johnywrites.com

Author: kiranjohny007@gmail.com

  • AI and Tomorrow’s Lawyers

    A great discussion on how artificial intelligence (AI) is or might be changing the legal world. Led by Professor Lyria Bennett Moses, panel talks about how AI is growing in law, what it can do for lawyers, and the good and bad sides of using AI.

  • Evidence-informed Vs Evidence of what(Biesta)

    Recently I have got the opportunity to watch an interview of Guy Claxton in which he was asserting the need to ask deep questions about evidence. The first question according to him should be “evidence of what?”. This made me curious to read an article that I have scanned through few years ago by Gert Biesta, i.e. “Good Education in an Age of Measurement”

    In which he writes;

    “More than just the question of the technical validity of our measurements – i.e., whether we are measuring what we intend to measure – the problem here lies with what I suggest to call the normative validity of our measurements. This it the question whether we are indeed measuring what we value, or whether we are just measuring what we can easily measure and thus end up valuing what we (can) measure.”

    He further clarifies the difference between instrumental value, a value which says something about the quality of processes and, more specifically, about their ability to bring about certain outcomes in a secure way.

    According to Biesta, whether the outcomes themselves are desirable is an entirely different matter, ie “a matter for which we need value-based judgements that are not informed by instrumental values but by what we might best call ultimate values“

    He further expands the ideas discussing “The ‘Learnification’ of Education”. The article is freely available here(link)

    I think education needs more scholars trained in philosophy to question many of its popular assumptions more often and more vigorously

  • Artificial Intelligence and Law(UTorontoLaw: Dessislav Dobrev)

    A Discussion on implication of AI in the practice and regulation of law

  • Causation in Philosophy and Medicine: Dr Rani Lill Anjum

    The video is an interview with Rani Lilanym, a philosopher who studies causation, about her work on causality and causation in healthcare.

  • Problems with Entrepreneurship Mindset

    The concept of the Entrepreneurship Mindset has gained significant attention in recent years, especially because of the work by people in self-help/success-guru industries and also independently in the field of entrepreneurship education. However, there are concerns regarding the validity and applicability of this concept in real-world contexts. This post is about a critical examination of the idea of Entrepreneurship Mindset in light of latest information.

    One of the primary issues with the Entrepreneurship Mindset is its lack of universally accepted understanding, definition, and boundary conditions. The term “mindset” itself is too vague and ecologically invalid, making it challenging to study and measure effectively. Without a clear understanding of what constitutes a mindset, it becomes difficult to develop entrepreneurship education programs that aim to cultivate this elusive concept.

    Moreover, the focus on individualistic and atomistic perspectives in the Entrepreneurship Mindset raises concerns about its contextual relevance. Entrepreneurship is a complex domain that involves various environmental factors and complex dynamical features. Simply emphasizing individual mindset without considering the larger context and system as a whole may oversimplify the challenges and dynamics of entrepreneurship.

    The use of cognitive strategies as a means to develop the Entrepreneurship Mindset faces criticism on the basis of a much more fundamental level debate also, i.e. Cognitive approaches often rely on internalism, representation, and computation, which may not adequately capture the physical and social aspects of entrepreneurship. Additionally, the notion of attributing success or failure solely to mindset overlooks the multitude of variables and external factors that contribute to entrepreneurial outcomes.

    This further points to the issue of Ecological validity when studying the Entrepreneurship Mindset. Ecological validity refers to the extent to which research findings can be applied to real-world situations. The concept of mindset, with its lack of clear definition and contextual relevance, may have low ecological validity, limiting the generalizability of its findings to real-life entrepreneurial contexts.

    The overemphasis on mindset in entrepreneurship education can lead to misguided assumptions and blame on individuals for broader system failures. By attributing success or failure solely to mindset, it neglects the importance of structural and systemic factors that influence entrepreneurial outcomes. Such an approach may lead to oversimplification and a lack of understanding of the complex interplay between individuals, systems, and the entrepreneurial ecosystem.

