Emily Brock 12/10/11

CCT 505: Final PQMA Professors Tinckom and Turner Examining Cultural Networks Surrounding the Internet

While Professor Irvine and Professor Singh would seem to have little in common based on their backgrounds and academic focuses, their research interests overlap significantly on the topic of the Internet. Both professors are ultimately concerned with how this new technology impacts society, but they each examine this issue from different angles. The problems that each of these professors associate with the Internet is different; Professor Singh views the Internet as a key tool in global governance, and as a way to give a voice to the formerly disenfranchised members of global society through policy decisions and multilateral deliberations. Professor Irvine is also concerned with the power structures involved in Internet governance, but more from the perspective of the individual who is hoping to gain more personal agency by examining the underlying power structures at play within a given medium or technology. Regardless of these differences, both professors are certainly interested in this basic problem: there are hidden cultural networks at play in the operational and organizational governance of the Internet, which affects power relations in society. The question that these two lines of research also share is: how can exposing these networks help increase the agency of the normal citizen over the more powerful actors (whether they are corporations and states, or wider cultural patterns and circumstances)? Both disciplines would be more apt to use more normative methods of examination; it is difficult to measure networks and power dynamics quantitatively.

Using Professor Singhs method of research would entail a grounded theory approach, studying extensive publications and research on the different actors involved in global Internet governance, from civil society to global institutions. Interviews would also be a helpful tool for discovering relationships that arent readily apparent; maybe someone can reveal that ICANN is more closely connected with the U.S. government than previously assumed. By gathering data and feedback from a variety of sources discussing the impact of ICTs like the Internet in developing countries, and how the current power structure allows or impedes on this process, we can start to see patterns that might allow us to draw critical conclusions on current networks. A mediological approach, which Professor Irvine would be more likely to use, also involves the heuristic process of drawing together various bits of information in an attempt to better understanding the circumstances surrounding the creation and use of the Internet. To think about the Internet mediologically means asking which structures (physical, political, social, cultural) needed to necessarily be in place for the Internet to be able to take hold the way that it did. We know from Professor Irvines lecture that the Internet could not have functioned without pre-existing policy regulations that allowed for broadband connections in America. In addition to understanding the political prerequisites, we can examine social patterns like the changing ways through which Americans acquire and dispense information. While information used to be seen as something housed within prestigious institutions, now it can be found anywhere: on a blog or on wikipedia. Clearly the old system of knowledge production was unsatisfactory for many Americans. Using mediology as a method can help us uncover these precursors that helped the Internet to become as successful as it did.

From a global governance perspective, grounded theory along with other normative styles of data collection like interviews would likely provide with the answer that governance is not just state power; there is a dimension of metapower, a social dimension to power, that has greater power than any one state. Metapower has the potential to change the whole paradigm within the development community, whether its a human rights-based paradigm or a market-based paradigm. Professor Singh always stresses the importance of honest deliberations and networked multilateralism, involving civil society organizations and interested individuals, as well as powerful global players. For true deliberation to occur, all nodes in the network must be accounted for. Research in this area would likely show the lack of satisfactory deliberation surrounding Internet policy currently, hopefully alerting the smaller stakeholders of their ability to change the game by focusing on the impact of metapower and the importance of fostering an effective paradigm for Internet governance. Likewise with Irvines mediological approach, we would find that there are powerful corporate and media actors that are responsible for a great deal of the content on the Internet. It is beneficial for the consumer, the individual user, to acknowledge these power sources at play, and to respond accordingly concerning where to access information from and who to share information with. By using a mediological frame of reference, we can see that the Internet is not necessarily a neutral space, even though it may seem that way sometimes. Understanding the networked process of Internet governance is crucial for making informed and personally beneficial decisions.

Works Cited Irvine, Martin. Class lecture. Introduction to Mediology and Network Theory. Georgetown University, Washington D.C.. 11 Oct 2011. Singh, J.P. Class Lecture. Technology and Global Governance. Georgetown University, Washington D.C. 18 Oct 2011. Singh, J.P. Multilateral Approaches to Deliberating Internet Governance, Policy and Internet, Vol 1:1. 91-111.