The Limits of Web Research

One of the hardest lessons to learn about the web as a research tool is the notion that you can track anyone down and find out anything you want to know about them. We are all moving targets and using a non-linnear medium for target practice means we're going to be shooting more research blanks than bulls-eyes.

In my teaching this often takes the form of a student who is trying to stretch a Googling expedition into a positive ID and ultimately a lot of sordid details about someone who is probably not all that well-known for their compromising behavior. There are many obstacles before the public vetting of the dirt-dishing can even begin:

1) People are journeys -- not destinations:
There are 34 Springfields in the U.S. Some people have that many alter egos connected to a diverisfied multiple personality portfolio.

2) The trails they leave -- they may bob but not weave:
The web is not definitive. Try circling back to sourcing one's virtual history or even a current web presence is not about closing loops or riffing on a central theme or obsession. There is no one trail or "go to" site for intimating where the next detour digresses or the former backroad resurfaces as an eighteen lane interstate.

3) The web is more effective as a communications medium -- not a research tool:
It's easier to talk up a potential ally than track down a potential social menace. Making a professional connection is more reasonable than trying to corner a criminal suspect.

So how do we get away from using the web to track a fixed target the way a P.I. stakes out a parked car? Part of that realization is the expectation that cases are not cracked by keyword searches or even traditional document retrieval but by reaching out to potential witnesses, experts, and stakeholders. But before those overtures are made? First lay the groundwork with sound research practices.

That said, more incriminating evidence can be found every day. What turns up expands our notion of an increasingly transparent public domain. We see this as the digital natives begin to outnumber digital immigrants and share personal details in a way that would startle their guarded elders.

But is it us immigrants who are exposing our naivete when we complain about privacy invasions and storm the switchboards of the institutions where an employee's laptop is in breach? Perhaps yesterday's healthy precautions are tomorrow's unfounded paranoias. This is the luxury of the self-important. Should a budding investigator be hot on the trail of some middle manager for their next homework assignment? They may not need to keep a low profile. Because the profile cut by the target in their sights may dip even lower.

The Limits of Web Research

One of the hardest lessons to learn about the web as a research tool is the notion that you can track anyone down and find out anything you want to know about them. We are all moving targets and using a non-linnear medium for target practice means we're going to be shooting more research blanks than bulls-eyes.

In my teaching this often takes the form of a student who is trying to stretch a Googling expedition into a positive ID and ultimately a lot of sordid details about someone who is probably not all that well-known for their compromising behavior. There are many obstacles before the public vetting of the dirt-dishing can even begin:

1) People are journeys -- not destinations:
There are 34 Springfields in the U.S. Some people have that many alter egos connected to a diverisfied multiple personality portfolio.

2) The trails they leave -- they may bob but not weave:
The web is not definitive. Try circling back to sourcing one's virtual history or even a current web presence is not about closing loops or riffing on a central theme or obsession. There is no one trail or "go to" site for intimating where the next detour digresses or the former backroad resurfaces as an eighteen lane interstate.

3) The web is more effective as a communications medium -- not a research tool:
It's easier to talk up a potential ally than track down a potential social menace. Making a professional connection is more reasonable than trying to corner a criminal suspect.

So how do we get away from using the web to track a fixed target the way a P.I. stakes out a parked car? Part of that realization is the expectation that cases are not cracked by keyword searches or even traditional document retrieval but by reaching out to potential witnesses, experts, and stakeholders. But before those overtures are made? First lay the groundwork with sound research practices.

That said, more incriminating evidence can be found every day. What turns up expands our notion of an increasingly transparent public domain. We see this as the digital natives begin to outnumber digital immigrants and share personal details in a way that would startle their guarded elders.

But is it us immigrants who are exposing our naivete when we complain about privacy invasions and storm the switchboards of the institutions where an employee's laptop is in breach? Perhaps yesterday's healthy precautions are tomorrow's unfounded paranoias. This is the luxury of the self-important. Should a budding investigator be hot on the trail of some middle manager for their next homework assignment? They may not need to keep a low profile. Because the profile cut by the target in their sights may dip even lower.

Taking it Impersonally

The current economic funk has me thinking about the many folks in the sudden state of being let go by their organizations -- the disruptive reality that their plans are on hold (not to mention their medical, home, and car payments).

