I started to sketch an application for the Euprera Social Media Awards 2010, but then I had second thoughts. The reason is that the competition is for the SOCIAL media. As I reflected my motives to blog I figured out that:
1. I mainly write as a method to cultivate my ideas. So I write to myself and when I have something to write about: some vague thoughts about something which I can't use directly in my studies. I've received feedback that I should write more often or at least regularly according to some timetable, but that would kill my motivation.
2. When I'm with friends and family or in any other social event I can't speak academic stuff - they don't share the same knowledge, they don't know the theories. Even when I meet other university students we rarely have a good academic talk, just small talk with a bunch of people. So it's good to have a channel to discuss academic stuff with close friends. To have your friends to check your thoughts and read others'. But that rarely happens. And the funny thing is that a lot of this discussion that arises from my posts happens face-to-face or via mediated chat conversation! And that's not very social for the other people who read this blog.
3. Of course the blog environment enables the possibility that someone previously unknown would read my thoughts and take contact. Perhaps there's some discussion. But that's just a bonus, actually. I mostly use this Blogger interface to read other blogs, no discussion there.
So you can see my point. I like to read and keep to myself, that's my goal and this works just fine - but how social is that? Well, it ENABLES the possibility that someone COULD discuss with me and it's always nice to have an academic chat. But if I really wanted to be social, create networks and discussion, I believe I should do things differently - identify proper forums, to be more active and to interact with other bloggers etc. But that would create obligations to keep publishing and writing and that's just something I don't want right now.
In conclusion: even though my blog has just a handful of readers and little discussion, it's working just the way I want to - it does it's job. But I believe the other blogs in this competition have very different objectives. And it feels like I'm applying to a competition of newspapers with a bulletin.
But I'll have to try to enter this competition. Because it has already given me so much material to reflect with and I think it would be a nice thing to do for the organizers: I bet they would like to see as many attending blogs as possible. And I'd like to criticize the kind of a "best practice"-attitude to blogs. There are many ways of using this media.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Digital nausea, euphoria
Last week I started to feel disgusted by the internet. I got fed up with Facebook, blogs and e-newspapers and all that digital and social media - don't know why, actually. But anyway, I stopped using computers. It's been just friends, family & books since then. And honestly, I feel great. I'm planning on continuing this diet for the time being. And why not, now I've got more time to read: a big pile of books is waiting for me and I just bought a great new book, "Liquid modernity", written by Zygmunt Bauman.
But even though I'm having a digital fast, I'm still reading e-mail (obligatory). And blogs! There's just too many of them with great content: Today I read excellent posts by FeverBee and from there I found a link to another excellent blog PsyBlog which included a list of "40 Superb Psychology Blogs" - my sentiments can be best described by adapting Jack Black - I'm being blinded by awesomeness. :D
But even though I'm having a digital fast, I'm still reading e-mail (obligatory). And blogs! There's just too many of them with great content: Today I read excellent posts by FeverBee and from there I found a link to another excellent blog PsyBlog which included a list of "40 Superb Psychology Blogs" - my sentiments can be best described by adapting Jack Black - I'm being blinded by awesomeness. :D
Monday, November 23, 2009
Cultural disputes in a global world
The blog Public Relations in Arab countries made me think about cultural disputes. This issue is a very important one: in the time of globalization there are lots of different cultures, not only between nations but in nations, as cultures disintegrate into all kinds of subcultures.
In sociology, cultures are seen as networks of meaning. Thus, when we are living in a culture, we have the knowledge of that culture's meanings and interpret the world through this viewpoint. Goffman speaks about frameworks through which people look at things: for example, if someone deeply believes that Barack Obama is evil, then it's futile to try to change that view with examples of Obama's good deeds, because the framework distorts the view about those deeds. You'll have to change the framework.* To do this, one good option is to be in contact with that person, and through a long lasting relationship you share meanings, in other words your cultures, and you could be able to change the situation (Grunig's symmetrical communication, anyone? :D). But one has to remember, that in such a long relationship, also your framework might change. But can one predict which ideas and meanings will prevail?
I believe in the concept of marketplace of ideas and that in the long run the best ideas win. Even if you have the best idea, you can get overrun by the other party in the short run. But in the long run other cultures of our global world intervene and then one sided view into the world doesn't work anymore. How to guarantee, that you are in the winning team? Well, you should apply universal theories, which are applicable despite the culture - especially universal ethics. That way, even though the dispute could be a long battle, you are in the goal already in the beginning.
*(I took the ideas of framing and using Obama as an example from a book review by Culbertson, Hugh M. in Public Relations Quarterly, 2007, Vol. 52 Issue 4, p3-4, 2p; (Article name: "Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate)/Whose Freedom: The Battle Over America's Most Important Idea."))
