Gender Bias in the Classroom

Part One

A few years ago Myra and David Sadker published a book called “Failing at Fairness: How America’s Schools Cheat Girls.”  They spent 20 years collecting evidence about boys and girls attitudes towards school and each other.  It is the most comprehensive look at the bias girls face from preschool through high school.  It found that students who have survived this treatment in middle and high school experience a continuing erosion of self-confidence in many colleges and universities.

“There is no doubt that girls show up on their first day of grammar school just as ready, willing and able to succeed as do boys.  At the elementary school level, girls and boys scored equally high in math and science, but by the middle school years girl’s achievement in these areas, particularly in science begins to take a downward slide.

The Sadkers’ showed in their survey of classroom settings across the country that teachers call on boys more frequently, spend more time with them and encourage their initiative and inquisitiveness more than they do girls.  By grade six, girls have become more tentative, far less likely to call out answers and more reluctant to take part in class demonstrations.

The slip has been attributed to the efforts of the lingering perception that science and math are simply things “that men do.” But, even when girls do well in these subjects, they receive less encouragement to pursue such disciplines, the study stated. 

Although differences in math achievement are narrowing, the study said, the gender gap in science may be increasing.  In addition, girls seldom get a chance to learn about the accomplishments of women. I am in agreement that a majority of visual arts and narrative materials are overwhelming male dominated.   Even the central them in movies is dominated with violence against women.

Once children enter middle school, the situation worsens, Girls who have previously held the edge in subjects, including mathematics, begin to lose points in every category of national tests.  This decline most precipitous in math, continues throughout high school, so that by the time juniors take National Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Tests, boys outscore girls by an average of 50 points.  While 18,000 boys typically reach the highest PSAT categories only 8,000 girls do.

Acting President of the AAUW Sharon Schuster commissioned a study that reported that of 13 popular U.S. history texts revealed that 1% of the 13 textbooks had any material on women, and women’s lives were often trivialized, distorted, or omitted.

A review of 35 major reports over two decades found only four that made any substantive references to girl’s problems in the educational system.  Further, the report found that sexual harassment of girls by boys is on the rise, in part, the Sadker’s stated, because school authorities tend to dismiss the incidents a “harmless instances of “boys being boys.”

Sadly, this is true on many elementary campuses. Some teachers seem to feel that girls need to learn to handle themselves in these types of situations.  However, when I speak to former female students they are acutely aware that the boys are being treated differently.  Many give up on taking their complaints to the teachers because of the lack of support they receive.  They feel that the teachers feel that somehow they must have contributed to the problem.  I have found that many girls begin their academic decline because the boys who instigate many of the problem always manage to get the teacher attention and multiple second tries to get it right.  Therefore, the girls begin to emulate the boy’s behavior in a effort to receive the same amount of attention.  The new problem is now the attention is based on negative behavior and not academic achievement.

Although girls surpass boys academically in the early grades, outdistancing them in all the elementary subjects, by middle school the boys have not only caught up but have begun to sprint ahead, not only in math and science, but in the subjects where girls had the most conspicuous lead: spelling, reading, history and geography.

Read more »

Read more »

Online Privacy... You Decide!

Reprint Title: Do Social Network Sites Have a Responsibility to Protect Our Private Information

Are social networks required to protect your privacy? Do they have a special relationship to their users to assure them that they will not reveal any of their online activity without express, direct permission from the user?  Barnes (2006) wrote, “In America, we live in a paradoxical world of privacy. On one hand, teenagers reveal their intimate thoughts and behaviors online and, on the other hand, government agencies and marketers are collecting personal data about us.  Teenagers will freely give up personal information to join social network on the Internet. After wards, they are surprised when their parents read their journals.  Communities are outraged by the personal information posted by young people online and colleges keep track of students activities on and off campus.”

With Social Networking Sites (SNS) hosting up to 100 million users, not to mention Facebook that currently has 600 million register accounts; is it even possible for a social network site to protect your private information.  It seems that Facebook acknowledges that it is not possible to provide you a 100% guarantee that they have the ability to protect your private information.  Facebook (2010), privacy policy includes:

Risks inherent in sharing information. Although we allow you to set privacy options that limit access to your information, please be aware that no security measures are perfect or impenetrable. We cannot control the actions of other users with whom you share your information. We cannot guarantee that only authorized persons will view your information. We cannot ensure that information you share on Facebook will not become publicly available. We are not responsible for third party circumvention of any privacy settings or security measures on Facebook. You can reduce these risks by using common sense security practices such as choosing a strong password, using different passwords for different services, and using up to date antivirus software.

