Internet research annual volume I: selected papers from the association of internet researchers conference 2000- 2002
Download 155.42 Kb.
|
| INTERNET RESEARCH ANNUAL VOLUME I: SELECTED PAPERS FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF INTERNET RESEARCHERS CONFERENCE 2000– 2002
Mia Consalvo et al. This page for identification only— it will be replaced with title pages and copyright information in the final book 
CONTENTS Internet Research: There and Back Again 1 Mia Consalvo Imagining an Association 5 Steve Jones SECTION ONE: THE INTERNET AS AN AREA OF RESEARCH 13 Klaus Bruhn Jensen and Monica Murero
Consalvo v-viii-64 2/26/04 11:28 AM Page vi
vi Internet Research Annual
SECTION TWO: PLACES, POLITICS, AND POLICIES OF THE INTERNET 107 Nancy Baym and Jeremy Hunsinger
Consalvo v-viii-64 2/26/04 11:28 AM Page vii
Contents vii
SECTION THREE: NET/ WORKING COMMUNITIES 195 John Logie and Leslie Regan Shade
Consalvo v-viii-64 2/26/04 11:28 AM Page viii
viii Internet Research Annual List of Contributors 269 Related AoIR Conference Publications 277 Index 279
Consalvo v-viii-64 2/26/04 11:28 AM Page 2
knowledge and depth of research areas that have developed relating to the Inter- net. Although I was aware that numerous fields and disciplines were studying the Internet from their own particular angle, I had of necessity isolated myself a bit, concentrating on work done in media studies, women’s studies, and digital gaming in particular. Reading a wider variety of work than that gave me new perspectives and fresh understandings about the Internet and its role in shaping our world, or, more important, our role in shaping its use and structure. In considering how this body of work “comes together,” to say larger or more generalizable things about the Internet, I’m more tentative. One thing that’s easy to say is that Internet research has found a home in just about every discipline and field in the academy. As research about the Internet has infiltrated most academic areas, it has largely moved from being considered a novelty to being an integral and integrated part of larger study. We don’t much believe in or study disembod- ied online experience anymore, looking instead at the articulations between offline and online activities. It’s not enough to say that we “become someone else” on- line—how can that be possible when a person surfs the Web, talks on the phone, and makes dinner all at the same time? Perhaps our “multiple selves” should be re- imagined as multiple life roles, of which online activities can contribute to (or de- tract from)—but likely not play a primary role—at least for most people. The Internet has evolved in popular representations from a place for the weird and strange, to the dangerous, to the commercial, and now to just another part of our communication system. Yet, that communication system isn’t shared by every- one, as we must continually remind ourselves. Research on the persistent digital divide, both nationally and globally, tells us that even as some gaps close, others open (such as the growing shift from dial-up to broadband or other high-speed ac- cess that is creating a new have/have not fissure). Questions also arise about the possibilities for leap-frogging past certain divides, such as with the call for wireless access for disadvantaged regions of the world, rather than relying on (non)existent phone lines. We also must keep aware that government initiatives can be defunded and folded just as quickly as they were put in place, especially in times of budget shortfalls. As Internet research addressing issues such as these has broadened and deep- ened, it’s become easy to fall behind in understanding how that growing body of work fits together. Even within a narrow area such as media studies, the growth of research is explosive. We are forced to become specialists within an already special- ized field. Likewise, the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) conferences have grown in participation, so much so that there are multiple competing sessions at any one time, leading away from the cozy atmosphere of the first conference, to better mirror the larger disciplinary conferences with their separate “tracks” or “di- visions.” Is that the future of AoIR and Internet knowledge? Although Steve Jones (in this volume) has written about how AoIR started as a place for people on the margins of their disciplines, when my own research career began, Internet research was not widely practiced in my school (Mass Communi- cation), but was enthusiastically accepted as an appropriate area for research. My
Consalvo v-viii-64 2/26/04 11:28 AM Page 3
consalvo | Internet Research: There and Back Again 3 traditional scholarly associations all accepted “new media” research, and the sense of marginalization or exclusion felt by some earlier researchers was never my expe- rience. I suspect that experience is growing, for many disciplines at least. The creation of AoIR was an attempt to construct a “tent” for those working outside of the bounds of their own disciplinary homes. AoIR was a place to con- gregate with others who knew and understood the language of the Internet—no need to define what Usenet was here or question the value of exploring Multi- User Dungeons (MUDs) or Multi-User Dungeons that were Object Oriented (MOOs). The tent sheltering us all has grown large. Directory: retrieve -> handle retrieve -> 3030 Rev 06/2009 NonCompliance Tracking System handle -> This is the author's final version of the contribution published as Download 155.42 Kb. Share with your friends:
|