Posts tagged project global generation

global generation 12: not too close a link to Human Rights activity

So.

With this post I am going to try and wrap up what I believe will be my last thought article on this initiative and then I plan on updating projectglobalgeneration.com with updating all the posts … and then let the chips fall as they may on that idea. I spent a couple days over my holiday vacation basking in the sun and writing. You have seen most of what I wrote, on this initiative, and this is it.

Anyway. I have written two back-to-back project global generation articles, one on the power of global collaboration and one on impact of conflict, referencing human rights and human rights initiatives as reference points.

Therefore, before anyone got too far in putting Project Global Generation initiative into a Human Rights bucket I wanted to take a moment and discuss kids’ education and Human Rights.

How close a link should there be? Not too close I suggest.

I am more interested in the “stimulus” within this particular ‘stimulus-response’ model.

The intent of this Global Generation education plan is the betterment of children’s minds. Sure. Somewhere down the road (let’s say when they are adults) this plan of action will probably benefit Human Rights initiatives.

Anyway.

I said two things specifically at the end of Global Generation 6 (actually 11 on enlightened conflict site and 6 on www.projectglobalgeneration.com)  that I wanted to use as I discuss the impact Project Global Generation can have on human rights (and yet not be a human rights initiative):

In the end, society benefits from groups performing productively with another. Of course, teaching the basics of all of this at the preschool age means a greater likelihood of kids continuing positive collaboration abilities as they progress in life.

This is an idea of molding a people from diverse origins, cultural practices, languages, into one collaborative group of thinkers, within a framework which has to be democratic in nature (because it crosses any and all geographic boundaries, yet it can be absorbed within any cultural construct).

And by doing so it mitigates conflicts and adversarial interests without oppression and injustice but rather through expanding brain power.

I try and always am careful when discussing this global education initiative and the use of the word “values” or human rights … as well as ‘democratic’.

First.

Democratic in this sense has nothing to do with government not each city-state’s constitutional beliefs. Democratic in this sense has to do with the belief of a collective friendly collaborative framework.

Second. About values & rights.

I am less willing to get into some debate of whether one country’s values are better or more important than another’s (The Economist gave a nice snapshot of this discussion in a recent EU versus China article pointing out what is right in one country does not always make it right for another country .. nor healthy in terms of constructive relationships).

That said.

Simplistically I am proposing an education initiative for the betterment of minds and not a betterment of values. There is a sharing of ideas, and I assume values (or let’s call this … some belief system) will follow, because all of that is inherent in the “global collaboration” aspect simply because it is a web based initiative.

But (please). This is not a Human Rights initiative.

Sure. I do believe some rights are basic to all … but some are not universal (because of cultural differences). And I do believe that ignoring cultural differences (i.e., what is right in the minds of Americans, or even someone in the EU community, versus what is right in the minds of, say, a Muslim based country or a Monarchy directed country) is imperative for the success of a children’s global education initiative.

And, yes, I did use the word ‘ignore.’ Global education has to be religion/governmentally “blind” (or agnostic if you would like).

All that said. Interestingly there is something called “the 2048 initiative” which is more focused on a global legal platform – the overall intent of this adult legal program is similar to the Project Global Generation children’s initiative.

And I actually believe the 2048 initiative has the right perspective on human rights, i.e., side step sterile arguments about whose values may be better and focus on building a global legal platform and help individual countries obey their own laws (and the global foundational laws). And, interestingly, there is a good current debate on how effective this is (if you care about this kind of stuff pick up “The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions are Changing World Politics by K. Sikkink).

note: the first part of this sentence is not my idea but rather The Economist.

So.

I avoid human rights and debating values when discussing a global education program and focus on respect for choices (within some basic values construct such as ‘killing is bad’ and high level non debatable values type things).  It should probably be noted that I actually placed these human rights initiatives on the left hand side of my tactical plan on action chart (highlighting the fact I believe they are important but separate).

A global education movement like I am suggesting is going to have to redefine traditional education itself. It will be expansive and non directional (meaning open-ended) in terms of values definition, governmental beliefs & religion.

All that said.

It would be foolish to ignore the fact that education at a very young age does affect morality (or, maybe better said, some values-based critical thinking).  It is just inherent within learning.

In children, morality is typically reflected in judging, or in other words, the capacity to make good/bad distinctions. And that is all I care about within this initiative (although it has been brought up in discussion that this initial young child foundation evolves in teen years into a more principled behavior/decision making and, ultimately, in adults as a sense of obligation to contribute to the well-being of others).

Each step begets the next. If we elect to implement the first step in childhood then, bigger picture, as adults it is embodied as empathy (or tolerance as Helen Keller has suggested) for other humans.

This initiative, through the collaboration aspect, teaches children to treat each other with dignity, to act with concern for others, to take personal responsibility (all of which inherently benefit humanity … but, once again, is not Human Rights as such).
I believe Project Global Generation should be free and ‘choice neutral’ and accessible to all children (or via parent).

Through education we should all be aiming to empower children as they grow into a more educated adult to understand and critically reflect the conflicts of interests surrounding them, as well as to reflect one’s own individual role within a larger global community (and how they can impact as an individual within their own smaller community).

The inherent collaboration, or learning by lurking, aspect of Project Global Generation has the added benefit of encouraging an entire generation to actively shape the global future (in big and/or small ways).

Ultimately the intent is to provide a foundation of learning for children so that it actually leads to “understanding of choice” (even if you do not actually have freedom of choice).

Why do I feel this way?

Rights are often in the eye of the beholder, with some of them clearly demonstrating a perplexing and perhaps even contradictory side.

So this initiative really has nothing to do with ‘rights’ but rather values.

And when I came to that conclusion I searched value systems definitions and discovered this:

-          Indications for understanding of value systems

It would seem useful to distinguish sets of value functions. It is also useful to attempt to distinguish for each case between: a positive interpretation (p); a negative interpretation (n); a paradoxical negative interpretation of the positive (pn); and a paradoxical positive interpretation of the negative (np):

Class I: Efforts at recognizing ‘the’ one fundamental underlying value governing human society, readily labeled by different constituencies as ‘love’, ‘profit’, ‘peace’, ‘justice’, etc according to orientation (p). This then tends to be used in an overly simplistic or fanatical manner resulting in a form of behavioural blackhole (pn). These value terms are however readily deconstructed into a referential void that is characteristic of this class and the (entropic) pull that it exerts on the constructions of other classes (n). Such seemingly ‘negative’ aspects of this function are also recognized in references to existential despair, alienation and emptiness (n) — which is valued in spiritual disciplines for the perspective (np) that it gives (‘dark night of the soul’, ‘ego death’, etc) and its mysterious relationship as a catalyst or matrix for the creativity of Class IV (Nishitani, 1982).

Class II: Value sets as assiduously elaborated by international constituencies in an effort to achieve universal consensus on a framework for action and governance (p). Such sets are also characteristic of religious dogma (eg sets of virtues). They may be viewed as essential to society for the reasons well argued by their advocates. They can also be viewed with suspicion as straitjackets on that very development of value sensitivity and diversity which ensures their relevance to living systems (pn). From a Class III perspective, such value sets are quite claustrophobic and inappropriate to a learning environment, to the point of being associated with outmoded patterns of dominance (n). Such sets may thus be seen as continuously decaying into Class I in the mindsets of the disabused and alienated. But it is precisely their ‘outdated’, predictable, dependable, disciplined quality which constitutes a vital complement (np) to the chaotic and evanescent value experiments of Class III, providing the stability through which Class IV can emerge.

Class III: Value systems created by individuals and groups to frame and enhance their particular, and often private, experience (p). The freedom and experimental quality of such value creation reflects the views of social constructionists and an appreciation of diversity. Not necessarily viewed as (to be) widely held, permanent, coherent, or systematic. They are essentially unstable and unaccountable (pn) and may be quickly abandoned (through a decay process into Class I) although they may undergo a form of reification (into dogma) into Class II, possibly accompanied by some form of institutionalization. Some, notably those advocating Class II frameworks, severely question and condemn the social incoherence and irresponsibility of such value relativism where ‘anything goes’ (n). It is however precisely in their role as an evanescent, exploratory complement (np) to Class II that Class III creates a dynamic environment through which Class IV can emerge.

