Only recently, the general view in the U.S. was that the less-free Chinese system created a poor environment for tech innovation. Put somewhat simply, the argument was that in a society without our kind of freedom of speech or unrestricted access to communication such as the Internet, people would miss out on information and ideas that come from a free system and feel more psychologically constrained from venturing off the beaten path with innovative ideas. The Chinese would be limited, in this view, to knock-offs of U.S. technologies.
The government has also cracked down on use of virtual private networks that Chinese, especially young people, have used to “climb the wall” (i.e. find sites outside the “Great Firewall of China”). And recently, there were media complaints that at the top elite universities such as Tsinghua the anti-VPN policy was not being enforced strictly enough.
Clearly, though, Chinese progress has taken place despite these restrictions.
we should not naively assume that all good (or bad) things go together. Maybe freedom of political and cultural expression is not as important as we have thought for advances, say, in information technology. But it still might be more important for development of less technical or scientific ideas such as public policy proposals or cultural expressions.
Adler examined personality around the same time as Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud. They worked on some theories together until Adler rejected Freud’s emphasis on sex, and maintained that personality difficulties are rooted in a feeling of inferiority deriving from restrictions on the individual’s need for self-assertion.
agreed with the main assumptions of Abraham Maslow, but added that for a person to “grow”, they need an environment that provides them with genuineness (openness and self-disclosure), acceptance (being seen with unconditional positive regard), and empathy (being listened to and understood).
Mining social media has its potential to extract actionable patterns that can be beneficial for business, users, and consumers. Opinion mining from social media can be a faster and less expensive alternative to traditional survey and polling, on which many sustainability researches are based.
Crowd Capital Theory.
ex-post facto design
my opinion: format-wise – poorly written. No proofreading by the authors, but also by the peer-previewers.
Academic English does not recognize “get” and “put.” Sometimes, the ideas are not presented clearly. In-text citations need work: e.g. p. 946 “Andrews in 2012 said that may researchers indicate that the info…”; instead of “According to Andrews (2012), numerous researchers indicate the possibility of social network information to be used as a tool for spying.” Similarly, on page 947: ” (Saxton et al., 2012)” must be “Saxton et al., (2012)”
Verbs are missing: e.g. p. 946 “A case study on effect of social networking sites in emergency departments for patient care.”
p. 953 “in all these study” – adjective / subject disagreement.
content-wise, the article also presents ad-hod information, rather then clearly structured and delinted conclusions: e.g., on page p. 947, the authors announce as the goal of this study ” to investigate the role of “social networks” in creating a positive or negative impact on the social, behavioral and educational aspics of our community.”
None of the three links to the surveys are functional:e.g.,https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1yzVo2SL85iqr7CVRGDZ1bUGKzZPQOo4bBD42 CI9f9e8/viewform?c=0&w=1&usp=mail_form_link
#2: New Platform Features Spur Millennial Adoption
Facebook – An RBC Capital Markets social media survey showed that in the last year, an average of 33% of Millennials who took the survey increased the time they spent on Facebook, whereas an average of 23.5% decreased their time on Facebook.
Instagram –
Twitter –
Snapchat –
#3: Millennials Prefer Indirect Sales Messages
These days, the preferred formats are content marketing and influencer marketing.
the old “sell without selling” idea.
In your content marketing, give Millennials something for their time, attention, and (hopefully) loyalty. They’re more likely to trust your brand if you show a genuine interest in educating them with a how-to, for example.
The global interactive whiteboard (IWB) market is expected to make a comeback and grow at a compound annual growth rate of almost 7 percent from 2016 through 2020, according to a recent report issued by London-based tech market research firm Technavio.
And according to THE Journal’s “Teaching with Technology” survey published in September, 68 percent of teachers who responded use interactive whiteboards in the classroom, while 8 percent have IWBs on their wish list, and 4 percent will be using them within one year. At the same time, however, 20 percent of respondents said that IWBs would be dead and gone within the next decade, ranking second only to desktop computers
In addition to blended learning, which includes gamification, social learning and bring-your-own-device (BYOD) policies, Technavio analysts highlighted the following factors that are contributing to the growth of the IWB market:
At the invitation of Adobe Education, I attended the Educause Annual Conference this year and did a quick series of interviews about the education work that Adobe is doing. A huge highlight for me was reconnecting with futurist Bryan Alexander, whom I’d interviewed in 2012 as a part of my Future of Education series, and whose work and voice I’ve continued to really appreciate.
