ICTlogy

Notes from the course Network Society: Social Changes, Organizations and Citizens, Barcelona, 15-17 October, 2008.

Some reflections about the Information Society
Josu Jon Imaz, Petronor (and, before, PNV)

Growingly, we see that the network is the new paradigm of civilization, abandoning the traditional radial model. And inside networks, we find meshes that weave densest networks: the international trade, the academy, civic communities… The Internet just instrumented former existing networks.

After the French-Prussian and the two World Wars, Europe gets reconfigured, borders blur, and the territory reshapes into network-like structures. Just like this, higher level problems can be faced through innovative solutions, e.g. the creation of the European Union.

Of course, the concept of identity is put at stake, and some people and communities react against these changes. There is a need to reconcile the idea of the state with that of the network, the center vs. the network, the individual and the collective vs. the network, etc.

Increasingly, cross-border spaces arise that defy both the idea of borders and the concept of the centre. The “centre”, more an more, can be pictured wherever by whoever and still make sense.

Indeed, uncertainty seems to be the paradigm, the framework, we will be living in.

In this always reshaping and recombining world, we’re moving into a new dimension where we might discover that we do not (or not only) belong to a predefined community (e.g. a nation) but to several “territories”. E.g. two cones, living in the same plane (2D), can look (cut by the plane) one as a circle and the other one as a parabola, hence different things. But if moved to a 3D world (a new dimension) they might well find that they were both equal: a cone.

And like “territories” and “identities” have changed, so have discourses, the way we communicate, the way we broadcast. Creating content is becoming an important part of the communication process. Not just sharing information, but the part of the creativity behind. Transmission of content must be accompanied by an added value, which might be adding new content to the one that was meant to be transmitted.

Politics, politicians and political communication in the Network Society
Miquel Iceta, PSC

Why being on the Net: to be the first one to say something. Better to say things, and engage in a dialogue, than to remain silent and be not part of the conversation.

Politics 2.0: not enough having a web site, you need to go beyond the mere presence on the Net. Each channel has its rules. Nixon won in the radio, Kennedy won in the TV: politicians need to dominate the dominant media.

But in these times of uncertainty, nothing is sure: even reputation is questioned and not always the same people necessarily have always to be right. Empowerment takes place and power gets democratized.

The Internet stimulates participation, creativity, communication, community building. The Net suggests taking the path of participative democracy and deliberative democracy.

The Internet as a “digital federation” where agreements are taken freely, ad hoc, shaping a federation.

Q&A

Antoni Gutiérrez-Rubí: Is it possible to have multiple identities? Imaz: not only possible, but a good thing, as it is the multiple nodes you’re connected with the ones that define you.

Antoni Gutiérrez-Rubí: Is it possible to do politics, to have political institutions, in the Network Society? Iceta: it is true that one of the consequences of globalization is less power for local/national institutions (even international), but it is not less untrue that just because of this, there is a huge need for strong leadership and command, which can only be achieved by strong political institutions.

Javier Vázquez: How can dialogue be shifted from persons to institutions (the actual model) towards persons to persons (the model that enables the Internet)?
Q: Can the Internet put flexibility into the public election system, and be able to vote or choose ideas instead of blocks of ideas and manifestos?

Iceta: There is no evidence that political parties are going to change and reshape them into network-like structures or architectures. So, it still is difficult to contact the person (not the party) or some idea (and not the party’s discipline). Hence, we have to focus on the notion of the party and try and change it, so that the communication and interaction with the citizenry can evolve towards more open scenarios. Dogma, rite and hierarchy, the fundamentals of the party, have to be broken down so that change can happen. Nevertheless, we should not put all the eggs of participation in the basket of the Internet: people offline, for the sake of democratic legitimacy, should be included in the decision-taking processes.
Imaz: While agreeing with Iceta, there is already a e.g. political blogosphere within parties’ members and partisans that is having some influence and even some measurable impact.

