Email Disrupting Life at Home?

Email Disrupting Life at Home? Careful What You Ask For

In France and other nations there is discussion of somehow banning email after 6pm or outside of working hours. For example, see here. Perhaps this could help provide a better work-life balance or prevent households from competing with email for the attention of their family. But this raises not only problems of implementation, but also the reverse – shall we start policing the personal use of communication and information technologies like email in the office?

email-management

Implementation would be impossible. You could get email at home or outside of work hours, but also work related Tweets, texts, messages, calls, video calls, WeChats, social media posts, and more. Email is only one avenue into the household, and declining in use relative other social media and other new media. Implementation would also be problematic by what would be a regulatory overreach, with public regulation reaching into the use of media in the households and private companies and NGOs, etc.

But the greatest threat is that this will go both ways. Companies, government departments, NGOs and others will want their employees and managers to stop using electronic media for personal reasons while at work, or during the work day, such as checking on your children, or making reservations, or getting any personal emails.

The first dissertation I supervised on corporate email was in 1980 and one of the key issues in these early days when email was beginning to be used in business instead of telegrams or faxes, was a worry that employees would use email for personal reasons that had nothing to do with work. My response then and now has always been that this should not be a worry. Personal uses of email at work are helpful for the morale and time management of people in the workplace, and – it goes both ways – email will enable employees to handle some business at home. And especially in the early days of email, personal use helped bring business people online, as then and now, many resist the use of online media for business purposes. There is a positive synergy (sorry to use that word) between the use of communication technologies at home and at work – a win-win.

Encourage and teach individuals to manage their time and self-regulate their engagement with work from home and vice versa, but don’t try to regulate something for which no one size fits all.

BBC news coverage: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26958079

10th Anniversary of OII’s DPhil in Information, Communication & the Social Sciences

It was a real honour today to speak with some of the alumni (a new word for Oxford) of the Oxford Internet Institute’s DPhil programme. A number came together to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the DPhil. It began four seemingly long years after I became the OII’s founding director in 2002. So while I have retired from Oxford, it was wonderful to return virtually to congratulate these graduates on their degrees.

The programme, like the OII itself, was hatched through four years of discussions around how the Institute (which is a department at Oxford University) should move into teaching. Immediately after my arrival we began organizing the OII’s Summer Doctoral Programme (SDP), which was an instant success and continues to draw top doctoral students from across the world who want to hone their thesis through an intensive summer programme with other doctoral students focused on Internet studies. The positive experience we had with this programme led us to move quickly to set up the DPhil – and four years is relatively quick in Oxford time.

As I told our alumni, the quality of our doctoral students has been largely responsible for the esteem the OII was able to gain across the university and colleges of Oxford. That and the international visibility of the OII enabled the department to later develop our Masters programme, and continue to attract excellent faculty and students from around the world. th-1

I am certain the OII DPhil programme has and will continue to progress since I left Oxford in 2014, such as in adding such strong faculty as Phil Howard and Gina Neff. However, I believe its early success was supported by four key principles that were part of our founding mission:

First, it was anchored in the social sciences. The OII is a department within the Division of Social Sciences at Oxford, which includes the Law Faculty. In 2002, but even since, this made us relatively unique given that so many universities, particular in the USA, viewed study of the Internet as an aspect of computer sciences and engineering. It is increasingly clear that Internet issues are multidisciplinary, and need a strong social science component that the social sciences should be well equipped to contribute. Many social sciences faculty are moving into Internet studies, which has become a burgeoning field, but the OII planted Internet studies squarely in the social sciences.

Secondly, our DPhil emphasized methods from the beginning. We needed to focus on methods to be respected across the social sciences in Oxford. But also we knew that the OII could actually move the social sciences forward in such areas as online research, later digital social science, and big data analytics as applied to the study of society. The OII did indeed help move the methods in the social sciences at Oxford into the digital age, such as through its work on e-Science and digital social research.

