Last night I had the pleasure of seeing Greg Mortenson speak. Greg started a campaign 16 years ago to increase the number of rural schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which has since grown into the Central Asia Institute (among other initiatives). I could say a lot more about him, but I’ll let you catch up with his bio. PS I might as well tell you to read at least one of his two books, because they have a lot of really great insight (I’m sure many of you have actually read Three Cups of Tea).
There were several points during the discussion that made me think of Girls in Tech and some of the philosophies and missions we support. I’ve listed a few of the below.
The importance of empowering young girls. One of the major foci of Mortenson’s work is not only to increase the educational opportunities of children in these areas, but specifically of young girls. His idea is if you educate a girl, they effect a whole community (based on various factors such as the fact that they don’t leave for rural areas, they are nurturers, and they are generally the teachers of families, and thus communities).
The importance of listening to your elders. This wasn’t specific to young girls per se, but when Mortenson asks young kids whether they have regular discussions with and learn from their grandparents, maybe 10% of the kids in the US raise their hands. It’s 80-90% in countries like Pakistan and Afhganistan. My first thought? That’s so awesome.
The importance of women in terms of peace. I spent a summer in graduate school researching the Bangladeshi “terrorist scene” with the goal of identifying the threat to the US of terrorism that may or may not be coming out of the madrasa (school) system. As I’m reaching the time for the conference report of findings, it was becoming clear that the threat to the US was in fact quite low. However, what was more clear was that there was still domestic unrest, hostility, local acts of violence and distaste for the government…. All good ingredients for terrorism. However, one of the most promising ways in which that could be combated based on the current system in place was to educate and empower the women in the community, who were not only the family leaders but often the teachers in these schools. This alone could be powerful enough to quell several types of violent outburst. Mortenson used the example of jihad: when an individual wishes to declare jihad of any sort, they must get the approval of their mother. When the mother is more educated, they are much less likely to give that approval. Enough said.
So much of this rings for Girls in Tech. Empowering the next generation of women is a very important part of our mission, whether it’s locally or internationally, but also gaining valuable knowledge from the generations before us. Both of these apply no matter what your age. I know one of my goals in the Boston Chapter has been and will continue to be to get the involvement of all age groups, from young girls to grandmothers, because there’s so much that can be done when you can capture everything that’s in that span.
And lastly, in terms of number three, I mean, it’s simple. Women rock in a serious way. And the more we can all do to give them the means to rock, fantastic. Isn’t that why we’re all here?
I was asked recently in an exercise to write on a small piece of paper what I know about digital activism. In an effort of conciseness, I developed the following equation for what factors go into a successful occurrence of digital activism. Keep in mind, these are also organized based on the order in which they would – or should – happen, although the process can happen so quickly that it can be difficult to make the distinction between them.
Circumstance: There is a certain situation or problem whereby an individual, a group or an organization seeks to have their voice heard or their problem solved. An example could be a repressive situation, a crisis, or a specific political cause.
Goals: From this circumstance and desire for a greater share-of-voice come the goals of the individual, group or organization identifies the goals or solutions to their situation/problem. What do they ultimately hope to achieve? It’s at this point that the circumstances are such that someone or a group of people decide they’re going to take action.
Strategy: As expected, once you’ve established your goals, most of the successful campaigns have a big-picture strategy that was developed during the process.
Technology: Once the above landscape is made clearer, a digital technology or technologies are identified as being the most useful and capable to implement. This decision can be made base don various factors: what’s used most, what infrastructure is in place, what level of “reach” the tool has, etc.
Tactics: This is when you get down to the detailed way in which you’re going to use the technologies/technologies to get to your end goal.
It’s important to note in this model where the technology decision is made. The thing is, this isn’t always how instances of digital activism come about. Sometimes it’s a mix of all of these at once, sometimes it seems like things “transpire” organically because there’s a certain technology available.
However, at some level (whether the process seems organic or not), this choice of tool comes after some assessment of the landscape and identification of the problem and development of goals, and after the decision is made to take action.
I’m prepping for a strategy session this weekend in DC to develop a strategy for a new organization that focuses on analyzing the deeper issues around digital activism. As such, we’ll be discussing at length the structure of the organization: a digital organization.
For the most part, none of us are in the same city at the same time, and we’ll be doing much of our work… well…digitally. This is quite fitting, but each of the five people attending the strategy meeting have been in digital organizations before, and we’ve seen both the benefits and the perils.
I’m piecing together my Ignite Talk on the subject, and I’ll be focusing specifically on both the positives and negatives of leading a digital organization.
