The Transformative Power of Games on Participatory Governance

The Transformative Power of Games on Participatory Governance

Government is the manifestation of a social contract created by citizens for rules to which everyone agrees to abide in exchange for support and protection.  Presently there are limitations on the direct impact that citizens can have on government apart from voting in elections or running for office.  Often in these participatory activities, there is little direct feedback which does not excite citizens.  Games can be used to create new avenues for public participation that will provide feedback, build communities and improve both the structure and social collective of the country.

In the public arena, games are usually considered in two contexts.  The first is that of political manipulation which is incredibly harmful to overall outcomes as it inhibits honest interactions between groups.  The other game context is that of game theory, which is where individuals can make strategic choices to positively impact themselves, and can also decide whether or not to assist others.  Games should also be considered in a third context- as a tool to encourage development of ideas and participation.  People are attracted to games because they are entertaining, have purpose, and foster creativity.  Dr. Jane McGonigal (2010) spoke on the potential for online games to solve real world problems (:10).  Through her research and work at the Institute for the future, games were developed that produced an array of unique solutions to real world problems (17:26).  This is an imaginative use of a technology to create new ideas, practices and communities.  However, there is a step following idea production that needs to be addressed: the pathway between the ideas and decision makers in government.  Government can benefit from the contributions of its citizens in areas of improved operations, problem identification, potential policy solutions, and conceptualization of American priorities

If the government was to use online game dynamics for increased participation, some adjustments would be needed as with any change.  In order for people be interested in this opportunity there must be access to information (while protecting classified information), willingness to consider proposed ideas, idea uptake and implementations, and feedback to citizens.  Structures of games can be revised to best fit with the proper context.  For instance, there could be a government improvement scale where individuals or groups receive a point number depending on their contributions.  If the practice gains a following, the scale rating will gain legitimacy and impact- it could be included on a resume for public and private industry.  Another option could be a connection between legislators and citizens in their respective legislative districts.  Citizens could collectively develop questions or problems present in the community and propose potential solutions.  Citizens would use a moderation system where ideas can be liked or not by peers, the ideas with high approval ratings would be near the top of the list.  Legislators would receive updates and there would be increased expectation of effort in the specified areas.

.

The following flowchart is how I envision the dynamic between government and citizens evolving if participatory outlets are created using games:

Government à ePA technology + gaming à ideas + uptake à feedback à changed government dynamic à responsive, better government à improved social contract relationship between citizens and government

The relationship between citizens and government would be altered through this form of participation; citizens would have the opportunity to be innovative leaders on a small scale.  This would cause different expectations.  For instance, there is a difference between government information being accessible and being transparent.  A practical example is navigating government accounting systems.  If people are working on revisions of content using game dynamics, there would be increased expectations of transparency.   The purpose of using games is to optimize individual motivation to solve problems in conjunction with government update and feedback to improve the overall function and facilitate dialogue to create a stronger, healthier democracy.

Project Abstract

There are unique dynamics that shape the way business is conducted in the public sector.  This paper will examine the dynamics of government and politics in the context of a game culture.  People operate in games differently than in other interactions and use of a game philosophy may lead to new interactions and outcomes.  Technology has a role in its ability for candidates and government employees to access and be reached the public.  Public scrutiny may enhance the game dynamic of the public sector, as demonstrated by content on social media sites during elections.  People can be more creative in game situations but there are limitations on government performance in certain situations using game dynamics.  For instance, the advisarial nature of modern elections can be vicious in the tactics used to defeat opponents.  Since public service is the highest priority in government, an assessment of appropriate use of game dynamics in the public sector will be discussed.  Government should utilize game dynamics to create enthusiasm, generate new ideas to problems, and to improve society, but should not be used if damaging to citizen welfare.

Reaction to "Facebook Skeletons Come Out"

The article “The Facebook Skeletons Come Out” in the New York Times by Jeremy Peters and Brian Stelter discusses the backlash on candidates who have pictures of themselves posted on Facebook.  Three candidates during the current election had to justify or distance themselves from photos or video posted on Facebook from years past.  This issue is relevant because social media sites such as Facebook are so widely used by the populace- people in my “generation” began using Facebook in college and have had pictures posted over the years.  The issue is that in modern political campaigns, opponents relish embarrassing each other and using personal information to do so is a rather standard tactic.  However, with so many people using Facebook, the presence of photos from years past may be a more universal for candidates of all political affiliations.  The behavior of young people is not new, but having a technology make such behavior publicly available is.  Candidates prior to social networking sites did not have to consider the ramifications for every event attended at any point in their youth the way that future candidates will have to.  Krystal Ball, one of the candidates discussed in the article, had a comment that brought the issue home, “…I would have to have some young man or young woman think, ‘I can’t run for office because I did something stupid at a party however long ago’” (3).  At the moment, there is not clear regulation or a defined position regarding use of photos on Facebook for political campaigns. 

