Digital Marketplaces Unleashed
Page 7
The answer is: not so well. In very lengthy, tedious, slow and complicated procedures full of rivalries, politics and interests, we managed to come up with only tiny bits of progress on standards and laws, both still difficult to implement, and a few niche security products. And that’s it. Years into what can be called an elevated state of this problem and its underlying market, we still don’t have proper security. The technologies are piecemeal and patchwork with limited functionality, understanding is still very low, the market is not any more mature than ten years ago, research and development have grown, but are stuck to conservative paradigms and face difficulties when trying to become industrialized. And still there are only a very few (real) experts.
The situation may look different on glamorous reports and slidedecks. But by and large, measured by the distance to actual 99% security, it’s failure. Neither the technical, nor the regulatory, industrial or managerial part has performed well. Despite the fact that there are technical, regulatory, industrial and managerial options to achieve 99% security. Disruptive options, to be sure. But isn’t that the word of the day in any presentation or brochure on digitalization? So what happened? Why didn’t we manage to disrupt cybersecurity? And could such a drama repeat itself in other areas of digitalization?
Among a larger set of particular issues, two closely entangled core problems appeared at the black heart of the cybermisery: complexity and fear. Complexity was and continues to be a fundamental obstacle to anything digital. Any product more complex than a dogfood app requires many different and very high levels of expertise. Decision‐makers in industry and government usually don’t have this kind of knowledge. Unfortunately, in cybersecurity, the field is so complex that even the best experts in the field hardly understand more than their own vertical and a few topics left and right. As an additional problem, experts in a highly complex field enjoy a lot of options to craft their opinion on both, the problem and the solution. In turn, the few experts capable to master larger pieces of the puzzle tend to disagree quickly on details. The end‐result is a zoo of opinions, analyses and potential solutions, with no chance for the lay person to judge between different approaches. Independent, objective methods to measure problems and solutions comparatively are almost impossible to develop at present.
So how do we decide what to pursue and what not? At this point, fear comes to play. German Angst, one might say, which has developed its very own culture among German engineers, managers and regulators. That culture is one of success: Germans hate to fail, and failure is punished, explicitly and implicitly. As a result, technological design, managerial decision‐making, the development of business models and the crafting of laws all are extremely cautious, consensual and highly incremental.
When confronted with a highly complex problem with no definite answer, this mentality drives perceptions and procedures. People in charge always gleam left and right what their peers are doing, to do the very same with a slightly different pitch to it. This way, they can easily disperse responsibility to “what everybody does”. On more expensive topics, they call in dozens of assessments and evaluations, simply to compare them for overlap, in order to refer to “most experts”. Or they delegate the problem away to a large company or a unit or agency in charge, even if that entity has no good track record itself. Hackers are so used to this mechanism, they invented their own description for this procedure. It’s the “OGP”‑, the “other guys problem”‐strategy. In a variation of this OGP‐strategy, disruptive ideas are being tosses around among each other until their executive level has forgotten about it, and it can be dropped safely to return to the old paths of maximum diffusion of responsibility.
The list of evasive maneuvers could be continued for a few more pages. Over time, these evasion create dangerous path dependencies, implicit tolerance and wrong sub‐incentives, and bring forth a self‐fulfilling prophecy. With a constant mentality to shun the unknown and shine the known, the least controversial solutions gain ever more “support”, rendering them ever more “accepted” for the lay persons eye, followed by a lot of “told you so” from those generating this effect. But in truth, this is just the center of gravity of a defective decision‐making process.
Now does this apply to digitalization at large? Most likely it does. Digitalization is complex, especially its new surge, risk and money are involved, and the people in charge are of the same kind and breed. Cheap, consensual, boring and incremental solutions will quite likely always have an upper hand in the coming years. And that will clearly put others in the lead of this revolution. We may be bound to lose this race.
A recommendation would be that executives, regulators, entrepreneurs, researchers will have to start their innovative process earlier and at a different place. Before disrupting technologies or markets, they have to disrupt the complexity‐fear‐dilemma. And they have to disrupt it in an invisible and somewhat intangible layer, they have to change their culture. This, of course, should be done with great care, only in solidly separated units and in phased models with room for trial and error. But setting up exotic enclaves, where “the rules” don’t count and where incentives are upside‐down, may have to be an important requirement for future growth and survival as a technology innovator.
The present book will hopefully support this process or, even better, provide smarter ideas than this one. At any rate, it must be seen as a guide to master a new field we shouldn’t yet consider mastered, an important voice of criticism and encouragement, and, most importantly, a call to practice: to act, to do, to try, to fail and finally, to win.