I’ll be posting up my presentation in a few days, but would love your input based on your experience of working in mostly virtual situations.
I posted a few of my marketing predictions over at Other Side Group, but here’s another set that includes digital activism and other goodies.
Location-based digital technology use will give way to several major advances in the fields of citizen journalism and digital activism. Patrick will agree with me – there will be a major increase in convergence of LB technologies and digital mapping tools, and we’ll probably see a lot of new, ad hoc use cases. There may be a little structure put around the field, but the number of new cases will delay its maturity to some extent.
Cases when moderate (”regular”) Muslims speak out against radicalism will not only increase, but the media will start to report on these cases. This isn’t only important when it comes to mobilizing of the positive and progressive voices with Islam, but it will also be incredibly important in creating a more positive image of the religion in the eyes of much of the world, especially this country. We’re already seeing it here and here.
Also for digital activism and citizen journalism, mobile will be a force, not only for marketing, but also for communications and mobilization of people.
People are going to start getting tired of the thousands of fundraising pleas that are in the social media sphere and do something about centralizing efforts.
As I said on OSG, personal branding is going to be very important and influential. I’ve worked pretty darn hard at personal branding, and, if I must say so myself, have done at least a reasonable job at it. But it takes work. Oh, and personal branding online and the effects of web 2.0 on personal brand management are going to be HOT HOT issues.
What do you think is coming up in the next year and decade?
[This article was published on 1 January 2010 in the Boston Herald's business section as part of a series on the STEM efforts in Massachusetts]
One of Massachusetts’ most worthwhile and promising initiatives is the STEM program, which recognizes the state and nationwide need to develop the next generation of strong and skilled scientists and engineers in order to guarantee a globally competitive nation in the 21st century.
As one of its immediate statewide goals, Massachusetts aims to double the number of bachelor’s degrees in the STEM fields – science, technology, engineering and math – by 2020, with a special focus on currently underrepresented groups.
Making up one of these groups are girls and women. Currently, only 25 percent of graduates in most scientific fields are women, and the percentage of the nation’s professional scientists is the same, and in many fields, much lower.
Engaging and empowering girls while they are still developing their interests and skill sets have been identified as primary ways to increase these numbers and develop the future class of women engineers, mathematicians, engineers and scientists.
There’s no escaping the recent headlines of big names having something “private” being discovered, and having their brand tarnished – sometimes severely. And there’s also no lack of backlash by said big names on the issue of being able to have a private life that’s private.
Take Tiger for example (I didn’t even know what link to use there, since there are pages and pages of them just from today). Is it “fair” that millions – really billions – of people just found out about his private affairs? I mean, the guy just wanted to play golf, right? To some extent, I feel for the guy. A lot of people cheat and no one hears about it. I don’t need to belabor the point, you’ve heard the argument.
Here’s why this case (and other similar cases) are different though. Aside from just playing golf, he was taking millions upon millions of dollars from sponsors to be “their guy.” Now, a lot of those sponsorship dollars were because he’s good at what he does and he’s not so bad to look at. But you can bet your bottom dollar that a pretty decent chunk of that money was to either explicitly or implicitly go towards being a role model – for golfers or dreamers of any age.
By taking that sponsorship money, he – and others alike – are also taking with it the responsibility to actually be good role models. And I don’t mean this in the idealized “what it means to be a role model.” blah blah blah. He is literally paid to portray an image that gets people to buy xxx product. Last I checked, that image probably didn’t include late-night rendez-vous with numerous (kind of trashy?) women who aren’t his wife.
Wait. Really? It’s a danger to democracy? Because you were caught drunk and grinding at a club with younger male voters, or berating one of your countryman, or insulting cameramen? Because your privacy was violated?
What’s my point? Not to say “You deserve it.” These situations that are becoming public now after so many years of remaining private are actually marks of someone’s character, and often the people in question are in positions where that very character matters.
What do you think of when you hear that someone’s cheated on their spouse, even just once? Do you think “Oh, that’s not smart, but that’s his private life”? Or do you think “Huh, that probably says something about his or her overall character that could play out in bigger ways.” If I saw a prominent political figure getting down on the dance floor after several drinks, I’d at the very least say to myself, “Gee, I don’t feel like I want them waking up tomorrow and making a major decision on the long-term future of my healthcare benefits.” Maybe that’s just me though.
Perhaps it’s the reverse, maybe NOT having this level of transparency is actually the danger to democracy. If we’re going to instill trust in our officials, I might feel better knowing they’re respectful and…well…trustworthy. Getting out of the political realm, maybe some background checks should be conducted before multi-million dollar contracts are signed with sports figures or celebrities. If you’re going to try and rope in the next generation of teenage golfers… you might want to make sure he doesn’t have 2 or 15 relationships with random waitresses and ex-playgirl models (hey, it’s their mothers who buy them the golf clubs).