Class IV: Emerging, surprising, new value patterns reflecting new degrees of sensitivity, coherence and fundamental groundedness as a source of inspiration (p) that contrast with those of Class II. In contrast to the chaos of Class III, these carry a recognizable quality of stability and integrity (failing which they decay into Class III, or directly into Class I). They tend however to attract a pathological enthusiasm, in a manner somewhat analogous to Class I, as offering ‘the secret elixir’ by comparison with the perceived irrelevance of other classes (pn). Through a form of value narcissism, they distract from the vital functions of other classes (n). They can be confused with more familiar values in other classes through a failure to recognize their originality and as such run the danger of being coopted under the frameworks of those other classes. It perhaps precisely in this manner that the new strengths renew the values in the other classes (np).

< Note: I apologize in that I lost the source for this but please note I cannot take credit for this extensive insightful analysis of value systems >

Although that may have sounded quite clinical, in an academic fashion, I believe it is helpful in uncovering how Project Global Generation can positively impact children through education – and its inevitable impact on a global value system.

In summary.

If you believe in the words you have just read, i.e., a more educated individual educated within a collaborative global community creates a strengthened global value system, then it is difficult for you to not be a proponent of this initiative.

I strongly believe that if we want individuals to benefit a more global community perspective then we have to work for it … and the best place to start is by giving our children an education.

And education that includes problem solving skills, critical thinking skills and collaboration skills.

I believe if we do so then we endow in them a consciousness and respect (for others ideas & ideals) all in “a spirit of brotherhood.”

Yes.

I believe very strongly that all human beings are born equal and free and are guaranteed certain inalienable rights that can never be taken from them and, in this case, I am speaking of education.

Project Global Generation is simply seeking to secure a higher standard of life for future generations – through education.

And through education at the youngest ages and, with that, I will go back to the beginning of this post:

In the end, society benefits from groups performing productively with another. Of course, teaching the basics of all of this at the preschool age means a greater likelihood of kids continuing positive collaboration abilities as they progress in life.

So.

While Project Global Generation is not a human rights initiative, with its successful implementation, it should benefit what is right globally. Is that a play on words? You bet. But it gets me out of the Human Rights morass that could bog down this idea and be able to focus on the bigger education opportunity.

Using a quote from Eleanor Roosevelt, then chairman of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, here is where I believe the Global generation education plan and Human Rights meet.

“Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home – so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world … Such are the places where every man, woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere.”

Therefore … education can be viewed as a right. And it is so right to think of it that way because it isn’t about a country or a culture … but rather ‘so close, so small’ that it is unseen on a map. So. As with most relatively good ideas this idea circles back to the beginning as you read this quote – community individualism.

It will be the main characteristic of the global generation.

A generation retaining a strong sense of “small places, close to home” and the culture they hold each & every day … yet balanced by what they have learned in a larger global society collaboration of learning and shared ideas through education.

Regardless.

I don’t want an education initiative to get bogged down on a human rights discussion. What I do know is that it is our responsibility, as adults, to uphold educating our children as a promise for bettering future generations.

abandon hope all ye who enter

“abandon hope all ye who enter here” – Dante

Ok.

Above the entrance to hell (Inferno) in Dante’s  Divine Comedy lies the words “abandon hope all ye who enter here.”

Just to keep you updated on the story … Dante passes through the gate of Hell with this inscription which is the ninth (and final) line <”Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate”> … “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.”

Before me things create were none, save things

Eternal, and eternal I endure.

All hope abandon ye who enter here.

Ah.

And as another reminder of the tale … before entering hell, Dante and his guide (Virgil) see the Uncommitted. The uncommitted represent the souls of people who did nothing in Life. Yup. Nothing … neither for good nor evil.

(I will get back to that)

No.

I am not going to suggest everyone read Dante’s Divine Comedy (a tough read no matter who anyone is).

But I am going to talk about hope (or the lack thereof). And uncommitted.

I imagine lack of hope is kind of like entering a personal hell.

Which isn’t good for anyone. So the corollary to that is that I imagine those of us with hope to give should share it whenever we can.

But.

Take a minute and think about the youth of the world (currently growing up in a nifty time of unrest) and our <adult> responsibility to the young people today.

Set aside whether you do actually have any hope within you (or maybe better said you worry about having too much hope).

Because this isn’t about you and your hope (but it is about you and being committed).

Think about young people … who are watching us … and listening to us.

Our responsibility?

If we fail to provide hope to our young people … are we not simply encouraging them to enter the gate of hell?

And if we do nothing for our youth do we not run the risk of becoming one of the Uncommitted?

Dante was a smart guy. Gave us a lot to think about.

That’s it.

I just wanted everyone to think about our responsibility <commitment> to the young people of today’s world.

Give them hope.

For if they have no hope it is quite possible our future is destined to walk thru the gate of hell.

here an insight, there an insight, where an insight?

So.

Every once in awhile in the ad/marketing business we talk about “what’s the insight that will help us create the big idea?”

Ok.

Not every once in awhile.

Actually ad nausea.

So often your head hurts.

In fact it may be the reason why people in the industry drink as often as they do.

Wow.  I wonder if that is an insight.

Anyway.

Here is an insight to the aggravating people always asking for “an” insight.

There are product insights.

Company insights.

Consumer (or user) insights.

There are category insights for gods sake.

Insights are all around us (I wanted to use a gnat analogy but that could be construed as sarcastic).

Here an insight, there an insight, everywhere an insight (I believe that is a nursery rhyme insight reference).

In the end … a really good insight in marketing/brand management/product development/whatever development … marries the product and consumer needs.

Here is an insight.

Consumers don’t care about products or brands. All they care about is outcomes and results. Let’s , for simplistic sake, suggest that is “need.”

Some marketing insight guru described a consumer insight as “penetration into the target’s collective subconscious to unearth a link between untapped attitudes and behaviors to discover a deep-seated truth that reveals important needs/values the brand can exploit to connect with the target to impact attitudes and behaviors.”

That insight definition made my head hurt.

Especially the “exploiting” part.

But.

I do like the ‘deep seated truth‘ part.

Regardless. Suffice it to say the guru meant “an insight into need.”

<oops. Too simple>

Anyway.

There is no one insight.

And rarely is an insight more than just a window of opportunity (only to be replaced by another “insight” at another time).

The only thing that stays the same? That truth part.

Because the frickin’ truth is that if you want to change something in a consumer mindset (attitude) leading to purchase/usage (behavior) which benefits the brand (sales) … focus on some outcome/result.

Yeah … yeah … yeah … that ‘outcome’ may be a Maslow type outcome (self-worth, appearance, esteem, actualization, etc.) but that is outcome for god’s sake … not some mumbo jumbo on a voodoo thing I want to penetrate and exploit.

It is something real to a person. And if it is real … it is a truth. And if it is a truth it cannot be exploited … it can only be something that can be ‘met.’
And, by the way, if you happen to wrangle up an insightful truth (and make it through the mumbo jumbo marketing maze internally and externally) it really can impact what you do:

-          Product design: how it looks and what it says on shelf or wherever you sell it. Why? Well. Now we can talk about exploiting. Because if you DID make it through the maze I can guarantee you are the exception to the rule … most of your competitors didn’t … therefore you can exploit their failure to do so (marketing gurus call this “weakness”).

-          Marketing communication: this is obvious … but easier than you think (assuming you have made it to a ‘deep seated truth’) … why is it so much easier? Well.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm <I am thinking not humming>… because you have an opportunity to … well … speak the truth. Ok.  It’s harder than you think despite that fact. Because even if you make it to this point (having identified the truth) a shitload of people will panic … they will want to dress the truth up in Lady Gaga like clothing trying to make the truth look ‘sexy’ (or more appealing). Why? Because sometimes people think the truth is too bland and needs to be spiced up.  Marketing gurus make you think this way because they want to call his truth thing something like “an untapped compelling belief”. Yeah. Right. Marketing bullshit. Run away. As fast as you can.

So.  This is easy if you are around people who accept that it is easy.

Ok. Next.

A lot of good insights are wasted. Not just because the window of opportunity closes while you dither around with whether the insight is really an insight or whether it is sexy enough … but because even with a good, or even mediocre, insight it gets wasted because then no one wants to identify who the insight should be communicated to.

Huh?

Yup.

It can be a real head scratcher but let’s say you find a nifty insight against a specific group … and then all of a sudden some genius stands up and says “tell everyone that … maybe they just didn’t know ‘x’ and we need to tell them … because … well … your presentation was great … and we should tell everyone the truth.”