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018
Claudia Linnhoff-Popien, Ralf Schneider and Michael Zaddach (eds.)Digital Marketplaces Unleashedhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49275-8_6
6. Valuation, Recognition, and Signaling in the Digital Public Sphere: the TED Talk Ranking Ecosystem
Heidi Gautschi1 and Gianluigi Viscusi1
(1)École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
Heidi Gautschi (Corresponding author)
Email: heidi.gautschi@epfl.ch
Gianluigi Viscusi
Email: gianluigii.viscusi@epfl.ch
6.1 Introduction
With the advent of the Internet and its potential for multidirectional, interactive communication, we have seen the emergence of a digital public sphere. Numerous websites these days are set up in such a way as to encourage Internet mediated participation in ongoing discussions.
In the past few years a new actor, who is playing an increasingly important role in ranking ideas and the scholars who share them, has emerged: the TED organization. While debate has surrounded popular academic research output rankings such as, impact factor, h‐index, Times Higher Education Ranking and Google Scholar, the TED Talk phenomenon does not seem to have garnered the same amount of interest. We argue that TED talks can be seen as a social form of ranking which specifically affects higher education [1] and potentially research and innovation through decisions on what to invest in next. In this paper, we posit the following: TED talks can be considered to be a valuation device, in part because of their popularity. The TED organization then becomes a gatekeeper in the production and the cultural valuation of symbolic goods and social practices [2], especially with regard to research and innovation worth spreading. A valuation device is a process by which something, in our case ideas and innovations, is evaluated and ranked.
Valuation can be studied and observed in two different ways, either by looking at categorization and/or at legitimation [3]. As such, we argue that TED Talks form a ranking ecosystem encompassing both categorization (the multitude of ranking and ratings available internally and externally – which refer back to TED. These include number of views, popularity, inclusion in playlists etc.) and legitimation (recognition‐based valuation). To this end, we use the concept of recognition
[4] as an interpretative lens, specifically focusing on “achievement” as a form of recognition which may be gained by participating in a TED event. In short, giving a TED talk, especially one that has a large number of views, increases both the TED talker’s recognition and the recognition of whatever discovery, or innovation it was about. And, this within both the digital public sphere made up of a diverse group of people and potentially the TED talker’s professional community.
In addition to recognition, we also focus on a sociological interpretation of signaling theory [5] in order to make sense of the categorical aspects making up what we define to be the TED talk ranking ecosystem. Considering the integration of IBM Watson to “find nuanced answers to your big questions”, it can be argued that TED is actually a digital infrastructure for selection and promotion of research in science and innovation. Furthermore, Gambetta (2005) raised important points regarding signaling which we believe are applicable to TED talks: “under what conditions can a signal be rationally believed by the receiver, when the signaller has an interest in merely pretending that something is true, when he has in other words an interest in mimicking truthfulness in some way?” Given this, it is important to study the role signaling plays in the TED talk ranking ecosystem and its relationship to recognition, providing insights on the challenges as well as the potential transformation drivers for academic institutions and R&D departments in private companies.
The Chapter is structured as follows. We first provide a discussion of our theoretical background, thus explaining in more detail certain concepts and terms we use to analyze the TED talk ecosystem. We then provide a brief history of the TED organization, which leads us to then further describe the structure and reach of the TED ecosystem. Finally, we open up a discussion about the relationship between signaling, recognition and valuation based on a conceptual model.
6.2 Theoretical Background
6.2.1 Public Sphere and Valuation
Public speaking acts serve four basic purposes: to reaffirm cultural values, to increase democratic participation, to bring about justice and to promote social change [6]. With the increasing presence of the media as a place where ideas are circulated and debated, increasing importance has been placed on the “art” of public speaking. The presence of the media means a larger, more diverse public, which will change the delivery and content of a speech. A timely example would be the popularity of the TED talk and the proliferation of affiliated events around the world. Public speech acts occur in public and as such can be considered to be part of the public sphere.
According to Habermas [7], the public sphere is both a physical and metaphorical space where public opinion is formed outside of the structure of the State and the private sphere represented by the family. It is an intermediary space. The public sphere can be conceived of as a network of people, physical places and media outlets that circulate ideas that are debated in a rational and critical manner. In short, the public sphere is a space where the focus is on public discourse not on the person speaking [8]. Habermas [9] retraces the evolution of the public sphere and reaches the conclusion that the original “bourgeois public sphere” has been distorted, thus public discussion has been turned into a commodity [10]. Furthermore, the advent of the Internet has further transmogrified the publicness of the public sphere into publicity [10] while increasing the public’s ability to join in the discussion. It would appear that the TED ecosystem is an example of an Internet mediated public sphere, which we call the TED talk sphere.
Taking these issues into account, we further argue that TED talks can be considered to be a valuation device. According to Doganova et al. [11], the sociology of valuation looks at how “the value or values of something are established, assessed, negotiated, provoked, maintained, constructed and/or contested.” Valuation can be studied and observed in two different ways, either by looking at categorization (classification systems, stabilization, institutionalization), or at legitimation (the mechanisms by which an object gains value, recognition of value by you and me) [3]. The TED organization thus becomes a gatekeeper in production and the cultural valuation of symbolic goods and social practices, determining social status and class [12].
