media watch – manufactured news again

Here’s an article that I just had to send out. It’s about the difference
between what you see on a “real” television broadcast and what’s really
going on, how the war announcement was exposed as being a facade of
concern, etc …

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/03/21_groom.html

Re: my daily reflection for you


And the traditional greeting when seeing someone for the first time or when seeing someone you haven’t seen in a long time is, “Shalom Aleichem,” which means “peace unto you.”

And the Islamic greeting is: Assalaamu aleykum

I don’t know why I never made that connection before.

When two people work in harmony, they bring out the best in each other. And when there is harmony in an organization or a community, everyone brings out the best in each other.

And this sounds like “alignment” … and “learning community” in the
second part.

And we are all very different at our best than we are at our worst.

And this mirrors the idea that we are not our worst acts, as in “Dead
Man Walking”

Cool.

Bill Moyers interview with Chris Hedges

On yesterday’s NOW with Bill Moyers, the author of “War is a force that
gives us meaning” Chris Hedges was interviewed.

I highly recommend checking out the transcript to this interview if you
didn’t catch the show. It’s quite relevant to our class and was a very
powerful interview. I don’t know if it will be as impactful just reading
it, but the interview on the show was very powerful.

Here’s the link:
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_hedges.html

Okay, I was going to cut and paste a few quotes, but it’s the whole
interview so I stopped. It’s all relevant. Check it out, really.

Robin’s systems thinking resources

I have been gathering resources for Systems thinking,
and here is my in-progress incomplete list thus far.
Many of the book I have not yet read, and am in the
process of getting either through the library or by
sitting in the bookstore and reading them ;-).
Please look at the website and books if they interest
you.
Robin

Websites
Ecology of the Mind
http://www.oikos.org/psicen.htm

Mental Model Musings
http://www.outsights.com/systems/welcome.htm

LIFE’S NATURAL SOLUTIONS
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~jcull/

Centre for Systems Studies
http://www.hull.ac.uk/hubs/research/css/index.htm

International Institute for General Systems Studies
http://www.iigss.net/

Centre for Partnership Studies
http://www.partnershipway.org/index.html

Human Systems Dynamics Institute
http://www.hsdinstitute.org/about.asp#top

The International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/

International Society for the Systems Science
http://www.isss.org//

-Birth of the Chaordic Age by Dee W. Hock

-A Simpler Way by Margaret J. Wheatley, Myron
Kellner-Rogers

-Billibonk and the Big Itch by Phil Ramsey, Robin.
Mazo (this is a childrens book, supposedly about
systems thinking)

-Principles of Systems by Jay Wright Forrester (Senge
based many of his ideas on Forrester)

-The Systems View of the World: A Holistic Vision for
Our Time (Advances in Systems Theory, Complexity, and
the Human Sciences) by Ervin Laszlo

-Small Worlds by Duncan J. Watts

-Emergence by Steven Johnson (about alignment)

-The Art of Systems Thinking by Joseph O’Connor, Ian
McDermott

-Systems Thinking by Jamshid Gharajedaghi

-Calling the Circle by Christina Baldwin, Colleen M.
Kelley (about dialogue circles)

Re: Easier said than done.

It is much easier to tolerate suffering if prior to the experience you mentally visualize yourself in the negative situation and practice accepting it.

I’m sorry if this sounds argumentative. However, I’m having a strong reaction to this idea. Not only am I not sure that I want to accept suffering, I’m not sure that I want it to happen, and I’m not sure I want to visualize myself suffering.

I specifically don’t want to accept it. I want to have as my goal to work to address it.

I specifically don’t want it to happen, especially if I know it’s going
to happen ahead of time. I’m going to have as my goal to work to avoid
or change the conditions that are leading to that suffering. I specifically don’t want to visualize myself suffering. Why would I want to be so attached to suffering that I want to live it more than once? If suffering is going to be my experience, then I’m going to have as my goal to experience it fully and not let it re-live itself in me before or after by dwelling on that experience and attaching myself to that event.

To become so overly attached to the suffering that I live it many times instead of living it once and work more to accept it than to recognize that it’s wrong doesn’t make sense to me. It seems like a recipe for increasing suffering in myself and the world.

two links that got talked about in small group

I wanted to share with you two links that were relevant to conversations
that happened in a combined small group discussion yesterday.