Facebook’s privacy policy implies that it is your responsibility to exercise due diligence when engaging in online activities.  Therefore, who should have access to our private information, and under what circumstance?  Is private really private? If I establish an account on a social network and I set my privacy setting, does that mean that no one can access my information?  What is private information?  Is something that is private to me private to you?  In other words, if I do not care that someone has my name, email address, birth date, residing city, employment, educational profile and or access to my friends, why should you, why should anyone?  Do social network sites have an obligation to protect my information or have I proved the site too much personal information online.

Is this the same type of information that would come up in an engaging conversation, with a group of friends, maybe?  So, what is the difference?  It might have more to with what it means to be a member of a social network. For example, my LinkedIn account states that I have 13 connections that links me to 371,632 other professionals.  Now this is great networking, but in reality, I have no idea who is the other 371, 619 connections.  Should I be concern? Can I pick and choose whom I what to engage?  Do sites like Facebook have a fiduciary relationship with me to keep my information away from anyone that I do not want to see it?

Facebook is very clear in their policy that they, as well as other SNS will use your information in some form or another and it will be made available to marketers.  Marketers will in turn make your information available in different forums throughout Cyberspace. It should be noted, that this marketing policy is typical for any SNS, online retailer, credit card company, and or registration for access to online services, and is not restricted to Facebook.

Information from other websites. We may institute programs with advertising partners and other websites in which they share information with us: We may ask advertisers to tell us how our users responded to the ads we showed them (and for comparison purposes, how other users who didn’t see the ads acted on their site). This data sharing, commonly known as “conversion tracking,” helps us measure our advertising effectiveness and improve the quality of the advertisements you see. We may receive information about whether or not you’ve seen or interacted with certain ads on other sites in order to measure the effectiveness of those ads (Facebook, 2010).

Herein lies the problem. If I post something about chocolate does that mean I will receive communication from a manufacture of chocolate.  If I post something about basketball, will I receive advertisements dedicated to sporting events?  Well, the answer to that question is yes.  I will be exposed to some form of marketing on my home page, in my email, snail mail, the side boarders of my search results, and or any other methods or forums that I provide online personal information.  Are there laws to protect me?  Well let us review the Fourth Amendment and how it relates to privacy.  The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, an the persons or thing to be seized. 

 How does this forth amendment right protect me from online predators or from people that want to access my personal information. In one Supreme Court Decision, “Smith v. Maryland, the court held that the defendant has no subjective expectation of privacy in a search conducted by a pen register.  A pen register is a device installed by the telephone company, which can track the phone numbers of all calls outgoing from a person house.”  One can reasonable feel that the phone company has your phone number and the phone number that you dialed even though it is a private number.

This decision was upheld in the case “United States v. Miller (425 U.S. 435 (1976) in which Justice Blackmun wrote, “[t]his Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties” (Hodge, 2006). 

This is the case that is adapted for cyberspace.  It is based on “voluntarily turning over” information.  We have a choice regarding what information we provide to SNS.  Before the registration is completed, an acceptable use agreement pops up.  This agreement includes the privacy policy.  We can choose to agree or disagree.  There is evidence that people do not read privacy policies or if they do read them do not fully understand their contents (Berendt, 2005). If you do not read the disclaimer, does this imply that you are forgoing your rights in order to participate in the network? It would appear at that moment that participation is more important than privacy.

In U.S. v. Charbonneau, the district court stated “an e-mail message, like a letter, cannot be afforded a reasonable expectation of privacy once that message is received.”  When an email is sent and once that email arrives to its destination, it is now the discretion of the recipient to guard the content.  If I post on a SNS, I have in result, opened the letter for all to see that has access to any one of my connections or friends.  Hodge’s (2006) wrote in his review of a case study: 

By signing on to Facebook or MySpace and providing personal information for others to see, a user is, in effect, not seeking to preserve the information as private, but is instead making a choice to publicize this information for others.  There is no substantial need to have a profile on Facebook or MySpace in order to engage in other, everyday activities and there are no institutions, which require registration and the posting of a profile on one of these web sites.  In fact, there are other cyberspace mediums for the sharing of personal information with others, which hold them selves out to be more private, and can be used without any additional cost to the user.