I feel that the use of social media sites using personal photos as ammunition in political campaigns could go in one of two ways.  First, it could (and likely will in the short term) become the norm for the public to scrutinize candidates personal postings.  It is a reality of life that individuals need to exercise caution when posting photos of themselves on Facebook and asking people to remove concerning photos.  However, it could be that the wide use of Facebook and other sites are so common that candidates eventually shift their focus away from personal photographs to a more issue based discussion.  I do understand that politics is a different animal from other human interactions, but it could be that in this case technology could shape behavior and could do its part to help in making political elections more professional.  In the meantime, I would still recommend avoiding posting party photos on Facebook…

Review of James Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds

Review of James Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds

James Surowiecki takes a unique perspective on groups of people in his 2004 work The Wisdom of Crowds.  He challenges the construct that quality of decisions declines when made by large groups of people.  Rather, groups can make intelligent collective decisions even if the individuals comprising the group have varying skills and knowledge levels; in fact, a more diverse group will make more intelligent decisions than a smaller homogeneous group.  This view of collective decisions was interesting in that throughout the argument the mistrust of groups keeps popping up in the mind of the reader; this construct of group wisdom causes a shift in perception, but it has potential to lead readers to new level of understanding.  Surowiecki adds an additional note to the concept of diverse group decision making, “Paradoxically, the best way for a group to be smart is for each person in it to think and act as independently as possible” (xx).  Though it is the nature of people to be influenced by their peers when making decisions, he argues that this is not necessarily a requirement, and in many cases the group benefits when individuals are able to make decisions based upon their own assessment of situations (50).  The importance of individual decisions separates the author’s discussion of group decisions from the classic view of the collective; he does not want a group to come up with one decision, but rather to look at the aggregated result of numerous individual decisions. 

An example in the book that really stood out was the discussion of the United States intelligence agencies and their methods of collecting and analyzing information regarding the country’s security.  The attack on the World Trade Center on September 11^th, 2001 illustrated that the current structure of intelligence was flawed since information was not effectively shared across all relevant agencies (68).  This was a great example, since it showed that even if small groups have access to specialized resources, such as classified information, they will still not be as effective as a large group if the information flows are not constantly shared.  (For the uber nerds out there, you will recognize this conclusion is the basis for the creation of the intersect program in the tv show Chuck).  The author notes that decentralization can be a great asset if there is a balance between information remaining simultaneously global and local (72).  Another simple example was of Whyte’s (1969) observation of crowds in New York where individuals use information cues around them to move through a crowded complex environment (85).  This was a great example in that the reader will be able to understand the concept of crowd coordination in a very real world context (anyone who has walked on the ASU Tempe campus on a weekday lunch hour can see this phenomena in person).

The book’s greatest strength in my opinion was the way Surowiecki altered the reader’s conception of crowds and groups.  I loved this view of the collective and its potential for improving decision making; this is one of my areas of interest and I have been taking classes and reading research that concurs with the structure Surowiecki provides in this book.  As noted earlier in this review, he does not argue for consensus but rather an evaluation of the collective individual assessments on a decision or outcome.  This links well to the workings of complex adaptive systems.  Complexity science allows models to be developed to look at emergent patterns through individual interactions.  New knowledge can be developed by looking at the populace that can lead to new levels of understanding when trying to solve societal problems.  A great example of macro patterns emerging from individual decisions was the choice to visit the El Farol bar on a Friday night (87).  This information could be programmed in an agent based model to observe the patterns discussed.  One area that could have been stronger was to talk more about collective decision breakdowns and what characteristic structures can lead to breakdowns.  For example, when discussing governance itself, the author gave a great example of the National Issues Convention Deliberative Poll (259) and the Iowa Electonic Markets (17) where collective predictions from individuals lead to accurate forecasts of elections and other political decisions.  This collective power was limited to prediction rather than information formation.  I think the discussion of collective decision making in the public sphere is much more broad than prediction and would have liked a longer discussion in this area.  Specifically with regard to elections, there could have been more discussion on the difference between participating in elections (classic democratic participation) and prediction of elections.  The author does discuss democracy and the different perceptions that individual citizens, organizations, and economists have regarding citizen participation, I would have loved for greater elaboration.  There was one area I had questions about, but in honesty this may be my lack of comprehension; Surowiecki argues that the stock market was able to locate the organization responsible for the faulty equipment that lead to the Challenger explosion (9).  His explanations of how this occurred left me with more questions than answers since it seemed that there was not tangible evidence of insider information being in play. 