Q: How can direct participation in a decision take place? Iceta: The problem is not only in taking part in the last stage of a decision process, but how to identify all the alternatives and, hence, all the individuals that are affected or interested by such decision.

Q: How to guarantee reputation in people and quality in content? Iceta: The network itself has to be the filter: the Net creates the problem, the Net has to find the solution. Digital literacy being a must towards this goal. Imaz: we tend to ask the Internet things that we do not dare ask the “reality”. Fake reputation or fool content happens everyday. Not saying that we shouldn’t be concerned about it, but just demanding enforcement at all levels. On the other hand, we have to enhance freedom before control, and empower the weak before the strong.

More info

Levine, F., Locke, C., Searls, D. & Weinberger, D. (1999). The Cluetrain Manifesto. The End of Business as Usual. New York: Cluetrain.

Notes from the course Network Society: Social Changes, Organizations and Citizens, Barcelona, 15-17 October, 2008.

Citizenry in the Network Society
Tom Steinberg, MySociety.org

MySociety is an NGO (mainly run by volunteers) whose aim is to empower the society at large so they can engage, participate and contact the policy-makers.

Initiatives:

• WriteToThem.com: send your thoughts and queries to elected charges
• TheyWorkForYou.com: know who an elected charge is and how do they act and think (e.g. what did they vote concerning a specific subject)
• The Public Whip: based on the elected charges’ actions on e.g. the Parliament, engage in a debate and evaluation about these actions.
• FixMyStreet, to let public managers know about problems in your hometown: holes on the road, graffiti on your walls, etc.
• PledgeBank, to help people diffuse their pledges and gather other people around them so that pledges can be accomplished.
• OpenAustralia, similar to TheyWorkForYou
• WhatDoTheyKnow, about getting public data and information from governments
• Groups Near You, to find communities (“real” or virtual) in the neighbourhood, to connect with them, participate, engage

The common ground of all these initiatives is follow-up: all actions and reactions (or lack of them) can be tracked and surveyed by e-mail and RSS. This follow-up feature acts as an implicit — and most times explicit — enforcement tool that helps to get things done, or to have evidence to backup criticism for inaction.

Q&A

Marc López: Why Spain have no initiatives like those? How would a Spanish elected charge feel when facing such “controlling” devices?

Q: What do the institutions and politicians think about all these initiatives? A: Most probably they feel right when ranked positively on these sites according to their answers to queries sent by the users.

Q: Is it the low Internet usage level in Spain the reason not to have such initiatives? Lack of interest? A: Because of the low cost to set up and run any of those initiatives, there’s no need to have a huge “market” to turn them on. So, it’s not worth waiting and, instead, just wait for a couple of good uses of the tools. If they show benefits, then “people will come”.

Q: How to get the data that feed these sites? Are governments eager to publish them? A: Normally, harvesting them is tough. But it is also true that most data should be public by law, so you’re in your right to enforce the governments to make them available [see also WhatDoTheyKnow above].

Andrian Mangin: Do you notice (and how) changes in the politicians? A: There are indicators within the sites that measure performance of the politicians featured there, so at least, indirectly, through the evaluations the users make of them, you can guess whether there was a change or not.

Ricard Ruiz de Querol: How to replicate some of the initiatives? A: So you want to start an organisation like mySociety? Some tips for aspirants. Of course, funding, even if small, is always an issue. Starting purely with volunteers always an option, at least for the kick off.

Felipe González Gil: Do you think these initiatives will help reducing bipartidism, which is fostered by mainstream media by letting minority parties out? A: Can’t tell, but, potentially, the Internet (and, most specifically, these sites) it is a horizontal platform so that anyone can have the same coverage. But, with the exception of America (because of many reasons), these sites have not had any impact on e.g. presidential elections. So, they’re good for monitoring, but not for campaigning.

