advertising algorithms

Social media: the everyday sexism of advertising algorithms

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Social media advertising algorithms can create paradoxical situations, where messages aimed at women are mostly displayed to men. These are the findings of successive research projects carried out by Grazia Cecere at the Institut Mines-Télécom Business School, in partnership with EPITECH, the University of Paris-Saclay and the MIT School of Management. The team has shed light on some of the mechanisms of algorithms that, at first glance, maintain or amplify non-parity biases.

 

Advertising algorithms prefer men. At least, those of social networks such as Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, and LinkedIn do. This is the conclusion of several successive research projects by Grazia Cecere, a privacy economist at the Institut Mines-Télécom Business School, who has been working on the biases of algorithms for several years. In her research, she provides insights into the mystery of the advertising algorithms used by the major social platforms.  “These algorithms decide and define the information seen by the users of social networks, who are mostly young people”, she stresses.

Through collaborative work with researchers from EPITECH (Clara Jean) and the University of Paris-Saclay (Fabrice Le Guel and Matthieu Manant), Grazia Cecere looked at how an advertiser’s message is processed and distributed by Facebook algorithms. The team launched two sponsored advertisements aimed at recruiting engineering school students. The advertisements used the same image, at the same price per appearance on user accounts, and the same target population: high school students between 16 and 19 years old, with no gender specified. The advertisement was therefore aimed at teenagers and young students.

There was one difference in the text of the advertisements, both of which promoted school-leaving pay rates for engineers and their rate of integration into the working world. On one of the ads: “€41,400 gross annual salary on average.” On the second: “€41,400 gross annual salary on average for women.” The researchers’ question was: how will these two ads be distributed among men and women by the algorithm?

Results. First, the advertisement with a message aimed at women reduced the number of views by users, regardless of the target, and it was shown predominantly to young men. The specification “for women” in the advertising text was not enough to direct the algorithm towards targeting high school girls more than high school boys. However, the researchers note in their publication that the algorithm appeared to treat targets between 16 and 17 years of age, minors, differently than targets between 18 and 19 years of age, adults. The algorithm slightly favored adult high school girls in the advertisement “for women”, compared to minor high school girls who were less likely to see it.

“This indicates that the algorithm uses different decision processes for younger and older targets”, says Grazia Cecere and colleagues. “This is consistent with the strict legislation such as GDPR and COPPA surrounding the use of digital technology by minors in Europe and the United States.” While adult high school girls were more likely to see the advertisement than their younger peers, it is important to remember that they were still targeted less often than their male counterparts. The difference in algorithm treatment between minors and adults does not correct the gender bias in the advertising.

Another observation: the neutral advertisement – which did not specify “for women” – was more widely disseminated than the advertisement targeted at women, and here again, it was mainly aimed at men. This observation can be explained both by the length of the advertising text but also by its gendered orientation. Generally speaking, women have privileged access to this type of content when advertising is not specifically for women. Moreover, the word “women” in the text also led the algorithm to introduce an additional criterion, thus reducing the sample of targets – but clearly without favoring high school girls either.

Nevertheless, after several campaigns aimed at understanding the targeting mechanisms of these two ads, the researchers showed that the algorithm was capable of adapting its target according to the gender-specific text of the ad, which nonetheless reveals a market bias: targeting adult women costs advertisers more.

Complexity for advertisers

These results show the opacity of advertising algorithms and the paradoxical biases they entail. For engineering schools, diversity and parity are major recruitment challenges. Every year, schools invest efforts and resources in campaigns specifically targeted at women to attract them into sectors that remain highly masculine, without realizing that there are algorithmic decision parameters that are very complicated to control.

Read on I’MTech: Restricting algorithms to limit their powers of discrimination

This type of research sheds light on the avidly protected mechanisms of advertising algorithms and identifies good practices. However, Grazia Cecere reminds us that the biases generated by the algorithms are not necessarily voluntary: “They are often the consequences of how the algorithm optimizes the costs and views of the ads.” And these optimization methods are not initially based on male favoritism.

In 2019, research by Grazia Cecere, conducted with the same team and Catherine Tucker, a distinguished researcher at the MIT Sloan School of Management, showed the complexity of the link between optimization and algorithm bias, through an example of Snapchat advertising campaigns. The content of the advertisements was identical: advertising an engineering school for recruitment purposes. In this research, four similar advertising campaigns were launched with identical populations in all major cities in France. All other conditions remained the same, but a different photo was used for each campaign: a man from behind with a T-shirt bearing a message for men, a woman from behind with a T-shirt bearing a message for women, and the equivalents of these two photos without the people’s heads.

Pour tester les différences de traitement des algorithmes entre hommes et femmes, les chercheurs ont publié quatre photos sur Snapchat.

To test the differences in the way algorithms process the images for men and women, the researchers published four photos on Snapchat.

 

During the advertising campaign, the full photo of the man was the most often displayed, ahead of that of the man’s torso only, the woman’s torso only, and finally the full photo of the woman. Behind these results is an explanation of how the algorithm optimizes dissemination dynamically. “On the first day, the full photo of the man was the one that attracted the most visits by Parisians to the associated website” says Grazia Cecere. “This then led us to demonstrate that the algorithm bases itself on choices from cities with large populations to optimize targets. It replicates this in the other towns. It tends to optimize an entire campaign on the initial results obtained in these areas, by replicating them in all other areas.”

This case is typical of an indirect bias. “Maybe the Parisian users were more sensitive to this photo because there were more male students who identified with the ad in that city? Perhaps there are simply more male users in Paris? In any case, it is the behavior of Parisian users that has oriented the algorithm towards this bias, it is not the algorithm that has sought this result” stresses the researcher. However, without knowledge of the mechanisms of the algorithm, it is difficult for advertisers to predict these behaviors. The results of the research raise a question: is it acceptable, when trying to reach a balanced population – or even to target women preferentially in order to correct inequalities in professional fields – that the platforms’ algorithms lead to the opposite effect?

Interview by Benjamin Vignard, for I’MTech.

Find out more:

Do mobile apps for kids respect privacy rights?

Wikipedia

Wikipedia in the time of the Covid-19 crisis

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Wikipedia provides freely reusable, objective and verifiable content that every citizen may modify and improve. It is difficult to achieve this aim when it comes to providing real-time information about a crisis marked by uncertainty, as is the case with the current Covid-19 epidemic. At Télécom Paris, Caroline Rizza, a researcher in information sciences, and Sandrine Bubendorff, a sociologist, have explored how crises are approached on Wikipedia – a topic they have been studying for three years through the ANR MACIV project. In this joint interview, they explain the motivations for producing content about the health crisis by comparing it to more short-term crises, such as the attacks of 13 November 2015 in Paris.

 

Why study Wikipedia in crisis situations?

Sandrine Bubendorff: In our research, we examine how information spreads in crisis situations. And Wikipedia is a place where articles are created very quickly when an event occurs, with a goal: summarize the information available. So we look at how this summary is constructed. This allows us to analyze the way in which information is spread and aggregated about an event as it unfolds. For instance, how do the contributors deliberate in real time about what constitutes a reliable source? The idea is to understand how the Wikipedia page can help make sense of the events.

On Wikipedia, is the current health crisis approached like any other crisis?

Caroline Rizza: Our research on Wikipedia began by studying what are referred to as civil security crises. We focused in particular on the attacks of 13 November 2015. We studied the dynamics of creating pages, debates between contributors about what makes a source reliable or unreliable, strategies for building tree structures to best present the information etc. A defining characteristic of civil security crises is that they take place over a short period of time. Whether it’s a matter of an attack, flooding or an industrial accident, the crisis is usually short-lived: whether it’s “anticipated” or unexpected, we observe that the crisis intensifies and peaks rapidly with a “return to normalcy” in the hours or days follow. The time frame for our current health crisis is different. The crisis intensifies, then levels off and plateaus without any real way of predicting when things will return to normal. As a result of this plateauing, a variety of mechanisms come into play on Wikipedia, some of which are unique to crisis situations, and others that are more similar to questions raised for more common topics.

Read more on I’MTech: Social media and crisis situations: learning how to control the situation

What are the typical mechanisms for producing knowledge about crises on Wikipedia?  

