Roboterjournalismus – Maschinen als Redakteure?

Für Journalisten verändert sich auch der Beruf durch die Digitalisierung. Im Sommer hat der IBM Computer Watson zum ersten Mal ein ganzes Magazin gemacht, Bilder ausgesucht, Texte erstellt. Die Redakteure hatten nichts mehr zu tun. Algorithmen schreiben schon seit längerem selbständig Textbeiträge. Immer häufiger wird eine Software zum Autor. Was passiert also, wenn künftig Roboter statt Menschen texten?

Lesen Sie mehr: https://www.ndr.de/themenwoche/Roboterjournalismus-Maschinen-als-Redakteure,roboterjournalismus104.html

Wirtschaftsdemokratie – kostenlose Publikation

Beim VSA-Verlag kann man das – wie ich finde: nach wie vor aktuelle – Buch “Mehr Wirtschaftsdemokratie wagenkostenlos als PDF herunterladen. (Der Verlag erbittet verständlicherweise eine Spende.) Für die Publikationen ist keine Neuauflage vorgesehen – die Forderung nach Wirtschaftsdemokratie wird dagegen immer wieder erhoben werden und insofern ein Klassiker bleiben.

Meine, Hartmut; Schumann, Michael; Urban, Hans-Jürgen (Hg.) (2011): Mehr Wirtschaftsdemokratie wagen! Hamburg: VSA-Verlag (PDF)

(Dieser Blogpost wurde zuerst unter https://employmentrelations.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/wirtschaftsdemokratie-kostenlose-publikation/  veröffentlicht.)

Noam Chomsky & Michel Foucault Debate Human Nature & Power on Dutch TV, 1971

Noam Chomsky & Michel Foucault Debate Human Nature & Power on Dutch TV, 1971 https://t.co/DDYjlrjIdi https://t.co/fIz7yeEMpq

On that website one can also find videos of this debate with English subtitles and a transkript.  – “Open Culture” is really great.

movies for teaching orgs & work

orgtheory.net

A few days ago, Mark Suchman, chair of ASA’s OOW section, circulated a Google Doc with a call for people to add movies they use in class to illustrate work and organizational concepts to students. Orgtheory has had a couple of threads on this topic over the years, and I just added a couple of my own favorites (sadly not so current) to the document. I definitely will be checking some of these out next time I teach undergrad orgs — check it out, or add some contributions of your own.

View original post

“Economics is For Everyone” (I would add: The economy is for everyone.)

“‘Economics is for everyone’, argues legendary economist Ha-Joon Chang in our latest mind-blowing RSA Animate. This is the video economists don’t want you to see! Chang explains why every single person can and SHOULD get their head around basic economics. He pulls back the curtain on the often mystifying language of derivatives and quantitative easing, and explains how easily economic myths and assumptions become gospel. Arm yourself with some facts, and get involved in discussions about the fundamentals that underpin our day-to-day lives.”

See also here: https://www.thersa.org/action-and-research/rsa-projects/economy-enterprise-manufacturing-folder/citizens-economic-council). The book Chang refers to is this: Economics: The User’s Guide, Penguin, London, 2014.

(The post has also been published here: https://employmentrelations.wordpress.com/2016/07/16/economics-is-for-everyone-i-would-add-the-economy-is-for-everyone/

“Voice of the workers” in WES

The journal Work, Employment & Society offers free access to a series of articles about current realities of work online. It is a great resource to introduce young students who might not have considerable work experience themselves to topics surrounding different worlds of work, e.g. factory work, customer service work, care work or knowledge work. The articles are accessible here.

“Economists and the ‘As If’ Argument” – Or: Trees sneeze – that’s where the wind comes from

 

Milton Friedman and many other economists argue that the assumption of rational behavior does not have to be true, rather we can take this assumption “as if” it were true. The argument also says, that it is important to make realistic predictions with these (unrealistic) assumptions.

“To put this point less paradoxically, the relevant question to ask about the “assumptions” of a theory is not whether they are descriptively “realistic,” for they never are, but whether they are sufficiently good approximations for the purpose in hand. And this question can be answered only by seeing whether the theory works, which means whether it yields sufficiently accurate predictions.” (Friedman, Milton 1953: Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 14; I found the source here and here).

A lot has been written about this methodological perspective (cf. the blog post on the now closed blog “Unlearning Economics“). A starting point for a critique of Friedman’s methodological perspective you may find here (or here in German language).

My critique can be summarised in two sentences: “Trees sneeze – that’s where the wind comes from”. Would we be satisfied with this explanation or prediction?