First, I had found and forwarded a spiffy site of linked poetry. It’s a
Labyrinth where many of the words in each poem are linked to other
poems. There’s items from modern poets like Ani Difranco, Judy Grahn and
ancient works like fragments from The Decent of Inanna which is many
thousand years.

The Maze of Murdered Poems
http://wso.williams.edu/~cbirtche/mpm/mpm.html

Specifically, there’s this one page of Judy Grahn which really hits me
in relation to the thread about Love we’ve had in e-mail:

http://wso.williams.edu/~cbirtche/mpm/grahn.html

And on the topic of Inanna, summerian goddess (also called Ishtar,
Astarte …) was imported to Europe as Oestre (from where we derive the
name mistakenly labelled “christian” Easter) and the word East.

There’s a beautiful tale of Ishtar and Enki where Enki, her grandfather,
gives her all the divine powers of civilization. At the end of the tale,
the really awesome part is that when she unpacks those powers from her
boat there are more of them than she had been given, so by bringing
together all these diverse powers they synergistically multiplied and
are stronger than they were when held apart away from each other.

Inanna and the God of Wisdom
http://www.reweaving.org/inanna3.html

Re: another (more realistic?) look at love

Upon reflection I want to respond (to a quote from The Prophet, by Kahlil Gibran) with the following:

Excerpt from the I Ching

When two people are at one
in their inmost hearts,
they shatter even the strength of iron or bronze.
And when two people understand each other
in their inmost hearts,
their words are sweet and strong,
like the fragrance of orchids.

Touched By An Angel
By Maya Angelou

We, unaccustomed to courage
exiles from delight
live coiled in shells of loneliness
until love leaves its high holy temple
and comes into our sight
to liberate us into life.

Love arrives
and in its train come ecstasies
old memories of pleasure
ancient histories of pain.
Yet if we are bold,
love strikes away the chains of fear
from our souls.

We are weaned from our timidity
In the flush of love’s light
we dare be brave
And suddenly we see
that love costs all we are
and will ever be.
Yet it is only love
which sets us free.

Re: for ALL COUPLES, ALL TYPES

There’s one a lot closer. The same people will be holding this in
Olympia march 8th. You can check out info on their website:
www.psncc.org

On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 19:55, Nancy Codon wrote:
>
> Communication for Couples
>
> Building relationships based on honesty and empathy!
>
>
>
> Sat., March 22, Seattle, 9:30AM-4:30PM
> ( at Ravenna United Methodist Church)

protest 15feb, saturday at sylvester park 2:15pm

FYI, this is part of a multi-city, multi-country protest.

PROTEST FEB. 15TH

Saturday, February 15th, 2003
when: 2:15pm – dusk
where: Sylvester ParkCapitol Way & LegionOlympia, WA
Peace Rally and MarchExercise your civil rights today by participating in an International Day of Action Against War! Peace rally with various speakers, followed by a march to the war memorial at the capitol campus, and return to Sylvester Park to listen to local music, and get info on how you can get involved in the growing worldwide peace and justice movements right here in Oly! If you’ve been waiting for the right moment to speak up – this is it!

Don’t wait until its too late!
For more info: email: info@united4peacetc.orgwebsite: http://www.omjp.org or http://www.united4peacetc.orgor call 867-6196
Sponsored by Olympia Movement for Justice and Peace

inequality in systems inevitably increases

I found this article this morning and wanted to share it. This article
is talking about power law curves in relation to blogs, which are online
diaries. However, this stuff is huge in implication. Take these quotes:

“Prior to recent theoretical work on social networks, the usual
explanations invoked individual behaviors: some members of the community
had sold out, the spirit of the early days was being diluted by the
newcomers, et cetera. We now know that these explanations are wrong, or
at least beside the point. What matters is this: Diversity plus freedom
of choice creates inequality, and the greater the diversity, the more
extreme the inequality.”

“In systems where many people are free to choose between many options, a
small subset of the whole will get a disproportionate amount of traffic
(or attention, or income), even if no members of the system actively
work towards such an outcome. This has nothing to do with moral
weakness, selling out, or any other psychological explanation. The very
act of choosing, spread widely enough and freely enough, creates a power
law distribution.”

“The basic shape is simple – in any system sorted by rank, the value for
the Nth position will be 1/N. For whatever is being ranked — income,
links, traffic — the value of second place will be half that of first
place, and tenth place will be one-tenth of first place. (There are
other, more complex formulae that make the slope more or less extreme,
but they all relate to this curve.)”

