“Although more and more scholars are interested in trying out new technologies as a way to share or publish their research, the traditional cultures of their disciplines and the high regard accorded to peer review still tend to have the strongest influence on them, according to a substantial new report on scholarly communication from the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California at Berkeley.
Turn to Gartner, a UST Libraries source for reports and analysis of the technology industry. In mid-December Gartner released a report, “Magic Quadrant for Mobile Enterprise Application Platforms.”
To find this report, log on to Gartner, search for “tablet,” and select the report from the list of results. Remember to capitalize your first and last names when logging in.
So what’s a Magic Quadrant? Essentially it’s a modified X Y graph on which are plotted the various vendors in a market relative to one another. Strategists will use this tool to determine what kind of technology to invest in, or which company to partner with for a particular venture. Business development will use this information to identify corporate prospects. (And of course students might use this information to target companies to work for.)
An illustration of a Magic Quadrant is below. In the case of tablet computers, companies like IBM, Apple, RIM, Microsoft, Oracle, and SAP will appear as points on a graph indicating their relative market position.
As you can see in this YouTube video, not everyone likes the Magic Quadrant. The questioner in the video says that it’s the most “reviled” in the industry. Gideon Gartner, the founder of Gartner Group, admits that it is “overused, misused, and abused.” Which only attests to the degree to which the Magic Quadrant has become embedded in the business of technology.
Contrary to appearances, Mr Gartner is not attacking anyone in this clip, though it may appear otherwise. It’s a Q&A session. Not daytime TV.
Contrary to a discussion I had with friends at breakfast this morning, e-books seem to be hitting their stride in the US marketplace. And though they probably won’t ever reach the fever pitch of a holiday season must-have toy, such as this year’s Zhu Zhu Hamster, more people want them.
In September the US saw e-book sales grow to $15.9 million, up 170 per cent from a year ago. Gartner, a global leader in technology insights (to which all UST students have access), wrote in its September report “A New Ecosystem Defines E-Book’s Second Chapter” that the technology is getting a “second take,” and that this one will stick. Gartner reports that the global e-book market is forecast to be as much as $2.3 billion by 2013. Mobile device compatibility, as with netbooks and smartphones, is among factors driving demand.
Or it could be that grown-ups want tiny high-def camcorders, which are selling strong. Or goats, as reported by The Times. Goats, along with toilets, are very popular gifts for the less fortunate among buyers in the UK. (The goats are then donated to recipients in less developed countries, via Oxfam, which has facilitated 200,000 such donations in the last five years.)
What are you planning to give this holiday season? What are you hoping to receive?
Get ready to switch jobs if you haven’t lately. According to the Book Of Odds website, the odds of having at least 15 jobs between the ages of 18 and 42 are a whopping 1 in 4.39. The figures change a bit depending on gender and level of education.
Graduates: be prepared to move around a bit.
Note also a recent Gallup poll that reported business owners as having the hightest well-being of any occupational group. Professionals and managers were close runners-up. Transportation and manufacturing workers have the lowest overall well-being.
Graduates: own your own business.
One path to owning a business is to get in on the ground floor of a small business, with the upcoming year being a good time to do so. Forty-four per cent of small business owners indicate that they’re looking to hire in the next year in this recent survey from Intuit.com.
Graduates: Get a job with a small business, use your entrepreneurial skills to grow and eventually buy that business, and enjoy the good life.
A selection of statistical data, charts, and graphs on various aspects of health care in the United States, from our friends at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Also available as a 13 page pdf, this spotlight deals with costs, demographics, and employment data on health care, with some excellent explanatory graphics and links to the underlying data sources where researchers can go for more information.
Carter A. Daniel writes in the Chronicle that reports written 50 years ago by the Ford and Carnegie foundations had a profound and negative effect on business school education in America, leading most to over-emphasize academic theory and credentials at the expense of a thorough grounding in actual business practice.