In marketing layman’s terms this is some spineless jellyfish who doesn’t want to agree on a targeting choice but rather go to some broad audience (this is the infamous shotgun versus rifle battle).

Suffice it to say if most CMOs/Marketing/Agency decision makers were generals their armies would be carrying around shotguns and not rifles.

I think the Cosa Nostra called them “luparas” (lupara is an Italian word used to refer to a sawn-off shotgun traditionally associated with Cosa Nostra. The shortened barrel of a lupara lend itself to easier concealment and the lack of choke contributes to a wider spread of shot when the weapon is fired).

Yeah.

Well.

This is sounding more and more like the Valentine’s Day Massacre so maybe it is appropriate.

And it all starts so innocently.

“We need an insight.”

And it sounds simple … align purchaser need, an insight, and customer benefit and you can typically have a great opportunity to identify a good marketing idea.

Maybe it is simple because, once again, success revolves around the truth.

And maybe it is so frickin’ hard because, well, once again, it revolves around the truth.

In the end?

I end up discussing the mafia and shooting myself with a Lupara.

friends, feedback, influencing & a new economy

So.

My thoughts on this topic were inspired by a trendwatching’s briefing called “The F-Factor.”

Their briefing (another excellent one by the way) discusses focuses how the impact of influencers’ on purchasing has increased because of the web (and the dynamics associated with the web).

By the way. Trendwatching has another excellent briefing called Crowd Clout from about 2007 or so which makes essentially the same point.

I am going to try and put my spin on their insights by talking a little about the past (the evolution of this whole influencer explosion) and the future (how it is creating a new economic model).

Let me begin by saying despite the advent of “social media & social marketing” that consumer decision-making has always been personal and social.

The truth is that consumer decision-making has always been about seeking feedback, leaning on what friends say and seeking ‘influencers’ thoughts … all of which influence the ultimate purpose.

This was true even before the media (or people seeking to create some ‘buzz’) added the word “social” to the marketing world. Yes. Even the marketing dinosaurs knew decision making ultimately had a significant social aspect.

What do I mean?

People talked amongst themselves.

People talked to their neighbors about home services.

People talked to relatives or friends about more personal decisions.

People reached out to trusted advisers (doctors for medical, veterinarians for pet stuff, dermatologists for skin stuff … well … you get the picture).

People talked and discussed.

In fact The Economist just did a great article on how Martin Luther built the entire Protestant faith off of ‘buzz.’

(boy … that is social media working at levels they could typically only dream of these days)

The difficulty we face in the current “what is buzzworthy” world we live in today is that it wasn’t called social back then therefore we seem to struggle in finding ‘successful past case studies’ (or at least ones that someone will pay attention to). In the “old” days … people simply sought out ‘experts’ (I use the term loosely … let’s assume the definition here is “someone who probably knows more than I do and can inform my decision making process”) to make a better decision.

Before social media you could always count on the following two factoids with regard to who influenced a purchase the most.

“Who do you speak with about making a purchase?”

1. Family. 1a. Friends. (you could flipflop or call it a tie pretty much all the time)

But something HAS changed.

The internet has changed our worldview on friends (and influencers).

“Our definition of friends has changed because of Facebook, and Twitter, where quantity as opposed to quality is now almost a mantra”.

Rick Murray, President, Digital Edelman Digitas

Well.

I don’t know that I totally agree with Rick from Digitas.

Oddly while social networks do increase quantity research has shown three key things (to indicate that quality is tagging along with the quantity characteristic):
1. A Pew Internet research study shows that internet has actually strengthened and expanded existing social roles of churches and fraternal organizations.  Therefore the quantity has simply strengthened existing quality.

2. the same research showed that more frequent communications via text actually ENCOURAGES the desire to spend more face-to face time

3. the research also shows that texting requires more careful crafting than a telephone or face-to-face communications and 3 out of 10 teens say “that they are more honest with friends when they talk online” therefore quality is the underlying foundation among all this “random quantity” discussion.

Next.

And while we often talk about how internet is influencing people we need to be careful with the ‘influencing’ word.

Research shows that the web can assist in education but ultimately the final influencer remains one and the same as the past.

The most tangible example I have at my fingertips of this notion is the most recent 2011 NPD Group Aftermarket Consumer Outlook Study:

Q: “Where would you go to learn how to do repairs on your vehicle?”

- Friend/Family                                                57%

- Vehicle Repair Manual                               46%

- Mechanic                                          42%

- Internet                                            42%

- Store Personnel                            16% (yikes)

Basically a Mechanic is AS influential as the Internet in this decision.

One word thought here. Wow.

So.

The main point here is that a consumer now has access and is aware of more people (true friends as well as web based friends) and can have more frequent communication due to the digital revolution. Yet. Social media is simply the fact that the traditional benefits of an acquaintance network (personal or professional) and friendships can be more expansively realized than before.

The other truth is that products today are at the mercy of crowds of friends. Crowds providing unsolicited feedback and influencing hordes of consumers making decisions on a daily basis.

Yes.

This is the “F-Factor:”

It is the expanding scenario of consumers increasingly tapping into their networks of friends, fans, and followers to discover, discuss and purchase goods and services, in ever-more sophisticated ways. (source: trendwatching.com)

The F-Factor is a real part of people’s lives because it provides real value. Value in that it offers a purchase decision making opportunity that is more efficient, more relevant, and more interesting and provides more “depth/breadth” than before. In the past consumers either had to spend endless time and effort on trying to discover the best of the best, or had to rely on sources that were distant, unknown or untrusted, and therefore potentially unreliable or irrelevant.

Now the six degrees of separation (at least in the influencer world) has shrunk significantly to a “no degree of separation” influencer world (this entire phenomena is inherently changing the trust value equation).

So.

Trendwatching does a nice job of identifying five ways that the F-FACTOR can influence consumer-buying behavior:

1. F-DISCOVERY: How consumers discover new products and services by relying on their social networks (Friends).

2. F-RATED: How consumers will increasingly (and automatically) receive targeted ratings, recommendations and reviews from their social networks. (by the way … this is creating an entirely new industry of something called ‘curated consumption’ where non-experts become distributors of expert like information).

3. F-FEEDBACK: How consumers can ask their friends and followers to improve and validate their buying decisions.

4. F-TOGETHER: How shopping is becoming increasingly social, even when consumers and their peers are not physically together. (in other words, the web permits consumers to share real time information and feedback and opportunities … and this is like a pebble in a pond syndrome where relevance & interest creates ripples difficult to quantify when it works).

5. F-ME: How consumers’ social networks are literally turned into products and services (curated consumption at its best).

This is one of those situations where the internet has unequivocally changed the dimensions of existing attitudes & behaviors. Simplistically the web has put the old F-Factor on steroids. I say it that way to point out that the web has not created anything new (attitude wise) but rather has encouraged a desired behavior to new boundaries.

The internet has also expanded an interesting existing consumer aspect to this entire “influencer” situation.

It is expanding the entire trend of putting consumers to work (whether they recognize it or not).

Think about his for a second.

This trend existed before the web. The easiest early example of this was in the fast food industry. For example the consumer of the fast food restaurant is also to some degree an actual producer of the meal.

-    Among other things, diners are expected to serve as their own waiters carrying their meals to their tables or back to their cars, sandwich makers (by adding fixings like tomatoes, lettuce, and onions in some chains), salad makers (by creating their own salads at the salad bar), and bus persons (by disposing of their own debris after the meal is finished).

This trend has existed for some time.

Putting consumers to work gained momentum with companies/brands after the birth of the fast food restaurant and has expanded to other industries:

-    Being a gas attendant  by pumping your own gas

-    Serving as a bank teller at the ATM machine

-    Working as the checkout cashier at the supermarket by scanning one’s own food, bagging it, and paying for it by credit card

-    Being a ticketing agent by using electronic kiosks to check in at the airport

-    Serving as an entertainment guide by co-creating a variety of experiences such as moving oneself through Disney World and its attractions

-    Performing traditional medical professional services by using do-it-yourself medical technologies (e.g., blood pressure monitors, blood glucose monitors, pregnancy tests) that allow patients to perform their own medical tasks

-    Being a caller on a call-in radio show

-    Being part of a Reality TV show

And now the web has enabled brands (or is it consumer empowerment like everyone suggests) to put consumers to work in a wide range of sometimes subtle and less material ways (this is where the F Factor truly comes into play).

