Technology and Social Communication

3,604 views

Published on

Christian Katzenbach

Institute for Media and Communication Studies
Freie Universität Berlin, Germany

Young European Researchers Seminar on New Media Studies
Institute of Journalism and Social Communication, University of Wroclaw
Wroclaw, November 17, 2009.

Icons by Melih Bilgil, http://www.picol.org/, under CC BY-SA

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,604
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
613
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
26
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Technology and Social Communication

  1. 1. Technology and Social Communication Exploring the Gap between Technological Determinism and Social Constructivism Christian Katzenbach Institute for Media and Communication Studies Freie Universität Berlin, Germany Young European Researchers Seminar on New Media Studies Institute of Journalism and Social Communication, University of Wroclaw Wroclaw, November 17, 2009.
  2. 2. Introduction
  3. 3. Mediatization Network Society Role of Media Technology?
  4. 4. Accounts of Technology Context Context Media Technology Context Media Technology Context Context Context Role of Media Technology? Context Media Technology Media Technology Context Technological Determinism Constructivism Christian Katzenbach | Technologies and Social Communication | PhD-Workshop, November 17 2009, Workshop 4
  5. 5. Sociology of Science and Technology
  6. 6. Insights from the Sociology of Science and Technology ‣ Core Interest: Technology — Action — Socio-political Structures 1 Impacts of Technology on social behaviour and sectoral change ‣ Technology as functional 2 Political and Social Construction of Technology ‣ Technology in Use equivalent ‣ Meaning and Usage are ‣ Durkheimʻs social facts ascribed, not determined ‣ Hardened social action and ‣ Domestication structured ‣ Technology Development ‣ Technology is Society made ‣ „Leitbilder“ Technologies do not follow any durable ‣ Standardisation teleological path ‣ Regulation Christian Katzenbach | Technologies and Social Communication | PhD-Workshop, November 17 2009, Workshop
  7. 7. Picture: clemensfranz (CC By-SA 3.0)
  8. 8. Hints from the Sociology of Science and Technology ‣ Core Interest: Technology — Action — Socio-political Structures 1 Impacts of Technology on social behaviour and sectoral change ‣ Technology as functional 2 Political and Social Construction of Technology ‣ Technology in Use equivalent ‣ Meaning and Usage are ‣ Durkheimʻs social facts ascribed, not determined ‣ Hardened social action and ‣ Domestication structured ‣ Technology Development ‣ Technology is Society made ‣ „Leitbilder“ durable ‣ Standardisation ‣ Regulation Christian Katzenbach | Technologies and Social Communication | PhD-Workshop, November 17 2009, Workshop
  9. 9. Hints from the Sociology of Science and Technology ‣ Core Interest: Technology — Action — Socio-political Structures Resources Routines 1 Impacts of Technology on social behaviour and sectoral change ‣ Technology as functional 2 Political and Social Construction of Technology ‣ Technology in Use equivalent ‣ Meaning and Usage are ‣ Durkheimʻs social facts ascribed, not determined ‣ Hardened social action and ‣ Domestication structured ‣ Technology Development ‣ Technology is Society made ‣ „Leitbilder“ durable ‣ Standardisation ‣ Regulation Co-Evolution Christian Katzenbach | Technologies and Social Communication | PhD-Workshop, November 17 2009, Workshop
  10. 10. Governance
  11. 11. Governance as a Theoretical Frame ‣ Governance Frame: Regulation in a wider sense Focus on new sets of actors ‣ gained attention as analytical concept and practical approach ‣ Shift of focus in several dimensions: ‣ Actors: Vertical and Horizontal Extension of the traditional mode of rule-making through the nation-state ‣ Vertical: International Institutions ‣ Horizontal: Inclusion of private actors (self- and Co- Regulation) Christian Katzenbach | Technologies and Social Communication | PhD-Workshop, November 17 2009, Workshop
  12. 12. Values Norms Coordination Markets Discourse Focus on new mechanisms Competition Institutions Legitimation Expertise Legislation Knowledge Christian Katzenbach | Technologies as Institutions | ECREA-Workshop, November 2009, Zurich
