Internet Studies: Historical Review and Analysis of the Knowledge Production
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2018-3-69-92Keywords:
internet, internet studies, organisational sociology, sociology of knowledge, research knowledgeAbstract
This article problematizes Internet Studies as a sub-discipline in social research. Internet Studies is an interdisciplinary research field encompassing both academic and non-academic research focusing on the internet and societal issues. The key institutions where Internet Studies develop tend to either be university-based or independent. The article focuses on these organizations and aims to reconstruct their history and areas of research as well as the type of knowledge they produce. The first part of the article is more descriptive and historical, explicating howlnternet Studies developed. The author suggests a classification of three key periods of Internet Studies development: the emergence, institutionalization and development of sub-fields, e.g. data science, digital research of different objects such as death, childhood, humanities, arts, and online-research. The key finding of this analysis is that in the internet studies there are no strict boundaries between the theoretical and empirical object. The researchers consider themselves to be co-producers of the internet. The second part of the article problematizes this type of knowledge that is constructed in internet studies, and this part is mostly based on interviews with researchers. The author brings out an idea, that internet studies does not have strict epistemological borders and strong theoretical or methodological limitations; it therefore cannot justifiably be called scientific. As such, the meaning of knowledge becomes problematic. To address this problem, the term "research knowledge” is introduced. This type of knowledge is not scientific, it does not pretend to be disciplinary and is the same inside and outside the organization and in its products. In conclusion, the findings of this research aim to contribute to the development of Internet Studies as a sub-discipline - a sub-discipline which does not aim to study an entity but a transformation of social life due to the internet.Downloads
References
Абрамов Р.Н., Бруккмайер К., Гаврилов К.А., Девятко И.Ф., Зотов A.A., Катерный И.В.,.. Сапов В.В. (2015) Обыденное и научное знание об обществе: взаимовлияния и реконфигурации.
Архипова A.C., Радченко Д.А., Титков A.C., Козлова И.В., Югай Е.Ф., Белянин С.В., Гаврилова М.В. (2018) «Пересборка митинга»: интернет в протесте и протест в интернете. Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены, 1 (143).
Гребер Д. (2016) Утопия правил: о технологиях, глупости и тайном обаянии бюрократии. М.: Ад Маргинем Пресс.
Колозариди П.В. (2015) Утопия и идеология в исследованиях Интернета. Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены, 5 (129).
Лиотар Ж.Ф. (1998) Состояние постмодерна; пер. с фр. H.A. Шматко. М.: Институт экспериментальной социологии.
Маклюэн М. (2004) Галактика Гутенберга. Сотворение человека печатной культуры. Киев: Ника-Центр, Эльга.
Рыков Ю., Нагорный О. (2017) Область интернет-исследований в социальных науках. Социологическое обозрение, 16(3).
Aouragh М., Alexander А. (2011) The Arab springl the Egyptian experience: Sense and nonsense of the internet revolution. International Journal of communication, 5, 15.
Bacci M. (2017) Credibility, expertise and the challenges of science Communication 2.0. Public Understanding of Science 26(8): 890-893.
Baron N.S. (2005) Who wants to be a discipline? The Information Society, 21(4): 269-271.
Bastow S., Dunleavy P., Tinkler J. (2014) The impact of the social sciences: how academics and their research make a difference. Sage
Berners-Lee Т., Hall W., Hendler J.A., O'Hara K., Shadbolt N., Weitzner D.J. (2006) A framework for web science. Foundations and Trends® in Web Science, 1(1): 1-130.
Boyd D., Crawford K. (2012) Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, communication Sr society, 15(5): 662-679.
Cook S.D., Brown J.S. (1999) Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization science, 10(4): 381-400.
Dutton W. (2013) Internet studies: The foundations of a transformative field. The Oxford handbook of internet studies. Oxford University Press.
Epstein D., Katzenbach C., Musiani F. (2016) Doing internet governance: practices, controversies, infrastructures, and institutions. Internet Policy Review.
Ess C., Consalvo M. (2011) Introduction: What is "Internet Studies"? The handbook of internet studies: 1-8.
Flichy P. (2007) The internet imaginaire. MIT press.
Jasanoff, S. (Ed.) (2004) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and the social order. Routledge.
Kakoli, M. (2017) Is there a gap between the scientific and non-scientific community? Available at: https://www.editage.com/insights/is-there-a-gap-between-the-scientific-and-non-scientific-community
Lavis J.N., Robertson D., Woodside J.M., McLeod C.B., Abelson J. (2003) How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? The Milbank Quarterly, 81(2): 221-248.
Lievrouw L.A. (1990) Communication and the social representation of scientific knowledge. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 7(1): 1-10.
Lievrouw L.A., Livingstone S. (Eds.) (2002) Handbook of new media: Social shaping and consequences of lCTs. Sage.
Livingstone S. (2005) Critical debates in internet studies: reflections on an emerging field. London: LSE Research Online. Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/1011 Mansell R. (2012) Imagining the Internet: Communication, innovation, and governance. Oxford University Press.
Markham A.N. (2005) Disciplining the future: A critical organizational analysis of Internet studies. The Information Society, 21(4): 257-267.
Marwick А.Е., Boyd D. (2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media Sr society, 13(1): 114-133.
Morozov E. (2012). The net delusion: The dark side of Internet freedom. PublicAffairs.
Norman D.A. (1999) Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3): 38-43.
Peng T.Q., Zhu J. J.H., Zhang L., Zhong Z. J. (2011) Mapping the Landscape of Internet Research: Text Mining of Social Science Journal Articles 2000-2009. Joint Working Paper of the Faculty of Humanities and Arts, Macau University of Science and Technology, and the Web Mining Lab, Department of Media Sr Communication, City University of Hong Kong.
Pooly J. (2018) The Post-Program Era: The Rise of Internet & Society Centers-and a New Interdiscipline. Culture Digitally. Available at: http://culturedigitally.org/2018/03/the-post-program-era-the-rise-of-internet-society-centers-and-a-new-interdiscipline/
Smith A.N., Fischer E., Yongjian C. (2012) How does brand-related user-generated content differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter? Journal of interactive marketing, 26(2): 102-113.
Suchman L.A. (1987) Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge university press.
Vostal F. (2016) Accelerating academia: the changing structure of academic time. Springer.
Wellman B. (2004) The three ages of internet studies: ten, five and zero years ago. New media & society, 6(1): 123-129.
Wellman B. (2011) Studying the Internet through the Ages. The handbook of internet studies Consalvo and Ess (eds.): 17-23.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
How to Cite
Коды статьи
- EDN YMCUPZ
- Тип статьи (РИНЦ) Научная статья (Научная статья)