“Now, thanks to a series of breakthroughs in network theory by
researchers like Albert-Laszlo Barabasi, Duncan Watts, and Bernardo
Huberman among others, breakthroughs being described in books like
Linked, Six Degrees, and The Laws of the Web, we know that power law
distributions tend to arise in social systems where many people express
their preferences among many options. We also know that as the number of
options rise, the curve becomes more extreme. This is a
counter-intuitive finding – most of us would expect a rising number of
choices to flatten the curve, but in fact, increasing the size of the
system increases the gap between the #1 spot and the median spot.”

“We are so used to the evenness of the bell curve, where the median
position has the average value, that the idea of two-thirds of a
population being below average sounds strange.”

“Inequality occurs in large and unconstrained social systems for the
same reasons stop-and-go traffic occurs on busy roads, not because it is
anyone’s goal, but because it is a reliable property that emerges from
the normal functioning of the system.”

In other words freedom is slavery, and inequality is inevitable in
systems of free choice.

http://www.shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html

Utah Phillips this weekend

For those of you with some money and time to burn this weekend, Utah
Phillips is in town. Actually he was on campus this week too on tuesday,
but that’s something you either went to or missed already. However,
there’s another chance. He’s going to be at the Capitol Theatre on
Saturday. I’m more bummed than I have words to tell you that I will not
have seen him at either of the two events he was at this week due to my
schedule.

Everyone that can go should go. He’s awesome, funny and profound, etc
… etc …

Saturday, February 8th, 2003
7:30pm The Historic Capitol Theater 206 E. 5th Ave. in downtown Olympia
Utah Phillips is coming to town for a one night show of music and a bit
of that old IWW spirit. This show will benifit the New Old Time
Chautauqua, a non-profit organization that brings laughter and education
to rural northwest communities.Tickets are on sale at Rainy Day Records
in westside Olympia or at www.buyolympia.com. $16 general $14 students, seniors, OFS members $10 kids 12 and younger For more info: Harry at 360.956.9256

media watch for interfaith/iraq

Here’s a few fun articles online about current religious issues:

“Of course, that is beside the point to Robertson, Falwell and Swaggart,
men determined to judge the seventh century by their more modern
14th-century sensibilities.”
http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/012903/opi_aprayer.shtml

Bishop to Appear in Anti-War Commercial
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20030129%2F201349789.htm&sc=1110

Episcopalian leader lashes out at Bush for ‘reprehensible’ policy
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-6/104252833493510.xml

Bush ’41’ Defends Son’s Iraq Policy
http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76850,00.html

mental monkey dance

he’s very good at doing that mental monkey dance
within the lengths of the chains of self
but he’s turned a dance of freedom
into the pale pantomime of a prisoner
fancy dance doesn’t replace emancipation
the self can spend so much time entertaining
that it forgets the struggle to be free
that the dance is to shake off the shackles of self
not to amuse the other prisoners or to wallow
in the self-stimulation and mental masturbation

compassionate listening does not mean
he can get his mental rocks off at my expense
perhaps he’ll accidentally stumble out of those chains
I did but I doubt it

Knowledge@Wharton: Why Some Companies Retrain Workers, and Others Lay Them Off

This article is from http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/

Why Some Companies Retrain Workers, and Others Lay Them Off

Until the 1990s, retraining ruled at companies like IBM. Big Blue, which promised lifetime employment to its workforce, moved its employees every few years and when it did, taught them new jobs.

But when IBM’s traditional dark suits and white shirts gave way to knit shirts and khakis, the company’s commitment to lifetime employment — and thus retraining — waned. Under former Chairman Lou Gerstner, the formerly paternalistic employer laid off tens of thousands of employees.

Why did the computer maker scotch retraining for workforce “churning” — that is, laying off employees with obsolete skills and replacing them with workers offering newer skills? It was simply bowing to the temper of the times, according to Wharton management professor Peter Cappelli, who says such an approach is increasingly common in today’s workplace.

“In the economy now, change is faster, and the odds that your skills will need to be updated have increased,” Cappelli says. “The question becomes, is your employer going to reinvest in you or move on to someone else?”

As director of the school’s Center for Human Resources, Cappelli wanted to know why a few companies have in fact remained committed to retraining, even in the new ramped-up business climate. “The question seems central to understanding why some employers and some jobs are ‘good’ while others are not,” Cappelli notes in a recent paper entitled, “Social Capital and Retraining,” forthcoming in the journal Industrial Relations.