This brings us back to the issue of voluntary participation. The personal information that you post is completely your decision.  Thus far, there seems to be no fiduciary relationship between SNS and the users.  The user is not required to provide any information that they deem too personal in nature or too private.  What is posted can be considered to be something that is in plan view for all users of the network to see.  There is no crime to look inside someone’s non-gated backyard. If users are in a legal dispute and the issue of what can be used against them arises in a court of law, for example; in a divorce proceeding, employment applications, and or criminal prosecution; if it is posted on a SNS it could be considered as in “plan view” based on prior legal precedent. As stated in the application of the Fourth Amendment, what is in plan view can be subjected to seizure and is admissible. If you were to establish a relationship with someone online, they in turn have the ability to use your communication for any purpose.

Therefore, the question of trust arises.  Do we trust SNS to protect our private information when no fiduciary relationships exist, and if we do how does that affect the relationship?  Trust is critical in understanding when we choose to share personal information with others and when we chose secrecy (Joinson, A.N., Reips, U.D., Buchanan, T., Schofield C. B.2010).  If someone trusted the look of the site, then they trusted the site with private information.  This not only applies to SNS but to online retailers as well.  There was little evidence that people’s dispositional privacy attitudes influenced their interpretation of the specific situation, suggesting that being concerned about privacy does not influence how a specific privacy-related situation is viewed (Joinson, A.N., Reips, U.D., Buchanan, T., Schofield C. B., 2010) .  Therefore, the mere trust in the design or function of the site will surpass our concerns about privacy.

In conclusion, it is apparent that SNS or any site where there is no fiduciary relationship to protect your private information; they are only required to exercise a reasonable attempt to protect said information.  However, this issue requires further study as more information is posted online as a means of cost cutting and state and federal mandates.  It should be noted that the issue of criminal intent or negligence  in the handling of private information was not addressed in this blog.  In fact a very different outcome with the application of the Fourth Amendment could result if negligence or criminal intent was a factor in the handling of one’s private information.  Nevertheless, if at the present time  the information is indeed private or very personal in nature, one may need to consider if they want to post it with the knowledge that all your friend’s friends have access to the information and also knowing the fact that this information can live forever Cyberspace. 

 Bibliography

Barnes, S. (2006, September 4). A Privacy Paradox: Social networking in the United States. Retrieved April 4, 2011, from First Monday: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1394/1312

Berendt, B. O. (2005). Privacy in e-commerce: Stated perferences vs. actual behavior. Communications of the ACM (48), 101-106.

Facebook. (2010, December 22). Privacy Policy. Retrieved April 4, 2011, from Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/policy.php

Hodge, M. J. (2006). The Fourth Amendment and Privacy Issues on the "New" Internet: Facebook.com and MySpace.com. Southern Illinois University Law Journal, (31), 95-122.

Joinson, A. R. (2010). Privacy, Trust, and Self-Disclosure Online. Human-Computer Interactions , 25, 1-24.

Related articles

• A New Social Networking Site Offers an Improved Level of Privacy while Providing an Opportunity for its Users to Generate Income (prweb.com)

Can ethics succeed when policy and culture collide?

Monday, March 28, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court wrestled with a case that can have a far-reaching impact on the issue of gender discrepancies in the work place.  Six female employees filed a lawsuit based on the1964 Civil Rights Act.  They stated that Wal-Mart supports a culture of gender discrimination.  Now mind you, the case is not about the actual discrimination but can these women mover forward and file a class action lawsuit based on being over looked for promotions, pay increases and management opportunities.  Thus far, all lower courts have supported the rights of these women  to file this class action lawsuit that would represented about 500,000 women at a cost of about $1,100 for each claimant if they were to prevail.

I know that this is possible having been in the same situation as some of these women.  Thinking that if I just worked harder and longer hours that I would receive the promotion.  In one of my own experiences, after training about a dozen assistance mangers to become retail store mangers, I knew that my knowledge and experience was of values to the company.  All those managers I trained immediately moved on to manage their own retail store. However for me, the actual promotion never happened.  Did I say that all the manager I trained were not of color.  So I can sympathize with these women.

