I have some information to democratize – It’s okay to say “PTK.”

PTK.

Of course it is preferable to say “Phi Theta Kappa” and just okay to say “PTK” – for reasons which I will explain in this blog – but as a community of scholars who value things like teaching, learning, tolerance, and inclusivity, to name a few shared values of those affiliated with the organization, I believe we have to accept that “PTK” is okay and stop vilifying anyone who says it.

To me, it is NOT disrespectful when someone in or out of the honor society uses “PTK” rather than Phi Theta Kappa.  The person in question in fact may love and believe in the organization’s spirit, and know little about the reasons we use Greek letters or what the Greek letters stand for or what those Greek words mean.  But they know what’s important to the organization:  high academic standards, leadership, service, and meaningful, scholarly gatherings.  As I heard someone say recently, “Aren’t we glad they know who we are and what we are about.”  Exactly.  Think of PTK as a nickname.  Nicknames don’t always connect to the full, original name of a person or thing – but they are learnable or catchy or memorable and somehow make sense for those who use it.    “Polly” for “Margaret” is one example.

But Polly’s “real” name is Margaret, and PTK’s real name is Phi Theta Kappa.  If someone wants to know more about Polly’s name, she may have the time to explain and be happy to do it.  If someone wants to know more about PTK’s name, those of us who know more about it may have the time to explain and should be happy to do it.   But gasping, or boo-ing is not the way to prompt someone to ask.  Doesn’t that start the conversation on a rather poor note?

We can take a decidedly more scholarly approach than chalking it up to the tendency for people to shorten names and come up with nicknames, though. The main argument against saying “PTK” is that the Roman letters of “P” “T” and “K” have nothing to do with the name of the organization, which comes from the Greek letters beginning the Greek words φρόνηση, θυμός, καθαρότητα; words for the values that the founders wanted to guide the organization and form the basis of its name. So that is why it’s preferable to say φθκ.  But how do people who use the Roman system of letters know how to pronounce those letters, perhaps friends or prospective members?  Unless they want to take lessons in Greek that include learning the Greek letters and spellings and pronunciations for the letters and words using the Greek letters, they Romanize the words. The practice of “Romanizing,” or transliteration from one system of letters or characters to the Roman system, has been around for a long time and has protocols that are agreed to by linguists, national governments, and even world organizations such as the United Nations.  Transliterations go both directions for many different systems of letters and characters.   From the beginning, our organization’s founders referred to the Romanized Greek words – phronimon, thumos, katharotes rather than φρόνηση, θυμός, καθαρότητα — and to the words in English – wisdom, aspiration, purity – probably because even fewer people can read and translate Greek in the Greek letters than can translate and read Greek in the Roman letters.  If using an acronym is efficient, or even a linguistic habit for us, and φθκ is unrecognizable to many who aren’t already members or advisors for the organization, what would the alternative be?  Should we use the acronym that results from using the English words, wisdom, aspiration, and purity:  WAP?  That would take us further away from the history of the organization as one named with Greek words in mind and using a model established by academic societies long, long ago.

This table makes it easier to see that “PTK” actually makes sense as a nickname since it is the letters that would be used from a standard transliteration of the ancient, mystic, Greek words.

As nicknames go, it clearly makes more sense than many do (my Uncle Pee Wee would agree!).  I like Phi Theta Kappa’s nickname.  It’s okay to say PTK.

Is your chapter goal-phobic — a word I just made up to indicate a chapter that thinks they don’t have time to set goals or that it’s not absolutely necessary?

A web article I read recently made me think of how many chapters approach their Honors in Action Projects. Leadership expert Kevin Eikenberry, who has one of the best job titles ever – Chief Potential Officer at the Kevin Eikenberry Group – writes about how easy it is to skip the planning process of a big project and go straight to work. (blog.kevineikenberry.com/leadership/are-you-prepared/)  “Planning, of course, is work,” notes Eikenberry, “but it doesn’t feel like progress, so we all want to get started.”

If you skip the planning process for Honors in Action, your project will more than likely miss key ingredients that can make it truly successful.

