An old colleague who contributed to the founding of the Oxford Internet Institute in 2001 reminded me of a question he was asked back then: There is no institute for research on the telephone, so why do we need one on the Internet? Back then, I did not think the question merited an answer, but he keeps replaying it nearly every time I see him, so let me answer it now.
First, no technology can be simply equated with a piece of equipment. It has long been accepted that a technology encompasses a range of equipment, but also the people who design, use, and govern it, as well as the techniques involved in its use. In short, no one would be interested in a telephone per se, but in the equipment, people, and techniques involved in communicating by phone — the technology of telecommunications.
Secondly, there have been massive centres of research, training, and education related to telecommunications, such as the famous Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. — the former subsidiary of American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T). Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. has been awarded multiple Nobel Prizes and Turing Awards for its work, and tens of thousands of people were employed across its various laboratories.
Thirdly, there are centres, institutes, and departments of telecommunications at many universities worldwide. It has long been an academic field of study with international associations and societies.
In my opinion, there has been less public research on the history and social factors shaping the design and use of the telephone — and on its broader societal implications — than the subject merits. Few technologies have been as important to human communication as telephony. One excellent example of relevant scholarly work is an edited volume published in 1977 by Ithiel de Sola Pool, entitled The Social Impact of the Telephone (Cambridge: MIT Press). More public research would likely have been conducted had so much telephone research not been confined to Bell Labs.
For all of these reasons, no serious person should entertain the notion that the telephone has gone unstudied.
When its Picturephone flopped in the market, Bell Telephone Laboratories finally initiated research into the social and psychological factors that affected the flop. I performed some of that research — and published papers. The video of the Picturephone made users tense and also unusual eye behavior.
“Bell Laboratories” does rodent control products. “Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc.” or the aka “Bell Labs” should be used.
But yes, as Bill observes, the telephone did not receive the attention from social researchers that other media received. Perhaps the telephone (speech communication) was such a part of our lives that it was perceived as boring.
A. Michael Noll