the justification for an analysis of stakeholder input in the national information infrastructure
TRANSCRIPT
The Justification for An Analysis of
Stakeholder Input in the National Information
InfrastructureJeremy Pesner
George Mason SPP Graduate Student Research Conference
SOPA & PIPA
Stop Online Piracy Act, PROTECT-IP Act Considered in House and Senate (respectively) in
2011 Upset many Internet communities, including
technical, business, and policy Policymakers did not consult with these communities
(see Pesner, 2012 in gnovis journal) “Black Wednesday” protest on January 18, 2012
indicated their frustration and displeasure Killed the bills completely Raises questions of need for multi-stakeholdership in
Internet & technology policymaking
The Power of the User
Users key to growth of the Interneto “We’re no longer dealing with a public ‘in reception’
to the acts of companies and governments. We’re now in an era where the public and those institutions are becoming one and the same.” – Douglas Rushkoff, Fostering Internet competition
Internet has created unique subcultures (Schäfer, 2011), unique networks (Benkler, 2006; Tapscott & Williams, 2007) and unique economies (“Silicon Prarie: America’s New Internet Economy)
All acting and interacting users have a stake in Internet’s structure & future
Clearer sense of user and other stakeholder input into Internet policy needed – This is the basis for research
The Need for Diversity The Difference (Page, 2008) – Diversity leads to
better outcomeso Demonstrated through a variety of mathematical,
computational, and real-world exampleso Justification for “the wisdom of crowds”o Members must be reasonably competent and willing to
work together The Medici Effect (Johansson, 2006) – Paradigm-
shattering ideas are found at the intersection of disciplineso Enables insights to be derived from their application in
multiples types of situationso Barriers must be broken downo Follows that people from diverse perspectives will often
aid with this
Values in Science Policy
Pasteur’s Quadrant (Stokes, 1997) – Recognize use-based scientific researcho Rebuttal to Science: The Endless Frontier (Vannevar Bush,
1945) which proposed a unified science agency run purely by scientists who would fund basic research
o Stokes demonstrates that understanding social context and use for basic science is key for future of science research & policy
o Research can seek both fundamental understanding and applied uses (like Louis Pasteur)
Science, Policy and the Value-Free Ideal (Douglas, 2009) – Scientists should bring their values to their worko Paradigm of science thought to be purely rational, value-freeo Scientists are human, so they have values and biaseso Proposes “value-full” ideal to bring scientists in as policy
stakeholders
How the Internet is Run
Where Wizard Stay Up Late (Hafner & Lyon, 1996) – History of the Interneto Early Internet developments made by key group of network
researchers, known as Network Working Group (NWG)o NWG expanded as more computers gained access to networko Decisions made by loose consensus, no one “in charge”
Multistakeholder model (Internet Society and others) – Internet should be governed by cooperation between all relevant entities & stakeholders o Evolution of NWG philosophy – Applied to policy as well as
technicalo Integrates bottom-up and top down strategies, deals
consciously with power and conflict, all working towards common goal
o In use in most Internet governance processes, controversy when it’s not (World Conference on Information Technology)
National Information Infrastructure
Initiative by Clinton administration to commercialize Interneto When Al Gore “invented the Internet”
Chosen as a research site for several reasons:o Little precedent for IT policyo Proactive, not reactionaryo Many offices of government involvedo User-orientedo Easy to access stakeholderso No recent academic studies
Key questions: “How were stakeholders incorporated into the policy process? How did the policy process affect the results? What can today’s IT policy learn from this?”
Technological Determinism
Technological development follows predictable, traceable path and has inherent societal effects
Thorstein Veblen, William Ogburn, Robert Heilbroner, Thomas Hughes, Langdon Winner
Winner – Technology has “politics” that (dis)enfranchise users
Modern example - Innovation Wave Theory (Atkinson, 2005): Technology innovation waves reshape & recondition society
Macro-level theory which examines technological and societal change over broad periods
Not suited for National Information Infrastructure, which took place over a few years
Social Construction of Technology
Argues opposite of technological determinism – human action shapes technology development (Pinch & Bijker, 1984)
Accomplished by examining relevant stakeholders and their opinions at every stage of technological developmento Often done in retrospect, historically
Criticisms (from Langdon Winner): o Does not examine moral, cultural, or economic
consequences of technological developmento Does not consider those left outo Does not consider power relationships between
stakeholders All could be important to policy development in
National Information Infrastructure
Grounded Theory “Anti-theory” method devised by Glaser & Strauss
(1967) Existing theories assume certain relationships,
leave others out Enables research to build new theories through
data:o “Codes” are specific terms arising from datao “Categories” are groups of codeso Development of categories enables new analysis of
corpuso Relationships between categories eventually emerge
Flexible, qualitative, rigorous, data-driven Will be applied to textual analysis and interviews “Lets data speak for itself”
Future Work History of National Information Infrastructure
o Who was involved?o What did they discuss?o What were the resultant policies?
Interviews with stakeholderso Many individuals within and outside of governmento Will ask about knowledge, experience, voice, opportunityo “How the sausage got made”
Bring it back to userso Will illuminate relationship of stakeholder interactions to
policy outcomeso Provide direction for current Internet policy deliberationso Solid basis for future research on user participation in
policymaking
