Review of Internet Research 1.0: The State of the Interdiscipline First Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers University of Kansas, September, 2000
Ten years ago, the first Conference in Cyberspace took place at the University of Texas at Austin. According to most accounts, the conference was invite-only and attracted some of the best minds around, including Michael Heim, Chip Morningstar, Marcos Novak, and Allucquere Rosanne (aka SandyStone). A year later, the ideas crept to the rest of us, in the form of the appropriately entitled Cyberspace: First Steps (MIT, 1991), edited by Michael Benedikt.
Throughout the last decade, many more steps have been taken. While Howard Rheingold’s The Virtual Community (Addison-Wesley, 1993) examined communities in cyberspace, Sherry Turkle’s Life on the Screen (Simon & Schuster, 1995), along with the work of Amy Bruckman, Elizabeth Reid, and Stone, explored the formation of identities within online environments. By the mid-1990s, the first steps of an emerging field of study upgraded to a brisk jog. Under the altering guise of cyberculture studies or computer-mediated communication or Internet studies or social informatics, the field blossomed with books like CyberSociety (Sage, 1995) and Virtual Culture (Sage, 1997) edited by Steve Jones, Internet Culture (Routledge, 1997) edited by David Porter, and Network & Netplay (MIT, 1998) edited by Fay Sudweeks, Margaret McLaughlin, and Sheizaf Rafaeli. As the true millennium approaches, the brisk jog has become a modest marathon, as reflected in book length case studies like Nancy Baym’s Tune In, Log On (Sage, 2000), Paulina Borsook’s Cyberselfish (Public Affairs, 2000), Lynn Cherny’s Conversation and Community (Center for the Study of Language and Social Information Publications, 1999), and Christine Hine’s Virtual Ethnography (Sage, 2000), as well as critical subfields within the interdiscipline, including Race in Cyberspace (Routledge, 2000) edited by Beth Kolko, Lisa Nakamura, and Gilbert Rodman, CyberFeminism (Spinifex Press, 1999), and CyberSexualities (Edinburgh University Press, 2000) edited by Jenny Wolmark.
Yet perhaps the most lasting and far-reaching development was the formation of the Association for Internet Researchers (http://aoir.org/). Originally conceived by Greg Elmer (Boston College), Steve Jones (University of Illinois, Chicago), and Stefan Wray (NYU) in the midst of the World Wide Web and Contemporary Cultural Theory conference organized by Andrew Herman and Thomas Swiss and held at Drake University in November, 1998, the Association of Internet Researchers, or A(o)IR, is a concerted attempt to foster an international and interdisciplinary community of scholars studying, teaching, and creating diverse forms of cyberculture. Enjoying an online existence for nearly two years, the members of A(o)IR came together face to face for the first time at the University of Kansas in September for its first annual conference: Internet Research 1.0: The State of the Interdiscipline (http://www.cddc.vt.edu/aoir/). Organized by Conference Coordinator Nancy Baym (University of Kansas) and Program Chair Jeremy Hunsinger (Virginia Tech) with the help of Steve Jones and countless others, the conference was nothing less than a monumental and (dare I say?) historic success.
If A(o)IR’s purpose is to foster an international and interdisciplinary community of scholars, the goal was met. Although held in the United States, conference attendees came from over twenty countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Holland, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Serbia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. Similarly, reflecting the interdisciplinarity of the field itself, conference attendees represented over two dozen disciplines, including: advertising; American studies; anthropology; business; communication; communication, culture, and technology; cultural studies; computer science; economics; education; English; film studies; history; law; library and information science; linguistics; marketing; media ecology; media studies; philosophy; political science; public health; science, technology, and society; social informatics; sociology; and women’s studies. Finally, and perhaps most refreshingly, with the exception of the keynotes, panels contained a rich spectrum of generations, ranging from first year graduate students and grizzled ABDs to junior and senior (and an emeritus or two!) professors. Combined with the international and interdisciplinary nature of the conference, the intergenerational composition added a triple shot of energy, creativity, and experimentation.