Thirdly, while it is somewhat of a cliché that research and teaching can complement each other, this was always the vision for the OII DPhil programme. And it happened in ways more valuable than we anticipated.

Finally, because Oxford was a green field in the areas of media, information and communication studies, with no legacy departments vying to own Internet studies, we could innovate around Internet studies from a multi-disciplinary perspective. And we found that many of the best students applying to the OII were multidisciplinary in their training even before they arrived, and understood the value of multidisciplinary, problem-focused research and teaching.

As you can see, I found the discussion today to be very stimulating. My 12 years at Oxford remains one of the highlights of my career, but it is so much enhanced by seeing our alumni continue to be engaged with the institute. So many thanks to Dame Stephanie Shirley for endowing the OII, and the many scholars across Oxford University and its Colleges, such as Andrew Graham and Colin Lucas, for their confidence and vision in establishing the OII and making the DPhil programme possible.

Remember, the OII was founded in 2001, shortly after the dotcom bubble burst and at a university that is inherently skeptical of new fields. Today the Internet faces a new wave of criticisms ranging from online bullying to global cyber security, including heightened threats to freedom of expression and privacy online. With politicians worldwide ratcheting up attacks on whistleblowers and social media, claiming undue political influence, threats to the Internet are escalating. This new wave of panic around the Internet and social media will make the OII and other departments focused on Internet studies even more critical in the coming years.

 

 

Joining Editorial Board of Internet Histories

Delighted to be joining the editorial board of an exciting new journal, Internet Histories: Digital Technology, Culture & Society.

You may have seen a special issue of Information & Culture that I helped edit and contributed to: Guest Editor: Haigh, T., Russell, A. and Dutton, W. H. (2015) (eds), ‘Histories of the Internet’, special issue for the journal Information & Culture, 50(2), May-June: 143-283. We were calling for more focus on exactly this area.

The editors note that “Internet Histories is an international, interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal concerned with research on the cultural, social, political and technological histories of the internet and associated digital cultures.

The journal embraces empirical as well as theoretical and methodological studies within the field of the history of the internet broadly conceived — from early computer networks, Usenet and Bulletin Board Systems, to everyday Internet with the web through the emergence of new forms of internet with mobile phones and tablet computers, social media, and the internet of things.

The journal will also provide the premier outlet for cutting-edge research in the closely related area of histories of digital techologies, cultures, and societies.

A hallmark of the journal is its desire to publish and catalyse research and scholarly debate on the development, forms, and histories of the internet internationally, across the full global range of countries, regions, cultures, and communities. You can read more about the journal here http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/internet-histories.

Internet Histories will be published by Taylor & Francis 4 times per year (four digital issues, compiled in two print issues) commencing in early 2017.”

The editors of this new journal are: Professor Niels Brügger, School of Communication and Culture, Aarhus University; Assistant Professor Megan Sapnar Ankerson, Department of Communication Studies, University of Michigan; Professor Gerard Goggin, Department of Media and Communications, University of Sydney; and Dr Valérie Schafer, Institute for Communication Sciences, CNRS/Paris-Sorbonne/UPMC.

I hope you will consider submitting your best work around this topic to the journal.

 

 

Trapped in the Web of Forms

Trapped in a Web of Online Forms

Most handwringing over the Internet is focused on social media and worries over the decline of civility, such as with online bullying or harassment. It might be that this focus misses one of the most worrying trends online for me, which is the migration of interpersonal communication to interaction with online forms. I’m afraid of being trapped in a world wide web of forms and templates that distance me from communication with real human beings.

Forms are not new and they can be a good thing. We have to fill in forms to apply for jobs, credit cards, universities, and virtually everything. The Internet and Web make it easier to create and complete a form. The problem is that this is becoming so easy that too many individuals and organizations are creating too many forms for too many things. It is clearly the case of too much of a good thing.