I think if you were to ask any female working in any of the Fortune 500 companies or any company, I would bet that they would have many stories to tell you about the glass ceiling.   Something that we all know exist but up until this point was not voiced in a court of law with such thunder. 

The Los Angeles Times article written by James Oliphant and David G. Savage on March 30, 2011, reports that the hourly wage earners at Wal-Mart for females to males the ratio is 2:1. Times magazine AP writer Mark Sherman wrote on March. 28, 2011 “that 65% of the hourly workers are women.”  This means that the females are responsible for a majority of the sales floor activities, cashiering and dusting, responsibilities.  Yes I did said dusting. 

“The men make up 86% of management and are responsible for the decision-making, hiring, firing and promotional responsibilities. Not to mention, that the men are paid more money, not just in the position of management but also in all positions.  Women within the company are paid less then men even if they have more seniority and better reviews.  They receive fewer promotions and wait longer before getting promoted.” This is the issue of the claimants.

The claimants state that Wal-Mart promotes a strong corporate culture of gender bias.  This is where it gets tough and even the Supreme Court Justices question this aspect of the case.  Or should I say this is where the “male” Supreme Court Justices could not rationalize the discriminatory aspect of the case as it pertains to "legal liability."  It was reported that the court is sharply divided along gender lines. Can you image that the U.S. Supreme court is divided by gender.  What is this world coming to; I thought justice was blind?

The male Justices’ with the exception of Justice Boutrous, questioned how Wal-Mart could be held accountable for the action of the managers at store level.  It seems that since there is not actual “policy” for gender discrimination that Wal-Mart could not be held liable for the action and decisions of store level management.  In other words, “the policy states” that Wal-Mart calls for equal treatment with regards to race or sex.  As far as the male justices are concerned, this policy statement can relieve Wal-Mart of its legal responsibility.

However, on the other side of this gender divide are the female justices.  They feel that allowing local management to determine promotions could result in discrimination against women.  Ginsburg a former sex-discrimination lawyer supports the assertion that “gender bias could “creep” into the workplace.  It isn’t all that complication.”

The female claimants state that Wal-Mart supports a “culture of gender bias.”  They made reference to being treated as less then professionals and do not receive equal pay for equal work and the statistics indicate that this is in fact true. 

So how does one know that they are being discriminated against in the work place?  I know in my experience I was not sure until I realized who I trained, and that I would never receive the promotion that I know I worked hard for. If I had to explain it I would say, its like looking out of your window and it is a bright sunny day.  You dress for this sunny day only to step out of your door and realized that it is 10 degrees outside.  You can’t see it from your window because the sunshine deceived you, and once your realize how cold it is, you start feeling the chill all the way down to your bones.  Quickly you turn to go back and get a different coat only to realize that you left your keys in the house in your heavy winter coat pocket. This single experience will prevent you from ever being deceived by bright sunshine again.

So I ask.  Is a written policy all that is required to legally sweep discriminatory cultural disparities under the rug? Will the good ol' boys be able to pay some high priced attorney to “write” policy in such a way as to enforce the glass ceiling, maintain substandard pay based on gender, age, and or race, thereby maintaining the status quo for the privileged few?  Will oppressive corporate culture sustain itself allowing the good ol' boys to remain in charge and responsible for deciding who succeeds and who labors.  This case is about more than these six courage women.  Corporate Policy should be reviewed and rewritten to accommodate America’s multicultural, multiethnic and multiracial views where everyone should have the opportunity to flourish, collaborate new ideas and concepts in an attempt to realize one’s personal American dream.

Please post any experiences, comments or thoughts that you might have.  I would love to hear your personal stories.

All post are moderated.

Related articles

• Supreme Court Class-Action Discrimination Case? (feministphilosophers.wordpress.com)
• High court appears to favor Wal-Mart in gender-bias case (chron.com)
• Supreme Court Questions Wal-Mart Lawsuit (time.com)
• Supreme Court wrestles with sheer size of suit against Wal-Mart - Christian Science Monitor (news.google.com)

When is enough, enough. Children are off limits!

