Tailoring Technology
About two years ago I visited a university in Kolkatta (Calcutta) to initiate a cooperative student exchange program and to explore the possibility of holding a few on-line video conference courses with their university. The university was underfunded like many public Indian institutions, but despite its economic limitations it had been the home institution of a nobel laureate, Amartya Sen.
I met with the computer science professors and tech staff who were in charge of their distance learning program. I asked them what type of hardware and software they were using. They told me that their university simply could not afford proprietary software. I was a bit dejected and expected that I would then have to listen to a lot of excuses about the University Grants Commission and bureaucracy, but they told me that they had decided simply to build their own software. With a glint of pride in their eyes they showed me how they had created an entire suite of distance learning software that reached students in the remote neighborhoods of greater Kolkatta.
Honestly, I was pretty impressed. Given the bandwidth limitations and technological challenges of distance learning in South Asia (not to mention the serious problem of running computers without air-conditioning in the Indian heat), I found their work inspirational. The potential of their innovations for broader development projects was readily apparent.
I think about this example a lot when I consider whether or not to use proprietary software for a given task or project. I think it is important to view technology as a tool. When the technology does not suit the task at hand or when its cost becomes exorbitant, then it is time to figure out how to build a better tool. As far I am concerned, importing proprietary software wholesale and unconsciously comes at the expense of freedom.
Of course, we all have limited time, resources, and skill sets. As a social scientist with no formal instruction in writing code, my technical skills are completely mediocre compared to my colleagues in the physical sciences who are building complex instruments with sophisticated programming language to achieve their research and teaching objectives. However I think we should all push our skills to their limits. We lose the ability to modify and tailor technology to our own purposes if we gradually accede to being consumers and purchasers rather than producers.
Since I began using the internet in 1989, I have watched this technology, which began as a medium for inter-university and government communication, gradually become a terrain of commercial activity. There have been counter-currents where individual producers have made bold attempts to reclaim territory lost to corporate interests, but on the whole most have accepted a subordinate status as consumers. Individual producers of culture are also being gradually coopted as corporations see the potential of social networking software and providing server access in exchange for advertising revenue. Self-expression is becoming limited to selecting from a range of pre-set options and trivial games within a software framework defined by corporate software designers (e.g. MySpace, Facebook, etc). However, even these coopted efforts are laudable because they show that individuals have a desire to be more than passive consumers and recipients of advertising information.
I think that most individuals will have to make compromises with the available technology based on their skills, financial resources, and time. However, if on balance technology can be used to enable culture and knowledge production and expand access, then it is worth the compromises. Even tailoring technology at the margin (e.g. by modifying templates or writing a simple code to perform desired tasks) makes a difference in expanding personal freedom.
I met with the computer science professors and tech staff who were in charge of their distance learning program. I asked them what type of hardware and software they were using. They told me that their university simply could not afford proprietary software. I was a bit dejected and expected that I would then have to listen to a lot of excuses about the University Grants Commission and bureaucracy, but they told me that they had decided simply to build their own software. With a glint of pride in their eyes they showed me how they had created an entire suite of distance learning software that reached students in the remote neighborhoods of greater Kolkatta.
Honestly, I was pretty impressed. Given the bandwidth limitations and technological challenges of distance learning in South Asia (not to mention the serious problem of running computers without air-conditioning in the Indian heat), I found their work inspirational. The potential of their innovations for broader development projects was readily apparent.
I think about this example a lot when I consider whether or not to use proprietary software for a given task or project. I think it is important to view technology as a tool. When the technology does not suit the task at hand or when its cost becomes exorbitant, then it is time to figure out how to build a better tool. As far I am concerned, importing proprietary software wholesale and unconsciously comes at the expense of freedom.
Of course, we all have limited time, resources, and skill sets. As a social scientist with no formal instruction in writing code, my technical skills are completely mediocre compared to my colleagues in the physical sciences who are building complex instruments with sophisticated programming language to achieve their research and teaching objectives. However I think we should all push our skills to their limits. We lose the ability to modify and tailor technology to our own purposes if we gradually accede to being consumers and purchasers rather than producers.
Since I began using the internet in 1989, I have watched this technology, which began as a medium for inter-university and government communication, gradually become a terrain of commercial activity. There have been counter-currents where individual producers have made bold attempts to reclaim territory lost to corporate interests, but on the whole most have accepted a subordinate status as consumers. Individual producers of culture are also being gradually coopted as corporations see the potential of social networking software and providing server access in exchange for advertising revenue. Self-expression is becoming limited to selecting from a range of pre-set options and trivial games within a software framework defined by corporate software designers (e.g. MySpace, Facebook, etc). However, even these coopted efforts are laudable because they show that individuals have a desire to be more than passive consumers and recipients of advertising information.
I think that most individuals will have to make compromises with the available technology based on their skills, financial resources, and time. However, if on balance technology can be used to enable culture and knowledge production and expand access, then it is worth the compromises. Even tailoring technology at the margin (e.g. by modifying templates or writing a simple code to perform desired tasks) makes a difference in expanding personal freedom.
Labels: technology, web technology
<< Home