Why HASTAC?
Cat in the Stack
HASTAC was founded on the idea that the humanities, the sciences (social and natural), the arts, and technology are all needed if we are going to think through the implications of a digital future. If there are "Eight Ways to be a HASTAC leader," there are hundreds of ways to be part of HASTAC's intellectual agenda. Philosopher Elizabeth Grosz writes in Time Travels "cultural studies can no longer afford to ignore the inputs of the natural sciences if they are to become self-aware. An orientation to questions of materiality and of life, the objects of physics, chemistry, and biology [and I would add mathematics, computational science, and engineering], is not outside the scope of cultural and technological analysis, but is their limit, their implicit underside, that which the cultural always carries along with it without adequate acknowledgement." Not only is this true, but so is its opposite. That cultural studies are the implicit underside of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, computational science, and engineering. Although the "divisional" structuring of our universities far too often underscores and reinforces "division" (surprise!), these intellectual ruptures are recent, a product of the nineteenth-century German institution of graduate education and the research university, and a byproduct of modernity's tendencies towards fragmentation, specialization, binarization, and even polarization. The ascendancy of quantitative methods as "scientific" and even definitive of that which is scientific has further exacerbated a rift between intellectual areas and, perhaps more seriously, has discounted those elements of science which depend on speculation and creativity, the non-quantitative leaps that are the hallmark of great science. It is detrimental to scientific thinking--to all thinking--to reduce any intellectual process to its quantified results. Such thinking favors outcomes over inputs, leading quickly to entropy, more coming out of a system than going into it, more attention to product than process. Thus HASTAC. When we first began having conversations about a network of networks, our founding idea was, simply, that we live in too complex and interesting an intellectual era, with far too much flow among domains, for the divisional structure of the university. The university is a historical artifact; new historical pressures are at work and it is time for universities to change. Given all the investments in its current arrangements (not only by disciplines and by schools but also from one institution to another, with their competitive and cannabilizing practices of recruitment, financial aid, intercollegiate athletics, and on and on), the university can change only incrementally. So a different kind of non-institutional institution seemed necessary to leverage the thinking of those who desire to work together and think together. Not everyone experiences disciplinary and institutional structures as obstacles; affective attachment to departments, disciplines, and institutions is often very strong. But in places where there is tension between one's intellectual goals and one's institutional arrangements, HASTAC can offer support--as much as an individual wants (which, in the logic of networks, also means as much as an individual wants to give). Here's another HASTAC premise: The tremendous leaps in computational thinking, in technology, in peer-to-peer idea-making, in composite and collective and global knowledge-sharing make this an astonishing time. Far more astonishing than our departments. Far more astonishing than our disciplines. Far more astonishing than any one way of thinking. Far more astonishing than any one solitary thinker. Trying to come up with a name for our network of networks, we ended up with an unwieldy acronym because we didn't want to specify a hierarchy. A funny if non-intuitive pun ("haystack") that lent itself to a metaphor. And a crazy idea that, if you didn't have one fixed structure but offered flexibility and adaptability, that change could happen through consultation, advocacy, conversation, and dialogue. Change could happen in a way that supports the vision of new teachers, scholars, and practitioners--and could support conduits between people in those different realms. And such voluntary dedication to change could also, we believed, provide support to, inspiration for, and collaboration with the most innovative leaders in many fields, institutions, organizations, agencies, and foundations. That's not the whole answer, but it's a good part of an answer to the question: "Why HASTAC?"
And for a multimedia answer to "Why HASTAC?" I'll tip in some YouTube clips below, running the gamut from multimedia performance art, to tele-immersion, to video searching to emotional robots to live-action anime. These were all featured in HASTAC events between the SECT seminar of 2006 and the InFormation Year and the Digital Media and Learning Competition of 2007. The connections? Whatever you wish to make of them. Enjoy!


Delicious
Digg
Technorati

IT’S a pickle of a paradox: As our knowledge and expertise increase, our creativity and ability to innovate tend to taper off. Why? Because the walls of the proverbial box in which we think are thickening along with our experience.
Andrew S. Grove, the co-founder of Intel, put it well in 2005 when he told an interviewer from Fortune, “When everybody knows that something is so, it means that nobody knows nothin’.” In other words, it becomes nearly impossible to look beyond what you know and think outside the box you’ve built around yourself.
