Science, cycling and Steinar

As from this month, I have taken up a new job as a professor of IT at Østfold University College, in Halden. I will teach HCI and mobile IT for the master students. Who knows, I might even start updating my blog.

This time I am going to write mainly about how I think IT education should be structured in terms of profiling and the study plans. Computer science is much too narrow, and informatics/information systems has not changed since the eighties. And we are not getting any students. Yet again, enrollment is too low. It is about time we redesigned the dicispline.

Our group “Globally scalable information infrastructures” released the first version of its manifesto.

Having read it again, I think that there are a couple of issues that I think can be raised, e.g.,
-The dichotomy/ontological distinction of ‘technical’ components from social and organizational elements, which I partly doubt to be useful, nor is it consistent with the methodological/theoretical/philosphical frameworks that we (like to see ourselves) use; Heidegger, ANT, complex systems, etc. Do not such frameworks induce a perspective of technology as presenting itself/becoming technology exactly with a wider context? Is it possible to talk and think about it without that ‘box’ [gestell]? I’m not (only) trying to be picky about rhetoric details here, I also think that a new group with a fresh set of ambistions need to be more radical than simply fall back on the ’socio-technical’ perspective.
-Do we manage to break free from a systems’ perspective at all in this manifest, or is it only a ‘language game’. When we talk about “emerge and grow,” “propose specific approaches” for how [big systems] “can be cultivated, scaled up, maintained and institutionalized”, are we not (still) only substituting words? What is so distinctly “un-system” approach with the phenomena that we study? I daresay that most/all of the [systems] that we study are quite similar to those that people study in the domains from which we want to stand out, if that makes any sense,…, and than the question I guess is what do we achive by calling them ‘infrastructures’ instead?
-On the basis of the two first items, the idea of doing action research is problematic, since
–the notion the technology/intervention that we might want to accomplish, is deeply rooted in the ‘action’ that we do in order to intervene, etc., in other words, HISP-artefacts cannot be seen as the technology that they are from without the HISP-research *project* of which one of the aims is (then) to introduce [itself] in existing user settings. Can that possible ‘work out’ theoretically, or will we just keep our arguments in a circle?
–When we do talk about infrastructures, one of the core messages/takeaway lessons seems to be that they cannot be “designed” (or at least not “engineered”) preditively and rationally, they have side-effects, represent risk and “tensions”, but are instead/perhaps tinkered with/part of bricolage, rely on an ‘installed base’, get adopted and adapted by patries in a power struggle, etc., and so forth down that alley of post-modern contemporary French philosphy, which I think clashes head-on with the most modern project of them all, the (Marxist?) idea of rational/scientific (elitist) intervention, based on a different type of insight from “users” or “politicians” (is this not naive positivsm?) on behalf of a group that we (as a united and purposeful coalition of the willing, of some sorts) believe deserves better (and I am not arguing that they do not, just to make that clear). Can that possible ‘work out’ practically, or can our intervention make things worse (like the ’system’ projects that we so much like to critique)?

Just my two pence worth,…, a longer and better argument along similar lines can be found in Ole and Claudio’s paper from 1998. IMHO.

Tja, hvor skal jeg begynne på dette, da? Har jo hatt Ironman UK i bakhodet hele sesongen. Oslo Tri? Det var den siste harde økta, og jeg persa med et par minutter. Holdt igjen masse på svømminga, for å se om jeg kunne gå omtrent like fort som tidligere med mindre energi. Det funket bra. Stavern? Har aldri løpt så bra noen gang, så det var en brukbar boost. Syklet konservativt og fant ut at det lønte seg. Kan nesten bli litt innbilsk av slikt, og tro at en halv Ironman er ½ Ironman. Men det er det jo ikke. Den fulle distansen er bordaux. Alt annet er husholdningssaft.

Ironman UK var på mange måter et veldig kjekt arrangement, syns jeg. Greit nok, det er en ”liten” Ironman, og sikkert en ”country fair” sammenlignet med de store showene i Frankfurt og Canada. Men det er ikke nødvendig å melde seg på et år i forveien. Hele lokalsamfunnet i Sherborne er med og arrangerer, og man kjenner igjen de gamle damene som sitter eksamensvakt, blant løypemannskapene. Det er enkelt å reise til Sherborne. Billige fly til Heathrow. Buss rett utenfor terminalen til Woking og korresponderende tog hver time omtrent til stasjonen i Sherborne. Arenaen ligger i gangavstand derfra.

