Monday, January 23, 2006

Oooh its going to be hard ...

So far, the wikipedia biographies I've looked at are pretty glowing accolades. the tendency based on scientists is to conclude that bein a b$£&*rd is not necessary in order to succeed. But I have a bit further to go yet. So the first sinners I'm considering are:

Sir Isaac Newton
Edward Teller
Guglielmo Marconi
Robert Hook
Thomas Edison

Sigmund Freud is too tough to call, the debate is still hot

There are saints a plenty, so I'll have no trouble choosing a few.

Well I'm parking this little journey for about a fortnight while I'm travelling, so I'll see next month!

Victims is an interesting title, and includes people for different reasons, maybe

Marie Curie
Stephen Hawking
Joannes Gutenberg

Any thoughts? Controversial choices? Other suggestions?

Friday, January 20, 2006

The 20th Century

So here are the final greats from my source list, again with their wikipedia links. It's a longer list than the others, which poses its own questions.

Nikola Tesla
J.J.Thompson
Sigmund Freud
Heinrich Hertz
Max Planck
Leo Baekeland
Thomas Morgan
Marie Curie
Earnest Rutherford
Wilbur and Orville Wright
Guglielmo Marconi
Frederick Soddy
Albert Einstein
Alexander Fleming
Robert Goddard
Niels Bohr
Erwin Schroedinger
Henry Moseley
Edwin Hubble
James Chadwick
Frederick Banting
Louis de Broglie
Enrico Fermi
Werner Heisenberg
Linus Pauling
Robert Oppenheimer
Sir Frank Whittle
Edward Teller
William Shockley
Alan Turing
Jonas Salk
Rosalind Franklin
James Dewey Watson
Stephen Hawking
Tim Berners-Lee

That's it for now. I make it a total of 87, including almost exclusively white western european men. In fact I count just 2 women, and no-one from outside Europe and North America. Can that be right?

I've started trying to classify each as sinner, saint or victim, and when I've done that I'll summarise the figures here. The next step will be to choose (a number of) people to read about in more depth. Maybe 10.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Making judgements

Having just about about posted all the scientists selected from Jon Balchin's book, Quantum Leaps, I have started trying to make my quick and dirty distinction between sinner or saint to try and answer my question. Not surprisingly this is not straightforward. So what are the sticky bits?

1. The wikipedia entries rarely have any information about their personal or interpersonal lives.
2. Where there is information, it is often describing how their behaviour was viewed by their contemporaries. So homosexuality for example is cause for scandal and oppression for some, but not for me.
3. How am I to judge the information that is there, even at this early stage? As me? Or as a contemporary? I have to do it as me I reckon, since I don't have the opportunity to take a contemporary view.
4. How far is it possible to judge whether somone was a b%$&*rd IN ORDER TO succeed? This is very tough.
5. How good is the starting list? Not very in my view.
6. Is sinner or saint enough? What about victim? Or sacrifice?

Conclusions so far are that I will finish this first list and make the quick and dirty judgement.
I will add victim and sacrifice to the distinction. I will stick with this list for now, and see how many people I end up with for the next level of more detailed reading.

I reckon this would be a fun thing to do on line with a community of contributors and voters , wiki style. Mmmmm ....

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

19th century greats

So onto the 19th century ... this time with links to their Wikipedia entries. I've also updated the two previous posts to give the Wikipedia links.

Amedeo Avogadro
Joseph Gay-Lussac
Charles Babbage
Michael Faraday
Charles Darwin
James Joule
Louis Pasteur
Johann Mendel
Jean-Joseph Lenoir (no wikipedia entry) (yet)
Lord Kelvin
James Maxwell
Alfred Nobel
Wilhelm Gottlieb Daimler
Dmitri Mendeleev
Wilhelm Conrad Rontgen
Thomas Alva Edison
Alexander Graham Bell
Antoine-Henri Becquerel
Paul Ehrlich

So there we have it up to the 19th century. The 20th is to come.

Monday, January 16, 2006

Fast Forward

The 15th and 16th centuries are up, so here's the 17th and 18th centuries' greatest scientists:

17th century

Blaise Pascal
Robert Boyle
Chrsitaan Huygens
Anton van Leewenhoek
Robert Hooke


18th century

Sir Isaac Newton
Edmund Halley
Thomas Newcomen
Daniel Farenheit
Benjamin Franklin
Joseph Black
Henry Cavendish
Joseph Priestly
James Watt
Charles de Coulomb
Joseph Montgolfier
Karl Wilhelm Scheele
Antoine Lavoisier
Count Alessandro Volta
Edward Jenner
John Dalton
Andre-Marie Ampere

Again, who's missing? Where are the women? How many countries or cultures are represented here? Who are the b%$&*rds and who are the saints?