I woke up early this morning, prepared my cup of coffee with extra cream; turned on the TV to see the weather only to be shocked by the news of the day. No, not Japan, or the Middle East, but Abercrombie & Fitch selling a push up bikini tops for young girls.  My jaw hit the floor.  I was puzzled, why?  I can remember being a retail buyer many, many years ago and how we would sit in the merchandise meeting to present what we felt were potential new trends.  I find it hard to believe that someone placed this child’s push up bikini top on a table and everyone agree that this was going to be the next child’s trend. 

Did they have a discussion about what’s right and what wrong or did they sit with smiles on their face thinking of all the slaves to fashion that will go running out to purchased them and then have their child prance in public with this top on.  Do any of the buyers have children and what was on their mind during this presentation?  I am sure pedophilias will have a new candy store to go to, but its not them that is my concern because they are what they are. I am worried about the young girls that will wear these tops and attract unwarranted attention, which can devalue how they see themselves and their own personal worth.  This is about children who before they can count to 100 will know that they can attract the eyes of others and not know why.  This is nothing short of in your face baby porn.  For once the media got this one right. This is simply sexually objectifying young female children.   When I went to post the link for the blog this is want I found.  Obviously, someone realized that maybe this is not really a good idea. 

It should be noted that Abercrombie Kids has a history of sexualization of children’s fashion.  If you remember a few years ago they promoted thongs for young girls.  When I say young kids, let me be clear, I am talking toddlers. Sadly this one did not disappear as fast of the push up top.  However, I will not place all the blame on Abercrombie, but parents that will go out and purchase this in the name of “the new thing” or “all the kids will be wearing it.” They should be referred to parental counseling classes.  After all you can’t sell what people are not buying.  This is one thing that no parent should be buying but instead they should be picketing any store that promotes any children merchandise that will degrade the value of our youth to mere sexual objects.

Are we as a society so agreeable that seeing an 8 year old with a push up bikini top is to be considered the norm?  Are we to the point of placing all the blame on the media, Internet, and advertising verses being responsible parents? I hope not.

Related articles

• Padded Bras For Seven-Year-Olds (buzzfeed.com)
• "Abercrombie Changes Push-Up Bikini Name Due To Controversy [VIDEO]" and related posts (blogs.babble.com)
• Abercrombie Padded Bikini Top For 8-Year-Olds Angers Parents (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)

What is a parent?

I read a story written by Maria L. La Ganga, about a 34 year old women named Abbie Dorn from Los Angeles.  She gave birth to triplets, and when giving birth, the hospital made some major mistakes resulting in Ms. Dorn becoming a paraplegic.  From the day of their birth, it had been three years since she had seen the children.  The ex-husband Dan Dorn, who resides in Myrtle Beach, feels that it would be damaging for the children to see their mother in her condition.  He would prefer that the children never see their maternal mother or grandmother again.  He feels that the only reason he has to deal with this issue is because the grandmother feels that her daughter has the “Constitution Right” to see the children. 

Ms. Dorn has the ability to occasionally respond by blinking eye signals.  In December 2010 Dan allowed the children to see their mother.  “They tended to her, drew picture for her, they were unafraid of her, “despite the tube and everything else one would find in a hospital room for a patient living in this condition as stated in the article.  They knew she was their mommy.  However, after all this Dan still feels that they children should not be allowed to see Abbie, and that the courts should not grant her visitation rights. 

I found that when the story indicated that the children were loving toward their mother is something greater than what anyone could ever understand.  They did not expect anything only the joy of being with someone that they were told had no signs of life.  I am torn with this story.  I think that some type of relationship should be allowed regardless of the fact that she can do very little.  She is alive, she is their mother, and with the exception of the ex-husband everyone seems to want to try. 

She is not asking for custody but merely visitation rights.  But, in this situation, what would constitute visitation rights. However, no matter the verdict, it may never be apparent that she would be aware of it.  If it were rule against her, would she really be able to understand the judgment, for or against her? Does she the cognitive ability to make sense of the situation?

What are the moral and ethical issues involved with this case?

The Judge Frederick C. Shaller has to make a decision of: Will granting visitation with their mother cause them mental harm because she is a paraplegic?  Does Ms. Dorn have no rights as a parent because of her condition? Can a Judge really make a decision for the true benefit of the children or for the mother? I think the reasoning behind the final verdict will be worth reading.