Sherborne er en liten by, og det er ingen glamorøse hoteller der. Men det var et par trivelige plasser, gode puber og solid, lokal mat. Det engelske kjøkkenet er undervurdert, hvis man vet hva man skal satse på å spise hvor og ikke minst når. Jeg bodde på St. Anthony’s, en katolsk ”bording school” sammen med en haug andre deltakere. Ble kjent med noen av dem, spiste frokost med proffer og mekket sykkel med folk som hadde kvalifiserte seg til Kona. Nå kan jeg dra og sykle med folk i San Hose, London og Umeå. To lokale ungdommer passet på syklene våre. Døgnet rundt.

Det er 3 taxier i Sherborne, noe som kan kreve litt planlegging. Eller en leiebil. ’Nuff said about the village.

Jeg fikk sjekket opp sykkelen min hos den lokale ”tri-uk” mannen dagen før rittet. Det var vel bra. På en måte. Han konstaterte at jeg ikke kunne bruke det letteste giret. Bøyd bakgiret, kanskje. Har ikke helt funnet det ut ennå. Men det var jo ikke noe kjempebehov for det likevel i den løypa, sa han. Og det er vel riktig. Den sykkelløypa er ganske kupert, men ikke bratt i norsk målestokk. Drøye 2000 meter stigning. Piece of cake.

Jeg sov brukbart natta før konkurransen. La meg tidlig og fikk sove noen timer. Våket igjen. Spiste en pose potetgull, drakk litt sportsdrikk og leste sykkelbrosjyrer. Kan man ha det bedre? Sovnet igjen, opp til frokost i matsalen kl. 0300 og cruset ned til Sherborne Castle sånn ca. en time før start. I en forhåndsbestilt taxi, mind you . Været var litt skyet og ganske vekslende, men uten antydning til tåken som gjorde at starten i fjor ble to timer forsinket.

Da jeg sjekket sykkelen min før svømminga begynte fant jeg ut at gubben fra tri-uk hadde strammet bremsene så mye at klossen lå mot felgen både foran og bak. Ikke mye. Måtte spinne hjulet et par ganger før jeg skjønte at det ikke var en drøm. Men det var jo bare å fikse. Det er sinnsykt viktig å sjekke utstyret.

Apropos utstyr. Tri-uk hadde en stand der nede ved svømmetreningen dagen før og lånte bort våtdrakter fra hele kolleksjonen. Jeg prøvde en Blue Seventy Helix, og det var bare en helt suveren drakt. Som om å svømme uten, men med en djevelsk oppdrift. Svart glassmanetskinn. Very, very expensive. Men det kule var at jeg fikk et foredrag om hvordan man skal ta på seg en våtdrakt. Jeg tror man kan spare mange minutter bare på å gjøre det riktig, selv med den gamle lefsa.

Det var vannstart 200 meter ute i innsjøen, og med 1100 deltakere (bare) var det egentlig lett å komme helt frem til linja, ikke noe knuffing eller sparking eller stress. Bare å legge på svøm. Proffene med hvit hetter foran, vi andre i rekka en meter bak.

Og nå begynner vel denne race-rapporten å bli kjedelig, og det forklarer naturligvis den lange innledningen. For dette var slik jeg hadde tenkt at det skulle være, jeg hadde tenkt gjennom disse scenene så mange ganger på forhånd at det føltes litt som om alt klikket på plass.

Man kan jo lett tenke seg at det skal være ufyselig å svømme i en grumsete innsjø, men jeg syns mest det var en interessant opplevelse. Omtrent som å svømme i caffe latte. Jeg kunne bokstavelig talt ikke se hånda foran meg under vann. Men jeg fant et par bein, og vannet kjentes friskt ut og jeg fulgte rådet som Ragnar hadde gitt meg dagen før: Ikke stress fordi om det kjennes ut som om det går for langsomt, det er uansett bedre enn å stresse rundt på egenhånd. Og etter en runde begynte det å dukke opp noen hvite hetter rundt meg. Jolly good.

Ble slengt opp på land som en nygått laks, og kom inn i T1 etter 1:01:27. Eksamensvaktene var på plass med en gang for å dra av meg våtdrakta, og med at rampete klaps på baken ble jeg sendt ut på sykkelen.

Det siste er ikke helt sant.