a field matures
In some ways, the conference represented a research agenda for and coming attractions of what might be called the third stage of cyberculture studies. As I have noted elsewhere, the first stage, popular cyberculture, was marked by its journalistic origins and characterized by its descriptive nature, limited dualism, and use of the Internet-as-frontier discourse. The second stage, cyberculture studies, focused largely on virtual communities and online identities and developed contoured textures from an influx of scholars from across the disciplines. While the twin pillars of second stage cyberculture studies continue to be rich sites for contemporary scholarship, the most recent stage of scholarship, critical cyberculture studies, approaches online communities and identities within and with respect to the multiple contexts surrounding and informing them. These contexts include but are not limited to the cultural histories of other new and once-new communication technologies, social and economic barriers to online landscapes, the varied and diverse kinds of technological environments that make online interactions possible, and discourses of cyberspace found in popular media, commercial advertising, political rhetoric, and everyday life. Accompanying this more holistic approach to cyberculture is an interdisciplinary and self-reflexive set of methods and methodologies.
Reflecting the field’s maturation were sixty-six panels, roundtables, of subfields. Psychology in/and the Internet was a hot topic, and discussed in panels like “Psychology and Relationships” moderated by Nils Zurawski (University of Muenster), “Subjectivity, Cyberspace, and the Social” moderated by Jeremy Hunsinger, and “Online Relationships, Personal and Professional” moderated by Andrea Baker (Ohio University). Issues of identity were also addressed in “Identity and the Dynamics of Interaction within Online Media,” a panel featuring Hannes Hogni Vilhjalmsson (MIT) and Joshua Berman & Amy Bruckman (Georgia Institute of Technology), who showcased the inspiring Turing Game.
Another popular topic was the intersections between globalization, communication technologies, and democracy. A ton of folks showed up early in the morning to attend a panel entitled “When Voters are Users,” featuring a collection of interesting presentations from R. Kirkland Ahern, Kirsten Foot, W. Russell Neuman, Steve Schneider, Ilyse Stempler, and Jennifer Stromer-Galley, all from the University of Pennsylvania. Other relevant panels included “Global Internet Initatives: Case Studies” moderated by Bram Dov Abramson (Telegeography), “Theories of Globalization” moderated by Liza Tsaliki (University of Nijmegen, NL), “Global Politics” moderated by Christiana Frietas, and “Internet and Democratization.”
Related panels addressed issues of hegemony and resistance. “Digital Resistances,” moderated by Lauren Langman (Loyola University of Chicago) featured papers exploring various sites of online resistance, including alternative Web sites in Singapore (K.C. Ho and Zaheer Baber, National University of Singapore), “Zapatistmo: The Electronic Web of Third World Solidarity” (Fredi Avalos-C’deBaca, California State University, San Marcos), fringe groups and collective action (S. Lee & H. Sawhney, Indiana University), and recent online activity in Belgrade (Smiljana Antonijevic, University of Belgrade). Creative activity, gender (mis)representation, and cyberfeminism came together in the panel “Women on the Internet,” moderated by Anne Daugherty (University of Kansas) and featuring the research of Kate O’Riordan (University of Brighton), Susanna Paasonen (University of Turku), and Mia Consalvo (University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee). Although issues of gender and class were addressed within many panels, issues of race and sexuality were, for this conference attendee, hard to find.
Another subfield garnering plenty of attention was online (and hypertextual) pedagogies. Panels included “Pedagogy” moderated by Gretchen Schoel (College of William and Mary/Keio University), “Pedagogy — In Practice” moderated by Shawn Wahl (University of Nebraska), “Pedagogy — Philosophy” moderated by Susan Lazinger (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem), and “Writing on the Web, Electronic Literature, and Linguistics” moderated by Len Hatfield (Virginia Tech), who, along with Tim Luke, organized the “Learning 2000: Reassessing the Virtual University” (http://www.cddc.vt.edu/learning) conference in late September at Virginia Tech. A roundtable discussion entitled “I’ve Got a Little List,” featured the findings, frustrations, and epiphanies of a number of heavily-trafficked mailing list moderators, including the indefatigable Joan Korenman (University of Maryland, Baltimore County), Patrick Leary, Michele Ollivier (Universite d’Ottawa), Wendy Robbins (University of New Brunswick), and the suspendered Gil Rodman (University of South Florida).