Ismael Peña-López: what about the trade-off between common good and wanting the elected charge to scratch my own and only itch? A: All sites collect statistics at the aggregate level, even if you’re asking for a personal problem (e.g. like Amazon’s suggestions). Everything’s public and easy to see what happens at the “community” level. Nevertheless, the caveat is: if you build something what will help other, it’s great, and it’s got its place; but the more focused the site is in your own needs, the more likely you are to use it, to be engaged, as the impact affects you. On the other way, by putting yourself on the map (because of a personal demand), you’re likely to contacting other people with the similar needs and end up by doing things together at the community level [see also Groups Near You, above].

Q: What about the digital divide? A: Let’s look it the other way: what about people that would never ever had contacted an elected charge because it was way too difficult? On the other hand, the sites are really user friendly, easy to use, so a simple action can be quickly done and the return of the effort is immediate. So, it is easy to shift up towards more complex virtual actions in these or other sites.

Q: Is there any impact? A: Even if the output is “just” having an answer, an e-mail, from the Prime Ministers, the issue is that technology has made it possible and almost costless. Contacting back 2M people that signed a petition was almost impossible and, by all means, its cost made it non-viable. Now, feedback can be sent, personally, at almost zero cost. That’s an improvement.

Q: In what kind of cities/town is the impact and use more likely to be found? A: Most probably, in bigger areas, where there is no personal acquaintance with the politicians. Also where the civil society is less articulated.

Q: Is there any law that obliges the Members of the Parliament in the UK to answer public petitions? A: Yes, according to some rules, they have to give explanations, but, in general, they are not obliged at all.

Notes from the course Network Society: Social Changes, Organizations and Citizens, Barcelona, 15-17 October, 2008.

Citizenry in the Network Society
Carol Darr, Harvard Kennedy School

One American in then tells the other nine how to vote, where to eat, and what to buy. They are The Influentials (Ed Keller & Jon Berry).

Obama had little influence, short experience, etc. to have rallied for being the democrat candidate to the presidency of the US: to raise votes and, most important, to raise money. What did happen so that he could be a candidate to the primary elections and, actually, to end being the candidate to the presidential elections? Everybody can buy products, but not everybody does: how do you make people buy your product? There’re some people that influence others to do things.

The Influentials find new ideas, find new people, and gather information because they are all the time picking and pulling information from anywhere. The Influentials know what’s happening in their communities and build social networks, because they know e.g. twice as many people as any other person, and hence they are at the forefront of whatever is happening… or going to happen.

The Influentials are important, especially for politicians and governments:

• Other people look for them and value their opinions
• They engage and are active within their communities
• They are at the cutting edge of events, 2 to 5 years beyond the rest of the world
• They are deeply interested in politics

Being influential is about being engaged in community activities, disseminating information about these activities, letting your ideas being known in media or at events, directly letting your ideas being heard by decision-takers by taking part in their events or agendas or teams, etc.

Influentials, Poli-Influentials and Politicians

Influentials and Poli-Influentials do more things that define the profile of an Influential than politicians or other people do, especially those activities that are more active. But, indeed, also passive political activities have a higher level of engagement amongst Influentials and Poli-Influentials.

When talking about online proactive political activities, Poli-Influentials detach themselves from Influentials and Politicians, that (while less active the latter), approach their profiles.

Poli-Influentials have usually (and significatively) reached a higher education level, being 60% of them post-graduates (PhD, masters, etc.). Notwithstanding, education does not affect the kind of activities taken by anyone, just the degree. In other words: the more education, the more influential activities people engage in, but in just the same proportion (online vs. offline, imparting a conference vs. writing an article, etc.) that other people not as much engaged. As expected, passive activities get the lion’s share vs. proactive activities.

It’s astonishing [appalling?] to see how little involved Politicians are. And, against all myths, how highly involved are intensive Internet users.