Så var det denne sykkelløypa da. Opp en bakke, tre 55 km runder med en liten og en noe større stigning (kalt ”the Giant”, men jeg mener nå det er å skryte på seg litt, da) og en helt kjempekul utforbakke hvor jeg mygga ut på 78km/t. Jeg kjørte så godt jeg kunne etter planen, første runde rolig og øke litt forsiktig etter hvert. Øverst i sone 1, økte i snitt med 3 slag per runde. Løypa er krevende den, altså, men ikke først og fremst pga bakkene. Mest det at den er litt svingete og småkupert, og går gjennom landsbyer og på smale veier med blandet kvalitet på dekket. Vanskelig å sitte i aerobars, vil jeg tro. Jeg kjørte med min korte ITU clip-ons, og det er ubrukelig uansett. De skal resirkuleres, og nå skal jeg ha en ny løsning. En ting er luftmotstanden, en annen ting er alle de plassene på kroppen som faktisk kan gjøre litt vondt eller komme i klem.

Diskusjonen om drafting i ei løype som dette blir litt komikveld. Kan man sies å ”drafte” i en oppoverbakke? Er det drafting hvis noen bremser ned til 70 km/t foran deg i en bakke der det er livsfarlig å kjøre forbi? Kast regelboka og bruk hue. Ligger man ”på hjul” og kompiskjører, så er det drafting. Om man er litt for lite resolutt i en trafikal situasjon og sklir innpå noen så er det det ikke. På lista ser det ut som om 3 deltakere blei diska, men jeg vet ikke om det er mye eller lite. Tipper at dommerne gjorde en god jobb.

Jeg hadde en liten mental ”down” i den andre runden, mest pga av utstyret. Ukomfortabel sittestilling, tripteller som konka etter at magneten ble slengt ut mot verdensrommet i den lange nedoverbakken og sist men ikke minst, den helv*** dumme ideen min om å spise mye gel og skylle ned med vann i stedet for å drikke sportsdrikk. Vet ikke helt hva det er, kanskje det bare blir for lite salt, men jeg mistet tall på hvor mange ganger jeg måtte,…, ja, du vet. Heldigvis er det utrolig hva man kan lære seg å gjøre fra et sykkelsete i løpet av et ritt som f.eks. Jotunheimen Rundt, så jeg tapte ikke noe tid på det bortsett fra den som gikk med mens jeg lurte på om jeg var i ferd med å få nyresvikt.

Tredje runden ble et løft igjen. Hadde gått over til sportsdrikk. Pusha brukbart på og syklet forbi en del platehjul og det kjennes jo alltid bra. Tok det litt roligere mot slutten, tøyde og fikk ned pulsen. Inn i T2 på 6:00:35, og det må jeg si at jeg er veldig fornøyd med. Altså, i en sånn race-rapport kan man jo skrive seg inn i en følelse av å være skikkelig supermann, og jeg innser jo at det ikke er det det er snakk om. Mange sykla jo både ¾ og en time raskere, så det er tøffe tak, men for meg så var det ”in the end of the day” viktig å komme inn og være klar for en maraton. Hadde jeg syklet 10 minutter raskere er jeg ikke sikker på at jeg hadde vært det. Og det kjennes bra.

Maratonen i Sherborne er tøff. Det er den som er tøff. Totalt 800 meter stigning. Først to runder i skog og mark, litt rundt borgen der oppe i mo og myr (nei da, stort sett på sti og asfalt) og jeg vekslet litt mellom håp og fortvilelse. Sprang første mile på 7.30 og det visste jeg var altfor fort, så jeg roet ned. Så fikk jeg meg en liten sandsekk over pannebrasken og gele i stedet for musker ved tre-fire mile og jeg lurte på om sykling hadde gått *for* bra. Men som god nordvestlending (er det andre MFK-supportere her?) trøstet jeg meg med at det helt sikkert kom til å bli verre, og det ble det.

Jeg vil ikke si så mye mer om del to av løpingen i Sherborne. Det vil ta bort mye av ”gleden” for dem som skal dit senere. Men teknisk sett er del to også to runder, langs Yeovil Road. Jeg har aldri hørt så mange si i kor: ”You’ve got to be fucking kidding” som da jeg kom på toppen av den nest siste bakken på vei ut. Rene kamelkaravanen foran meg.

Men jeg konsentrerte meg om å løpe meg hevet hode og brystkassa frem (takk, Ståle!) og drakk så lite jeg torde, men jevnt og så klikka det for meg.

