Maybe I am being too critical but I reserve the right to be. I mean if we listened to half of what Dr. Tapia said over the semester thus far and even skimmed the reading she has given us then 75 percent of the talks we have been given would have been old news. I don't care about when crisis mapping has worked and how much positive review you have gotten from the UN because they still can't really use it yet. So if you want to blow smoke up my ass about how everything is working at least take me out for a drink so I will be in a more agreeable mood. This is why we are all here because things don't work as efficiently as they can and we are trying to wrap our heads around the convoluted system that is Humanitarian Aid and where all the flaws and holes are so we can fix them. My major is Security and Risk Analysis.... I wouldn't have a major if everything was all A OK on the communication front or if things didn't go wrong and there wasn't a clear need for improvement. It is going to be my job to know the dirty secrets of the system, the chinks in the armor and it will also be my job to make those seem invisible to the untrained eye and make them work more efficently. So please for the love of all that is holy don't come into this class and give me a bunch of happy stories. I don't need to feel good about how things are. I know there are problems everywhere in every system, I am in this major to make a difference to help enact change. I beg you please don't waste my time and try and make everything seem like an episode of Barney out there when I know it's more like Dexter where there are people out there waiting for their opportunity to screw things up.
Dr. Tapia asked a question to Dr. Meier about what happens if Ushahidi is used for nefarious purposes and he for all intents and purposes deflected the question... this is the kind of question that must be asked that anyone in our major would ask and he deflected it. If the Humanitarian system and the organizations involved in it really want a change you have to let us know how screwed up it is. You have to let us know exactly what is failing where and how. But alas I know it's working fine because peoples lives are being saved. You know what that is bull you can always save more lives you are never running at optimum efficiency and there is always room for improvement. We want to make that happen but they just don't want to let us in as much as they need to. I sit with my head in my hands most classes, I know all of you have seen me at one point or another because of how frustrated I am by the lack of answers to the problems and the lack of acknowledgement of the problems themselves. Yes they are starting to acknowledge the problems but it's a day late and a dollar short in my book. So we are going to give it our best shot throw and idea in Mr. Happ's funnel of ideas and hope it doesn't get flushed out the other side. I guess that's really the philosphy of these problems is throw some shit at a wall and see what sticks. Just don't make it stick too well because then they would really have to enact change and they don't want that. They just want it to look like they are changing.
Just keep listening to all of the speakers and all of the articles we read, the problems aren't as big as they seem, and all the upstart tech companies have all the answers the UN and other organizations just wont listen. No one wants to find a common ground and compromise and no one can even decide where to start that process. I know this is nothing more than a rant but this class makes my head spin and makes me want to just run into a wall. Maybe I am a pessimist, maybe I am a realist, maybe I am a cynic, to me they are all the same damn thing. I just know that it may not be broke but it sure needs fixing.
For making it this far I leave you with a pallet cleanser and how I feel right about now (I am Ren by the way) Happy Happy Joy Joy
Hi Thomas,
ReplyDeleteCritical indeed--- in a good, refreshing way. (But ouch for the presenters). I think I’ve been brainwashed by hearing so many presentations of this kind to expect more than what we received from our speakers. From the perspective of a person who has heard/sat in on a few government/policy-related speeches by people associated with institutions like CSIS and USIP, I think that some of our speakers were almost more critical than most speakers I’ve heard (scary, I know). They didn’t seem to sugar-coat as much, but were certainly (skillfully) evasive on certain topics (ie re-purposing what are intended to be benign tech tools). But to give them credit, they did address the lack of collaboration as a major issue, and talked about how some of their ideas would have difficulties in cultural integration with politically/socially repressive countries. They did give recognition to the fact that most solutions are not going to come from us but rather the environments of disaster and that this is a fact that we should humbly accept. They talked about inter-agency issues, like with the UN where headquarters has completely unrealistic expectations for the on-the-ground team. I think they tried but at the same time, the info they gave us is honestly the same exact spiel they’ve given every single other outsider who’s asked for their opinions. Let’s be realistic---they see us as a bunch of students who have no stake in what they’re involved with. There’s no motive for them to be completely open with us. But you’re right—some issues are so glaringly obvious (umm insufficient broadband capacity? Lack of solid infrastructure?) but unaddressed. I feel like you have to “be in the system” to know what the dirty little secrets are, which is unfortunate right now because your major requires some knowledge about this and if we really know what is wrong, perhaps our creativity could be used for the better with this upcoming project and for other endeavors. Unfortunately, I think orgs rarely are as open as they claim to be. It’s like you have to become one of them to fix stuff----that is, if you’re not brainwashed and completely inculcated to their way of thinking by the time you get your foot past the door
I see where you are coming from on many points, but I definitely do not agree with everything. First of all, you state in your third paragraph, “You [Humanitarian organizations] have to let us know exactly what is failing where and how.” I do not think it is realistic to expect this. From what I understand, the problem is a lot more complicated than something that can be addressed with a list of issues. After all, we are dealing with an entire system. Anyway, the system is not failing, at least not in a general sense. One of my first blogs of the semester was about how we need to reinvent the humanitarian system because times are changing. The humanitarian system is not failing, people are just starting to recognize that civilization is advancing in many respects (like when it comes to technology) and they believe that the humanitarian system should be able to benefit from such advancement. Now, I am sure that there are things that are “screwed up” and have been “screwed up” within the system, but that is different from this feeling of inefficiency, which is felt because civilization is advancing and people believe the humanitarian system should consequentially advance. More lives should be able to be saved. But, it is this idea of advancement that is so challenging. (Sorry for the philosophizing, but I think it comes with the issue). I do not believe that this class is meant to teach us to fix problems within the system. If it were, we would have been presented with a list of problems and have brainstormed ways of trying to fix them, the end. It is meant to introduce an old system to a new generation. Once a problem has been fixed, it is clear, it no longer exists. Innovation is not something that can be fixed. There is an end to a problem, but no end to innovation. Our goal, I think, should be to try and update an outdated system.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to fix problems when we do not know what they are, obviously. But, as I mentioned, we are not expected to fix problems. Not to mention, the system can be made more effective without old, minor problems being fixed. We are expected to contribute to the efforts associated with innovation. Lets say we have two organizations, A and B. A and B are not communicating with each other, and we believe they should. But, there would only be a problem if they were actually trying to communicate and failing. The thing is, they are not trying to communicate because it is not been part of their culture (at least not to the extent that is being expected of them, today).