Still other panels were devoted to visual design — “Design” moderated by Jean Trumbo (University of Wisconsin-Madison) and “Interfaces and Communication Strategies” moderated by Harmeet Sawheny (Indiana University) — discourse — “Mediating New Media,” “Open Source,” and “Metaphors for the Internet” moderated by Elissa Fineman (University of Texas at Austin) — and community networks, including the two and a half hour, live Access Grid-broadcasted panel “Investigating Community Networks,” moderated by Nick Jankowski (University of Nijmegen, NL) and featuring the findings of Teresa M. Harrison, James P. Zappen, and Christina Prell (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute), Lawrence Hecht (Internet Public Policy Network), Jankowski, Martine van Selm, and Ed Hollander (University of Nijmegen), Joyce Lamerichs (Wageningen University and Research Center), and myself (University of Maryland/Georgetown University).
Perhaps the surest sign of the field’s maturation was found in the many engaging panels on research methods and ethics. In addition to “Ethics and Internet Research,” a panel moderated by Charles Ess (Drury University), there was the “Internet Research Ethics Roundtable,” which featured a number of speakers, including Philip Howard (Northwestern University and Pew Internet and American Life Project), David Snowball (Augustana College), Storm King (International Society for Mental Health Online), Sarina Chen (University of Northern Iowa), Sanyin Siang (American Association for the Advancement of Science), Steve Jones (University of Illinois, Chicago), and Rob Kling (Indiana University). Another outstanding panel was “Methods: Gaining Inside Perspectives,” moderated by Ken Harwood (University of Houston). Representing various disciplinary positions, the panelists discussed a number of useful research methods for the study of cyberspace: Daniel Marschall (Georgetown University) and Christine Hine (Brunel University) discussed the merits of ethnography (both on- and off-line), Russell Clark (GE Corporate Research and Development) and Joe Downing (Western Kentucky University) examined anonymous Web sampling, and Christian Sandvig and Emily Murase (Stanford University) offered an original method of unobtrusive observation of network data.
Interspersed throughout the conference were five keynote addresses featuring senior scholars from across the disciplines: Barry Wellman (Sociology, University of Toronto) discussed his and his students’ work on social networks; Helen Nissenbaum (Center for Human Values at Princeton University) explored issues of trust online; Rob Kling (Information Systems and Information Science, Indiana University at Bloomington) examined online social behavior from a social informatics perspective; Susan Herring (Information Systems and Information Science, Indiana University at Bloomington) offered methods of computer-mediated discourse analysis; and Manuel Castells (Sociology, University of California, Berkeley) addressed, well, everything, offering one of the most comprehensive overviews of the Net and contemporary culture and society. (Select keynotes and other presentations will be available as Web video on demand through the Apple Learning Interchange around the start of October. Stay tuned to the A(o)IR Web site for details.)
jumpstarting a community
While the conference showcased a maturing field of study, it also helped to foster and nurture a diverse and thriving community. As mentioned earlier the sprawling community came together on paper (and in pixels) with the formation of the Association of Internet Researchers, organized tirelessly by Steve Jones. For the last year, the association’s mailing list, air-l, has maintained a fair amount of dialogues and other conferences — including last spring’s “Shaping the Network Society: The Future of the Public Sphere in Cyberspace,” sponsored by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, and last winter’s “Virtual Methodology” conference, organized by Christine Hine — have brought many of us together. In addition to the list, conference attendees had access to download many, but not nearly all, of the papers before arriving in Kansas.
A common thread heard throughout the conference was that attendees had found an academic home to call their own. Many of the participants recounted frustrating tales of academic marginalization - at conferences, with journals, within departments - and found themselves comfortable among the interdisciplinary or, perhaps, transdisciplinary atmosphere. Subsequently, an elevated collective knowledge was taken advantage of: unlike many papers presented at more traditional conferences, presenters skipped the obligatory ten minutes of explaining terms and quickly got to the beef.