Hjernen begynte å pumpe ut en sinnsyk miks av endorfiner og adrenalin og jeg vet ikke hva ved 14 mile og jeg visste at det visstnok skulle bli mye verre en gang mellom 16 og 18 mile og det så jeg frem til. Jeg så meg selv som Faris Al-sultan i antilopesteg over lavaslettene. Sola hadde kommet godt frem og varmet skuldrene litt, så da lot jeg håndleddene falle enda litt mer feminint mot bakken selv også, og angret på at jeg ikke hadde tatt speedo i stedet for den mer viktorianske Louis Garneau (som, om jeg må kan få si det, også har tatt mye av teknikken med å lage sømmer fra forrige, forrige århundre).

Dette selvbedraget varte til mile 24, og kollapset i løpet av 15 meter samtidig med at jeg fant ut at drikkestasjonene ved en feil hadde fått Cola Light. Jeg overkompenserte desperat med sportsdrikk og slepte meg mot mål, sånn passe satt på plass etter 16 km med dagdrømmerier og overmot. Men jeg greide en spurt og kastet meg over mål etter 3:58:43 på løpingen.

Jeg kom inn på 11.07.50, og ble nr. 183 totalt, av 1038 som fullførte. Hvis jeg forstår disse listen riktig, så var løpingen (?!) den beste av mine ”etapper” med en 198-plass. Og så klatrer jeg litt fordi jeg er ganske jevn ellers. Ble nr. 46 i M36-40. Klassen ble vunnet på 8.46 og siste plassen til Hawaii gikk til 9.32. Den er bare den ulveflokken.

Tørre fakta går best med godt øl, så etter en halvtime i en av de utplasserte ”hot tub”-ene tok vi en taxi hjem, fant frem pub-til-pub skoa og gikk ut og tok noen halvlitere. Og det har jeg vel tenkt å holde på med til det blir på tide å trene igjen,…

Cheers,

Steinar

Had a great discussion about fluids, chaos, complexity, differential equations and systems theory vs. networks. And more. I might write a summary later.

We might be taking a couple of weeks off now, since I am away. This week it is Leopoldo’s defense and next week I’m in Lancaster for the Ethnographies of Code conference.

April 7 and 14 seem likely days for the next couple of AA-seminars. April 21, I’m in Las Vegas for the ISOneWorld Conference.

The topic for the next seminar (my suggestion) is “Methodological temptations of metaphysics”. Or, how do we prove whatever it is that we would like to. For instance that, indeed, some aspect of the phenomena that we study “is” a fluid instead of a network. That mobile work “is” travelling, visiting or wandering. (I really ought to have been wondering Or that technology transfer “is” translation instead of diffusion (in case anybody wanted to warm up before this Friday). Etc.

To be honest, I have not really had time to write a proper summary of last Friday’s discussions. It’ll have to suffice that I say:
-Good turnout of nine people
-Main focus was ANT and the notion of networks vs. other concepts
-On the topics were heterogeneity, blackboxing, assumptions

We continue in “Visningsrommet” (same level as 207, but to the left of the centre staircases) on Friday March 17, 09-10. Yes, are there any reasons why we have to wait until 0915?

I think that the experience so far has been a good one. We’ve made a good start getting to know some of the fieldwork that John and Egil is doing, and we’ve decided to continue more or less on this track for another Friday or two:

Up for discussion next time:
-New excerpts from someone’s field work?
-The notion of ‘fluids’ in ANT; how can that improve/change our analysis
-Links between (understanding) “knowledge” and “technology” and the role of theory in explicating such relations.

My suggestion is also that we start taking authors of theoretical texts quite a lot more seriously, and try to find out what it is that they are saying actually. I have one quote that I would like to suggest that we start by discussing on Friday:

From John Law and John Urry, “Enacting the social”, Volume 33, Number 3/August, 2004 of Economy and Society

The elements within any such system operate under conditions that are far from equilibrium, partly because each element responds only to ‘local’ sources of information. But multiple connections and mobile trajectories mean that elements at one location have significant time-space distanciated effects elsewhere. Such systems possess a history that irreversibly evolves and past events are never ‘forgotten’. Points of bifurcation are reached when a system branches. Applying such notions to the social, we would suggest that criss-crossing ‘societies’ may be seen as diverse systems in complex interconnections with their environments; that there are many chaotic effects distant in time and space from their location of origin; that there are positive feedback mechanisms that mean that order and chaos are always intertwined; that there are self-organizing global networks and global fluids moving systems far from equilibrium; and that a social order is never accounted for by purified social processes. Such complexity thinking transcends the division between determinism and free will, in particular because it sees material worlds as unpredictable, unstable, sensitive to initial conditions, irreversible, and rarely ‘societally’ organized. Complexity thus brings out the way in which ‘liquid modernity’ is unpredictable and irreversible, full of unexpected and irreversible time-space movements, often away from points of equilibrium.