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Do you have to be a b%$&*rd to succeed?

This is an idea I had a while back, that has been ramped up to the front of my mind through a recent post on Slow Leadership. The idea is to take some assessed list of the top 100 in a number of fields, such as scientists, composers, artists, political or business leaders or whatever and roughly drop them into one of two categories, b%$&*rd or saint. The next step is to go deeper into their biographies and have a closer look at whether or to what extent they sacrificed their humanity or behaviour IN ORDER TO succeed. "Great research, shame he beat his wife and kids." Brilliant painter, my dad, but I never saw him. He was a stranger to me." "My mum was one of the greatest musicians, and yet she always had time for us." What are the stories?

I planned to do all this myself and then share the results. But that's a bit short-sighted, what with blogs and wikis and so on. So I'm going to make a start here today. Here's the plan. First up are scientists. I've taken my first list of 100 from the book Quantum Leaps: 100 scientists who changed the world by Jon Balchin, (well worth having on your shelves). I'm going to post up his selections a century at a time, to invite comments on whether these are the 'best people' from their century. Starting with the 15th and 16th centuries. Once we get to the 20th century, I'll have a bit of a review. I should say that we will be around 20 short of a hundred, because I've left out those older than 15th century because I think it's going to be virtually impossible to get good enough biographical information about them.

So here are the first few:

15th century

Johannes Gutenberg

Leonardo da Vinci
Nicolas Copernicus

16th century

Andreas Vesalius
William Gilbert
Francis Bacon
Galileo Galilei
Johannes Kepler
William Harvey
Johan van Helmont (doesn't have a wikipedia entry) (yet)
Rene Descartes

Who's missing? Where are the women? And which would you consider b%$&*rd or saint?

Friday, January 13, 2006

New Answers New Credibility Questions

Some of the ways that universities maybe nudged into adaptation or death are possibly already out there. Wikipedia has demonstrated some of the potential of Internet developments in knowledge and credibility. Mike Love at Smart Mobs notes two other examples; Yahoo answers and an earlier experiment in South Korea. Mike raises questions about Yahoo answers on the basis of some of the Questions and Answers he’s found. The Korean example was far more successful, dramatically successful. So one question is whether the Yahoo system is not quite working, (on a coffee break when I first looked at it!) or whether the difference between success and lack of it can be explained by cultural differences.

There are one or two other things going on where some vote-based peer review decides on what is news or not, like

All of these suggest ways in which the big credibility question is being answered very differently from the traditional university model. They are young; they have flaws; they’re designed to do different things; they are no competition. Yet. But where do their ideas lead us? And what are the implications for universities?

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Virtual conflict resolution

My interest in virtual teams is firmly rooted in my recent professional work and my lifestyle ambitions. I've been thinking through aspects of living in the two geographies of the virtual and real world for some while, and keeping an eye on web stories of interest. I plan to share more of them with you.

This one on automated arbitration
is interesting, but I'm not sure about it. If we retreat behind layers of automation at the point of conflict I fear for our ability as individuals and groups to engage personally and positively when we disagree about things.

A New Breed of Researcher

This post by John Craig at Demos Greenhouse about his Guardian article got me thinking again about how the Internet will change universities. The first comment by 'wim' is also worth a read.

His point is that universities themeselves are ignoring issues and implications, or are unable to respond to them as institutions. A new breed of researchers is emerging behind the facades that is embracing the opportunities and imperatives that emerge from Internet distributed knowledge networks. Essentially they are transcending traditional ways of delimiting knowledge into subject areas, sectors into private, public and third, and activities into research, policy development and service delivery.

The reslationship that universities have with these researchers is bound to change. Some of the resources that were once the exclusive dominion of the academic world are now 'open source'. Computing power, libraries of information, even collaborative physical space are no longer theirs but virtually everybodies. So what do the universities bring to the party? What do this new breed need? And what are the new ways of providing it?