In order to provide a space within which attendees could continue discussions raised in panels, conference organizers set up a large public area on site. Stocked with a buffet of free goodies that made this poor, hungry grad student dizzy, attendees gathered to talk, meet online acquaintances face to face, network, and share works in progress. It was here that we also heard about research being conducted by conference attendees who did not present papers, including Annice Kim’s (University of North Carolina School of Public Health at Chapel Hill) work on content analysis of tobacco Web sites and Gretchen Schoel’s (College of William and Mary/Keio University) research on crosscultural uses of the Net by Americans and Japanese. And with help from Apple Computer, nearly two dozen sleek laptops (with wireless Internet connections no less!) were set up for folks to check their email and make last minute adjustments to their Powerpoint presentations.
Off site, the community continued. Each evening, conference attendees swarmed downtown Lawrence, taking over bars, filling long and loud restaurant tables, and packing the local mom and pop ice cream shop. Much of this was a product of an interesting collection of scholars, the rest a product of Conference Coordinator Nancy Baym and Program Chair Jeremy Hunsinger.
see you in Minnesota
Perhaps the most exciting news came during the conference’s last session, the General Business Meeting. Having made it past 1.0, 2.0 was announced. John Logie, assistant professor in the Department of Rhetoric at the University of Minnesota, invited attendees to the Minneapolis/St. Paul area for the Second Annual Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers sometime during fall 2001. Further, within AIR, two tasks groups - the Task-Force on Ethical Online Research (headed by Amy Bruckman, Sarina Chen, and Sanyin Siang) and the Web Page Working Group (headed by Kristin Foot, Jennifer Stromer-Galley, Leslie Tkach (University of Tsukuba), and myself) - were established and promise to surface in Minnesota. Finally, A(o)IR Interim Treasurer Wesley Shrum announced that a new academic journal, The Journal of Internet Research, is in the planning stages and conversations with presses have begun.
Earlier in the summer, a interesting thread took place on air-l regarding the state of Internet studies. While some folks argued for the creation of a new discipline (Internet Studies? Cyberculture Studies?), others were less enthusiastic, pointing towards the field’s infancy as well as lack of developed methods and theories. In many ways, the Internet Research 1.0 conference confirmed such views. For while scholars continue to explore the digital domain in new and exciting ways, some of the best scholarship is performed with traditional methods and from within traditional disciplines. Perhaps the ultimate lesson learned from the conference is this: In order to keep things fresh, interesting, and relevant, we must continue approaching our topic from an international and interdisciplinary perspective.
Author’s address: http://www.glue.umd.edu/~dsilver/
As a fresh EASST member, I attended the recent Vienna 4S/EASST Conference on `Worlds in Transition’. Here are a couple of recurrently observed pitfalls from otherwise generally quite interesting sessions at a well-organized and dense conference.
Science and technology are not monolithic
Sociological studies are not rarely involving surveys on the perception of science (and/or technology) by layers of the society or even by the society at large. Science is however frequently presented as a kind of monolithic entity, which it is not, and therefore the corresponding survey results might be seriously polluted or at least might be blending a number of secondary effects. Thus there is a real danger significantly wrong conclusions be derived, not only by the surveyors themselves, but also by the subsequent users of the survey, for instance science policy makers and deciders.
Running a survey on science in general is roughly equivalent to enquire about transportation in general. And we do know there are some differences between a bicycle and a jumbo jet or a cruise ship. And those differences are not only effective at the level of the transportation means themselves, but also relevant to the context of specific travels, to the destinations aimed at, and so on. And the differences between scientific disciplines are as varied as between the transportation means above, even if all of them aim at the progress of knowledge.
Part of the problem might arise from the fact that the involved (teams of) sociologists are lacking expertise or enough insight into various fields of science and their respective potential perception (see also below). In any case, we would urge anyone enquiring about the perception of science or of scientific issues to record and to state the context in which the survey has been made (the landing of Man on the Moon, the AIDS scandal, the `Dolly affair’ or whatever).
Even better, each surveyee should be asked about his/her perception of `science’, in the sense of what is that person thinking of when asked about science in general. It is obvious that some mediatic hype about a specific scientific event might seriously affect the global public perception of science nationally or internationally. For instance, the GMO debate has masked, for a significant number of people, the far-reaching consequences by the completion of the genome project while physics and space sciences remained basically unconcerned by those issues.