What’s your view…

Original Story from the LA Times

Related articles

• Judge To Rule if Paralyzed Mom Can See Her Kids (abcnews.go.com)

What is the media's ethical and social responsibility to the public.

   As the world knows, on March 11, 2011 at 2:46 (JST) an 8.9 earthquake struck the island of Japan.  I live in Los Angeles and have felt everything from a 1 to the 6.7 Northridge earthquake.  I have to admit, I can’t even image an 8.9 earthquake, and the fact that it lasted for 5 minutes, "No," I just can’t image it. 

Someone made a statement about the news coverage regarding Japan's massive earthquake and the conversation momentarily evolved around the amount of the media coverage.  Most felt it is too much.  This made me wonder. So, I ask the question: Does the Media have an ethical or social responsibility to not bombard us with the decimation of Japan?

Later that day, a student came to my classroom (actually he was put out of his for behavior) and asked me could he use one of my laptops to see what was happening in Japan.  I asked why?  I wanted to know his “intentions” for watching this footage.  He told me that it is amazing what happened there and he wanted to see the tsunami.  I asked why? I want to see what it did, he said, as I told him to sit down.  I gave him the Internet address to the  Los Angeles Times.  www.latimes.com

I observed him looking at the images; watching him studying them.  I showed him how to search for more information.  We went to www.google.com where he saw the text results.  And, then I clicked images.  He looked at the pictures, which were of the tsunami and the floating homes.  He looked puzzled.  What’s wrong I asked?  It’s just amazing to see.  As he pointed to different pictures that interested him.  I told him to click videos.  He sat back disappointed because none of them could play.  I forgot, YouTube is block in my district.  I told him to go to www.bbc.com.  He watched the incoming waves of the tsunami

I explained to him what is a three-story building; that was the size of the wave being shown in the news footage. At first he thought it was a beach wave.  I explained how many feet there are in a story so he could create a visual to go with the video.  He told me that he could not believe a wave could be that tall.  He watched a few more. Then asked more questions about the living conditions of the people.  I explained what I knew of the emergency procedures and the support system that the world is trying to provide.   

We talked about the fact that we live in Los Angeles and every home should have an emergency plan.  He thought that was a good thing.  He took some time and read more of the articles (he is considered a non-reader in his classroom).  I could tell he had true empathy for Japan.  All of Japan.  The island, the people, the conditions, the future, you could tell this meant something to him.   He asked me, do you look at this site at lot, referring to www.bbc.com.  Yea, I like it, the news is pretty good.  We got a knock on the door; it was time for him to go.  Thanks Mr. McBride, that was good as he departed.

Later that evening I watched the evening coverage on the tragic unfolding in front of me. I thought to myself, why would you not want to know.  Now, the coverage exceeds all news items at this moment, even the Middle East’s potential civil wars, our own war in Afghanistan and the dismal financial state of affairs. Suddenly, the news broke its coverage, and showed lines of cars with people in them at the TV’s station parking lot giving money for the relief efforts with the support of the Red Cross.

Therefore, I ask the question again. Does the Media have an ethical or social responsibility to not bombard us with the decimation of Japan?  

My answer is no, they do have the responsibility in my opinion to provide us with the best coverage possible about the changing condition for better or worst. Why.  So, it can stay on our minds just a bit.  Other wise, it just becomes new of the day.  This is so much more than the day’s news flash.  This is true devastation and at this point it has no end in sight.  Not to mention, the potential destruction if the nuclear reactors explode.  Something that I don’t want to see, and now I am of the age where I can turn way from that visual should it occur.   

Yes, they must show it, and in a way, we should endure it.  We are taking about human beings whom have influenced our country and the world.  We share so much.  Therefore, we should share this.  We can’t turn away now. Do you have to watch it every minute of the day or everyday? Of cause not.  Should young children witness this, no!  Should older kids see this? Only if an adult is in the room to help them make sense of this catastrophe and they should set a limit on how long they should watch.   We as a collective global community should know what is going on.  If the members in your house hold sadly said, “is this all that’s on TV.” Then maybe its time to turn off the TV and talk about it.  Talk about your emergency plan. What would you do after seeing this?