    Key Points

    • The term “mindset” in the context of entrepreneurship is often used without a universally accepted understanding, definition, and boundary conditions. This lack of clarity raises questions about the validity and applicability of studying the Entrepreneurship Mindset.
    • The dominant position of cognitive perspectives in entrepreneurship is based on internalism, representation, and computation. However, it is important to recognize that entrepreneurship is an ecologically grounded phenomenon that goes beyond symbolic cognitive internalism.
    • Mindset theories, including Carol Dweck’s growth mindset, have faced criticism and replication challenges. The effects of mindset interventions on student achievement have been found to be weak, although they may benefit low-income and academically at-risk students.
    • It is crucial to avoid falling into the trap of traditional cognitive psychology and its decontextualized concepts like mindset. Entrepreneurship education should focus on understanding the complexities of the entrepreneurial ecosystem and promoting process changes and interactions rather than trying to change individuals’ mindsets.
    • For cognitive strategies to be valid, it should be contextual by default. Trying to measure mindset through approaches like questionnaires oversimplifies the complexity of entrepreneurship and ignores the multitude of variables at play.
    • Domains like ecological psychology and 4E cognition challenge the concept of mindset by opposing cognitive internalism and representational cognition. These perspectives argue that mindset is too contextually withdrawn from ethics and reality.
    • The concept of mindset lacks ecological validity, which refers to how accurately research findings can be generalized to real-world situations. Mindset studies often fail to reflect the complexities of entrepreneurial behavior and experiences in natural environments.
    • Blaming individuals’ mindset for their successes or failures in entrepreneurship oversimplifies the reality. Factors like social, economic, and environmental conditions play significant roles in entrepreneurial outcomes, and ignoring these variables is misleading.
    • Entrepreneurship scholars are aware of the issues surrounding mindset and strive to contextualize the idea. Definitions and facets of mindset vary depending on the researcher and the specific context and experience
    • Applying complexity to the study of entrepreneurship makes more sense than siloed top-down approaches. The complexities of the entrepreneurial domain require a holistic perspective that considers the context and system as a whole.

    Comments

  • On Finish education system: A complex systems approach in application.

    This is a summary of the interview video “Toby Lowe in conversation with Olli Pekka Heinonen” organized into a blog post. This is a conversation about applying a complex systems perspective to Finish education.

    Finland’s Education System: A Collaborative and Innovative Approach

    Finland consistently ranks among the top countries in the world in terms of student achievement. But what makes their education system so successful? In this blog post, i’ll explore some of the key takeaways from the above video on Finland’s education system, focusing on the role of the innovation center in driving positive change.

    One of the significant challenges in implementing a collaborative approach is relinquishing top-down control. The innovation center encourages a more distributed and shared decision-making process, which can be difficult for some leaders accustomed to traditional methods. However, this shift is essential for fostering adaptability and responsiveness to the evolving needs of learners.

    Empowering Stakeholders for Improvement

    The core belief underlying the innovation center’s work is that involving all stakeholders in the education system is the most effective way to achieve improvement. By working together, schools, parents, and students can create a system that is tailored to the individual needs of learners and better prepares them for the future.

    Key Takeaways

    • The innovation center serves as a catalyst for innovation and experimentation within the Finnish education system.
    • Collaboration between all stakeholders, including teachers, parents, and students, is central to the innovation center’s approach.
    • Letting go of top-down control and embracing a more distributed decision-making process is crucial for fostering adaptability.
    • Empowering all stakeholders is believed to be the key to achieving lasting improvement in education.

  • A.I. for Education(Sal Khan Playlist/ updated)

    Harnessing A.I. for Education(Sal Khan)

    How AI Could Save (Not Destroy) Education

    Sal Khan’s vision for the K-12 education evolution with AI

    AI & GPT-4 Revolutionize Education With Sal Khan | EP #35 Moonshots and Mindsets

    Khan Academy founder Sal Khan on AI and the future of education | ReThinking with Adam Grant

  • Article: A Dynamic Systems Theory approach to second language acquisition

    This article (A Dynamic Systems Theory approach to second language acquisition) proposes Dynamic Systems Theory as a potential overarching theory for language development. Authors (Kees de Bot, Wander Lowie, and Marjolijn Verspoor) argues that language can be viewed as a dynamic system, where variables interact over time, and language development is seen as a dynamic process. Language development exhibits core characteristics of dynamic systems, such as sensitivity to initial conditions, complete interconnectedness of subsystems, the emergence of attractor states over time, and variation among individuals. The study suggests that employing tools and instruments developed for studying dynamic systems in other disciplines requires different research approaches that consider the social and cognitive aspects and interactions between systems.

  • 14+ Major Entrepreneurship models

    Following models are suggested methods to use for starting a venture or develop a product/service.

    In this,– Business plan, Lean startup, Design thinking are the most popular among startup community. On the other hand effectuation leads as the most respected model among researchers.