In conclusion, when speaking of science in general, the variety of science, the context of the time and the individual perceptions must be taken into account. Hasty generalizations should be avoided in the light of the complexity and nuances of the actual situation.
Perverse perceptions
Astronomy and space sciences are interresting fields to investigate public perception. Astronomy has penetrated society remarkably well with an extensive network of associations and organizations of aficionados all over the world. Some of them are well equipped for observing the skies and occasionally become involved with professional research. The deep human need to understand the universe has also led organizations and governments to set up public observatories and planetariums that fulfill academic requirements as well as public educational and cultural interests.
The distinction between professional and amateur astronomers is generally made nowadays on the basis that the former ones are making a living out of their astronomy-related activities, being paid by some official organization, carrying out some research or participating to some project linked to the advancement of knowledge. Amateur astronomers are themselves classified in two categories: the active and the armchair amateur astronomers. While the latter ones have generally a passive interest in astronomy (reading magazines, attending lectures, and so on), the former ones carry out some observing, often with their own instruments, and such activities can be useful to professional astronomy.
Many amateur astronomers have however a poor knowledge of how exactly professional astronomy is carried out and what are the requirements on the professional astronomers themselves. (This is also the case for many potential students in astronomy.) For good amateur astronomers, the `nec plus ultra’ of the achievements would be to know all the major stars, the constellations and the visible planets in their share of the sky; and they would expect at least the same from professional astronomers.
Not at all. Many professional astronomers do not know anything about the nightly sky patterns because they conduct theoretical investigations. And those who do carry out observations do not need to be able to point the finger at their pet objects (most of these would be unvisible for the unassisted eye anyway): professional observers simply need to know the coordinates of their targets and to enter them into the computers piloting the ground-based and space-borne telescopes.
If such a hiatus is already existing between professional astronomers and amateurs who are supposed to know something about science, one can imagine the breadth of the gap with the grand public. And this gap is again potentially larger for sciences with less impact on the society. What then can be said on the validity of public understanding of science? The solution here is education, not through hype and sensationalistic broadcasts or interviews, but through detailed and realistic lectures by patient and non-publicity-seeking experts.
The sports car effect
Car makers (and other manufacturers) know how important it is to have a luxury item in their line of products. Few people will buy it, but most purchasers of the standard items will get something of it, be it only through the image associated to the brand name — somehow like dreaming (or getting the friends and colleagues dream) of an unaffordable expensive lover.
In that perspective, something interesting can also be pointed out, and involving again astronomy and space sciences. In reader surveys conducted by popular science magazines, subjects such as astronomy and space sciences received regularly the top rankings in terms of interest. Medicine, generally thought as being the primary subject of choice by the public, reaches lower scores.
The difference is that, when comes the time of distributing the pennies, the public opinion, and then the policy makers and politicians, go down to pragmatic issues, in line with the fact that — after the end of the Cold War and long after the landing of Man on the Moon — the society at large has now other priorities (such as health, environment, security, unemployment) than space investigations or cosmological understanding. This is when and where the biosciences come first. And this is another reason why public surveys on science perception must be extremely carefully worded, analyzed, interpreted and put into the proper perspective.
Bibliography
Readers interested in several aspects mentioned here in the context of astronomy and space sciences could refer to the chapters under various authorships in the book Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy and Related Space Sciences' (Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Academic Publishers, in press, ISBN 0-7923-6671-9) and to the references therein. Several chapters dealing with public outreach, news media and so on can also be found in another book just published and entitledInformation Handling in Astronomy’ (Ed. A. Heck, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000, ISBN ISBN 0-7923-6494-5).
