Archive for the ‘PhD’ Category

Government has endorsed the recommendations of Government 2.0 taskforce.I must commend the government, AGIMO and Kate for leading in this space.

As an academic I saw the potential of web 2.0 technologies for government and was hoping to do some research on government’s use of web 2.0 since 2006-07. I remember meeting with Kate Lundy in 2007 in a small coffee shop, talking about her new site where she was uploading podcasts and was excited about it. Though small, but Kate had already started her journey since then. We know how much Kate has achieved since 2007 (reflected in her recent public spheres and in her on-going efforts).

The picture was quite grim with AGIMO back in 2007- nobody had any interest in web 2.0! I found it very difficult to get access and knowledge of what agencies were doing in this space. In fact was repeatedly reminded by my academic colleagues that nothing was happening. I almost lost hope. However the establishment of the Government 2.0 taskforce in July 2009, AGIMO’s sudden leading role in facilitating Gov 2.0 agenda changed the game. What AGIMO achieved with the help of taskforce in just the 6 months or so – seems like work that takes years to do. AGIMO turning into a web 2.0 champion is a great achievement for all web 2.0 evangelists who have been lobbying hard for the last 2-3 years.

I have to admit there is still not much academic work done in this space, in particular in Australian context. I still have my colleagues telling me “so what the government has endorsed Gov 2.0?” It will take years before it gets implemented through the intricacies of bureaucratic cultures of APS. I believe it is time for academics to take Gov 2.0 seriously – it’s not a fad, its reality. Hopefully the government’s endorsement will create momentum and APS will embrace web 2.0. Academics will start to see the fruits of web 2.0 in some area while others struggling to make it work for government’s business. Academics will need to go through the same challenges of change – let go of their existing beliefs about what government means, what governance means and how governments deliver services and engage with their citizens. Academics need to explore open government ideas; embrace the changes being brought about with the declaration of open government. Now truly I see several PhDs within the Gov 2.0 space in Australian government context.


Read Full Post »

Are there ethical concerns with the introduction of social tools  like web 2.0 within government?

With the introduction of the new policy on online media participation by APSC in November 2009, it opens new platforms of online collaborations within an open and unregulated environment. This may pose some challenges for current APS culture of control and top-down hierarchy.

web 2.0 tools in government may be categorised into a framework: interaction focused, communication focussed and service focussed (Chang & Kanan, 2008 ). Web 2.0 provides the following opportunities or new forms of interactions for governments:

  • Publishing – blogging, twitter e.g. TweetMP
  • Rich user experience -YouTube, mySpace e.g. Kevin Rudd’s use of these channels for election
  • mash-ups – geotagging, geomapping e.g. YourHealth
  • Networking – Facebook, Myspace e.g. ATO e-tax page
  • Crowdsourcing – Wikipedia e.g. policy consultation, NLA newspaper digitization

Based on the APS job continuum, there is potential overlap while acting different personas within an APS role defined as: official, public and private (Gov2.0 Tasforce). This overlap may give rise to potential ethical concerns for the APS. One can take some of these new forms of interaction and apply the new online media participation to see if this sufficient.  For example, you may have your own blog and you may use this as a way to connect and share your knowledge in your profession. Should this blog contain criticisms of APS practices within agencies, will that be counted as engaging as a professional or private communication. Another could be you may post a comment on someone else’s blog which criticises a current policy – is this their personal comment, professional comment or official comment? How would public know which “you” is this comment being made?

This is an area that needs further exploration – as more pilots, web2.0 projects pop-up within agencies, there will be more ethical issues identified. It would be good government to create a database with these concerns and record the response and outcomes.

Read Full Post »

During the last two weeks, I heard two very different speakers talking about this very topic – Gov 2.0. Both of them of course had different views on it.

Dr Nicholas Gruen, Chair of the taskforce on Gov 2.0, was talking at a seminar in Parliament of Australia, possibly as part of his role to disseminate the findings of the taskforce and publicize the whole agenda of Gov 2.0. Being an web 2.0 evangelist, Nicholas of course, was keen to show the positive impacts of these so called web 2.0 technologies and what it means for government. Nicholas did point out the fads and pitfalls with these technologies but with the spirit of ”need for change in culture” in APS. Nicholas cited many examples from around the world to show the strength of these new applications and how they might change the way people collaborate, share and engage with each other.