    Following are the three ways I would classify them

    • Models 1 to 9 as Model Centric or Model driven
    • Model 10 to 13 as Context driven(effectuation, bricolage, User-entrepreneurship, Copycat)
    • Model 14 as structure driven

    Here we go;

    1. Business Planning (Sahlman, 1997, Delmar and Shane, 2003 )

    A business plan is a written document that describes in detail how a startup defines its objectives and how it is going about achieving its goals. Most of the latest authors like Sahlman were business plan reformists(include next two models).

    1. Contingency planning (Honig, 2004, Marc Gruber 2017)

    Honig suggests that planning processes need to be governed by different planning regimes depending on the type of founding environment ie highly dynamic environments, less dynamic environments, etc. Thus planning must be adative. Gruber suggest that planning processes need to be governed by different planning regimes depending on the type of founding environment.

    1. Discovery-driven planning (McGrath and MacMillan, 1995)

    Discovery-driven planning is an approach that combines business planning with learning through a series of steps that reveal key discoveries (McGrath and MacMillan 2000). The core premise of the method is that when there isn’t enough information to develop a conventional business plan, the thrust of planning must instead be on learning, while at the same time reducing cost and risk. Conventional planning tends to lock an organization in, too early, to a specific operational trajectory.

    1. Probe-and-Learn approach (Lynn et al., 1996).

    Gary Lynn proposed the Probe-and-Learn approach in which companies develop products by probing potential markets with early versions, learning from the probes, and probing again. The initial product will not be the culmination of the development process but rather the first step.

    1. Lean start-up approach (Blank, 2013; Ries, 2011)

    Lean startup is one of the most successful prescritive models in the technology startup ecosystem. This is promoted as a hypothesis-driven approach that focuses on experimenting rather than planning. It proposes engaging with customers through a minimum viable product, which is built iteratively and incrementally according to customer feedback.

    1. Theory Based View(felin et al, 2020)

    The Theory based view stress on the importance of a theory to truly create new value. According to the authors, theory helps entrepreneurs see what others can’t see. Contrarian or unique beliefs provide the underlying raw material of a firm’s theory of value. Added to that theory allows entrepreneurs to be more scientific about value creation and to perform the right type of experiments.

    1. Disciplined Entrepreneurship. Sull (2004)

    Donald Sull notes that instead of ignoring, avoiding or getting affected by uncertainty while trying to fight it, entrepreneurs should manage it by taking a disciplined approach. Bill Aulet (Aulet, 2013) also suggests the deciplinary approch but also offers a step-by-step( 24 steps) approach to creating products.

    1. Design thinking

    Design and design science are broad terms with many different cannotations. In contract, design thinking means– the process approach developed for creating design solutions(products, services, etc.). Standford Design school proposed a process model of design thinking that includes 5 stages/steps ; empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test. Even though it seems like a linier step by step process it’s proposed as a nonlinear and continues process.

    1. Design Cognition (Garbuio et al., 2017)

    Design cognition is not a prescriptive model. It is just a design science based pedagogical approach proposed for entrepreneurship education. I added it here because of the diversity value. It is developed as a critical counter to other prescriptive models including design thinking. This perspective involves four cognitive acts from the design cognition research to opportunity creation. Following are the four; Framing, Analogical reasoning, Abductive reasoning, and Mental simulation.

    1. Effectual entrepreneurship (Sarasvathy, 2001)

    This is one of the most popular and recognized models among entrepreneurship researchers. Effectuation suggest that entrepreneurs do not start with concrete goals as in the case of business plan, but constantly develop them on the fly through personal strengths and available resources. Effectual thinkers believe that “If I can control the future, I do not need to predict it.”

    1. Entrepreneurial bricolage: Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005).

    This is not essentially a prescriptive model. It is included because of its prescriptive value. Bricolage is an action-oriented or hands-on approach (Fisher, 2012) that mitigates the limitations of the resource environment by using available resources in ways that were not originally intended and therefore reduces resource uncertainty. According to Baker and Nelson (2005:334) bricolage includes ”making do by applying combinations of resources at hand to new problems and opportunities”.

    1. User Entrepreneurship( and User Innovation) User entrepreneurship: Shah, S. K. (2007)

    This is also not essentially a prescriptive model. It is included because of its prescriptive value. User entrepreneurship is the process by which lead users become entrepreneurs. When users experience a need in their own lives, they develop an innovative solution to address their need, and sometimes even openly share their solution with others before commercializing a product. This phenomenon has been labeled as user entrepreneurship (Shah and Tripsas 2007). This idea is grounded mostly on the early work of Von Hippel (Von Hippel 1988). His work has shown that users are an important and frequent source of innovation and user innovations may be qualitatively different than those of manufacturers.