SB: The first characteristic is that a page is created for the event very quickly with a basic summary of information. For the attacks of 13 November for example, the first entry on the page was “Shooting in the 11th arrondissement, live coverage on BFM TV”. Less than five minutes later, it was corrected by another person to change the term “shooting” and remove the reference to BFM TV. In situations like this, we observe that information is constructed very quickly and in an iterative way. This can also be seen in the pages about the Covid-19 epidemic.

There is also a flurry of activity to create secondary pages on Wikipedia: the ones that allow members of the community to interact with one another. The initial discussions are usually about whether or not it is appropriate to create a page dedicated to the topic: are the events significant enough to appear in an encyclopedia? Such debates impact the architecture of pages about events: does a given sub-event deserve to have a dedicated page? For example, in the case of the Covid-19 crisis, we’re seeing debates about whether each country should have its own dedicated page for the situation, or if all the information should instead be centralized on a single page. These debates are interesting since they give us the opportunity to understand how events are organized hierarchically. And as always on Wikipedia, this desire to produce encyclopedic, lasting knowledge.

Why are there debates about whether or not to create pages about certain topics?

CR: What’s unique about crisis topics on Wikipedia is that there is an influx of new contributors to provide information about the topic, probably due to the unfolding nature of the crisis. This means that the community of editors will not be composed solely of regular editors, and that there will be opposing viewpoints. New contributors are likely to produce content very quickly and provide information about a topic using a journalistic approach. The more regular contributors we interviewed reported that they have a specific approach for this type of article, which is to not intervene immediately. They wait a day or a few days, until the contributions level off so that they can thoroughly revise the article in terms of both content and form. So they use more of an encyclopedic approach. They think about presenting the event from a knowledge perspective: the information must stand the test of time. 

What are the different ways in which Wikipedia contributors approach topics?

SB: For the regular contributors we’ve met, the urgent need is not to report information, but rather to provide a synthesis of information. In general, Wikipedia only deals with secondary sources. The information must exist elsewhere in order to be cited on Wikipedia, and there must be a consensus about its sources. The content presented must therefore be verified and credible, which calls for a different time frame than putting information from “primary sources” online. For pages dedicated to crisis situations, regular contributors generally only intervene after content produced at the same time the crisis is unfolding has leveled off. They edit the information, eliminating side notes and keeping only a summary of important information, by restructuring pages, improving sources etc.

As an example of this issue, there was a debate about the best source to use to provide figures concerning the numbers of Covid-19 cases and deaths. Such a discussion exemplifies the contrast between approaches that can be described as encyclopedic or journalistic. Each country updates and reports its data on a daily basis. However, the WHO updates its figures with a 24 to 48 hour delay since it needs time to aggregate the data. So on Wikipedia, there is a debate about which data to take into account. Ultimately, so far the consensus has weighed in favor of the WHO figures, even if they come with a delay. This was the consensus reached between the contributors.

At the top of the French Wikipedia page about the Covid-19 epidemic, two banners are displayed to warn readers about the possible lack of information. The first is specific to the current health crisis, while the second is displayed on all pages concerning current events.

 

Are there unique aspects as to how the health crisis is being approached on Wikipedia ?

SB: There are two differences between the Covid-19 crisis and civil security crises such as: its time frame and its scientific dimension. Because it is taking place over a long period of time, the debates also continue over time. Although the crisis began several months ago, the pages still display specific banners warning readers that the information may be inaccurate or obsolete, and that it relates to current events. These banners are very interesting because they attest to the construction of encyclopedic knowledge in real time. Behind-the-scenes debates are playing out between contributors to determine which scientific sources to take into account: should only published scientific articles be discussed? Should articles that are currently being peer-reviewed be incorporated? All these questions illustrate how the community produces information that will stand the test of time and. And ultimately they are similar to the debates we observe between Wikipedia contributors for “non-crisis” articles. Scientific articles, publications, are sources that Wikipedians are accustomed to using and discussing.

Why do so many people readily volunteer to provide such encyclopedic information?

CR: One of the ideas that has emerged in our research on crises is that citizens contribute in order to make sense of what is happening, and to fill an information vacuum. To be more specific, like other researchers, we have noted that any crisis comes with its share of uncertainty. This uncertainty results in anxiety among citizens. Faced with such uncertainty and the anxiety it causes, citizens attempt to “solve” these questions. They try to understand what’s happening and what should be done, and even what they should or could do. They come together, communicate using their smartphones and organize groups on social media. This is exactly what we have demonstrated with Wikipedia: in the absence of effective communication about the crisis, citizens are plunged into uncertainty, which they try to resolve by coproducing encyclopedic informational content. Working as a community — debating information sources and quality — therefore allows them to find some small degree of certainty amidst an overwhelming amount of sometimes contradictory information that is being spread, and ultimately, to fill an information vacuum that leaves the door open to rumors or misinformation. We’re seeing this today and there’s a good reason why the Covid-19 pandemic has been coupled with the idea of an “infodemic.” 

Is Wikipedia the only platform that makes this possible?

CR: No, we talk about Wikipedia but this is also something we’ve seen in our research on Twitter. Ultimately, what we’ve demonstrated about this topic through the ANR MACIV project we’re working on is that despite the main purposes of each of these media — to construct encyclopedic knowledge on Wikipedia and to disseminate information on Twitter — citizens are very attentive to the truthfulness of information. They develop intrinsic verification mechanisms: in the comments on posts in Twitter feeds for example, and on the talk page of a Wikipedia article. As such, we have suggested that Wikipedia represents a “digital social network” during a crisis, in the same way as Twitter or Facebook, in light of the extensive activity on the talk page about the crisis.

Interview by Benjamin Vignard, for I’MTech.

[divider style=”normal” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

MACIV: social media in crisis situations

Caroline Rizza and Sandrine Bubendorff are researchers at the Interdisciplinary Institute of Innovation, a joint research unit (UMR 9217) between Télécom Paris/CNRS/École Polytechnique/Mines ParisTech. They are working on the MACIV project (MAnagement of CItizens and Volunteers: social media in crisis situation), for which Caroline Rizza is the scientific coordinator. The project is funded by the ANR via the French General Secretariat for Defense and National Security. Since 2018, the MACIV project has been examining how information is created and spread on social media in crisis situations. An exploratory study carried out prior to this project and funded by the Defense and Security Zone of the Paris Prefecture of Police as part of the Euridice consortium led by the Laboratory of Technology, Territories and Societies (LATTS), made it possible to initiate this research. MACIV project partners include I3-Télécom Paris, IMT Mines Albi, LATTS, the French Directorate General for Civil Security and Crisis Management, VISOV, NDC, and the Defense and Security Zone of the Paris Prefecture of Police.

[divider style=”normal” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

Video conferences and socializing: bringing some joy back to our daily lives

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Stéphane Safin, Télécom Paris – Institut Mines-Télécom

The lockdown has upended the ways we communicate and maintain social connections. It has forced us to rethink our social habits and to create new ones. The use of video conference systems has become widespread. But is this technology designed to facilitate work as effective when it comes to socializing on a personal level? How can we reinvent our forms of interaction so that they may continue to be meaningful and fulfilling?

Socializing online

Remote communication is largely supported by information and communication technologies, for both professional and personal purposes. Technological solutions have proliferated, giving rise to new ways of communicating, and even to new forms of language. For example, the limitations of text messaging have made it necessary to develop shortened forms of writing, which has led not only to the development of a specific abbreviated form of spelling, but also to new digital social media platforms that have enshrined this practice, such as Twitter. Another example is the lack of metacommunication in writing – meaning communication about communication itself, which conveys nuance and helps us understand one another – which has led to increasingly sophisticated systems, such as emoticons and animated GIFs.

As remote communication tools are largely available and increasingly affordable, they provide an opportunity to maintain social ties, and even strengthen them, at a time when we are all forced to be physically isolated from each other.

There are two main forms of remote communication: asynchronous communication – with tools based on written and visual components such as email, sharing documents and digital social media – and synchronous communication, including for example tools such as telephones, video conferencing and the specific case of instant messaging, which offers a hybrid category between synchronous and asynchronous communication.

