Author Archives: parkdo

Ontology of Students in Interdisciplinary Programs

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, Caspar David Friedrich (1818)

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.

Tell Me Your Real Name: Korea’s Real-Name Verification Policy

In April 2011, Freedom House, international human rights NGO, published the report about freedom on internet and digital media. In the report, they describe South Korea as “partly free country”. They states that South Korea’s internet infrastructure is one of the most advanced in the world, and its democratic institutions, however Real-Name verification policy and a recent series of arrests of bloggers have presented challenges to internet freedom. UN special rapporteur, Frank La Rue, also concerns regarding Real-Name verification that “clearly qualifies as pre-censorship, restricts freedom of internet-based expression rooted in anonymity, inhibits public opinion formation, and contravenes freedom of expression.”

Real-Name verification policy refers process of website registration that asks users to verify their real-world identity before making user content on the web – especially comments and posting. Users won’t be required to use their real names as their IDs, but still they have to verify their particular online ID is mapped onto their real name and Resident Registration Number (RRN) of 13-digit number. Surely, this policy has been criticized regarding freedom of speech on the Internet and infringement of intellectual freedom.

At first, Real-Name verification policy adapted to the amendment of Public Official Election Act in 2004. The policy targeted preventing widespread cyberbullying in postings and comments of election-related online discussion forum. However, New conservative government, President Lee Myoung-bak administration suffered from candlelight protest and massive Anti-Government opinions from online. The government decided their way to extend the range of real-name registration policy to apply any website with more than 100,000 visitors per day in 2009. Hundred and fifty three of local and global operated websites were concerned including Google’s YouTube.

However, Google officially had decided to refuse it. Rachel Whetstone, vice president of Google said, “Google thinks the freedom of expression is most important value to uphold on the internet.” He continued to say “We concluded in the end that it is impossible to provide benefits to internet users while observing this country’s law because the law does not fall in line with Google’s principles.” As a matter of fact, Google had no choice but to find a way to refuse compliance with the Real-Name Verification in order to maintain their corporate universal access to information for all users, and services it provides worldwide.

Social Network also makes Real-Name Verification policy useless. Many websites started adopting social API function also called ‘Social comments’. Social comments allow leave users comments with login status of social network like Twitter or Facebook without website’s own login function. As expansion of Social Network, 45.1% of website adopted the social comment which means Social comments became a sort of bypass of Real-name verification. In Mar 2011, the government officially announced that social comments are not a subject matter of Real-Name Verification policy anymore. Finally, Korean government realized that enforcement of local act to global based company is almost impossible.

This case shows interesting dynamics and complexity between local and global internet environment setting. Korean government had been made a ceaseless effort to extend the as local policy, even though various criticisms over the policy had been raised. However Google and Social Network API, global function makes local policy powerless. In addition, it also reminds us needs of researches for how local and global setting is interwoven in internet environment.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 144 other followers