  13. 13. Governance and Institutions ‣ Broad Concept of Governance: „Patterns to cope with interdependencies between actors“ ‣ Structures of coordination, rather than regulation ‣ Institutions as analytical hinge Christian Katzenbach | Technologies and Social Communication | PhD-Workshop, November 17 2009, Workshop
  14. 14. “[Institutions are] symbolic and behavioral systems containing representational, constitutive and normative rules together with regulatory mechanisms that define a common meaning system and give rise to distinctive actors and action routines. Scott, 1994
  15. 15. Governance and Institutions ‣ Broad Concept of Governance: „Patterns to cope with interdependencies between actors“ ‣ Schuppert: Structures of coordination, rather than regulation ‣ Institutions as analytical hinge ‣ They are both outcome… ‣ … as well as instruments of regulation. Christian Katzenbach | Technologies and Social Communication | PhD-Workshop, November 17 2009, Workshop
  16. 16. Values Norms Coordination Markets Discourse (Media) Technology Competition Institutions Legitimation Expertise Legislation Knowledge Christian Katzenbach | Technologies as Institutions | ECREA-Workshop, November 2009, Zurich
  17. 17. “ Indeed, the very design of the Internet seemed technologically proof against attempts to put the genie back in the bottle. […] [It] treats censorship like damage and routes around it. Walker 2003
  18. 18. Lessig 2007
  19. 19. Politics of Media Technology
  20. 20. “ [.…] a politics deeply embedded not just within the institutions that design and distribute technologies and services, but within the technology itself, as software products and information networks both prescribe and proscribe, configuring suppliers and users, containing and constraining behaviour, and embodying in their algorithms and their gateways both the normative and the seductive. Mansell /Silverstone, 1996
  21. 21. Technology and Communication ‣ Importance of detailed look at technological and policy decisions ‣ Set the frame for communication and following decisions ‣ Time-lag ‣ Technologies are part of the institutional frame that individual action (communication) is embedded in ‣ Interaction of user adoption and technological affordances ‣ Interplay and Interdependencies Christian Katzenbach | Technologies and Social Communication | PhD-Workshop, November 17 2009, Workshop
  22. 22. Copyright
  23. 23. Selected References ‣ Berker, T., Hartmann, M., Punie, Y., & Ward, K. (Eds.). (2006). Domestication of media and technology. Maidenhead, Berkshire [u.a.]: Open Univ. Press. ‣ Bijker, W. E. und Law, J. (Eds.). (1992). Shaping technology/building society : studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ‣ Donges, Patrick. (2007). The New Institutionalism as a theoretical foundation of media governance. Communications, 32, 325-330. ‣ Latour, Bruno. (2007). Reassembling the social : an introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford Univ. Press. ‣ Latour, Bruno. (1991). Technology is Society made durable., in: John Law (Hrsg.), A Sociology of Monsters. London: Routledge. 103-131. ‣ Lessig, Lawrence. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York, NY: Basic Books. ‣ Mansell, R. & Silverstone, R. (Eds.). (1996). Communication by design: The politics of information and communication technologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ‣ Schuppert, Gunnar Folke. (2008). Governance: Auf der Suche nach Konturen eines "anerkannt uneindeutigen Begriffs", in: Gunnar Folke Schuppert und Michael Zürn (Hrsg.), Governance in einer sich wandelnden Welt. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. 13-40. ‣ Walker, John. (2003). "The digital imprimatur: How big brother and big media can put the internet genie back in the bottle". Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 16(3), 24-77. ‣ Winner, Langdon. (1980). "Do Artifacts Have Politics?". Daedulus, 109, 121-136. Christian Katzenbach | Technologies and Social Communication | PhD-Workshop, November 17 2009, Workshop
  24. 24. Technological Setting Analog – Copying as Exception Legal Setting Fair Use Norms and Values Creators Paying for Music Consuming Music but not Paying
  25. 25. Technological Setting Analog – Copying as Exception Legal Setting Fair Use Norms and Values Creators Paying for Music Consuming Music but not Paying
  26. 26. Technological Setting Digitally Networked – Copying = Usage Legal Setting Fair Use??? Norms and Values Creators, but also: Rip, Mix, and Burn / Sharing Paying for Music Consuming Music but not Paying

×