Do video conferences allow for informal socializing?

Video conferencing tools were developed to hold work meetings. In certain cases, they even help improve the quality of collaboration, in comparison to situations of co-presence (physical presence in the same place) since they force interactions to be structured. Being in front of a screen for a set period of time can boost concentration and efficiency, and employees are pushed to “get to the point” by dispensing with the informal aspects. Too bad if some socializing time is lost before and after the meeting, or over coffee to finish the discussion. Yet, when it comes to “everyday” socializing, it is the informal aspects that matter the most. Taking a coffee break together is much more important than the task being carried out.

But compared to situations of co-presence, these tools have a number of limitations, the main two being the lack of a shared context (who knows what’s happening outside the frame of the other person’s webcam?) and the fact that considerable resources must be allocated to manage interactions (dividing up speaking time, managing the tools and their technical constraints). In general, they only work well for groups that have already been formed, who have a shared a frame of reference: shared goals, a relatively unequivocal vocabulary etc.

But most importantly, although even meetings for professional situations – which are usually highly standardized in terms of power relations and how speaking time is structured – must still be “run well” in order to be effective, what about our informal meetings, which are considerably more chaotic (which is also part of their charm) ?

Everyday socializing takes creativity

In short, video conferencing allow us to carry out tasks in structured groups, but requires clear, formal management of the context and interactions. But it is far from ideal for everyday socializing, which relies on the group’s immersion in a shared environment, the flow of conversation (especially necessary for humor), and on enjoying being together without carrying out a task, but simply to be together.  

In an effort to overcome the inherent shortcomings of the technology, and because we don’t really have other options, forms of resilience have been developed in order to (re)invent original formats for social interaction. These strategies fall into three broad strategies, which we will illustrate below with examples from the lockdown period found here and here.

Strategy one: creating a shared context

Time actually spent together is combined with a supposedly spared space. Virtual cocktail parties are a perfect example: settling into a comfortable chair, toasting to one another through the webcam and sharing hors d’œuvres are all ways to recreate habits to immerse ourselves in a sort of shared frame of reference – everyone knows what to do at a cocktail party. Another example: some remote meeting systems make it possible to cut out the user’s face and set it against a background. Originally designed to protect privacy, this feature also provides an opportunity to recreate a shared context. Using the same background can help make everyone feel like they are in “the same place.”

Strategy two: recreating tasks

Video conferencing is especially suited to carrying out tasks, so why not set a goal for the time spent socializing, when there wasn’t necessarily one before? Virtual babysitting, for example. For those with children, a bit of help is always appreciated and enlisting grandparents or other adults to read a story or help with homework is beneficial all around: it gives parents a break and helps maintain the connection between children and grandparents. The connection is now established through the task, which provides a purpose and goal for this connection. 

Other examples include playing board games virtually or cooking together, activities which are also ways to recreate a task, set a goal and take advantage of what these tools are made for. Exercising in lockdown, and therefore with limited resources, helps people get up and moving, but more importantly, it gives them a reason to get together.

Strategy three: changing the very format of communication

This involves combining video conferencing with other media (images, videos, music) to enhance the message and focus on content. It may also involve transforming communication, both in its form and content, to overcome the shortcomings of the technology: while we may no longer be able to make long-winded statements because of network quality, we can interact through short sentences and snappy humor, and as such, make room for light-hearted moments, where we don’t dwell on the virus or our feelings about the current situation. Another example is using features many tools offer to “disguise” ourselves virtually, fostering forms of metacommunication that are especially useful when we share a limited context and our non-verbal behavior is barely visible.   

Lessons to learn

Of course, we are not all equal when it comes to our lockdown experience, especially when it comes to access to digital tools. And these tools do not always ensure privacy, far from it in fact. But in these times, they are an invaluable resource for maintaining our social life, as long as we are able to invent ways to use them.  

And maybe on the other side of this crisis, we will have learned to appreciate the importance of informal socializing and therefore value relationships in our professional interactions, challenging the dominant paradigm of hyper-performance.

Stéphane Safin, Ergonomics research professor, Télécom Paris – Institut Mines-Télécom

This article has been republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article (in French).

solidarity

From solidarism to national solidarity: lessons of the epidemic

/0 Comments/in , , /by

In this time of crisis, solidarity has been widely called for in response to the risk posed by the epidemic. In this article, Sophie Bretesché explores the historic origins of solidarity as a societal value. A sociologist at IMT Atlantique, she specializes in issues of risk and memory in relation to organizational change. In light of past epidemics and their impacts on social organization, she provides insight into the relationship between solidarity and the challenges we face in terms of social organization.

 

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he health crisis caused by COVID 19 has led our society to consider collective risk in a new light. Since the outbreak of the virus and its global spread, our vulnerability to the virus has underscored the fragility of our bodies, and even more so, the organic nature of our societies, made up of individuals who interact with one another. This epidemic, viewed as unprecedented since the Spanish flu of 1918, raises serious questions about the economic development models we have constructed since the Second World War, based on interdependence between major economies.  The epidemic has therefore pushed people to rethink their vision of the society in which they live. It reveals that the society we live in is not simply an artificial construction. It is a whole, which we inhabit, are part of, and which has proven to be riddled with fluids, bacteria, interactions and tensions.

Three components of risk management have come under question: scientific knowledge, the vulnerability level of our society, and our capacity to develop forms or resilience. The crisis has therefore led us to rethink the way society regulates its interdependencies. In response to the spread of the contagion, the notions of liberty and equality played a decisive role at the beginning of the crisis. The expected counterpart of the lockdown – a de facto deprivation of liberty – was equal access to care for all citizens. In this perspective, it is the vulnerability to the risk that is managed collectively.

In recent days, another notion has been widely called for in the health, economic and social spheres: national solidarity. It has been the common watchword in the management of the crisis. This notion has been used in the past , in particular in relation to Pasteur’s groundbreaking discoveries that revolutionized medicine. Solidarism was inspired by the great microbial discoveries, and the medical discoveries resulting from the fight against epidemics had a concrete effect on the way societies were managed. In light of the COVID 19 epidemic, it is significant that the notion of solidarity has been used as the structuring principle for the regulation methods to come.

Solidarist theory at the crossroads of medical discoveries and the economic crisis

In the 1890s, solidarist theory was just starting to gain attention, but it had already been used in biology for half a century. Moral principles and scientific methods must align to go beyond simple charity and create “solidarity” (he did not invent the term but gave its noble meaning) organized collectively. Indeed, it grew out of an intellectual fervor for the notion of solidarity, a consequence of the major economic crisis that hit France from 1873 to 1895. At the end of the 19th century, liberalism, based on the glorification of the market and suspicion of any State regulation, was increasingly considered unacceptable, as it increased social inequality and intensified the much-discussed “social question.” Paternalism, along with managing behavior through religion and philanthropy, were no longer considered credible responses to the ills of industrialization and the development of global capitalism. It was against this backdrop that Léon Bourgeois put forward a new social doctrine in the 1890s, in which the principle of solidarity was a cornerstone.

Pasteur’s discoveries would lead to mass vaccination and raise important social questions.

Léon Bourgeois readily acknowledged that Pasteur’s scientific research on microbial contagion was at the origin of his thinking about the interdependence between men and generations. As he saw it, rich and poor were equally exposed to biological and social ills, and the suffering endured by some would inevitably affect the lives of others. “The isolated individual does not exist,” Bourgeois tirelessly repeated, in response to the liberal dogma of the precedence of the individual over social organization – which liberals saw as a coercive power, and considered that any steps in this direction would result in the erosion of individual liberties. Bourgeois and the solidarists, on the other hand, asserted that the individual is born into society and may only thrive through the intellectual and material resources made available by society. Interdependent and united, men are indebted to one another, as well as to the generations that came before them and those to follow.

From biological solidarity to social solidarity

Bourgeois’s vision was based on scientific knowledge about the facts of social organization. Based on natural sciences and emerging sociology, his vision showed the close solidarity that unites the components of an organization, whether social or biological. This vision, supported by the findings of natural sciences, illustrated how the liberal idea of laissez  faire was counterproductive, due precisely to the interdependence of individuals. The solidarity proven in the field of science led to the implementation of a new social contract for debt that would account for the interdependence and reciprocal duty linking the different members of a society.