Q&A

Q: If Barack Obama won the presidential election, would he be keeping the online channel “open”? Or was it just for campaigning? A: He does not have a choice. The conversation is set, so it is plain impossible to close it. People are now empowered, and they are not letting this be lost. On the other hand, the online channel benefits Barack Obama: because of the young profile of Internet users; and because the Internet requires proaction (is not passive) so it benefits charismatic leaders because their magnetism drives people inside the Internet and proactively look for information and engage in whatever online action.

Ismael Peña-López: This is the description of a profile… but what about the performance of these profiles? Politicians (by construction) get what they planned (they’re ruling anyway), but what about Influentials and Poli-Influentials? Why not everybody that does the things that influentials do, are that influent? What happens when influentials become rulers? Is it good? Is it bad? A: We might not know what Influentials’ impact is as individuals, taken one by one. But we do know that the activities that define the Influentials and Poli-Influentials profiles do have an impact on politics. Hence, we can infer, at the aggregate level, that the more influential activities you’re engaged in, the more influential (again, at the aggregate level) you’re likely to be. And, indeed, people behind influential activities are often used as an asset by partisans and politicians, to get ideas from them, to recruit them, etc. Concerning politicians (and other people) not engaged, this is a luxury that is not sustainable in he long run: the Internet has showed the power that it can feed to a newby (i.e. Obama) that knows how to be engaged and use empowering tools to raise communities and debate around him.

Q: what’s the liaison between online and offline engagement? A: There’s a closest link. People were already engaged before the Internet. The Net just made it easier. Of course, as an easier way to be engaged, it is becoming an excellent entry gate for people flirting with being influential, but all in all, sooner or later, they’ll create their offline or local communities, and engage in many other activities different than online.

Q: are offliners cease to be influentials? A: Not yet. There’s always people that knows everybody, the big media, the professional apparatus, etc. But it is likely to happen that the raise of video, that does not require written fluency, will shift the landscape towards a more balanced distribution of influence.

Q: Was it the lack of women in the Internet the reason why Hillary Clinton was not elected? A: Not likely. Barack Obama won because of other reasons: change, connection with the young, a personal philosophy similar to that of the Internet (freedom, conversation, proaction). Hillary Clinton represented just the opposite philosophy.

Marc López: Are we going towards a fragmented way of policy making? Towards a world of nano-lobbies and politicians serving nano-lobbies’ interests? A: Guess it’ll be just that way. Every single person of the world with a cellphone + camera has a world wide reach TV emitter.

More info

Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet (2004) Political Influentials Online in the 2004 Presidential Campaign (, 2.92MB)

The PhD on the Information and Knowledge Society Programme recently opened the call for candidates — including 10 full time fellowships —, offering 33 student places in the following fields:

• Computer Science and Networking Technologies
• Community and Social Action
• Law and ICT
• eGovernance
• eLearning
• Information Systems
• New Economy
• Technology and health
• Technology and Education System
• Research Programmes

As said, UOC‘s research institute, the Internet Interdisciplinary Institute, offers 10 grants for full-time PhDs that are carried out physically in its headquarters in Castelldefels’s Mediterranean Technology Park (20 minutes from Barcelona). It carries a stipend and access to travel funds.

Please visit the PhD programme‘s website, for detailed information about the places on offer and the fellowships.

Seminar by professor José Manuel Robles, at UOC headquarters, 3 July 2008, about digital citizenry and political engagement of Internet users.

Digital Citizenry: Political engagement and ideology of Spanish Internet users

See what are the differences between heavy Internet users and offliners in relationship with their political behaviour, interests, etc.

At a first glance:

• Left wing Internet users are almost four times more numerous than right wing ones.
• The mean of political though at the Internet is slightly biased towards the left in comparison with the whole of the population
• Internet users say to be more interested than people offline in culture (2x), labour issues (1.5x) or information and communication (4x)

So, why are Internet users more likely to be left winged than right winged? Classical models that describe how/why people gather around political ideologies:

• Cleavages theory: people gather around their preferred values and the people identified with them
• Natural election theory: ideology depends on the ranking of the public problems that affect them
• People gather around parties and their ideologies (i.e. political socialization): first come party identification and, then, alignment with ideologies

Methodology: the classical approach

We build a regression according to the previous models.

