I am in the process of writing a
Master's. It took me a while to understand what actually the purpose
of the exercise is. Now I start to comprehend that this work exists
to provide evidence of one's ability to define a (/one) problem,
describe a (/single) methodology, and present the (/one) outcome, all
embedded in extant literature. This process then certifies the
individual to address the (creation of the) body of knowledge.
The struggle to understand this is
fuelled by the obvious paradoxes and oxymorons involved in the
process. As if one could be able to understand and define problems,
as if methodologies are like clockwork, and as if outcomes do inform,
and if literature does contain it all. If one could, then only for an
instant..
It took a while before I yielded to
this process. It helped to think it not to be about the
production of wisdom, but solely about the production of knowledge.
Of course, this was explained from the outset, but never really
landed with me. I guess one needs much wisdom to guide oneself
through the obvious dilemma’s and structural flaws, and ethically
stay in one piece.
In my view, in the world of big-data,
this process is pretty useless actually. It should be the other way around; All the outcomes are already known, like in the Zambian Smart Care
Electronic Health Record system all health profiles are already
computed using all possible methods. Thus the most important issue
one must focus on is: what are good questions?
Maybe fortunately, my subject matter is
not yet embedded in the big-data cloud. It is about people in
Africa's rural areas whom are not (yet) fully linked to global communication networks. I study the 'how' of access to information
and communication technology. Although the value seem obvious and
important, only a small amount of persons embark on such journey. Now, with
little to build upon, what is the right question?
Technology, which was developed by the
rich and powerful, is, of course, created to served their agenda. An
agenda to save cost on (and dehumanizing) labour, and to maximize
their profits. Although knowledge tells me I study technology, wisdom
thus tells me that I deal with power. Power to know, power to be
known. Power to connect, power to be connected. Power to control,
power to be controlled. About what, for what, to what? When dealing
with the 'how' of enabling communications network access through
technology, what is the real question?
If the 'how' of ICT is solved, and
access is ubiquitous, what happens to the balance of power? What is the best question?
The answers are already known:
inequalities will continue to grow. Copiousness will lead to
waste, shortage to war. However, lack of information leads to
ignorance, and ignorance fuels opposition, which is not really
helpful either. Undoubtedly, access to ICT will raise costs, while
the digital divide continues to grow, and the affluent will
segregate. So, what is the question here?
How to balance, how to partner, how to
socially contract - for morality, and systemic change? That is the real question.
As you can see, I am getting through
with the first phase of writing my Master's. Now, let's dive in the
data!
Posts