From the moment we're old enough to carry career ambitions we learn rule #1 for addressing what gets in the way of them:

"Don't take it personally."

This classic one-liner has been the mainstay since the first assembly cast out the first house member. It wraps around every fresh start, mid-course correction, and countless down-sizings and fire sales. And whatever bumps it was intended to cushion only rise to the surface -- and rupture. When one's career arc nosedives below the path we've cleared we hit the familiar potholes: hard decisions, obvious signs ... and no hard feelings!

I am not an HR professional or career coach. But I have a strong appreciation for the potholes that line the career paths of folks who need a tinge of personal integrity to remain vested in their professional roles. I am also an info maven who understands the rationale getting impersonal -- not to bring comfort to the recipient but protection for the message sender: "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you."

From a behavioral perspective it helps to divide the senders and receivers into two camps: groups and individuals. An individual is at the front-lines of self-preservation. Whether you're a GI in combat overseas or a working stiff with a pink slip no one can doubt the authenticity of your firsthand experience. A group is an abstraction; the blending together of mutual concerns and aims. It operates as a second and third-party (you know someone in the group or you know of the group). Belief in secular groups and group communications are not measured by authenticity but by credibility: do other groups trust this one?

Groups serve the purpose of enforcing the personal will of its leaders. An individual cannot declare war. An individual cannot determine their own compensation level. An individual cannot be trusted based on their own self-serving motivations. The group acts as the instrument for carrying out individual will (pending their credibility with other groups). Is this good or bad? Is it strong leadership or conflict-of-interest?

Sorting that out is rarely a who-dunnit. It's more like a what-dunnit on behalf of a why-dunnit: what were they thinking when they _______? But any time a group moves to expel a member, consider this. Unless you've been kidnapped, wrapped in burlap, and tossed from the trunk of your captors, you are not alone. The authenticity of the experience, while isolating, is rarely done in isolation.

A shared expulsion and some common conclusions can lead to:

* stronger positioning, (what positions are defensible)
* a wiser outlook (what battles are worth waging)
* an elevation of awareness (how can I make my efforts worth your while), and
* a blending together of personal authenticity and professional credibility

Their by-product?

Personal integrity.

Now it becomes easier to get impersonal -- a survival method to eclipse our own impulses and others' agendas. Perhaps this framework can guide you on what groups to join and your future role within them. Perhaps it can suggest ways to communicate as an individual job-seeker to a group employer. More importantly it might help you to consider what's worth taking personally.

No, I'm not talking about your personal life. Your family, faith, and friendships go without saying. I'm referring to what you take personally in the name of your professionalism. These are your natural gifts. They are your professional assets. It's the subjects that you know more than most but can't learn enough about. It's the passion that beckons the road to rise with you. Amid the unreturned phone calls, fickle contacts, and unforeseen bottlenecks your talents are what you take with you to your next business venture, career switch, and/or job search.

It's also the realization of everything we're not so good at. That's the stuff to not take personally.

Taking it Impersonally

The current economic funk has me thinking about the many folks in the sudden state of being let go by their organizations -- the disruptive reality that their plans are on hold (not to mention their medical, home, and car payments).

From the moment we're old enough to carry career ambitions we learn rule #1 for addressing what gets in the way of them:

"Don't take it personally."

This classic one-liner has been the mainstay since the first assembly cast out the first house member. It wraps around every fresh start, mid-course correction, and countless down-sizings and fire sales. And whatever bumps it was intended to cushion only rise to the surface -- and rupture. When one's career arc nosedives below the path we've cleared we hit the familiar potholes: hard decisions, obvious signs ... and no hard feelings!

I am not an HR professional or career coach. But I have a strong appreciation for the potholes that line the career paths of folks who need a tinge of personal integrity to remain vested in their professional roles. I am also an info maven who understands the rationale getting impersonal -- not to bring comfort to the recipient but protection for the message sender: "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you."

From a behavioral perspective it helps to divide the senders and receivers into two camps: groups and individuals. An individual is at the front-lines of self-preservation. Whether you're a GI in combat overseas or a working stiff with a pink slip no one can doubt the authenticity of your firsthand experience. A group is an abstraction; the blending together of mutual concerns and aims. It operates as a second and third-party (you know someone in the group or you know of the group). Belief in secular groups and group communications are not measured by authenticity but by credibility: do other groups trust this one?

