Tuesday, November 25, 2014

TWSC Researchers Miguel Paolo P. Reyes and Joel F. Ariate Jr. Present their Research on Academic and Authorial Integrity in the University of the Philippines Diliman

The Research Presentation
L-R, facing the camera: Joel F. Ariate Jr., Third World Studies Center (TWSC) university researcher, Dr. Ricardo Jose, TWSC director and professor of history, and Miguel Paolo P. Reyes, TWSC university research associate. L-R, with their back turned to the camera: Dr. Maria Ela L. Atienza, associate professor of political science and Dr. Elizabeth L. Enriquez, professor of broadcast communication.

L-R: Dr. Benito M. Pacheco, UP Diliman vice chancellor for academic affairs and professor of engineering; Dr. Zosimo E. Lee, professor of philosophy and former dean of the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy; Prof. Josephine C. Dionisio, chair of the Student Disciplinary Council and assistant professor of sociology; Atty. Vyva Victoria M. Aguirre, former dean, School of Library and Information Studies, and Prof. Jely A. Galang, TWSC deputy director and assistant professor of history. 

L-R: Atty. Vyva Victoria M. Aguirre, Prof. Jely A. Galang, Dr. Elizabeth L. Enriquez, Dr. Cecilia A. Florencio, university professor emeritus of nutrition; Dr. Maria Ela L. Atienza, and Dr. Milagros P. Querubin, associate professor of nutrition.

L-R: Dr. Cecilia A. Florencio, Dr. Henry J. Ramos (partly hidden), Ma. Cecilia B. Olivar, cleck of the now defunct Student Disciplinary Tribunal; and Dr. Maria Ela L. Atienza.

Reactions from the Research Participants

Dr. Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem, professor of political science.

Dr. Elizabeth L. Enriquez, professor of broadcast communication.

Prof. Josephine C. Dionisio, chair of the Student Disciplinary Council and assistant professor of sociology.

Dr. Elizabeth L. Enriquez, Dr. Cecilia A. Florecncio, Dr. Maria Ela L. Atienza, Dr. Henry J. Ramos, director of the Diliman Project Management and Resource Generation Office, Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Development and professor of physics; and Dr. Milagros P. Querubin.

The Researchers Respond

Summary of the Draft Research Report Presented to the Research Participants on 24 November 2014, 2:00-5:00 p.m., Conference Room, Third World Studies Center, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, UP Diliman

This research is an attempt to understand, and in turn demonstrate this understanding to the public and the academic community, how plagiarism and similar forms of fraud, has coursed through the veins of academic life in University of the Philippines-Diliman (UP Diliman). By plagiarism we mean the transgression of perceived standards and commonly understood values for the proper attribution of ideas. Our definition, informed by our understanding that standards are historically contingent and values breed its own unbelievers, may seem to run counter to the image of unbending, unchanging rules that the phrase “academic and authorial integrity” connotes. But then there is the truism that even integrity is also a matter of perception. That UP Diliman upholds academic and authorial integrity seem to be a statement that needs no further proof. Until one looks into the specific instances on how UP Diliman has dealt with those who were accused of violating this central academic and ethical tenet. When a student or a member of the faculty is accused of plagiarism, fabrication or theft of research data, or has misrepresented the extent of his or her authorship in an academic work, certain investigative and disciplinary procedures are at hand to address the issue. The usual point of reference are the “Rules and Regulations on the Discipline of Faculty Members and Employees (RRDFME),” approved by the UP Board of Regents (BOR) in 1963 and the “Rules and Regulations in Student Conduct and Discipline (RRSCD),” approved by the UP BOR in 1976. Both have been amended and modified. On 07 August 2014, the RRSCD was superseded by the 2012 Code of Student Conduct (Student Code). The changes to these sets of rules indicate a degree of responsiveness and flexibility on the part of the University. Though these changes for the most part were attempts to make the application of disciplinary processes more transparent, accessible, and rational, the changes have also led to unresolved questions, in particular on provisions on intellectual dishonesty and academic fraud and its corresponding penalties. The established approach is to determine if the act under consideration rises to the level of a misconduct that violates the university’s legal and administrative codes. This process has been saddled both by the refusal of some academics to pass judgment on their colleague and the inherent legalism and tedious legalistic proceedings that it entails. There are also procedural interstices that allow for arbitrary and improvised processes. Gaps that allow a professor to punish a student plagiarist with a failing grade and for administration officials to so expedite a process for a faculty member to be cleared by the BOR of any ethical wrongdoing in a matter of months—in stark contrast to those who have to wait for years to receive a ruling. Then there are also those who were accused of intellectual dishonesty in the course of their work as UP Diliman academics who have decided to seek redress in trial courts outside of the University. Based also on the cases and instances reviewed, UP Diliman seem to be able to deal with intellectually dishonest students in a more straightforward manner and punish some of them with greater severity than the ethically errant members of the faculty. An expulsion or a two-year suspension from the university hardly equals the surreptitious resignation of some faculty members who were caught red-handed in plagiarism cases. These quick-fix maneuvers do not contribute to the formation and sustenance of a more robust, fair, and transparent institutional mechanism that can pass timely and commensurate judgment on ethically compromised members of the academe.

The presentation is part of the research activities of  “The UP Diliman Handbook on Academic and Authorial Integrity” funded through the Source of Solution Grant under the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Development (Project No. 111108 SOS.