    13. Copy Cat Model(Check Scholar hits)

    Copycat model, even though least appreciated, is one of the(or the) most successful way civilizations run business and trade. It is also a biologically consistent model. Even Steve Jobs once said a quote from Pablo Picasso. “Good artists copy. Great artists steal. ”essentially, appreciating copying.(not stealing)

    14. Government or Authority Sanctioned, Structure driven

    Traditionally business rights were often sanctioned by authorities. In India there were specialized caste groups who were doing business and nothing else. Even today there are many successful businesses that works under the government patronage.

    For comprehensive review and understanding on entrepreneurship models/methods check following papers:

    If you want to have a peek at few models from popular authors checkout the following video by Stanford’s Chuck Eesly.

  • From Representation to Emergence by Osberg, Biesta and Cilliers

    A complexity critic of cognitive reductionism.

    In the paper “From representation to emergence: complexity’s challenge to the epistemology of schooling” Deborah Osberg, Gert Biesta and Paul Cilliers challenges the ‘spatial epistemology’ of representation by using ideas from complexity.

    Key takes

    1. In this paper they explore possibilities for an alternative ‘temporal’ understanding of knowledge in its relationship to reality.
    2. In addition to complexity, It takes inspiration from Deweyan ‘transactional realism’ and Derrida’s deconstruction.
    3. They suggest that ‘knowledge’ and ‘reality’ should not be understood as separate systems which somehow have to be brought into alignment with each other, but that they are part of the same emerging complex system which is never fully ‘present’ in any (discrete) moment in time.
    4. This points to the importance of acknowledging the role of the ‘unrepresentable’ or ‘incalculable’. With this understanding knowledge reaches us not as something we receive but as a response, which brings forth new worlds because it necessarily adds something (which was not present anywhere before it appeared) to what came before.
    5. This understanding of knowledge suggests that the acquisition of curricular content should not be considered an end in itself. Rather, curricular content should be used to bring forth that which is incalculable from the perspective of the present.
    6. The epistemology of emergence is introduced as a complexity alternative to representational epistemology. It calls for a switch in focus for curricular thinking away from questions about presentation and representation and towards questions about engagement and response.
    7. In contrast to this representational epistemology—which could also be called a ‘spatial epistemology’ since it depends on a correspondence between knowledge and reality—they propose that complexity suggests a temporal epistemology which implies that the quest for knowledge is not in order that we may develop more accurate understandings of a finished reality, as it is. Rather, the quest for knowledge is about finding more and more complex and creative ways of interacting with our reality.
    8. This paper also views the presentationalist view(situated, real world learning) critically and point out some of its weakness. It brings up two critical dimesntions initially, ie. conservative and radical. From a conservative viewpoint, that a ‘decent’ education is not merely about practical work or apprenticeship, but one in which children get access to all the great works of a particular cultural tradition. Secondly, from a radical viewpoint, it is argued that participatory or presentational forms of learning end up in socialisation and adaptation and make it difficult to create critical distance and therefore result in one-dimensional ways of learning.
    9. A third critique is pointed from the work of Jacques Derrida—in particular, his critique of ‘the metaphysics of presence,’ more familiarly known as ‘deconstruction’. According to this line of thinking, both presentational and representational pedagogies rely upon the idea of a world that is simply present and can simply be represented. Both presentation and representation can be seen as examples of the ‘metaphysics of presence’—the idea that there is a world ‘out there’ that is simply ‘present’ and to which all our understandings (meanings) are in relation. In contrast to this position, deconstruction resists being drawn into and subsumed by any relationship with presence.
    10. Authors cites themselves @ Biesta and Osberg, 2007 to show that eventhough ‘representational’ and ‘presentational’ pedagogies are somewhat (although not completely) opposed to each other—both strategies are still the two main approaches to education, and perhaps becoming increasingly intertwined.
    11. The authors argue that ‘relationality to the radically non-relational’ could be considered key to the logic of complex systems. They point to Prigogine, who insists that although new order (emergence) results when a complex system explores and finds new ways of working with the initial conditions, and that these initial conditions are provided by the lower hierarchical level—and are ‘causal’ in this regard—the elements making up the lower level do not provide everything necessary for order of a particular kind to emerge at the higher level. In his words: The system ‘chooses’ one of the possible branches available when far from equilibrium. But nothing in the macroscopic equations justifies the preference for any one solution. (Prigogine, 1997).