Monthly Archives: May 2012
Posted by parkdo
I would like to express my heartfelt sympathy for Heather’s posting. I thought it would be more interesting if we have the following discussions. For me, the difficulty of interdisciplinary studies stems not only from the daunting challenge of designing a research framework by ourselves, but also from our daily ontological questions as students in an interdisciplinary program.
Regarding questions of who you are
Two years ago, I was in a long queue waiting to pass U.S. immigration processing. The immigration officer wants to know who I am.
- Immigration Officer: So, what are you studying?
- Me: I’m coming here for PhD program in Social Informatics.
- Immigration Officer: I’m sorry, what?
- Me: oh…Well…I mean…It is Computer-science-ish stuff. I will be PhD student in CS-ish study.
- Immigration Officer: oh, now I got it. Sounds cool. Good luck.
I knew that was the fastest way to escape the situation, but I didn’t know it was just the very beginning of endless identical questions that I would face. Even within this small Informatics building, I have often encountered similar questions asking to explain what (the hell) is Social Informatics. Of course, I used to reply plausibly that ‘Social Informatics is interdisciplinary studies of the relationship between ICT technology and society’ as we used to teach in undergraduate course. That answer would be full mark in their final exam. Unfortunately, however, it is never good enough for me. Weirdly I felt I kept wandering into a maze while I tried to answer the questions. It was not just the matter of social recognition, but rather matters of fundamental issues regarding the ontology of students in an interdisciplinary program.
According to the report by NSF, 24%-30% of PhD dissertations were written on interdisciplinary research during 2001 to 2008 academic years in United States. The Indiana University, Bloomington campus is ranked third in the nation, followed by MIT and Boston University, with an average 38.1% of doctoral dissertations being interdisciplinary. Though the statistic was based on a simple survey that has a considerable possibility of bias, it still means not a small number of doctoral students here have struggled in identifying themselves in academia. The question of the immigration officer became my lingering question: how can I know who I am.
Regarding questions of what you are doing
I’m interested in development of communication infrastructures in 21st century South Korea, which has been considered as ‘the most successful Internet nation’ (though I don’t know what exactly that means). Almost 8 years ago, I had a chance to sit in a meeting with bureaucrats from Southern Asia. They asked, ‘How did Korea have that amazingly rapid development in building communication infrastructure?’ One officer from Korean government barely replied, “I’m not sure how we did it, we just did it.” It was ‘the moment’ for me. Later, I realized there is not much convincing research that answers or deals with those issues. There are missing links between the success of Korea in the statistical numbers and causal explanations of its success. I started seeking the way to understand development of the infrastructure and its dynamics relationships of global and local technological competition and cooperation as it is situated within political, social, cultural arrangements. Hopefully my research will contribute to demystifying the incredible development of communication infrastructure in Korea.
My academic journey in higher education travels through computer science, history of science and technology, science and technology studies, policy studies and Social Informatics. When I was in the master’s program for history of science and technology, I was getting tired of reading materials about history of science in 18th century England. Moreover, I realized that the discipline of history does not consider the social phenomena in recent ten years as a ‘history’. History was not a good methodology kit to illustrate these issues. While I spent a couple more years in science and technology policy research field after my master’s years, I also realized policy analysis might just provide a partial explanation if I narrow the problem space enough.
In that way, Social Informatics program opened wide window for me as fully opened interdisciplinary program. Our faculty members always say “Whatever you want” with their generous smile. In IU, there were numerous opportunities to be exposed to related fields of research in and outside of the school, like HCI, complex systems, information science, telecommunications, history, political science, sociology and so forth.
But soon, I need to make my choice of which critical lens is the ‘proper’ lens to illustrate my research issues. It was obvious that I cannot use all the methodologies from a wide range of research disciplines in the limited time offered. At the same time, I need to find the audiences who might be interested in my research. CFPs for ‘related’ journals and conferences in my mailbox have stacked up, but I haven’t known what are ‘proper’ journals and conferences exactly. I have realized that I face the chaos of interdisciplinary openness. One more question is added up on top of the identity problem. Where is a good place for me to be?
Regarding questions of where you will be
From last year, we in the Social Informatics crew have been excited to get a new faculty member. During the job talk process, one of the candidates talked to us about the difficulty of finding a ‘proper’ academic position as a researcher with an interdisciplinary background. The candidate said that there are numerous opportunities to pursue, but there are limited places to stay in a stable position.
