Upload
christian-katzenbach
View
1.382
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Workshop “New Directions in Communication Policy Research” ECREA Section “Communication Law and Policy” Zürich, November 6-7, 2009. Christian Katzenbach Institute for Media and Communication Studies Freie Universität Berlin, Germany Icons by Melih Bilgil, http://www.picol.org/, under CC BY-SA
Citation preview
Technologies as InstitutionsRethinking the role of technology
in media governance constellations
Christian Katzenbach
Institute for Media and Communication StudiesFreie Universität Berlin, Germany
Workshop “New Directions in Communication Policy Research”ECREA Section “Communication Law and Policy”
Zürich, November 6-7, 2009.
Introduction
Christian Katzenbach | Technologies as Institutions | ECREA-Workshop, November 2009, Zurich
‣Governance as Background and Frame
‣ Technology as Blind Spot
‣ The „Politics of Information and Communication Technologies“
Introduction
[.…] a politics deeply embedded not just within the institutions that design and distribute technologies and services, but within
the technology itself, as software products and information networks both prescribe and proscribe, configuring suppliers
and users, containing and constraining behaviour, and embodying in their algorithms and their gateways both the
normative and the seductive.
Mansell /Silverstone, 1996
“
Christian Katzenbach | Technologies as Institutions | ECREA-Workshop, November 2009, Zurich
‣Governance as Background and Frame
‣ Technology as Blind Spot
‣ The „Politics of Information and Communication Technologies“
Introduction
Goal:Foundations for the (re-)integration of technology and its
interrelations in the governance discourse
Governance
Christian Katzenbach | Technologies as Institutions | ECREA-Workshop, November 2009, Zurich
‣Governance Frame: Regulation in a wider sense
‣ gained attention as analytical concept and practical approach
‣ Shift of focus in several dimensions:
‣ Actors: Vertical and Horizontal Extension of the traditional mode of rule-making through the nation-state
‣ Vertical: International Institutions
‣ Horizontal: Inclusion of private actors (self- and Co-Regulation)
Governance as a Theoretical Frame
Focus on new sets of actors
Christian Katzenbach | Technologies as Institutions | ECREA-Workshop, November 2009, Zurich
Focus on new mechanismsDiscourse
Values
Competition
Legislation
Norms
ExpertiseKnowledge
Institutions
Coordination
Legitimation
Markets
Christian Katzenbach | Technologies as Institutions | ECREA-Workshop, November 2009, Zurich
‣ From the "Golden-Age Nation State" to heterogenous regulatory constellations
‣ Focus on new sets of actors, not on mechanisms
Governance in Communication Research
Role of technology in media governance constellations?
Christian Katzenbach | Technologies as Institutions | ECREA-Workshop, November 2009, Zurich
‣ Broad Concept of Governance: „Patterns to cope with interdependencies between actors“
‣ Schuppert: Structures of coordination, rather than regulation
‣ Institutions as analytical hinge
Governance and Institutions
[Institutions are] symbolic and behavioral systems containing representational, constitutive and normative rules together with regulatory mechanisms that define a common meaning system
and give rise to distinctive actors and action routines.
Scott, 1994
“
Christian Katzenbach | Technologies as Institutions | ECREA-Workshop, November 2009, Zurich
‣ Broad Concept of Governance: „Patterns to cope with interdependencies between actors“
‣ Schuppert: Structures of coordination, rather than regulation
‣ Institutions as analytical hinge
‣ They are both outcome…
‣… as well as instruments of regulation.
Governance and Institutions
Christian Katzenbach | Technologies as Institutions | ECREA-Workshop, November 2009, Zurich
‣ Constructivist Turn in the 1980s: Focus on Domestication and Adoption
‣ Disregard of the Politics of Technologies
Technology in Media Governance
Impacts of Technology on social behaviour and sectoral change1 Political and Social Construction
of Technology2‣ Domestication and Adoption‣ Development of Standards‣ Regulation of Emerging Technologies ‣ Case Studies
Technology does not follow its own teleological path
‣ Technology as form of (indirect) regulation
DANGER! Technological Determinism!
Indeed, the very design of the Internet seemed technologically proof against attempts to put the genie back in the bottle. […]
[It] treats censorship like damage and routes around it.
Walker 2003
“
Lessig 2007
Christian Katzenbach | Technologies as Institutions | ECREA-Workshop, November 2009, Zurich
‣ Constructivist Turn in the 1980s: Focus on Domestication and Adoption
‣ Disregard of the Politics of Technologies
Technology in Media Governance
Impacts of Technology on social behaviour and sectoral change1 Political and Social Construction
of Technology2‣ Domestication and Adoption‣ Development of Standards‣ Regulation of Emerging Technologies ‣ Case Studies
‣ Technology as form of (indirect) regulation
‣ Interplay and Interdependencies
DANGER! Technological Determinism!