For example, have you made sure your project involves Service Learning? Absolutely, you think, our chapter loves service. Not so fast. There is a difference between service and service learning. The Corporation for National and Community Service defines service learning this way: Service-learning is a teaching and learning strategy that integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities.

Translation for Phi Theta Kappa members engaged in Honors in Action: Service learning means intentional learning before, during and after your project. Learning before you plan your project means careful exploration of an Honors Study Topic issue with a good variety of sources so that you can understand it from different perspectives and learn what solutions may be the most effective. This knowledge will lead you to define the leadership roles you can take on to make a difference. But are you prepared to take on those leadership roles? What skills do you lack or that could be strengthened? How are your delegating skills? What about team-building? Is everyone working together as a cohesive team or are individuals doing their own thing?

Make sure your chapter is taking advantage of opportunities to strengthen your leadership skills instead of just learning as you go. You’ll find many leadership development resources available, including Phi Theta Kappa’s own Leadership Development Studies which is offered at many two-year colleges and also on Facebook by Phi Theta Kappa Headquarters. (The next Facebook Study Group begins in Fall 2010.) We even have short Leadership Briefs online at http://leadership.ptk.org on topics such as Change, Conflict and Decision Making.

“Keep in mind that goal setting is important at every step in the process,” adds Dean of Academic Affairs and Honors Programs Susan Edwards. “One set of goals may drive the research, another may guide the leadership development piece, and still another may guide the action.  They are all part of the same thing, but the goals might be developed at different stages as your chapter team gathers its evidence.”

Time spent planning will save your chapter time later as you put your planning into action. Advisor Richard Jewell of Inver Hills Community College in Minnesota has developed a very helpful flowchart to help his chapter plan their Honors in Action Project and their College Project for the Hallmark Awards competition. Our many thanks to Richard for allowing us to share this with you:

Honors in Action Project

1. Read the Honors Program Guide and choose one of its 10 “Issues.”  Keep reflective journals, minutes, or notes at each step, describing it.

2. Each “Issue” has a series of “Study Questions.”  Choose one or more of these questions as a focus for research.

3. Using this focus on one or several questions, research the issue.  Use at least 8-10 good-quality academic resources: e.g., academic or professional journal articles, books by academic/professional experts, and interviews with experts.

4.  After researching, develop conclusions regarding the issue and objectives or goals resulting from these conclusions—what can the chapter do?

5. Develop a project plan that includes the chapter’s

(a) objectives,

(b) the process that will be used for meeting them,

(c) the leadership roles of individual chapter members and of the chapter as a group in meeting these objectives,

(d) groups with which the chapter will collaborate, and

(e) the “leadership development actions” and/or events used for training the chapter and its Honors Project leaders for the service component,

(f) the “service or action component” event(s) for the college/community.

6.  Carry out the plan, and evaluate the results and future possibilities.

7.  Write the results—using your journal—for the Hallmark Awards.

College Project

1.  Consult as a chapter with college administrators about projects that would help the college.  Keep reflective journals, minutes, or notes at each step, describing it.

2. As a chapter collaborating with administrators, choose a project and develop a written process and strategies for carrying it out.

3. As a chapter collaborating with administrators, complete the project.

4. As a chapter collaborating with administrators, evaluate the results and future possibilities.

5.  Write the results—using your journal—for the Hallmark Awards.

I suspect I am not alone in this – so I look forward to hearing your comments. Has anyone else noticed that Facebook has made it seem perfectly OK to share rants, raves and ramblings that normally would have stayed private, or at least, thankfully, expressed among only close friends and blood relatives?

I admit I draw a blank when Facebook asks me, “What’s on your mind?”  Well, a lot, but when asked to share it with–gulp– the world, I’m a little shy.

For example, on Monday morning, “What’s on your mind?” probably wouldn’t elicit a sunny comment I could easily follow with a cyber smiley-face.  I’m not a morning person.

Yet I’m amazed at those who seem to have mastered the ability to share everything – warts and all – on Facebook. A friend I recently reconnected with on Facebook whom I’ve always thought was witty proved it by sharing her opinions of fellow travelers whose irritating antics had given her Facebook fodder.  Somehow realizing I was reading this in cyberspace made me cringe.  Comments shared person-to-person that would have been laugh-out-loud funny suddenly seemed childish and petty when exposed to the light of my computer screen.    