Social Security would grow out of this insightful intuition – social ill was ultimately turned into public good. Thus, solidarism grew out of the idea of a “social debt” which would gradually come to encompass the right to education, a foundation of basic goods to survive and insurance against the main risks of life for everyone. A “social duty” was assigned to everyone. The solidarity proposed by Bourgeois established, along with liberty, the effective solidarity of the country in response to the perils of life.

From debt to social redistribution

This philosophy upholding the fundamentally social nature of all individual existence  goes hand in hand with a process that Jacques Donzelot called “the invention of the social”. For Bourgeois, there was no purely individual property: all activity and property, had, in part, a social origin and as such, the taxes and social security contributions collected by public authorities on income and assets were the rightful compensation for the services offered by society.

This conception provided the basis for the reforms championed by Bourgeois, which would result in the introduction of progressive rates for estate tax in 1901 as well as the creation of a progressive income tax in 1914. The debate over estate taxation, begun in 1893-1894, represented a key moment in the development of solidarism. In the Revue de métaphysique et de morale (Review of Metaphysics and Morality) the philosopher Alphonse Darlu set out the principle of solidarity between generations, which would provide the basis for the legitimacy of estate tax for over a century.

Covid 19: when the epidemic reveals the role of professional communities    

A look back at the epidemics of the 19th century therefore reminds us how such phenomena have drastically changed conceptions of social relationships and political action. And the current COVID 19 crisis has revealed a number of dimensions that are intrinsic to society.

The first relates to the organization of certain professional communities, which have for years been built upon continuous adaption to complex, difficult situations  with regard to the resources at their disposal. This notion of a “professional community” has now taken on particular significance, even if in recent years it has been damaged by technocratic, bureaucratic and managerial reforms. The management of the crisis has illustrated, for example, how the medical community has shown unwavering commitment to its general interest mission, as well as remarkable effectiveness as a community.  Accounts from nurses, nursing assistants and physicians illustrate what has risen to the surface in the face of adversity: caring for others, self-sacrifice, the hard work and dedication of the community and the unavoidable risk-taking that comes with their jobs.

If national solidarity is now expressed, among other ways, by applauding from balconies, we must not be too quick to relate what healthcare workers are doing to a kind of inexhaustible dedication. The medical community is proving its extraordinary capacity to reorganize itself continually, to form strong and effective collectives, while maintaining what forms the very essence of care: the relationship with the patient. And they are performing their duties after years of hospital rationalization, weakening of collectives and of these professions becoming less valued. The solidarity required for the epidemic calls not only for greater appreciation for healthcare professionals, but for their participation in hospital management practices.

The teaching community, another community that has been undervalued in recent years, has also shown its ability to resist and teach during the lockdown. The teaching profession has often been given short shrift when it comes to the essence of education, the relationship, but has now been highlighted precisely in terms of what’s missing: the physical act of knowledge transfer. Once more, despite attempts to develop distance learning,  the power of in-person group learning situations cannot be overemphasized, especially in order to reduce and correct social inequalities.

The epidemic and the key role of unskilled workers

Lastly, during the lockdown, other, more invisible professions have proven to be especially exposed to contagion, even as they perform an activity that is essential to the country. Cashiers, garbage collectors, farm workers, truck drivers and delivery people are examples of essential activities, and yet they are largely unrecognized and undervalued. These are the jobs that are essential and contribute to production, but physically expose workers to the risk of contagion.

The situation reveals the great inequalities between those who can work from home and those who are exposed to the virus. Ultimately, this inequality of circumstances and salary will require a rethinking, in terms of forms of interprofessional solidarity and value chains for tomorrow. And while various forms of social injustice were at the centre of the yellow vests movement, the epidemic has magnified the essential nature of service jobs. In the French culture, based on logic and honor, it is good form to view the service with distance, or even, condescension, even though it reveals the highly social nature of our activities.

Read more on I’MTech: The current “mini-collapse” requires a democratic response

If the medical discoveries of the 19th century brought to light the interdependent nature of the human beings who make up society, the current COVID 19 crisis has provided a reminder to our societies about the fundamentally organic and physical nature of our social and professional activities. Moreover, the active engagement of certain professions reminds us, as in the 19th century, about the social debt we owe to the workers who are most exposed to the virus.

From a distant view to a society based on solidarity

In commentary about the epidemic, many have cited two works of French literature for insight into what we are experiencing. Giono, in Le Hussard sur le toit (The Horseman on the Roof), shows the distant, cold viewpoint of a soldier who does not change his attitude towards cholera. It highlights the selfishness, hate, fear and passivity in relation to the illness. Camus’s La Peste (The Plague), on the other hand, reveals the fraternity and solidarity displayed in particular by health workers.

By choosing to develop a new kind of solidarity, the regulation of risks requires our society to increase its ability to recognize service jobs, and rethink professional value in light of social contribution. For the strength of professional communities and of organizations’ methods of resilience will determine not only our resistance to the epidemic crisis, but also our ability to create a more equal society based on greater solidarity.

To learn more about Sophie Bresteché’s research work:

From the vestiges of the past to the narrative: reclaiming time to remember together

pandémie, collapse

The current “mini-collapse” requires a democratic response

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Fabrice Flipo, Institut Mines-Télécom Business School

[divider style=”normal” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

[dropcap]C[/dropcap]ovid-19, an anthropocene disease? This is how professor Philippe Sansonetti sees the crisis we are experiencing. As a reminder, this concept proposed by Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer in 2000 refers to the present geological time interval, in which “conditions and processes on Earth are profoundly affected by human impact”. This period has not yet been officially recognized, as its geological interest is still greatly contested.

The phenomena associated with the Anthropocene period include land erosion, the disruption of major biogeochemical cycles, and the consequences of these environmental changes: global warming, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, the proliferation of non-biodegradable waste etc.

The perspective of the dramatic consequences of these changes has led to the idea of a collapse, and the current pandemic can already be seen as a sort of mini-collapse. What do can these notions teach us about the current situation, especially in terms of the links that must be developed with democracy?

Covid-19 and collapsology

From an ecological viewpoint, Covid-19 is a population among others, that, as others, exists within populations with which it is in constantly evolving interaction, in a non-deterministic manner.

The hypothesis of a complete or partial collapse of what Habermas calls the “sub-systems of rational action in relation to a purpose” (such as transport, agriculture, industry) has been anticipated for a long time, as a result of an epidemic or a number of other causes.

Recently, there has been renewed interest in this type of scenario with the concept of “collapsology”. Before the geographer Jared Diamond wrote his famous Collapse  (2006), he published Guns, Germs and Steel in which he described the global effect of viruses, a major factor in the decimation of the inhabitants of the New World, to a much greater extent than wars.

However, it has not been the emergence of a virus, which is difficult to foresee, that has concerned ecology specialists in general for years, but rather the condition of soil, biodiversity, toxic pollutants,  matter and energy, water and climate change. At the core of all these issues, the risk of collapse threatens us.

Precautionary principle

But what is a collapse? Yves Cochet, Pablo Servigne and Raphael Stevens describe a “process which leads to a situation in which the basic needs of a majority of the population are no longer met,” for example, going to school or seeing friends.

This, in part, is what has arisen in the current situation, which can be considered by those interested in the “Anthropocene period” as a sort of testing ground through which we can learn a number of lessons, and which can be linked to other similar situations of collapse of varying severity, such as the fires in Australia, Mad Cow Disease, Seveso, Bhopal, the collapse of local ecosystems. These “dress rehearsals” can also give rise to legislative or conceptual tools developed to avoid, manage or recover from these situations.

Efforts to prevent such catastrophes led to the precautionary principle adopted at the Rio Summit of 1992: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a pretext for postponing effective measures  to prevent environmental degradation.”

Precaution, which has generated a wealth of literature, differs from prudence in that it is applied to major risks, defined by Law no. 87-565 of 22 July 1987: accidents, disasters and catastrophes, justifying emergency plans, including the famous Orsec plan.

