Things get more complicated when asking people what the PhD feels like after the defence. Once the idea has sunk in, what does it change? Obviously the shiny new PhD qualifies the holder to apply for new positions, apply for research funding and opens doors within academia to rooms which were previously off-limits.

Despite this, the people I have spoken to report a range of emotions of what the PhD feels like. Everything from â??nothing changedâ?? to â??everything is differentâ??. My preference is towards â??everything changesâ??. The PhD is more than a formal exam and an entrance into the academic guild it is also a effort of great personal importance â?? at least I feel that my experience is this and I may feel a bit cheated if nothing changed.

Posted on by mklang

Neutrality and Objectivity (or the beginning of a brawl)

In 2000 a report on IT related crime was released by the BRÃ?. BRÃ? is the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rÃ¥det – BrÃ¥). Since first reading this report I have been very critical of its presentation of gender in relation to computer crime.

When I began this blog in 2005 it was only natural that I would quote this report in an entry and air my criticism at the same time. So in a post entitled Boys, girls & computers (in November 2005) you can read:

In a report on IT related Crime (XXX & XXX) from The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention from the year 2000 we find the wierd and wonderful quote:

â??Män misstänks för dataintrÃ¥ng, de manipulerar, raderar och stjäl program, filer eller data. När kvinnor misstänks som gärningsmän handlar det mestadels om interna dataintrÃ¥ng â?? obehörig registerupplysning och radering av filer, program eller data. Endast tre kvinnor misstänks för databedrägeri.â??

Källa: IT-relaterad brottslighet, BR�-rapport 2000:2

Loosely translated: Men are suspected of breaking into computer systems, they manipulate, erase and steal programs, files or data. When women are suspected it is mostly internally accessing computer systems – unauthorised looking at files and erasing files, programs or data. Only three women are suspected of computer fraud.

The authors therefore state that men are actively carrying out manly tasks of destruction while women are driven by curiousity to peek into files. Men â??break, manipulate, erase and stealâ?? while women look and erase. Even to the most untrained this is a joke. Men are doers who do macho stuff while women are either driven by curiousity or erase (by incompetence?).

I realise that the report is from 2000 butâ?¦ come on!! Can they have written this with a straight face?

Since then the post has been peacefully hanging around the database waiting for a reader. Today it solicited a reaction. An email arrived from someone claiming to be one of the authors of the report (it is not an official BRÃ? email address). I will reproduce the email in Swedish so as not to be accused of interpreting the content.

Hej Klang!
Jag såg att du hade citerat våran Brå-rapport på ituniv.se för ungefär ett år sedan. Jag blev en aning fundersam över ditt sätt att tolka vad vi skrivit i rapporten. Så jag tänkte att jag kanske kunde förklara hur du ska tolka det du citerade.

Vi påstår inget, vi redovisar ett resultat från en undersökning av polisanmäld brottslighet. Det vill säga den delen av brottsligheten som kommer till polisens kännedom. En del av dessa polisanmälningar innehöll uppgifter om en misstänkt gärningsmän. Vi sammanställde dessa uppgifter och fick fram ett antal kvinnor som misstänktes för brott. Så vad vi skriver är endast ett resultat av vad som framkom i undersökningen.
Således gör vi inga slustater om skillnader mellan mäns och kvinnors brottslighet, det råkade bara falla sig så att de kvinnor som fanns med i undersökning misstänktes för interna dataintrång.

Jag hoppas att jag förklarat så att du förstår vad du har läst. Och du, när du citerar något bör du ta med allt som står i avsnitt du tanker citera.

Mvh

The letter begins â??Hello Klangâ?? and goes on to explain that I have misinterpreted the report and the quote. The writer goes on to explain that the authors of the report were not drawing any conclusions but simply reporting. It ends with on a condescending note explaining how one should handle quotes.

To which I replied:

Din förklaring hjälper inte alltför mycket. Min kritik dÃ¥ – och nu – handlar om det vinklade sättet ni okritiskt presenterar er data.

I detta stycke som jag citerar kan man läsa att kvinnor begår brott på grund av nyfikenhet eller okunskap medans männens brottslighet är aktiv och kunnigt.

När en undersökning visar resultat som verkar helt skumma har man ett ansvar som forskare/författare/utredare att problematisera de resultat man får. Erat sätt att presentera siffrorna ger den oreflekterande läsaren en felaktig könsbild i relation till brottslighet.

