The annual meetings/interim conferences of each research group seem to work better, both scientifically and socially. Nevertheless, not all is bad in the “World Congress” realm, it is very useful to grasp international trends in research; the plenary sessions have renowned sociologists (this year, Manuel Castells, Saskia Sassen, among others); and it is a great opportunity to meet interesting people from all over the world. This congress had 5007 participants from 103 countries – and I don’t say sociologists, as it is a multidisciplinary event that attracts people from a plethora of fields.

I’m writing this post, because I heard a lot of new attendees telling me how they were a little bit disappointed with the conference. I understand them; I felt exactly the same back in 2006 in South Africa. Why did I go again? No, I’m not masochistic. Simply putting it, I still believe these conferences have some value, and I work hard to get positive outcomes from them. But we learn from mistakes, so I developed my golden rules for the World Congress. I’m sure this can be applied to any big conference, and I hope this is useful for students and/or first time attendees.

As in any big conference there are lots of parallel sessions, full of interesting themes. But we are not omnipresent, so how to choose? The first thing I do is to get the program booklet and go thought it, selecting the ones I’m really interested in and those I would like to attend, if there’s time. I use colored post-its to differentiate them, dividing by day and hour. Sessions normally last two hours, but it really depends on the conference. Some people stick with one research committee/working group for the whole conference – and that is a good option to not get lost – but I gain more from attending sessions by different groups.

I. Concerning the selection, my rules are:

1. Don’t select a session if there is only one paper/presentation you are interested in – This for three reasons: first, the speaker might not even show up; second, it might be actually disappointing; and third, even if he/she shows up, then you’re stuck in that session for the rest of the time. Yes, you might discover other interesting things, and you might even have a serendipitous moment, but trust me, normally you just sit there waiting to be over with it. Of course that if you are really interested in that paper/presentation and you think it is worth it, go for it! Otherwise, you can always send an email to the author asking for that paper/presentation.

2. Always select an alternative session – Because of last minute arrangements a session might be changed (hour or location), so it’s good to have a second option. This is also useful if the session is too boring or not really what you expected – you can sneak out and go to another session.

3. If possible, read the paper before the conference - I say if possible, because a lot of participants don’t send them on time, or just don’t send them at all – papers are not mandatory for the ISA World Congress. This will give you a handful of advantages: firstly, you know beforehand if a presentation interests you or not; secondly, you have time to go deep into the paper and define better your questions/feedback; lastly, it gives you time to look up something – a reference, a technique, etc. – you were not familiar with.

4. If in doubt, search for the authors online – No, it’s not voyeurism. It is actually very useful, if you can find them. You can check their previous and current work and see if it really interests you. You might end up finding a lot of great information and get a more complete overview of the author’s work.

II. During the sessions,

5. Ask/Participate – Don’t be afraid or embarrassed to ask questions or give feedback. The authors are there for it, and that’s part of the scientific spirit. Everybody gains a lot with discussion, and remember there are no bad questions.

III. Outside the sessions,

6. Network, network, network – Take advantage of the time at the conference to network: interact with as many people as possible. Don’t skip the coffee-breaks, lunches, or dinners. Also make sure to reserve some time for specific interaction, if there is anyone at the conference you really want to meet and/or talk to, it is better (and I think more appropriate) to send she/he an email previously asking for an informal talk. This way, you know that that person is ‘really’ attending the conference (a lot of people register but then can’t attend) and that you “booked’ a specific time slot to that talk. The majority of participants make a lot of informal arrangements before these conferences – lunches, dinners, and so on – so sometimes it’s hard to find the people you are looking for, or they aren’t available at all. Oh, and don’t forget your business cards (I always do and it is always embarrassing when people ask for it).

7. Keep your eyes open – There is more out there – ISA also has other interesting events, as the “Meet Authors”, “Author Meets Critics” and “National Associations” sessions. They also have a book exhibition, with book launches and other social events.

8. Have fun – Most of all, have fun – that is also part of science. Relax and enjoy! Work and fun are not incompatible. As David Lodge humorously puts it:

“(…) folk long to go on pilgrimages. Only, these days, professional people call them conferences. The modern conference resembles the pilgrimage of medieval Christendom in that allows the participants to indulge themselves in all pleasures and diversions of travel while appearing to be austerely bent on self-improvement. To be sure, there are certain penitential exercises to be performed – the presentation of a paper, perhaps, and certainly listening to the papers of others. But with this excuse you journey to new and interesting places, meet new and interesting people, and form new and interesting relationships with them; exchange gossip and confidences; eat, drink, and make merry in their company every evening; and yet, at the end of it all, return home with an enhanced reputation for seriousness of mind.”
(Lodge, David; “Small World”, Penguin Books, 1984, Prologue).

Göteborg, Sweden, 2010

by Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal (SMBC), Zack Weiner

Here is a “blurb” of the project:
This study examines how social networking sites are affecting the lives of Portuguese users. Are social networking sites enhancing sociability and civic engagement? Or are they causing social isolation, addiction, and risk? To answer these questions, I’m conducting an exploratory study in Portugal. I had a survey online, which was answered by 220 users of hi5 and facebook – the most used social networking sites in Portugal. I’m also planning to conduct 30 semi-structured interviews soon. This project is funded by the Centre for Public Administration & Policies, ISCSP-UTL.. Self-funded.

