Libby Hemphill research and posts on social media, collaboration, and related technologies

30Mar/093

Academic writers cannot get writer’s block

At least, that's what Paul J. Silvia, author of How to Write a Lot: A Practical Guide to Productive Academic Writing claims. I'm inclined to believe him. Writer's block seems bogus for us.

I've been reading books on writing while taking breaks from my ever-growing dissertation. Today I read a little of the Howard Becker Gem Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish Your Thesis, Book, or Article and most of Silvia's book. Here are a couple gems from Silvia's book:

Academic writers cannot get writer’s block. Don’t confuse yourself with your friends teaching creative writing in the fine arts department. You’re not crafting a deep narrative or composing metaphors that expose mysteries of the human heart. The subtlety of your analysis of variance will not move readers to tears, although the tediousness of it might…Novelists and poets are the landscape artists and portrait painters; academic writers are the people with big paint sprayers who repaint your basement. (p. 45)

and

Like their dislike of jocks and the yearbook club, many writers’ distrust of semicolons is a prejudice from high school. … While you’re rebuilding your relationship with the semicolon, reach out and make a new friend – the dash. Good writers are addicted to dashes. (p. 67-68)

I'm proud to say that I a) do not have writer's block and b) use both semicolons and dashes often and appropriately. I have trouble sticking to a writing schedule as Silvia (and many, many other writing guide authors) recommend, but at least I've mastered the dash.

Filed under: Academia, Writing 3 Comments
27Mar/090

The Wrongheadedness of Best Practice Thinking

I’ve come across a gem of a book introduction, and I’m writing to recommend that you read it. Yes, all of you. The introduction is from the book Strategic Procurement in Construction by Andrew Cox and Mike Townsend, published in 1998. The shelves of bookstores are crowded with advice for practitioners and business owners about the latest “best practices” for their business or for business in general. I have contributed to the best practice literature myself, trying to make my onboarding research findings accessible and interesting. I’ve been troubled by the literature before; something about the idea of a “best practice” made me wary, much like a “Truth” did when I spent more time with philosophy. I noticed this frustration most acutely when teaching master’s students in a professional degree program. So many students demanded that I teach them best practices, that I tell them what to do in their next job. I tried to explain to students that I was helping them acquire new tools for meeting the challenges information professionals face, not giving them step-by-step instructions for how to do their eventual jobs.

Cox and Townsend argue in their introduction, and throughout the book, that best practice thinking is wrong-headed and leaves us playing catch up. One of my favorite bits of the introduction reads:

They will be searching for the ‘Holy Grail’ of best practice. By this one means practitioners are looking for the answer that provides the solution to all of the problems which they face managerially. Unfortunately, this desire to discover the single solution (best practice), that will allow the practitioner to avoid the need for thought and risk taking, is an illusion.

They go on to discuss concepts such as appropriateness and leverage and recognize that many practitioners would call their discussions “common sense.” Their response?

Some of the practitioners who read these pages may accept what has been said, and argue that this is just common sense (which it is), and that they already know this. If that is the case then this book may have little to teach them, however, because experience leads the authors to conclude that such a form of sense (in a business context) does not appear to be all that common.

I wish I’d written something like that in the paper Andy and I submitted recently that was rejected for having results that were not surprising enough. The results we found in our onboarding study were surprising because we found them and not necessarily in their content. For instance, it’s surprising that teams still behave as though new employees will be immediately productive even though the sense that onboarding takes time is apparently common. Much like Cox and Townsend find that strategic procurement is not all that common, neither are teams who smoothly onboard their new members.

My questions as I continue to read Cox and Townsend’s book are really about how one encourages strategic, reflective thinking over best practice thinking and how one should present research results that show just how uncommon common sense can be. See, one can learn things by studying construction projects. This message brought to you by my dissertation, a work in progress.

23Mar/092

Chris Hughes in Fast Company

I picked up a discarded Fast Company magazine at the YMCA today, and in it I found a great article about Chris Hughes. Hughes was a Facebook co-founder and left to join the Obama campaign where he was responsible for the innovative social networking tools available on My.BarackObama.com. I don't know much about how Facebook got started beyond the Harvard bit and annoying Mark Zuckerberg. It turns out Hughes was the non-code-writing co-founder, the "people person." Changes to Facebook over the last year or so have been met with remarkable criticism and user outcry, many for good reason. Remember the privacy flare up? The "all your data are ours" nonsense from just recently? How about the thousands of users who dislike the new Facebook homepage (this user included)? Maybe Facebook wouldn't be in those messes if they still had people people. I'm sure Zuckerberg can write some mean code and that his minions can too, but Facebook seems to be turning into a Twitter on steroids, and in the process, losing that ability to connect real people to each other that made it so great. As an Obama supporter, I'm grateful that Hughes joined the team and helped us organize ourselves, so grateful, in fact, that I don't care that Facebook may end up ugly and abandoned without his vision: "If it's real people and real communities, then it's valuable. Otherwise it's just playing around online." (quoted in Fast Company)

14Mar/096

JavaScript date checking

Sometimes we ask users to enter a date range. I wrote some code today to check whether the date a user entered was (1) after today and (2) before some other date she entered. In my situation, I was building a flight search form and wanted to check that the user-entered departure date was before the user-entered return date and that the user wasn't trying to depart in the past. To do this, I needed to turn the user's input into a JavaScript Date and then compare that Date to Today's date. I found a lot of similar code online, but none of it work quite right.

