Shift on internet studies: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Since 2009, a great shift has occurred in studying the internet. In the early years scholars have been following a field-specific scientific approach (branches of sociology, political science, philosophy, law, economics)……… This type of converging analysis gave birth to a new, scientifically unclassified form of study. The resulting material, specifically what was produced by leading figures in specialized intstitutes from 2012 and onwards, has been the younger scholar’s point of reference, 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 failed to include relevant to the subject academic work from the distinct sciences of the period before 2005. By relevant I am refering to these separate fields through which a great progress has been made before in relation to social, political and market issues. And while a shift was universally understood as necessary, the produced material may be seen today as inadequate in two different levels: | Since 2009, a great shift has occurred in studying the internet. In the early years scholars have been following a field-specific scientific approach (branches of sociology, political science, philosophy, law, economics)……… This type of converging analysis gave birth to a new, scientifically unclassified form of study. The resulting material, specifically what was produced by leading figures in specialized intstitutes from 2012 and onwards, has been the younger scholar’s point of reference, 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 failed to include relevant to the subject academic work from the distinct sciences of the period before 2005. By relevant I am refering to these separate fields through which a great progress has been made before in relation to social, political and market issues. And while a shift was universally understood as necessary, the produced material may be seen today as inadequate in two different levels: | ||
= Qualitative | =='''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. | 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. | ||
| Line 8: | Line 7: | ||
= 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. | ||
Revision as of 05:26, 2 June 2014
Since 2009, a great shift has occurred in studying the internet. In the early years scholars have been following a field-specific scientific approach (branches of sociology, political science, philosophy, law, economics)……… This type of converging analysis gave birth to a new, scientifically unclassified form of study. The resulting material, specifically what was produced by leading figures in specialized intstitutes from 2012 and onwards, has been the younger scholar’s point of reference, 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 failed to include relevant to the subject academic work from the distinct sciences of the period before 2005. By relevant I am refering to these separate fields through which a great progress has been made before in relation to social, political and market issues. And while a shift was universally understood as necessary, the produced material may be seen today as inadequate in two different levels:
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.
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.
In order to establish this hypothesis or move away from it, research must locate the nature of the social, political and economical norms that drive this dynamic. 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)……………….