Download
1 / 39
390 likes | 406 Views
mapping the internet and society. geographic versus conceptual maps.
E N D
“These ambiguities, redundancies and deficiencies remind us of those which doctor Franz Kuhn attributes to a certain Chinese encyclopaedia entitled 'Celestial Empire of benevolent Knowledge'. In its remote pages it is written that the animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off look like flies.” from “The Analytical Language of John Wilkins” by Jose Luis Borges
“it is clear that there is no classification of the Universe not being arbitrary and full of conjectures” from “The Analytical Language of John Wilkins” by Jose Luis Borges
Topics Proposed for “Unconference Sessions” collaboration and teaching open data privacy mobilization crisis management intermediaries
Categories Ethan Proposed (with participants’ responses in bold below) -slides have been reordered, as follows: 1) Slides on which there were no additions 2) Slides on which there was commentary 3) Slides that are entirely new
content / process what / how
owned / not owned zoned / not zoned controlled /uncontrolled
vertical, concentrated power versus horizontal, decentralized power Pushback: Is this a false dichotomy? Both categorizations feature concentration of power, just differently (top-down versus bottom-up)
descriptive / normative (Pushback: What is place of advocacy in this dichotomy?) ex post / ex ante
normative -> descriptive -> synthesis inventing / improving Additions/ Commentary: -Are other categories in order, such as: analytic (A-->B) & critical? -In locating “critical” within the descriptive / normative spectrum/process, critical may be important, but not necessarily on normative level; one could challenge existing assumptions without indicating how things should be -Might design science be an important element of normative/descriptive
old media / new media old tech / new tech new tech / old models? Pushback: Are we using old metaphors (e.g., roads for net neutrality)? How can we evolve our frames to develop theories that take into account the way things work on the Internet?
fair / unfair Pushback: “Fair” is very hard to define, and may be personal. We may not want to introduce such fuzzy terms. just / unjust Pushback: Just/unjust is similarly subjective idea. Pushback to pushback: Concerns about just/unjust don’t involve prescribing what is (not) just; rather, focus is on recognizing these sorts of issues as important represented / silenced
New Dichotomies Proposed by Participants In the slides that follow, each new dichotomy is listed in bold, followed by a summary of questions, comments, and additions.
Research / advocacy Key Question: Is one part of normative issue the need to bridge research and advocacy? Or should research and advocacy be entirely separate? One point of view: No. It is wrong to try to bridge camps. Research and academics should not engage in advocacy work. Meta-point: this may be an area where U.S. and European discourse differ Different way of approaching question: What is relationship between think tank and advocacy? What should it be? How political is advocacy, and should our role as a network involve these sorts of issues? Another input: we are not done studying the issues. This is a question of how the law reacts, and effects of legal system/private rulemaking on the system. It is these kinds of questions we should discuss, not political activism. Meta-point: Discussion of terms raises a broader point: even if we use the same concept, we may be defining these terms differently than our collaborators. We need to flesh out our shared definitions, so we are certain we are thinking about the same ideas. Perhaps we should develop shared taxonomies.
way things work / ways we talk about it Key Recommendation: In looking at the terrain, consider what can we learn from law Law can deal with innovation in three ways: subsumption novel creation evolution (ex: fair use as evolution without revolution) Perhaps such models offer lessons to understand how things work and to speak about our work.
Open / closed Commentary: In corporate world, there is a great deal of reflection on these issues. Universities and institutions should keep their open character, and remain tied in to the broader dynamics of Internet. Conversations can’t stay purely within academic realm, especially as start to think about change. Key Question: How porous or how closed are borders between studying issues and engaging in processes to advance towards objectives? (ties to discussion of borders, included on next slide as separate point)
Borders / Lack of Borders Key Questions on substance: How do borders relate to our work? When we’ve broken down borders, what are we excluding? What are the impacts of one level on others? Key Question on Process: How do we test out borders and determine where they are? Two possibilities might be: (1) Find edge cases? (2) Look for what’s beyond our borders, and say perhaps it’s not our job to fix certain problems (e.g., multilateralism). Perhaps we can draw a line around certain categories of issues, to be tackled by other actors (e.g., the UN) Key Challenge: In creating borders, are you configuring yourself in a way that it is easy to reach out and expand? Or are you creating echo chambers in which you only engage with like-minded individuals? One Response: Need to make sure that we have representation from diverse range of disciplines and individuals (descriptive and substantive diversity) Another point of view: Only people who recognize a border are those who can’t pass through it. Substantial power issues are at play here.
uniform / divers(e/ity) Key Challenge: Uniformity can make things easier, but diversity and experimentation may foster local values; how to reconcile tensions that may emerge? Put differently, is this an issue of rules versus standards?
[Unnamed dichotomy] Dynamic Interactions among groups given interplays among innovation, institutions, technology, competition, and change Key Point: The environment is changing as we see groups filling niches that have existed before/ groups that are competing head to head and taking down institutions that have existed before / groups that are creating fundamentally new things / struggle between groups / blends of categories Key Question: As researchers and methodologists, how do we know what we know? These things change very slowly, and we don’t have counter examples/easy ways to track them. How can we monitor these changes?
Other possible new dichotomies (not elaborated): private / public local / global / post (?) access / lack of access product / service ownership / shared discrete / cloud
Possible Stakeholders (commentary featured on next slide) political parties civil society individuals Private sector public sphere elections/campaigns government elected and electors corporations technologists governments civil society multilateral multistakeholder
Commentary regarding classifications of types of actors One idea: geeks, suits, and uniforms Commentary: where do scholars fit? Meta-point: Want to be sure that our classifications capture goal of working together with people we don’t understand, not just those we do understand.
Potentially Relevant Disciplines law economics political science communications computer science sociology psychology international relations public policy urban studies design science
New Maps/Mapping Techniques Proposed by Participants In the slides that follow, each new map/mapping technique is listed in bold, followed by a summary of questions, comments, and additions.
Media policy-specific maps Objective: Determine how to map and research work Key Questions: -Who is doing research about which areas/regions, and where are resources that cover those regions? (Gaps between global north and south) -what is impact of research in different countries? (ties back to questions about descriptive/normative) Commentary: Do issues of transparency / opacity fit here? or elsewhere?
New Types of Maps to Assess Processes and Products -Three types of maps: Vocabulary maps, conceptual maps, and framework maps -Mapping to track who is doing what, where -Maps of how we actually accomplish things, with specific details about tools and methodologies and how they are used in different areas -Outcome mapping (what is it we want to get out of explorations?) -Superimposing different kinds of “flows” on top of Internet flows, to understand how different priorities overlap with information flows online Pushback: Perhaps we are straining “map” metaphor by trying to come up with maps to cover everything? How can we build maps to expand and evolve over time?
Additional meta-questions: -How can we develop tools and methodologies to foster proper analysis of Internet issues? And how does this tie back to questions about normative/advocacy? -Do we need to change the way we think about these issues so that we are more self-reflective? -Are terms “internet & society” appropriate? Are the frameworks right?