In sociology, cultures are seen as networks of meaning. Thus, when we are living in a culture, we have the knowledge of that culture's meanings and interpret the world through this viewpoint. Goffman speaks about frameworks through which people look at things: for example, if someone deeply believes that Barack Obama is evil, then it's futile to try to change that view with examples of Obama's good deeds, because the framework distorts the view about those deeds. You'll have to change the framework.* To do this, one good option is to be in contact with that person, and through a long lasting relationship you share meanings, in other words your cultures, and you could be able to change the situation (Grunig's symmetrical communication, anyone? :D). But one has to remember, that in such a long relationship, also your framework might change. But can one predict which ideas and meanings will prevail?
I believe in the concept of marketplace of ideas and that in the long run the best ideas win. Even if you have the best idea, you can get overrun by the other party in the short run. But in the long run other cultures of our global world intervene and then one sided view into the world doesn't work anymore. How to guarantee, that you are in the winning team? Well, you should apply universal theories, which are applicable despite the culture - especially universal ethics. That way, even though the dispute could be a long battle, you are in the goal already in the beginning.
*(I took the ideas of framing and using Obama as an example from a book review by Culbertson, Hugh M. in Public Relations Quarterly, 2007, Vol. 52 Issue 4, p3-4, 2p; (Article name: "Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate)/Whose Freedom: The Battle Over America's Most Important Idea."))
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
aksucom on a reconnaissance mission: funny outcomes
As I mentioned earlier, I'm still planning to take part in the Euprera Social Media Awards 2010, though I haven't been busy with the entry form it requires.
I'm really enthusiastic about this competition, not only because I can find new blogs to read and get new readers, but because it gives me the incentive to reflect my blog, develop it and become a better user of the social media (hey, that's a nice way of saying that I've been spying on the other blogs in the competition, trying to figure out what works in them and what doesn't :D ).
So far I've made some drastic changes already. And the latest novelties are: the widgets. I really thought that my blog seemed somewhat less dynamic than the other blogs, because they had all kinds of flashy little boxes on their side bars. At first I thought I don't need them, that they are just a distraction. But then I noticed that I actually use the widgets on your blogs. They ARE useful - they help and amuse the reader.
Therefore I added some of the widgets I've used myself - other people's blogs, recent comments and then the rss-feed just because some of my friends use them like crazy (I don't). And then, the AdSense.
I really laughed out loud when I figured out I could make money with Google advertisements on my blog. The whole thing feels so - like - a sheer indicator of superficiality and greed. But then I started to get more and more curious: what on earth could the advertisements be like?!? I really wanted to know, and therefore I made an AdSense account. But I placed the advertisements there way down on the sidebar, so no one can be bothered by them.
I'm really enthusiastic about this competition, not only because I can find new blogs to read and get new readers, but because it gives me the incentive to reflect my blog, develop it and become a better user of the social media (hey, that's a nice way of saying that I've been spying on the other blogs in the competition, trying to figure out what works in them and what doesn't :D ).
So far I've made some drastic changes already. And the latest novelties are: the widgets. I really thought that my blog seemed somewhat less dynamic than the other blogs, because they had all kinds of flashy little boxes on their side bars. At first I thought I don't need them, that they are just a distraction. But then I noticed that I actually use the widgets on your blogs. They ARE useful - they help and amuse the reader.
Therefore I added some of the widgets I've used myself - other people's blogs, recent comments and then the rss-feed just because some of my friends use them like crazy (I don't). And then, the AdSense.
I really laughed out loud when I figured out I could make money with Google advertisements on my blog. The whole thing feels so - like - a sheer indicator of superficiality and greed. But then I started to get more and more curious: what on earth could the advertisements be like?!? I really wanted to know, and therefore I made an AdSense account. But I placed the advertisements there way down on the sidebar, so no one can be bothered by them.
Monday, November 16, 2009
The language police state
We Finns are horrible people: we've got a really unique and different language, and we are impressed by anyone who knows a bit Finnish - but we are extremely critical about it. If the pronunciation isn't flawless, we tend to think that the person doesn't really know the language. The biggest reason for a foreigner to become unemployed in Finland is insufficient knowledge of language - even if you would be looking for a job as a cleaner or a storeman. Which is just ridiculous.
But we Finns get what we deserve: we don't dare to speak or write English, even though we would have adequate or even very good skills for it. The reason is, that there might be errors in what we say or write, that we aren't flawless. The Finns don't have such concept of face as the Japanese, but we are still horrified about the idea of being humiliated in public (which is a terrible thing for innovations – how can you learn or achieve anything, if you don't try?).
We Finns should learn that the form isn't that important, it's the content that matters: If you are able to communicate your ideas to others, your language skills are just fine.
But we Finns get what we deserve: we don't dare to speak or write English, even though we would have adequate or even very good skills for it. The reason is, that there might be errors in what we say or write, that we aren't flawless. The Finns don't have such concept of face as the Japanese, but we are still horrified about the idea of being humiliated in public (which is a terrible thing for innovations – how can you learn or achieve anything, if you don't try?).