What does this mean? What does it mean for the relations pointed out above?

We’ll see about this on Friday,…., maybe.

Perhaps this is also a good time to make people aware of this resource.
The links seem to be broken, but at least the refs are there. I’ll see if I can find out where to locate the unpublished manuscripts.

We had a fun start to this Friday by discussing a bunch of different analytical aspects pertaining to the IS research that we do in our group. The discussion about the nature and merits of action research soon emerged. There was a discussion of the political correctness implications, its epistemological robustness, the changes of succeeding with change, and even som minor terminological issues. No conclusions. Come to the seminar if you are interested. Or post a comment to this blog.

I am convinced action research will continue to re-appear as a topic and it is to bad if people who (ostensibly) do it, don’t turn up . Or post a comment to this blog.

Perhaps related to the above, we also discussed the differences of an etnographical “point-of-view,” which sees ethnographic accounts as “the way things really are” vs. looking at such accounts as “field work” (of a researcher researching) in themselves. It is at least something (paradoxically) to bear in mind that the strand of research that is perhaps most subjectively selecting, interpreting, re-representing (inscribing?), etc. its “data,” is by some (superficially) taken for granted, along an almost positivist ideal, the idea that there is an objective world “out there”.

Is there a world “out there”? Of course there is. Don’t be silly. Is that what we are studying? Maybe not.

Anyway, how does that link into action research? Well if you decide to use your role as a researcher to change to world, then I guess you have to believe that 1) You can. Corollary: You should 2) You can do it better as a researcher than as a politician, lobbyist, concultant, etc. 3) You cannot be asked to do any of the jobs in 2. , but still want to change the world 4) All of the above.

Just kidding. Had to check if anyone reads this.

More importantly, however, is that notion then of, when someone decides it is time to change the world, they (usually) claim to do so for a reason. A good reason. Being able to identify that there is such a thing (”a” world, “a” change, etc), and that other people in the setting have not recognized it themselves, or do not know how to do it, seems to me to imply that the researcher has a “superior” espitemological position from which it is possible to know “better” than others. Personally, I find this problematic. But be that as it may, the question remains: Is it possible to combine a perspective of wanting to change the world (i.e., do action research) without beliving that it is possible to know positively (and intersubjectively) what that world is like, exactly? And then, does not action research rest heavily on some kind of positivt perspective, or at least a modern tradition/development philosophy?

Please step forward, those of you who subscribe to an interpretative research approach for your action research.

Back to the seminar. We talked about a lot more. Especially the need for a research agenda and “clear-cut” research question. Hope to be able to get back on this, we just touched upon it briefly.

Finally, a few loose ideas about Egils excerpt. First of all, one could of course try to interpret, infer, deduct something from thsi excerpt about the world at large, in this case the hosiptal, and what that “really” is like. I think that is dubious. Dodgy. First of all, it is problematically inductive. Second, it might not be even close to “telling” enough, without the analytical luggage that we carry with us into the process. Take for instance the terms “physician,” “secretary” and “people who are on duty” and replace those with “journalist,” “typograher,” and “desk editors”. Then what do you get? You seem to be getting an excerpt which is equally credible, coherent and logical, and it matches what we may belive are current trends in that particular industry. What can we learn from that analysis, then?

The problem as I see it is that 1) There is often in IS a gross underdetermination of what the research question is. That may contribute to dull/blunt/obvious results. 2) It happens often in IS that people make use of methods and theories from other disciplines. And then we miss the analytical import and the intradisciplinary discourse from which those perspectives came in the first place. That may contribute to using them to come up with invalid claims.

Concluding this post by considering the excerpt again, if we cannot use it to say something about hospitals, can we at least use it to say something about, e.g., hidden agendas? Well maybe.

My suggestion was to start by establishing if there is a “well-defined” and “widely-belived” perception of what “hidden agendas” entail (in IS). I guess that there is, and there’s probably lots of literature on that from Scandinavia: Ehn, Bjerknes, Kyng, Bansler, etc. What do they say? I do not know, but assuming that they say that people in a workplace have hidden agendas, and that they (the agendas) are in some sense stipulating or governing their actions, then I would see that as (at least) refutable and poentially even interesting. One could then, I think, see hidden agendas much in a similar light as Garfinkel ended up seeing the normative elements of “value”, e.g., from Parsons. Or “structure” from Giddens? Or Latour’s “sociology of the social”?