Major Risks

The occurrence of a major risk represents a collapse of varying severity.

This type of threat justifies the use of precaution, as it presents very specific properties and differs from usual risks that insurance can anticipate.

The basic point of reference for insurance is the probability of the occurrence of a catastrophe and its cost, which implies being able to rely on a high number of occurrences  – car accidents, for example. The fact that a risk is repeated shows that it is part of the everyday life of society, of its normal activity: for example, an insufficient number of hospital beds.

A major risk is just the opposite: it is incalculable and irreversible, it takes society out of a state of normalcy.

It therefore leads to an exceptional state, in the sense that there is a brutal disruption of normalcy. A nuclear example is a prime example: power plants almost never explode, so we have no real statistical basis for anticipating such an event.

But when they do explode, it is “serious” since the sub-systems of rational action must build their response from scratch.

Resilience

To address ecological issues, thousands of scientists rely on the concept of “resilience.” This word, whose definition is highly disputed, draws on ecological sciences, economics, sociology and psychology, and was popularized by C.S. Holling and Gunderson.

It refers to “the capacity of a socio-ecological system to absorb or withstand disruptions and other stress factors, such that the system remains in the same regime. It describes the degree to which the system is capable of self-organization, learning and adaptation.”

The theorists of the Resilience Alliance, which brings together thousands of scientists, provide guidelines for action using diagrams: “adaptive” management, that identifies uncertainties and seeks to understand, and change the system.

When a major risk materializes, the unknown is part of the equation. Any attempts to “say what’s what” in a hierarchical fashion or by relying on a small number of experts, must be dismissed:  the crucial goal is to foster dialogue, since it is the entire society that is the learning system.

The healthcare system does not by itself represent “the organization”.  In this sort of situation, “any pre-established discourse will be seen as false” for a simple reason: everyone sees the situation as unprecedented.

Any attempt to fall back on a plan (for example, that of the WHO) will reflect dogmatism, and blindness, rather than competence and an ability to learn.

The threatened group must instead manage to develop a shared, evolving understanding, working not with certainties, but with questions (the right questions, the ones people are asking, and that have a real impact); not with results, but with processes (that everyone may take part in, contribute to, and therefore play an active role in their situation).

For example, the question of determining where the virus is. Processes must be put in place in order to answer this question –  testing, expanding the “scientific council” to include the political sciences, or creating a forum that includes shopkeepers, military servicemen, farmers, citizens selected at random etc. – instead of asking a handful of physicians to single-handedly determine the best practice for the entire country.

Management of the crisis in South Korea and Taiwan

South Korea and Taiwan’s responses to COVID-19 are considered “atypical” by the current government. But in reality, these countries have made resilient choices. They understood that they were facing not only a health crisis, but a political one as well, implying a “need to develop the response in close collaboration with civil society.”

Early on, Taiwan equipped its entire population with masks, tests and a high-quality public digital space, allowing everyone to manage the crisis in a democratic, creative and evolving way. This also included non-governmental organizations responsible for dealing with fake news.

After a chaotic beginning, South Korea was quick to implement similar measures, in particular wide-scale testing, which allows individuals to manage their effect on the environment themselves: expertise is decentralized as much as possible. These two countries had no reason to be concerned about the capacity of their healthcare systems, since they were not strained.

South Korean and Taiwan are therefore setting an example, while China is trying to suggest that it is doing so. Europe, meanwhile, has been mocked and criticized. The geopolitics of tomorrow are also at stake.

The force of democracy

The current crisis has taught us a lesson: democracy is the best way to respond to the major crises humanity will face in coming years, due to the reckless yet predictable effects of its activities on the planet.

But dictatorship and authoritarian management will never be far off, set to offer their (bad) services, whether in the form of a leader and savior, at war against a “Chinese virus”, or a Platonic government, claiming to rely on Science.

There is a temptation to create a state of exception, as described by Carl Schmitt: temporarily giving an individual, leader or scientist, full power to save the Republic – an attitude that will instead worsen the crisis.

Let us act with discretion: not deny the crises or shut ourselves off from unsettling news and weak signals, but actively seek out what we do not know, where the absence of a response poses a problem for us, and let us put in place democratic, flexible, evolving structures. Trusting one another, collectively, is the best weapon we have.

[divider style=”dotted” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

Fabrice Flipo, Professor of social and political philosophy, epistemology and the history of science and technology, Institut Mines-Télécom Business School

This article has been republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 

agilité, agility

Can workspaces become agile?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Innovating, adapting ever-more rapidly to changes in the environment. Breaking away from the traditional office. The digital revolution has dramatically changed working methods, and with them, the way we organize space. Researchers from Institut Mines-Télécom Business School and IMT Atlantique have studied the paradoxes and tensions that arise when workspaces are designed to embody, promote and foster agility.

 

In recent years, the quest for agility has pushed companies to completely rethink their organization, methods and processes. They have urged their employees to develop new work practices. These changes often go hand-in-hand with a reconfiguration of spaces: the flexible office, digital workspaces that are modular and open, organized by work activity etc. But a sort of ambivalence can be seen behind these efforts.

“Spaces, locations and offices are often synonymous with having a sense of bearings, of longevity, as a specific territory we claim as the base for our work. Agility, on the other hand, encourages continual reconfiguration, a transitory organization, keeping bodies and heads in constant motion,” explains Marie Bia Figueiredo, a management researcher at Institut Mines-Télécom Business School. So what’s work life like when the office is designed to embody and foster organizational agility? How do employees experience this apparent contradiction and make these new workspaces their own? Marie Bia Figueiredo and her fellow researchers at Institut Mines-Télécom Business School and IMT Atlantique set out to explore these issues.

“These questions first occurred to us in 2016, at an observation day in the new offices of a major French bank which we called ‘The Oases’“, says Madeleine Besson, who is also a researcher in management at Mines-Télécom Business School. “We were struck by the omnipresence of references to agility in the talks presenting the buildings, in the way the space was designed, in the signage and even in the decorative elements. On one hand, companies have always relied on physical spaces to convey and embody the changes they hope to bring about in order to standardize and organize practices and behaviors. But at the same time, we must remember that the agile movement establishes a principle of autonomy and self-organization for teams. There was a certain dissonance to it.”

From agile methods to agile environment

The agile movement was formally established in the early 2000s with the aim of adapting quickly to change, whether in terms of disruptive technologies, the volatility of customers or regulatory developments. This quest for agility was first expressed through new project management methods, collectively referred to as “agile methods”. In  principle, these methods are based on a willingness to accept risk and change and on reorganizing and adapting to such change on a permanent basis. Today, companies increasingly see the workspace as a vehicle for change and agility. “Organizations are seeking to align space, work and information technologies,” explain the Institut Mines-Télécom Business School researchers in a forthcoming publication in Terminal[1].

The “Oases” created by the French bank observed by the researchers exemplify this trend. They were designed to embody an “exceptional” drive for transformation in a banking sector which has been particularly affected by technological and economic transformations. During the researchers’ investigation, the company’s real estate director explained their motivation for creating such spaces, “We wanted the Oases to provide fertile grounds for new ways of working in an effort to attract new talents.” The decision was inspired by the iconic workspaces of companies such as Google or Apple, which can “create well-being and conditions that allow employees to work differently.”

The research team’s study shows how this requirement for agility in the corporate world is expressed –in particular through a requirement for adaptation and ubiquity. In order to preserve their modularity, the workspaces cannot be personalized. Instead, workspaces are reserved when arriving at the office and rolling chairs and height-adjustable tables ensure that the space and office can constantly be rearranged. Work is primarily coordinated in the digital space and collective work has become invisible. Physical space and digital space are closely interlinked to convey a requirement for ubiquity.

The researchers also note a requirement for creativity and happiness. “The environment is decorated with plastic smiley faces. The office is designed to provide a fun environment where employees are encouraged to play ping pong or pool,” they note. Lastly, a requirement for speed is expressed by the pervasiveness of references to the passage of time. Hourglasses of varying sizes serve as reminders that there is no leeway when it comes to projects being completed on schedule. “Agility claims to prioritize individual interactions above processes and tools, but these interactions are still subject to strong time pressure. And agility means working at a faster pace, since you have to be ready to cancel or repeat operations as required by customers, the context or new developments,” points out Géraldine Guérillot, a researcher from the IMT Atlantique team.