O inquérito “Internet e Capital Social: Uma análise do hi5 e do facebook em Portugal” já está disponível online.

As respostas são anónimas e confidenciais, sendo apenas utilizadas para efeitos académicos.

Muito Obrigado

Clique aqui para responder ao inquérito

It’s been a while since I write here, but it’s been a crazy working season. Nevertheless, my survey about hi5 and facebook usage in Portugal is finally ready (after two long pretests)! Now, I need Portuguese users to answer it =) SO, please answer it and/or send the link to all your Portuguese contacts.

You can answer the “ Internet and Social Capital: hi5 and facebook in Portugal” survey online.

All answers are anonymous and confidential, being only used for academic purposes.

Thanks a million

Click here to take the survey

Anyway, a quick note about Ada Lovelace Day. I’m answering to a delicious pledge by Suw Charman-Anderson, asking bloggers to write about women in technology, as a tribute to Ada Lovelace.

Ada (1815-1852) was the first (known) programmer. She wrote a description of a mechanical general-purpose computer by Charles Babbage.

So, here is my contribution:

I’m not blogging specifically about computer scientists or other core professionals in Tech., but I thought it was a great opportunity to write about social scientists devoted to the study of technology. It’s time to recognize them as well!

So, I’m writing about Helena Monteiro. I could blog about an interesting and remarkable group of Portuguese sociologists that have been developing the sociology of technology in Portugal, as Luísa Oliveira, Margarida Fontes, among others. But, I chose Helena for four simple reasons:

1.She’s a fabulous example of how reality is multidisciplinary, as she comes from Maths (applied mathematics, as algebra, etc), but she’s now working at the Centre for Public administration & Policies and lecturing at the Institute of Social and Political Sciences, my home =);

2.She worked in the Tech field for years, so she has that impressive know-how and a clear vision of how things really work (in a real pragmatic sense);

3.She always acknowledged the importance of the study of the social impact of technology and how it is crucial to inform and develop technology;

4.She’s a pioneer, not only in the study, but also in the development of the e-health system in Portugal. She doesn’t reduce her work only to the academia (and you know what I mean when I say this: publications are not enough!), she makes things happen, pushing for better public policies and commitments from all the community (including industry). She definitely works for a better Portuguese electronic health system and for that she deserves a huge mention.

Therefore, she’s a fantastic role model. Plus, I have the pleasure to be close to her, so I can also underline how an amazing woman and human being she is.

Here is my tribute to Ada, to Helena, to all amazing women in technology and in society,

Thank you all,

P.S. Check Ada Lovelace blogs here

Me and Helena in Santo Domingo, Dominic Republic: Sociological analysis of a men’s bar =)

I surely agree/understand the need/importance of validating your findings/work with the reviews/inputs of the scientific community. However, I, like all researchers, feel the pressure to publish, publish and publish in order (they say) to make science go forward (and to build a strong curriculum in the same degree). And I’m not talking about peer-review process or the supposed “blind peer-review” process: even if I’m aware that a lot of journals work hard to accomplish this principle, it’s interesting to notice that the same people are always published, over and over again…and how you need a strong co-author to publish something, specially if you’re a young researcher/scholar. It seems like an interminable loop.

Well, for now, I’m just talking about disseminating scientific work.

So, I deeply believe that we are only disseminating science in a close and restrict circle which actually prevents major advances in science and society. Really, come on, how many people will buy/read my paper in this journal? Plus, because of contract limitations, I can’t simply make my full paper available on-line; accessible for everyone who’s interested in digital cities and the Portuguese experiences. My conviction of a “free shareable knowledge” is constantly oppressed by the system. And I succumb to the system as well, as I need to make a living of it.

But, not everything is grey, the open access journals are definitely a fabulous idea, and the Internet had a crucial role on its development. Nevertheless, for me it’s still a residual problem, as for instance, the foundation that supports my research only gives high points for papers published in close peer-review process journals (with impact factor, of course). And this is completely non-sense, as both should have the same importance. We need to remind them that the majority of open journals are also peer-reviewed. And if they want citations, research of citations of articles in open access journals show that papers in these journals are more cited than non-open access articles. Interesting article here.

Well, a propos, here’s one’s of Geert Lovink’s 2009 resolutions (Geert has this amazing ability: he expresses so clearly ideas/thoughts that we normally don’t know exactly how to describe…yes, I’m a big fan :

“Dismantling the academic exclusion machine. With this I mean the hilarious peer review dramas that we see around us everywhere, aimed to reproduce the old boys networks, excluding different voices, discourses and networked research practices. We need to have the civil courage to say no to these suppressive and utterly wrong bureaucratic procedures that, in the end, result in the elimination of quality, creativity and criticism (and, ironically, of innovation, too). In the same way we need to unleash a social movement of those who dare to say no to all these silly copyright contracts that we’re forced to sign. We should stop signing away our ‘intellectual property’ and begin to radicalize and help democratize and popularize the creative commons and floss movements.”

Ditto!

This work was recreated in Second Life (the famous 3D virtual world) by Robbie Dingo. The soundtrack is the “Vincent” song by Don McLean that starts precisely with “Starry, Starry Night…”

Enjoy it and may your New Year’s Eve be a starry night, full of hope and new ways of seeing the world and feeling life.

Happy New Year!