Virtual Society?

UK-Nordic Initiative on Information and Communication Technologies
15-16 April 1999
University of Karlskrona/Ronneby
Sweden

Five themes are on our web-site as platform for the exchange of papers, comments and notes on four subject areas whereas the fifth platform welcomes suggestions of relevance to the proposals and recommendations supposedly coming out of the Second Research Workshop. The four thematic platforms rest upon the workshop discussion (see next paragraph):

A Framework (Steve Woolgar)

B Practices (Tuula Heiskanen)

C Democracy (Jens Hoff)

D Discourse (Åke Uhlin)

E Suggestions for research activities (Mogens Kühn Pedersen)

Those responsible for making the discussion and papers ready for the Second Workshop are mentioned in parenthesis after each platform.

The platform reponsibles (PR's) formulate calls for contributions and forward these as reminders by May 15. The papers and notes should be web-published on a current basis, eventually with an e-mail notice of the web-site update to all. The discussion papers should be on the web-site no later than August 1st. Each PR submits a discussion paper relating the debate that has taken place on the platform to the framework and overall objective of our endeavour before the Second Workshop no later than September 1st and also edits the paltform material to avoid duplications and secure that the latest editions are available to all participants. The latter may be in terms of listing papers omitting all but the latest versions of "the same" paper.

The Second Workshop takes place September 16-17 in Copenhagen.

P.S. Recall that you should make available for the web-site a portrait and two paragraphs on your research - eventually with a link to your homepage - by mail to Marike.Van.Harskamp@brunel.ac.uk

Workshop
In the plenary meeting the workshop participants (see list below) decided to regroup? into five national workgroups to identify three major issues to be followed by a plenum presentation. After a short discussion a session of five cross-national workgroups formed by chance discussed for the rest of the evening. Next morning each group presented major research issues in plenum.

The national workgroups offered the following suggestions:

• What is the driving forces for societal development?
• Is ICT generating local order in a chaotic world - in spite of or because of globalisation - organising social relations? ICT a universal technology while as applied a local one?
• Coupling and de-coupling in networks seem to characterise our societies creating an imperative of selectivity and problems of governmentability.

• How can we move from the different disciplines to reasonable spaces of common discourse?
• What is the voice of social science in the production of information systems?
• The next stages of ICT revolution ("digital neural networks in organisations, network lifestyles") - what kind of a challenge to social sciences will they become?

• How are we using ICT in social sciences: a tool (constructive), concept (definition) or a strategy for power (of the social sciences) as a way to a new role in society?
• Is ICT forcing a new role on social science from without? Is Social Science a locomotive or a tender?

• How do we conceptualise "the information society"?
• How is standardisation and regulation achieved or not achieved in the ICT area?

• How do we retain our ambivalence of technology in social theory? (Importance of historical context witnessed!)
• Do we need to unpack the concept of democracy? (plus the audience: Whom is this meant for?)
• What are the constraints on our visions of alternative/future societies? Do we succumb to cultural specific issues and visions (ethnocentricity)?

After questions and answers the plenum moved to call for research ideas from four breakout workgroups. On Friday morning these groups presented their ideas:

I Pointed to issues of practices and to conceptualising practices (a tautology?). Tracking differences as a methodology. Examples to be found in work practices.
Q&A: Practices versus driving forces. If practices are taken seriously, then so must driving forces be, as constructs/artefacts of scientific practices. Shouldn't we nurture an openly self-reflective approach to our own practices, as in 'Social Theory?' (note questionmark).

II Complexity was perceived as a rhetorical tool to call in social science intervention or management (a technocratic perspective?). A need based approach was an alternative: How do we research into how the individual feels about ICT and what it does to their life? Empowered or oppressed? Discussed the mobile phone as normalised surveillance when used by parents to equip their teenagers (daughters) before going into town. Quality of life questions raised. The dilemma of cumulatively using ICT brought in complexity and the question if this brings about a better society. A contradiction raising the question: How are we coping with these issues? A call for a comparative study on coping with ICT: market driven or the social democratic way? Is the ambivalence of ICT the opportunities of ICT? Call for a user perspective.
Q&A: Empirical research shows a very minor role of ICT in people's mindset. Is rhetoric not reality? Everyday issues are important to show functional changes of institutions like the family related to ICT. A division of labour between computers creates a new intransparent infrastructure and interacts with applications to form social innovations. Adding the historical level we see practice materialised first in software then in hardware and networks while what computers do becomes more human like. New software agents! "The silent technology" - how many choices do we have? Folk social theory, i.e. the knowledge of people matters how?