Our goal is to make the system more effective through improvements, not solutions. Unforeseeable problems with probably arise, which is likely the reason that the humanitarian culture seems so reluctant when it comes to change (aka. innovation). Understandably, problems are not something anyone wants to deal with, particularly when lives are on the line. As we have heard numerous times, what they have now works. However, many believe that it [the system] can work better. But, nobody can really understand what the consequences of “innovation” would be. Nobody can really understand what problems could arise.
We need to figure out ways to innovate. We need to figure out ways to innovate and avoid incorporating problems into the system. Essentially, we need to nondestructively test our invocations. I discussed this idea in my blog post entitled “Reluctance to Innovate When Lives Are at Stake.” Please let me know your thoughts on any of this stuff and whether or not it even makes sense.
Tom, I really enjoyed how you began this blog post. You are never afraid to speak your mind and I believe that is how everyone should do their comments. I agree with you that the speakers overall could have done more because we can read a lot about them on the web sites that we were assigned to read before the last four classes. I thought that this week’s speaker on crisis mapping was very interesting, but at the same time I feel that he could have talked less about the overall concepts and more about the field work. I think the websites and PDF files should teach you the topics and the speakers should re-enforce the topics with real life experiences.
ReplyDeleteI also couldn’t agree more with the next part of your blog. There are a lot of flaws out there in all types of technologies and systems. It is our job as Security Risk Analysis Majors to figure these problems out and keep the systems running smoothly. Without problems in these systems, what would be the point to our major? It is the speaker’s jobs to explain to us the problems in the fields not the success that is out there. We as a group of students want to know what there is to do out there and how we can help.
Tom, I feel that you have opened people’s eyes in this class to see the things they should be expecting to learn. You are not afraid to tell it how it is and how you feel about any issue no matter how extreme it may be. I respect that and I think everyone could learn a lesson from reading your blogs every week. Overall, you did a great job on this blog post and I look forward to reading next week’s.
While I don't think every humanitarian organization can afford to enumerate it's failings and air them to the public, I'll agree with you when it comes to something like Ushahidi - if this is really the crowd-sourced golden goose that we've all been promised, why isn't the crowd being given the power to solve some of the technical and logistical shortcomings of the system? Either crowd-sourcing, the core philosophy behind Mr. Meier's product, works or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then the platform itself won't work in the long run.
ReplyDeleteI further agree with you that too much of Mr. Meier's presentation was either on too low of a level or functioned just to flaunt the platform. Nothing of value was shared that couldn't have been gleamed from a couple of minutes on Wikipedia or the Ushahidi site. I'll additionally agree with you that it was unfortunate that when a tough question about negative uses of the platform was asked, Mr. Meier didn't really contribute much to the conversation. In fact, were I to go solely off of his defense, I'd surmise that the Ushahidi platform can potentially to more evil than good, considering it is presently not actionable by humanitarian organizations, yet poses a powerful tool for terrorists, oppressive regimes, and rival groups.
Tom, as always your blog is a great as you critically analyze the problems presented to us. Honestly, I think that our guest speakers tried to present the situation as "cheerful" or right, more because of the audience in class. I tend to believe that they want to show college students what is going right in the world and what good solutions they have created. By creating this positive environment, maybe they are trying to avoid scaring anyone away from potential work in the disaster response community. However, if I am wrong and this is the way they truly think than the situation is more helpless than any of us actually thought. As you have harped on all semester, the current situation does not work and these organizations are too resistant to change even slightly. If they truly believe that, all is good and that the current ways are thinking, than the disaster response community is doomed to remain in the 20th century for the foreseeable future.
ReplyDeleteI tend to think Dr. Meier deflect Dr. Tapia's question more because he didn't want to imagine people using his technology for nefarious purposes. I was also disappointed that he skipped around answering the question, as it is an important question facing the future of Ushahidi and other technological solutions. While Dr. Meir was deflecting the question, I was thinking of the various ways I could use a system like Ushahidi for nefarious purposes. Within that short period, I was able to come up with at least three different nefarious purposes for a system like Ushahidi. I would hope that Dr. Meier and others at Ushahidi are asking the exact same questions as we are. While I tend to remain hopeful that they are, I am truly scared for the future of the disaster response community if they tend to believe everyone in the world is naturally good.