The understanding of crowds and their potential for improved decision making is a seperation from the current construct regarding large groups of people.  I think that this idea has potential for two reasons, there appears to be evidence supporting the thesis of the book, both through the cases presented and the field of complexity science that uses this construct.  Also, there is potential for the reliability of answers to become more accurate if organizations and decision makers understand the contribution of collective decision making and communicate with the public on its desireabilty.  I believe that if people know their ideas and opinions are actually being used to make decisions there will likely be a high level of participation.  People want to matter and this could be a tool that allows citizens to particpate in areas that they truly care about.  This book relates to e public administration in that technology allows the public sector to utilize the deliberation, participation and contribution of the public in pursuit of improved service.  As Dr. McGonigal noted in her TED talk from earlier in the semester, sections of the public, online gamers were her target population, can potentially serve as a new human resource through problem solving through their favored medium of games (McGonigal, 2010).  The assignment regarding government agency outreach to the public indicates that there is increasing demand for interaction between citizens and their government.  If agencies are able to understand the potential for Surowiecki’s argument on strong collective decision making, then technology will be the best tool to harness the power of the group to assist in decision making.  It must be noted that the technology outreach will need to be formatted to facilitate the structure that allows for access to all potential options available and allows individuals to make their decision without worry of what other people are doing, as noted by the author (61).  With that consideration, the idea of using American citizenry to improve the structure and decisions of the United States has great potential and should continue to be explored. 

Participation in Arizona State Government

This week I wanted to consider how citizens interact and participate with the Arizona State Legislature, both in how technology could be used and an idea for a new government communication tool.  Currently there are different points of access for the public.  The first and most traditional is contact information of the legislators.  In this context it is important to remember that the characteristics of contact mediums shape the kinds of conversations that can be developed.  Contact information is essential for being able to schedule a meeting with a representative or senator, but the communication is very limited in this medium, especially since the initial contact is with administrative assistants.  The implied power suggests that the legislator is the dominant power as he or she can accept or reject appointment requests. 

Another feature is ALIS http://www.azleg.gov, a tool on the legislature website that provides the language of proposed and approved bills.  This serves a reference role, where public access to information is improved when displayed on the web.  This resource can improve discussions on relevant issues, but is not a medium for government communication.  It should be noted that there is a difference in government transparency of providing information and providing information that is easily navigable by the public.  For example, to access bill language from previous years, the user must change the session- this was confusing as a first time user and can lead to difficulties if individuals do not remember the session in which a bill was presented.

A third communication path with the legislature is the ability to speak on proposed legislation.  Citizens can sign in on modules and stand in support or opposition to a bill and can request to speak.  An initial profile must be created at a kiosk at the state capitol, but once a profile has been created, individuals can sign in remotely to voice opinions.  This power structure can be considered more direct, since citizen opinions are being presented when bills are in development and revision, but there is still a disconnect between the individual opinion and the representative.  Additionally, during my time as a page at the House it appeared that individuals associated with an organization were given more attention than members of the public unless that individual was influential. 

Given these available means of communication, I think it may be helpful to create a website allowing for direct expression of citizen opinions to government and peers and accessible resources for the public.  I will do my best to describe what I visualize.  A brief description of proposed legislation, organized by theme for searching ease, could be provided with a link to the bill page on ALIS.  The structure of the site can be a spoke and wheel design; I included an example that was may work as a reference for different idea templates (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.loaddd.com/vdo/uploads/picture2/338.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.loaddd.com/download.php%3Fid%3D338&usg=__CmBBPXq-Ki4uj2UQQyC2tIBhqpE=&h=376&w=500&sz=40&hl=en&start=61&zoom=1&tbnid=Ak-DomPhh4dkiM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dedraw%2Btrial%2Bversion%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7DMUS_en%26biw%3D1003%26bih%3D521%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C1797&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=718&vpy=168&dur=1078&hovh=195&hovw=259&tx=170&ty=87&ei=UfDFTM69GYTQ). 

Summary reports of deliberations and key issues could be included for background (there must be a value neutral emphasis in this section to be successful).  People would have the opportunity to sign in once for each bill revision; for example, if a bill was proposed and amended one time, a citizen would be able to comment two times.  Maps of opinions could be bundled by legislative district.  A tool could be used that would allow legislators or the public look at opinions or questions that people in districts are thinking about.  Legislators could pose questions on the site for input.  Another feature could incorporate the online game networking to come up with new ideas to solve problems.  McGonigal (2010) noted how a few online games she designed led to innovative solutions created through supportive networking.  Ideas that have merit could be used as a framework for new legislation.  If this application was successful, there could be a new relationship of constructive discussion and problem solving.  The site could be a reliable source of citizen opinion feedback and could help representatives understand different issues brought up by constituencies.  Shirky (2010) likewise discussed how using software can be used so the institution becomes, “an enabler rather than an obstacle”.  The web can be seen as an opportunity as well as a tool to utilize the resources and knowledge of the public, which in turn can improve government projects and public service.

Paper Proposal- Individuals, Technology, Government and Power

Paper Proposal- Individuals, Technology, Government and Power

I have been considering a theoretical paper for the final assignment focusing on citizens and their sense of personal power regarding technology and informatics.  I would be interested to see if there are different areas of technology that makes individuals feel more empowered than in other areas; for example, do people feel more empowered in the private sphere versus the public sphere?  That being said, I would like to focus primarily on the relationship between government and informatics.