Attempts to make a “non-place” one’s own

How do employees perceive these changes? Some find it difficult to break with their previous work habits. “Many of them told us that senior executives had to set an example by using the game room or nap room before the employees dared to use it,” says Jean-Luc Moriceau, a researcher at Institut Mines-Télécom Business School. “Others, without showing strong opposition to the new working methods, find ways to get around them. This can be seen in teams who regularly meet up to ‘recreate their territory’ or high-level managers who reserve a room for an entire day“. In some workplaces, employees leave personal belongings to (re)gain their bearings. The flex-office depersonalizes the workplace, so employees attempt to make the space their own, thereby developing behaviors that are contrary to the constant, agile reorganization of space.

Others play along. For example, one of the managers explains that for him, the hourglasses are a polite way of reminding everyone that time is tight. “He’ll meet with anyone who wants to see him, but they must present their views within the allotted time, which is physically represented by the sand flowing through the hourglass,” explain the researchers. Agility appears to aim to shake up the work environment.

But the researchers provide a warning, “The quest for agility, embodied by the reconfiguration of space, when implemented in a too prescriptive and uniform manner, can lead to producing ‘non-places’. These spaces deny the role that feelings, territories, memory and status play in the operations of an organization and work collectives.” The researchers demonstrate how, in turn, this gives rise to discreet ways of taking ownership of such spaces and “producing places,” understood as “minor uses resulting in alternative ways of occupying the shared space.”

By Anne-Sophie Boutaud for I’MTech

[1] Moriceau J.-L., Besson M., Bia Figueiredo M., Guérillot G. (2020), L’espace agile, oasis ou mirage ? Mise en perspective de quelques difficultés et paradoxes pour les travailleurs (Agile Spaces, Oasis or Mirage? A Perspective on Difficulties and Paradoxes for Employees), Terminal, Technologie de l’Information, Culture et Société (forthcoming).

industrial risk

How can industrial risk be assessed?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Safety is a key concern in the industrial sector. As such, studying risk represents a specialized field of research. Experiments in this area are particularly difficult to carry out, as they involve explosions and complicated measures. Frédéric Heymes, a researcher at IMT Mines Alès who specializes in industrial risk, discusses the unique aspects of this field of research, and new issues to be considered.

 

What does research on industrial risk involve?

Frédéric Heymes: Risk is the likelihood of the occurrence of an event that could lead to  negative and high-stakes consequences. Our research is broken down into three levels of anticipation (understanding, preventing, protecting) and one operational level (helping manage accidents). We have to understand what can happen and do everything possible to prevent dangerous events from happening in real life. Since accidents remain inevitable, we have to anticipate protective measures to best protect people and resources in the aftermath an accident. We must also be able to respond effectively. Emergency services and the parties responsible for managing industrial disasters need simulation tools to help them make the right decisions. Risk research is cross-sectorial and can be applied to a wide range of industries (energy, chemistry, transport, pharmaceuticals, agri-food).

What’s a typical example of an industrial risk study?

FH:  Although my research may address a wide variety of themes, on the whole, it’s primarily connected to explosive risk. That means understanding the phenomenon and why it occurs, in order to make sure it won’t happen again. A special feature of our laboratory is that we can carry out experimental field testing for dangerous phenomena that can’t be performed in the laboratory setting.

What does an experiment on explosive risk look like?

FH: We partnered with Total to carry out an especially impressive experiment, which had never before been done anywhere in the world. It was a study on the explosion of superheated water, under very high pressure at a very high temperature. It was potentially dangerous since the explosion releases a very large amount of energy. It was important for Total to understand what happens in the event of such an explosion and the consequences of concern. Carrying out the experiment was a real team effort and called for a great deal of logistical planning. Right away, it was different than working in a lab setting. There were between 5 and 8 people involved in each test, and everyone had their own specific role and specialty: data acquisition, control, high-speed cameras, logistics, handling. We needed a prototype that weighed about a ton, which we had made by a boilermaker. That alone was no simple task. Boilermakers are responsible for producing compliant equipment that is known to be reliable. But for our research, we knew that the prototype would explode. So we had to reassure the manufacturer in terms of liability.

How do you set up such an explosion?

FH: We need a special testing ground to carry out the experiment and to get permission to use it, we have to prove that the test is perfectly controlled. For these tests, we collaborated with the Camp des Garrigues, a military range located north of Nîmes. The test area is secure but completely empty, so it took a lot of preparation and set-up. In addition, firefighters were also on site with our team. And there was a great deal of research dedicated to sensors in order to obtain precise measurements. The explosion lasts less than a second. It’s a very short test. Most of the time, we only have access to the field for a relatively short period of time, which means we carry out the tests one after another, non-stop. We’re also under a lot of stress –  we know that the slightest error could  have dramatic consequences.

What happens after this study?

FH: The aim of this research was to study the consequences of such an explosion on the immediate environment. That provides us with an in-depth understanding of the event so that those involved can take appropriate action. We therefore obtain information about the explosion, the damage it causes and the size of the damaged area. We also observe whether it can give rise to a shock wave or projectile expulsion, and if so, we study their impacts.

Has there ever been a time when you were unable to carry out tests you needed for your research?

FH: Yes, that was the case for a study on the risk of propane tank explosions during wildfires. Ideally, we would have to control a real wildfire and expose propane tanks to this hazard. But we’re not allowed to do that, and it’s extremely dangerous. It’s a real headache. Ultimately, we have to divide the project into two parts and study each part separately. That way, we obtain results that we can link using modeling. On one hand, we have the wildfire with a huge number of variables that must be taken into account: wind strength and direction, slope inclination, types of species in the vegetation, etc. And on the other hand, we study fluid mechanics and thermodynamics to understand what happens inside propane tanks.

What results did you achieve through this study?

FH: We arrived at the conclusion that gas tanks are not likely to explode if brush clearing regulations are observed. In residential areas located near forests, there are regulations for maintenance, and brush clearing in particular. But if these rules are not observed, safety is undermined. We therefore suggested a protective component with good thermal properties and  flame resistance to protect tanks in scenarios that do not comply with regulations.

What are some current issues surrounding industrial risk?

FH: Research in the field of industrial risk really took off in the 1970s. There were a number of industrial accidents, which underscored the need to anticipate risks, leading to extensive research to prevent and protect against risks more effectively. But today, all energy sectors are undergoing changes and there are new risks to consider. Sectors are being created and raising new issues, as is the case for hydrogen for example. Hydrogen is a very attractive energy source since its use only produces water, and no carbon dioxide. But it is a dangerous compound since it’s highly flammable and explosive. The question is how to organize hydrogen supply chains (production, transport, storage, use) as well as possible. How can hydrogen best be used in the territory while minimizing risks? It’s a question that warrants further investigation. A cross-disciplinary research project on this topic with other IMT partners is in the startup phase, as part of Carnot HyTrend.

Read more on I’MTech: What is Hydrogen Energy?

So does that mean that energy and environmental transition come with their own set of new risks to be studied?

FH: Yes, that’s right and global warming is another current field of research. To go back to wildfires, they’re becoming more common which raises concerns. How can we deal with the growing number of fires? One solution is to consider passive self-protection scenarios, meaning reducing the vulnerability to risks through technological improvements, for example. The energy transition is bringing new technologies, along with new uses. Like I was saying before, hydrogen is a dangerous chemical compound, but we’ve known that for a long time. However, its operational use to support energy transition raises a number of new questions.

How can we deal with these new risks?

FH: The notion of new industrial risk is clearly linked to our social and technological evolutions. And evolution means new risks. Yet it’s hard to anticipate such risks since it’s hard  to anticipate such evolutions in the first place. But at the same time, these evolutions provide us with new tools: artificial intelligence for example. We can now assimilate large amounts of data and quickly extract useful, relevant results to recognize an abnormal, potentially dangerous situation. Artificial intelligence also helps us overcome a number of technological  hurdles. For example, we’re working with Mines ParisTech to conduct research on predicting the hydrodynamic behavior of gas leaks using artificial intelligence methods, with unprecedented computing speed and accuracy.

