Exciting, welcoming, thoughtful, humid. This is how I would describe our first day of class. We met in the breakfast area of the Bicycle hotel, unsure of what the class structure would be like and what was really expected of us. Would there be cold-calling on the readings (I confess I read them the morning of... just this once!)? I was excited to be part of a small group discussion-style setting with a mix of MLS students and undergrads because of the diverse perspectives that could heighten the conversation and learning.
Our discussion started with the first course question of “what is innovation?” Coming from Silicon Valley and being surrounded by buzzwords like “big data”, “platform”, “autonomous” and, of course, “innovation”, the word is for me immediately associated with private-sector work. To me innovation implies a fast-paced initiative that works to further the public good while still making sure that the bottom line is reached and investors are always happy. This being said, I was interested to see what students from different educational and cultural backgrounds had to say, and I appreciated the comments that were made. One distinction that stood out to me was that innovation in the private sector focuses on “coolness” and immediacy while innovations in the public sector are driven identified issues and take incremental, thoughtful steps towards an outcome. I think that a balance between the two styles of innovation is where productive models can come to fruition; without an aesthetic or desirable marketing factor a product or initiative is less likely to gain sustainable traction in communities, but a simply “cool” innovation can’t survive without a strong foundational understanding of the problem it is working to address. I’m looking forward to diving deeper into the ethics of innovation and seeing how the public and private sectors respond when they are faced with ethical dilemmas in their innovations.
Another thought-provoking concept that we touched on was that the way we talk about public services informs the way we think about them. For example, in the US a safety net is meant to help you after you’ve “failed” or reached the bottom of the barrel. How is this productive? Why must social, political, and economic structures allow for people to fall to the bottom in the first place? This model works to benefit a capitalist society where those who own the means of production are always able to provide for themselves within the system while those who only own their labor are left to fend for themselves when it comes to stability and access to public services. Instead an innovative redesign of public services is needed so that it is not possible to fall that far down to begin with.
I am really looking forward to the rest of the class meetings, site visits, and adventures this trip will bring! If it’s anything like the last few days have been I know it will be an extremely thought-provoking and memorable experience.
Comments