Are universities the credibility banks that supply the status currency of the academic world? And if so, where are the on-line direct banks? Can other credibility currencies do the same job? Are universities the homes of researchers, providing the physical and social environments they need to work? If so, how well have they adapted to the changing needs for physical space and social engagement, or interdisciplinary contact? And how cost-effective are they at providing it? Location is often a matter of lifestyle choice too now with the impact of technology and travel. Where are the universities? What lifestyle can an inner city location offer compared with a balmy seafront location?

The development of independent ('charitable') research institutions and private R&D facilities is not new. The question is whether they are better able to adapt to the emerging role this new breed of researchers requires than the traditional university. Is there a further generation of development emerging that will supplant them all?

Sunday, January 08, 2006

Voyage into recent 'isms'

A recent essay on Islam online resonated with my recent two geographies, decluttering and home and away thoughts and posts. This is an insightful easy to read essay that intorduced me to the idea of transmodernism. This idea offers a way of looking at traditional societies that does not limit them to the past or identify them as static and obsolete. To me it started to make some sense of the feelings among many in modern or post-modern western societies. These are that the rootlessness, the loss of principles and foundations, is not a price not worth paying for progress. Here Ziauddin Sardar describes another way, and this is the fun bit, that these losses constitute a price that doesn't have to be paid. Reading about this idea has given me something of a conceptual tool relevant to these recent thoughts, resolving my need to embrace roots, tradition, spirit of place and so on, AND be very much part of the modern world. Growth and progress is possible too. And I have found a little peace of mind as a result. The author, a cultural critic and Muslim scholar based in London, writes clearly and engagingly. Give it a go.

Friday, January 06, 2006

Cans of Worms Cans of Ideas Ideas Ideas

You've heard of some of these no doubt, or versions of them...

"The only way to recan a can of worms is to use a bigger can."
"Activity grows to fill the time available."
"Clutter grows to fill the available space."

A little while back I was having a professional declutter
, and that has been moderately successful, but there's a new (to me) phenomenon that is posing an interesting question or two ...

The minute I declutter, other opportunities arise and new ideas pop into my head. This is good; I'm happy about it. But it means I need to find some way of dealing with the ideas. I'd like to do some of them, I'd like to share most if not all of them, I'd like someone else to do quite a few of them. I can blog them, and that might help. But what about the ones I want to do? How do I manage the new opportunities and ideas popping up with actually doing some of them?

Use a bigger can? That is find ways to do more. Possible. Delegate, find collaborators, time management, drop other stuff less important or interesting.

Reduce space/time? Putting the limits on can force some pretty tough decisions and help focus. Just see what happens when you need to survive a crisis! If only we could do to succeed what we can do to survive! (Not my own words, but I can't remember where I got them from - an Australian speaker I heard on tape once I think.)

Pass them on? That's part of the blogging thing I suppose. So that's what I plan to do. Blog them, talk to people about them, and be aware of which ones become things I want to do or be involved in myself.

Recent ideas, stream of consciousness style, and with no claims to originality - I'm sure it's all be thought of before ...

An oral/visual history project for all ages around an iconic or historic building, in two different cultures and/or countries. Example, here in the village we have a small building I've talked about over on francerant, and a great social context for it to work here. What would we discover if we were able to see this project alongside one in a disused rural or urban building in Wales, or Lesotho, or the lands of native North Americans? What about comparing it with a ceremonial place not a building? What about looking at the differences that technologies bring out in how the places and memories recreate themselves? Yellowed black and white photos, old artifacts, mobile phone photos, straight story-telling, sampling and music-making?

Photo (or other arts) project aimed at primary schools and/or after-school clubs. Exploring the social and physical environment.

Engaging young people to come to our rural village here and learn to rebuild the dry stone walls.
Review long-term past EU projects aimed at (one I know) women returners, (NOW for example). These projects are eveluated during and at the end of their funding. What do they look like ten years later? Fifteen years later? What, in retrospect made the most significant difference, what is the long-term impact?

Make marks in the local environment. The 'entry' to a village here marked by some collaborative artistic endeavour - gate-posts, standing stone, sculpture. Seasonal renewable markers made of ephemeral material, that invites continuous renewal and creation? At schools or after school clubs. I like this idea of constant renewal and creation, using ephemeral materials.

Blogging, wikis, low-cost ICT around the globe. What archaic structures rule our lives, intervene in ways that create barriers not steps to learning or services or progress? How can these things bypass the power-hungry gatekeepers? What are the implications for higher education? For government and local government? What would a truly distributed local/global higher education 'thing' (community/society/whatever) look like? If universities aren't delivering students what they or their potential employers need, how else can it be done? Without massive, inflexible organisations with significantly redundant capacity?