I have a form with text box inputs for dateDepart and dateReturn. This code takes those inputs, turns them in JavaScript dates, compares them to each other and to today, and returns alerts or submits the form, depending on how the comparisons shake out.

Here's my code:

// check to make sure Return date is after Departure date, and both are after today
if ( (the_form.dateDepart.value !="") && (the_form.dateReturn.value !="") )
{
	var strFromDate = the_form.dateDepart.value;
	var dayPartFromDate = parseInt(strFromDate.substring(3,5),10);
	var monPartFromDate = parseInt(strFromDate.substring(0,2),10);
	var yearPartFromDate = parseInt(strFromDate.substring(6,10),10);
	var dtDepart = new Date(yearPartFromDate, monPartFromDate-1, dayPartFromDate);

	var strToDate = the_form.dateReturn.value;
	var dayPartToDate = parseInt(strToDate.substring(3,5),10);
	var monPartToDate = parseInt(strToDate.substring(0,2),10);
	var yearPartToDate = parseInt(strToDate.substring(6,10),10);
	var dtReturn = new Date(yearPartToDate, monPartToDate-1, dayPartToDate);
	var now = new Date();
	var today = new Date(now.getFullYear(),now.getMonth(),now.getDate());	

	if(dtDepart > dtReturn)
	{
		alert('Departure date must be before return date. Please fix and resubmit.');
		return false;
	}
	else if (dtDepart < today)
	{
		alert('Departure date must be after today. Please fix and resubmit.');
		return false;
	}
	else
	{
		the_form.submit();
	}
}

Turn User Input into a JavaScript Date
To turn the user's input into a Date, I needed to parse the input and then pass the pieces to the Date() function.

The JavaScript substr function syntax I used corresponds to dateToChange.substring(start,finish). My users are mostly in the U.S., and they enter dates in the form MM/DD/YYYY, e.g., 03/14/2009. JavaScript starts counting at 0, so the substr functions above grab "14" for the day, "03" for the month, and "2009" for the year and then pass those substrings to the Date()function to be converted in a Date JavaScript understands.

getFullYear(); returns a four-digit year such as "2009" that makes it easy to compare to the default version of today's date that
var now = new Date();
var today = new Date(now.getFullYear(),now.getMonth(),now.getDate());

gives.

Why monPartToDate-1? Remember, JavaScript starts counting at 0, so January is month 0, and December is month 11. That means I need to subtract 1 from what my user entered to get the right month for JavaScript.

Compare Dates
I needed to compare the two dates the user entered to make sure she had departure first, then return. Once I have converted both her inputs to JavaScript dates, the comparison uses a simple "greater than" operator: dtDepart &gt; dtReturn

Calling the Date-checking Function
You'll notice my code doesn't include a function declaration; that's because this date-checking procedure is part of a larger function to validate my form. You could wrap this code in a function declaration such as
function checkDates(the_form){}

In order to call the code when the user submits the form, I like to use something like

<input id="search" onclick="checkDates(this.form);" type="button" value="Submit Form" />

in the HTML.

10Mar/090

NSF Workshop Report on Qualitative Research

The report for NSF's two-day workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research is now available. The goals of the workshop were to (quoted from the report):

  1. articulate the standards used in their particular field to ensure rigor across the range of qualitative methodological approaches;
  2. identify common criteria shared across the four disciplines for designing and evaluating research proposals and fostering multidisciplinary collaborations; and
  3. develop an agenda for strengthening the tools, training, data, research design, and infrastructure for research using qualitative approaches.

The whole report is 180 pages long, but you can get the gist from the executive summary. For graduate students, the longer sections on "Recommendations for Producing Top Notch Qualitative Research" and "Promising New Research Areas and Topics" are especially interesting reads. I'll post more details when I have a little more time. We don't get to see into the minds of our faculty members every day, and reports like this one give us a glimpse. Take a look, and keep working on your top notch research.

3Mar/0916

Review: iPhone glass replacement from Mission: Repair

My Situation

I dropped my iPhone 3G and broke its glass. I was so distraught about dropping it that I never got a picture of the broken glass. Trust me, it was depressing.

I checked with the Apple store about a repair, and they offered me a replacement for $299 + tax. That seemed steep and wasteful, so I went hunting online for repair options. No need to fill landfills with broken iPhones. I found two companies who do iPhone glass repairs and had positive reviews: Mission: Repair and iResQ. After blogging about my broken glass, I got emails and blog comments from employees at both companies. Way to be on top of the blogosphere, guys. After checking prices and reviews, I decided to go with Mission: Repair.

Disclaimer: Ryan at Mission: Repair offered to pay me for the ads on my blog whether I got my repair through them or not. He also offered me the same discount available to Apple store visitors who get a coupon from the Genius bar.

My Repair

I chose the 3G iPhone Digitizer Glass Repair and the "I'll send it in; return it to me overnight!" option for $9 extra.

My Review

So, how did it go? Swimmingly!

I sent the phone off via USPS Priority Mail with delivery confirmation on Monday from Ann Arbor.  According to the USPS, my package arrived at 11:25am. Less than 2 hours later, I received an email from Phil at MR letting me know they had received my iPhone and would fix it right away.  They fixed it Wednesday, shipped it first thing Thursday morning, and I received my phone back in near-new condition on Friday in Los Angeles (I was traveling). At first I was concerned that the glass was not flush with the sides of the phone, but I saw the "real" thing at the Apple store today, and the glass isn't flush on brand new iPhones either.

Bottom Line

Mission: Repair will fix your iPhone glass for less than the other guys and will do it fast and right. I highly recommend them.

Filed under: Links, iPhone 16 Comments