This so-called curse of knowledge, a phrase used in a 1989 paper in The Journal of Political Economy, means that once you’ve become an expert in a particular subject, it’s hard to imagine not knowing what you do. Your conversations with others in the field are peppered with catch phrases and jargon that are foreign to the uninitiated. When it’s time to accomplish a task — open a store, build a house, buy new cash registers, sell insurance — those in the know get it done the way it has always been done, stifling innovation as they barrel along the well-worn path.
Elizabeth Newton, a psychologist, conducted an experiment on the curse of knowledge while working on her doctorate at Stanford in 1990. She gave one set of people, called “tappers,” a list of commonly known songs from which to choose. Their task was to rap their knuckles on a tabletop to the rhythm of the chosen tune as they thought about it in their heads. A second set of people, called “listeners,” were asked to name the songs.
Before the experiment began, the tappers were asked how often they believed that the listeners would name the songs correctly. On average, tappers expected listeners to get it right about half the time. In the end, however, listeners guessed only 3 of 120 songs tapped out, or 2.5 percent.
The tappers were astounded. The song was so clear in their minds; how could the listeners not “hear” it in their taps?
That’s a common reaction when experts set out to share their ideas in the business world, too, says Chip Heath, who with his brother, Dan, was a co-author of the 2007 book “Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die.” It’s why engineers design products ultimately useful only to other engineers. It’s why managers have trouble convincing the rank and file to adopt new processes. And it’s why the advertising world struggles to convey commercial messages to consumers.
“I HAVE a DVD remote control with 52 buttons on it, and every one of them is there because some engineer along the line knew how to use that button and believed I would want to use it, too,” Mr. Heath says. “People who design products are experts cursed by their knowledge, and they can’t imagine what it’s like to be as ignorant as the rest of us.”
But there are proven ways to exorcise the curse.
In their book, the Heath brothers outline six “hooks” that they say are guaranteed to communicate a new idea clearly by transforming it into what they call a Simple Unexpected Concrete Credentialed Emotional Story. Each of the letters in the resulting acronym, Succes, refers to a different hook. (“S,” for example, suggests simplifying the message.) Although the hooks of “Made to Stick” focus on the art of communication, there are ways to fashion them around fostering innovation.
To innovate, Mr. Heath says, you have to bring together people with a variety of skills. If those people can’t communicate clearly with one another, innovation gets bogged down in the abstract language of specialization and expertise. “It’s kind of like the ugly American tourist trying to get across an idea in another country by speaking English slowly and more loudly,” he says. “You’ve got to find the common connections.”
In her 2006 book, “Innovation Killer: How What We Know Limits What We Can Imagine — and What Smart Companies Are Doing About It,” Cynthia Barton Rabe proposes bringing in outsiders whom she calls zero-gravity thinkers to keep creativity and innovation on track.
When experts have to slow down and go back to basics to bring an outsider up to speed, she says, “it forces them to look at their world differently and, as a result, they come up with new solutions to old problems.”
She cites as an example the work of a colleague at Ralston Purina who moved to Eveready in the mid-1980s when Ralston bought that company. At the time, Eveready had become a household name because of its sales since the 1950s of inexpensive red plastic and metal flashlights. But by the mid-1980s, the flashlight business, which had been aimed solely at men shopping at hardware stores, was foundering.
While Ms. Rabe’s colleague had no experience with flashlights, she did have plenty of experience in consumer packaging and marketing from her years at Ralston Purina. She proceeded to revamp the flashlight product line to include colors like pink, baby blue and light green — colors that would appeal to women — and began distributing them through grocery store chains.
“It was not incredibly popular as a decision amongst the old guard at Eveready,” Ms. Rabe says. But after the changes, she says, “the flashlight business took off and was wildly successful for many years after that.”
MS. RABE herself experienced similar problems while working as a transient “zero-gravity thinker” at Intel.
“I would ask my very, very basic questions,” she said, noting that it frustrated some of the people who didn’t know her. Once they got past that point, however, “it always turned out that we could come up with some terrific ideas,” she said.
While Ms. Rabe usually worked inside the companies she discussed in her book, she said outside consultants could also serve the zero-gravity role, but only if their expertise was not identical to that of the group already working on the project.
“Look for people with renaissance-thinker tendencies, who’ve done work in a related area but not in your specific field,” she says. “Make it possible for someone who doesn’t report directly to that area to come in and say the emperor has no clothes.”
Janet Rae-Dupree writes about science and emerging technology in Silicon Valley.