How is research with industrial players organized on this topic?

FH: Research can grow out of partnerships with research organizations, such as the IRSN (French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety). During the decommissioning of a power plant, even though there’s no longer any fissile material, residual metal dust could potentially ignite. So we have to understand what may happen in order to act accordingly in terms of safety. But for the most part, I collaborate directly with industrialists. In France, they’re responsible for managing the risks inherent in their operations. So there’s a certain administrative pressure to improve on these issues, and that sometimes involves research questions. But most of the time, investments are driven not by administrative requirements, but by a profound commitment to reducing risks.

What’s quite unique about this field of research is that we have complete freedom to study the topic and complete freedom to publish. That’s really unique to the field of risk. In general, results are shared easily, and often published so that “the competition” can also benefit from the findings. It’s also quite common for several companies in the same industry team up to fund a study since they all stand to benefit from it.

digital transformation

No, employees are not afraid of digital transformation

/0 Comments/in , , /by

This article was originally published (in French) on The Conversation. By Emmanuel Baudoin, Institut Mines-Télécom Business School.

[divider style=”normal” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he 2019 edition of the study (in French) “French employees in the age of digital transformation” conducted by the HRM Digital Lab at Institut Mines-Télécom Business School shows that French employees are not afraid of digital transformation, and some even hope to see their company take greater steps towards it.

This study was conducted on a representative sample of just over 1,000 French employees and was managed by Opinion Way with support from CFA-EVE and the Essonne ANDRH (French Association of Human Resources Directors). An additional study was carried out with 100 decision-makers in the private sector, located in the Paris region, in order to collect their perceptions of digital transformation in their companies.

A multi-facetted transformation

The first finding is that 90% of the employees report that digital technology has had an impact on their job. This figure is unquestionable. However, it covers a wide variety of different situations. 48% of these employees consider that digital technology has had a great impact on their job while 42% say that it has just had a moderate impact, if any. As an illustration of the wide variety of situations, when asked how important digital technology was to their work,  11% said digital technology represented the core part of their work, 35% said digital technology represented a significant part of their work, 32% said digital technology was used only to support their work, 14% said digital technology was little-used in their work and 9% said that they did not use digital technology at all in their work.

The interviews carried out with decision-makers from companies of all sizes and industries told the same story –  digital technology is here to stay. 98% of those interviewed said digital technology has had an impact on their company. 65% consider that it has had a strong impact, while 11% feel that it has had a minor impact, if any. They report that all company processes have been affected: customer experience, supply chain management, administrative process management, the way products and services are developed, the way work is organized, the approach to managing teams, and employee experience.

Employees have a relatively high digital maturity level

Far from being pessimistic about the impact digital technology has had on their job, 84% of the employees say that it is making their work more interesting or that it has not had a major impact on their work. When asked to choose a response that describes their relationship with digital technology, 43% chose a very positive response, 47% chose a neutral response, while 11% chose a negative response. Another significant finding was that 40% hope their companies will go further in their digital transformation while 13% do not.

This overall positive perception of digital technology contributes to employees’ digital maturity level. This level can be defined as an employee’s overall relationship with digital technology at work, their perceived level of proficiency with digital technology, and the extent to which they use it to carry out their work activities.

As far as perceived level of proficiency is concerned, 61% consider that they have a very high or high level of proficiency, whereas 6% say that they have a low or very low level. At the same time, they are aware of their potential for improvement. 62% of respondents felt that they wasted time every day due to a lack of proficiency in certain digital skills.

A final point of interest is that the results also confirm that a new type of employee has emerged, one who can be called a ‘self HR employee,’ as identified in the first edition of this study. These ‘self HR’ employees take advantage of digital technology for a wide variety of purposes, including to learn independently and develop their skills, which means that they engage in informal digital learning. They also implement strategies to enhance their employee brand or even sell their skills.

 

       French employees are optimistic about the digital transformation! (Emmanuel Baudoin on Xerfi canal, 2019).

[divider style=”normal” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

Emmanuel Baudoin, Associate Professor in HR, Institut Mines-Télécom Business School

The original version of this article (in French) was published on The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

women

Why have girls been turning their backs on computer science?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Column written in partnership with The Conversation.
By Chantal Morley from Institut Mines-Télécom Business School.

[divider style=”normal” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

[dropcap]F[/dropcap]or an organizer of a careers fair or an engineering school open day, the gender-bias in digital professions is clear. Boys are far more likely than girls to flock to stands about computer science or other digital professions. It is easy to assume that this is how things have always been. Our opinions are based on the stereotypes we see every day, with ‘geeks’ almost always being portrayed as male.

It is easy to forget that many female mathematicians played a key role in the history of computing. Examples of these incredible women are Grace Hopper, who developed the theory behind the compiler, and made the first ever prototype of the machine in 1952; Mary Keller, the first person to earn a doctorate in computer science in 1965.

Kathleen Booth, who was a pioneer in character recognition and machine translation; and Barbara Liskov, who programmed one of the first chess games in 1968 and became a professor of artificial intelligence at MIT.

Research and “coding stations”

After leading pioneering research, Adele Goldberg developed the first graphical interface computer in 1973, while Alice Recoque designed the Mitra line of minicomputers, including the Mitra 15, which was a huge commercial success. It is important to mention that MIT, in its pursuit of academic excellence, had an extremely forward-thinking policy focused on embracing diversity. This meant that between 1965 and 1985, the number of female computer science students rose from 5% to nearly 30%.

During these pioneering years, women were also very much involved at an operational level. In the 1940s, the first electronic computer, ENIAC, was fully programmed by six female mathematicians. In the early 1950s, 40% of programmers at computer manufacturer Eckert-Mauchly were women. Until 1960, in Great Britain’s public service, computer “coding stations” were almost exclusively “manned” by women.

In 1955, a team of four female programmers started the first computer services company (Computer Usage Company) started in the United States. Three years later, Elsie Schutt founded Computations Inc., which allowed mothers to pursue a career in computer science by working from home. This company lasted 50 years. In 1962, in Great Britain, Stephanie Shirley founded Freelance Programmers at the age of 29 with the same aim. The company was an international success until it was bought by Steria in 2007.

The turn of the 80s

So, how did the situation change? What caused computer science to become a male-dominated sector? The first turning point came in the 1980s and was due to recruitment procedures. To make it easier to whittle down the large number of job applicants they were receiving, an American company defined the psychological profile of a ‘good programmer’.

The profile was based on a sample of men working in a military environment and had two major characteristics: someone who was slightly less social than the average person, and someone who enjoyed typically ‘masculine’ activities.  This profile was far from what companies were looking for in the 1940s and 1950s, when they recruited patient, logical, imaginative people who liked crossword puzzles, played chess or used knitting patterns! The profile was widely used.

Secondly, as the need for computing staff increased, salaries became relatively high. At the time, female coders were not paid well, and it was unthinkable for a woman to supervise teams of both men and women. This caused the leading computing employer in Great Britain, the public sector, to stop recruiting competent, experienced and motivated female programmers in favor of men. This ultimately led to computer science becoming male-dominated.

The third factor was a takeover by the academic world, working hand in hand with the industry and excluding women. In 1968, world-leading computer science companies began to understand the importance of software in relation to hardware. This led them to organize a conference sponsored by NATO which brought together global programming specialists. However, no women, not even Grace Hopper or Jean Sammet, were invited to take part.

As well as this, universities encouraged industrialists to talk about ‘software engineering’ and ‘software engineers’ to make the career path sound more respectable. However, the term ‘engineer’  made computer science courses sound traditionally masculine.

On the other hand, the main American professional association (DPMA, Data Processing Management Association), which was overwhelmingly made up of men, created a professional skills qualification for both men and women to improve skills in the sector.  However, due to the hours needed for study and the unequal sharing out of housework between men and women, the qualification was still less accessible to women.

