[rohrpost] First Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers

[Oliver Grau <oliver.grau@culture.hu-berlin.de>]

*** feel free to forward ***
Internet Research 1.0: The State of the Interdiscipline
First Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers
University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA
September 14-17, 2000 // http://www.cddc.vt.edu/aoir

A Field Matures: Cyberculture Studies at the Turn of the Century
By David Silver, University of Maryland/Georgetown University

Ten years ago, the first Conference in Cyberspace took place at the
University of Texas at Austin. According to most accounts, the
conference
was invite-only and attracted some of the best minds around, including
Michael Heim, Chip Morningstar, Marcos Novak, and Allucquere Rosanne
(aka
Sandy) Stone. A year later, the ideas crept to the rest of us, in the
form of the appropriately entitled Cyberspace: First Steps (MIT, 1991),
edited by Michael Benedikt.
Throughout the last decade, many more steps have been taken. While
Howard
Rheingold's The Virtual Community (Addison-Wesley, 1993) examined
communities in cyberspace, Sherry Turkle's Life on the Screen (Simon &
Schuster, 1995), along with the work of Amy Bruckman, Elizabeth Reid,
and
Stone, explored the formation of identities within online environments.
By the mid-1990s, the first steps of an emerging field of study upgraded
to a brisk jog. Under the altering guise of cyberculture studies or
computer-mediated communication or Internet studies or social
informatics,
the field blossomed with books like CyberSociety (Sage, 1995) and
Virtual
Culture (Sage, 1997) edited by Steve Jones, Internet Culture (Routledge,
1997) edited by David Porter, and Network & Netplay (MIT, 1998) edited
by
Fay Sudweeks, Margaret McLaughlin, and Sheizaf Rafaeli. As the true
millennium approaches, the brisk jog has become a modest marathon, as
reflected in book length case studies like Nancy Baym's Tune In, Log On
(Sage, 2000), Paulina Borsook's Cyberselfish (Public Affairs, 2000),
Lynn
Cherny's Conversation and Community (Center for the Study of Language
and
Social Information Publications, 1999), and Christine Hine's Virtual
Ethnography (Sage, 2000), as well as critical subfields within the
interdiscipline, including Race in Cyberspace (Routledge, 2000) edited
by
Beth Kolko, Lisa Nakamura, and Gilbert Rodman, CyberFeminism (Spinifex
Press, 1999), and CyberSexualities (Edinburgh University Press,
2000) edited by Jenny Wolmark.
Yet perhaps the most lasting and far-reaching development was the
formation of the Association for Internet Researchers
(http://aoir.org/).
Originally conceived by Greg Elmer (Boston College), Steve Jones
(University of Illinois, Chicago), and Stefan Wray (NYU) in the midst of
the World Wide Web and Contemporary Cultural Theory conference organized
by Andrew Herman and Thomas Swiss and held at Drake University in
November, 1998, the Association of Internet Researchers, or A(o)IR, is
a concerted attempt to foster an *international* and *interdisciplinary*
community of scholars studying, teaching, and creating diverse forms of
cyberculture. Enjoying an online existence for nearly two years, the
members of A(o)IR came together face to face for the first time at the
University of Kansas in September for its first annual conference:
Internet Research 1.0: The State of the Interdiscipline
(http://www.cddc.vt.edu/aoir/). Organized by Conference Coordinator
Nancy
Baym (University of Kansas) and Program Chair Jeremy Hunsinger (Virginia
Tech) with the help of Steve Jones and countless others, the conference
was nothing less than a monumental and (dare I say?) historical success.
If A(o)IR's purpose is to foster an international and interdisciplinary
community of scholars, the goal was met. Although held in the United
States, conference attendees came from over twenty countries, including
Australia, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Holland,
Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Serbia,
Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. Similarly,
reflecting
the interdisciplinarity of the field itself, conference attendees
represented over two dozen disciplines, including: advertising; American
studies; anthropology; business; communication; communication, culture,
and technology; cultural studies; computer science; economics;
education;
english; film studies; history; law; library and information science;
linguistics; marketing; media ecology; media studies; philosophy;
political science; public health; science, technology, and society;
social
informatics; sociology; and women's studies. Finally, and perhaps most
refreshingly, with the exception of the keynotes, panels contained a
rich
spectrum of generations, ranging from first year graduate students and
grizzled ABDs to junior and senior (and an emeritus or two!) professors.
