Why I went
At the bottom of the screen something changed. A quick glance told me ‘new mail arrived’. Curiosity killed the cat, not the mouse. Symposium Announcement by the Design & Media Research Fellowship, Jan van Eyck Academy, the Netherlands. Preferred Placement: The Hit Economy, Hyperlink Diplomacy and Web Epistemology, excuse cross-postings. What is this? One of my lazy tricks to find out is to forward such messages to other group members and bring it up during lunch. Responses differed from “web epistemology? Don’t they have anything better to do?” to “authoritative voice, trust, crackpots. Fascinating! One of us should go!”
Why? What caught our interest most was the cause of the event - ‘one of the everlasting challenges of the Web’ as it was put. That challenge was how to deal with the ‘democratic nature of the Net’, authenticating the ‘real source’ and ‘distinguishing between the eminent and the crackpot’. If that isn’t thought provoking! What made me rush to Amsterdam, however, was not a strong concern for Web dictators and Cyber Soviets, but the analogy with a discussion in a rather different area, the new genetics and plant biotechnology. Like the Web much of the new genetics is about information, transmitted through DNA. What is considered a challenge in plant genetics however is completely the opposite. Most plant-genetic information of food crops is stored in gene-banks that do not stand out for their democratic nature. The biotech industry is widely criticised for claiming authenticity over genetic information through patenting and a major aim of the critics is to allow ‘crackpots’ - mostly resource-poor farmers - access to the information, something now reluctantly admitted as being important by some of the big institutes. Is there an opposite democratic tendency in the control of cyber information and genetic information? And something that is crucial in such matter, what is the role of technologies in all this? So up I went in a 16th century building to find out about the Hit Economy and Web Epistemology.
Waking up in a different world? As might have been expected, all presenters knew how to handle computer software to beef up their talks - lots of fancy frames and sexy slides, with one exception. The coffee breaks and lunch partitioned the presentations in pairs and that appeared to fit very well with what was presented.
The first couple, Nick Durrant and Korinna Patelis, were announced as defender and prosecutor of the Hit Economy. In the Hit Economy the scarce item is ‘visuality’ and companies kill to get on top of hit lists. A real problem! Well, in fact Durrant’s presentation was not about the hit economy but about web architecture. Architects have a reputation for disliking too much interference from housing committees and the like as well as abhorring the do-it-yourself enthusiasts.Durrant developed a similar position for the Web and his final plea was ‘more design’. Like a real architect he preferred to mystify rather than to clarify what that would mean. Patelis’s talk was a bit closer to the hit economy. She presented a political economy of the Web in which the major aim however was not to reveal the economic mechanisms, but the (dirty) political tricks that were played on Internet. Patelis provided some nice examples of Web politics, but she did not really put to the test whether the Web can be subjected to a straightforward politico-economic analysis. At least she left me somewhat puzzled about that. Exit the Hit Economy.
The second couple, Martin Dodge and Matthew Chalmers, discussed the issue of how to find one’s bearings in virtual space.[1] Dodge gave a very solid overview of the new cyber branch of cartography called Information Visualisation. What became particularly clear was that the options of visualising information seemed to be endless. That was precisely the problem Chalmers focused on in his presentation. In his view static structures to organise information are useless. The lingual and interactive character of the Web requires structures that follow the users. One of his examples was an attempt to map weather information on Swiss web pages. The analysis of links and visitors delivered a picture that had very little to do with Swiss meteorology but was all about skiing. Besides these analytical observations it was also his provocative remarks - such as ‘this kind of stuff really bores me’ and ‘often I decide to simply switch off the machine’ - that made me realise you cannot get a clear picture of the virtual world simply by staring at a computer screen. But what do we need?
Back with both feet on the ground
After lunch there was first a group of researchers from the Jan van Eyck Academy that presented the results of a Web analysis.[2] The way they made the connection with the real world can be labeled ‘issue driven’. The chosen topic was the current debate over Genetically Modified Food. They had analysed references and cross- linkages of a selected number of websites of major players in the GM Food controversy and visualised the outcome in a nice piece of design. The analysis was meant to show ‘how authority and reliability on the web may be authored’. But what about the real issue? Did the analysis also show how authority and reliability was authored off-line? That was not a key question in the analysis, but can the question be avoided? Well, that’s the next symposium. First some words on the second presentation after lunch in which a link with the real world was made by ‘simulation’. Michael Murtaugh showed some fine examples of how computers can play a role in public debate, ‘as an input device for public policy-making’. His presentation contained several examples of software containing visualisations of issues, views of experts and politicians and the possibility for users to form an opinion and influence those of others. The software Murtaugh presented introduced the real world in cyberspace creating possibilities to enhance participation in decision making in the real world. Real interaction!
In the last two presentations of the day Gerald Wagner and Steve Woolgar gave their view on what the Web and the virtual world brought us in the past decades. Wagner was the only one who did not use any software support for his presentation and that is perhaps the best illustration for his main argument. The Internet affects modern society far less then all the web giants and media freaks want us to believe. At its best it might affect theories about communication, but for the moment there is even very little evidence for that. His main plea was to focus more on communication tools as an object for study. That was exactly what Woolgar and his impressive group of researchers did in the past couple of years. Woolgar presented some preliminary findings of the Virtual Society? Programme, delivering a sceptical but sharp picture of what’s going on. The scepticism was best illustrated by several quotes that predicted radical changes after the introduction of … the Internet? No, the telegraph (1840s), radio (1924), television (1952) and community video (1972). As a Dutch saying goes ‘the soup is never eaten as hot as it is served’. Some interesting findings by Woolgar’s group are that visual anonymity of the Web enhances identification with groups and reinforces existing social boundaries. It appeared that access to the Web is a social rather than a technical issue. And a huge amount of cyberspace is occupied by ‘global wired welfare,’ people finding relief by sharing their misery. Woolgar did not reveal what overall picture of society that would result in; ‘keep monitoring’ was his main message.
Satisfied? I missed most of the general discussion at the end, but virtually it could have gone like this. Dividing the presentations in pairs is one way to do it, but we also might draw the line between Patelis, Chalmers, Wagner and Woolgar on the one hand and the rest of the presenters at the other. A clear difference between the two is that the latter are all actively involved in constructing information technology or making software. The others merely observe and register such processes. Would they have any recommendations or suggestions for software programmers and web architects? To come back to some questions raised before, can we analyse Internet by looking at websites and software or do we need to incorporate programmers, users and the social entities they belong to? How to assess the role of cyberspace in issues like the GM food debate? Is a political economy as put forward by Patelis enough, will the ‘analytic scepticism’ and ‘constant vigilance’ of Woolgar do, or do we need to mix it up with some good-old German sociology and Scottish philosophy? This is crucial in my view not just to answer questions like whether we need more control on authenticity or to allow more crackpots to join in. What is important though is whether there are patterns in the distribution of the social and technical. Is it useful to talk about increasing participation of the lay audience in for example the GM food debate through Internet, or will ‘audience’ always be a particular audience - probably not differing very much from the ones already involved? In my view this is what Woolgar very nicely put forward as ‘how to promote technographic sensibility’. Let’s hope there will soon be a next symposium where he and others can provide some answers.
Notes
His presentation is on the Web - have a look at http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/martin/amster.pdf.
Richard Rogers, Ian Morris, Alex Wilkie, Noortje Marres and Stephanie Hankey. See http://www.govcom.org.
Author’s address: harro.maat@tao.tct.wau.nl