Tonen i ert sprÃ¥kbruk i rapporten förstärker tydligt budskapet om kvinnans tekniska inkompetens. Du skriver i ditt mail: “Vi pÃ¥stÃ¥r inget, vi redovisar ett resultat…” jag hÃ¥ller inte med. Genom att skriva pÃ¥stÃ¥r man (i detta fall ni) nÃ¥got. Genom att citatet finns i en BRÃ? rapport sÃ¥ är det inte lösa ord utan semi-officiell sanning. Era ord skapar en verklighet som andra förhÃ¥ller sig till. Det sistnämnda kanske lÃ¥ter dramatiskt och överdrivet – framförallt i detta fall – men som utredare bör man inte anse att man endast rapporterar neutralt och sakligt.

Neutralitet och saklighet är något man strävar efter men det kan knappast uppnår.

Jag anser att ni har fel, att ni borde tänkt igenom vad siffrorna betyder och, framför allt, att ni borde uttryckt er på ett helt annat sätt.

Basically I criticise the authors again for their gender-biased report which shows men as active and knowledgeable, while women are ignorant, passive and nosey. I go on to state:
1) Researchers must question and problematise results which seem odd.
2) Presenting results without questioning creates, in this case, a slanted or biased view of gender in relation to IT crime.
3) The tone in the report re-enforces the gender bias.
4) The claim in the email that they are not interpreting but simply reporting is both wrong and harmful. Every time one writes anything it is an act of interpretation.
5) The presentation or interpretation in a report issued by BRÃ? ensures that the words are taken seriously.
6) Neutrality and objectivity are things writers should strive for but are not attainable goals.

I conclude by saying that I believe they are wrong in their report, they should have reflected upon what the numbers meant and, above all else, expressed themselves in a completely different manner.

I have edited out personal names so to enhance the principle discussion rather than those involved. Besides the important lack of gender understanding, the point I want to push across is the idea that a report can be neutral. All writing is an act of interpretation. All reading is an act of interpretation. The fact that one of the authors contacts me to “teach” me how to interprete his work demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of the role of the official report as a political and social artefact. If this had come from the writer of a lesser work I would have ignored it. But when the admonishment to interprete official sources in the “correct” manner comes from an official source my feeling of concern grows rapidly.

There is a danger when we accept at face value what we read (even in official sources). This danger becomes even more serious when the author attempts to lecture, teach or scold the reader for his or her interpretation.

Posted on by mklang

Read Book Change World

Do you have a guilty conscious about books you should have read? I do. Most of the time I can ignore this little voice but every so often the voice shouts too loud to be ignored.

One book which I thought I should read when it came out in 2000 was Monbiotâ??s â??The Age of Consent: A manifesto for a new world orderâ?? but somehow I always had other stuff to do.

Then I began reading Monbiotâ??s writing online. He posts some (all?) of his newspaper articles online a short while after they have appeared in the newspapers. His â??Children of the Machineâ?? (2006) is an insightful understanding of how RFID technology will slowly come to be accepted and to control us.

Anyway I bought his Age of Consent and I was not disappointed. Here is a man who writes about the complicated hypocrisies of world economics in a manner that is understandable, entertaining and at the same time provoking.

His final goal is to provoke the reader into action. But he is aware that he must move the reader from ignorance, to understanding, to agreement before he gets anyone to act.

Some short quotes:

We must accept that democracy will always be something of a mess. Attempting to tidy it up too much could mean subordinating diversity to universalism and the individual consciousness to the general will to such an extent that we may establish the preconditions not for freedom but for captivity. We must leave gaps between the building blocks, in case we accidentally build a wall. (Monbiot, Age of Consent, p 115)

Throughout this manifesto, I have sought to suggest ways in which we can use the strengths of our opponents to our advantage, and it seems to me that the roaming hunger of corporations is another asset we can turn to our account. (Monbiot, Age of Consent, p)

â?¦the curtailment of the world-eating mathematically impossible system we call capitalism, and its replacement with a benign and viable means of economic exchangeâ?¦ (Monbiot, Age of Consent, p 238)

I end this with the same words with which he ends his book:

Well? What are you waiting for?