An alternative perspective of hidden agendas, on that backdrop, could be to try to find examples of a systematic, methodological production of “hidden” agendas (yes, the closing quote was purposefully moved) by members in this setting, as a constitutive element of observable, useful and “immortal” order. And why is this so clever? Well, hidden agendas are autochtonous order properties, it seems, they are part of social/congregational settings: They are “everywhere”. They are instantaneously recognizable, even for researchers and contributes to make the setting what it is. They are “at” a workplace regardless of individual secretaries, physicians and people who are on emergency duty; when they have all moved on to other hospitals and been replaced by other people, there’s still “hidden” agendas around and I have never seen poeple sit down to establish “hidden” agendas, they don’t (I guess) keep them in a file somewhere, like a company handbook that novices can peruse, etc. So how do they work? And how do we study them? And, of course, why should IS care?

That’s all, folks. Next week: John brings along a fieldwork excerpt from Telenor, and we can discuss the living daylight out of it. Or talk about ANT.

We are initiating a new seminar series. It originates from a couple of
brief discussions between myself and Egil Øvrelid about the nature of
ethnomethodology avs. ANT, some critical remarks put in an essay by
Claudio Ciborra about the ’situated action paradigm’ and Luch Suchman
and similar things. There’s a few other bits and pieces floating around
here as well, e.g., I’m planning a workshop together with some people in
Glasgow on “new directions in soci-technical research,” which I’d like
to encourage people to come to, etc.

I guess the title of the series could be something along the lines of
“Analytical persepctives on IS,” but that’s not important. It is going
to be analytical, oriented towards (and against) theory in IS, and, who
knows, it might even be fun, if you’re into this kind of stuff. What I
though was that we’d start by picking any small smale of theory,
empirical material, method, observation, etc., something that could be
termed (widely and informally) a proposal and discuss it. So, no
introduction, no presentations. Just the talking.

Why?

Well, there’s been a “turn to the social” in IS for a long time, and it
is a movement that is still in good health. But the results are a bit
bland, sometimes down right boring. It is my (bland and boring)
assertion that indutively producing “design implications” or eliciting
some kind of plausible explanation among hundres of other plausible
explanations that some IT system failed (or succeeded) is not the
cutting edge of IS. Similarily, when months of interviewing and
participant observation produces superficial and clichéed statements
about an organization and its use of IT, then I think that is a waste of
our resources. Finally, I think that it is probably beneficial if we do
more research together, and this is one place it could start.

Please email suggestion about topics that you’d like to discuss, or
bring them along to the seminar. For this first Friday I think it’s fair
to start with what brough this invitation on in the first place:

“A secretary states that it is important that one knows what one writes
about (i.e., knows the illness) when writing an epicrise. There is an
increasing tendency to outsource documentation services (e.g., from the
UK to India). I think that this is not good. Similar moves have been
tried in Norway, bu tthe result is that someone still has to check the
text. This is because the physicians write so many strange things, and
because the people who are on duty do not know entirely what to write”.

I’m including the original text, to recover from a poor translation (by
myself).

“Sekretær : Jeg ser det som viktig at man vet hva man skriver om (dvs
kjenner sykdommen) når man skriver epicrise. Det er nå en økende tendens
av outsorcing av skrivetjenester (England til India feks). Jeg mener at
dette ikke er bra. Man har forsøkt lignende i Norge, men det fører til at
det likevel må være noen som sjekker det som skrives. Dette fordi
doktorene skriver mye rart, og fordi vakt personell ikke vet helt hva de
skal skrive”

We’ll start by discussing what this tells us about the sentiments (etc)
of people in this workplace with regards to outsourcing, and which
lessons can be learned for us. Most importantly perhaps, is this a
display of researchable issues in IS?

I’m putting it here just in case someone else is interested.

Got a couple of things accepted in 2005. The IFIP 8.2 working conference in Cleveland and ISD’2005 in Karlstad. Back to the roots. I can send you the papers, if you want. Might even say a few words on this page when I get back from the conferences,…

Hmmm, what have I done lately,…

Enebakk rundt, of course
Ceres-rittet
Vestfold rundt
Raumerrittet

I’ll update a bit more later. Sure.