In fact, we are creating so many forms that there is a demand for software for individuals to use to fill out forms. You can automate your completion of forms, such as automatically filling in your email and address details. But this just throws gasoline on the fire, making easier and easier to complete forms, and incentivizing the use of more forms. imgres-1

The problem is that they can distance people from communicating with real people. You fill out a form instead of speaking to a person. No person may read your completed form. It is processed automatically – it can be truly automated. In fact, if you wanted to speak with a real person about the form and its purpose, you might find it difficult if not impossible to do so. In short, forms are increasingly mediating if not substituting for human communication.

They also shift the workload – the costs. Forms are one of the lifelines of bureaucracies and, not surprisingly, Web-based forms are literally automating bureaucracies. Any bureaucrat can create a form to replace actually talking to people. This is an approach to shifting the workload from the bureaucrat to the individual customer, staff person, citizen, or consumer. Instead of a manager or bureaucrat sifting through files to pull together specific information about a particular population, say his or her staff, s/he asks the staff to fill in a Web-based form. Wah lah, each individual has to do the work, and the results are automatically aggregated on a simple spreadsheet. No work for the administrator, but the administrator is somewhat distanced from the quality and nature of the information, which s/he might have gathered from assembling it the old way.

By replacing more direct interaction, forms can also eliminate or reduce tacit knowledge that can be gained through interpersonal communication, such as with students. Step by step, online courses are moving teachers away from direct contact with students. Contact will be the exception rather than the rule. Once a team of instructors set up a course, with automatic enrollment, payments, assignments, and grading, only the problems bubble up to be handled by the live instructors, and maybe even the professor versus online teaching assistants. As a teacher, I cannot help but believe this will inevitably undermine the instructor’s sense of the audience – the students. Arguably, the instructor will know more, such as how many students watch which videos, looked at which slides, and scored what marks on each assignment. And they can reach thousands of students rather than tens or hundreds of students. But this automation of the virtual classroom is just added incentive to automate ever more of the teaching experience.

I for one do not want to go back to a day of filling in forms by hand. Forms can be a nightmare in any medium. But the dream of the Internet and Web was once one of bypassing levels of hierarchy and bureaucratic lines of authority to communicate more directly with information and people. It turns out that this might have been a transitory phenomenon that is giving way to a more form-based and more automated bureaucratic future than one could ever have imagined. imgres-2

It may seem hopeless. You are increasingly forced to fill in a form to do anything. Recently, when preparing to submit a proposal, my university messaged me that before I submitted the proposal, I had to complete an exam, based on reading an online tutorial. To meet the deadline, I had to break all records in working through the tutorial and passing the exam in the nick of time to meet the proposal deadline. This is automated bureaucratic power being exercised without mussing a hair on the head of any administrator.

What can be done? You can call attention to cases when forms are being over-used or used inappropriately. Let colleagues and others know about bad forms, such as those that are not usable or user friendly. When you have an option, ask about whether participating in a particular task will require you to work with automated forms and templates. When you don’t like the expectations, and you have an option, you can refuse to participate in activities that require form mediated interaction. Also, be vocal and strategic in complaining about forms that undermine real communication with an individual or an organization. Rage against the new machine – the online forms and templates.

Please let me know or comment if you know of people thinking about these issues. You can reach me personally on William.Dutton at gmail.com

Pursuing a Career and a Higher Degree? Désirée Did

As an academic, I often meet people with successful careers who are contemplating a return to the classroom, such as to get an advanced degree – writing a thesis for an MA or PhD. For most, it remains a dream – but a colleague of mine – Désirée Miloshevic – who works in the Internet governance arena ‘did it’.

I met Désirée over 15 years ago as an academic interested in learning about Internet governance. She was working in the industry of names & numbers, and actively involved with the governance community that moves around the world from meeting to meeting. She completed her undergraduate studies at the University of Belgrade and is now living in London and working as the Senior Public Policy and International Affairs Advisor in Europe for Afilias, a global provider of Internet infrastructure and registry services. She always amazed me by how she could balance her life and work amidst the travel demands of her career. But she took the time to answer any of my questions about the people and issues tied to Internet governance.