And then there are those Facebook testimonies that I wish I hadn’t read. Perusing a person’s profile who I really don’t know well despite the “Facebook friend” declaration can be lesson # 1 in the downside of cyberspace voyeurism. Their postings aren’t aimed at me – they’re written for those who really know them, who can take their rants and raves in context. Having only met someone once (or sometimes never), doesn’t really give you the right frame of mind to read someone’s most intimate thoughts on Facebook.

But there it is in techno-glory ~ their favorite and not-so-favorite foods, movies, songs, celebrities, books, quotes, organizations, causes, wedding pictures (aww!), Spring Break pictures (oh!), aunts and uncles, friends of friends, and sooo much more! They express their political and religious beliefs in the most dogmatic ways … personal attacks gleefully posted without listing offenders’ names that begin with:  “They” are so ____ (fill in the blank with synonyms for stupid, boorish, bigoted, socialist, etc. etc.)

Sometimes I’m uncomfortably reminded that I fall into the “they” category for a particular Facebook friend’s rants. Ouch!  I think I’ll keep that to myself.

And so it is in today’s Democratization of Information world where self-expression is well, TMI, Too Much Information.  I still want to be friends; I’m just wishing for a much friendlier Facebook.

The New York Times Quote of the Day for April 15, 2010, refers to a recent announcement by the Library of Congress that they have signed an agreement to archive Twitter messages:

“This is an entirely new addition to the historical record, the second-by-second history of ordinary people.”
~ FRED R. SHAPIRO, of the Yale Law School

I have a degree in American History and experience teaching history, and I’m just not sure how much history we will learn from Tweets.   By their very nature, Tweets are more like news headlines and op-ed opening salvos.  Can you imagine if a history of a people were written with only the headlines to research?  There are few, if any, facts or details or analysis or reflection evident in the Tweeting I’ve seen.  Not only can I not imagine a history of a people written with Tweets as a core body of evidence, I cannot imagine what it would be like to conduct the research into millions upon millions of Tweets.   It makes me seem like a “stick in the mud” probably, so I haven’t completely dug in my heels in resistance to  it — after all, if the venerable Library of Congress is on-board, I’d better give things some more thought.   Tweets can definitely democratize information by broadcasting and creating interest in events and how events are affecting people — information that may not be available otherwise.  Consider the protests and crackdowns following the Iranian elections in the summer of 2009.   The Tweets and other electronic communications coming from Iran during that time period definitely provided real-time, breaking news, and will be a valuable historical record for the time as well.

It has also made me think about how future historians of the Information Age will likely have dramatically different research methods and tools in order to complete their searches and analysis of the mountains of information available to them.   What else besides Twitter will they want or need to delve into?  And what is the effect of the Library of Congress’ announcement on the people who Tweet?  Will they Tweet differently knowing that these communications are being archived?

The 2010/2011 Honors Program Guide has an issue on “History and the Future” of the Democratization of Information, and some of the questions to explore provide additional opportunities to consider the significance of the Library of Congress’ announcement.  For example, how do advances in information technology change historical interpretation? Or how does the exchange of information affect the development of cultures and civilizations? How has the evolution of information changed the world?

What do you think?

As Phi Theta Kappa begins investigating its new Honors Study Topic, The Democratization of Information: Power, Peril, and Promise, a spirited discussion erupted among the 2010 Faculty Scholars. It all started with an article published in the online journal Salon. The article, written by Laura Miller and entitled, “Plagiarism: The Next Generation,” challenged the notion of plagiarism having a fixed definition in the twenty-first century. (To see the article, go to http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2010/02/16/hegemann/index.html.)

The article details the publication of Axolotl Roadkill, a German novel by seventeen-year-old Helene Hegermann. While the novel is receiving rave reviews, blogger Deef Pirmasens noticed that up to a full page of text in Hegemann’s book actually comes from another novel, Strobo, written by Airen, another blogger.

