My policy class at the Quello Center at MSU is reading the report, and will join the live stream of the conference. I hope you will do the same. Information about live streaming of the event will be on the conference Web site, so consider joining the conversation. UNESCO’s is doing all it can do to ensure that this is truly a multistakeholder consultation on how UNESCO can contribute to fostering an inclusive, global, open and secure Internet in the coming years.
On the day the FCC voted 3-2 for net neutrality rules, the Quello Center announced the launch of our ‘Net Neutrality Impact’ (NNI) study. After years of speculations and predictions about the implications of network neutrality, we will be able to study the actual consequences through a natural experiment created by the FCC’s ruling. So remember what you have claimed to the likely consequences of net neutrality, write them down, let us know, and follow our project at the Quello Center. Of course, we also welcome the involvement of other policy researchers who are as curious as we are about what will flow from this decision and how to capture these impacts in the most reliable and valid way.
Follow the project and the Quello Center on Twitter @QuelloCenter
Please take some time to consider this last call for nominations to the Communication and Technology (CAT) Awards Committee for three different awards. CAT is a division of the International Communication Association (ICA):
Finally, the CAT Awards Committee has been asked to recommend members of CAT to be considered for nomination as ICA Fellows. There is nothing to prevent members nominating individuals on their own, but if you’d like the CAT Awards Committee to consider nominating individuals, please send us your nominations. See: http://www.icahdq.org/about_ica/fellows.asp
Thank you for your help. Send any nominations for any of these awards to Quello@msu.edu and indicate the ICA Award in the subject heading.
Bill Dutton, Quello Center, MSU
Chair of CAT Awards Committee
Monica Bulger, Data & Society Research Institute, New York City, and Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford University, UK
Leah Lievrouw, Department of Information Studies, UCLA
Joseph Walther, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, NTU, Singapore
Ran Wei, School of Journalism & Mass Communications, University of South Carolina
Simeon Yates, Institute of Cultural Capital, University of Liverpool and Liverpool John Moores University, UK
Good to see the article in today’s NYTs, entitled “U.S. Intensifies Effort to Blunt ISIS’ Message’: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/world/middleeast/us-intensifies-effort-to-blunt-isis-message.html?_r=0 Focusing on changes afoot at the US State Department’s Center for Strategic Counterterriorism Communications, there was an emphasis on building on the scale of efforts underway to respond to radical messages online, which is fully warranted. This need for greater scale along with other related issues for addressing efforts to join the conversation online and challenge the narratives and misinformation about US policy and practice in the online environment was the focus of a research paper of mine with Lina Khatib and Mike Thelwall that was published in 2012 (citation and link are below). I believe it is still relevant and maybe informative for those seeking to bolster the role of this digital outreach team, which has many strengths, such as using Arabic on Arabic Web sites, and identifying members of the outreach team by name – it is completely clear that they speak for the State Department.
Peter Pomerantsev, speaking about the role of the mass media in Russia, coined a valuable phrase, arguing that President Putin was not involved in an information war, as much as a ‘war on information’.* This is certainly seems to me to be an apt characterization of the Russian President’s strategy in debates over Ukraine. His book, entitled Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible: The Surreal Heart of the New Russia, was published in 2014 (NY: Public Affairs). It now seems to be rightfully receiving a good deal of media coverage.
You can see the impact of this strategy on many within the Western media, who seem to be unable to say anything definitive about the conflict in the Ukraine – completely at a loss over basic issues, such as whether Russian troops and arms have crossed the border, when continually denied by President Putin and other spokesmen for the regime.
In such wars on information, the sourcing of information by netizens becomes ever more valuable. Rather than confusing the realities on the ground, netizens – the Fifth Estate – become ever more valuable and trusted sources of what is actually happening. Somehow, the elite press have put themselves in a position where claims and counter-claims disable them as they are kept from the actual fields of the conflict. Their responsible journalistic practices seem to have become easy prey in the war on information. For months, the NYT seemed unable to speak definitely about Russian incursions into Ukraine, although recent articles in the NYT increasingly make this observation.
We need networked individuals sourcing their own material, and we need networks of individuals working to synthesize and communicate this collective intelligence to a global community of those interested in making their own sense of conflicts sources of information.
Of course, I would certainly welcome thoughts on how to best cope and respond to this ‘war on information’ and whether it is indeed a useful perspective on the current illustration of being lost in information about Russia and Ukraine.