A few years ago, when she spoke with me about pursing a Masters Degree, I thought it would be impossible. How could she take on another demanding set of obligations?

Well, she did it.

D. Miloshevic, Malta
D. Miloshevic, Malta

I just heard that in August 2015, Desiree was awarded distinction for her Masters thesis in the Department of International Relations at Malta University. The title of her thesis was ‘How is Trust Defined in Internet Governance Organisations?’ Or, she says: ‘Applied Ethics in Not-for-Profit Internet Organisations’. It was an empirical study anchored in a survey of five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs).

Her reviewers noted that her thesis ‘focuses on these non-profit organizations in five global regions and aptly explores how these organizations embed the notion of trust in their daily activity.’ And she accomplishes this in a way that is likely to ‘impinge on future debates on Internet Governance’. The thesis completed her MA in Contemporary Diplomacy.

So when the next busy professional tells me that they want to pursue a higher degree, I won’t ask them why they want to do that – ‘You’re already successful’. ‘Why?’ Instead, I tell them about my friend Désirée.

Opportunities for CNN and Candidates in the First Democratic Party Debate

Five candidates are preparing for the CNN debate to be held in Las Vegas on 13 October 2015: Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, but also Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee. There are two likely outcomes.

The first is an opportunity to actually debate the issues. The previous Fox and CNN debates failed to engage the candidates in a genuine debate of the issues, perhaps as a consequence of the sheer number of candidates on stage. On Tuesday, with five candidates, there will be no excuse for not asking the candidates to debate key issues, yet that remains to be seen. [Tracy Westen and I have been writing about this shortcoming of the GOP debates.]

Secondly, I expect that this is a key opportunity for the lesser known candidates to gain greater visibility. Martin O’Malley, for example, could gain support for his candidacy by virtue of just being heard. Even though there are fewer candidates in the Democratic Party Primary, it is amazing how focused the media have been on the two frontrunners, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Even Joe Biden, yet to decide on his candidacy, has received tremendous coverage. The other three candidates have received very little indeed. For example, the Sunday NYT (11 October 2015) prepares readers for the coming debate by discussing the debating skills of Bernie and Hillary, but not one column inch on O’Malley, Webb, or Chafee. This is one more illustration of the limitations of the mass media in elections. More use needs to be made of the Internet, Web and social media to cover a wider range of issues and candidates.

imgres

It might well be that the three lesser knowns will have the most to win in this CNN debate, as this stage will give them the best opportunity to-date to make their case as credible alternatives to the two front-runners. My prediction is that Martin O’Malley will be the biggest winner of Tuesday’s CNN debate, but the most important outcome should be the airing of candidate positions on key issues. This is the responsibility of the moderators at CNN.

A New Approach to Presidential Debates by Tracy Westen and Bill Dutton

Multimedia Convergence: A New Approach to Presidential Debates

     “A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both.” 

     “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance. And a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

— James Madison

What should be done to reform the currently abysmal televised presidential debates?

We have criticized recent media efforts to stage a meaningful debate among the presidential candidates. We have also enumerated a number of reasons why online debates have not achieved their potential. In this post, we suggest that the way forward might be a converged approach in which the mass media, Internet and social media are combined to provide multiple platforms for more equitable and informative treatments of all candidates, while also providing engaging and accessible means for voters to evaluate the candidates on all the factors they consider most important – positions on key issues; personalities, including strength of character, experience, judgment, intelligence and leadership skills; and endorsements by credible and respected individuals, organizations, media outlets and political parties.