Government has taken pains to utilize technological tools to communicate and work with individual citizens.  This falls in line with Malamud’s (2009) argument about the relationship of government and citizens; he argues that there have been three waves in the history of government determining the obligation government has taken on to communicate and work with American citizens (42).  Malamud predicts, “We are now witnessing a third wave of change- an Internet wave- where the underpinnings and machinery of government are used not only by bureaucrats and civil servants, but by the people.  This change has the potential to be equally fundamental…Today public means online” (43, 46). Through the course, we have studied how government is working to increase the interactive nature of its online information.  It would seem that if government strives to increase transparency and openness through technology and informatics that citizens may develop a new relationship with government institutions. 

Of course, there are issues with the presentation of information; I would be interested to see if there has been research regarding the overflow of information and the navigability of the information.  If government information is present but difficult to locate or interpret, the transparency objective is not being met.  Another issue to examine is the way in which individuals interact online and the potential differences between citizens gaining a sensation of power versus actual input on the system itself.  Individuals are learning about the resources available from the government and expectations of information sharing has increased, but we are still in a transition period for determining the relationship of citizens and governance.  Currently there is a great deal of outreach to other citizens but we are not at the point of government institutions receiving direct input from individuals through online technologies.  Noveck (2009) provides an illustration of such a schism, “But while online communities to date may have enabled people to click together instead of bowling alone, they are not yet producing changes in the way government institutions obtain and use information.  These purely civic programs are disconnected from the practices and priorities of government” (55). 

I will continue to develop the paper proposal and will have a more defined topic and sources by the time the abstract is submitted.

Government websites- different tools for different objectives

The readings for this week demonstrate that government is in the process of fully utilizing the web and its resources regarding e-government.  Most are currently on the web; Wohlers (2007) noted that there has been a jump of e-government usage at the local level from 9-90 percent between 1995 and the early 2000’s (4).  However, Jaeger (2006) notes that how individuals utilize the web differs between the service provided by the agency, their understanding of the web, and their conception of what government transparency is (183-184).  Heeks (2003) adds to the discussion by noting the range of world wide e-government projects; at the time the piece was written only fifteen percent of projects were deemed successful, whereas eighty five percent were deemed either to be partial or total failures (2).  Some of this issue may be due to the newness of the technology and the rate at which government agencies have embraced utilizing this tool for outreach.  Another issue leading to different interpretations of usage of the web is that citizens do not have a solid conception of what they expect from e-government (Berlot & Jaeger, 2007, 149).  From these discussions, we know that while there are some standards for how government websites are organized, there is room for interpretation for how government service on the web can be realized.

White House: I feel that this website was designed to be approachable and accessible with the intent to be increased understanding of the President’s perspective on issues and to demonstrate what has been accomplished.  In many sections there is a photo or video to supplement the text.  For example, there is a section devoted to specific legislation and the President’s position on each piece of legislation.  It is clear that use of technologies is a theme in the site and there is a portal linking to programs ranging from Twitter to YouTube. 

Apps.gov: Apps.gov resembles a store website more than the others.  It offers a variety of cloud computing software that government agencies can buy.  These software products range from business to social media applications, all available for purchase.  There was an introductory video on the main page of apps.gov pitching cloud computing to potential customers; it focused on the resource sharing that cloud computing offers in addition to being termed a more green technological resource.  However, there are concerns with cloud computing such as data security, concerns of espionage, and professional hackers (Stibbe, 2005, 8).  Though not in the formal readings, there also concerns about the storage of government records.

Data.gov:  Data.gov resembles a library more than a store.  There is an information catalog that is searchable by keyword and includes raw data, tools, and geodata.  This is an information access webpage, linking citizens directly with the information they want to know.  Data is available from the federal government, and on one tab is aggregated to show what tools and data are available by a particular agency; it even includes a notation of high value raw datasets.  This site is likely not used by the general public very often- though everyone has access to the information, not everyone may know how to utilize a dataset to find the answers they are seeking.  This does, however, assist in government transparency as the data itself is available rather than a process table or report.  Individuals have the opportunity to examine information personally.

 Recovery.gov:  Recovery.gov is primarily an accountability tool for the government.  They are demonstrating that the Recovery Act is having a positive impact on the country.  There is clearly a desire to show accountability for the funds used- users can view expenditures by state and review projects that have been started or completed using the allocated funds.  This site is mostly a one direction site.  There are not links to the social media that was available on the White House website.  The two access points for communication with the site are to report fraudulent spending or to apply for jobs created through the Recovery Act.  To me, this is a dynamic way of showing the progress of a piece of legislation, and to share information about the legislation itself.  This is important since many citizens do not have full information regarding the content of bills, which can lead to concern.

