Hello! As I near completion of my Bachelors in Applied Social Science at Colorado State, I am considering a number of Master’s programs. In short, I thought I would reach out to my friends and associates to get your input, based on your knowledge of me, my skills, my gaps, and your view of the future.
I chose to pursue social science, because so many of society’s challenges and opportunities in both the public and private sector usually have solutions, but lack an understanding of how to organize the social environment for change; the environment, globalization, inequality, healthcare, and economic growth are all examples. At the same time, we are in a period of great change with the advent of a global communication network, global transportation network, and the Internet, as we construct the social meaning of our future with these incredible capabilities. As I consider Master’s programs, I am looking at it through the lens of social change in digital era, and the potential impact we can have on our major challenges, specifically focusing on the role of businesses, government, or NGOs in engineering the social element of solutions.
Therefore, I have thought about a Master’s program in the following ways:
Continue focus on social science, going deeper on communication as the key skill to affect change that can be applied to any situation. These programs typically include focus on communication & media or communication & leadership. The programs at Gonzaga, John Hopkins University, Seton Hall, University of North Carolina, and University of Southern California fall into this category.
Starting applying what I have learned about social science towards one of the most pressing opportunities and challenges of our time, environmental sustainability. I think that both the public and private sector will need to address sustainability in a meaningful way in the future and will need leaders with a social science background to help affect change. The programs at Colorado University, Duke, and University of Denver fall into this category.
The attached PDF, named masters thoughts, includes more detail for each program, including curriculum, costs, and duration. I would very much like to hear your perspective. Please provide your feedback using the blog comments. Thanks!
The planet earth recently reached an important, albeit arbitrary milestone, as the global population reached 7,000,000,000 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011), prompting widespread discussion over whether the planet could sustain the growing population amid unchecked hyper-consumption. Miller and Spoolman (2010) echo the debate, asking, “Can we provide an adequate standard of living for a projected 2.7 billion more people by 2050 without causing widespread environmental damage” (p. 94)? Some, that hold an environmental wisdom worldview, have used the milestone as an opportunity to question our future amid concerns of overpopulation and overconsumption (Miller & Spoolman, 2010), environmental damage and non-renewable energy depletion (Sanjayan, 2011). These modern, global, challenges lead to difficult ethical questions, none more pressing than whether everyone should have the right to have as many children as they want, or whether society should seek to stem or regulate population growth. Regulating population growth is a temptingly simple approach, yet comes with many unintended consequences; rather the consumption side of the equation offers more opportunities for improvement.
Population growth is very concerning, and society should seek to productive ways to stem overpopulation. The regulation of population growth through government policy is in place in China; while effective to reduce the population has numerous unintended, negative, consequences (Miller & Spoolman, 2010). Rather, given that TFR lowers in predictable stages commensurate with the transition from developing to post-industrial economies, the focus should be on economic development; in conjunction with family planning and gender equality (Miller & Spoolman, 2010). In this manner, population growth will eventually reach equilibrium.
In addition, it is important to recognize that the world is changing in interesting ways. Ridley (2010) argues persuasively that prosperity is the result of the interchange and mating of ideas, made possible by trade and specialization. With the advent of the many-to-many communication model made possible by the Internet and the Web, innovation is occurring at an unprecedented pace (Baym, 2010). Shirky (2010) argues that the growing connected population is creating a cognitive surplus that increasingly is being applied to solve problems unaided by government or business, using the power of the crowd. How then is this cognitive surplus and mating of ideas used to address the problems of overconsumption?
Botsman and Rogers (2010) describe unresolved environmental problems and financial uncertainty as catalysts to a growing shift from hyper-consumption to collaborative consumption; enabled by the crowd and the network. They go on to describe collaborative consumption as the fifth ‘r’ of sustainable living; reduce, reuse, recycle, repair, and now redistribute (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). Examples include redistribution markets like eBay or various swap sites, collaborative lifestyle capabilities like Landshare.org, or product service systems like Zip Car for car sharing. The growing perspective on collaborative consumption rises from people tackling unresolved problems through collaboration and innovation; the use of our growing cognitive surplus for the good of the population and the planet we share.
“Can we provide an adequate standard of living for a projected 2.7 billion more people by 2050 without causing widespread environmental damage” (p. 94)? The answer depends on us. A better question is: Can we harness the cognitive surplus of 7,000,000,000 souls to promote economic growth in the developing world, reduce overconsumption in the developed world, and preserve the environment? This steward’s answer is yes.
Baym, N. K. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age. Cambridge, UK ; Malden, MA: Polity.
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours : the rise of collaborative consumption (1st ed.). New York: Harper Business.
Miller, G. T., & Spoolman, S. (2010). Environmental science (13th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.
Ridley, M. (2010). The rational optimist : how prosperity evolves (1st U.S. ed.). New York: Harper.
Major U.S. corporations that predate the Internet are liminal businesses that exist in the space between the traditional economics of the 20th century and an emergent economy characterized by fundamentally different human behaviors and values; as a result, many are likely to experience significant business disruption by new competitors that understand how the world is changing and have the flexibility to align their products and services to the new value system.
In a nutshell, I think that many mainstream businesses are embracing social media as tools without necessarily having an understanding of how human behavior is changing as a result. Examples are all over the place, of people getting together in unique ways with their own agenda for change.
Open source versus corporate built: Linux, Wikipedia, Firefox, Shareware, Freeware
Product-service systems versus product manufacturers: hardware and software solutions versus SaaS
redistribution versus hyperconsumption
carrot and stick versus autonomy, mastery and purpose
peer recommended versus brand identity
trusted behaviors versus credit report
friction versus flow
me versus we
and on and on.
Early in the class I was struck by symbolic interactionism and the implication of the idea that meaning is created through the interaction between people. What does that mean for a society that has developed an exponential capability to interact through many-to-many communication mechanisms when interaction volumes increase astronomically? I suspect it means a period of rapid change where new ideas take hold and are implemented by people rather than institutions (open source, arab spring, collaborative consumption, etc), simply because of rapid growth of cognitive surplus applied in altruistic ways (e.g. microfinancing) to address pervasive problems that mainstream institutions can’t seem to solve. I think there is evidence (on web sites) that many businesses do not understand how fundamental the changes are and simply view social media as a new set of tools by which to market, advertise, and reach people, rather than applying social media strategically to address fundamental shifts in behavior and values.