Once again.

Think about that.

Much of what happens (and is created) online is generated by the user. Today’s web experience is often being defined by users producing content (individually as well as collaboratively). It wasn’t that way in the beginning when most of what existed on the original web was provider-generated but lately there has been an explosion of “consumers doing the work.”

Some examples of how the internet is putting consumers to work:

-    Wikipedia – where users generate articles and continually edit, update, and comment on them

-    Facebook, MySpace, and other social networking websites – where users create profiles composed of videos, photos, and text, interact with one another, and build communities

-    Second Life – where users create the characters, communities, and the entire virtual environment

-    Blogs – where the commentary is produced by the consumer

-    eBay – where users are their own selling agent & shipper

-    YouTube and Flickr – where mostly amateurs upload and download videos and photographs

-    Craigslist – where consumers (mostly) create the market

-    Amazon – where consumers do all the work involved in ordering products and write the reviews. (in addition users’ buying habits and site navigation are documented to recommend products)

-    Yelp! – where users create an online city guide by ranking, reviewing and discussing various locations and activities in their area

-    The GeoWeb, which consists of online maps where, increasingly, users are creating and augmenting content with Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo tools. In fact. Google Maps users can fix errors; add the locations of businesses; upload photos; link Wikipedia articles to, and blog about their experiences with, or reviews of, places on the map.

And that’s not all.

Start thinking about the new “location awareness” tools, often used in conjunction with ‘smart’ cell phones with GPS technology, which allow users to track where they are at any given moment and upload this information to websites such as Facebook, Twitter or one’s blog (Google Latitude, Yahoo’s Fire Eagle and Loopt mobile phone application).

Sure.

This type of consumer involvement in consumption was certainly not invented by the internet, but given the massive involvement in popular online sites, it can be argued that it is currently both the most prevalent location of this new type of consumption (consumer) purchase model … and it is certainly the most important facilitator as a means of consumption.

Bottom line.

It can be argued that the web is influencing an entirely new consumption model.

A new economic model (as I so succinctly suggested upfront).

This leads me to my big finish.

Friends, feedback and influencers is bigger than simply the web or how brands can compete in this transparent world (where putting consumers to work doesn’t mean they are an employee).

The F Factor is impacting America & capitalism (forget about the whole brand and branding discussion … this is much bigger than that).

Capitalism itself will be transformed, perhaps radically, in this F-Factor world we live in. Several thoughts lead me to this conclusion.

First. The inability of companies (brands) to control consumers in the way, and to the extent, that they have been able to control consumers in the past. Due to increased transparency there is a greater resistance to the incursions of obvious capitalism (e.g. efforts to gain greater control and greater profits).

This does not bode well for the companies dabbling in Facebook & twitter & social marketing who are doing so with the intent to “influence or guide purchase behavior.”

Second. It is difficult to think of today’s consumer, mentally & attitudinally, as being exploited in the same ways as before. The whole idea of exploitation is contradicted by, among other things, the fact that today’s consumers seem to enjoy, even love, their involvement and what they are doing and are willing to devote long hours to it … for no pay.

Third. The emergence of a whole new economic model to conduct business because of the internet. Traditional capitalism is dependent on the notion of the exchange of money for goods and services and profits are made in those exchanges. However, little or no money changes hands between the users and the owners of many websites (for instance, users do not pay Facebook or Twitter to use the services).

For one thing there is the unwillingness of corporations and other organizations to pay for work done by these new web based influencers. This is compounded by the fact the new consumer increasingly prefer, and are able, to pay little or nothing for that which they consume on the internet (news, blogs, social networking sites, and so on).

Think about this as part of a new economic model.

Friends … family … influencers … or extended employees?

Yikes.

That will raise some hackles.

Yeah. Think about it.

What I have outlined is contrary to what Humphreys & Grayson (2009) argued that when corporations are involved this type of consumerism is simply the creation of “temporary employees” and thus does not indicate a fundamental change in capitalism.

However I contend that entire business models based around these new consumer types (the so called “temporary employees”) who are unpaid and given the product for free indicates the possibility of a new form of capitalism.

Now.

If you are a business and you are reading this, think about the implications.

All these “friends” providing feedback (unasked for or asked for) and influencing gazillions of attitudes (which generate some type of behavior) are your employees (paid or not).

They are your associates.

They are an extension of all those people who come in every morning, drink your own bad coffee and use the internet inappropriately during business hours in your office.

When you look at them that way would you choose to treat them differently?

Do things differently?

Think about your “social media” plans differently?

Even sit down with strategic planning and think about your business model differently?

I will help out here.

The answer to all of those questions should be “yes.”

The web is a powerful powerful facilitator of influence & business.

You may elect to call it “friends & feedback quantity” architecture but I suggest if you want to be successful you think about it as a “quality” mechanism which can impact a new economic model.

Intimidating? Possibly.

But if you don’t think of it that way you will probably influence no one and end up on the slippery slope of irrelevance (with no friends).

my thoughts on education inspired by The Wire

So.

Every time I walk into a high school I have a feeling that education … well … that it could be better. For everyone. Teachers & all kids (no matter their socioeconomic status or whether they live in an urban or rural environment).

Shit.  Not could … that it should be better. And I imagine the crazy thing about educating our youth is that everyone wants it to be better.  I cannot envision anyone in the education system seriously not having the best intentions or wanting every kid who walks through the door on day one to learn more and get an education.

I don’t know what happens in other countries but in America’s case we are more class/caste driven which has an impact on kids’ education from the earliest age.

Simplistically … the more affluent send their kids to well financed school systems (public or private) while lower income families traditionally get a worse education (for a variety of reasons) in lower financed systems. By the way … this is not an indictment of teachers because i believe great teachers exist in all school systems.

And even if a lower income kid fights their way through the system to get to college … well … the system is still against them. A Dept. of Education study states low income family students with high test scores are less likely to complete their studies (cross the finish line as it were) then high income family students with lower test scores. In other words, poor children are much less likely to make good then we often like to think. Oh. And the information shows that this fact is truer in America then in Canada and Europe.

The Australian Education system also conducted a similar study.

Let me be clear (and the rest of the post will focus on this point).

Kids are no more, or less, smart based on their associated socioeconomic background.  A brain is a brain.

But.

Their socioeconomic background affects their ability to dedicate themselves to learning.

All that said … if you are interested in this topic you should watch season 4 of The Wire. It is the season which uses the high school education system as the main thread for the story line.

This season was so well done a number of universities actually use it to discuss the challenges within our existing education system.

Ok.

Let me begin by saying … if you truly believe in your heart that each and every kid deserves a “chance” then be prepared … the season is simultaneously hopeful, yet hopeless and, ultimately, disturbing … all at the same time.

You can see the challenges and opportunities all at the same time.

And it is an additional maddening aspect in that everyone who tries to fix the system loses.

I admit. It’s disturbing & demoralizing to see good intentioned people (and kids) repeatedly getting crushed (even though it is just a TV show).

And you wonder why you see good intentions squandered until you hear one of the characters on the show say something that is so sadly true … “This game is rigged.”

Look.We all know the system is “broken.”

And good income people can beat the system.

And, frankly, it is those people who suggest “there are no excuses for not getting an education or having an opportunity.”

And, frankly, that’s a bunch of bullshit.

Go teach at an inner city school for a day.

Shit. Go teach at any public school for a day.

“No excuses” is a phrase of blatant ignorance when you see what stresses face many of the lives of the children you see which actually are not ‘excuses’ but in fact … realities. Realities they must face day-to-day.

As you will see, for example, on The Wire is the drug addiction, the crime connected to the drug trade, the business of the drug trade, the barely functioning families, and the poverty which are realities impacting a young student’s ability to be engaged or even be consistently involved (and that doesn’t even touch upon the emotional “hope” aspect).

In that Wire season there are four boys who try to engage with learning and with school, and are occasionally successful (which each student recognizes and are extremely engaged in those situations) but their life situations just do not permit ongoing consistent progress.

The Wire clearly shows us that many kids, many good smart kids, will fail in school through no fault of the schools or of their own.

Ok.

On the other hand, on the ‘hopeful side’, the show showcases the amazing potential our youth exhibits – even in the face of the direst situations. I actually believe it showcases, almost better than I have ever seen, how young people grasp the ‘light’, even if it only appears for seconds, even within the darkest environments.

