Group items tagged

1) The History of Information Overload One thing I discovered was that our current situation may not be that unique. Some interesting research (see the bibliography at the end of this post for the articles in the Journal of the History of Ideas) points out that since the 1200’s – but more particularly after the implementation of Gutenberg’s printing press – people have been complaining about information overload.

One thing I discovered was that our current situation may not be that unique. Some interesting research (see the bibliography at the end of this post for the articles in the Journal of the History of Ideas) points out that since the 1200’s – but more particularly after the implementation of Gutenberg’s printing press – people have been complaining about information overload.

2) The Negative Impact of Information Overload They are numerous studies to suggest that information overload makes us dumber: Persons exposed to excessive amounts of information are less productive, prone to make bad decisions, and risk suffering serious stress-related diseases.

But there is a fundamental problem here that needs to be addressed. Look at this issue from the other side. A significant number of articles, including many published in small circulation periodicals, are never cited by anyone. Think, too, of the conferences papers that fail to attract meaningful audiences, the journals that have tiny circulations and very small readerships, and the fact that most academic books are published in press runs of under 1,000 copies, despite the growth in the number of academics and university and college libraries. Put bluntly, we are researching without having an impact, speaking without being heard and writing without being read. Furthermore, our tenure and promotion procedures reward publication more than they do awareness of the field, thus pushing up conference attendance, and journal and book submissions.

We have collectively created the equivalent of an academic monsoon over the past three decades, with no change in the forecast for the coming years. Without a major reconsideration of how we share and use information, how we keep up with the field, and how we recognize academic accomplishment, we will continue to add to the floodwaters, all the while spending less attention on whether or not anyone reads our work, listens to our presentations, or appreciates our professional contributions. Academe 2.0 offers tools to build more effective dikes and even to regulate the flow. But we need to realize that the lakes at the end of the bloated academic rivers – our faculty, researchers and students – have finite capacity, in terms of time and ability to assimilate information. Controlling the scholarly input is crucial to ensuring that we actually learn from and about each other, and ensuring that our academic work truly makes a difference.

The rate and density of information flow has been rising exponentially since the end of the Second World War. The arrival of television networks, electronic printing presses, satellites, cheap data routers, the computer and the internet have meant that information flow and processing have never been faster, easier, cheaper or more far-reaching. Whilst this potentially increases news flow, diversity and opinion, in reality the counter-pressures of market forces and corporate conglomeration, which has led to a virtual media monopoly where only a handful of multinationals now own and control the vast majority of mainstream media outlets, have meant that there has actually been an overall contraction in information diversity and opinion. Mainstream media is now almost invariably mass-produced, corporate-friendly, nationalistic and unchallenging, hooking the audience with a riveting milieu of banality, fear, violence, hatred, and sex.