New Literacies is relatively a new movement that appeared a couple of decades ago. Proponents of this movement include celebrated scholars in the calibre of James Paul Gee, Colin Lankshear, Gunther Kruss to mention but a few . These scholars study literacy from a sociolinguistic perspective arguing that culture and society take supremacy in any study of literacy.
industrial physical mindset and post industrial cyberspacial mindset.
Accordingly, ” the more a literacy practice privileges participation over publishing, distributed expertise over centralized expertise, collective intelligence over individual possessive intelligence, collaboration over individuated authorship, dispersion over scarcity, sharing over ownership, experimentation over normalization, innovation and evolution over stability and fixity…the more we should regard it as a new literacy.”
My note: an example of the generalization in red above: the calcitrated insistence of academic librarians to confine information in reference guides, where the librarians “locks” the information in h/er only ability to password access this information is an example of a “centralized expertise,” whereas a scoop.it curation is a distributed expertise. In the same fashion, the lecturing mode of the current SCSU information literacy is a 20th century methodology, which completely excludes the opportunity for collective intelligence and reaffirms the “individual possessive intelligence” of 40+ years old librarians, whose only idea of using social media is to mirror a Web 1.0 web page.
Topics of the Conference include (but not limited with) the following:
Information literacy in the workplace
Information literacy and employability
Information literacy and workforce development
Information literacy and career readiness
Information literacy and developing critical and creative workers
Information literacy and 21st century workplace
Information usage in the workplace
Information literacy and organisational success
Information literacy and competitiveness
Critical perspectives on workplace information literacy
Information literacy and the neoliberal agenda
Information literacy and digital empowerment
Information literacy and trans/inter/multiculturalism
Information literacy and community engagement
Information literacy and social change
Information literacy and democracy, citizenship, active participation
Information literacy, libraries, the public sphere
Information literacy and lifelong learning
Information literacy in theoretical context (models, standards, indicators)
literacy, visual literacy, health literacy, multi literacy)civic literacy, transliteracy, metaliteracy, e-literacy, digital literacy, computer literacy, scientific iteracy, lInformation literacy and related concepts (transversal competencies, media literacy, data
Information literacy research (research strategies, methodology and methods)
Information seeking and information behavior
Information literacy good practices
Information literacy policies and policy development
Information literacy and libraries Information literacy and LIS education
Information literacy and knowledge management
Information literacy across disciplines
Information literacy in different cultures and countries
Information literacy in different contexts (law, health, etc.)
Information literacy and education
Information literacy education in different sectors (K-12, higher education, vocational education)
Information literacy instruction
Information literacy for different groups (adults, children, young people, disadvantaged groups)
Disruptive innovation has been a buzzword since Clayton Christensen coined it back in the mid 1990s.
Here are four key things to remember when assessing whether the next new company is likely to disrupt your business:
1. The common understanding of disruption IS NOT disruption according to Christensen
A great article by Ilan Mocharidiscusses the misuse of the word disruption when referring to business. As he clarifies, disruption is “what happens when the incumbents are so focused on pleasing their most profitable customers that they neglect or misjudge the needs of their other segments.”
2. Disruption can be low-end or new-market
These differences are laid out in Disruptive Strategy with Clayton Christensen. Low-end disruption refers to businesses that come in at the bottom of the market and serve customers in a way that is “good enough.” In other words, they put their focus on where the greater profit margins are.
The main difference between the two types of disruption lies in the fact that low-end disruption focuses on overserved customers, and new-market disruption focuses on underserved customers.
3. Christensen’s disruption is a process, rather than a product or service
When innovative new products or services – iPhone, Tesla’s electric cars, Uber, and the like – launch and grab the attention of the press and consumers, do they qualify as disruptors in their industries? Writing in Harvard Business Review,Christensen cautions us that it takes time to determine whether an innovator’s business model will succeed.
4. Choose your battles wisely
If you are a current incumbent and want to be on the lookout for a possibly disruptive emerging business, the clarification of what disruption is certainly helps.
Understanding disruption is also helpful if you are looking for opportunities to start or scale your business