Book Review: “Technical Knowledge and Development: Observing aid projects and processes” By Thomas Gramming

The second half of the 20th century, or the era of development, was characterized by the expansion of development projects. The reasons for the post-war reconstruction were the need to restore global economy after WWII, the evolution of colonialism into globalization, and the start of the Cold War. Colonizer nations provided development aids to poor nations to maintain colonial powers. There are several terms used to describe the development projects; for instance, technical assistance, technical co-operation, or building technical capacity.

The expansion of reconstruction projects gains interest from social scientists. During the development aids, knowledge and technology were transferred from one place to others, people from diverse backgrounds and cultures have to work together. Some agencies tried to evaluate technical assistance and improve project planning and the preparation of developers; however, they found that the outcomes were not predictable. The interdependence between technology and intercultural relations could not be overlooked. To understand the relations between technology and culture, new approaches to study innovation are needed.

The objective of the book is to fill in the conceptual blank spot in development aids. Thomas Gramming, an engineer-anthropologist from German, studies two different technology transfer projects to uncover common mechanisms at work using ethnographic approach. "The ultimate aim is to provide practitioners and researchers with a coherent theoretical model to understand technical assistance, moving from the particular to the general" (p. 3).

The two case studies used in the book concern transferring industrial technologies to less developed countries. One example is Appui Technique, a development project in Chad, one of the poorest countries in the world. The project was run by France’s Groupe de Recherche et d’Echanges Technologiques (GRET). Another case study is Autogeneración in Mexico. The project was run by the United States’ Hagler, Bailly, Inc. Although the two recipient countries have different economic statuses, the two development projects studied in the book were technology transfer projects supported by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD, or World Bank). Moreover, both projects turned out not as effective as promised despite there was no conflict of interest between actors in both cases.

In this project, Gramming does not focus on technological aspects of the projects but pays more attention to the actors involved. Local actors were local artisans, engineers, and populations. Foreign actors were experts, technology assistants, and consultants. The author applies a cultural analysis of the institutional and managerial practice to learn how actors struggled with power and cultural distance during the collaborations. By observing the developer-developee encounters, the researcher expects to see non-technical factors that led to projects’ unsuccessful outcomes.

Gramming was involved in Appui Technique project for 3 months in 1991 as a volunteer and ethnographer. GRET allowed him to be part of the project because they hoped to learn something from his expertise and the result of the ethnographic project. Contrary to the first case, Gramming was hired as a consultant in Autogeneración for 15 months during 1992 -1993. He conducted interviews and field observations in both cases to collect data. He claims that being accepted as an expert who could contribute to the project and play an intermediating role between foreign and local actors gave him access to people and insider activities.

Gramming has a lot of experiences managing technical assistance team and training in a number of countries. In this ethnographic study, he writes in the first person which allows him to present his experiences, opinions, and personal interpretations of the observed events. He informs readers what he aims to do, what he thinks, and how he interprets events. For instance, “[n]onetheless, their common reception of the observer did not give me an ‘objective’ view on the difficulties that each side encountered. I also had to extricate myself from my own context while I was participating in order to bear witness to the projects’ dynamics, and from the context of each project itself, in order to be able to compare them” (p. 93).

According to what he found from the two projects, Gramming suggests that social and cultural components of technological activities play significant role in technology transfer and technology assistance programs. Through a series of interviews and observations, the author found the contradict social meanings of technology and cultural distance between local and foreign participants. For instance, many Chad artisans did not understand the objective of technology assistance project from the developer's’ perspective. Gramming noticed from several conversations with local artisans that they used the word ‘professor’ or ‘teacher’ when referring to foreign experts. It shows that the local artisans had the perception of the experts being there to teach or to instruct them. Therefore, what they had to do was to learn and do everything the experts said. However, the ideal practice of technology transfer is that the developers and developees work together as a team and learn from each other.

In the case of the project in Mexico, the gap between foreign and local actors did not origin from their unequal technological competence; rather it derived from their perceptions of each other. The experts from US and engineers in Mexico had equal level of expertise and technical skills. Actually, they did not have hard time constituting homogeneous working groups. For example, on page 65, the author describes how furniture, tools, and devices were arranged in their office. According to the field work, Gramming could see that eight foreign and thirteen local engineers worked in the same space and shared everything equally. However, the obstacle to create working relationship between actors was that both foreign and local actors did not try to learn about their counterparts’ cultures and social meanings. Some of the US experts could not recognize local know-how practiced by local engineers. Therefore, they could not understand why the local engineers did not adopt the new know-how from US partners and why the new machine designs were not popular in the market. At the same time, Mexican engineers took a defensive position because they did not want to be dominated by people from the former colonizer country. They also thought that American experts did not really understand the local people’s needs and many of them worked on the project for their own profits.