Combined with the international and interdisciplinary nature of the
conference, the intergenerational composition added a triple shot of
energy, creativity, and experimentation.
A FIELD MATURES
In some ways, the conference represented a research agenda for and
coming
attractions of what might be called the third stage of cyberculture
studies. As I have noted elsewhere, the first stage, popular
cyberculture, was marked by its journalistic origins and characterized
by
its descriptive nature, limited dualism, and use of the
Internet-as-frontier discourse. The second stage, cyberculture studies,
focused largely on virtual communities and online identities and
developed
contoured textures from an influx of scholars from across the
disciplines.
While the twin pillars of second stage cyberculture studies continue to
be
rich sites for contemporary scholarship, the most recent stage of
scholarship, critical cyberculture studies, approaches online
communities
and identities within and with respect to the multiple contexts
surrounding and informing them. These contexts include but are not
limited to the cultural histories of other new and once-new
communication
technologies, social and economic barriers to online landscapes, the
varied and diverse kinds of technological environments that make online
interactions possible, and discourses of cyberspace found in popular
media, commercial advertising, political rhetoric, and everyday life.
Accompanying this more holistic approach to cyberculture is an
interdisciplinary and self-reflexive set of methods and methodologies.
Reflecting the field's maturation were sixty-six panels, roundtables,
demonstrations, and keynote presentations representing a rich collection
of subfields. Psychology in/and the Internet was a hot topic, and
discussed in panels like "Psychology and Relationships" moderated by
Nils
Zurawski (University of Muenster), "Subjectivity, Cyberspace, and the
Social" moderated by Jeremy Hunsinger, and "Online Relationships,
Personal and Professional" moderated by Andrea Baker (Ohio University).
Issues of identity were also addressed in "Identity and the Dynamics of
Interaction within Online Media," a panel featuring Hannes Hogni
Vilhjalmsson (MIT) and Joshua Berman & Amy Bruckman (Georgia Institute
of
Technology), who showcased the inspiring Turing Game
(http://www.cc.gatech.edu/elc/turing/).
Another popular topic was the intersections between globalization,
communication technologies, and democracy. A ton of folks showed up
early
in the morning to attend a panel entitled "When Voters are Users,"
featuring a collection of interesting presentations from R. Kirkland
Ahern, Kirsten Foot, W. Russell Neuman, Steve Schneider, Ilyse Stempler,
and Jennifer Stromer-Galley, all from the University of Pennsylvania.
Other relevant panels included "Global Internet Initatives: Case
Studies" moderated by Bram Dov Abramson (Telegeography), "Theories of
Globalization" moderated by Liza Tsaliki (University of Nijmegen, NL),
"Global Politics" moderated by Christiana Frietas, and "Internet and
Democratization."
Related panels addressed issues of hegemony and resistance. "Digital
Resistances," moderated by Lauren Langman (Loyola University of
Chicago), featured papers exploring various sites of online resistance,
including alternative Web sites in Singapore (K.C. Ho and Zaheer Baber,
National University of Singapore), "Zapatistmo: The Electronic Web of
Third World Solidarity" (Fredi Avalos-C'deBaca, California State
University, San Marcos), fringe groups and collective action (S. Lee &
H. Sawhney, Indiana University), and recent online activity in Belgrade
(Smiljana Antonijevic, University of Belgrade). Creative activity,
gender
(mis)representation, and cyberfeminism came together in the panel "Women
on the Internet," moderated by Anne Daugherty (University of Kansas) and
featuring the research of Kate O'Riordan (University of Brighton),
Susanna
Paasonen (University of Turku), and Mia Consalvo (University of
Wisconsin,
Milwaukee). Although issues of gender and class were addressed within
many
panels, issues of race and sexuality were, for this conference attendee,
hard to find.
Another subfield garnering plenty of attention was online (and
hypertextual) pedagogies. Panels included "Pedagogy" moderated by
Gretchen Schoel (College of William and Mary/Keio University),
"Pedagogy:
In Practice" moderated by Shawn Wahl (University of Nebraska),
"Pedagogy:
Philosophy" moderated by Susan Lazinger (The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem), and "Writing on the Web, Electronic Literature, and
Linguistics" moderated by Len Hatfield (Virginia Tech), who, along with
Tim Luke, is organizing the "Learning 2000: Reassessing the Virtual
University" conference in late September at Virginia Tech
(http://www.cddc.vt.edu/learning/). A roundtable discussion entitled
"I've Got a Little List," featured the findings, frustrations, and
epiphanies of a number of heavily-trafficked mailing list moderators,
including the indefatigable Joan Korenman (University of Maryland,
Baltimore County), Patrick Leary, Michele Ollivier (Universite
d'Ottawa),
Wendy Robbins (University of New Brunswick), and the suspendered Gil
Rodman (University of South Florida).