Daniel thinks that the schools should have resisted the criticisms, and suggests that much of the research doesn’t impact business: ” The number of academic journals in business tripled over the next 25 years, and the number of business books published each year more than quadrupled. Their relevance and usefulness can’t, of course, be quantitatively proved or disproved, but it’s commonplace to hear businesspeople scoff that academic research never has any influence on what they actually do in their companies.” I’m wondering, however, how much of what one learns in any educational program is explicitly or consciously remembered and applied, versus how much just becomes ingrained in one’s intellect and skill sets and is used unconsciously.
Interesting recent article from the Chronicle of Higher Education. What do you think of it? (Comment below)
“College leaders usually brag about their tech-filled “smart” classrooms, but a dean at Southern Methodist University is proudly removing computers from lecture halls. José A. Bowen, dean of the Meadows School of the Arts, has challenged his colleagues to “teach naked” — by which he means, sans machines.”
Bowen argues in this article and accompanying video that too many courses are powerpoint lecture dependent, which frequently leads to a boring, unengaged classroom experience. He’s not anti-technology, or even anti-lecture, he just wants to turn the existing model on its head: use technology for the lecture or uni-directional transmission of information by having students view slides, listen to podcasts, or view video online outside of class, while reserving classroom time for interactive discussions, group exercises, etc.
I like the concept, but think this notion of removing all computers from classroom settings is throwing the baby out with the bathwater–are there no circumstances where technology in the classroom could enhance discussion or interaction? Wouldn’t a group viewing of a video snippet prior to an in-person discussion or exercise ensure that all had viewed the content freshly and improve the conversation? Wouldn’t a professor’s in-person narration or comments on art history slides, coupled with student discussion and interaction liven and provide sponteneity to a lecture in a way not possible when viewing or listening to a static video or podcast?
His points about poor uses of technology are well-taken, but in part sound like just another case of blaming the tool for its mis-use. Surely motivated faculty can find better ways to use the tools, so why disarm them by removing the technology from the classroom? What do UST faculty and students think? Check out the article and video and use the comment feature on this blog post to discuss.
Interesting recent article from the Chronicle of Higher Education. What do you think of it? (Comment below)
“College leaders usually brag about their tech-filled “smart” classrooms, but a dean at Southern Methodist University is proudly removing computers from lecture halls. José A. Bowen, dean of the Meadows School of the Arts, has challenged his colleagues to “teach naked” — by which he means, sans machines.”
Bowen argues in this article and accompanying video that too many courses are powerpoint lecture dependent, which frequently leads to a boring, unengaged classroom experience. He’s not anti-technology, or even anti-lecture, he just wants to turn the existing model on its head: use technology for the lecture or uni-directional transmission of information by having students view slides, listen to podcasts, or view video online outside of class, while reserving classroom time for interactive discussions, group exercises, etc.
I like the concept, but think this notion of removing all computers from classroom settings is throwing the baby out with the bathwater–are there no circumstances where technology in the classroom could enhance discussion or interaction? Wouldn’t a group viewing of a video snippet prior to an in-person discussion or exercise ensure that all had viewed the content freshly and improve the conversation? Wouldn’t a professor’s in-person narration or comments on art history slides, coupled with student discussion and interaction liven and provide sponteneity to a lecture in a way not possible when viewing or listening to a static video or podcast?
His points about poor uses of technology are well-taken, but in part sound like just another case of blaming the tool for its mis-use. Surely motivated faculty can find better ways to use the tools, so why disarm them by removing the technology from the classroom? What do UST faculty and students think? Check out the article and video and use the comment feature on this blog post to discuss.
By Jeffrey R. Young
“Once they were hosts to lively discussions about academic style and substance, but the time of scholarly e-mail lists has passed, meaningful posts slowing to a trickle as professors migrate to blogs, wikis, Twitter, and social networks like Facebook.
That’s the argument made by T. Mills Kelly, an associate professor of history and associate director of the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University. Naturally, he first made the argument on his blog, and he has mentioned it on the technology podcast he hosts with two colleagues.
A close look at some of the largest academic e-mail lists, however, shows signs of enduring life and adaptation to the modern world.” Read more at the Chronicle of Higher Education (6/29/2009)
Carter A. Daniel