Serve.gov: Serve.gov is designed to be easily accessible and understood and like the White House page has many access points to social media.  However, on this page there are more opportunities for interaction.  Individuals can search for local volunteer opportunities, can read about projects across the country that have been established and has access to either sharing about a service project completed or learn how to begin a project.  President Obama has spoken often about trying to change the culture of American in regards to service, and this website reflects that ambition.  The site works to facilitate the expansion of public service in the United States.

Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records:  www.lib.az.us  I would like to discuss the state library webpage; this is chance to look at a state level website and because I work there and so know a bit about the services provided on the site.  The state library is an agency under the Secretary of State and so wants to explain the agency services, provide information, and assist in the democratic process of voting.  There is information regarding each division of the library and the services they provide, along with access to the state library catalog.  There are also links for citizens to interact with.  One link is to the Arizona Memory Project http://azmemory.lib.az.us.  This particular site gives direct access to current and historic government documents as well as current or historic cultural collections from across the state.  This allows archival materials to be available to the public without having to physically visit the archives.  The site has resources for finding jobs in the state or other resources needed.  There is also a page for state employees that include links to local and national newspapers, magazine and journal subscriptions.  All state employees, from staff to state and federal legislators to the Governor, can access this link with their state library card.  This site strives to share information with the public about the agency but also to be another access point to the information kept by the state library.

Technology as a Resource for American Education

Technology as a Resource for American Education

Public education in the United States may be considered by some to be a wicked problem.  Though this is perhaps somewhat harsh, there are many issues with public education that must be addressed.  There are schools deemed failing through achievement and funding shortages, and there are large pupil-to-instructor ratios.  Current salaries for teachers are low.  Though there have been efforts to increase achievement in standardized examinations by establishing national standards, there have been ripple effects.  The problem I would like to focus on is the varying levels of access to resources, such as excelling instructors and course content ranging from history and science to the arts and physical education.

The status of American education has frequently been in discussion- it is known that a well educated society will lead to developments in technology, commerce, science development and other important fields.  This has developed into a discussion on academic standards, following the thought that standards will increase overall educational attainment.  In the 1980’s and 1990’s, concern about the status of academic standards was voiced, and different proposals to sort out the problem were presented.  In 1983, the National Committee on Excellence in Education published A Nation at Risk, linking the declining achievement of American students with the security of the nation, “America’s position in the world may once have been reasonably secure with only a few exceptionally well-trained men and women.  It is no longer…Learning is the indispensable investment required for success in the “information age” we are entering” (National, para. 1-2).  Education requirements were increased and work loads for students became more demanding.  More work to reform education was proposed by the National Governor’s Association (1996), wherein uniform standards were perceived to be high level standards and an emphasis on students working in small groups was emphasized to promote multidimensional growth (McCaslin, 2006, p. 481).  The No Child Left Behind Act was proposed in 2001 as a way to implement uniform standards in reading and mathematics skills that would give the federal government flexibility in oversight through national funding of schools; during the time period the measure was proposed, it was supported by both parties and the President, (Robelen, 2001, p.1).  NCLB is has more philosophical ties to A Nation at Risk than it does the National Governor’s Association, as referenced by the diction in a notice from the U.S. Department of Education, “The U.S. is ninth in the world in high school graduation rates among 25-34 year olds…In 2004, India’s colleges produced 350,000 engineering graduates compared to 70,000 in America.  The elite 10 percent of India’s youngest engineers outnumbers America’s top 50 percent” (Increasing, 2006, para. 3).  Remaining competitive in the market of producers is a priority to Americans, and the necessity to make educational structure more rigorous will allow students to become more disciplined and productive once they have completed their education and are participating in the workplace.  There is a great amount of pressure for the United States to keep its dominant position in the political and economic spectrum of the world, which is the reason that the No Child Left Behind Act was passed with widespread support.

The No Child Left Behind Act has its own focus and limitations.  It is concerned with school meeting set standards, not the overall educational experience.  This is not necessarily negative, but that means it is up to instructors to demonstrate a passion for learning and study along with meeting educational attainment requirements.  The language of the bill itself can lead to limits in how students are given access to information.  For example, if one class fails the standard examination threshold, then the entire school is deemed to be failing.  This leads to strong emphasis in schools to teaching materials that will be tested, sometimes to the detriment of other course areas that are not included in the exam.  In 2007, Arizona Superintendent Tom Horne discussed a story from a middle school teacher in Yuma who discovered that the class of new seventh graders were unaware of who Christopher Columbus was, let alone the impact he had; when the elementary school supervisor was asked about this deficiency, the response was, “we don’t teach history or science in our elementary school because they are not testing it…we (the Arizona education administrators) estimate that almost half of elementary schools are not teaching history or science…” (Horne, 2007, 2:14:40).  Income disparities do have real impacts on the resources available at schools, and so some low income schools across the country have had a difficult time maintaining standards.  There is also a spatial element to be considered- the needs of urban schools differ from rural schools. 