Technology cannot be separated from social and cultural contexts, especially when a Technology is moved from one culture to another. The author uses Friedman’s concept of exo-sociality and endo-sociality to understand how an individual interprets foreign goods or ideas to seek cultural confirmation and social identity (p. 84). The author concludes that the case study in Chad represents an exo-social process which suggests that intelligence from outside reducing the significance of inside condition. Chad artisans were willing to learn outside knowledge but they could not incorporate their local meaning into the knowledge, therefore it is did not turn out practical for them. The actors still remained distance even though they could see each other’s intention. On the other hand, the condition in Mexico was endo-social. The foreign and local actors had equal levels of technical knowledge and skills; the new produced knowledge was the result of the Mexican encounter with foreigners. However, the obstacle was that the actors did not see each other. They were locked inside their own perceptions and did not create personal relationship.

This ethnographic study reveals something that cannot be observed from outsiders’ eyes. The authors immersed himself in the fields, interacted with people in the fields, and observed their daily lives. There are several factors that can impact collaborations: communication between partners, perception, expectation, and so on. These factors cannot be identified through number or traditional project evaluation. Gramming does a great job in unveiling the hidden social and cultural factors. He provides a number of examples to support his interpretations.

Science Intelligence and Cultural and Ideological Identities: I don't believe that not because I don't know science but it's just not me.

"I don't get them. How can they still think that climate change is not real? Almost every scientists believe it is real and there are a great deal of evidences showing that it is real. Are they dumb or something??"

This is probably something that you've thought before. Not only climate change, there are several other topics that make you ask those questions; evolution, GMO, vaccine, you name it. I had been struggling trying to understand people as well until I read an article about science-communication-measurement problem by Dan M. Kahan.

In "Climate-Science Communication and  Measurement Problem," Kahan aims to figure out what cause problem in science-communication measurement. He first discusses evolutionary theory case and then apply the understanding to climate change case.


He conducted a survey, called "ordinary science intelligence," which assesses how good people are at mathematical and scientific reasoning and at questioning their own beliefs, asking 2,000 respondents scientific questions or rate statements related to climate change. Then he analyzed the results based on their ideological identities: Conservative Republican and Liberal Democrat. 
























What seem problematic for researchers is that, in some question, Liberal Democrat could do far more better than Conservative Republican people (top right). Does that mean one is smarter, one is dumber? 

What Kahan found is that people who believe in climate change or biological evolution are not smarter than those who don't. But what polarizes people is their unconsciously attempt to protect their cultural and ideological identities. 

Many Conservative Republicans didn't believe that "climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming will result in flooding of many coastal regions" not because they don't know enough climate change science, but because it is not what people in their groups believe. Conservative Republicans don't believe that climate change is the consequence of human activities. Therefore, the questions or statements that refer to human-caused global warming sound threatening for them. So they just said, "nope, I don't believe it."

To avoid controversial survey results and to measure science intelligence more accurately, researchers will need to be more considering in developing survey questions or statements. They need to understand their respondents' beliefs, identities, cultures, etc. and avoid using words that possibly threaten people's beliefs or identities. Researchers need to disentangle people's identities and political ideology from what they just plain know.

Science Engagement in International Arena

This is an interesting excerpt from  "Carnegie Group at Twenty-Five: Diplomacy and Science at a High Level" by Paul Dufour. 

Science has traditionally been engaged with the international arena in five ways:

1. As linkages between and among scientists - largely informal in nature, this "invisible college" as some have called it, is still a highly networked global enterprise, now expanded to many regions within the developing world.
2. As an organized activity via the discussions between specialized agencies such as the United Nations, Health Organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others... where science is truly on tap to help address policy at a larger scale. Indeed, UNESCO's program of fostering mutual understanding through science, education, and culture was lunched on the premise that "war begins in the minds of men."
3. As a strategy for diplomatic-trade contacts among countries - building political bridges when it is difficult to do so through the usual channels. A classic example is the creation of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis during the Cold War. Of course, research exchanges can also be channeled more negatively, such as the scientific espionage that took place around the atomic bomb project during World War II.
4. As an input to solving global problems-be it humanitarian aid or capacity building or both. The establishment of Canada's International Development Research Centre in 1970 was a unique experiment in this vein. Its board was then composed of members from both the developing and developed world, and regional offices were located in selected developing locales to ensure attention to local needs and culture.
5. As a way to link national pride with growing international economic prowess. Countries such as China, Brazil, and India have used a major buildup of their knowledge assets to increase their global standing. For example, in his 1960 report to the Organization for European Economic Co-operation, the Canadian diplomat L. Dana Wilgress made the following prediction about China: 

 China also is on the threshold of great achievements in science. They are putting into force a beautifully phased programme which commences with those now attending the secondary schools. These will be followed through by an expansion of the institutions for teaching science and technology until China is producing more scientists and engineers than Russia. In twenty-five years from now such a programme is bound to show results. They are likely to make China a first-class economic power. 

