No reading this week, right? I'm pretty sure that's what the syllabus said, but it seems like such a lucky break that I keep thinking I must have read it wrong. Not that I don't usually enjoy our readings-- I do!-- but we have a paper due for 500 on the 27th, and having a chance to get a head start on it this weekend is awesome.
Anyway, without readings to think about, I've got last week's book club, last week's class, and the preparation for the one-shot workshop to cover here.
Book Club
There were a lot of good things about the book club: everyone chose readings that were interesting, and all of those short fiction pieces were a nice change from the usual things that we read and discuss in SI. There were cookies, which is always a win. And we had some pretty active dialogues about some of the stories. I don't think most of us had much success pretending to be high school or junior high students, but we tried. Overall, it was a good exercise, and I had a fun time with it; I don't really think I learned anything that I'll apply to my future employment, but not everything has to be totally on-point to be worthwhile.
Class
I really enjoyed hearing Bobbi Newman speak. I noticed that some people seemed to think that her refusal to become vehement about either side of the debate was somehow dishonest or fence-sitting, but I appreciated it. I like that she gave us an honest view of the HCOD situation without letting emotional appeals cloud the issue. Also, I appreciated getting new information regarding some publishers' refusing to sell or lease e-books to libraries at all. I really hadn't known that was going on, and it definitely makes the HarperCollins vs. libraries face-off even less black and white than it originally seemed. I think that a well-reasoned response to the situation requires an acknowledgment of the merits of arguments on both sides, and I also think that such an approach is the first step toward a satisfactory resolution.
I've been doing a lot of research on negotiation strategies lately for a project, and two major things from that research came to mind here. First, studies show that in negotiation, the initial "anchor" that is set will have an effect on the outcome, even if one doesn't intend for that to happen. HarperCollins set the anchor at 26 loans, so prior to this, in order for libraries to feel like they'd "won," they would have to negotiate for more than 26 loans out of a single e-book. Thinking about other publishers who won't allow e-book lending at all, however, forces a reevaluation of the anchor-- the number 26 is no longer the biggest problem, and HarperCollins might not even be the real enemy.
The other negotiation-oriented issue that I was thinking about is that parties with a strong attachment to one side of an issue can be irrational and stubborn, and often believe that their position has greater merit than it actually has. Research shows, however, that if those people are forced to actively consider the opposing view, e.g., write a essay arguing for that view as strongly as possible and supporting the argument with evidence, their own positions become less polarized. Putting yourself in someone else's shoes allows you to compromise more effectively, which improves outcomes for everyone involved.
Basically, what I'm saying is that this HCOD issue is one that gets people pretty fired up, obviously, and it would be easy for the opposing sides to get so emotionally attached to their individual positions that they couldn't effectively negotiate a positive outcome. Bobbi's balanced perspective seemed to me like one that can help prevent that from happening.
Prep for this week's One-Shot Workshop
FUN. We're talking about copyright versus ethics, and putting together the information for the workshop has got me nerding out a little. I'm excited for the presentations, and to see what other groups have come up with. And I don't want to ruin the surprise, but I think there's a solid chance that there will be baked goods involved, so if you're in our group, save some room!
Hmmmm ... I will have to arrange to "just be passing by" if there are baked goods in the mix!
ReplyDeleteI think Bobbi was intentionally trying to be unbiased because she felt you, as graduate students, deserved to see both sides.
And yes, it's no mistake that there are no readings to prepare for this week. I thought you all needed the time to prep your workshops. Glad it's working out on your end!
The information you give about negotiation is really interesting. You're right, people become irrational when they feel strongly about things and it is almost impossible for them to then compromise. I know there is no way to force someone to write an essay from the other point of view but it would be nice if people did it willingly, just so that they were more informed.
ReplyDeleteGood old negotiation, how I love thee... Well, yeah, that anchor is very important. The other (or 1 other) thing that's important is the perceived cost to a party. What I mean is, 26 circulations might be fine for HarperCollins, but it might kill libraries. If HC would still be pretty okay financially with, say, 40 circulations, they'd be more likely to go up. Whereas, if HarperCollins felt they'd have a really hard time financially with 40, their offer is going to be pretty stiff. Same number, different relative value. So, if we knew something concrete about their projections, we might get a better sense of how much they might be willing to deal. Probably people considered this already, but I just played Monopoly last night.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your workshop this week on ethics and copyright. It can be such a fuzzy area and it was interesting to hear whatever everyone said about the scenarios you presented us. I ended up learning a lot!
ReplyDelete