That's it for now, I feel a France Rant coming on. Anything interest you? Have a word ...

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Barriers to change in organisations

There are many! And many ways of looking at them. I've been considering a few in a recent piece of research into public service delivery in the environmental field, (no pun intended). Amongst the recently mentioned are: inflexibility in organisations to move resources around; fear of getting into trouble - otherwise labelled here by Seth Godin as the 'Technically Beyond Reproach' attitude; and some flaw or limit to identifying a reason for change in the first place. This article over at 'How to change the world' has a whole lot more to say. Some funky little cartoons too.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Two geographies

I have been working on a funding proposal for about a year now to study the two geographies, real and virtual, that many project teams find themselves involved in. The research project includes two other important elements: a focus on the early creative stages of collaboration between people, and a desire to apply (at least) two different sociology methodologies to 'cross-reference' the findings. The individuals I have been planning to study are engineers and scientists involved in space exploration projects. This may change, because the research questions are not exclusive to these people. A priority for this next couple of weeks is to finish the remaining section on the draft proposal as it stands. Immediately thereafter I want to take a step back and re-examine the whole proposal from its starting point, and see if I end up somewhere different.

My desire to review the whole thing has been creeping up on me since the links to the American elements of the project have convincingly fizzled out over the course of the year. The European links were always more tenuous, and that hasn't got any worse, but no better either. So I have to look around for other social contexts to pose my questions in. Perhaps more importantly though, the time that has passed while I have been working on other things has been an opportunity for another realisation to emerge into view. This realisation has come into focus over the last couple of months and is that the 'two geographies' question is very much a personal question as I try to live in one place and work in another.

I moved to rural France about two and half years ago for mostly personal reasons. Things like quality of life for me and my small but perfectly formed family. Not just environmental things, but social things too, at a community level not a state level. That has been an unqualified success I would say. But one of the reasons that these environmental and social conditions still exist here is the relatively low level of economic development here. Which means work is scarce. And work I'd like to do, being pretty choosy, is even more scarce.

We anticipated this, and the plan was very much built around me travelling to the UK and US as part of a working life that included working at a distance from here by phone and web. And even that has worked out too, pretty much.

But there are many thoughts and feelings that emerge from this duality in my lifestyle. It feels rather disjointed at times. Images such as mixing oil and water, trying to fit two incompatible shapes together. When I'm here I'm looking there, when I'm there I'm looking here.

One of the plans we had when we moved here was for me to develop my professional work in a way that was aligned with the life we are living here. Specifically to create a place firmly rooted in the social and physical environment here, dedicated to offering people a complete creative 'problem-solving' experience. The elements here are: a beautiful, peaceful, engaging place to spend time; clean, fresh, organic local food; relaxation therapies including massage and reflexology; and supported creative space, play space, and stimulation to look at things differently and create futures. These elements can serve individuals and professional teams equally well.

For both personal and professional visitors, we wanted to develop relationships for longer than a single visit here. Even if they only ever visit once, we wanted to engage with people before they come and follow that up once they've been. To meet people half way between this world and theirs, to better understand and adapt what we offer to their lives and desires.

Writing this now, I'm still convinced this is a great idea, and realise that some aspects of the past year have been moving us towards it without me being aware of it. One key aspect is the realisation that although other apparently similar examples exist, what we plan to do IS different.

As I reflected a couple of days ago, last year didn't turn out as expected, but in a way it did. In the most important way - that the big picture is still valid, and that the details matter less. So now I will be focusing on the big picture again, and aligning the fundamental elements; the details will take care of themselves, as they always have...

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

High Flight

One of my Christmas presents was a print of this WWII poem ...

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
and danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds - and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there
I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air.
Up, up the long delirious, burning blue,
I;ve topped the windswept heights with easy grace
Where never lark or even eagle flew-
And while with silent lifting mind I've trod
The unsurpassed sanctity of space,
Put out out my hand and touched
The face of God.

Pilot Officer Gillespie Magee Junior
No. 412 Squadron RCAF, killed on December 11 1941.

Science Breakthrough 2005

Every December, Science chooses its breakthrough of the year. This year it is Evolution in Action, and their editorial and the work identified can be found here. There's a wonderful world out there, and evolution is a big part of it. I've just made a start on reading through it, and there are already some 'biomimicry' type ideas sparking...