So yes, I do have some sympathy towards respecting peoples’ privacy in most matters, and to some extent in the matters listed above. But honestly, I’d have to say you were just plain dumb if you thought that your actions off the course or out of the office don’t matter, and you really can’t think that pulling the “please respect my privacy” card is going to work (or is even justified).
In short, a few things I’d like to point out to Tiger and others:
I know all you ever wanted to do was play golf, and man can you play golf.
But if you want your privacy respected at the same time, just play golf, and don’t take sponsorship money.
And if you do, respect that sponsorship money because it will stop coming at the drop of a hat when your private life gets a little bit too much to handle.
PS in taking sponsorship money, you’ve created a brand. It’s the Tiger brand. Which you then had to hire a PR firm for. Yes, a PR firm for one person. And a manager. And a publicist. This means you’re public, and transparency issues still stand. If you start a fire, you better be prepared to deal with it, because “please respect my privacy” doesn’t work anymore.
Oh, and also expect that you’re going to disappoint millions billions of people.
[Endnote: I should have titled this "A small rant on...." but was thinking it was going to start out tame and organized... so much for that].
Update – 17 December: I was out to dinner last night with a man named Bernie Schilberg, which may mean nothing to you, but he knows a lot of big time sports figures, so naturally we got to talking. He recently talked to one of his all-time favorites, who’s background may have been…checkered. His advice to Tiger? “If you gotta let off some steam, go have a Saturday afternoon game of guys golf and leave it at that.”
While I support open access to information (and remember that most of this information is available already, although perhaps not so readily), I also recognize the dangers of allowing people access to data without proper context or filters. The article talks about it a little bit, but there are unfortunately a LOT of people who just don’t know how to properly analyze data, and there are also unfortunately a lot of people who are willing to manipulate or abuse data for their benefit.
It’s a really interesting topic as we’re entering an era when, at least in this country, people are starting to demand access to certain things, and transparency is a huge issue. Do we have a line in mind when it comes to the amount of data? Is it a matter of what form it comes in?
While I tend to agree that, in the absence of perfect data, actions can and sometimes should still be taken (As Evgeny Morozov has stated on several occasions), what happens when people a little less thoughtful get their hands on only limited data?
It would be ideal, of course, to have the data already run through a series of “experts” and analysts (not that that means it’s necessarily truth), or at the very least put in some format that allows people to understand all of the factors involved in a given situation and put the data into context…. but then we’d be really running budgets thin on the amount of government time that process would take.
So what then? Disregarding the instances alluded to above where action is still necessary with inadequate information, how to we handle the desire for access to information (disregard the instances alluded to above where action is still necessary with inadequate information) against the risks it might hold in terms of interpretations or abuse?
[Sidenote: this is not my rant post. I'll get that up tomorrow]
I had a quick thought on building a strategy for an organization or a company. I’m going to be involved in putting together the long-term strategy of one of the organizations that I’m involved in. We’ve been lucky enough to have a DC-area think tank ask us to come in, and they’ll give us a weekend full of strategy consulting.
In preparation for the session, I was thinking about some of the major things I’d like to accomplish. One big thing for me, which has been an issue in several arenas, is how to not only get people excited about your mission/vision/goals etc, but how to communicate that in a way that ensures continual excitement and, most importantly, long-term commitment.
I’ve found that it’s very easy for people to get swept up in some of the initial momentum of an organization that they feel strongly about. But in a lot of cases, while that feeling might have initially resulted in action, it slowly diminishes after a few months or so. It makes it difficult to build teams that will effectively drive things forward for the long-haul.
I would love to hear of anyone else’s experiences in situations like this, and what solutions they might have. Any piece of advice helps in these sorts of things…..
I was on Cyber Village’s “
I’m prepping for a strategy session this weekend in DC to develop a strategy for a new organization that focuses on analyzing the deeper issues around digital activism. As such, we’ll be discussing at length the structure of the organization: a digital organization.![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=bb167452-7b19-487a-897a-b646fcb7a238)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=9c1dc4d7-2166-4c2d-a80a-500bf1b48b7b)
There’s no escaping the recent headlines of big names having something “private” being discovered, and having their brand tarnished – sometimes severely. And there’s also no lack of backlash by said big names on the issue of being able to have a private life that’s private.
I was listening to a back episode of ![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=eb420b10-66bc-4e38-8529-f334d0b61e71)
Our book, 