Tim Turner, ADFA, presented quite a skeptic view of this topic in his seminar on 2nd March 2010 at an ACS branch seminar series. His talk titled : “Web 2.0 and Government-Citizen Interaction:Will the implementation reality be nirvana or nightmare?” explains his stance on this issue . He with humor tried to identify some grave concerns about these new ways of communication and connecting with citizenry. He showed the mismatch between the expectation set of citizens and the business of government and tried to highlight the problems that a government cannot afford to face. He posed questions like: How do you know these collaborations are by the mass and not by some mentalist Jo Blogg who has either nothing to do or just would like to destroy a good cause. How do you know which version to trust? How do you know these are authenticate, accurate? etc etc I have just discovered (26th march 2010) that  Tom Worthington’s blog ged about his talk as well.

What’s my take on this – of course there are concerns of using such disruptive technologies which are emerging and changing as we speak. But having said this, one can find plenty of examples, if not hundreds, of government initiatives with these new applications. Governments around the world are trying to reach out to citizens, trying to engage them and consult with them for a more collaborative, participatory and open government. Some of these initiatives have done well, some resulted in disaster. But if you haven’t tasted something how can you say you do like the taste or it’s not for you? The hype is true – the uptake by poeple is ‘humongous’. Government must get their hands dirty and find out whether web 2.0 is the new way of connecting and collaborating with citizens.

I believe the web 2.0 has potential to enhance the business of government in certain areas both internally and externally. But what form it will take is still unknown. It could be Gov 3.0, networked government or altogether totally something different.

Read Full Post »

Subject: CFP: Workshop on Educating The Web-Generation (Edu4WebGen 2007) DL: July 10From: “WI/IAT” <wi-iat@maebashi-it.org>Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 23:29:56 -0400X-Message-Number: 3++++++++++++++++++++++++Call for Papers:

International Workshop on “Educating The Web-Generation” (EWG’07)


November 2-5, 2007 – Silicon Valley, USA


Description++++++++++++While talking about Web Intelligence we cannot leave those behind using the web and 搃ts intelligence? the Web-Generation. This workshop focuses on the fundamental(computational) education of future generations whose lives will more and more be influenced by an enormous potential for technology and furthermore by a hard competition in a global world. During the next years of not only computing we have to find an answer to the question how to provide our schoolchildren, students, and workforces with the necessary educational opportunities to succeed in a digital economy influenced by a hard competition in a global word. How will they adopt and evaluate new technologies?Knowledge itself is growing tremendously and the web with its informational overflow ?not yet prepared to be a fully interactive, context- and user-sensitive tool supporting people in their daily routines ?has already transformed every aspect of our lives. Is the next generation already able to deal with those technological possibilities? Has it the language and analytical skills to be more than Nintendo-Kids?

During the last years, the literacy of 15-year-old students was tested by the PISA-test of the OECD member states and not only the U.S. was shocked at the outcome.

Web today ?with Web 2.0 and its technologies ?is a place of knowledge (e.g. Wikipedia) but also of crime in different manners. Web-Education is necessary and on focus of almost every nation. Working on new curricula, innovative teaching concepts, or discovering relevant key competencies were also on the agenda of Bill Gates while claiming the U.S. school systems during a senates debate early this year.

This workshop is a plea for offering universal literacy using fundamental domains of computer science. Literacy understood as 刟 person抯 knowledge and culture and the ability in a particular subject or field, such as computer literacy?(Webster抯 1995) helps us to see the importance of language-competence, logic skill and other aspects for educating future knowledge workers and knowledge citizens making most of an intelligent web. Submissions not dealing with e.g. new e-learning innovations but with fundamental approaches and concepts to deliver (web-)skills for (web-)people to take a chance of the growing (web-)intelligence are highly welcome.


Workshop Chair


Elisabeth Heinemann

University of Applied Sciences Worms

Department of Informatics

Erenburgerstrasse 19

D-67549 Worms


Email: heinemann(at)fh-worms(dot)de


Program Committee


Stefano A. Cerri (Universit?Montpellier, France) John P. Dougherty (Haverford College, USA) Werner Hartmann (P鋎agogische Hochschule Bern, Swiss) Peter Hubwieser (Technische Universit鋞 M黱chen, Germany) Piet Kommers (Universiteit Twente, The Netherlands) Johannes Magenheim (Universit鋞 Paderborn, Germany) Erich Ortner (Technische Universit鋞 Darmstadt, Germany) Simon Rogerson (De Montfort University Leicester, U.K.) George Siemens (elearnspace, Canada) Hartmut Wedekind (Universit鋞 Erlangen-N黵nberg, Germany)




The workshop paper submission can be done online. Please come back to this page later on. An online tool will be linked here.