Posted on by mklang

I Nailed Yesterday

Yesterday was an amazing day. The printers delivered 75 copies of my thesis as quickly as they could. They were so quick that when I opened the box the books were still warm â?? so now I know what â??hot of the pressesâ?? really means.

I took 51 books with me to the main university library. In return for 50 of my books I got a receipt. I took the last book with me to find the Dean of my faculty. He kindly interrupted a meeting to sign my book. Without his signature I cannot continue the process.

So with a signed copy of my thesis I returned to the office packed up my stuff, handed out a few copies to friends and colleagues before rushing home. From there the family followed me to the main university building to a notice board where I presented myself, my thesis and the documentation that I was allowed to proceed.

The women in charge gave me a hammer and nail which I used to hammer my thesis to the notice board. It was a very satisfying experience.

The process of hammering your thesis is the traditional form of publicising that the thesis has been made public. This is done three weeks before the actual defence so that unknown opponents have a chance to arrive at the defence armed to the teeth… Naturally the act of nailing is not as important as it used to be since the real publication of the date and time is done digitally. But it remains a very satisfying experience for the PhD student.

Update: I am officially on the list of upcoming defences.

Posted on by mklang

Copyright kills again

Once again copyright is used in a way to prevent the public from gaining access to material from dead authors. The first reports on this issue that surfaced in June . Joyceâ??s grandson, Stephen Joyce has limited access to material, attempted to prevent publication of scholarly works, demanded access to literary conferences (New Yorker) – his actions are tolerated since he controls the copyright of James Joyce.

James Joyce died in 1941. His work forms an important part of world litterature in general and Irish littarature in particular. It’s interpretation and exploration is part of world culture and heritage. And yet copyright law enables his grandson to limit this exploration. The grandson of Joyce knows about as much about what Joyce would have wanted as my cat does – if I had one. The point is that copyright is granted as an incentive for the writer – as a thanks for the bonus to society. But what happens when copyright is used to limit access? Doesn’t this mean that the bargain fails?

In another example of copyright abuse concerning dead authors we see that the widow of the works of Jorge Luis Borges is actively preventing re-publication:

Here is the story from The Chronicle Herald I quote it in full since it is short and I could only retreive it by using Google cache.

Despite huge demand, a French publishing house says it has been unable to reprint its critically acclaimed edition of the complete works of Argentine author Jorge Luis Borges because of a dispute with his widow.

French editor Gallimard published the two tomes under its prestigious La Pleiade imprint in 1993 and 1999, but they sold out within less than a year each time, said Francoise Issaurat, spokeswoman for the publisherâ??s press office in Paris.

Borgesâ??s widow, Maria Kodama, inherited the sole rights to his estate when the author died in 1986, although the will was contested. Kodama, whom the publisher says does not want the work reprinted, has drawn fire from Borges scholars who accuse her of denying them access to his papers and of trying to shape interpretations of his life and work.

“We never received the authorization of Mrs. Kodama to reprint the Pleiade collections, which were enormously successful,” Issaurat said. “We could have sold 30,000 copies of each, easily.” Kodama and her representatives were not immediately available to explain why she has not authorized the reprinting. However, Franceâ??s Nouvel Observateur magazine cited the publisher as saying that Kodama was concerned the first edition was riddled with errors and that she had demanded they hire a new editor.

Whether or not you can, want or need to read the works of Joyce & Borges is not the point. (But you should try – they are great for a reason). The point here is to question the rationale of granting copyright terms beyond the life of the author.

Take for exampel Borges “The Book of Imaginary Beings“. It was published in 1967. The book was an expanded version of the Spanish edition “El Libro de los Seres Imaginarios” (published 1957). The Imaginary Beings contains descriptions of 120 mythical beasts from folklore and literature. The book is copyrighted on publication. Borges died in 1986 and according to copyright regulation the copyright protection does not elapse until 2056.

The rationale behind such protection is to ensure that the write profits from his/her writing. To ensure this the state offers the opposite of the market ideology – the monopoly. So far so good. The author has a monopoly on his/her work as a thanks for making this work available to the public and therefore enriching it.

But this sitaution/contract/agreement/understanding fails when the heirs of the creator prevent the communication of the work to a wider audience. They have not created anything so why are they being given this position?

(via Errata)

Posted on by mklang

bad news, good news

The printer called today. One of their larger machines had broken down. They cannot deliver the thesis today. Hell! They promise to deliver tomorrow at lunchtime. I resisted the urge to ask what time they considered to be lunchtime. All I can do is hold my tongue, my breath and wait (again) for tomorrow.