Consider the following:

1) Reporters on a news channel (Fox, CNN, CBS, PBS) ask all the candidates questions by posting them on a moderated election website created by the channel (or collaboratively by multiple news channels). Reporters post the questions in a video format and ideally in audio and textual formats as well. The news channel moderates the website to ensure that multiple reporters do not ask the same question, and that the questions are judged to be important and pertinent to the election. The channel also invites viewers to submit candidate questions and can post them as well. The questions, for example, might ask: What’s your position on the Iran Deal? Improving the economy? Abortion? The growing divides between rich and poor?

2) The news channels give all candidates an opportunity to post the answers to the questions in short videos, and in audio and textual formats as well. The news channels offer candidates the use of their affiliates’ TV studios, teleprompters and makeup facilities in cities through the nation to videotape their statements. The video responses are limited to one minute (or even 30 seconds). The news channels post the answers on the website, so viewers can click the question, then click and watch the answers from the candidates they’re interested in. A clickable “map” on the site shows a flow-chart with the questions (“Iran”) and candidate answers (“Clinton”).

To be sure, this proposal might encounter resistance. News channels would need to incur logistic and financial expenses to create and administer the websites, and they would have to collaborate to create a single unified website. Candidates would need to acquire easy access to videotaping facilities in TV stations, network affiliates and news channel studios across the nation to allow them to create quick response videos. Campaign consultants would have to soften their resistance to allowing their candidates to take detailed positions on specific issues or make more spontaneous quick-response statements. But the proposal has the advantage of drawing on the strengths of all media – the mass audiences of TV, radio and print, and the user inter-activeness of the Internet – which offer more space for more candidates and more opportunities for voters to challenge and learn from candidates.

3) Reporters post follow-up questions for the responding candidates, and each candidate has a chance to videotape a response/answer to the reporters’ questions and/or any of the other candidates’ first position posts (in #2). The expanding visual map shows the chain of responses.

4) If necessary, reporters can post follow-up questions to dig into the issues, raise difficulties with various answers, ask two candidates to respond to each other, etc. Candidates may answer the reporter’s follow-up questions or rebut the last candidates’ statements. The visual map will expand so users can follow the chain of events and watch individual candidate conversations or match-ups.

Up to this point, voters visiting the website can structure their own debate: click one question, then click several candidate responses, then click various candidate rebuttals, etc. Each candidate has an incentive to respond to reporters’ questions or risk marginalization in the debate. Even leading candidates have an incentive to respond, since this medium offers them the likelihood of reaching a larger audience. As more candidates respond to more issues, the site becomes more valuable to more candidates and voters, creating incentives for both to participate.

But then:

5) The news channels transform the Internet debates into breaking TV news coverage. The host news channel (or news channel collaboration) prepares nightly or weekly news stories on the expanding debates, describing newly announced positions, highlighting candidate rebuttals to difficult questions, featuring voter inquiries, focusing on emerging disputes. News commentators provide their opinions on the evolving debates. And this TV news coverage is then posted back on the website and made available to Internet visitors.

6) Outside reporters or bloggers assemble their own news stories from the posted video questions and candidate statements — which are deemed to be “open source” materials and freely available to all. These stories summarize the positions of particular candidates on specific issues, point out how candidate positions differ, and use video clips and quotes as illustrations. News providers then blog, post or broadcast summaries, creating another layer of coverage.

7) Visitors to any of these news sites post comments or responses to the candidate positions, and they post comments on the TV news coverage and print editorials. Candidates respond directly, answering questions, critiquing summaries, clarifying positions and raising new issues.

8) News organizations provide links to more detailed background research on the substantive issues being discussed (e.g., statistics on abortions in the U.S., the negotiations leading up to the Iran Deal, etc.).

9) Candidates provide links to video, audio or textual endorsements by prominent individuals, organizations or media outlets. Political parties add their views. Voters could add their questions and assess the personalities and leadership qualities of candidates by watching their video answers.

10) The website site grows into an expanding “wiki” for presidential candidates and voter information. The website’s programming infrastructure is made available free to other users. State and local news organizations adapt it for local political races. The sites are archived for historical and research purposes.

