Printable Version of this PageHome PageRecent ChangesSearchSign In
I attended the colloquim, Creativity Support Tools, by Ben Schneiderman from the University of Maryland. Dr. Schneiderman discussed the role of software tools in promoting individual creativity and gave some specific examples for how software tools can be used. He also discussed what he called Science 2.0 that promoted a less rigorous scientific approach to problems where a rigorous scientific approach has been unable to find a solution. He may have also been advocating incorporating Science 2.0 into all research, but I'm not sure.

There were things I liked about the colloqium and things that I disagreed with. I liked the idea of encouraging creativity and using software for this purpose. I can definitely see the value of this type of research. However, I got a little concerned when the presentation shifted to the discussion of Science 2.0. If Dr. Schneiderman was advocating incorporating this approach into a rigorous scientific approach, then fine. However, if he was advocating replacing Science 1.0 with Science 2.0, then this sounds like the makings of a disaster. One of the elements of Science 2.0 was the use of case study. I can see case study being an important step for determining which direction to go with Science 1.0. However, if case study is the only determinate for the value of a given body of research, there's no limit to the heresy that could be passed off as real science.

Last modified 10 December 2007 at 2:35 pm by RhondaHoenigman