It is within those moments of viewing the season that you just want to pick up a phone and call someone and say “fix the education system” because it tears your heart into pieces to see what ’could be.’

I also loved how the show so definitively states that only an incredibly small number of students are so emotionally damaged by their circumstances that they are totally unable to respond to what school has to offer (and I happen to agree with them).

The show does this extremely well by taking a group of ‘project kids’ who are the most disruptive and troubled but showing how they are potentially capable of functioning in a learning environment.

The project is where they pull a small number of disruptive students out of regular classes and puts them in a special, smaller, class with a larger number of adults. The students in the project group are involved in the drug trade or are heading down that path. The project succeeds in two ways. It reduces disruption in the regular classes and it allows focused and appropriate attention, with a greater adult-to-student ratio, to the students in the project class.

Oops. Here is where a flaw in our existing system rears its ugly head … the program is terminated when the city’s educational administration decides that a program that is not raising test scores and that smacks of “tracking” is too politically risky. Oh. ‘Tracking’ or ‘profiling’ … swear words in today’s environment (although … I admit it is a slippery slope).

In other words … a promising initiative is eliminated because of rigid bureaucratic goals.

A promising initiative eliminated … that worked. And worked despite the issues that undermine learning in urban schools (although I would argue that it isn’t just urban schools but everywhere) like fragmented families, no families, teachers required to teach to the test, declining neighborhoods with few legitimate jobs, overwhelmed or indifferent leaders.

Oh.

And good initiatives get eliminated due to the fact that the education system is beholden to stats (or “jukin’ the stats” as the show reminds us).

Ah. The ‘stats’ (scores).

This season of The Wire discusses the statistics in that the school system needs to produce raised scores on standardized tests. As a result actual learning and teaching are deeply compromised. The Wire is particularly critical of the testing regime associated with the 2002 No Child Left Behind law in that just as the teachers (and the project class) are beginning to discover some viable strategies for teaching to the students they have to shift to prepping them to take the standardized tests. It is a vivid demonstration (albeit a theatrical one) of an empty gesture within the education system in which the students learn nothing of value and which derails their interest, and growing, if shaky academic engagement.

The system was set up with good intentions but the show displays the flaws.

The show also showcases another thing I encounter (nd this is my opinion) … that many of our schools seem to sanitize the troubling, often offensive, and challenging aspects of real life while the Life reality is that students are surrounded by a popular culture which deals bluntly, graphically, and harshly with real life reality. Ok. I admit I am not sure we want our schools to include all the inappropriateness that is commonplace in the popular culture because one would hope (or, let’s say I believe) our schools should show students what ‘could be’ (from a ‘taste of what is finer’ perspective). It is probably unrealistic on my part but ultimately my hope is that schools would teach the best of the best and give kids something to aim for (without ignoring what is real).

The balance is that the education system needs to exercise discretion but I believe we tend to underestimate what students can appreciate and understand.

I don’t know how schools and education can ignore perspective when teaching. The Wire reminds us that all education, whether you want to define school rules versus street rules or not, have to deal with any aspect of the following (I pulled this list from a formal sociology & education article):

-          intersections between representations of race, economy, and criminality

-          issues of masculinity

-          gender and sexuality in police and criminal cultures

-          the family, childhood, parenting, and criminality

-          re-imagining of the heroic beyond traditional narratives of America

-          roles for women in urban America (and roles for women in general)

-          the technology of crime

-          street speech and class-based communication

-          cultures of addiction and treatment

-          constructions of violence

-          stress and trauma narratives

-          education and class

-          interest groups and issues of governance

Some of these are big emotional issues and some may appear to be “not my kid’s type of issue” to some more affluent family readers …. but these are real issues … to all our kids (so don’t be fooled by what you think you see in your own life).

Anyway.

Four features of The Wire’s depiction are particularly worthy of note.

First, the “inner city” kids, like kids anywhere, are shown as bright and curious, and capable of learning. Second, the ability of the schools to educate these children is shown to be strongly compromised by the kids’ world outside of school—their absent or dysfunctional families, their distressed communities, and the lack of any visible accessibility of the world of legitimate work.

Third, despite these negative forces in the students’ lives, teachers and school personnel are capable of making small but significant contributions to children’s educational and personal growth.

Fourth, public schools are portrayed as natural and appropriate places for young people to be in the context of their developing lives (although the particular distressed school the boys attend is deficient in many ways).

In addition.

The Wire did a great job showing us how, in a broad perspective, we are failing our youth with regard to education.

Oh. And it reminds us that good things don’t always happen to good kids. And life can get in the way of even the best education.

But. The main thought?

The show wants to say that most of the kids in school, even in public schools, would be capable of making significant educational progress were their lives and communities not so chaotic and troubled. The Wire portrays the students as naturally curious and constantly learning.

In conclusion, one character on The Wire states the issue better than I could ever.

He predicts …  if we don’t solve it … “there will be an endless stream of kids who are not prepared for productive lives.”

global generation 11: learning by lurking

I called this “learning by lurking” but this is all about how the project global generation education initiative, because of its web based platform, creates learning through a unique aspect of web based collaboration.

This is thinking about the project global generation education initiative with a focus on collaboration for learning.

Oh. And, of course, how the project GG initiative can assist in reducing the children out of school numbers, increase literacy and most likely reduce future conflict … all through the collaborative aspects of the initiative.

Let me get a thought out of the way.

I have written a variety of articles on how collaboration is misused in the business world. Misused in that I believe ideas are driven by individuals and collaboration often dulls the edges of individual ideas (under the guise of improvement).

On the other hand … the traditional education system is ignoring the benefits of collaboration for learning … or maybe better said “the gathering & sharing of knowledge” particularly with regard to the global youth.

What I mean is that there is an opportunity within this context where children, utilizing a web platform,  could be driving the ideation (versus the current system where teachers facilitate learning and ideation).

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … sound like the inmates running the asylum? Not even close.

Anyway.

The focus of this write up is to sync up the idea of collaboration (due to the initiative’s web platform) and the original generational idea of “community individualism.” (global generation 1)

Web based children’s education collaboration represents an opportunity because:

1.            The existing way we view the education system, based on brick & mortar, is archaic. For a variety of reasons … collaboration included.

2.            The existing education system is archaic from a sociological perspective (creating a healthier collaborative mind).

But (ponder this):

“We are now at a point where we must educate our children in what no one knew yesterday, and prepare our schools for what no one knows yet.” – unknown author from an education article

So. It is possible archaic is a strong word … but maybe we should be using stronger words as we discuss education children (and improvements).

Yet. What I know for sure is the current global education structure misses the opportunity to globalize socialization of knowledge/education. What I mean by that is the existing brick & mortar inherently diminishes some education opportunities because of the face-to-face “clique” challenges.

Ok. I will come back to that last one because it is a humdinger of a thought.

-          Collaboration and education

Collaboration when discussing the internet is obvious.

I am going to avoid the obvious and utilize a twist on the idea by taking advantage of global consumer trends.  Two trends called Casual Collapse and Mass Mingling (source: trendwatching.com).

Casual Collapse and Education

Casual Collapse is the current seeming  ongoing blurring of many beliefs, rituals, formal requirements and laws that have defined specific societies.   And it continues to collapse because of the internet (to be specific – the cross-cultural sharing of information and knowledge empowered by the internet) and all this is happening without causing any particular apocalyptic aftermath. But it also appears In mature countries/cultures a ‘CASUAL COLLAPSE’ seems unstoppable (whether a government or an elderly culture wants it to happen or not).

People have grown up immersed in consumer culture – they ‘get’ it. But as everyone becomes more savvy about ‘what is happening and what people are thinking’ half way around the world they begin questioning the status quo conventional thinking. It is less tribal thinking but more global perspective.

Casual Collapse is not a negative trend but rather it is indicative of a variety of things (of which the web is a significant component).

But the web is a layer on a natural progression happening – the urbanization of emerging countries.

There’s an obvious link between the broad spread of more liberal attitudes and increasing urbanization globally (in Africa alone in 1980 28% lived in cities while today its 40% – 40 million people). As new arrivals find themselves distanced from traditional social and familial structures, and are exposed to a wider range of alternative goods, services, lifestyles, opinions and experiences, their tolerance to these alternatives grows, as does their interest.