Other Considerations:

Such a converged multimedia process might generate an expanding, more informative and in-depth discussion of important political and campaign issues. By integrating television, audio, print and the Internet, and by using each to generate programming for the others, reporters could edit candidate question and answers into an evolving multimedia debate, showing videos of candidates making statements, rebutting each other, and commenting on the rebuttals — similar to a news summary of an actual debate — without the web user having to click on each item. Site visitors can dig into the issues and compare candidates’ positions. Web visitors can structure their own debates, or choose to look at what particular candidates post about specific issues, or simply watch the video news summaries, or even read about it in a text format. It would also give the candidates the ability to express emotion, use rhetoric, and engage in a back-and-forth in a virtual format.

To be sure, this scheme might not work for various reasons. News channels would need to incur logistic and financial expenses to create and administer the websites. Candidates would need to obtain the technology platforms to create quick response videos. But the proposal has the advantage of drawing on the strengths of all media – the mass audiences of TV, radio and print, and the user interactivity of the Internet, which offers more space for more candidates and more opportunities for voters to challenge and learn from candidates.

A key issue revolves around what questions get asked, but there are a number of reasonable options: A moderating panel could choose, edit and post questions to avoid needless repetition and ensure a respectful and civil discussion.[1] National polls could be conducted to see what major questions concern the voters (as Fox did), and then use a selected number of those video questions to spark responses from the candidates. Or candidates could identify issues they wish to address and then post statements on those issues, thereby challenging other candidates to address those same issues.[2]

When the election process has narrowed the race down to two to three candidates competing for the Presidency, a live televised debate, complemented by the use of the Internet and social media, is viable and attractive. From the Kennedy-Nixon debates to today, voters have found proven value in seeing such a real-time debate among the top contenders for high office. This approach, however, cannot be scaled up to accommodate large numbers of candidates, such as the 17 in the 2016 GOP primaries, without adopting a dramatically different scheme. We hope our ideas will stimulate thinking about the advantages such a new approach would offer.

Tracy Westen and Bill Dutton

Notes 

[1] Project Vote Smart has used this approach.

[2] This was the successful approach of The Democracy Network.

A Dirty Dozen: 12 Reasons Candidates and Networks Fail to Move Presidential Debates Online by Tracy Westen and Bill Dutton

At a time when the 16 GOP candidates are preparing for televised debates on August 6, 2015, in which each candidate might get about 5-10 total minutes of air time, without significant time for rebuttals or follow-up questions, it is appropriate to ask: Why aren’t the debates moving online?

The Internet could provide a platform that would accommodate all 16 candidates, enabling them plenty of time to fully address more questions, in video, audio and textual formats. Based on past experience with initiatives aimed at informing voters online[1], we suggest that there are at least twelve reasons why candidate debates have not moved to the Internet, despite all of its amazing capabilities and potential be provide a fair and more informative debate platform:

1. Digital Divides. Candidates and networks may fear accusations that they are disenfranchising voters who are not online. Although the 20 percent of Americans who are offline are disproportionately older, they are higher propensity voters and a key target audience of the campaigns. Younger Internet users are less likely to vote. However, given the likelihood of the networks covering online debates by capturing key moments for broadcasting, the disenfranchisement seems to lack merit. Moreover, Internet debates can be in addition to, not a substitute for, some television debates.

2. Competitive Advantage. Debates can be influential.[2] However, they are not equally advantageous for all candidates. Generally, those candidates in the lead before a debate have the most to lose by debating with candidates who are lesser known and have had less exposure.[3] Even if 5 to 10 candidates are on a televised debate, adding more to an Internet orchestrated debate could raise the profile of a lesser-known candidate. For this reason, the ten leading candidates are unlikely to support or participate in a more inclusive debate in which all 16 get equivalent billing and time.