We Finns should learn that the form isn't that important, it's the content that matters: If you are able to communicate your ideas to others, your language skills are just fine.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Universal theories of communication
In the blog Public Relations in Asia I criticized an article called "Can American public relations theories apply to Asian cultures?":
The writer of the article, Ming-Yi Wu, presents three Western assumptions about PR, which can’t be applied to Asian PR: 1) PR is a business tool, 2) PR is a distinct organizational function, 3) writing is the most important PR skill.
Well, I don’t agree with any of these assumptions, but hey, I'm not American (even though Finland is counted to Western countries). And according to the article, the Western PR theory that works also in Asia, the Relationship Theory, does come from the West. To me that just proofs that there are models and theories strongly dependent on their context (such as those assumptions mentioned before a.k.a. best practices), and then there are universal theories, such as Relationship Theory: theories which are applicable anywhere in the world. Universal theories are possible, because they are based on logic and perceptions of fundamental human behavior. Such can be found for example from Stephen W. Littlejohn's "Theories of human communication" and I believe Grunig's theory of symmetrical communication could be an universal theory for PR.
If an universal theory doesn't work, there are three options: 1) you haven't the skill and knowledge to utilize the theory in another context (the theory works, you just aren't good enough), 2) there is a problem in the theory that needs fixing, 3) this theory doesn't work, discard it.
The writer of the article, Ming-Yi Wu, presents three Western assumptions about PR, which can’t be applied to Asian PR: 1) PR is a business tool, 2) PR is a distinct organizational function, 3) writing is the most important PR skill.
Well, I don’t agree with any of these assumptions, but hey, I'm not American (even though Finland is counted to Western countries). And according to the article, the Western PR theory that works also in Asia, the Relationship Theory, does come from the West. To me that just proofs that there are models and theories strongly dependent on their context (such as those assumptions mentioned before a.k.a. best practices), and then there are universal theories, such as Relationship Theory: theories which are applicable anywhere in the world. Universal theories are possible, because they are based on logic and perceptions of fundamental human behavior. Such can be found for example from Stephen W. Littlejohn's "Theories of human communication" and I believe Grunig's theory of symmetrical communication could be an universal theory for PR.
If an universal theory doesn't work, there are three options: 1) you haven't the skill and knowledge to utilize the theory in another context (the theory works, you just aren't good enough), 2) there is a problem in the theory that needs fixing, 3) this theory doesn't work, discard it.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
About project blogs
On the PR history course the participants have to form groups and run blogs concentrating on the development of PR in a certain region of the world. I've been following those blogs and found them very interesting, but some thoughts came to my mind:
Each group is using the blog environment to present, discuss and reflect it's findings. But at the end of this course the blog becomes something different: a finished project. It becomes a database of information about a specific topic and it's possible that the blog will never be deleted from the cyberspace. Because of this, I believe that:
1. The groups should try to look at their blogs though the eyes of outsiders who get there through a Google search. They should present information about what was the project about and who were behind the project. It would also be nice to provide some kind of a conclusion.
2. In a blog there's no shame in editing old texts (chit-chat with group members, typos, faulty thinking etc.). On the contrary, the whole idea is to cultivate ideas through discussion and reflection: through dialogue. But one should mention drastic changes in the postings or comments - otherwise the comments relating to the older versions of the text would become irrational. A blog is a living being, a discussion about a specific topic and can only be understood as a whole, comments included.
Also, the comments should be used to guide the process - there shouldn't be a strict manuscript with predefined topics. That kind of a blog loses it's special social features and becomes a common web page one can just comment.
3. For the blog to be of any actual use for anyone, it should not only consist of summaries from some books and some links. It should provide something unique: novel ideas based on reflection and vivid examples for creating knowledge, new understanding or viewpoints about the topic at hand. Something original.
Each group is using the blog environment to present, discuss and reflect it's findings. But at the end of this course the blog becomes something different: a finished project. It becomes a database of information about a specific topic and it's possible that the blog will never be deleted from the cyberspace. Because of this, I believe that:
1. The groups should try to look at their blogs though the eyes of outsiders who get there through a Google search. They should present information about what was the project about and who were behind the project. It would also be nice to provide some kind of a conclusion.
2. In a blog there's no shame in editing old texts (chit-chat with group members, typos, faulty thinking etc.). On the contrary, the whole idea is to cultivate ideas through discussion and reflection: through dialogue. But one should mention drastic changes in the postings or comments - otherwise the comments relating to the older versions of the text would become irrational. A blog is a living being, a discussion about a specific topic and can only be understood as a whole, comments included.
Also, the comments should be used to guide the process - there shouldn't be a strict manuscript with predefined topics. That kind of a blog loses it's special social features and becomes a common web page one can just comment.
3. For the blog to be of any actual use for anyone, it should not only consist of summaries from some books and some links. It should provide something unique: novel ideas based on reflection and vivid examples for creating knowledge, new understanding or viewpoints about the topic at hand. Something original.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