The web simply accelerates what would have been happening naturally.

I am certainly not suggesting this will happen overnight. As trendwatching suggests … “compared to much trend thinking, CASUAL COLLAPSE moves at a glacial pace.”

And I am certainly not suggesting that everyone becomes overwhelmingly liberal as soon as they move to the city. but there is a clear trend for urban populations to have more socially liberal and tolerant views on a wide variety of issues.

And from Casual Collapse I shift to Mass Mingling.

Mass Mingling and Education

Within the construct of the Global Generation Children’s education initiative I am certainly not suggesting a Global mind. Nor is the intent to create a “global mind” (as one) or even a “Global society.” I am rather discussing the benefit of a global education initiative. And therefore I am  discussing collaboration as an extension of Mass Mingling through educational platforms to build empowered (or enlightened) individualism with a respect for the global perspective.

This is a big difference then creating a global mind.

This is about fostering innate curiosity and sharing knowledge … where children are then empowered to create their own ‘mind.’

This initiative is built upon the power of an individual’s mind (and the fact of power of one to make a difference).  So how the heck does that lead, or encourage, collaboration?

it maybe be easiest for me to discuss collaboration specifically within a construct of the “community individualism” generational characteristic I have proposed in terms of community, individual and the crossing of the two.

Nothing is more powerful within the individual child’s mind than curiosity.

A web based education initiative should encourage/enhance Collaboration that cultivates curiosity.

Most dictionaries define curiosity as something like “a state in which you want to learn more about something.”

(Bruce NOTE: they could possibly have made this a definition for children at the same time).

But it is also about being comfortable with uncertainty and not knowing, whilst at the same time being motivated to explore and discover more.

It is a human characteristic that as soon as you think you know something with certainty you no longer want to learn more about it, i.e., you are no longer curious.

But children are endless vectors of curiosity.

With children there’s a sense of not knowing it all going in with an innocent, open mind and an intention to learn more.

We are tapping into an unfillable well at this age (as long as we nurture it).

“The important thing is not to stop questioning… Never lose a holy curiosity. – Einstein

Yes. A bunch of people will say ‘it cannot be done through the internet.” Or. Even better … how can kids collaborate without guidance or a teacher.

Mass Mingling actually thrives on curiosity. Think about the characteristics of curiosity.

-          Most of the time, when we make a mistake, or see someone else making a mistake, our automatic reaction is to start making judgment and blame – we tell ourselves off, beat ourselves up about it, and we might even give someone else a hard time if we see them make a mistake. An d this only has the effect of triggering our stress response, which causes our thinking to become more rigid in our thinking.

Mass Mingling permits millions of young children to browse socially through information, existing knowledge and mingle with other’s thoughts – making mistakes along the way as they mingle.

But this curiosity needs to be nurtured by teaching children that mistakes are just information and feedback from the real world, letting us know how things are in the real world, and telling us what’s working and what’s not working, what the blocks and obstacles to progress are, and even tipping you off on opportunities to solve problems and meet needs that other people might have.

Children will be exposed to the idea that their mistakes can be the very things that lead you in the new direction that turns out to be way better than you’d previously conceived.

And, frankly, today’s education system doesn’t foster curiosity.

I find it tragic to watch bright, energetic youth become lethargic about education. The real problem lies with adults who lack a comprehensive view of learning, adults who are guilty of classifying real learning as being a difficult and frustrating experience. The focus on tests is creating a generation of students who equate learning with test results.

But ideas & innovative enlightened thinking does not arise out of a vacuum. It must be supported by a culture that encourages people to experiment with ideas and products. Original thinking and novel ideas should be affirmed and honored and cultivated. Even if it is simply original/novel in the eyes of the young.

A web based initiative can encourage creativity by helping students learn to assess and take intellectual risks as they learn more. In my eyes the goal of education should be to prepare children to be competent and original in their thinking … at any age.

The value of Casual Collapse & Mass Mingling

This is where Community and Individualism become interconnected. And the foundation of the Global Generation takes root.

A collaborative group of kids who have learned together, made mistakes together, learned FROM each other and maybe even laughed at, if not with, each other creates stronger respectful individuals … within an interacting global community.

It is a fact that education at an early age (and hopefuly continued) is indispensable in equipping citizens with the abilities and skills to engage critically, and act responsibly.

Anyway.

I found an interesting project being conducted along these lines (although I don’t believe they are thinking big enough).

a collaborative effort is under way on the issue of educational assessment and it offers insight into how it can happen and what motivates the companies involved.

Cisco is in a partnership with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Association of the Evaluation of Educational Achievement aimed at transforming global educational assessment and improving learning outcomes. Joining Cisco in this effort are Intel and Microsoft. Thomson says the three companies came together at the Learning and Technology World Forum in London “with the intention of changing the world.”

The three large, global technology companies have different business models – Cisco sells networks, Microsoft sells licenses and Intel sells devices – but they all compete for attention in the education market. All three are also committed to changing education in the United States and globally, and, according to Thomson, their leadership became convinced through the World Economic Forum that “education itself was still the best way to drive change in the world.”

The sheer number and variety of educational systems worldwide poses a significant challenge to any effort to effect change on a global scale. Thomson points out, however, there are three characteristics common to any system of education that guides the partnership’s work:

Here is the best thing I found …

Education everywhere is a social construct. It is not an industry or a vocation. “People come together to provide skills competencies and abilities for their children to succeed.”

  1. Systems are comparable enough in their desire to measure progress. A kind of assessment unique to education is common across all systems.
  2. There is still an economic component to education. In all countries its purpose includes fostering social development, citizenship and an ability to participate in the economy.

The spokesperson  says that collaborating to tackle the issue of educational assessment worldwide requires Cisco and the others to step out of their “comfort zone.” They are accustomed to relationships through which they sell billions of dollars in technology to the education sector. Now they have to listen to those same customers and ask what they are using it for.

“And sometimes saying to customers you don’t really need to buy more technology from us.” Thomson remarks. “What we need to do is figure out a better way to use it.” Figuring these things out cannot be driven by revenue generation, he stresses. “It’s not about selling more. It’s about changing things.”

The kind of change that Cisco, Intel and Microsoft are striving for will not happen without involving academics, countries (the owners of the educational systems) and corporations in identifying and assessing 21st century skills.

Thomson says that the “Uncommon Table” the Boston College Center seeks to create for collaboration on education will need a “big tent.” That’s just the approach being taken by Cisco and the other companies. Their initiative on assessment draws from educators in Australia, Finland and Portugal, parts of Asia, and the United States, if the fragmentation of the U.S. educational system can be worked with. He says success will take willing partners open to foreign advice and academics prepared to collaborate and ready to adapt change into their own systems.

“If we can find that right way to keep that disparate group of people working together; if we can find that right ecosystem at a national level to actually implement, we’re going to make a tremendous difference,” the spokesperson predicts. “And that’s a difference that’s not there to drive revenue. It’s not there to create new product streams. It’s there simply to create a better world.”

(I would like to note that this can actually be found in my Global Generation how to make it happen & fund write up … and I said a similar thing).

I applaud Cisco, Intel & Microsoft … although I would point out to them that they could do it another way … the project global generation way.

What I DO like about what they are trying is that they are potentially solving a core issue – funding.

Ok. Moving on.

Socialization and a web based Education

Beyond collaboration ‘missed opportunities’ let me go back to how brick & mortar is archaic from a socialization perspective.

Existing education systems are a breeding ground for a caste system.

Kids are brutal in a face-to-face system.

Online can be just as brutal … but in a faceless way.

Who you are and how you dress and what you say (even the language you speak) becomes secondary to “what you say and what you think” in an online community.

All people are equal in body online. sociologically this means that ideas and thinking create the caste system.

And before someone begins slamming on “decreasing social skills because of the internet” take this factoid along for the ride …

PewInternetResearch: “Our research shows face-to-face time between teenagers hasn’t changed over the past five years. Technology has simply added another layer on top. Yes, you can find studies that suggest online networking can be bad for you. But there are just as many that show the opposite.”

In my eyes the value of an educational  web world is that it permits a child to regularly place themself in unfamiliar situations, or with unfamiliar people, and provides  the opportunity to be exposed to ideas and views that they’ve not been exposed to before.  And all of this provides an opportunity for real-life evidence/knowledge to challenge existing certainties – and open the way for curiosity.