3. Losing Money. TV debates haven’t been profitable for TV networks, so there isn’t a large enough cadre of experienced TV producers who have cut their teeth on profitable TV debates and are thinking about ways to scale the debates and move them to the Internet in a profitable way. This would not explain why Britain, with its public service broadcasting traditions, has also failed to make this move to the Internet, but even they need to spend to produce a debate that might not generate the audience garnered by less costly programming.

4. News Credibility. A network might want to broadcast candidate debates to gain news credibility, not for profit. Providing a platform for debates would be a good thing, and boost the public service image of the broadcaster. Moving to the Internet might lose this credibility boost, and the networks might fear it would drain away their TV audiences.

5. One-Offs. Debates are periodic – happening only every 4 years for presidential candidates. Internet sites are less likely to invest the sums necessary to develop and promote a sophisticated debate interface, when they would only operate every 4 years. Every election cycle, the network would have to start all over again with graphic web design and promotional work, unable to spread the costs over a large number of debates.

6. Media Events. TV debates can be promoted as happening at a certain time and therefore have the potential to become a national media event. Currently, the run-up to the first GOP debate with Donald Trump ahead in the primary polls has created a sense of anticipation. The Internet’s strategic advantage is being accessible anytime, from anywhere, yet it may not create the mass audience that television and advertisers crave. The advantages of the Internet might undermine the strategy of TV to create a must-watch media event with the potential for a large mass audience.

7. Avoiding Issues. Candidates often want to avoid talking about issues, at least with any specificity. They can lose voters every time they take a stand on a particular issue. Candidates would prefer to remain vague and talk about “moving the country forward,” how their opponents are “weak on terrorism,” or against the “right to life.” Short answers and 5 minutes of airtime allow them to avoid specific issues. In contrast, the Internet would not impose an artificial limit on a candidate’s response to a question concerning a specific issue, and would therefore push them into more and more specific issue positions. So most candidates might want to resist an Internet debate scenario that puts them in a position where they are expected to participate fully, rebut others with specifics, and answer specific voter inquiries.

8. Push Pull. Candidates love campaign ads on TV, because they capture the attention of viewers who probably did not turn on the TV set to find political TV ads – they might have just tuned into see the evening news, or a show that attracts their particular demographic. Likewise, the placement and timing of debates can gain an audience that did not search out the debates. In contrast, the Internet is more of a pull medium – prospective voters need to decide to pull information from the Web and seek out candidates’ views. Candidates may avoid participating in a medium in which users have to find them, instead of candidates finding the viewers.

9. Ad Placement. It is not clear that ads on the Internet work as well as TV ads in saturating viewers’ attention, so candidates may not find the medium as desirable as TV. Internet ads may be a little like newspaper ads — it’s pretty easy to skip right over them and concentrate on the text of the news stories. By contrast, you can’t avoid the TV commercial unless you mute it or fast-forward over a pre-recorded show.

10. Swing Voters: TV ads often try to reach ‘un-decideds,” who may not vote, but if they do, aren’t sure for whom to vote. These may not be the people who will spend time seeking out information, debates or candidate statements on the Internet. Un-decideds may ultimately vote because they like a candidate’s looks, or think she’s “honest,” or make their decision on the basis of a single issue (religion in the schools). Candidates may feel it’s easier to reach these potential or swing voters with TV ads. This keeps their campaign strategically focused on the mass media of TV.

11. (Ir)Rational Voters. Ultimately, use of the Internet to enable a full set of candidates to more fully debate the important issues at stake is based on the premise that the rational voter will want to have more information on the issues at stake, not a series of canned sound bites. However, the rational voter might not wish to invest much time into information gathering and instead take shortcuts, like voting on the basis of party affiliations or taking cues from others who follow politics (and how much difference will their vote make, anyway?). Experiments with online voting guides suggest that voters have at least 3 strategies for deciding which candidates to support: (1) issues: a small minority of voters cast their ballots based on candidate positions on the issues that matter to the voter; (2) emotional responses: many more base their vote on a ‘personal gestalt’, such as whether particular candidates seem personable, smart, a “real person like me,” tough, family oriented, honest – or other personal aspects of the candidate; and (3) shortcuts: many voters just support candidates who belong to a specific political party, or are endorsed by people or organizations they trust. Online platforms can address the needs of all three of these voter strategies – by enabling candidates to provide textual or detailed video responses to specific issues for the issue-oriented voters, short videos for those wanting to assess their personal character, and endorsements by outside groups for the short-cutters.