Regression to see whether the ideological positioning (dependent variable) depends on their profile: age, being an Internet user, age, habitat, education level. And the regression does not seem to show any evidence of relationship at a significance level.

Regression to see whether the ideological positioning (dependent variable) depends on their identification with political problems: political problems, being an Internet user. In this case, being an Internet user correlates with the political positioning (which is something we already knew), but the model is too simple to show why.

Regression to see whether the ideological positioning (dependent variable) depends on the identification with a party: age, being an Internet user, habitat, education level, voting preferences. And, again, the regression does not seem to show any evidence.

Preliminary conclusion: classical theories cannot explain why Internet users are more left winged (in Spain) than the average of the population.

The segmentation analysis

We break Internet users according to their intensity of use and their personal characteristics, from “Men, with higher education, working or students, 95.7% of them are Internet users and are left winged” to “Women, up to primary education, older than 60 y.o., just 1% of them are Internet users and are right winged”.

In this train of though, yes we find correlation between the socio-economic nature of a specific segment and their probability to be intense Internet users. If these socio-economic characteristics can be linked with political positioning, then we could find the relationship between political positioning and Internet use. For instance, age does not seem to be determinant, but education level and being a worker/student or unemployed they seem to.

My comments

Maybe classical models cannot explain the relationship between political positioning and being an Internet user, but the philosophy of the Internet (openness, hacker ethics, community building, collaboration, common benefit, etc.) and how different parties and/or ideologies are related to that philosophy.

Another aspect, to distinguish between heavy users from both wings, would be adding a question such as “from 0 to 10, state how the Internet will change society at large (0) or the economy (10)”.

I’m pleased to announce an event of which I’m part of the organizing committee, the course Network Society: Social changes, organizations and citizens, to take place in Barcelona, Spain, from 15 to 17 October de 2008.

Some info about the course:

• Website of the course, with more information about the speakers, fees, registration, etc.
• Facebook Event
• There will be translation to and from Spanish and English

PROGRAMME: NETWORK SOCIETY: SOCIAL CHANGES, ORGANIZATIONS AND CITIZENS

Day 1 – Wednesday 15 October

Introduction
09h00 – 09h30 : Opening
09h30 – 10h30 : Juan Freire – Presentation of the course
10h30 – 11h00 : Café

Citizenship in the Network Society
Chairs: Marc López
11h00 – 12h30 : Carol Darr
12h30 – 14h00 : Tom Steinberg
14h00 – 16h00 : Lunch

Organizations in the Network Society
Chairs: Genís Roca
16h00 – 17h30 : Miguel Cereceda
17h30 – 19h00 : David Weinberger

Day 2 – Thursday 16 October

09h00 – 09h30 : Juan Freire – Presentation of the day

Communication in the Network Society
Chairs: Antoni Gutiérrez-Rubí
09h30 – 11h00 : Andrew Rasiej
11h00 – 11h30 : Café
11h30 – 13h30 : Diálogo Josu Jon Imaz & Miquel Iceta
13h30 – 16h00 : Lunch
16h00 – 17h30 : Enrique Dans
17h30 – 19h00 : Gumersindo Lafuente

Day 3 – Viernes 17 October

Innovation in the Network Society
Chairs: Ismael Peña-López
09h00 – 10h30 : Carlos Domingo
10h30 – 12h00 : Ethan Zuckerman
12h00 – 12h30 : Coffee break

Closing
12h30 – 14h30 : Round Table: Freire, Darr, Steinberg, Weinberger, Lafuente, Domingo, Zuckerman, Dans
14h30 – 15h00 : Closing