In the contemporary context, Cappelli explains in his paper, “corporate restructuring has become the main driver of job insecurity.” He cites an American Management Association survey in which 66% of the employers responded that “downsizing in their companies during the 1990s was driven by internal restructuring and reengineering, in contrast to more traditional explanations that relate job loss primarily to business cycles. And roughly a third of all companies reported that they were hiring new workers during layoffs in order to get the new skills they need to accommodate their restructuring plans.”

This process of restructuring by laying off and hiring, or churning, “externalizes the costs of restructuring to the laid-off employees and increases the demands on other providers of skills in society,” Cappelli writes. Retraining, however, suggests the opposite approach to restructuring “in that it internalizes restructuring costs, stabilizing employment and expanding overall skill levels in the process.”

Consequently, the decision to churn or retrain “is increasingly central to discussions about the responsibilities that employers have to workers and society,” Cappelli says. He defines retraining as “the decision to invest in the skills of workers who would otherwise be at risk of losing their jobs unless they acquire new skills.”

Having placed his research in the context of today’s workforce, Cappelli then asks the question: What distinguishes companies that emphasize retraining from those that do not? His answer: Companies that employ a large amount of “social capital” are more likely to retrain workers.

What is social capital? It’s a tight network of relationships within a workplace, Cappelli says. “It’s where you and I work together in ways that are idiosyncratic enough that we need to know a lot about each other. Imagine dancers. There, the social capital is significant. In order to perform well, dancers have to understand their partners’ personalities and movements.”

Companies that employ social capital often emphasize formal teamwork. “A well-functioning team is a profound notion,” Cappelli says. “It doesn’t just mean being in the same office.” Many people, for example, say they work with colleagues when, in fact, their day-to-day tasks rarely overlap. The extent of their joint work is fetching coffee for each other, kibitzing in the hallway or sharing tired jokes via e-mail. Occasionally, they might offer each other advice. Well-functioning teams, however, “don’t just share what they know. They know what to ask each other. They know each other’s strengths.”

In his paper, Cappelli discusses the idea of synergies in the context of social capital in the workplace. “Because it is an asset that exists between individuals rather than within each individual, social capital may suggest why it could make sense to reinvest in and retain individuals even if their job-specific skills are obsolete: The relationships they maintain with others may create value that extends beyond their ability to perform their current job.”

Cappelli goes on to suggest a direct connection between social capital and retraining “that turns on the make-or-buy choice that underlies the retraining decision. If a firm chooses not to retrain, it replaces existing employees with new ones. In the process social networks in the workplace are disrupted, and social capital is destroyed. If a firm does retrain, it preserves social networks and retains social capital.”

In an economic sense, Cappelli says, “social capital can be thought of as a particular type of fixed investment that can be preserved through retraining … It may take less of an investment to retain redundant employees to make a contribution than to hire new ones because the former always have important firm-specific investments in social capital. But the investment is in relationships, not skills.”

White-collar endeavors that demand a high degree of social capital range from advertising firms to surgeons’ operating-room teams. Among blue-collar workers, social capital exists among groups of tradesmen who work together on construction project after construction project. “These relationships rely on trust. You can’t easily keep track of who’s done what. There’s a high degree of mutual obligation that’s difficult to cover in a formal contract,” says Cappelli. He suggests a test: “If you can spell everything out in a formal contract, then it’s a business with low social capital.”

Compare high ‘social capital’ sorts of jobs to, say, an accounting firm, where a set of formal rules — the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles — govern what employees do. The rules are the same no matter where an accountant works, which makes it relatively easy for an accountant to switch jobs. As Cappelli describes it in his paper, “Some organizations rely on bureaucratic management and work organization practice based on rigid rules and procedures for decision making that are designed in part to be relatively impervious to social relations and resilient to employee turnover. The classic example of assembly line operations based on the principles of scientific management seem to fit that model in that they reduce opportunities for social relationships to affect the work process … Work systems based on teamwork and empowered groups, in contrast, rely much more heavily on the social relationships between employees and therefore on social capital to operate effectively.”

For his research, Cappelli looked at more than 3,000 employers that had responded to a 1994 U.S. Census Bureau survey on employment practices. The survey asked specifically whether the employer retrained workers who would otherwise be laid off due to economic changes at their establishment. He also looked to see whether skill requirements for their jobs had risen, which suggested a need for retraining, and whether they had excess operating capacity, which suggested the need for a possible layoff.