III What is political democratic steering in a hyper complex/network society?

A How has ICT changed the conditions?
B How is ICT intertwined with political-democratic processes?
C What does this mean for the nature of democracy - being critical about cyber democracy.

What kind of language and metaphors are used to understand ICT and its development in the hyper complex society?
Does ICT change behaviour in organisations? Impact upon social science theory? Do ICT bind our imagination?
Q&A: Are we using last century mechanistic metaphors? How does the shift in power from neo-classical economics to evolutionary, learning economies - learning is here and everywhere - influence the stories we tell. Linguistics has something to offer in conceptualising these phenomena. Is all that we see really new? New rules of the game are seen in the institutionalised self-reflection of society. Democracy once more has become an issue but re-inventing democracy is strange - what is in need of being re-invented? The two opposed dimensions of democracy each representing an opposition: Individual versus community and leadership versus laymanship. These dimensions explain liberalism, republicanism, and communitarianism and in the fourth quadrant is a question mark or is it anarchism? The Scandinavian approach to systems design in the 70s in a discourse on industrial democracy, then participatory design without recognition of the democratic element. What is being governed in society? What is politics - formal institutionalised activity, or authoritative or legitimate distribution or allocation of resources, the latter a network friendly concept. You always have leadership. But does it matter if we know about all the minute decisions - or not?

IV Encompassing previous discussions this framework consists in issues and a methodology, this proposal is called "delays, distance and the body".

1. Responsibility

The technology-social distinction dates back from Hobbes and Boyle in the 17C and should be challenged. The question is how to overcome the distinction.

2. Bringing our present research to visibility

Technical-social activities are concurrent.
Technology is congealed social relations.
Technology is a network of social relations.
Technology is society made durable.
How technology is coming into being is to see how society is becoming into being.

3. Non-ambivalent technologies.

Like the emergence of the electric light that made possible people reading in the dark hours. And the road system is not ambivalent either at a certain level, within a certain framework.

4. Cycles of ambivalence.

Complexity with reference to ambivalence reduction of complexity (using ICT) risk increases re introduce factors to cope with risks complexity increases.

5. Democracy.

Technology does not make democracy possible - but a special format of technology may do so. ICT may also cause a breakdown in the client-expert relationship. Generally, inter-mediating agents are ambivalence reducing. Delays and diversions, etc. all add to reduce ambivalence.

We want to study the relation between ambivalence and complexity and the cycles in different systems. Take a look at Heidegger again. And the empirical correlate: Who is using ambiguity reducing terms, language etc.
Q&A: The concept of ambivalence is used ambivalently! A trivilisation of technology? Does the cycle avoid the enclosure of SCOT? What is the impact upon social scientists - would we be engineers? Complexity leads to choices that lead to something being put aside -is that ambivalence? Does the cycle make everything into society, doubt if not the distinction between T and S is still valid. Disagreement on this - it is a heuristic starting point. Will the research invent ambivalence reducing concepts? Do we reduce complexity of technology or reduce the complexity of using technology? Is it okay to use ICT to reduce complexity? For example we use simulator decision support to analyse society. Uncertain if technology always has a material form. What are the empirical questions? It is striking how ambivalence gets embodied in routines as non-cognitive behaviour. Bodily routines in one area move over into other routines. A vexed topic what is technology so the question of technology may get technology coming back much stronger!
We should start seeing ICT as networks of social arrangements. The rhetoric of ICT reduces complexity but ICT is no less complex. Perhaps we should say that technology is contested congealed social relations!

Discussion and platforms
The presentations were followed by a long discussion about how to move ahead. The diverse background of the participants proved stimulating for the debate. A variety of questions was debated: the hypothesis or theme of complexity, the cycle as a methodology rather than a theory, how to research the methodology, the variety of ICT discourses, the quality of life issues given the circumstances and prerequisites now available, the research proposal should be comparative, theoretical and empirical, an ethnographic rather than "techno-graphic" study of practices related to ambivalence and complexity, and alternatively to start with an empirical field approach.

From the discussion emanated the five platforms each of a somewhat different nature but open to everyone to comment upon, contribute to or to monitor inspiring work for another platform. (See summary at page 1)

The captains of each platform committed themselves to invite and invigorate the discussion calling for papers and comments from the participants. Those participants not present at the first workshop are also invited to contribute papers and comments.

Finally, the captains are obliged to wrap up a package of papers and comments by September 1st for the workshop in September.

Home page of UK-Nordic
Program of the meeting
Papers written for the meeting
Participants