On Language + Knowledge

Posted on | June 22, 2009 | View Comments

I was having a discussion with one of the Computer Scientists from Northern Kentucky University about the convergence of communication and programming.

We were discussing my decision to leave NKU and take a position at Ball State University, and reflecting on the one class we team-taught (actually, she taught it; I was a guest lecturer once a week or so. No actual teaching credit for me + she did the heavy lifting.).

The course was instructive for us on two levels:

• it showed us the langauage barrier that exists between storytellers and programmers (a gap I knew about from experience, but apparently hadn’t learned during that course); and
• the lack of understanding from storytellers about the depth and use of programming and technology.

This is a disturbing trend.

The issue manifested itself as the journalism program (which isn’t the program I teach in at NKU) looks to integrate technology into its curriculum. The journalists are decidedly not techie in their understanding of architecture, programming, fundamentals (and neither am I, although I have been around this longer).

And the problem existing at my university is one that replicates itself through the industry (as I have heard from different organizations around the globe): the journalists are looking for a quick fix to a problem that doesn’t actually exist.

Let me explain:

You are a company that gathers data. You take that information and turn it into specific, targeted data based upon a series of criteria about a demographic.

• If you believe that the gathering of data is what you do best, you will pour your resources into that part of the job. You will make that your priority. Everything else is a simple fix around that issue.
• If you believe that creating the information is what you do best, you will pour your resources into information creation. That will be your priority. Everything else is a simpe fix around that.
• If you believe that the delivery of that information is what you do best, you will pour your resources into that.

Each of these is a different type of organization (albeit simplistic and stylized versions) that values different knowledge.

Data collection agencies are different than information agencies are different than interactive agencies. Each has its own set of priorities, institutionalized “ideas” about what is most important.

It’s no surprise that information agencies (e.g. journalists) believe there must be simple solutions around gathering and delivering that augment when is the most important thing to them. In fact, they seek out the answers that they want (e.g. here’s a piece of technology that will meet all your needs ) isntead of taking the time to deploy a strategy that may take value from the other two.

This, of course, will change — has to change — the information creation portion of the process because you’re now dealing with competing interests.

There are two ways to deal with that: accept that the world has changed and you are part of a larger group now (data, information, delivery) or retreat into your knowledge base and try to build from there.

Journalism is just beginning to accept that the world has changed although it’s unclear if the giant organizations are actually changing. The markets suggest the perception is they are not. They have no readily embraced any of the emerging delivery and search mechanism in a meaningful way to give people confidence.

I’ve seen this manifest itself on a small scale at my school, with people adopting technologies that aren’t particularly suited to the new world but which can be easily learned (e.g. Flash).  The larger understanding about what interactive technologies can do and how they can best be deployed to meet a stated goal (which brings us back to the three types of mythical organizations).

Flash makes sense if you are the second, a group that believes information creation is the heart of what you do. A simple, presentation software that doesn’t offer much in terms of interaction and such would seem the best solution.

And it is. For the wrong problem.

Comments