Still other panels were devoted to visual design -- "Design" moderated
by
Jean Trumbo (University of Wisconsin-Madison) and "Interfaces and
Communication Strategies" moderated by Harmeet Sawheny (Indiana
University) -- discourse -- "Mediating New Media," "Open Source," and
"Metaphors for the Internet" moderated by Elissa Fineman (University of
Texas at Austin) -- and community networks, including the two and a half
hour, live Access Grid-broadcasted panel "Investigating Community
Networks," moderated by Nick Jankowski (University of Nijmegen, NL) and
featuring the findings of Teresa M. Harrison, James P. Zappen, and
Christina Prell (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute), Lawrence Hecht
(Internet Public Policy Network), Jankowski, Martine van Selm, and Ed
Hollander (University of Nijmegen), Joyce Lamerichs (Wageningen
University
and Research Center), and myself (University of Maryland/Georgetown
University).
Perhaps the surest sign of the field's maturation was found in the many
engaging panels on research methods and ethics. In addition to "Ethics
and Internet Research," a panel moderated by Charles Ess (Drury
University), there was the "Internet Research Ethics Roundtable," which
featured a number of speakers, including Philip Howard (Northwestern
University and Pew Internet and American Life Project), David Snowball
(Augustana College), Storm King (International Society for Mental Health
Online), Sarina Chen (University of Northern Iowa), Sanyin Siang
(American
Association for the Advancement of Science), Steve Jones (University of
Illinois, Chicago), and Rob Kling (Indiana University). Another
outstanding panel was "Methods: Gaining Inside Perspectives," moderated
by
Ken Harwood (University of Houston). Representing various disciplinary
positions, the panelists discussed a number of useful research methods
for
the study of cyberspace: Daniel Marschall (Georgetown University) and
Christine Hine (Brunel University) discussed the merits of ethnography
(both on- and off-line), Russell Clark (GE Corporate Research and
Development) and Joe Downing (Western Kentucky University) examined
anonymous Web sampling, and Christian Sandvig and Emily Murase (Stanford
University) offered an original method of unobtrusive observation of
network data.
Interspersed throughout the conference were five keynote addresses
featuring senior scholars from across the disciplines: Barry Wellman
(Sociology, University of Toronto) discussed his and his students' work
on
social networks; Helen Nissenbaum (Center for Human Values at Princeton
University) explored issues of trust online; Rob Kling (Information
Systems and Information Science, Indiana University at Bloomington)
examined online social behavior from a social informatics
perspective; Susan Herring (Information Systems and Information Science,
Indiana University at Bloomington) offered methods of computer-mediated
discourse analysis; and Manuel Castells (Sociology, University of
California, Berkeley) addressed, well, *everything*, offering one of the
most comprehensive overviews of the Net and contemporary culture and
society. (Select keynotes and other presentations will be available as
Web video on demand through the Apple Learning Interchange around the
start of October (http://www.apple.com/education/ali). Stay tuned to
the A(o)IR Web site for details.)
JUMPSTARTING A COMMUNITY
While the conference showcased a maturing field of study, it also helped
to foster and nurture a diverse and thriving community. As mentioned
earlier, the sprawling community came together on paper (and in
pixels) with the formation of the Association of Internet Researchers,
organized tirelessly by Steve Jones. For the last year, the
association's mailing list, air-l (http://aoir.org/airjoin.html), has
maintained a fair amount of dialogues and other conferences -- including
last spring's "Shaping the Network Society: The Future of the Public
Sphere in Cyberspace," sponsored by Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility, and last winter's "Virtual Methodology" conference,
organized by Christine Hine -- have brought many of us together. In
addition to the list, conference attendees had access to download many,
but not nearly all, of the papers before arriving in Kansas. (If that's
a subtle dis, I'm among the dissed . . .)
A common thread heard throughout the conference was that attendees had
found an academic home to call their own. Many of the participants
recounted frustrating tales of academic marginalization - at
conferences,
with journals, within departments - and found themselves comfortable
among
the interdisciplinary or, perhaps, transdisciplinary atmosphere.