Groups serve the purpose of enforcing the personal will of its leaders. An individual cannot declare war. An individual cannot determine their own compensation level. An individual cannot be trusted based on their own self-serving motivations. The group acts as the instrument for carrying out individual will (pending their credibility with other groups). Is this good or bad? Is it strong leadership or conflict-of-interest?

Sorting that out is rarely a who-dunnit. It's more like a what-dunnit on behalf of a why-dunnit: what were they thinking when they _______? But any time a group moves to expel a member, consider this. Unless you've been kidnapped, wrapped in burlap, and tossed from the trunk of your captors, you are not alone. The authenticity of the experience, while isolating, is rarely done in isolation.

A shared expulsion and some common conclusions can lead to:

* stronger positioning, (what positions are defensible)
* a wiser outlook (what battles are worth waging)
* an elevation of awareness (how can I make my efforts worth your while), and
* a blending together of personal authenticity and professional credibility

Their by-product?

Personal integrity.

Now it becomes easier to get impersonal -- a survival method to eclipse our own impulses and others' agendas. Perhaps this framework can guide you on what groups to join and your future role within them. Perhaps it can suggest ways to communicate as an individual job-seeker to a group employer. More importantly it might help you to consider what's worth taking personally.

No, I'm not talking about your personal life. Your family, faith, and friendships go without saying. I'm referring to what you take personally in the name of your professionalism. These are your natural gifts. They are your professional assets. It's the subjects that you know more than most but can't learn enough about. It's the passion that beckons the road to rise with you. Amid the unreturned phone calls, fickle contacts, and unforeseen bottlenecks your talents are what you take with you to your next business venture, career switch, and/or job search.

It's also the realization of everything we're not so good at. That's the stuff to not take personally.

Being Used by Information

How do people use information?

It's a topic that's as rich in experience as it is fertile in detail. Endless fascination is just the beginning. There is no limit to the educaton you'll receive if you take your eye off the raw, untreated info pipeline and keep the other firmly glued to what's been done with it upon arrival.

But what about information using people. Yeah, I mean stressing them out, wearing them down, forcing their hand at games they can play but they quit -- entirely too sure they're going to lose because they're up against Big, Unrelenting Info.

This form of intimidation is similar to other "manufactured" forces of nature like the stock market, the economy, and any cultural institution too ingrained in our daily lives to imagine life without it -- insert favorite media here.

Insidious. Conspiratorial. As thoughtful as a stampede. As reassuring as a teleprompter. As pervasive as little plastic phones... Big Information is not owned by a ruthless corporation. It answers to no elected official. There is no plot -- it's not out to get us personally. But you will be deceived (not the wiser for it) without a plan for resistance. Anyone can play the victim card when it comes to being on the receiving end of Big Unrelenting Info. But how many of us can raise our H.I.T. game to a power where info submits to our will, not the other way?

First of all you have to know when you've been had.

Time = $: Well, for starters when you spend too much time researching something online? You mean you're spending MORE time on the web than you would have spent on offline research? Isn't the purpose to reduce the time in the chase and more on the prey? You've been had. Logoff.

Grammar Lesson: And why has it taken you forever to find out what you've learned online has no connection to why you logged on in the first place? The Google in a bottle school of query formation states that we're on a first name basis with our favorite search tool and that our minds are being read -- even if we can't articulate them well as search commands. Keywords we all know. But how about keyverbs? How many hits on that? Predicate nominatives? Subjective clauses? If you go back to brush up on your grammar lessons, please take Google with you. It can't tell the difference. It's in no position to distinguish actors from receivors -- or actions for that matter. Ask a search tool to understand grammar? You've been had. Walk around the room.

Instant Analysis: How about when you're so plugged in you can't separate proximity from meaning? The rush of catching up on the blog posts of our 5,162 closest colleagues is not achievable other than to check all posts as having been read. Does this innundation produce any prevailing messages? Anything to indicate what concerns you most since before you received the newest rush of postings?

Isn't the purpose of being plugged in to inform you of what tasks to prioritize or actions to take? Are you surprised that the closer we get to a real-time environment the more fake-time we're trying to protect. What do the actual consequence RSS feeds, twitterings, and text messages on the toilet hold for our analysis of the situations we are soooo on top of? Instantaneous does not square with a level-headed determination for what to do next. Quite the opposite actually. You've been had again. Now leave.