Friday, November 07, 2014

The 2014 UP TWSC Public Lecture Series on Natural Disasters Lecture 4-- Chaotic Networks, Networked Chaos: Crowdsourcing in the New Media on Natural Disasters

The 2014 UP TWSC Public Lecture Series on Natural Disasters


Chaotic Networks, Networked Chaos:  
Crowdsourcing in the New Media on Natural Disasters
25 November 2014 (Tuesday), 2:00 4:00 p.m.
College of Mass Communication Auditorium, University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City

2:00 – 2:05 
Opening Remarks

2:05 – 2:10 
Introduction of the Lecturer and Reactors

2:10 – 2:50 
Maria Ressa
Chief Executive Officer

2:50 – 3:20 
Susan Pancho-Festin
Associate Professor
Department of Computer Science
College of Science
University of the Philippines Diliman

Danilo Arao
Assistant Professor
Department of Journalism
College of Mass Communication
University of the Philippines Diliman

3:20 – 3:55 
Open Forum

3:55 – 4:00 
Closing Remarks

Jely Galang
Deputy Director, Third World Studies Center and
Assistant Professor, Department of History
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
University of the Philippines Diliman

New media has been hailed as the “ultimate game changer” for natural disasters. Declared as having made possible “a real first for humanitarian response in the 21st century,” the new media, spanning social networking sites, Web 2.0 platforms, and mobile applications, have been the “go-to tools” in mapping out real-time information during natural disasters. They provide a bird’s eye view on the unravelling of the disaster, directing help to where it is needed in unprecedented fashion. The new media owes its success to a time when “access to information is as important as access to food and shelter,” as once argued by National Geographic Explorer Patrick Meier. In the Philippines, Typhoon Pablo witnessed new media’s crisis mapping capabilities, when the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) activated the Digital Humanitarian Network, a network of solutions teams that monitored over tens of thousands of tweets in a span of ten hours during the typhoon. From the “curated tweets,” the team produced a metadata containing information on media type (photo or video), the type of damage, analysis of the damage, GPS coordinates, date, as well as links to other media types. The database was created and shared with OCHA Philippines in less than 24 hours. The solutions teams attributed this to the rich “social media footprint” of Filipinos and a similar grassroots “information-sharing” dynamics was seen more recently during Typhoon Yolanda. While Facebook made possible a “donate button” in its newsfeeds and Google launched “Person Finder,” netizens streamlined the use of hashtags in Twitter for efficient online coordination of relief efforts offline—and success stories have been remarkable. A Filipina doctor, who posted a call for help during Typhoon Yolanda in a social networking website, received donations amounting to £30,000 in less than 24 hours. There seems to be no dispute to what the country can gain from what the new media makes possible in terms of disaster prevention and relief. Yet the new media also has its share of flak—”slacktivism,” where political engagement has been limited to a click of a button arguably reducing its merit; “trolling,” where racist comments have proliferated in the wake of natural disasters in an attempt to pull down efforts to rise above the disaster; as well as “information overload,” where netizens become saturated and rewired only to absorb not more than 140 characters of information. The backlash is they end up relying on other people to act and leave it at that. The end result is a virtual community where netizens find themselves “alone, together” in its “collective action and shared responsibility.” With the Philippines tagged as “the world’s most disaster-hit country,” and recently “the world’s most sociable online race,” how does this impact on the country’s present precarity? Who are the amorphous mass of Filipino netizens and how much of their real-time actions wield power, if at all, before, during, and after natural disasters? How can we re-imagine Philippine encounters of natural disasters with the future of new media?

1. What has been the role of new media on disaster prevention and relief in the Philippines? Some have characterized the new media as having revolutionized disaster response all over the world, but to what extent is it the ultimate game changer in disaster prevention and relief in a country with low internet penetration (35 percent of the total population)?

2. With the Philippines recently tagged as “the world’s most sociable online race,” how does this impact on the country’s precarious status as “the world’s most disaster-hit country”?

3. Who are the amorphous mass of Filipino netizens and how much of their real-time actions wield power, if at all, before, during, and after natural disasters?

4. While the new media has been a leverage with which netizens have demonstrated responsibility as a call for accountability, how sustainable are these collective actions in the transitory cycle of news feeds?

5. How can we re-imagine Philippines encounters of natural disasters with the future of new media?

See link for the concept paper of the public lecture series.

A Discussion with Dr. Frank Dhont: Brunei in World War II: The Japanese Occupation Remembered

Brunei in World War II: the Japanese Occupation Remembered
A Discussion with Frank Dhont (PhD, Yale)
University of Brunei Darussalam
Institute of Asian Studies

11 November 2014 (Tuesday), 1:00 – 3:00PM
Conference Room, Third World Studies Center
Lower Ground Floor, Palma Hall,
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
University of the Philippines-Diliman

In World War II Brunei was occupied by the Japanese. Brunei was included in the Japanese Army administration that governed the whole of the northern part of Borneo. The southern part of Borneo was controlled by the Japanese Navy. The paper investigates the impact the Japanese occupation had on Brunei and how this Japanese occupation is currently depicted and remembered from a personal perspective and collective experience in Brunei.


Dr. Frank Dhont is Senior Lecturer in the Institute of Asian Studies (IAS), University Brunei Darussalam (UBD). He obtained a PhD in History from Yale University specializing in history of Indonesia and Southeast Asia. He also holds an MHum in history from Gadjah Mada University (Indonesia) as well as an MA in Indonesian from Lund University (Sweden). As Indonesianist, he is regularly involved in multidisciplinary initiatives and is founder and chair of the International Indonesia Forum. His major research interests include the reactions of both indigenous rulers and ordinary people to Japanese colonialism in the Netherlands Indies during World War II. He is also interested in the history of both World Wars in Asia and the spread of nationalism, especially in the context of colonial empires in Asia. He is currently working on the manuscript of Outlasting Colonialism: Socio-political Change in the Javanese Principalities under the Japanese Occupation of Indonesia during World War II.