Access to strong resources is extremely important for the overall education of American students.   Creating multiple access points for students would increase the likelihood of encouraging interest and development in the educational process.  Utilizing the resources available through technology would be beneficial for increasing access to both resources and educators.  For instance, a social network for teachers could be established where members can share successful lesson plans, discuss resources, and come up with new ideas.  This would be a tool just for educators to discuss and learn, to be a hub for new ideas.  Online lessons could be developed by teachers to be used by other educators in the country.  The number of times a lecture is used could be tracked and the teacher given a monetary reward.  Some classes could be offered in virtual worlds such as Second Life.  Using technology would help prepare students for work in an information economy and would also bring them into contact with social institutions aimed at public service; libraries, for example, provide computers with internet access for patrons free of charge.  Increasing visual learning, such as science demonstrations or historical reenactments, can assist in making areas of study dynamic.  Increased participation from students and faculty and additional access points to student resources will be beneficial in changing how American students interact and learn.

Sources:

Horne, Tom. (10 January 2007). Report on No Child Left Behind vs. AZ Learns.

            Committee on Education K-12,  Arizona House of Representatives. 2:00:13-

            2:17:46. Retrieved from http://azleg.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=3

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2005). Key Recommendations from the

            NCSL Task Force on No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Final Report. Retrieved from

http://www.ncsl.org/print/statefed/nclb/NCLBRecommendations.pdf

McCaslin, M. (2006). Student Motivational Dynamics in the Era of School Reform,

            Elementary School Journal 106 (5), 479- 490.

Robelen, E. W., Fine, L. (2001). Bush Plan: ‘No Child Will Be Left Behind’.  Education

            Week, 20 (20).

U.S. Department of Education National Commission on Excellence

            in Education. (1983). A Nation At Risk. Retrieved from

            http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

A Discussion of Technology’s Role in Bullying

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/nyregion/30suicide.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=rutgers suicide&st=cse&scp=3  

The New York Times article “Private Moment Made Public, Then a Final Jump”, written by Lisa Foderaro, covers the actions that led to a Rutgers student committing suicide by jumping off of the George Washington bridge.  This has been a prominent story and people are aware of the occurrence, but I wanted to take a moment to discuss the role of technology and the efforts of the university to address privacy issues.   Rutgers University had begun a project to promote civility across the campus, both in face to face interactions and in the online world.  This experience is demonstrating to people the real world impacts technology can have on people- in this case, technology provided a more damaging impact than a rumor would have been.  The old saying is that images are worth 1,000 words, and this particular image may have directly caused Mr. Clementi’s suicide.  The university will likely be contemplating a new policy concerning use of technology and responsibility of maintaining privacy.  This is going to be difficult, no matter what Rutgers or other school put into practice.   The difference I found in this story as opposed to the case of a teen suicide prompted by a mother bullying over the internet was the lack of sensationalism.   No longer are people debating the real world effects the internet and online technologies have on people, now there is more of a focus on what is the correct course of action when violations of this nature occur. 

Module #3 Part A Post - Social Media Matters

Social Media Matters

I loved the three videos for this week’s assignment.  The "so what" of this literature demonstrates that social media matters.  The video posted regarding the development and use of social media was a great introduction.  I thought the statistics on length of time for a source of information to reach 50 million users very interesting, as it ranged from 38 years for radio to Facebook gaining 200 million users in under a year (Social Media Revolution, 2010).  Most of the technologies noted in the clip were programs I was familiar with and use regularly.  Chris Anderson had a great discussion about technology allowing to people communicate through discussion and storytelling as was done before the printing press was developed (Anderson, 2010).  This was very refreshing to hear in the context of human society and technology.  Usually there are references to apathetic people only interested in easy entertainment- Mr. Anderson brought to light how technology spurs great innovation, creation, and communication- used the term crowd accelerated innovation, “the art of spreading ideas” (Anderson, 2010).  He also did not argue that people looking at images was damaging.  The positive aspects of this technological tool give great hope for how public agencies can share information and hopefully improve the practice of governance.  An example of this from my own work experience is the website Arizona Memory Project http://azmemory.lib.us.  On this site many government and cultural documents, including images are available to the public for free.  A new addition to the website is historic documents donated to the state library regarding the shootings at the OK Corral.  This allows for a dynamic view of government documents and history.   My favorite video was Jamie Heywood’s (2009) discussion of his social media site linking patient information.  The part that really struck me was when the results of polling on the site showed the same information as a clinical trial, only generated much faster than the trial itself could be concluded (Heywood, 2009).  Not only can sites like this serve as sources of emotional support and information for sick people, but research can be conducted with the data provided by the users.  I would argue that a site like this likely has less falsification than other sources of research since users are all in similar situations and would not gain anything through withholding information, there are no tests being conducted, there is nothing to gain but support and information.  This has many linkages for the first module’s discussion of government technology and increased transparency.  Not only can information be posted, but it can be formatted in ways that can be understood by the general populous.  If used correctly, technology can be an amazing resource and tool for increasing public comprehension and participation in government.

