Shift on internet studies: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Survey and measurement | Survey and measurement | ||
==Quantitative== | =='''Quantitative'''== | ||
One could assume that the unbounded speed of technological advance and a data influx of network consumption does not allow for the time required for the creation of a critical rhetoric. Speed is by itself problematic for the quality of new material compared to the old. Volume is too high while speed of prodution is too fast, generating incomparable scientific parameters and methods and a time-based "stress" that does not allow for their evaluation. | One could assume that the unbounded speed of technological advance and a data influx of network consumption does not allow for the time required for the creation of a critical rhetoric. Speed is by itself problematic for the quality of new material compared to the old. Volume is too high while speed of prodution is too fast, generating incomparable scientific parameters and methods and a time-based "stress" that does not allow for their evaluation. | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
The researcher should compare materials of equal impact from the two periods through the systemization of per case studies for each scientific field next to the four pillars of internet studies (architecture, law, market, norms)………………. | The researcher should compare materials of equal impact from the two periods through the systemization of per case studies for each scientific field next to the four pillars of internet studies (architecture, law, market, norms)………………. | ||
= Theodor Kolovos = | = Theodor Kolovos = | ||
| Line 27: | Line 26: | ||
'''More''' | '''More''' | ||
* [[Data sources for measuring online activity]] | * [[Data sources for measuring online activity]] | ||
* [[Schema for institutional ecology]] | |||
* [[Locus of Control in Online Environments]] | * [[Locus of Control in Online Environments]] | ||
* [[Adamic and Glance]] | * [[Adamic and Glance]] | ||
* [[Predictability and Prediction for a Media-Experimental Cultural Market]] | * [[Predictability and Prediction for a Media-Experimental Cultural Market]] | ||
* [[Network readiness index and web index]] | * [[Network readiness index and web index]] | ||
* [[Communication platform design characteristics (public sphere)]] | |||
* [[Criteria for the measurement of the impact of the internet in society]] | * [[Criteria for the measurement of the impact of the internet in society]] | ||
* [[Shift on internet studies]] | * [[Shift on internet studies]] | ||
* [[Direct measures of the internet (ISP/ICT)]] | |||
| | | | ||
'''Participating @:''' | '''Participating @:''' | ||
Latest revision as of 15:18, 9 June 2014
Before 2009, despite the converging dynamic of internet studies, scholars have been following a field-specific approach, in most cases departing from and returning to this unique field (sociology, political science, philosophy, law, economics). This type of converging-de-converging-converging analysis ccycly gave birth to a new, scientifically unclassified form of study. The resulting material, specifically what was produced by leading figures in specialized intstitutes from 2010 and onwards, became the scholar’s point of reference, very fast and almost exclusively. In cosequence, a wave of what could be described as "metaphilosophy" has defined the academic scope for the web 2.0 period of the internet. This wave, though often more specialized and spherical regarding the complexity of the internet, it hasfailed to include relevant to the subject academic work from the distinct sciences of the period before 2005: the separate fields through which a great progress has been made before in relation to social, political and economic issues. And while a shift was universally understood as necessary, the produced material may be seen today as inadequate both on a qualitative and a quantitative level:
Qualitative
In order to progress and accurately respond to the metaphilosophies, the academic discourse is led to use non-specific language which is innacurate if isolated and examined through the scope of a single scientific field. This linguistic conflict is forcing scholars to create new terminology that can respond to the phenomena or natures they analyze. Thus, the theories produced appear as solid but disconnected from the past. If we compare this dynamic with the transition from modernism to post-modernism we will conclude that while there are shift similarities on a linguistic and conceptual level, one significant difference stands out: the inability of scholars today to produce a critique on old non-converging science field-based theories and approaches similar to that of the post-modernists against the modernists – their attempt to "solidify" their theories and create momentum.
Survey and measurement
Quantitative
One could assume that the unbounded speed of technological advance and a data influx of network consumption does not allow for the time required for the creation of a critical rhetoric. Speed is by itself problematic for the quality of new material compared to the old. Volume is too high while speed of prodution is too fast, generating incomparable scientific parameters and methods and a time-based "stress" that does not allow for their evaluation.
Research must locate the nature of the social, political and economical norms that drive this dynamic in relation to the following parameters:
Accessibility
The researcher should compare materials of equal impact from the two periods through the systemization of per case studies for each scientific field next to the four pillars of internet studies (architecture, law, market, norms)……………….