13. Innovation. In the early days of the Internet, such as during the 2000 Presidential election, the idea of an online platform for candidates to convey their positions on issues was innovative and exciting. Since then, while advances in such capabilities as online video streaming have been dramatic, the idea of online candidate discussions may no longer seem to be an innovation. Many developments, such as video communication or online news, have failed repeatedly, but they may eventually find the right time and circumstances to succeed. Online debate platforms may require the emergence of novel formats and new modes of presentation – techniques that will excite candidates and voters to experiment once again and draw them to this new medium.

The next logical question is: What kind of design would provide a sufficiently innovative and effective Internet-based platform for candidate debates? We’ll address this in a subsequent post.

Tracy Westen and Bill Dutton

July 31, 2015

Notes

[1] Tracy Westen was the director and founder of The Democracy Network, an online platform for candidate debate and voter information, which was launched in 1996, adopted by Time Warner and AOL, and by 2000, received millions of visitors a week before the Presidential elections. The League of Women Voters subsequently adopted it as an online vehicle for improved voter information. Many of the following considerations are based on the experience gained from this early and innovative experiment in adapting the Internet to political debate.

[2] PEW surveys found that two-thirds of voters watching the Obama debates said the debates influenced their votes. See: http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/most-say-presidential-debates-influence-their-vote/

[3] For example, see an analysis of the first televised debates in the UK, which appeared to advantage the lesser known candidate in Dutton, William H. and Shipley, Andrew, The Role of Britain’s Televised Leadership Debates in Shaping Political Engagement (September 28, 2010). LEADERS IN THE LIVING ROOM: THE PRIME MINISTERIAL DEBATES OF 2010: EVIDENCE, EVALUATION AND SOME RECOMMENDATIONS, S. Coleman, Reuter’s Institute for the Study of Journalism, 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1778442

New MSU Course: Social Dynamics of the Internet

This fall semester at MSU, I’ll be teaching a new course MI 401, which is right at the center of my work over the last decade, if not my entire career. It is entitled ‘Social Dynamics of the Internet’ – the latest incarnation of a course I designed in 1980 on the social dynamics of communication technology. The course is anchored around my edited book, with Mark Graham, entitled Society and the Internet (OUP 2014). I hope to get students discussing, tweeting, writing and worrying about one of the central issues of our digital age.

Society & the Internet
Society & the Internet

The draft syllabus is at Social Dynamics of the Internet, but I will keep refining it, so comments are invited. The course is designed for upper-division undergraduates, and graduate students.

Multistakeholder or Multilateral Internet Governance?

Global debate over alternative approaches to governing the Internet has been wide ranging, but increasingly has pivoted around the wisdom of “multistakeholder governance.” This paper takes controversy around a multistakeholder versus an alternative multilateral approach as a focus for clarifying the changing context and significance of Internet governance. A critical perspective on this debate challenges some of the conventional wisdom marshaled around positions on the history and future of Internet governance. By providing an understanding of the dynamics of Internet governance, this paper seeks to illuminate and engage with issues that are of rising importance to the vitality of a global infrastructure that is becoming more central to economic and social development around the world. Based on the perspective developed in this paper, a multistakeholder process appears best suited for helping a widening array of actors, including multilateral organizations, to connect a worldwide ecology of choices that are governing the Internet.

My paper is being posted on SSRN and I’ll be speaking at the Digital Futures Conference at Shanghai Jiao Tong University this week.