I signed up for World of Warcraft and had a great time exploring the world.  I was interested in World of Warcraft since many people I am acquainted with play and are very passionate about it.  It would be a great tool to harness the passion players have for the game and use it in public administration, though this may be more applicable for Second Life since WOW is so grounded in fantasy.  I enjoyed creating my avatar and could see how people can choose to identify themselves, from strengths and weapons to appearance.  I did not get to interact with other players as much as I would have liked during my time in the WOW universe- this may have been due to the gaming option I chose.  However, I did see other players completing the same task I was completing.  I have heard that in some areas of the game there are cities where commerce can take place, and battles occur in other areas of the game.  I kept thinking about dispute resolution, public participation, and commerce when using virtual worlds.  Clearly there is a group of individuals who thrive in virtual reality this could be an opportunity to take programs into the universe as an additional access point.  It would also be a great place to search for new ideas to difficult problems- if people feel powerful when acting through an avatar, they may be more willing to share innovative ideas that would be difficult in the context of the real world.

I also looked up activities on meetup.com.  it was great to see the range of activities available all in a local area.  I tend to do recreational activities during my free time and located a night hike in the South Mountain recreational activity.  Social media can connect people over the web and also in real life.  This is an example of social media translating to real connections and relationships among people.  Government agencies can use social media groups to link local, state and federal government activities to the attention of people living in the area.  The additional access points to government are helpful- the more access citizens can have for government increases the possibility of learning and participating.

Review of Four Ways to Fix a Broken Legal System

I found the video Four Ways to Fix a Broken Legal System by Phillip K. Howard fascinating for its intersections with Lessig’s (2006) work Code 2.0.  The discussion of the American legal system is to understand a change in societal architecture.  Lessig notes regarding law and society, “In each example, an architecture is changed so as to realize different behavior…Law can change social norms as well…” (Lessig, 2006, 129).  Howard (2010) concurs with this thesis through his discussion of American law, especially in the way that both societal structures and individual outlooks have shifted, “Our culture has changed.  People no longer feel free to act on their best judgment” (4:20).  He notes that the current legal system reflects the judgment of hindsight bias, when in actuality it may not be possible to correctly identify the reasons for actions taken or alternatives when run in real time without perfect knowledge. Individuals tend to act defensively due to the presence of lawsuits; this leads to paralysis in society.   This brings to mind the figure in Lessig (2006) where the law element skews the market, norms and architecture of society, thereby changing a citizen’s comprehension of the surrounding world and how to react and interact in society.  Howard said that to fix the legal system there must be trust.  “If you make people self conscious about their judgments, studies show they will make worse judgments” (Howard, 2010, 12:15).

The combination of Howard and Lessig’s discussion was very powerful.  A question of mine through the course of my studies has been how to actually make changes when it is clear the existing structure is not working.  Some may claim that society “is the way it is” and that making large structural changes is too difficult.  I concur that change is extremely difficult, especially when people are comfortable with current operations.  However, I personally have a difficult time accepting this perspective.  To believe that society cannot change and adapt, that any big changes will ruin the country, feels like giving up.  I appreciated Howard’s prescription for change in that he tried to identify changes in structure that may improve the legal system, therefore improving American society. 

Analysis of Generosity is Contagious, Study Shows-But Selfishness is Too Article

Analysis of Generosity is Contagious, Study Shows-But Selfishness is Too Article

The article Generosity is Contagious, Study Shows-But Selfishness is Too by Andrew Moseman (2010) discusses that James Fowler and Nicholas Christakis ran an experiment to see how individuals react in a game simulation.  The researchers were interested to see how individuals reacted when given a choice between community contributions.  In the game simulation, participants were given credits and could contribute to a communal pot or not; there were several rounds included in the study.  If all participated then everyone would end with more credits; however participants were unaware of the amount contributed by others in the group.  The study found that both generosity and selfishness in the game scenario had a ripple effect throughout the study; participants tended to continue the behavior they experienced in a previous round of the game.

Some of the values tested in this experiment were the sense of shared community versus individual wellbeing or preservation.  This is also combined with the presence of imperfect information.  It was interesting to see that the effect of an individual’s action could not have an impact during the current round of play, but rather in subsequent rounds with new group members.  I feel that this simulation reflects Lessig’s (2006) constructs of norms and the market.  Specifically, I would state that the game tests norms which affect market behavior.  Lessig (2006) said of norms, “… (norms are) a set of understandings constrain behavior” (124).  In the simulation, participants reacted to what they observed from others during a simulation in subsequent interactions.  If generosity was the value demonstrated in a given round, the study found that that train tended to be used in other rounds, the same for selfish interactions.  This was done in the sphere of a market setting where resources existed as credits and individuals could choose to operate on their own or to invest in the community pot.  Lessig (2006) discusses how markets can be constrained- in this example he refers to law, but social norms can similarly alter market choices, especially in a limited market simulation as described, “The law uses taxes to increase the market’s constraint on others.  We tax cigarettes in part to reduce their consumption, but we subsidize tobacco production to increase its supply.” (127). The driving motivator in the simulation is personal wellbeing and reaction to the “community” of the game simulation group.