The author of these few lines has a 30 year-long international career in astronomy and space sciences with interdisciplinary collaborations involving, beyond instrumental technologies and information sciences, psychology, biology, medicine and sociology. He has also degrees in communication techniques and mass studies. A couple of years ago, he launched the so-called `socio-dynamics of astronomy and space sciences’.
author’s address: heck@astro.u-strasbg.fr
Dear Mr. President,
With great concern, we have learned of a series of attempts by members and representatives of the FPO to use the legal systems of Austria to intimidate and silence political opponents. When invoked systematically, such tactics not only target individuals; they constitute an attack on free speech and democracy itself. Openness, freedom of speech, and democratic deliberation are essential both for coming to terms with the tragic historical events of the Holocaust and for finding solutions to the problems of peaceful coexistence that we all face in the new century. They are also essential for the free exchange of views among scholars and intellectuals such as ourselves.
As members of the European Association for Studies of Science and Technology (EASST) and the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S), we have a particular stake in defending freedom of speech and political expression. As scholars who study science, we are sensitive to the abuses that arise when politicians and state authorities attempt to restrict the free flow of ideas and knowledge. Our two societies, moreover, have gathered in Vienna in the year 2000 specifically to mark the transitions that are taking place at this historical moment. Our conference theme, Worlds in Transition, reflects our interest in the grand social, political, economic and cultural transformations that are taking place around the world today, in tandem with revolutionary changes in science and technology. We are committed to exploring these issues across lines of race, class, ethnicity, religion, gender, and national identity.
Global transformations around science and technology are leading to fundamental changes in social structures and cultural and political relations. Many of these changes will be beneficial to humankind, but it is obvious that, especially in the shorter term, they may also pose threats to individuals and interest groups. Social unrest will predictably accompany such far-reaching transformations and xenophobic and racist sentiments can easily be aroused as a part of the process. Yet xenophobia and racism are natural enemies of democracy and freedom of speech and stand in the way of achieving peaceful solutions to pressing social problems. We are not surprised that attempts to turn the legal and political systems into weapons against dissent should come from people associated with the FP÷. What does surprise us, however, is that so little apparently is being done by the authorities to counteract such a grave threat to free expression and open political debate.
Our concern has been especially raised by the judgement against the internationally renowned social scientist Anton Pelinka by the Viennese Criminal Court (Straflandesgericht) for having “defamed” the character of former Freedom Party Leader Joerg Haider. Pelinka’s alleged misdeed was to make the following statement on Italian television: “During his career, Haider repeatedly made statements which amount to trivializing National Socialism. Once he described death camps as penal camps. On the whole, Haider is responsible for making certain National Socialist positions and certain National Socialist remarks more politically acceptable.” In many countries, Pelinka’s statements would simply be taken as a legitimate expression of opinion about a public figure. One might question its validity or wisdom, but not his right to state such opinions in public. From the decision to fine Pelinka it is but a small step to restricting the freedom of academic speech more broadly. The fact that the acting Austrian Minister of Justice Dieter B–hmdorfer, an FP÷ member, is partner in the law firm responsible for such prosecutions only makes this episode more disturbing.
We have come to Vienna to express our belief in the possibility of communication among researchers from all countries and social groups. To the best of our knowledge, Austria does not wish to remain isolated or to disengage itself from exchanges of this kind. We sincerely hope you agree with us that such participation cannot be reconciled with the politics of intimidation and attacks on freedom of speech. We would like to express our support for academics who are prosecuted in whatever form for their scientific or political opinions and our opposition to the xenophobia and racism that have found public expression in your country. We hope that our opposition will help inspire scholars and citizens in other countries to take firm positions against similar tendencies in their societies.
We the undersigned members of EASST, 4S and participants in this conference urge you to use your authority to stop the abuse of the Austrian legal and political systems for the suppression of politically sensitive speech, ideas and opinions.
Respectfully,
Prof. Dr. Sheila Jasanoff (Harvard University) Dr. Rob Hagendijk (University of Amsterdam) Univ. Prof. Dr. Ulrike Felt (University of Vienna)
Vienna, September 27, 2000
This letter to the President was joined by 220 other signers at the 4S/EASST Conference in Vienna. President Thomas Klestil sent a letter back to Ulrike Felt on 18 October, in which he notably declared:
“I can assure you that, within my possibilities, I will do everything to protect the fundamental values of freedom of expression and democracy from attacks and abuse. I have made this clear during the past weeks in countless talks and also in public, and I will also come back to this in my address on televison on the National holiday.”