When are you on the receiving end of instant analysis? If you're a baseball fan rooting for a big market team that's underperforming look at the coverage -- every game past Memorial Day until the play-offs is a microcosm of the season. If you're a politico think of MSNBC's reduction of each news cycle and their awarding of daily verdicts and victors. Yeech.

All-or-nothing = nothing: The third sign is experienced when clinging to the intoxicating and delusional effects of information certainty. This happens when my students hold out for some dirt or insinuating tidbit about one potentially shady suspect in a criminal investigation. They keep hammering away at the same obscure person, never quite sure if they've made a positive ID or whether they've scoured every last database known to the invisible web.

It's this kind of blind tenacity that people search firms like Intelius take full advantage of when they package the legal records of personal background checks. Got that wrong guy? Don't expect a money back guarantee. Not when you've been had by information.

The one recourse? Your own resourcefulness.

Being Used by Information

How do people use information?

It's a topic that's as rich in experience as it is fertile in detail. Endless fascination is just the beginning. There is no limit to the educaton you'll receive if you take your eye off the raw, untreated info pipeline and keep the other firmly glued to what's been done with it upon arrival.

But what about information using people. Yeah, I mean stressing them out, wearing them down, forcing their hand at games they can play but they quit -- entirely too sure they're going to lose because they're up against Big, Unrelenting Info.

This form of intimidation is similar to other "manufactured" forces of nature like the stock market, the economy, and any cultural institution too ingrained in our daily lives to imagine life without it -- insert favorite media here.

Insidious. Conspiratorial. As thoughtful as a stampede. As reassuring as a teleprompter. As pervasive as little plastic phones... Big Information is not owned by a ruthless corporation. It answers to no elected official. There is no plot -- it's not out to get us personally. But you will be deceived (not the wiser for it) without a plan for resistance. Anyone can play the victim card when it comes to being on the receiving end of Big Unrelenting Info. But how many of us can raise our H.I.T. game to a power where info submits to our will, not the other way?

First of all you have to know when you've been had.

Time = $: Well, for starters when you spend too much time researching something online? You mean you're spending MORE time on the web than you would have spent on offline research? Isn't the purpose to reduce the time in the chase and more on the prey? You've been had. Logoff.

Grammar Lesson: And why has it taken you forever to find out what you've learned online has no connection to why you logged on in the first place? The Google in a bottle school of query formation states that we're on a first name basis with our favorite search tool and that our minds are being read -- even if we can't articulate them well as search commands. Keywords we all know. But how about keyverbs? How many hits on that? Predicate nominatives? Subjective clauses? If you go back to brush up on your grammar lessons, please take Google with you. It can't tell the difference. It's in no position to distinguish actors from receivors -- or actions for that matter. Ask a search tool to understand grammar? You've been had. Walk around the room.

Instant Analysis: How about when you're so plugged in you can't separate proximity from meaning? The rush of catching up on the blog posts of our 5,162 closest colleagues is not achievable other than to check all posts as having been read. Does this innundation produce any prevailing messages? Anything to indicate what concerns you most since before you received the newest rush of postings?

Isn't the purpose of being plugged in to inform you of what tasks to prioritize or actions to take? Are you surprised that the closer we get to a real-time environment the more fake-time we're trying to protect. What do the actual consequence RSS feeds, twitterings, and text messages on the toilet hold for our analysis of the situations we are soooo on top of? Instantaneous does not square with a level-headed determination for what to do next. Quite the opposite actually. You've been had again. Now leave.

When are you on the receiving end of instant analysis? If you're a baseball fan rooting for a big market team that's underperforming look at the coverage -- every game past Memorial Day until the play-offs is a microcosm of the season. If you're a politico think of MSNBC's reduction of each news cycle and their awarding of daily verdicts and victors. Yeech.

All-or-nothing = nothing: The third sign is experienced when clinging to the intoxicating and delusional effects of information certainty. This happens when my students hold out for some dirt or insinuating tidbit about one potentially shady suspect in a criminal investigation. They keep hammering away at the same obscure person, never quite sure if they've made a positive ID or whether they've scoured every last database known to the invisible web.

It's this kind of blind tenacity that people search firms like Intelius take full advantage of when they package the legal records of personal background checks. Got that wrong guy? Don't expect a money back guarantee. Not when you've been had by information.

The one recourse? Your own resourcefulness.