Since Cappelli also had to find companies that relied on social capital, he looked for those that employed self-managed teams and Total Quality Management programs, which depend on problem-solving teamwork. In addition, he sought out companies that allowed flex-time, which requires that workers cooperate in setting schedules and making sure tasks gets completed.

He found a strong statistical relationship between companies that retrained workers with outdated skills and those that employed social capital. “The story here is that workers are bringing something other than their skills; remember, these people had obsolete skills. But what they bring is they know everybody else, know how to get along with them, and know everybody’s strengths and weaknesses. As a result, when they are retrained, they will make progress faster.”

In his analysis, Cappelli ruled out three conventional explanations of why companies retrain. They don’t retrain because 1) they face high hiring costs, which make it costly to replace workers 2) offer lots of training of other kinds as a rule or 3) have other employee-friendly policies. None of those held up to statistical analysis; Cappelli couldn’t find a relationship between them and the likelihood that a company would retrain workers. For example, just because companies strive to be “good employers” by offering benefits such as health insurance, family leave and profit-sharing doesn’t mean they will offer retraining.

Cappelli did find a relationship between companies offering employee stock options and retraining. “Stock options are back-loaded compensation. You have to stay around to get them, and retraining helps people stay around.” Then again, companies might not want people with lots of options to stay. After all, if the workers were forced to leave, the company wouldn’t have to hand them shares of its stock. But “companies that have opportunities to cheat like that don’t do it very often,” Cappelli points out. “They would develop a bad reputation, which is worse than not offering the options in the first place.”

Cappelli’s paper grew out of his service on a committee empanelled by the Russell Sage Foundation in New York. The foundation, which supports social-science research, asked a group of scholars to examine how more companies could be induced to retrain workers with obsolete skills. The committee members disagreed over whether it is possible to make companies retrain workers without fundamentally changing the way those companies operate and whether the problem was merely a technical one of finding the right incentives and penalties.

But Cappelli, a labor economist by training, believes employers might have fundamental reasons for taking different paths. “I’m skeptical of the carrot-and-stick approach. It would take massive carrots and massive sticks to get all companies to retrain, and it would ultimately change the way they operate.”

Different firms have different strategies because they operate in different markets, Cappelli says. Sometimes, employing teams and keeping those teams together makes sense. Other times, it doesn’t. Consider the difference between SAS Institute, a North Carolina-based maker of statistical-analysis software, and other software firms. SAS, the nation’s largest privately held software company, has turnover that is a fraction of the industry average, typically about 4% a year. As a result, it retrains its programmers as it enters new markets.

“SAS isn’t trying to develop new browsers and move into markets where nobody has been before. It is trying to adapt and extend a product it has had for 30 years. As a result, they need to keep the employees with the specific knowledge of its product. Companies that are doing new and different things, on the other hand, benefit from having new people with different ideas,” Cappelli says. “Do you want all software companies to look like SAS? It would be a peculiar business world if you didn’t have variation. The variation is there for a reason.”

Cappelli concludes in his paper: “Employers who retrain workers do so at least in part to preserve the social capital that exists in worker relationships. Specifically, the use of work practices like self-managed teams and TQM rely on that social capital to operate effectively … The TQM result may also reflect social capital beyond coworkers, including relationships with customers and suppliers. These results point to the importance of ‘strong-tie’ social capital of the kind that develops in close working relationships.”

If anything, the message of Cappelli’s paper goes to workers more than their employers. “My advice is caveat emptor,” he says. “If you walk into a company with a lot of contractual relationships, a lot of low social capital-type work, don’t expect that it’s going to make a big investment in you if business turns down.”

why we can’t know the whole system

I thought of this passage from The Phantom Tollbooth while we were
talking about Mindwalk and the idea that the system is always more than
what we know, no matter how much we learn about it. Enjoy!

[The Mathemagician says,] “What’s the greatest number you can think of?”

“Nine trillion, nine hundred ninety-nine billion, nine hundred
ninety-nine million, nine hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred
ninety-nine,” replied Milo breathlessly.

“Very good,” said the Mathemagician. “Now add one to it. Now add one
again,” he repeated when Milo had added the previous one. “Now add one
again. Now add one again. Now add one again. Now add one again. Now add
one again. Now add one again. Now add —”

“But when can I stop?” pleaded Milo.