The good news is that the Dean has signed the decision â?? its official â?? I am going to defend my thesis.

Posted on by mklang

Slow Madness

Richard Butterworth has humorous talk (with pictures) entitled â??I did a PhD and did NOT go madâ?? my problem is that the actual writing is now finished and I am slowly going mad waiting for published book to arrive (tomorrow), to then be able to formally apply to defend my thesis, to finally defending my thesis on 2nd October.


Butterworth

Itâ??s kind of like being a kid again. You know the time before Christmas or birthdays. When all you wanted to do was for time to pass. You didnâ??t really want to talk or think about what was on its way but you could do nothing else.

Wish I was a Buddhist â?? you know: serene, relaxed & happyâ?¦ Focus on today and not live for the future. Do you think that he would have been a good PhD student?

Posted on by mklang

The logic of free online books

David Glenn, Yale U. Press Places Book Online in Hopes of Increasing Print Sales, Chronicle of Higher Education, September 8, 2006 (accessible only to subscribers). Discusses the advantages of making books available online. His examples include Jack M. Balkin’s Cultural Software: A Theory of Ideology (book chapters online in pdf) and Yochai Benkler’s The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, which Yale published in May. The book is also available online together with a wiki so that readers can respond.

“The real question,” Mr. Balkin says, “is what the vocation of academic publishing is. Academic publishers saw themselves as trying to spread knowledge â?? high-quality knowledge â?? as far and wide as they could … not just as a service that they provide to the universities that they’re associated with. Well, now they can promote that vocation even better than they could before. And they may even be able to make money off of it, which would be all to the good.”

Without a substantial investigation of a wide selection of material it will be difficult to claim the effects of online material on book sales. Any reports without such a study are anecdotal. But there is also another problem with that kind of study. It is the question of whether the specific book would have sold more or less without the online site.

I believe – a subjective opinion based upon my limited anecdotal evidence – that books sales generally increase when material is placed online. But this requires an important caveat: if the publisher prices the books too high then putting material online will not promote sales.

High-cost academic books are only intended for libraries and therefore online material will only prevent researchers from asking for the book. But high-cost academic books are a bad idea. They cannot claim to be about spreading knowledge (as Balkin states above).

Finding the right price for a large group of potential buyers, then placing material online will first create interest in the book and second ensure that the book is more easily found by those interested in the material. If the book is moderately, or reasonably, priced most (not all) still prefer to read a book in it’s traditional form rather than on a screen.

The problem is arguing with the publishers about this…

Posted on by mklang

The ungood system of academic publishing

Another text on Free Software that I have written has been accepted for publication. This is good news. But then I read the rather draconian copyright and licensing rules which the publisher wants to apply to my text.

Basically the ideas remain mine but if I want to present them I have to re-write the ideas from scratch.

The author retains the rights to any intellectual property developed â?¦While the author may use any and all thoughts and research results developed or accumulated while working on a manuscript, and may rewrite, update, and re-title them for use in other publications, â?¦ the author CANNOT use the verbatim text of the manuscript or any part thereofâ?¦without first obtaining the written permissionâ?¦

From my limited experience this wording is pretty standard. From the academics point of view I â??needâ?? publications. But the situation becomes strange when the topic I am writing about is Free Software which has a large focus on openness and the freedom of ideas.

Let me just point out from the start â?? there is no limitation on the reader to read and develop the ideas. They just cannot slavishly copy the text.

My niggling concern is the fact that I am paid by an organisation to do research (and teach). So I spend my time gathering information and thinking about the implications of what is occurring in my particular field. I may even have applied for public grants to do this work.

Once I write down my thoughts the only way for the others to gain access to them is for my library to buy the book so that others can read it. Which basically means my university is paying twice for this information. First for me to think/write and then to obtain physical access to the information.

Even though I dislike the contents of the copyright agreement I have just signed it did not prevent me from signing it. The problem is one of incentive structures. Had I written the work and then just posted it to my website â?? it would not have been worth anything to my academic peers and therefore to my academic career.

The academic text only becomes valuable after it passes through the quality control system which is in the hands of the publisher. Without a publishing house behind the text the information contained therein is not seen as knowledgeâ?¦

Posted on by mklang