Here is where the story gets really interesting. Far from denying the plagiarism, Hegemann claims to be merely borrowing from other writers, “entering into a dialogue” with them. Hegemann calls this time of writing “intertextuality.” Hegemann goes on to say: “There’s no such thing as originality anyway, just authenticity.” Others agree. One critic notes that the “borrowing” is “part of the concept of the book.”

So, is Helene Hegamann a plagiarist? Or, is she simply employing and reflecting a new way of writing in which technology allows one text to blend into another? Would you be able to use Hegemann’s line of thinking in your own writing?

Faculty Scholars responded in a variety of ways. Dave Strong noted: “Ancient texts were often lifted wholesale from other texts with no thought of theft.” He added that “intellectual property is a relatively new concept.” Cindy Carbone responded that instructors must teach academic integrity to students, but she wondered whether the fictional nature of Hegemann’s work changes the rules. Kathy Howes commented that the growth of the Internet increases the chances that someone, somewhere, has had an idea very similar to the ideas of another and that individuals are publishing their thoughts simultaneously. Are we plagiarizing each other, or are we merely mimicking each other?

Finally, Randy Allison told the story of a student whose paper was approximately 805 plagiarized. The student claimed, however, that it was her own work. Though she found the words on the Internet, she had not copied and pasted them to her paper. Instead, she retyped the words, making them her own, she insisted. “Sometimes, I hang my head and weep” said Randy.

To quote Shakespeare, another famous “borrower,” is this much ado about nothing? Do younger generations simply take a different approach to producing and disseminating academic work? Are they more comfortable with borrowing from each other, even liberally? After all, the article notes that the sales of Strobo are up now that the intertextuality has been revealed. Is there even any such thing as original thought? In this age of information sharing, do we all influence each other to the point that no one person’s idea is truly uniformly his or her own?

Then again, is a high profile author of a well-received novel apt to receive more latitude than a college student? If you “borrowed” from another source and told your instructor that it was not plagiarism but was “intertextualisty,” how would your professor respond? Would you receive praise for innovation? Or, would you find yourself facing a failing grade and a trip to the academic dean’s office? Is it fair that a person’s prominence could actually help him or her get away with a fraud routinely punished on college campuses?

These are just some of the questions we will face as we explore The Democratization of Information: Power, Peril, and Promise. I encourage you to answer these questions forthrightly and ask new questions of your own. When Polonius asks Hamlet what he is reading, Hamlet famously replies: “words, words, words.” Are they just words? Are they more? Consider this with care as we, as a community of scholars, explore The Democratization of Information.

As 2009 winds down, so too does the time that Phi Theta Kappa investigates the 2008/2009 Honors Study Topic, “The Paradox of Affluence:  Choices, Challenges, and Consequences.”  The OutThinking bloggers and the Phi Theta Kappa Honors Program Committee have been hard at work getting the Honors Program Guide for the 2010/2011 Honors Study Topic ready for distribution in January, so I’ve been thinking a lot about both of the topics.  What  could I write about that would continue the exploration of The Paradox of Affluence for a final blog post and also provide a segue to our new Honors Study Topic, “The Democratization of Information:  Power, Peril, and Promise”? A recent trip to The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, Illinois provided the answer.

The Field Museum is featuring a temporary exhibit through March 28, 2010, The Nature of Diamonds.  The exhibit is very comprehensive, covering the chemistry, the formation, the exploration, the refining and processing, the industrial production and uses, and the political, economic, and cultural history of diamonds.  And of course there is plenty of eye-popping bling in the “vault” area of the exhibit.  The exhibit covered two things in particular that struck me as relevant to both the 2008/2009 and 2010/2011 Honors Study Topics.

“Diamonds are Forever”

The Proliferation of Diamond Jewelry and the Paradox of Affluence

After the huge discoveries of diamonds in South Africa in the 1870s, design and sales of diamond jewelry exploded.  The United States became the primary market for gem diamonds.  The “robber barons” and others amassing fortunes in the rapid industrial expansion of the late 1800s enjoyed displaying fabulous diamond jewelry.  The era known as the Gilded Age was full of paradoxes as the gap between rich and poor widened, more and more people sought to immigrate to the United States.  Periodic recessions and depressions as well as the First World War regularly shook the diamond markets — another paradox:  despite the value of diamonds and diamond jewelry, the market was unpredictable and unstable.  During the  Great Depression, the diamond market was in steep decline.  What could diamond producers do to revive and sustain the market?