We have the opportunity to integrate the newest forms of interactive technology with children’s natural curiosity (and a generation that has web abilities almost beyond our understanding) to create natural conditions in which collaboration can occur.

-          The natural anonymity of online tools frees us from tacit biases or self-doubt and encourages individual leadership.

-          Asynchronous tools allow global work teams release from the bonds of time zones to tackle projects with increasing effectiveness and productivity.

-          Social networks now become visible through community tools allowing financial, time, human and other organizational assets to be redeployed toward developing innovative approaches to unique problems, rather than reinventing solutions to problems that have been previously solved.

So.

Lets move along from socialization socializing and discuss socializing learning.

I call it … Learning by Lurking

Twitter has certainly taught us you don’t have to be an active participant … you can be a ‘lurker’ … and participate (or build a viable network system and have people be involved). And in education’s case it isn’t creepy … it can actually benefit a dormant mind … or a personality that doesn’t feel comfortable stepping forward. In other words, all have the opportunity to benefit from the few great minds.  And providing an opportunity for the few who don’t have a voice (but have the mind) to be able to finally step forward at some point.

THAT is the benefit of a global NON brick & mortar system.

Online permits some of the best minds, but possibly not the most socially acclimated, to rise and maximize their talent.

Such places could even be more than just schools but genuine hubs for related activities for the entire community. With a global connection to the net – maybe not the net but another layer (along the lines of facebook which is also another layer of net) an education/informational platform awaits to be activated by a mind. (note: as outlined in global generation 6 this is hardly pie-in-the-sky nor cost prohibitive in this day and age)

Another ‘lurker’ (or maybe better says ‘anonymity’) aspect of the web enabled platform  is that it permits mistakes … maybe some spectacular mistakes … with little or no social repercussions.

Now.

Am I suggesting social skills aren’t important? Nope. They are.

But here and now I am talking about education and enlightenment.

Frankly the current education system is not about enlightenment.

Sorry folks.

That just is the truth.

The benefits of Lurking & Collaboration summary (or … The Big Close …)

At its most basic level we are teaching our children the way they need to act within a learning construct at such an early age that when they grow up they will not depart from such behavior because it is ingrained (positively).

Behaviorally the child’s mind experiences the right way of dealing with issues & thinking & ideation so that it becomes a natural instinctual act. It becomes habits that produce profitable outcomes in their adult years (hopefully in the form of ideas & accomplishments).

This idea is truly about teaching kids, beginning at the preschool age, relationship-building collaborative skills that creates a mental foundation on how to deal with others AND educate.

Even prior to a child entering a traditional classroom (should that opportunity exist) there are opportunities to teach them how to interact & ideate with other people in a positive way. And the project global generation children’s education idea is truly about learning collaboration skills at their most rudimentary level.

I also believe, in my heart of hearts, that this is the best way for humankind as a great way to preserve and instill languages and cultures to counter the homogenization of urbanism combined with globalism.

Yes.

That is fostering Community Individualism.

When collaboration takes place between people who realize the benefit of smooth working relationships then higher creative achievement and productivity is accomplished. Healthy cross-functional teams working in concert for the greater good eventually translates into efficient operations, regardless of whether in an academic, work, social or home environment. In the end, society benefits from groups performing productively with another. Of course, teaching the basics of all of this at the preschool age means a greater likelihood of kids continuing positive collaboration abilities as they progress in life.

And I do believe that the structure of web based schools/schooling with children as young as five or six in which they can express their opinions, share thinking & ideas and ultimately propose their own solutions creates a solid foundation for a ‘community individualism drive/intent’ Global Generation. It is this kind of attitudinal construct which offers unlimited opportunities for leadership and engagement.  And it is this type of education structure which, by the time those five- and six-year-olds reach an appropriate graduation age, they will have a profound and enduring understanding of what it means to be in a collaborative society and have the ability to contribute within their own community … as well as a global level if given the opportunity.

This is an idea of molding a people from diverse origins, cultural practices, languages, into one collaborative group of thinkers, within a framework which has to be democratic in nature (because it crosses any and all geographic boundaries, yet it can be absorbed within any cultural construct.

And by doing so it mitigates conflicts and adversarial interests without oppression and injustice but rather through expanding brain power.

Whew.

Sound big and audacious? Yup.

Sound like it could better individuals? Yup.

Sound like it would therefore better any country construct (regardless of its unique government or religious direction)? Yup.

Sound possible? You bet. I call it the Global Generation children’s education initiative.

global generation: education finds a voice

Well.

Global children’s education seems to be finding a voice.  Ok. A number of voices (imagine if they all worked together).

I was pleased to write about project global generation and a global children’s education initiative again inspired by  writing the 2010 MTV Europe awards. Huh? Yup … but don’t be scared .. it is actually relevant .. and entertaining with regard to global education.

So.

Some background (because I am assuming many of my readers have never seen the Europe Awards). The 2010 MTV Europe Awards are something to see (everyone should take a minute to watch at least one).

I have seen a number of them but they mostly have some show-stopping performances, and this one had increasingly skimpy costume changes (Katy Perry seems to make a gazillion changes).

Hard to describe but it is VERY different then an American awards show.

But the awards ceremony was simply the opportunity to be able to showcase what I wanted to write about.

They this “Free your Mind” award (I don’t know if we have it in the USA).

And it’s awesome.

And it’s awesome because somewhere out there someone had to recognize that not only is music a possible spokesperson for good (because of the iconic status it has on occasion) but someone also recognized that music seems to have the ability to align people.

This year’s award was (in my eyes) extremely well deserved and extremely well presented.

Shakira won this year for her inspirational anthem ‘Waka Waka (It’s Time for Africa)’ which was used to promote universal education and her charitable work in Africa.

And as she wins she states …  ‘music is the soundtrack of our lives.’

(Amen sister)

-          on a separate note … she also has a separate foundation trying to improve education in her home country of Columbia as well as she has spoken at the UN as part of her commitment to children’s education and the UN Millennium Initiative (the 2nd goal in the Initiative is about global education for kids)

Anyway.

I don’t particularly like Shakira’s music but I don’t give a shit.

In this case her focus is on target … she says it like it is … and, the best, she did something. In fact she is doing a lot of something. Good for her.

But global children’s education got an added bonus during the awards show.

Oh.

And if I could bottle this ‘added bonus’ up and use it over and over and over again to showcase the importance of education to the youth and the impact we adults can make on this initiative I would (and I may).

Here is what happened.

30 Seconds to Mars did a pretty amazing introduction to the award and synthesized the importance of global education before actually introducing Shakira for the ‘free your mind award.’

This is an incredible well articulated thought.

30 Seconds intro to Shakira: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wt4iBYEJa8

Let’s be clear about something (whether you like 30 Seconds to Mars or not).

Jared Leto is an excellent speaker.

Let me say that again (because a shitload of people will disregard him as a soap star and make believe rock star).

Jared Leto is an excellent speaker.

And a compelling speaker.

And frankly he used his fame and the stage to actually say something worthwhile. And I believe everyone should give him credit.

I know I do.

He articulated the big idea better, ok , as well as anyone would, or could, ever have.

Anyway.

That was a bonus.

Ok.

One more bonus.

The Waka Waka video which helped Shakira win the award:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ssflEr3s44&feature=related

That’s it for this post.

From a global perspective I believe poverty & children’s education are the two most important issues that need to be addressed for the betterment of the world’s population. While people may argue I believe if you fix these two things everything else will fall I place (Human Rights, resource management, etc.).

And from a global perspective (in finding a solution to global education for the young) it appears there are some outstanding individual efforts … in combination with a powerful overarching institution like the UN which has incorporated it into a larger Millennium initiative … gosh … imagine what they could do if the collaborated and worked together? (gosh)

Anyway.

Congratulations Shakira.

Congratulations Jared.

You don’t know me … but I appreciate what you did and are doing.

(and by the way … if you do happen to read this check out my project global generation initiative at www.projectglobalgeneration.com because I think you would like it)

global generation 10: 115+ million children out of school

Okay, here we go, back to discussing global education for children.

I just got my hands on The UNESCO “children out of school” global research study (it is a study focused on The UN Education for all Campaign and Millennium Development Goals in which, worldwide, it attempts to ensure that no child is excluded from receiving a primary education).

Official title: The study from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics in Montreal – Children Out of School: Measuring Exclusion from Primary Education.