6.2.2 Recognition
Recognition has been defined according to three main dimensions: equal respect awarded to all agents capable of autonomy; esteem due to one’s achievements, emphasizing difference and the uniqueness of specific and cultural features; recognition of concrete individuality such as love and friendship [13]. In general, one of the key characteristics of recognition consists in the affirmation of positive qualities of single individuals or groups [14]. Further elaborating from the Hegelian argument that we gain self‐consciousness only through a process of mutual recognition, Brandom [15] claims that this elementary form of recognition, on the one hand, allows for the creation and preservation of a subject’s identity, granting others the status of an epistemic authority; on the other hand, it denotes a basic normative attitude and allows one to build a normative space of reasons, commitments and entitlements, enforcing the subject as being capable of responsibilities and exercising authority [13]. Taking these issues into account, it is worth noting that Honneth [14] points out distinct stages of recognition along which individuals gain self‐confidence, self‐respect and self‐esteem, the latter related to personal “achievements”.
How, TED Talks contribute to recognition as an institutional fabric of a person’s identity, granting others the status of an epistemic authority is still little explored and worth investigating.
6.2.3 Signaling Theory
Signaling theory attempts to understand a two pronged communication problem that we have all encountered: How can the receiver (the person receiving information from a specific source) determine whether, or not the signaler (the person communicating the information) is telling the truth? How can the signaler persuade the receiver that he is telling the truth, regardless of the truthfulness of his communication [16]?
Much of what we want to know about someone is hidden from us. There is an information asymmetry. How then, do we discern the truthfulness of what is being communicated to us? Signaling theory, through analysis of a variety of situations, attempts to respond to this question.
One way of “signaling” who we are and what we stand for, what our beliefs are and our moral standards, occurs through what communication scholars call nonverbal communication. This form of communication encompasses body language, dress, smell, the environment within which the communication occurs, nervous tics … In signaling theory, these elements are divided into signals and signs. “Signals are the stuff of purposive communication. Signals are any observable features of an agent which are intentionally displayed for the purpose of raising the probability the receiver assigns to a certain state of affairs (…) Signs are a different concept from signals. Signs can be just anything in the environment that is perceptible and by being perceived happens to modify our beliefs about something or someone. But signs are dormant potential signals. They are the raw material of signals. The basic form of the sign—signal transformation is that a signaler takes steps to display the sign [16].”
A sign can become a signal when the signaler purposefully displays the sign. For example, I happen to have a nasty scar on my arm that I normally keep covered up. However, in situations where I want to appear tough, I purposefully display the scar. Depending on how I received the scar (an accident, a knife wound during a fight) displaying the scar in specific situations could be an example of emitting a false signal—one that is strategically meant to misrepresent and mislead.
Another key element in signaling theory is the cost of emitting a signal depending on whether, or not the signaler is being truthful or not. Let us consider two types of signalers, someone who is truthfull
y emitting a signal and someone who is not. If only the truthful signaler can emit the signal, then we are in a state of “equilibrium”. “In this equilibrium signals are unambiguous, and the receiver is perfectly informed [16].” In the opposite case, when both types of signalers can afford to signal the same thing, then the receiver is no better informed than before the signaling occurred [16]. In real life, we generally encounter situations that are somewhere in between these two extremes. We are “informed, but not perfectly [16].”
6.3 TED
The TED (technology, education, design) conference, cofounded by Richard Saul Wurman in 1984, was meant to be a one off conference which brought together influential people in the areas of technology, education and design. In 1990, the second TED conference was organized and from then on, the conference was held twice a year. Wurman curated TED until 2000 and then sold it to UK entrepreneur, Chris Anderson. Anderson coined TED’s tagline, “ideas worth spreading” [17]. In 2006, the TED website was launched and it currently hosts a selection of over 2000 talks divided into categories like “jaw dropping” and “beautiful”. Furthermore, according to Sugimoto et al. [18] the TED Talks website is the fourth most popular technology website in the world.
While the TED organization offers more than just talks, the talks are what they are best known for. A typical TED talk lasts 18 min. Close attention is paid to not just the content, but also the narrative structure and delivery. Speakers are provided coaches so as to deliver high impact talks. People present official TED talks at a limited number of venues, either at one of the two main conferences, or at the TED global conference. There is a selection process for choosing TED talkers and audience members so as to maintain quality and diversity [19] After conferences and other TED talk venues, the organization then carefully selects which talks to upload onto their website. “Most TED talks are edited, lightly but carefully.” [20]. Viewers are able to stream the talks, or download them. And, like most sites on the social web, viewers are able to interact with the talk by liking it, commenting on it, sharing it and rating it [21]. Aside from the talks, the TED organization, however, is comprised of numerous ventures, such was TEDEd which provides playlists to use in the classroom, a TED‐Watson collaboration, a weekly show on NPR and a start‐up competition.