Some time ago I noticed an odd research topic in the new European Commission (EC) research call for proposals (Horizon 2020). Titled "Human-centric Digital Age" it is about the interaction between digital technologies and society. It is odd in the sense that a typical EC call encourages and funds research in specific areas of technology, while this one actually calls for research on the purpose of research, i.e. research on a meta-level. Indeed, these days we are rarely asked about our opinion on the purpose and use of technology, and we are extremely rarely funded to express whatever opinion we may have. The call is also odd because although it has been marked as belonging to information and communication technology (ICT), the candidate researcher audience is not strictly technologists, but also humanists. Now, it just so happened that I was a somewhat remote member of a loose interdisciplinary research group, actually an email list, which involves sociologists and computer scientists, and seemed to me as being the right staff for a project answering the aforementioned call. Therefore I initiated a discussion on the possibility of responding to the call. The final outcome of this initiative is not yet clear, but in the meantime I had the opportunity to make some rather surprising observations.
I must admit that some of the strange effects of this call are due to its own fuzziness. It is too general, too close to books like "The New Digital Age" by Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, which is a book of predictions, not exactly a scientific study. However, these are not just anybody's predictions. Eric Schmidt, former Google CEO, and 138th richest person in the world, and Jared Cohen, also with Google and an adviser to the US government, are among the persons best positioned not only to predict the future, but also to shape it.
My first surprise arrived when it became evident that sociologists are only remotely aware of the effects of the new digital technologies on society. As an engineering student, a long time ago, I had often the chance to hear a humiliating comment offered by humanities' students: natural sciences and, even worse, technologies are just humble servants, the masters being of course humanities. Apparently us poor engineers were servants to the servants. On the other hand, masters usually have some uses of their servants and services, therefore humanists should have an idea of what to do with science and technology. The impact of social networks (Twitter, Facebook) on political changes in Syria, Egypt and elsewhere has somewhat brought technology to the attention of political and social scientists. In Europe scholars have studied the "indignados" movement avidly, and some worried governments have allocated certain funds to related studies. However, the bulk of the scientific literature on social networking and on the effects of new technologies on our lives in general, comes from computer scientists. Sociologists and anthropologists dealing with computer related technologies are rare birds, so rare that in fact they are called "digital anthropologists", as if digital technologies were not blended with our every day activities.
However, my second surprise came from the lack of interest within the engineering community to study the interplay between technology and society. It is as if we create technologies and show no interest in their luck. Let us take an example: a naval architect designs ships in general, and cannot possibly know how a specific ship will be used by its future owners. However, if a ship design is harmful for the environment, the architect cannot pretend ignorance. Understandably, each one of us is more willing to cope with problems one knows better and can solve in reasonable (if not minimum) time. Also, the study of the use and consequences of ICT on human life and society involves a specific expertise. However, the expertise issue on meta-subjects reminds me of an old comment on epistemology (or philosophy of science): a pure epistemologist is a failed scientist. Moreover each one of us should have an opinion on such issues and some of us are engaged in technical areas, which are best qualified to produce relevant studies.
As the harmful effects of bad design show up in everyday life, we get a glimpse of our possible dark future. The genie is here, but before we rub the lamp we must know what we wish.
I must admit that some of the strange effects of this call are due to its own fuzziness. It is too general, too close to books like "The New Digital Age" by Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, which is a book of predictions, not exactly a scientific study. However, these are not just anybody's predictions. Eric Schmidt, former Google CEO, and 138th richest person in the world, and Jared Cohen, also with Google and an adviser to the US government, are among the persons best positioned not only to predict the future, but also to shape it.
My first surprise arrived when it became evident that sociologists are only remotely aware of the effects of the new digital technologies on society. As an engineering student, a long time ago, I had often the chance to hear a humiliating comment offered by humanities' students: natural sciences and, even worse, technologies are just humble servants, the masters being of course humanities. Apparently us poor engineers were servants to the servants. On the other hand, masters usually have some uses of their servants and services, therefore humanists should have an idea of what to do with science and technology. The impact of social networks (Twitter, Facebook) on political changes in Syria, Egypt and elsewhere has somewhat brought technology to the attention of political and social scientists. In Europe scholars have studied the "indignados" movement avidly, and some worried governments have allocated certain funds to related studies. However, the bulk of the scientific literature on social networking and on the effects of new technologies on our lives in general, comes from computer scientists. Sociologists and anthropologists dealing with computer related technologies are rare birds, so rare that in fact they are called "digital anthropologists", as if digital technologies were not blended with our every day activities.
However, my second surprise came from the lack of interest within the engineering community to study the interplay between technology and society. It is as if we create technologies and show no interest in their luck. Let us take an example: a naval architect designs ships in general, and cannot possibly know how a specific ship will be used by its future owners. However, if a ship design is harmful for the environment, the architect cannot pretend ignorance. Understandably, each one of us is more willing to cope with problems one knows better and can solve in reasonable (if not minimum) time. Also, the study of the use and consequences of ICT on human life and society involves a specific expertise. However, the expertise issue on meta-subjects reminds me of an old comment on epistemology (or philosophy of science): a pure epistemologist is a failed scientist. Moreover each one of us should have an opinion on such issues and some of us are engaged in technical areas, which are best qualified to produce relevant studies.
As the harmful effects of bad design show up in everyday life, we get a glimpse of our possible dark future. The genie is here, but before we rub the lamp we must know what we wish.
No comments:
Post a Comment