Science and Technology Studies, also called STS, had similar institutionalization problems. In recent thirty years, STS scholarship has contributed to seeing techno-scientific society practically and academically. Too few universities, however, had made long-term commitments to STS, and the STS as academic disciplines remains institutionally fragile. STS scholars are scattered in a diaspora across diverse departments. Here, after identify myself as an STS scholar, I might still be asked for a long time: where will I be?
Exhilarating, or terrifying, or both
There is a painting I keep seeing in my mind these days. The image is Wanderer above the Sea of Fog (1818) by Caspar David Friedrich. Historian John Lewis Gaddis started his book, The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past with interpretation of this painting. He explains that this painting is “suggesting at once mastery over a landscape and the insignificance of the individual within it. We see no face, so it’s impossible to know whether the prospect facing the young man is exhilarating, or terrifying, or both. (p. 1)”
Wanderer above the Sea of Fog (1818),
Caspar David Friedrich [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Social Informatics is young studies and a discipline still in a process. But ontological questions of the discipline are not our sole concern, as they also might somewhat overlap with the ontological questions facing all doctoral students. For us, suffering under this chaos of ontological problems might be even more inevitable. It could be part of our job that began when we joined this wonderful academic project in the formative stage. Thus, doing Social Informatics is exhilarating, or terrifying, or both.
Posted by Andrew Moore
In 2010, drunk driving accounted for nearly a third of all traffic related deaths. In an effort to deter drunk driving, police departments around the country started implementing sobriety checkpoints. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that these checkpoints were constitutional, contrary to arguments that they violated the Fourth Amendment, which bans unreasonable search and seizure. Recently, people have been posting the location of these sobriety checkpoints with increasing frequency. While this poses a clear threat to public safety, it also forces lawmakers to address the issue of crime-facilitating speech.
Crime-facilitating speech differs from incitement in that facilitating speech assists criminals in either committing a crime or getting away with the as opposed to convincing or encouraging someone to commit a crime. It is important to separate the crime-facilitating speech from crime-advocating speech (incitement) for two reasons. First, incitement has already been ruled on many times by the Supreme Court, most recently in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), whereas crime-facilitating speech has not been. Second, and perhaps more importantly, is that crime-facilitating speech may pose more of a threat to public safety than incitement. If a person knows how to commit a crime but does not want to, they must be persuaded to do so by crime-advocating speech and would therefore also be susceptible to counter advocacy encouraging them to not commit the crime. This process can be seen in the case of drunk driving. While it can be assumed most people know how to drive drunk, counter advocacy groups have persuaded most of us that it is against out best interest to do so. However, crime-facilitating speech does the opposite. It gives people who already want to commit a crime but are either afraid of being caught or don’t know how the knowledge on how to commit the crime or avoid being caught. In the case of drunk driving, this would give a person who would drive drunk if not for the risk of being caught the ability to avoid sobriety checkpoints and could convince them to drive drunk.
Crime-facilitating speech, however, is much too broad a topic to be debated in its entirety here, as it can range from posting DUI checkpoints, to writing a book about how to kill people, to publishing details of explosive compounds in a chemistry textbook. Some speech facilitates crime while also being used primarily for completely legal reasons (e.g. the aforementioned chemistry book that contains information on explosive chemical reactions which could be used to build a bomb) and because of that, it would be irresponsible to simply ban all crime-facilitating speech. While in theory there may be a law that could differentiate between acceptable crime-facilitating speech and speech that is deemed too dangerous while simultaneously restricting unwanted speech legally, I will not attempt to analyze that here. Instead, I will focus on the legality of and how to craft a law that outlaws the publication of sobriety checkpoint locations.
Current Censorship of Sobriety Checkpoints
There is already censorship of these sobriety checkpoints going on in the private sector. Members of Congress have asked companies like Apple, Google, and Research in Motion to ban any app that lists sobriety checkpoint locations from their smartphones and tablets. While Apple and Research in Motion have agreed to do so, up to this point Google has refused. As of now, there is no legislation addressing the publication of sobriety checkpoints, nor has any the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of crime-facilitating speech. Twitter recently announced that it would respect any nation’s wishes in regards to censorship of tweets. Brazil has filed a suit against Twitter and several of its users under this new policy asking that the tweets be removed, that information about the users who tweet checkpoint locations be revealed, and that the users be subjected to fines.
Should Checkpoint Publication Be Censored?
Everyone knows the U.S. has a right to free speech. What is less obvious to most is where the limit of that right falls. When it comes to the publication of sobriety checkpoints, people typically have two reactions. Either they believe it should be censored because their publication leads to more drunk drivers and therefore more alcohol related accidents and deaths, or they the value of free speech trumps the safety interest of keeping drunk drivers off the streets.