 Science & Diplomacy, March 2016

Does Karma Principle Encourage Corruption?

Does karma principle encourage corruption?

It is supposed to be the opposite, isn't it?

      Karma is a belief held by several religions such as Buddhism and Hindu. Karma is a spiritual cause-and-effect principle suggesting that every intended act leads to a consequence for the actor. If you intentionally does good things, the action will bring you happiness, success, or any form of good consequences. In contrast, if you intentionally does bad things, bad karma will come back and haunt you.

***

      I am a Buddhist who tries to understand things scientifically.  (Surely, this is not a paradox statement). I believe in karma principle. Consequences from Karma can be in any form. A form of the consequences is the feelings people have after doing something. For instance, you give away some food to a homeless; the feeling you have when you see the homeless guy enjoying eating the food you gave is a consequence of good karma. On the other hand, you hurt or kill someone, legal punishment can be considered as the consequence of bad karma.

***

     Karma principle functions as a mean to control society. Karma could help prevent some acts or activities that are unreachable by public surveillance and legal controls. People who believe in karma tend to abstain from wrong doing to avoid bad karma even though no one can see what they are doing.

      To me, there seemed to be no problem with having the principle as part of our society, until I faced a dilemma a few years ago. I have witnessed misconducts by a government official. I was concerned and felt I have to do something to stop the evil affairs. However, I realized that I did not have enough power to stop or intervene what I was witnessing. One thing I could do, I thought, was to report the misconducts to someone who had authority and responsibility to take care of the issue. 

source: Forbes

      I talked to a couple people who should be concerned about the misconducts and take an action. What I heard back from all of them was:

"I understand how you feel and what you are trying to do. But please stop. It is risky for you. Sooner or later, karma take care of it."

***

Seriously???

      Why? There is a government official doing something wrong, why do we have to wait for karma to function? 

      What are laws and regulations create for?


      At the end of the day I found myself not being able to do anything because of several reasons. Everybody around me told me to keep my mouth shut. 

      There are many questions running through my head and I cannot find the answers from them. It seems like that is how my country and its governance system works. In some societies, karma has became an excuse for not taking any action when it is needed, especially the actions that could make them in trouble. 

***

      Why leave everything to karma while we already have the power to do things, to correct things. I still believe in karma and see the benefit of the principle. But some people are using it in a very very wrong way. This can hurt the whole society or country, like what is happening right now. People expect karma will take care of its part, but they cannot forget that we also have our own part to take care of as well. 

      Hello karma, where are you? Please do something, please don't just let the corruption running deep into my society like this. 

Real-Time Scientific Data Sharing on Zika Virus Leading to Future Practice

A group of scientists at University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA, led by Professor Dave O’s Connor started their study on Zika virus and its effects on fetus development using pregnant monkeys in their study. The scientists injected Zika in pregnant monkeys on Feb. 15, 2016 and provide real-time detailed reports of the progress of the study on their website. People who are interested can follow the progress of the study now; they do not need to wait until the study is over and go through the prolonging peer review and publication processes. 

 According to his interviews, O’Connor realized that there are moral and ethical issues involved with the study, but the data from the study is urgently needed. The study is inevitable. He felt “sad and heartbroken” to see what would happen with the unborn baby monkeys. However, this is the only way we have to help pregnant women in the countries affected by zika.

Besides the moral and ethical issues, information disclosure is another concern of the study. Data from the study such as the infected monkey’s ultrasounds, blood test, etc. is posted right away on their website. Obviously, this real time data sharing is not a usual norm for biology. 

Why we need open data 

The most important reason to release the data from the study right away is that there are a great number of people suffering from Zika and scientists from around the world are urgently seeking the information on the Zika virus. The open data will promote collaboration among scientists and researchers who are working on the virus. Other scientists can contact O’Connor to give opinions and suggestions which may help the scientists at Wisconsin find out the solution sooner. 

Furthermore, the World Health Organization has noted, researchers who study public health emergencies have a “fundamental moral obligation to share preliminary results once they are adequately quality controlled.” 

Image credit : http://www.nature.com/

Following concerns 

Real-time research data sharing can be greatly beneficial for scientific community, but not all scientists are happy with the new movement. For instance, a group of researchers complained after New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) researchers used their preliminary data in another research study and did not adequately give them credit.

Moreover, many researchers are worried that if their research data is publicized, the chances of getting their works published in peer-reviewed journals will be smaller. Without having adequate publication, they will not get tenure and grants. 