There are always changes of behavior when conducting social experiments since participants are aware their behavior is under scrutiny.  This knowledge in itself modifies behavior.  People are more likely to do what they think the researcher is looking for, even if they do not know what that is.  However, there were strengths in their research structure.  Participants could only increase their credits when everyone participated yet this information was not given to them, nor was the actions of their group members.  This reflects the world well; individuals can only be responsible for themselves at the end of the day.  Rather that come up with a completely different scenario, I would like to add an additional component.  I would be interested to see if the game simulation outcome would be altered if the location was put on the internet so that participants would not have to leave their homes or places of work.  A face to face interaction may have a differing impact on a participant than an individual on the web.  This is important because for the most part individuals do not have to leave their comfortable environment in real world interactions.  However, the sense of community in a web based environment may not change the way people can be influenced the choice of others.  An additional component to the simulation could be a small tax at the beginning of each iteration- let’s say 2 credits.  This would include the law component of Lessig’s construct.  It also may impact how generous individuals are willing to be.  Lessig (2006) discussed how the presence of a law can impact the norms of participating individuals; a great example was how liberals and conservatives perceive and react to sex education in public schools (129).  If a mandatory contribution was included, there may be more polarization than in the simulation where any contribution was completely optional.

The great part about this particular article was that it discussed an experiment rather than an actual action taken, as with some of the other experiments.  This changes the intent of alterations- the study looks to observe phenomena as opposed to observing the actual outcome of a public program or policy.  This study can be used as background for other researchers when designing their own experiments of individual choices in a community setting.  Lessig’s discussion of the constraints on individuals would be helpful for the validity of this study.  He argues that four constraints simultaneously have an impact on an individual’s outcome; architecture, market, law and norms (123).  For the study to match the real world, elements the four constraints need to be included.  I feel that my addition of the mandatory contribution, Lessig’s law component, would increase the external validity of the study since especially in America taxes are a very real part of a citizen’s interaction with the government, which can have drastic changes on how generous they choose to be with other individuals or community causes. 

Module #1 Post

The discussion by Dr. Malone in the first chapters of his book fit well with the talk given by David Cameron in framing how technology changes government, people, and power distributions. Dr. Malone argues that technology has decreased the costs and barriers to communication, thereby leading to a more decentralized social structure and increasing individual autonomy. This seems to stand to observations of how the world has changed with access to information. Mr. Cameron concurs with this sentiment; he talked at length about how access to information puts power into the hands of citizens and knowledge can and will shape how government addresses social problems. He gave two examples which clearly displayed his argument. One was explaining that citizens can look at crime data in their city and make an opinion of the real threats to their communities, whereas previously it was only the government agency tasked with public safety that would even be aware of what crimes were being committed. The other example was how technology can sync with economic theory to change individual behavior- this was achieved by showing individuals what they spent on electricity and then compared them to their neighbors. This argument made sense with my own personal observations studying public administration and policy and working in state government. My supervisor, for example, has worked to make sure that government content is not only accessible to the public, but it is done in a way that is accessible. She argues that simply posting the information does not equate with government transparency unless citizens can actually locate and correctly interpret the information they seek.


Both Mr. Cameron and Dr. Malone took a historical view of communication and power. Dr. Malone described the transition from individual bands to centralized kingdoms to decentralized democracies. He argued that as individuals banded together in organizations, the strenuous nature of communication made centralization necessary. His argument of why people organized as they did is interesting, though communication and safety are not the only reasons for a society to develop. I appreciated that he took his construct further to explain the benefits of living in a society that range from security to trade. The historical construct helped with the framing of how government has worked up to the point of the information age. It is clear that a transition to a decentralized society will be rather difficult, even with some trends such as outsourcing already in progress. My favorite part of both the reading and presentation was Mr. Cameron’s discussion of how technology and economics can remake politics and government to increase public well being. This was the “so what” that made me interested in this topic prior to the course beginning. Technology can be a tool to positively impact the lives of people in their everyday lives and improves the relationship that citizens have with their government. This is an area that will be very dynamic as people and governments adapt to the new tools available and the new expectations that come with the increase in information.

I have had experience with Facebook before this class. In this universe, I feel well established and comfortable. I enjoy the way this social network allows connection with people that would otherwise be out of my life. I have been able to keep contact with cohorts from my home town, college, and other activities. It shows connections through contacts. I have not used Twitter before. It is not that I have any antipathy towards the program, only that I felt overwhelmed with new programs at one point. I look forward to following the different groups and individuals selected. I tried to get a variety of viewpoints so that any updates I receive help with my overall understanding of the world as it is.