Whenever Apple releases a new product it inevitably evokes a bi-polar and visceral reaction from within the communities I travel. It's like West Side Story for the Geeks but, instead of the Jets and the Sharks we have the Fanboys and the Haters.
This was evident again this past week when the first edition iPads were shipped. Twitter, Facebook, and the blogosphere exploded in a cacophony of absolute opinion. The fanboys declared it the biggest moment in human history since Moses brought the tablets down from the mountain. While the haters rejoiced at every report of WIFI and charging issues claiming it proof that the iPad was nothing more than a golden calf. My two favorite responses, one from each side were:
But out of this pissing contest actually came a legitimate question for those of us working in education. Do we need to maintain some sort of objectivity when looking at the iPad, or any new technology for that matter? In other words, do we have an obligation to our audience, students and faculty, to seriously explore the potential of any new technology before we make a pronouncement?
We all have our own technology loves and hates and I think it's okay to write about their personal impact. In fact, I find it valuable. But, do we also have the responsibility to put that feeling (positive or negative) about a technology aside, as much as possible, in order to explore it's potential impact on our audience? Are we responsible for looking beyond functionality factors and at other things such as the potential unintended consequences of introducing a new technology, at economic and other potentially discriminating factors? Even if it means coming to conclusions and making recommendations that rub against our personal preference?
This was evident again this past week when the first edition iPads were shipped. Twitter, Facebook, and the blogosphere exploded in a cacophony of absolute opinion. The fanboys declared it the biggest moment in human history since Moses brought the tablets down from the mountain. While the haters rejoiced at every report of WIFI and charging issues claiming it proof that the iPad was nothing more than a golden calf. My two favorite responses, one from each side were:
From a Fanboy (tongue-in-cheek): "Shaving my eyebrows so that I can be clean before touching the iPad."
From a Hater (sarcastically): "The apes in 2001 displayed more objectivity toward the monolith."
The inference in both statements is mine.
But out of this pissing contest actually came a legitimate question for those of us working in education. Do we need to maintain some sort of objectivity when looking at the iPad, or any new technology for that matter? In other words, do we have an obligation to our audience, students and faculty, to seriously explore the potential of any new technology before we make a pronouncement?
We all have our own technology loves and hates and I think it's okay to write about their personal impact. In fact, I find it valuable. But, do we also have the responsibility to put that feeling (positive or negative) about a technology aside, as much as possible, in order to explore it's potential impact on our audience? Are we responsible for looking beyond functionality factors and at other things such as the potential unintended consequences of introducing a new technology, at economic and other potentially discriminating factors? Even if it means coming to conclusions and making recommendations that rub against our personal preference?
Yes.
But no one believes they aren't being objective, that the view they hold is prejudicial. We see from our own perspective. Possibly, from a university-wide perspective, our group isn't viewed as being impartial, but only delivering the fanboy point of view?