Paper Format


The length of accepted paper should NOT exceed 4 pages (one more extra page is only available for extra payment!). As template please use the IEEE-CS 2-column format as shown here:


Accepted papers will be published in the conference proceedings by the Society Press.

Important Dates+++++++++++++++June 20, 2007 Electronic Submission of full papersAugust 3, 2007 Notification of paper acceptanceAugust 17, 2007 Camera-ready of accepted papers

November 2-5 2007 WI-IAT 2007 Conference




For any questions please feel free to contact the workshop organizer.


Subject: CFP: Workshop on Agent & Data Mining Interaction (ADMI 2007) DL: July 10

From: “WI/IAT” <wi-iat@maebashi-it.org>

Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 23:30:39 -0400

X-Message-Number: 4

[Apologies if you receive this more than once]


July 10, 2007

Read Full Post »

Need to ask informants about their jobs and their use of the “tool”, as well as other communication technologies. Need to ask them to talk about the advantages and disadvantages of using the “tool”, and how it compared with other communication media such as telephone, voicemail, email and face to face interaction. Need to audiotape interviews conducted in informants’ workplaces. Need to observe them at work in some cases, and videotape some sessions. The bulk of the data is from interviews and observations supplemented with logs of a few sessions. All informant names have been changed as have identifying details.

Read Full Post »

Thoughts on the PhD

Thoughts on the PhD

Web 2.0 tools, why not just one tool? We also recognised that the social software landscape is dynamically changing. It is likely that specific tools will be rapidly enhanced or superseded. Hence, rather than have a focus on specific technologies, our approach has been to see social software as a whole and the findings should be viewed as applying to the use of all social software generally rather than a specific few. Although the main focus of the research was VET, data gathered came from a much broader landscape including all the different educational sectors as well as corporations within and external to Australia. It was considered that lessons learnt from within and external to VET would provide much richer data to inform the practice of VET.http://socialsoftware-research.wikispaces.com/Scope 

C2O Bootcamp: An Overview of the Business, Social and Technology Infrastructure Needed to Manage Successful CommunitiesInstructors: Kathleen Gilroy, Otter Group
Deborah Shultz, Consultant
Tara Hunt, Citizen AgencyA one-day program designed to provide people who are looking at leveraging communities as part of their business with a quick training program to get up and running. There will be full audience participation, lively discussions, and the opportunity to tap the presenter’s expertise and learn from their mistakes. C20 Bootcamp will be presented in four modular sessions:

I. Theory & Strategy
II. Application & Best Practices
III. Social & Technology Infrastructure
IV. Stump the Experts

This seminar will take a close look at the basics of community management and afford you a higher level understanding of the benefits and opportunities that community can have on your business. This is the perfect way to get an overview and the foundational knowledge needed for your community endeavors. Wednesday, March 14, 2007 ~ 10:15 – 11:00am
Communities of Practice – Can They Really Work?
Speakers: Richard McDermott, McDermott Consulting
Communities of practice have become well established in many companies, but many companies are dramatically shifting the role communities play in their organization. This talk describes the results of a recent international study of communities of practice in 20 companies across 8 industries. It describes some innovative ways communities identify experts, respond to inquiries, increase participation, track progress and integrate with HR, corporate culture and operations. Learn a variety of simple practices that make communities of practice vibrant and of genuine importance to the organization.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 ~ 9:15 – 10:00am
Communities as the DNA of Customer-Centric Business Strategy
Speakers: Lois Kelly, Foghound*
Andy Hessabi, Network Solutions
Lynne Kerger, Chicago Tribune
Tanya Maurer, Hewlett-Packard
This session looks at how Network Solutions, the Chicago Tribune and HP are engaging with their private customer/prospect communities in ways that are providing surprising insights and ideas for their business strategy, and making customer-centricity real. They will share why they opened communities, what it takes to get people really involved and engaged, how to leverage communities beyond marketing and throughout an organization, and examples of how community members have helped create successful business strategies http://www.community2-0con.com/?page_id=4

Andew McAfee on enterprise 2.0:

  • Enterprise 2.0 is about new forms of collaboration and unlike previous enterprise computing efforts, e20 enables the expression and capture of judgement.
  • E20 will not happen just by building new technologies and expecting people to use them. It is hard to get e20 to become part of the DNA of a company and it will require sustained management and leadership through coaching, rewards and incentives, leadership, and building a culture that is attuned to the benefits of working in this new way.
  • E20 is very different from groupware (Notes, Sharepoint) in that it is very unstructured. Groupware often failed because it demanded too many rules and the terms of interaction were defined from the start.


Read Full Post »

Concept map

Here is so far what my PhD holds:

Read Full Post »