Peer Review of Memo #1
- My peer review of Ann
Zimmerman's thoughful memo follows.
- All of Ann's original links have been removed from this document.
- Links in this document lead you to my specific comments.
- My general comments follow the specific
comments.
- Ann's original memo is available on-line elsewhere
Ann Zimmerman
SPP 744: Information Networks Policy
February 5, 1996
Networks and Individual and Social Change: What's Developing Who?
How fast can we go?
Discussing his book Future Shock in a 1993 interview in Wired magazine,
futurist Alvin Toffler said that "the ability to adapt isn't dependent
entirely on whether you're going in a happy or unhappy direction. It's the
speed itself that compels a change in the rate of decision making, and all
decision making , and the resulting effects on individuals and society, are the most intriguing, as well as
the most disturbing aspects of such networks.
It's not all bad, but it's not all good
Many people tout the power that networks bring us to
communicate quickly, to equalize large and small, advantaged and
disadvantaged populations, and to serve as an educational tool, allowing
children across the world to interact with each other. Nicholas
Negroponte, in a recent Wired magazine column, rejected the hypothesis
that technology will "insulate us, create a world of people who won't
smell flowers, watch sunsets, or engage in face-to-face enterprise."
Instead, his life has been personally enriched through his online
experiences with others. For those who are comfortable with technology and
have access to the hardware and software that makes such networks usable,
the benefits might seem obvious. But what effects, both positive and
negative are current networks really having on individuals and society? If
our future resides in broadband, switched, digital networks these impacts
might be multiplied thousands of times over, and new effects born as the
"average person" confronts the electronic age. If we are smart enough to
develop increasingly powerful and available networks, are we intelligent
enough to recognize the resulting effects on human behavior and to use
networks responsibly and wisely as simply another tool
in our repertoire of work, education and human interaction?
Looking for answers
Some people are beginning to raise questions, conduct research, and seek
insights into the above questions. Existing studies focus on individuals
and groups already using networks. For example, The Center for the Study
of the Online Community "seeks to present and foster studies that focus on
how computers and networks alter people's capacity to form groups,
organizations, institutions, and how those social formations are able to
serve the collective interest of their members." Managing the virtual
commons: cooperation and conflict in computer communities, a paper by
Peter Kollock and Marc Smith, investigates the assumptions about the
powerful effects of electronic communication on social relationships. Are
social hierarchies dissolved and replaced by flatter more egalitarian
societies? Do network communications enhance democracy? To help answer
these questions, the authors studied Usenet groups and found that for all
the cooperation present in such groups, there are also many shortcomings,
and for the most part, Usenet groups remain relatively uncooperative
places. They also concluded that cyberspace is a double-edged sword. The
monitoring of people's behavior becomes easier, but the sanctioning of it
becomes more difficult. Kollock and Smith summed up with a sentence that
needs to be echoed more often:..."there is no simple conclusion to this
story, and one-note predictions of either a utopian or dystopian future
must be considered suspect. A Masters thesis by Tim North also looked at
the culture of Usenet groups, especially their impacts on new users. He
found that Internet culture can have an empowering or supporting effect on
new users. New users are welcomed and the conventions of the culture are
freely shared with new participants. There is also a strong sense of
community and one is judged primarily by what one says,
rather than on social factors such as appearance, age, gender, and
wealth. On the negative side, North found that users need to be fluent in
English and have a high degree of computer literacy. One might wonder what
happens to individuals lacking fluency in computers and language. The
world wide web (www) mistakenly leads us to believe that the answers to
our questions, especially technical ones, are all there in front of us. We
have only to click on the instructions for creating a home page and we
will acquire the skill in no time. Have all notions of
education and teaching gone out the window in the networked
environment? Should we feel stupid and inferior if we
do not "get it" when the instructions are presented to us? Particpants in
a workshop entitled, Society, Cyberspace, and the Future, identified
information overload as another factor impacting individual network users.
The workshop attendees questioned whether software agents will really
empower ordinary individuals "to navigate the vast ocean of information,
trivia, and misinformation." It is common among current www users to feel
"lost." What will be the personal and societal impacts of more and more
people feeling lost in cyberspace?
Put people first
As networks become more ubiquitous, people lacking the skill and knowledge
to effectivey utilize and manage the technology, are at
risk of being
overwhelmed by all that confronts them. Ease of use, education, a realistic
view of the place of technology in society, and face-to-face interaction
will be critical to incorporating networks into the fabric of everyday life.
Efforts in this direction must take an equal place along side the
development of future network technology.
Specific Comments
should "who" be "whom"?
This has intriguing implications that you don't
develop: acceleration changes the sytem, but this change is bounded by
some inherent limits of the system to make decisions fast enough to keep
pace with the acceleration. Will this eventually decrease acceleration,
or will decision-making as we know it be changed to accomodate continued
acceleration?
unnecessary comma -- this is an important clause
unnecessary comma -- no pause needed in sentence
I may be off on this one, but I think people "tout
the power that networks bring" as something (like the answer to
all of our problems), rather than just "tout the power" without further
explanation.
You may want to revise this idea. It is unclear to
me what you mean by "responsibly and wisely". You seem to suggest that
airplane technology, as an analogy, was used irresponsibly and unwisely
since, rather than used "simply as another mode of transportation", it
dramatically changed many facets of society world-wide. Such an argument
oversimplifies the broad implications of network technology and its likely
impacts.
This is a bit surprising to me. It's hard to
believe that what a person has to say is independent of their age, gender
or wealth.
You imply that periodically altering social notions
is inherently bad or dangerous. At one time notions of communication, for
example, were based on slow-moving written messages. This notion was
thrown out at least in part with the introduction of the telegraph,
telephone, fax, e-mail, etc... Is periodically updating social or world
notions in this way inherently bad? I think it's safe to say that
notions of education and teaching are constantly changing as society
continues to changes.
This may only be a transitional phenomenon or
concern. Individuals accustomed to or trained on previous technology will
have problems making the switch. However, the youngest generations are
being introduced at early ages to current technology and as a result will
be less intimidated by future developments. It seems a safe prediction
that computers will, in a couple of generations, be as intimidating as
telephones or VCRs are today.
effectively
General Comments
Overall this is a provocative memo. As the technology race intensifies
and accelerates, are we forgetting, in our excitement, the true cost to
society of the necessity of wide-spread computer familiarity and
literacy? Will technology, in effect, surpass the majority of society?
Is this a serious concern? As technology develops, will mechanisms
naturally develop so that the majority of potential benefactor
don't get left behind? If a natural solution is unlikely, what
interventive action should be taken and by whom? On specific issues (such
as education and public access) does government need to step in to insure
that society, by large, isn't left behind? You discuss these ideas
throughout your memo, and propose a vague preventative direction in your
last paragraph. Maybe you can expand this section a
bit. Do you have any further suggestions or ideas regarding parallel
development of technology and society?