The concerns are not the end of the open data practice in biology, but the beginning of the development. It would be great if we can find a way to utilize research results sooner while researchers are still rewarded for their hard works. One example of the effort, Accelerating Science and Publication in Biology (ASAPbio) is a meeting in Washington D.C. that aims to accelerate the pace of research in biology by removing barriers to the use of preprints. 

I am certain that we will see a lot of changes related to scientific data sharing. There will be lot of controversies as well. Hopefully, we will find a solution that can benefit public and other related parties. 

Getting Ready for Startups. Some Suggestions for Developing Countries

 
I have heard the word, "Startup", for  years. Of course, it is not a new concept in the US. However, I'm  hearing this word more often nowadays, especially, in some Asian countries. I am not wondering why. There are a number of successful Startups in the US. Startup businesses have become a significant driver for US economy.  People around the world know Uber, AirBnb, Instagram, etc. The businesses are changing market environment and people lifestyle. There is no doubt that Startup can help countries boost their economy. The question is... Is everybody ready for Startup? 

There are several factors that make Startups in the US so successful. People in the US have accesses to education, talents, funds, technical supports, etc. These critical infrastructures were not built in a day; the US has been building and developing these infrastructures for decades. I am looking at Thailand, a developing country in Asia. Startups have gained the attention of people from diverse sectors. Both government and private sectors are talking about Startups. They are trying to make Thailand a Startup hub in Southeast Asia. In my opinion, there are many things they need to prepare in order to be ready to achieve the goal.

• First of all, they need to understand the nature of Startup. Startups are not million-dollar businesses, not newborn businesses, and not the businesses founded by young people. The most important characteristic of Startup is the potential to create changes. Startups are the businesses that are changing how people think, trade, eat, have fun, and so on. Therefore, Startups' products or services based on innovation in one way or another. Startups' is offering solutions for unsolved problems. Startup is discovering consumers' new behaviors. The key components to create a Startup are creativity, differentiation, and trial and error. 
• Second, they need to prepare the infrastructure needed to start and foster Startups. The infrastructures are: 
• The right education system: The right education system should encourage students to be creative, to be different, to be dare to be wrong. The mentality will open the door for innovation. 
• Access to funding: Funding should also focuses on the potential of the ideas of the products or services. Besides traditional qualifications, funding agencies should be able to distinguish the business ideas that can be developed to Startup and give them opportunities. There should be more diverse funding sources such as crowdfunding like Kickstarter.com. 

• Copyright and patent systems: People in the country should have the right understanding of and respect copyright and patent systems. Government should be in charge of finding more effective ways to protect intellectual property. 
• Appropriate law and policy making: Many technologies cannot be commercialized because they are not supported by current laws and policies. Updating laws and policy is taking too long and cannot catch up with the speed of technological development. 
• Technological Infrastructures: They need to have high-speed internet that can handle consumer needs, internet security that can protect online activities, accountable Cloud, reliable transportation systems, and so on. 

These are just a few, but critical if they want to promote Startup.

Science before Science...

"The brilliance of the creators of the scientific revolution is revealed not only in their repudiation of the past and creation of theoretical novelties, but also in their ability to re-deploy inherited scientific ideas, theories, assumption, methodologies, instrumentation, and data, and put them to new theoretical use" (p. 367)

"Middle Ages was a scientific dark age."
"Human didn't have real science until the modern era"
I believe we have heard something like this before. Not until recently, people started thinking differently to the dark period, "maybe there were something important happened during that time", "maybe there were something worth studying".

In "The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450", David C. Lindberg provides another way to look at history of science before the modern era. 

In the 400 something pages, his discussion starts from pre-literature era to 15th Century. He discusses about theories, philosophies, astronomy, and all things that human before 15th century believed and used to reveal the fact of life and universe. He explains theories of all well-known philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and Galen. He also mentions about some other people who had great influences on our history of science but we may have never heard about before. All the details he talks about, I think he is trying to tell us that, "Hey! see? ancient people were not stupid and what they were doing were so science!"  

For me, his argument is convincing. Celestial theories, theology, and miracles may not sound scientific for us. But for those in the past who didn't have modern tools and theories, their observations and hypotheses were amazing. With their naked eyes and bare hands, they found that there were stars moving around us, there were atoms that caused physical changes, there were celestial energy that causes diseases, etc. Although, modern discoveries have proved those believes wrong, they were foundation of our scientific advancement today.

He is an active writer. I feel like he is talking to me and arguing with me many times. His humors make reading more enjoyable. His language and style helps me to survive the long reading and gain a better understand of history. 

A minor comment, my friends think the author doesn't talk much about politics and institutions. He should give more weight on the factors which were also significant for our history. 

Over all, he did a great job. I give 8 from 10 for this Lindburg's book.