Related articles

• FULL COVERAGE of Japan tsunami, earthquake (thegazette.com)
• Social Media Crisis Infographics - Disaster Relief on Facebook Charts Japanese Tsunami Responses (TrendHunter.com) (trendhunter.com)

Design, Behavior, and a Cup of Joe

(Reprint from 10/29/2010)

When thinking about how design effects behavior, one is prone to view technology, consumer products, web-based artifacts, digital and or social media as the proverbial objects, however, I being to wonder about what was really important and what artifacts have the greatest influences on my behavior.  I came to the conclusion that it was not technology or other gadgets, but the simple things that I encounter on a day-to-day bases.  The one object that seemed to meet all the stimuli was not a gadget but an environment, which I frequent for a small cup of coffee, espresso an a occasional cup of Earl Gray. I am not speaking of any particular place because I visit different coffee shops based on my mood and or the tasks at hand. 

These cultural artifacts which have been around for centuries, today provide me with ambiance and a hot cup of coffee, while for others they offer an array of specialty drinks and sometimes pastries or a sandwich.  To a novice, there is very little difference between one environment and another, however as you frequent these social habits you will observe how the overall design has a direct effect on one’s behavior and the incubation of a coffee culture within these habitat.

In order to reap the benefits of the culture you have to learn how to navigate the space.  Although the merchandise is limited in scope and the physical space is sometimes restricted, this has no impact on the community’s desire to participate and multiply.   Therefore, brand is important for quality, consistency and reputation.  Some cultures pride themselves on offering CRS Free Trade, Think Local First, USDA Organic, Fair Trade USA, Certified Organic, and SVK Kosher to their communities as a means of being environmentally friendly. Health conscious individuals require specific product combinations' that allow them the perception of uniqueness.  This adds to how one’s behavior is modifying when interacting within the environment and the overall feeling of "making a contribution" to the world community. 

The experts of these communities are known as Batista.  They are able to negotiate the tools and merge another community’s culture and etiquette with their own, thereby supporting the perception of acceptation and ease of manipulation into their community’s of practice.  The Barista’s knowledge of the coffee culture transcends all the countries on the globe, for example Jerusalem, Spain, or Italy just to name a few. Most users know that a frappe is not always a frappe, ask any Batista.  

The technologies in these habitats are completely transparent and there is an expectation that connectivity is simplistic, intuitive, and functioning.  The interface allows all forms of technology to interact without any glitches thereby allowing the user a multitude of potential experiences. This transparency in many was is one of the main attractions for participation into this coffee culture.

Although members of these communities prefer to spend time in these social habitats, the product is completely portable.  

The visceral design is often unnoticed but its feel is inviting and captivating.  When negotiating the space, one learns that the lighting patterns offer different sub-habitats within a single space.  The overhead lighting allows for text reading, document evaluation and web based functions; while dimmer areas allows for more intimate conversation and social interaction. The secondary artifacts (i.e. furniture, chairs, stools) are movable thereby allowing the users to determine how they would like to mediate the space for engagement and collaborate.

The interior space is usually made up of warm hues and natural colors that are inviting, relaxing and at the same time invigorating, thereby time is no longer paramount.  Many of the tables are round or small rectangles that provide a cozy and personal workspace in oppose to a standard rectangle work area that occupies a traditional office. Many habitats provide comfortable seating areas that consist of over sized chairs and or inviting sofas. Some coffee shops are also referred to  as cafes'; they even resemble someones personal living space thereby providing a nice homely feeling. 

When you have acquired mastery of the tools you are able to participate with confidence.   The artifacts used to hold the products add to the stimulation of the biological functions of the brain.  The artistic design accompanying the product is satisfying to the eye and the heat that radiates into the pores of ones hands becomes comforting, as the aroma is as familiar as an old friend thereby, heightening the multi-sensory experience.

Once one has become an active participant and learned how to mediate the space, its usability becomes familiar and fully functional. You immediately know what area in the environment meets your needs and purpose.

When a user submits to this social artifact's aura of warm hues, controlled lighting and pleasant scent; often time reflective thought occurs that makes one trust the environment as a home away from home. You take a deep breath and begin to focus on your purpose.