Marketing Influences Perceptions

In 1938,  with the world economy still suffering from the terrible economic decline following the 1929 stock market crash and all the imbalances it exposed, De Beers Mining Company and the advertising agency N. W. Ayer discussed a marketing campaign that might stimulate the sale of finer diamonds.  The discussions and ensuing relationship created an innovative campaign to raise the romance quotient of diamonds in courtship and sell engagement rings. It was met with resounding success — by 1941, the sale of diamonds had increased by 55 percent.  Diamonds had not been considered THE symbol of an engagement to be married until De Beers and the Ayer agency conveyed (made up?) the information that it is and should be and effectively marketed it.  In fact, diamond engagement rings were quite rare before their marketing campaign.  Then came the slogan “A diamond is forever,” which was aimed at encouraging diamond owners to keep their diamonds and not sell them on the secondary market where they would compete with the sale of new gems, but also reinforced the strong commitment that a diamond engagement ring symbolized.  Information can be false or misused or manipulated — the potential for peril exists in the democratization of information — or perhaps, in the case of diamonds, for the women who desire them — this manipulation of information is a demonstration of the promise in the democratization of information.

“Conflict Diamonds”

Mining and Trading Diamonds and the Paradox of Affluence

Diamonds are valuable, tiny, and easily concealed – perfect for illicit financing for such things as weapons to carry out coups and rebellions or sustain an oppressive regime.  Recent civil wars in Africa transformed this practice into human tragedy and led to the terms “blood diamonds” and “conflict diamonds.”

In Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, and Liberia, in particular, warring armies enslaved workers to mine for diamonds that they could trade for weapons.  The paradoxes of affluence abound:  horrid violations of human rights  to gather a symbol of love; something of beauty traded for weapons of brutal war; something that can create affluence destroying communities instead.

Then, the world took notice as information and evidence of the atrocities and methods to finance the wars came out.  Amnesty International publicized the shocking numbers, — over four million with atrocious injuries or dead. It tarnished the sparkle and lure of diamonds for jewelry buyers.  Information is powerful and influential.

Kimberly Process Certificates Verify Information

In 2003, after three years of negotiations among diamond-trading and diamond-buying countries, as well as the diamond industry and non-governmental organizations, the Kimberley Process to certify diamonds are conflict-free was adopted.  Tamper-proof packages of rough diamonds to and from participating countries must carry Kimberley Process certificates that attest to the origin and handling of the diamonds.  The Process authorizes border and customs officials in participating countries to seize and confiscate diamond shipments that do not comply.  In 2006, the United Nations estimated that the flow of conflict diamonds to the international market had been reduced from between four and 15 percent to about one percent.  Recent analysis in the news suggests that the Kimberly Process is no longer working, however, and that large numbers of diamonds continue to be traded without the certificates.

Canada and Hollywood Use Art as Information

If the Kimberly Process is declining in effectiveness, there are additional ways that information about conflict diamonds can be disseminated.  Diamond production in Canada began in the late 1990s, during the height of the crisis over conflict diamonds. The Canadian government and diamond industry took a strong position, requiring its diamond industry to establish certification methods that track gem diamonds from the mine to the jeweler with a comprehensive paper trail.  To enhance their marketing as authentic conflict-free Canadian diamonds, many stones are engraved with a tiny and beautiful “CanadaMark” — such as a maple leaf or a polar bear — on the edge of the faceted stone to assure buyers of the conflict-free status of their diamond.

In 2006, the popular and award-winning movie Blood Diamond also raised public awareness about conflict diamonds and their destructive role in financing armed conflict.  Consumers, not just traders are now seeking the information that ensures they are not indirectly contributing to the human tragedies of war and slavery in diamond producing areas of the world.   Time will tell if this democratization of information about conflict diamonds eliminates  the paradoxes of affluence about diamond production in parts of the world struggling with conflict, corruption, and human rights abuses.