Subsequently, an elevated collective knowledge was taken advantage
of: unlike many papers presented at more traditional conferences,
presenters skipped the obligatory ten minutes of explaining terms and
quickly got to the beef.
In order to provide a space within which attendees could continue
discussions raised in panels, conference organizers set up a large
public
area on site. Stocked with a buffet of free goodies that made this
poor,
hungry grad student dizzy, attendees gathered to talk, meet online
acquaintances face to face, network, and share works in progress. It
was
here that we also heard about research being conducted by conference
attendees who did not present papers, including Annice Kim's (University
of North Carolina School of Public Health at Chapel Hill) work on
content
analysis of tobacco Web sites and Gretchen Schoel's (College of William
and Mary/Keio University) research on crosscultural uses of the Net by
Americans and Japanese. And with help from Apple Computer, nearly two
dozen sleek laptops (with wireless Internet connections no less!) were
set
up for folks to check their email and make last minute adjustments to
their Powerpoint presentations.
Off site, the community continued. Each evening, conference attendees
swarmed downtown Lawrence, taking over bars, filling long and loud
restaurant tables, and packing the local mom and pop ice cream
shop. (Warning: Avoid the blueberry flavor: Nasty, very nasty.) In the
wee hours, hotel rooms transformed into parlors, where hard fought,
ruthless card games took place, bruising some folks' fragile egos
without
denting their wallets. Much of this was a product of an interesting
collection of scholars, the rest a product of Conference Coordinator
Nancy
Baym and Program Chair Jeremy Hunsinger, who organized the conference
and
extra curricular activities beautifully. More academic conferences
should
be this debaucherous.
SEE YOU IN MINNESOTA
Perhaps the most exciting news came during the conference's last
session,
the General Business Meeting. Having made it past 1.0, 2.0 was
announced. John Logie, assistant professor in the Department of
Rhetoric
at the University of Minnesota, invited attendees to the
Minneapolis/St. Paul area for the Second Annual Conference of the
Association of Internet Researchers sometime during fall 2001. Further,
within AIR, two tasks groups - the Task-Force on Ethical Online Research
(headed by Amy Bruckman, Sarina Chen, and Sanyin Siang) and the Web Page
Working Group (headed by Kristin Foot, Jennifer Stromer-Galley, Leslie
Tkach (University of Tsukuba), and myself) - were established and
promise
to surface in Minnesota. Finally, A(o)IR Interim Treasurer Wesley Schrum
announced that a new academic journal, The Journal of Internet Research,
is in the planning stages and conversations with presses have begun.
Earlier in the summer, an interesting thread took place on air-l
regarding
the state of Internet studies. While some folks argued for the creation
of a new discipline (Internet Studies? Cyberculture Studies?), others
were less enthusiastic, pointing towards the field's infancy as well as
lack of developed methods and theories. In many ways, the Internet
Research 1.0 conference confirmed such views. For while scholars
continue
to explore the digital domain in new and exciting ways, some of the best
scholarship is performed with traditional methods and from within
traditional disciplines. In the meantime, universities are establishing
new forms of academic intersections (witness, for example, Georgetown
University's Master's Program in Communication, Culture, and Technology
and Georgia Tech's School of Literature, Communication, and Culture) and
departments and individuals are developing interdisciplinary centers
(for
instance, University of Maryland, Baltimore County's Center for Women
and
Information Technology, University of Minnesota's Internet Studies
Center, Virginia Tech's Center for Digital Discourse and Culture, and my
own Resource Center for Cyberculture Studies). Perhaps the ultimate
lesson
learned from the conference is this: In order to keep things fresh,
interesting, and relevant, we must continue approaching our topic from
an
international and interdisciplinary perspective.
*****
David Silver is a doctoral candidate in American Studies at the
University
of Maryland, an adjunct faculty member in the Master's Program in
Communication, Culture, and Technology at Georgetown University, and the
founder and director of the Resource Center for Cyberculture Studies. He 
can be reached via his Web site at http://www.glue.umd.edu/~dsilver/


----------------------------------------------------------
# rohrpost -- deutschsprachige Mailingliste fuer Medien- und Netzkultur
# Info: majordomo@mikrolisten.de; msg: info rohrpost
# kommerzielle Verwertung nur mit Erlaubnis der AutorInnen
# Entsubskribieren: majordomo@mikrolisten.de, msg: unsubscribe rohrpost
# Kontakt: owner-rohrpost@mikrolisten.de -- http://www.mikro.org/rohrpost