Christian Katzenbach | Technologies as Institutions | ECREA-Workshop, November 2009, Zurich
‣ Core Interest: Technology — Action — Socio-political Structures
Insights from the Sociology of Science and Technology
Impacts of Technology on social behaviour and sectoral change1 Political and Social Construction
of Technology2‣ Technology in Use
‣ Meaning and Usage are ascribed, not determined‣ Domestication
‣ Technology Development‣ „Leitbilder“‣ Standardisation‣ Regulation
‣ Technology as functional equivalent‣ Durkheimʻs social facts‣ Hardened social action and structured
‣ Technology is Society made durable
Picture: clemensfranz (CC By-SA 3.0)
Christian Katzenbach | Technologies as Institutions | ECREA-Workshop, November 2009, Zurich
‣ Core Interest: Technology — Action — Socio-political Structures
Hints from the Sociology of Science and Technology
Impacts of Technology on social behaviour and sectoral change1 Political and Social Construction
of Technology2‣ Technology in Use
‣ Meaning and Usage are ascribed, not determined‣ Domestication
‣ Technology Development‣ „Leitbilder“‣ Standardisation‣ Regulation
‣ Technology as functional equivalent‣ Durkheimʻs social facts‣ Hardened social action and structured
‣ Technology is Society made durable
Christian Katzenbach | Technologies as Institutions | ECREA-Workshop, November 2009, Zurich
‣ Core Interest: Technology — Action — Socio-political Structures
Hints from the Sociology of Science and Technology
Impacts of Technology on social behaviour and sectoral change1 Political and Social Construction
of Technology2‣ Technology in Use
‣ Meaning and Usage are ascribed, not determined‣ Domestication
‣ Technology Development‣ „Leitbilder“‣ Standardisation‣ Regulation
‣ Technology as functional equivalent‣ Durkheimʻs social facts‣ Hardened social action and structured
‣ Technology is Society made durable
Co-Evolution
Resources Routines
Christian Katzenbach | Technologies as Institutions | ECREA-Workshop, November 2009, Zurich
Technologies as Institutions: Discussion
‣ Importance of detailed look at technological and policy decisions‣ Set the frame for communication and following decisions‣ Time-lag
‣ Technologies are part of the institutional frame that individual action (communication) is embedded in‣ Interaction of user adoption and technological affordances
‣ Interplay and Interdependencies
Infrastructure / Policy
Shared Values / Communities of Usage
InteractionsMicro
Meso
Macro
Infrastructure / Architecture
Interconnection / Logics / Standards
Content
Net Neutrality
Copyright
Zero
Christian Katzenbach | Technologies as Institutions | ECREA-Workshop, November 2009, Zurich
Selected References
‣ Bijker, W. E. und Law, J. (Hrsg.). (1992). Shaping technology/building society : studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.‣ Donges, Patrick. (2007). The New Institutionalism as a theoretical foundation of media
governance. Communications, 32, 325-330. ‣ Latour, Bruno. (2007). Reassembling the social : an introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford
[u.a.]: Oxford Univ. Press.‣ Latour, Bruno. (1991). Technology is Society made durable., in: John Law (Hrsg.), A Sociology of
Monsters. London: Routledge. 103-131.‣ Latzer, M., Just, N., Sauerwein, F., & Slowinski, P. (2003). Regulation Remixed: Institutional
Change through Self and Co-Regulation in the Mediamatics Sector. Communications & Strategies, 50(2), 127-157. ‣ Lessig, Lawrence. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York, NY: Basic Books.‣ Mansell, R. & Silverstone, R. (Eds.). (1996). Communication by design: The politics of
information and communication technologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.‣ Schulz-Schaeffer, I. (2000). Sozialtheorie der Technik. Frankfurt am Main [u.a.]: Campus Verl.‣ Schuppert, Gunnar Folke. (2008). Governance: Auf der Suche nach Konturen eines "anerkannt
uneindeutigen Begriffs", in: Gunnar Folke Schuppert und Michael Zürn (Hrsg.), Governance in einer sich wandelnden Welt. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. 13-40.‣ Walker, John. (2003). "The digital imprimatur: How big brother and big media can put the internet
genie back in the bottle". Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 16(3), 24-77.‣ Winner, Langdon. (1980). "Do Artifacts Have Politics?". Daedulus, 109, 121-136.
Paying for Music Consuming Music but not Paying
Technological SettingLegal Setting
Norms and Values
Analog – Copying as ExceptionFair UseCreators
Paying for Music Consuming Music but not Paying
Technological SettingLegal Setting
Norms and Values
Analog – Copying as ExceptionFair UseCreators
Paying for Music Consuming Music but not Paying
Technological SettingLegal Setting
Norms and Values
Digitally Networked – Copying = UsageFair Use???Creators, but also: Rip, Mix, and Burn / Sharing