I interviewed Professor Christine Borgman last year for Voices from Oxford about issues covered in her forthcoming book, which has now been published. Entitled Big Data, Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in the Digital Age (OUP 2015), it represents a very clear eyed, mature, and incredibly informed perspective on the real opportunities and problems facing the treatment of data across the sciences, social sciences and humanities. I have a personal interest in Christine’s work, as she was a Visiting Fellow at the OII and then an Oliver Smithies Visiting Fellow at Balliol College during my time at these Oxford centers for scholarship. Moreover, she critically looks at OxIS, the Oxford Internet Surveys, which I helped shape. But you don’t need my endorsement. Her book has glowing endorsements from major figures in the field, including Jonathan Zittrain, John Leslie King, and Gregg Gordon, President and CEO of the Social Science Research Network.
I may not agree with every aspect of all of her key arguments, but these issues are genuine points of controversy within the scholarly community, such as around appropriate standards, and trivial in relation to her basic thesis, which is brilliant. What I would like to point out are two truly remarkable aspects of her book.
First, she has provided one of the first and only books that offer a critical perspective on big data at a time when this subject remains high on the hype cycle, dominated by breathtaking perspectives on the future prospects of mining this new resource. Borgman certainly does not dismiss the real value of big data, but she provides a methodologically and information-science informed perspectives on the problems confronting the effective use of big data, which is juxtaposed with other kinds of research, even research that does not claim to use any data. Very few critiques of big data have the breadth of comparative coverage across all kinds of data, from ethnographic to survey to big data sets. Most of us are steeped in one or the other approach, but all of us should welcome insights that flow from looking across the range of data used in scholarly research.
Secondly, Professor Borgman is able to cover the humanities, social sciences and sciences in equally informed ways. As an information scientist with tremendous breadth and experience, she is able to speak with as much authority on issues of the digital humanities as on digital social research and e-Science. But its broader than that: Think of the matrix of methods covering all kinds of data in the humanities, social sciences and sciences and start naming the authorities who could give keynotes in each field. Christine will be one of the few on your list. As Christine points out, even C. P. Snow left out the social sciences. (Thanks, Christine, for covering the social sciences, and in such an equivalent way.)
I hope this book is incorporated in courses beyond the information sciences, and include methods courses across the sciences, social sciences and humanities. It could be a key book for courses on the philosophy of science as it provides a rich understanding of how scholars actually do their work across these contrasting substantive and methodological fields.
I have just received my copy of a new and wonderful book, entitled Can the Media Serve Democracy? Essays in Honour of Jay G. Blumler (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), edited by Jay’s colleagues at Leeds, Stephen Coleman, Giles Moss and Katy Parry. What a fitting tribute to Jay. The volume focuses on the question that has driven Jay’s work over the decades, and the essays assemble some of the luminaries in the field, including Elihu Katz, Paulo Mancini, Denis McQuail, James Curran, David Weaver, and Sonia Livingstone, along with an interview with Jay himself.
The book was the centerpiece of a Festschrift held for Jay in Leeds this month, February 2015, organised by the editors. I could not be there, as I was attending a conference in celebration of the 50th Anniversary of Comparative Communication Research at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. You can imagine my pleasure when the first paper and panel of the conference provided a review and citation analysis of literature in this field and Jay G. Blumler was noted as perhaps the most prominent, and influential communication scholar of comparative media studies. Moreover, Jay continued to be praised throughout the conference, including his role as President of the ICA and an editor of Comparatively Speaking (1992). What great illustration of the global impact and longevity of his work? In sync with the message of influence provided at the Hong Kong conference, James Curran’s essay in the Festschrift book is entitled ‘Jay Blumler: A Founding Father of British Media Studies’.
This is a book that is must reading for any media and communication scholar. It grapples with the fundamental question of media studies, including studies of the Internet, social media and related new media. Jay stayed focused on the big questions, whether studying British election coverage, the emergence of wired cities, back in the 1980s with me, or the rise of new media since the turn of the century. And the range of contributions from key scholars in the field make this book one of the best contemporary treatments of the media and democracy available, not only for scholars of the field, but also for students, who can see through this book the potential of an individual to shape major fields of communication. My thanks to the editors for such an outstanding collection.
Blumler, J. G. (1992), Comparatively Speaking. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Coleman, S., Moss, G., and Parry, K. (2015), Can Democracy Serve Democracy? London: Palgrave Macmillan.