This study is amazing.

Particularly if you care about what kids are, or are not, learning globally.

And particularly if I needed a specific tangible objective for project global generation children’s education initiative.

Let me state some things (before I go into one of my diatribes).

Globally, 28% of all children at official school entry age are not in school (that translate into almost 18% of ALL global children are not in school).

Yup.

Think about it. That’s almost one in 5 of all children. Just less than 30% of all kids who should be getting an education.

This is the kind of stuff that really gets me going.

This is the kind of information that makes me believe a web based children’s education initiative is THE way to future education success.

And while one in 5 is scary … I believe the numbers are understated (in terms of the issue).

UNESCO did an excellent job of isolating kids in school versus kids not in school (and normalizing the numbers from country to country).

But there are a couple of things which makes these numbers scary.

They did not measure dropout (and this is a MAJOR issue when discussing a lot of global rural communities).

They did not measure quality of education (that’s another discussion for another day).

And the numbers (issue) is certainly skewed toward emerging countries … and we in the industrialized countries certainly understand what issues reside in the education system we have today (and the numbers don’t isolate that issue).

The historical data shows a decline in the number of children out of school. But they also indicate that the Millennium Development Goal of universal primary education by 2015 is most likely out of reach.

And I am going to show some numbers that may make it appear like we are being successful in creating a global education base (the graph plots trend data on the number of children out of school calculated by UNESCO for the period 1999-2005 and by UNICEF for the period 2002-2006 and the 2002 estimate in the latter trend line is based on joint work by UNICEF and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics):

But we need to look beyond ‘the numbers.’

The truth is a little more disturbing.

If we assume that the reduction in the number of children out of school continues at the same average rate as over the past years (which is a big assumption because trends tend to flatten over time) more than 30 to 40 million children will still be out of school by 2015. We will certainly have failed in our effort to secure primary education for all children.

In addition.

The study reflects, as they isolated issues, that children who do NOT enter education at the appropriate entry age are significantly more likely to drop out (stop) education.

But.

Let’s stick with the issue as of today.

The study states that there are almost 115 million (out of a possible 650 million) children who are not gaining an education.

Unacceptable my friend … unacceptable.

So lets move on to seeking solutions and where to start by sharing some thoughts concluded from the study:

-          Mothers matter (more than dads). The presence of a mother in household increases likelihood of education .. as well as NOT likelihood of education. If a mother has no education a child is significantly less likely to go to school. In fact 2 times more likely to be out of school.

-          Poverty matters. 84% of out of school children in Latin America come from the poorest 60% of hhlds.

-          Religion has no (statistical) significance.  For all we pontificate about the suppression within some religions from a statistical significant it ain’t a dot on the map compared to other factors.

-          Gender is also not significant (we just need more kids being educated … not girls or boys).

-          In terms of sheer numbers India leads the pack representing almost 23% of the total

-          In 14 African countries 50% or more are not attending school (which is scary because this country represents a significant growth population in the global economy).

Ok.

Those are some facts.

Some thoughts (because I still do believe in a global web based kid’s education initiative).

Let’s go to the big one.

Year one is important.  REALLY important.

If you don’t start a kid at the right time … well … the odds of them getting the knowledge you desire decrease significantly.

You have to get them started.

In my eyes that is all about engaging their innate curiosity (that isn’t a research thing that is a Bruce thing).

I tend to believe part of the value of getting into the game early is that it sparks the natural/inherent internal engine inside each child.

Funding & getting kids in the game

So.

Let’s take a minute on “getting in the game.”

The Guardian just had a nice commentary on why poverty matters and financing/funding for The UN Education for all Campaign and Millennium Development Goals.

Oh.

Just in case you don’t know … this is the specific Millennium Development Goal (number 1 is directed toward Poverty and there are 8 goals in total).

-          Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education targets

Target 2a: Ensure that all boys and girls complete a full course of primary schooling

- Net enrolment ratio in primary education

- Proportion of pupils starting grade 1 who reach last grade of primary

- Literacy rate of 15-24 year-olds, women and men

Will we reach the Millennium universal primary education goal by 2015?

No way. Not with the numbers I showed earlier. It will be a combination of children not even having the opportunity combined with the drop out rate.

The only way we can attain the goals (and all of the above, not some, are imperative to meet) without some innovative financing and thinking.

Here is the Guardian article on the funding challenge:

The MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) promised education for all, but to avoid failing the world’s most disadvantaged children, we need a global fund. http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/dec/28/universal-primary-education-innovative-financing

So.

Unfortunately money does matter (even where this is good intent).

Do I agree with a global fund? You bet.

Do I believe it should be private investment driven rather than UN driven? You bet.

Why? Well … as I outlined in my Global Generation funding aspect … I believe someone with a truly philanthropic perspective (a betterment globally for all) is the only one who will have the kahones & fortitude to forge what needs to happen … across all geographic boundaries.

But funding of what (because just having the dollars is not enough if the idea is flawed)? This is where some innovative thinking should be kicking in. And there needs to be some innovative thinking because to truly have a global education initiative it needs to accommodate a couple of things:

-          This Poverty issue (or what can someone afford). Why? Because poverty is a root cause of students dropping out of school. For example .. the Cambodia SES Survey found the literacy rate in rural Cambodian areas was a mere 64%. In the area around Kravanh, one of the remote SC locations, poverty is widespread. Making matters worse, many students live so far away from larger villages that they are unable to get to a traditional school. And with the poverty, their families can’t afford the school supplies, supplementary class expense or transportation to help their children continue in school.

(I mention that because a web based education system resolves lack of urbanization and supplementary class expense)

-          Lack of urbanization. While emerging countries are urbanizing the fact it globally we are dependent upon a thriving rural community. Dependent not only from an economic point of view but also from a sustainable point of view. and if you combine a lack of affordable transportation infrastructure we need to find a viable non-brick & mortar education infrastructure to provide the access.

Of course I have a point of view on the innovations in the education infrastructure.

Global access (and the web)

Ok.

Let me attach another factoid (because I mentioned Africa earlier and that continent is an important segment of the global challenge).

Africa has over 600 million mobile phone subscribers.

This more than USA or Europe (I didn’t make that fact up).

Yes.  More than USA or Europe (surprising isn’t it as we walk up & down our streets and seemingly everyone has a mobile phone).

I state that to make the point there is an education opportunity here beyond the tried & true brick & mortar school system.

And while we in the industrialized world may not get it, or understand it, there is an entire world out there existing off a mobile technology platform (for more than texting, calling & sending pictures).

So often we focus on what is right in front of us rather than seeing the big picture. The big picture isn’t face to face.  The big picture is mobile technology.  “Cloud” education and collaboration.

This probably sounds wacky to many of my readers but you need to take yourself out of your own situation and see yourself in a different place in a different environment.

Mobile technology is going to drive the emerging economy and world.

Think about this.

Today Africa emerging countries) only represent 2.5% of total global economy.

And while having 600 million mobile phones only 10 percent of the geography is mobile enabled.

Oh.

And while it may be easy to think they don’t have the leadership to allow it to happen this portion of the world is encountering a higher level of peace & stable government (whether we like it or not) then ever before.

If you examine generational trends you would see that the emerging countries (let’s just say Africa) or on the cusp of their own industrial revolution … with an internet engine which past industrial revolutions have never had before).

Ok, my friends, we will never see something like this ever again.

This is like having etch-a-sketch minds … millions of brilliant innovative intelligent minds … with NO preconceived notions (a blank etch-a-sketch) creating new ideas.

I hate to tell everyone here (in the good ole USA and any industrialized countries) but they are gonna think of shit we have never thought of ever before (and it will be good shit … things we can all benefit from).

C’mon.

Beyond Africa specifically … we are talking about 115 million untapped minds.

This is about potential and “what could be” (ok. what will be).

I am not going to go through all the characteristics to showcase how all the emerging economics are simply in the neophyte stage of “what has already been” because if you don’t just believe it inherently than all the facts I may show you won’t convince you.

Look.

The point of all this is:

-          There is a global education issue.

-          There is a global education opportunity

-          There is a need to look at education in a non traditional way to maximize the opportunity.

In the end, Bruce opinions aside, there are 115 million kids not getting an education. For chuckles add another 84 million who drop out, for a variety of reasons, and say we have 199 million kids who are going to be uneducated adults.

What a waste of mind power.

What a frickin waste.