The influence of popular culture

In 1965, women represented 30% of the workforce in programming in the USA. In 1982, 35% of computer science jobs in France were held by women. From the late 1960s, computers gradually became widely used in society and carved out a presence in popular culture. However, this was often done in ways which did not allow a place for women. In Stanley Kubrick’s film, 2001: A Space Odyssey, the computer has a male voice and the relationship between humans and computers leaves no room for women.

In computer advertisements in the late 1970s, the target consumers were executives; in France, 80% of executives were male in 1985. Computers were marketed to men in a practical way, with the idea that they could work from home. But, to a large extent, they were also marketed as something fun.  At home, PCs were also not used equally. Men spent more time on them than women, sons had more access to them than daughters. Often, this mentality was passed down from their fathers.

When people started buying personal computers for children, for a long-time, boys were the main target audience and girls were sidelined. This portrayal of computers in society gradually spread and contributed to computers being viewed as a ‘masculine’ thing. All the more so as the free software movement, whose communities regularly exclude women, has constructed the figure of the hacker as the model developer.

Algorithms and bias

Finally, with the rise of social media and the generation of automatic advertisements, we have seen how algorithms reproduce gender bias, which reinforces discrimination against women in digital education.

All these factors have caused woman to gradually withdraw from computer science, and despite various initiatives, this trend has not been reversed. Since women’s role in computer science was never very visible, society has now forgotten the important role they once played.

If we look at countries which have equal numbers of men and women in their computer science sectors, such as India and Malaysia, as well as universities that have a permanent gender parity in these fields, such as CMU, NTNU and Harvey Mudd College, we can see how inclusive policies at a local level have enabled women to regain their place in the digital professions.

Also read on I’MTech: In IT professions, diversity is all about inclusion, not exclusion

[divider style=”normal” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

Chantal Morley, Professor in Information systems, Institut Mines-Télécom (IMT).

The original version of this article (in French) was published in The Conversation under Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

 

Fukushima: 8 years on, what has changed in France?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Fukushima was the most devastating nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. The 1986 disaster led to radical changes in international nuclear governance, but has the Japanese catastrophe had the same effect? This is what the AGORAS project is trying to find out. IMT Atlantique, the IRSN, Mines ParisTech, Orano and SciencesPo are all working on the AGORAS project, which aims to understand the impact of Fukushima on France’s nuclear industry. Stéphanie Tillement, a sociologist at IMT Atlantique explains the results of the project, which is coming to an end after 6 years of research.

 

Why do we need to know about the consequences of a Japanese nuclear incident in France?

Stéphanie Tillement: Fukushima was not just a shock for Japan. Of course, the event influenced everywhere that uses nuclear energy as an important part of energy production, such as Europe, North America, and Russia; but it also affected less nuclearized countries. Fukushima called into question the safety, security and reliability of nuclear power plants. Groups which are strongly involved in the industry, such as nuclear operators, counter-experts, associations and politicians, were all affected by the event. Therefore, we expected that Fukushima would have a strong impact on nuclear governance. There is also another, more historical, reason; both the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents had an impact on the organization of the nuclear industry. So, Fukushima could be part of this trend.

How did Chernobyl and Three Mile Island impact the industry?

ST: The consequences of nuclear disasters are generally felt 10 to 20 years after the event itself. In France, Chernobyl contributed to the 2006 French Nuclear Safety and Transparency Act, which marked a major change in the nuclear risk governance system. This law notably led to the creation of the French Nuclear Safety Authority, ASN. A few years earlier, the French Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety Institute, IRSN, was created. The 2006 law still regulates the French nuclear industry today. The Three Mile Island disaster caused the industry to question people’s involvement in these complex systems, notably in terms of human error. This led to major changes in human-computer interfaces within nuclear infrastructure, and the understanding of human error mechanisms.

Has the Fukushima accident led to similar changes?

ST: The disaster was in 2011; it’s not even been 10 years since it happened. However, we can already see that Fukushima will probably not have the same affect in France as the other accidents. Rather than criticizing the French system, industry analysis of Fukushima has emphasized the benefits of France’s current mode of governance. Although technical aspects have undergone changes, particularly regarding Complementary Safety Assessments (CSR), the relationships between nuclear operators, the ASN and the IRSN have not changed after Fukushima.

Why has this disaster not considerably affected the French mode of governance?

ST: At first, the French nuclear industry thought that the Fukushima disaster was unlikely to happen in France, as the Japanese power plant was managed in a completely different way. In Japan, several operators share the country’s nuclear power plants. When analyzing crisis management, the post-accident report showed that the operator’s independence was not enforced, and that there was collusion between the government, the regulators and the operators. In France, the Nuclear Safety and Transparency Act strictly regulates relationships between industry operators and assures that each operator has their independence. This is a strength of the French governance model that is recognized internationally. As well as this, French nuclear power plants are managed by only one operator, EDF, which controls 58 identical plants. The governance issues in Japan reassured French operators, as they confirmed that legally enforcing the independence of the regulatory authority was the right thing to do.

How did the anti-nuclear movement respond to this lack of change?

ST: During our investigations into Fukushima, we realized that the accident did not create any new anti-nuclear movements or opinions. Opposition already existed. There is no denying that the event gave these anti-nuclear organizations, collectives and experts some material, but this didn’t radically change their way of campaigning nor their arguments. This again shows how Fukushima did not cause major changes. The debate surrounding the nuclear industry is still structured in the same way as it was before the disaster.

Does that also mean that there have been no political consequences post-Fukushima?

ST: No, and that’s also one of the findings of the AGORAS project. Recent political decisions on nuclear sector strategy have been mainly made according to processes established before the Fukushima accident. For example, the cancellation of the ASTRID project was not due to a radical political change in the nuclear sector, but actually because of economic arguments and a lack of political desire to tackle the subject. Clearly, politicians do not want to tackle these issues, as the decisions they make have an impact in 10, 20, or even 30 years’ time. This just doesn’t work with their terms of office. The political turnover also means that very few politicians know enough about the subject, which raises questions about the government’s ability to get involved in nuclear, and therefore energy politics.

Read on I’MTech: What nuclear risk governance exists in France?

Your work suggests that there has been almost no change in any aspect of nuclear governance

ST: The AGORAS project started by asking the question: Did Fukushima cause a change in governance in the same way as the accidents that preceded it? If we look at it from this perspective, our studies say no, due to all the reasons that I’ve already mentioned. However, we need to put this into context. Many things have changed, just not in the same radical way as they did after Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. Amongst these changes, is the modification of certain technical specifications for infrastructure. For example, one of the reasons why ASN called for EDF to review the welding of their EPR reactors was due to technical developments decided following Fukushima. There have also been changes in crisis management and post-accident management.

How have we changed the way we would manage this type of disaster?

ST: Following Fukushima, a rapid response force for nuclear accidents (FARN) was created in France to manage the emergency phase of an accident. Changes were also made to the measures taken during a crisis, so that the civil security and prefects can act more quickly. The most notable changes have been in the post-accident phase. Historically, accident preparation measures were mainly focused on the emergency phase. As a result, different roles are well-defined in this phase. However, Fukushima showed that managing the after-crisis was also equally as important. What’s unique about a nuclear accident, is that it has extremely long-term consequences. However, in Fukushima, once the emergency phase was over, the organization became less defined. No one knew who was responsible for controlling food consumption, soil contamination, or urban planning. Therefore, the local information commissions (CLIS) have worked with nuclear operators to improve the post-accident phase in particular. But, once again, our research has shown that this work was started before the Fukushima disaster. The accident just accelerated these processes and increased the importance of this issue.

Fukushima took place less than 10 years ago; do you plan on continuing your work and studying the implications of the disaster after 10 and 20 years have passed?

ST: We would particularly like to continue to address other issues and to develop our results further. We have already carried out field research with ASN, IRSN, local information commissions, politicians, associations, and manufacturers such as Framatome or Orano. However, one of the biggest limitations to our work is that we cannot work with EDF, who is a key player in nuclear risk governance. In the future, we want to be able to work with plant operators, so we can study the impact of an accident on their operations. As well as this, politicians’ understanding could also be improved.  Understanding politicians’ opinions regarding nuclear governance, and the nuclear strategy decision-making process is a real challenge.