“Never,” said the Mathemagician with a little smile, “for the number
you want is always at least one more than the number you’ve got, and
it’s so large that if you started saying it yesterday you wouldn’t
finish tomorrow.”

“Where could you ever find a number so big?” scoffed the Humbug.

“In the same place they have the smallest number there is,” he answered
helpfully; “and you know what that is.”

“Certainly,” said the bug, suddenly remembering something to do at the
other end of the room.

“One one-millionth?” asked Milo, trying to think of the smallest
fraction possible.

“Almost,” said the Mathemagician. “Now divide it in half. Now divide it
in half again. Now divide it in half again. Now divide it in half again.
Now divide it in half again. Now divide it in half again. Now divide it
in half again. Now divide —”

“Oh dear,” shouted Milo, holding his hands to his ears, “doesn’t that
ever stop either?”

“How can it,” said the Mathemagician, “when you can always take half of
whatever you have left until it’s so small that if you started to say it
right now you’d finish even before you began?”

“Where could you keep anything so tiny?” Milo asked, trying very hard
to imagine such a thing.

The Mathemagician stopped what he was doing and explained simply, “Why,
it’s in a box that’s so small you can’t see it — and that’s kept in a
drawer that’s so small you can’t see it, in a dresser that’s so small
you can’t see it, in a house that’s so small you can’t see it, on a
street that’s so small you can’t see it, in a city that’s so small you
can’t see it, which is part of a country that’s so small you can’t see
it, in a world that’s so small you can’t see it.”

Then he sat down, fanned himself with a handkerchief, and continued.
“Then, of course, we keep the whole thing in another box that’s so small
you can’t see it — and, if you follow me, I’ll show you where you can
find it.”

;)

2 articles of interest [Fwd: K@W Newsletter]

Here are two articles from an e-mail newsletter I get from the Wharton
School of business/economics. One is on oil, so it relates to the
economic impact of this war, especially relevant since it talks about
the systemic effects of the war. Also, there’s an article about
re-training vs. layoffs which seems relevant to me in the dialogue about
the motive of some companies in implementing changes, examples of which
the Senge book talked.

These articles require that you register, so I’m going try to forward
them from the website in two following e-mails.

Thanks!

> The Outlook for Oil: What Lies Ahead?
>
> Surging oil prices are squeezing U.S. corporate profits, contributing to
> bankruptcies and forcing some companies, especially in the oil-dependent
> trucking industry, out of business altogether. With the threat of war in
> Iraq and a drastic cut in supply from strike-bound Venezuela, companies
> are braced for further increases soon. Knowledge@Wharton looks at what
> to expect in the coming months.
>
> http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/articles.cfm?catid=13&articleid=704

> Human Resources
>
> Why Some Companies Retrain Workers, and Others Lay Them Off
>
> In today’s economy, the odds that employees’ skills will need to be
> updated have increased, says management professor Peter Cappelli. The
> question then becomes, is your employer going to reinvest in you through
> retraining or lay you off and hire someone new? As director of the
> school’s Center for Human Resources, Cappelli wanted to know why a few
> companies have remained committed to retraining, even as the ethos of
> American business has changed. The answer, as Cappelli explains in a new
> research paper, has a lot to do with what is termed “social capital.”
>
> http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/articles.cfm?catid=10&articleid=703

follow-up to research presentation this morning

Our presentation (by the librarian at Evergreen) on research on the internet this morning was useful, but there was something that I wanted to pass on that may be a great asset to you.

If you are doing research and have come to a site that does not have a search function, it is possible to do a search on a single page using the browser, but as was demonstrated in the presentation this is of minimal use. In fact, I’d be so bold as to say it’s pretty useless, since you’d only find information on the exact page you’re on not for the whole site.

A far better technique is to use google to isolate your search by domain name. For example, if I wanted to find all the pages at evergreen that contained the word ‘police’ I could enter this search on google:

police site:www.evergreen.edu

Click here to see this example online:
http://www.google.com/search?q=police+site:www.evergreen.edu

Anyhow, I wanted to tell you all about this, but didn’t want to interrupt the presentation. Hope that helps you at some point down the line. ;)

Thanks!

media watch / media consolidation

Here’s a very interesting graphic that shows how the media is
consolidated within just a few companies. Of course, we all know that
these few companies wouldn’t let business interests and desires for
deregulation (that allowed the consolidation in the first place, and
promise to allow it to continue) self-censor their content.

Anyhow, here ya go!

http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml