
ISIS Summit Vienna 2015—The Information Society at the Crossroads
Part of the International Society for Information Studies series
3–7 Jun 2015, Vienna, Austria
- Go to the Sessions
-
- I. Invited Speech
- S1. Conference Stream DTMD 2015
- S2. Conference Stream ICPI 2015
- S3. Conference Stream ICTS 2015
- T1. Conference Track: (Big) history of information
- T1.0. Conference Track: Advanced hair-splitting (combinatorics)
- T1.0.1. Conference Track: Andrew Feenberg's technical politics and ICTs
- T1.1. Conference Track: As we may teach
- T1.2. Conference Track: China and the global information society
- T1.3. Conference Track: Communication, information and reporting
- T1.4. Conference Track: Cyberpeace
- T2. Conference Track: Emancipation or disempowerment of man?
- T2.1. Conference Track: Emergence of and in (self-)organizing work systems
- T2.2. Conference Track: Emergent systems, information and society
- T3. Conference Track: Empowering patients
- T3.0. Conference Track: Homo informaticus
- T3.1. Conference Track: Human resilience and human vulnerability
- T3.2. Conference Track: ICT and literature
- T3.3. Conference Track: ICTs and power relations
- T4. Conference Track: Information in the exact sciences and symmetry
- T5. Conference Track: Informational warfare
- T6. Conference Track: Multi-level semiosis
- T7. Conference Track: Music, information and symmetry
- T7.1. Conference Track: Natural disasters
- T7.2. Conference Track: Progress in Information Studies in China
- T8. Conference Track: Searching to create a humanized civilization
- T8.1. Conference Track: The ethics of foundations
- T9. Conference Track: The Global Brain
- T9.1. Conference Track: Transdisciplinary response and responsibility
- T9.2. Conference Track: Triangular relationship
- T9.3. Conference Track: Weaving the understanding of information
- Event Details
Conference Chairs
Sessions
I. Invited SpeechS1. Conference Stream DTMD 2015
S2. Conference Stream ICPI 2015
S3. Conference Stream ICTS 2015
T1. Conference Track: (Big) history of information
T1.0. Conference Track: Advanced hair-splitting (combinatorics)
T1.0.1. Conference Track: Andrew Feenberg's technical politics and ICTs
T1.1. Conference Track: As we may teach
T1.2. Conference Track: China and the global information society
T1.3. Conference Track: Communication, information and reporting
T1.4. Conference Track: Cyberpeace
T2. Conference Track: Emancipation or disempowerment of man?
T2.1. Conference Track: Emergence of and in (self-)organizing work systems
T2.2. Conference Track: Emergent systems, information and society
T3. Conference Track: Empowering patients
T3.0. Conference Track: Homo informaticus
T3.1. Conference Track: Human resilience and human vulnerability
T3.2. Conference Track: ICT and literature
T3.3. Conference Track: ICTs and power relations
T4. Conference Track: Information in the exact sciences and symmetry
T5. Conference Track: Informational warfare
T6. Conference Track: Multi-level semiosis
T7. Conference Track: Music, information and symmetry
T7.1. Conference Track: Natural disasters
T7.2. Conference Track: Progress in Information Studies in China
T8. Conference Track: Searching to create a humanized civilization
T8.1. Conference Track: The ethics of foundations
T9. Conference Track: The Global Brain
T9.1. Conference Track: Transdisciplinary response and responsibility
T9.2. Conference Track: Triangular relationship
T9.3. Conference Track: Weaving the understanding of information
Instructions for Authors
Procedure for Submission, Peer-Review, Revision and Acceptance of Extended Abstracts
The conference will accept extended abstracts only. The accepted abstracts will be available online on Sciforum.net during and after the conference. Papers based on the extended abstracts can be published by authors in the journal of their choice later on. The conference will not publish a proceedings volume.
Submissions of abstracts should be done by the authors online. If you do not already have an user account with this website, please create one by registering with sciforum.net. After registration, please log in to your user account, and use the Submit New Abstract. Please chose the ISIS Summit Vienna 2015 conference in the first step. In the second step, choose the appropriate conference stream or conference session. In the third step you will be asked to type in the title, abstract and optionally keywords. In the fourth and last step, you will be asked to enter all co-authors, their e-mail addresses and affiliations.
- Scholars interested in participating in paper sessions of the Summit can submit their extended abstract (about 750 to 2'000 words) online on this website until 27 February 2015.
- The International Program Committee will review and decide about the suitability of abstracts for the ISIS Summit Vienna 2015. All authors will be notified by 20 March 2015 about the acceptance of their extended abstract.
- If the abstract is accepted for this conference, the authors will be asked to send the a formatted version of the extended abstract as a PDF file by end of May 2015.
- Please register with the conference before or once your abstract is accepted. Please note that the acceptance of an abstract will not automatically register you with the conference. The abstract submission and conference registration are two separate processes.
Please use the abstract template. The formatted version of the extended abstracts must have the following organization:
- Title
- Full author names
- Affiliations (including full postal address) and authors' e-mail addresses
- Extended Abstract (750 to 2'000 words)
- References
- Paper Format: A4 paper format, the printing area is 17.5 cm x 26.2 cm. The margins should be 1.75 cm on each side of the paper (top, bottom, left, and right sides).
- Paper Length: The manuscript should be about 3 pages long (incl. references).
- Formatting / Style: Please use the template to prepare your abstract (see on top of this page).
- References & Citations: The full titles of cited papers and books must be given. Reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [4] or [1-3], and all the references should be listed separately and as the last section at the end of the manuscript.
- Authors List and Affiliation Format: Authors' full first and last names must be given. Abbreviated middle name can be added. For papers written by various contributors a corresponding author must be designated. The PubMed/MEDLINE format is used for affiliations: complete street address information including city, zip code, state/province, country, and email address should be added. All authors who contributed significantly to the manuscript (including writing a section) should be listed on the first page of the manuscript, below the title of the article. Other parties, who provided only minor contributions, should be listed under Acknowledgments only. A minor contribution might be a discussion with the author, reading through the draft of the manuscript, or performing English corrections.
- Figures, Schemes and Tables: Authors are encouraged to prepare figures and schemes in color. Figure and schemes must be numbered (Figure 1, Scheme I, Figure 2, Scheme II, etc.) and a explanatory title must be added. Tables should be inserted into the main text, and numbers and titles for all tables supplied. All table columns should have an explanatory heading. Please supply legends for all figures, schemes and tables. The legends should be prepared as a separate paragraph of the main text and placed in the main text before a table, a figure or a scheme.
Copyright to the extended abstracts will stay with the authors of the paper. Authors will be asked to grant MDPI AG (Publisher of the Sciforum platform) and ISIS (organizer of the conference) a non-exclusive, non-revokable license to publish the abstracts online and possibly in print under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license. As authors retain the rights to their abstracts and papers, papers can be published elsewhere later.
List of accepted submissions (217)
Id | Title | Authors | Presentation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sciforum-004251 | Rethinking Cultural Production in the Context of Commodification: Two Step or Dual Production | N/A |
Show Abstract |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Introduction Capitalism is a production system established on the widening of commodity production. This means that it tries to transform everything possible into commodity forms and capital has an everlasting effort to succeed and render sustainable this transformation. Nowadays, what is happening in cultural production sphere indicates that capital has been expanded in this domain as well. Consequently, there is a widespread industry that mediates culture and posits it as a commodity. In order to understand this industry, it is necessary to comprehend the commodity production processes in it. This brings on an inevitable discussion on whether these cultural products and practices are commodities or not. In this study, it is discussed whether the cultural products and practices we consume on daily basis, such as music we listen; news, articles and books we read; television dramas and movies we watch, are commodities or not. The relationship between culture and commodity, shaped by the logic of capitalist production, is explored in the studies focusing on Marx’s theoretical and conceptual set. The initial works related to cultural production were produced in the early 20th century by members of the Frankfurt School such as Walter Benjamin ([1936] 2010), Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer ([1947] 2002). In addition to these works, between the 1970s and 1990s, the issue was also discussed by British communication theorists such as Nicholas Garnham (1977; 1990), Graham Murdock and Peter Golding (1973), as well as by French scholar Bernard Miège (1979; 1989), from the perspective of political economy of communication. Nowadays, the subject is discussed in the recent studies of these theorists (Miège, 2011, Murdock, 2006; 2011, Garnham, 2000; 2011; Wayne, 2003) and in some other works (Louw, 2001; Mosco, 2009; Hesmondhalgh, 2011; Bolin, 2011). In this discussion, Dallas Smythe’s thesis is important from several perspectives. Smythe (1977), a Canadian communication theorist who had a background of economist, broke the ground in the field with his influential thesis of “audience commodity”. The thesis has become the main discussion axis related to the subject since its appearance in the late 1970s. It sparked a vivid and important debate between Smythe (1978), Murdock (1978), Bill Livant (1979; 1982), Sut Jhally (1982) and Eileen R. Meehan (1984). Smythe’s audience commodity thesis continues to be the case today. Contemporary studies on the commodification processes in communication regularly make reference to Smythe’s work, as is the case in the works of Christian Fuchs (2012; 2013; 2015), Fernando Bermejo (2009), William H. J. Hebblewhite (2012), Brice Nixon (2014), Brett Caraway (2011), Micky Lee (2011), Philip M Napoli (2003), Robert Prey (2012), Earn Fisher (2012), Jernej A. Prodnik (2012). It must be stressed that new technologies of communication have played an important role in the revival of the commodification discussion in the field given that activities of users in the Internet or in social networks are subjected to commodification. Together with this, new concepts are emerging such as prosumption or prosumer. In this study, the commodification processes in communication will be investigated from a different perspective in order to contribute to the literature. Commodity in Marx’s Theory There is a valid reason to have this discussion in commodity framework. Above all, commodity is the mean of production of the “surplus value”, which is the anchor of the capitalist production system. Briefly, it can be said that accumulation in capitalist societies occurs with the transfer of a piece of this surplus value, which is acquired by means of commodity production and exchange, into production once again. Thus, it is extremely important for capitalism the commodity form of anything. In this framework, it is also essential whether cultural products and practices are commodities. Given the importance of commodity, Marx (1992: 125) starts his analysis in the Capital with commodity. Just after mentioning the importance of commodity, Marx stresses the qualities of a commodity. Accordingly, a commodity has simultaneously a use value and a value in exchange. This quality is mentioned as the necessary feature of any single commodity without giving further details. So, it is difficult to understand why commodity has to have these values. However, in subsequent chapters, rendering various concepts comprehensible, Marx offers a comprehensive analysis of capitalist production process. Thus, it becomes clear why and how a commodity has this quality. It must be noticed that Marx takes firstly a result of the capitalist production in the beginning of his analysis. In other words, commodity is the starting point in Marx’s analysis but is not more than a result in the general framework. Behind this stress on commodity, whole capitalist production system is standing. It can be said that Marx starts first and foremost from a result, which is commodity, and analysis comprehensively the mode of production which creates it. This is the reason why commodity can only be understood in the framework of capitalist mode of production and by considering the wholeness of this production. In communication field, while discussing the commodity form of cultural products and practices, there is a general tendency that ignores this matter. In the literature, the wholeness of capitalist production, or the process that shapes “capitalist commodity”, is usually ignored. Rather, qualities acquired by things after their commodification is brought into the forefront, and the commodity character of cultural products and practices is analyzed from this perspective. In this kind of analysis, the problem is not addressing these qualities. As a matter of fact, these are necessary qualities of any single commodity has to have. The main problem is paying no attention to the fact why and how a commodity has gained these qualities in the capitalist production process. As a result of this, cultural products and practices, at the first glance, seems to be commodities to researchers but why and how they are transformed into commodities stay in obscurity. Therefore, it can lead us to wrong conclusions. Given that commodity has more dimensions than it seems to have at the first glance, these kinds of conceptualizations must be addressed carefully. Hence, Marx (1992: 163) states that though commodity appears something that is easily comprehensible, a detailed analysis shows that it is more complex than it appears. In the light of Marx’s analysis, we know that not all but some things can gain commodity form in capitalist societies. Why it is so? Marx (1992: 273) indicates certain necessary conditions to produce a product as a commodity. It is obvious that things can gain commodity form and have aforementioned qualities when some factors get together in the historical-social process of capitalist production. To determine these factors, we must first look at the whole capitalist production. Let’s take Capital of Marx as an example of cultural product. While Marx was writing or producing Capital, any capitalist appropriated the value produced by him. As a matter of fact, Marx did not even produce a surplus value. He did not encounter a direct exploitation. His labor was qualitatively different; he was exerting an intellectual labor. Moreover, this intellectual labor was not commodified because it was not bought by a capitalist as a labor-power. At the same time, Capital was not the bearer of a surplus value, contrary to any commodity. From this perspective, instead of conceptualizing arbitrarily cultural products and practices in order to put them in commodity form, just like stretching them in “Procrustes bed”, it is wiser to analyze them in the context of the peculiarity of their producers and their own “uniqueness”. In this study, following this way, we will explore firstly why and how things acquire commodity forms by paying attention to whole capitalist production. Then, based on this first analysis, we will try to determine whether cultural products and practices gain commodity forms according to their production processes in different production relations. If it is so, we will also try to explain why and how they gain this form. Basically, it is argued that the idea of cultural products and practices as a commodity must be addressed cautiously. This is not a denial of the fact that they are commodities indeed. This is to say that not all but only some parts of this products and practices transform into commodities in some certain conditions. The reason of this is the production of these products and practices in very different relations of production and the fact that they are not general but special products and practices (Wayne, 2003: 21). Given that it is the main assumption of the study, this matter must be explained in detail. Commodification of Cultural Products and Practices Nowadays, cultural products and practices are mostly produced within cultural industry. First of all, we must consider these cultural products and practices produced in this industry through “content” and “medium” as a way of materialization and mediation for the content. In other words, the products and practices require certain type of medium for their production, distribution and consumption. For example, a piece of music can be listened with a radio or mp3 player; a television drama or movie can be watch with television or in a movie theater; news can be read on papers or internet; theatrical works are performed on stage that can be considered as a medium in that point. Content and medium cannot be separated easily from each other in “essence” and in “form”. Content, which can exist in the absence of medium, can only transform into a general consumption object solely when it becomes “objectified” through medium. Similarly, medium can also exist in the absence of content but its transformation into a general consumption object requires content. Briefly, each one transforms the other into a consumption object by means of its existence; content provides internal object whereas medium constitutes external object of the consumption related to cultural products and practices. The medium that offers a milieu for cultural products and practices is commodity. Diversification and variation that come with the commodification mostly result from the content. It can be said that cultural products and practices have two different dimensions; on the one hand there is content and on the other hand there is the combination of the content with the medium. When we focus on content, commodity character of the majority of cultural products and practices is questionable. However, despite their differences they all become commodities peculiarly when they are combined with a medium, or a technology, that offers them a milieu. For instance, a piece of music turns into a commodity when it is finished by its composer and recorded afterwards on a CD or DVD. Likewise, a book becomes a commodity when it is send from the writer to the publisher to be published. Here, we can indicate a “two step production”. In the study, this situation will be conceptualized as “dual production”. The first step is the materialization of the content. In this step, mainly intellectual or “creative” labor is performed. In the second step, there is the combination of the first step product with a technological medium, causing mainly a commodity production. My argument is that cultural products and practices gain their commodity form in the second step, and turn into cultural commodities. I also argue that, in cultural production, the integration of the ideological (content) and the economical (medium) is materialized in this second step. If we take again the aforementioned example, the writing Capital corresponds to the first step. In this phase, the production process contains such a great diversity, to the point that we must have a Procrustean bed to qualify the end product as a commodity. However, the editorial process and the publication of Capital correspond to the second step. After this phase, there is no reason not to qualify the book as commodity. Notably, there is the production of use values in the first step and the production of exchange values in the second step. Conclusion This character of cultural products and practices underscores the reason why we must cautiously approach to the idea of cultural commodity. But it is important not to have a generalization on the issue. What is at stake here is just a general tendency. On the other hand, we must not consider the two steps of production as wholly separated and independent domains. In other words, it cannot be said that use values are always generated in the first step and their transformation into exchange values always happens in the second step. There can be other kind of transformations. It is important to emphasize here that capital tries to commodify these products and practices despite of all differences they have. References Benjamin, W. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, London: Penguin Books, [1936] 2010. Bermejo, F. “Audience manufacture in historical perspective: from broadcasting to Google”, New Media & Society, 2009, V. 11, No. 1-2, pp. 133-154. Bolin, G. Value and the Media: Cultural Production and Consumption in Digital Markets, London: Ashgate Publishing, 2011. Caraway, B. “Audience Labor in the New Media Environment: A Marxian Revisiting of the Audience Commodity”, Media, Culture & Society, 2011, V. 33, No. 5, pp. 693-708. Fisher, E. "How Less Alienation Creates More Exploitation? Audience Labour on Social Network Sites", tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2012, V. 10, No. 2, pp. 171-183. Fuchs, C. “Dallas Smythe Today - The Audience Commodity, the Digital Labour Debate, Marxist Political Economy and Critical Theory. Prolegomena to a Digital Labour Theory of Value”, tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2012, V. 10, No. 2, pp. 692-740. Fuchs, C. Digital Labour and Karl Marx, New York: Routledge, 2013. Fuchs, C. Culture and Economy in the Age of Social Media, New York: Routledge, 2015. Garnham, N. “Towards a Political Economy of Culture”, New University Quarterly, 1977, V. 31, No. 3, pp. 341-357. Garnham, N. Capitalism and Communication, London: SAGE Publications, 1990. Garnham, N. Emancipation, the Media and Modernity: Arguments about the Media and Social Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Garnham, N. “The Political Economy of Communication Revisited”, in J. Wasko, G. Murdock and H. Sousa (eds.) The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2011, pp. 41-61. Hebblewhite, H. J. W. “Means of Communication as Means of Production” Revisited”, tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2012, V. 10, No. 2, pp. 203-213. Hesmondhalgh, D. The Cultural Industries, London: Sage, 2011. Horkheimer, M., Adorno, W. T., Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments, California: Standford University Press, [1947] 2002. Jhally, S. “Probing The Blindspot: The Audience Commodity”, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1982, V. 6, No. 1-2, pp. 204-210. Lee, M. “Google Ads and the Blindspot Debate”, Media, Culture and Society, 2011, V. 33, No. 3, pp. 433-447. Livant, B. “The Audience Commodity: On The ‘Blindspot’ Debate”, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1979, V. 3, No. 1, pp. 91-106. Livant, B. “Working At Watching: A Reply To Sut Jhally”, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1982, V. 6, No. 1-2, pp. 211-215. Louw, E. The Media and Cultural Production, London: SAGE Publication, 2001. Marx, K. Capital: Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy, New York: Penguin Books, 1992. Meehan, E. R. “Ratings and the institutional approach: A third answer to the Commodity Question”, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 1984, V. 1, No. 2, pp. 216-225. Miège, B. “The Cultural Commodity”, Media Culture Society, 1979, V. 1, No. 3, pp. 297-311. Miège, B. The Capitalization of Cultural Production, New York: International General, 1989. Miège, B. “Principal Ongoing Mutations of Cultural and Informational Industries”, in D. Winseck and D. Y. Jin (eds.) The Political Economies of Media: The Transformation of the Global Media Industries, London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2011, pp. 51-65. Mosco, V. The Political Economy of Communication, Los Angeles: Sage, 2009. Murdock, G. “Blindspot About Western Marxism: A Reply To Dallas Smythe”, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1978, V. 2, No. 2, pp. 109-119. Murdock, G. “Marx on Commodities, Contradictions and Globalisations Resources for a Critique of Marketised Culture”, E-Compós, 2006, V. 7, pp. 1-23. Murdock, G. “Political Economies as Moral Economies: Commodities, Gifts and Public Goods”, in J. Wasko, G. Murdock and H. Sousa (eds.), The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2011, pp. 13-40. Murdock, G., Golding, P. “For A Political Economy of Mass Communication”, The Socialist Register, 1973, V. 10, pp. 205-234. Napoli, P. M. Audience Economics and the Audience Marketplace, New York: Columbia University Press, 2003. Nixon, B. “Toward a Political Economy of ‘Audience Labour’ in the Digital Era”, tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2014, V. 12, No. 2, pp. 713-734. Prey, R. “The Network’s Blindspot: Exclusion, Exploitation and Marx’s Process-Relational Ontology”, tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2012, V. 10, No. 2, pp. 253-273. Prodnik, J. “A Note on the Ongoing Processes of Commodification: From the Audience Commodity to the Social Factory”, tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2012, V. 10, No. 2, pp. 274-301. Smythe, D. W. “Communications: Blindspot Of Western Marxism.” Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1977, V. 1, No. 3, pp. 1-28. Smythe, D. W. “Rejoinder To Graham Murdock”, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1978, V. 2, No. 2, pp. 120-127. Wayne, M., Marxism and Media Studies: Key Concepts and Contemporary Trends, London: Pluto Press, 2003. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sciforum-004492 | The Role of Social Movements in the Governance of ICT Commons in Times of Crisis | , , | N/A |
Show Abstract |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Introduction During the past decade, social media platforms, such as blogs, microblogs, content communities, social networking sites became core communication tools for public debate. The global financial crisis plagued several European countries such as Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and UK whose governments, and in the case of Greece under the rule of international organizations, implemented austerity policies as a measure of crisis management. The impact of these policies gave rise to widespread public discontent and rage against public authorities and institutions on national as well as European levels. Moreover, the economic crisis increased antagonisms between EU members and limited the power of nation-states. In this context, the mainstream media have received ample critique for promoting the elites and not producing rich public spheres to debate the crisis. However, new media and social movements play today a particularly important role in shifting dominants' narratives and representations of the crisis in Europe, hence helping construct a variety of public spheres. ICTs (particularly social media) transform the ways in which citizens demonstrate, protest and collaborate. With the use of digital technologies, publics increase their autonomy, join local or global networks and develop robust social bonds. Even though these networks consist of people with different aims and incentives, they are based on a sense of belonging and promote solidarity and cooperation among their members. Under these circumstances, individuals prepare the background and create the conditions towards direct democracy for both themselves and the next generations. Methods In this paper, we focus on social movements that have emerged in Europe since the outbreak of the crisis. In particular, we examine their political claims and ideological dispositions through the filters of continuity and change. We look at both the diachronous and the synchronous evolution of the movements. The diachronous perspective concerns the historical evolution of social movements by focusing on the common core that the movements share over time and across borders, as well as the social conditions that alter their dynamics. The synchronous perspective concentrates on the structural evolution of particular social movements, their interconnections with other movements of the same period, their influences and aspirations. Our aim is to explore the ways in which social movements in Europe build, promote and reinforce transnational dialogue, as a form of governance of the Commons towards their realization. The Commons is a kind of social good that is based on mutual agreement and social reciprocity, forming in the social ICT environment. To frame this discussion, the following research question will guide the paper: “how do the citizens govern their political communicative spaces”? We apply Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), in order to understand the political contexts within which the texts of social movements are produced, distributed and received. In doing so, we follow Norman Fairclough’s systematic method of analysis (1992, 1995, 2004). Fairclough aims to reveal the ideological and power patterns that exist in discourses and displays the ways in which the discourses are involved in systems of power. Adopting this method in our paper, we observe how the texts construct reality, social identity and social relations, as well as how they are produced, distributed and consumed, and finally what are the social, political, institutional conditions that affect them. For us, discourses have power to raise awareness and develop consciousness on an issue contributing in this way both in social change and social emancipation. The data comprises six social movements that arose in Greece, Spain and the UK during the economic crisis. The “Indignant Citizens movement” started in 2011 both in Greece (“Aganaktismenoi movement”) and Spain (“Indignados movement”), protesting against austerity politics and for a democratic rebirth, equality, justice and dignity. Both movements paved the way for the emergence of a range of social, self-organized solidarity movements-initiatives across Europe that still have an impact on peoples’ lives. In particular, we discuss the Greek “We don’t pay movement” (initially against the highway tolls), “Without middlemen movement” (against the market intermediaries) and the “Anti-gold mining movement-Skouries movement” (against ore mining for the protection of the environment) in parallel with the Spanish “Stop Desahancios Platform” (against eviction), the British “NHS social movement” (against the privatization of health system) and the Romanian “Save Rosia Montana movement” (against the Rosia Montana mining project). Our investigation explores the commonalities, correlations and interconnections between these movements, by analysing the official statements of the movements found in their blogs or websites and the comments (included videos) stated by their participants in their Facebook and/or Twitter accounts. In this way, we shed light on how people communicate particular meanings on specific social issues which under certain circumstances become large and universal. References
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sciforum-004133 | Reporting Sustainability in the Oil Sector: Transparency or Greenwashing? | , |
![]() |
Show Abstract |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Introduction Communication is fundamental in marketing. Pinske and Dommisse (2009) have highlighted that it is essential for consumers because they need to be informed about the benefits sprung by their responsible choices in terms of purchases; moreover it is important to improve a company’s reputation (Bronn and Vrioni, 2011; Mark-Herbert and Von Schantz, 2007). For this reason sustainability report, considering its communicational function, can be deemed also a tool for marketers. According to Lozano and Huisingh (2001) sustainability report “is a voluntary activity with two general purposes: (1) to assess the current state of an organisation’s economic, environmental and social dimensions, and (2) to communicate a company’s efforts and Sustainability progress to their stakeholders. However, these purposes do not consider the time dimension, nor the interactions among the different sustainability dimensions”. Obviously companies can choose between two ways: transparency, showing real data, or greenwashing, masking their real attitude and relying on appearance, with risks for reputation and boycott actions (Glazer, Kanniainen and Poutvaara, 2010). This research is focused on the oil sector, characterized by different sustainability problems, both in an environmental and a social perspective. Methods In order to highlight this issue in the oil sector, a multiple case study approach (Yin, 2009) has been applied. Two of the largest oil company have been chosen, BP and Eni. These companies draft a sustainability report, providing a lot of data and information about their attention to safeguard the environment and to have also a positive impact on society. In this study researchers have compared these two cases, spotlighting the controversies which sometimes are stressed in the public opinion. Researchers have analyzed these two companies reports and then they have compared the information gathered from this document to their image. Results and Discussion The analysis of these companies’ sustainability report has pointed out a deep commitment to protect environment and also to be responsible from a social point of view. In the following table, for example, there is the list of some of the indicators used in Eni’s report. Table 1. Some of the sustainability indicators used by Eni. Area // Main indicators People // Training hours on safety, Safety expenditures, OHSAS 18001 certifications, Health and Hygiene expenditures, Employees (total), Employees (women), Women senior managers, Satisfaction of participants.
In spite of this, this company has been accused to produce pollution in Nigeria, causing health problems for the local communities, but also to be irresponsible with workers. Also BP presents a report full of information about its sustainable initiatives but, at the same time, it has been found guilty because the damages created near the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Conclusions The analyzed cases have shown that sustainability report can be important in a marketing communication strategy but, at the same time, it is not a guarantee of truth. This shows that it is not a perfect tool for communication: it is necessary to research the possible ways to integrate information about environment and society in the balance sheet. Another reflection is relative to the importance of communicating with transparency: greenwashing could represent a problem also from a marketing point of view because it implies the worsening of the company’s reputation. References
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sciforum-005578 | Enabling Transparency Through Technology? Non-Governmental Satellite Imagery Analysis of North Korea | , | N/A |
Show Abstract |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Introduction The first remote sensing satellites were launched in the 1960s by the U.S. and Soviet militaries as one central element of their space race during the cold war. The space-based surveillance systems helped to reduce the ‘fog of war’ and mitigate the risk of being surprised by the enemy’s military capacity or an actual attack [1]. While geospatial intelligence still is a very important element of governmental security policy, the user group as well as the scope of application have extended well beyond the circles of intelligence and government agencies over the last decade. The privatization and advancement of satellite technology have led to novel implications for international politics. In the aftermath of 9/11, many states have further restricted information in the public domain and expanded their use of surveillance technology to control their citizens. At the same time, applications like Google Earth and commercial satellite technology also allow spaces to be seen that governments wanted to keep secret from civil society [2]. The increasing availability of commercial and open source satellite imagery has begun to challenge governments’ interpretational sovereignty by opening up spaces for new expert groups to play an influential role in security discourses that is based on their “authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge” [3-5]. Indicative for this is the growing amount of international organizations, freelance experts and non-governmental organizations (NGO) that use commercial satellite imagery to augment assessments of global security and human rights issues. Research Puzzle Remote sensing is particularly valuable in situations of incertitude and when sites are inaccessible. Similarly, non-governmental expert networks’ leverage to affect the definition of security problems, interests or policy responses is greatest when issues are characterized by political complexity and factual uncertainty [3, 6]. The case of North Korea possesses these characteristics as the development of its nuclear program as well as its human rights situation are heavily contested and the country is difficult to access due to government restrictions. Working around these difficulties, satellite imagery analysts closely observe North Korea’s nuclear facilities, human rights situation and nuclear test sites and publicly report any development on the ground. By combining satellite imagery analysis with various communication channels, this expert network cannot only produce policy-relevant knowledge but also directly disseminate it globally. Against this background, the paper aims at assessing non-governmental satellite imagery analysis’ potential and constraints to provide additional and alternative viewpoints and how it punctures state propaganda and affects public opinion on security and human rights issues in North Korea. The paper understands knowledge and its context of origin to “play a crucial and complex role in the configuration of societal security” [7]. Therefore, it will focus on practices of security knowledge production and dissemination based on commercial satellite imagery. More precisely, we will ask: (1) How has the commercialization of remote sensing influenced the emergence of non-governmental satellite imagery analysts as an epistemic community? (2) How do non-state experts produce security knowledge about North Korea based on satellite imagery and what is the role of uncertainties in that process? Theoretical Considerations The paper is located at the intersection between International Relations (IR) and Science and Technology Studies (STS). Only recently research has started to bring together both disciplines on a theoretical and empirical level to investigate the interrelation of technology, power and security [8-13]. Moreover, only few studies have concentrated how non-state satellite imagery analysis is conducted [14] and how it affects discourses of international politics [15, 16]. Research on remote sensing in international politics can be grouped in two different realms, i.e. governmental and non-governmental. While the former focuses on the capabilities and application in a state security or intelligence context [17, 18], the latter mostly analyzes non-governmental usage and work in areas of human security and environmental issues [14-16, 19, 20]. Early on, scholars pointed to the difficulties of satellite imagery analysis and the potentially severe consequences of incorrect conclusions that are difficult to challenge by non-experts [1, 21]. Despite these early warnings, the knowledge practices of non-governmental satellite imagery analysts are still insufficiently understood and only very limited research has been done on the ways that non-governmental analysts deal with the challenges of analyzing and interpreting satellite imagery in a politically highly sensitive context and how they cope with uncertainties. Main Arguments and Discussion We outline different techno-political and epistemic conditions non-state actors face by taking into account not only their technical capabilities but also the political and historical context of remote sensing. This is necessary to build the underlying parameters to frame the modes of knowledge production and subsequent dissemination. We will make two major arguments: (1) The commercialization of space-based remote sensing has laid the foundation for the emergence of an expert group of analysts by increasing their epistemic capacity. (2) This network of non-governmental satellite imagery analysts shares particular norms and epistemic practices and experiences significant uncertainties when producing knowledge about North Korea. The paper takes political decisions as rarely based on firm knowledge [22] and will contribute to a better understanding and assessment of expert groups’ inherent uncertainties in the process of security knowledge production. In doing so, it attempts to foster a constructive and necessary debate on the legitimacy of knowledge claims in international security. Furthermore, it will offer theoretical considerations on the interrelation of technology, knowledge production and security discourses in IR and STS. Results will also be of interest to practitioners and researchers of development assistance, security policy and humanitarian aid. References and Notes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sciforum-004908 | The Role of Online Booking Systems (wang shang gua hao) in Transforming Patient Experience and China's Healthcare Reform | , | N/A |
Show Abstract |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Introduction China has a long-standing problem for patients to queue and book appointments with doctors (gua hao) in real life, especially with those medical experts (zhuan jia hao). The demands for expert doctors in 3AAA hospitals are extremely high, leading to a hidden market for scalpers to trade doctors’ appointment notes. To tackle this problem, China introduced a series of regulations in the year of 2009 as a means of healthcare reform, and required these 3AAA hospitals to adopt the Online Booking Systems (wang shang gua hao; abbreviated as OBS below) gradually – in which patients can book with doctors in advance by their personal identity information and doctors can easily access his/her clinical record before the appointment [1]. This is quite similar to GP online services offered by NHS (i.e. www.chooseandbook.nhs.uk); but it can be both managed by public institutions such as Beijing Health Bureau (www.bjguahao.gov.cn) and private funds (http://www.guahao.com/). This paper aims to examine how these online booking systems can transform patient experience. Methods This study interviews five groups of middle-aged people (with 3 – 5 people each group) in Beijing, mainly focusing on their experience of booking appointments with doctors as well as those of their relatives/friends [2]. A set of semi-structured questions are asked to identify the extent to which the OBS have changed patients’ behaviors/perceptions, as well as to examine what factors have constrained their adoption of OBS [3]. Meanwhile, this study will assess the impact of technological change in relation to various socio-economic factors [4]. Throughout this process, participants will be asked to identify problems needing to be the most urgently tackled, regarding China’s healthcare reform. Lastly, their views towards electronic medical records are investigated in relation to the privacy issue. Results and Discussion In overall, participants interviewed by this study have shown positive attitudes towards the Online Booking Systems (OBS), mainly due to its accessible feature – i.e. People can take the initiative in terms of scheduling their own appointments (Besides this, many of them also use the telephone platform “114” as an alternative to make appointments). But it is clear that numbers of appointments allocated to OBS are limited [5]. Moreover, some criticize these technological advancements as a “temporary medical relief that only treat the symptom”, given the fact that 1) the supply of medical resources – still unevenly distributed both at the national and regional level – cannot meet the demand of patients and 2) the scarcity of expert doctors exacerbate patients’ willingness to strive for the perceived “best” medical service – despite few complained about the quality of these experts. On this basis, factors such as “illness seriousness”, “emergency extent” (mainly means those needing operations) etc. could pressure patients or their relatives to buy expert doctors’ appointment notes from scalpers for higher prices. Regarding the electronic medical records, most participants interviewed in this group have shown some extent of agreement on sharing them with their doctors as well as for further medical research; while they strongly opposed letting third parties to use them for commercial purposes (e.g. recommending medicine). References and Notes
|
About This Conference
Conference Schedule
Travel & Registration Information
Please refer to the official ISIS Summit page for travel and accommodation information. Below is the list of available registration rates. Please use the registration form to register with the ISIS Summit Vienna 2015.
- Early Bird academics: 400.00 EUR
- Regular academics: 500.00 EUR
- Early Bird non-academics: 530.00 EUR
- Regular non-academics: 700.00 EUR
- Students: 120.00 EUR
- Retired persons: 120.00 EUR
- Unemployed: 120.00 EUR
- Persons with special needs: 120.00 EUR
- Citizens of BRICS, newly independent countries, developing countries: 120.00 EUR
- ISIS members (special offer): 120.00 EUR
- Early Bird ISIS member: 120.00 EUR
- Early Bird DTMD workshop participant with presentation: 120.00 EUR
- Early Bird FIS group mailing list member: 120.00 EUR
- Early Bird ICTs-and-Society Network member: 120.00 EUR
- Early Bird International Center for Philosophy of Information affiliate: 120.00 EUR
- Early Bird B.S.Lab affiliate: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird BCSSS member: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird Communications Engineering (University of Linz) co-worker: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird Department of Communication (University of Vienna) co-worker: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird Department of Systems Analysis (University of Economics Prague) co-worker: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird Global Brain Institute affiliate: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird IACAP member: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird IANES affiliate: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird ICIE member: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird Institut für Design Science München member: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird Institute for Sustainable Economic Development (BOKU) co-worker: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird ISA member: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird ISBS member: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird ITA (OAW) co-worker: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird ITHEA member: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird KHG member: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird Leibniz-Sozietät member: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird Media, Technology & Research Group affiliate: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird Moscow Conservatory affiliate: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird OCG member: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird SFU co-worker: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird Szeged Information History Workshop affiliate: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird FIfF member: 320.00 EUR
- Invited speaker, chair, convenor, moderator, curator: 0.00 EUR
- Staff: 0.00 EUR
- Press: 0.00 EUR
- Sponsored: 0.00 EUR
- TU Wien course student: 0.00 EUR
- Accompanying participant: 200.00 EUR
- I intend to take part in the eve reception on 3 June 2015 in Vienna: 0.00 EUR
- I intend to take part in the social dinner at the floating Summit on 7 June 2015: 0.00 EUR
Call for Participation
I. Invited Speech
Session Chair
Dr. Wolfgang Hofkirchner
S1. Conference Stream DTMD 2015
Chair of the stream: David Chapman. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. David Chapman
Show all published submissions (8) Hide published submissions (8)
Submissions
List of Papers (8) Toggle list
S2. Conference Stream ICPI 2015
Chair of the stream: Joseph Brenner. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. Joseph Brenner, International Center for Transdisciplinary Research, Paris
S3. Conference Stream ICTS 2015
Chair of the stream: Christian Fuchs. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. Christian Fuchs
T1. Conference Track: (Big) history of information
Session Chair
Dr. László Z. Karvalics
T1.0.1. Conference Track: Andrew Feenberg's technical politics and ICTs
Session Chair
Professor Graeme Kirkpatrick
T1.1. Conference Track: As we may teach
Chair of the stream: Kristof Fenyvesi. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. Kristof Fenyvesi, University of Jyväskylä
T1.2. Conference Track: China and the global information society
Session Chair
Dr. Robert Bichler
T1.3. Conference Track: Communication, information and reporting
Session Chair
Dr. Gandolfo Dominici
T1.4. Conference Track: Cyberpeace
Session Chair
Dr. Kai Nothdurft
T2. Conference Track: Emancipation or disempowerment of man?
Session Chair
Dr. Tomáš Sigmund
T2.1. Conference Track: Emergence of and in (self-)organizing work systems
Session Chair
Dr. Christian Stary
T2.2. Conference Track: Emergent systems, information and society
Session Chair
Dr. Wolfgang Hofkirchner
T3. Conference Track: Empowering patients
Chair of the stream: Mary Jo Deering. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. Mary Jo Deering
T3.0. Conference Track: Homo informaticus
T3.1. Conference Track: Human resilience and human vulnerability
Session Chair
Dr. Brigitte Sindelar
Show all published submissions (1) Hide published submissions (1)
Submissions
List of Papers (1) Toggle list
T3.2. Conference Track: ICT and literature
Session Chair
Mr. Giovanna Di Rosario
Show all accepted abstracts (1) Hide accepted abstracts (1)
List of Accepted Abstracts (1) Toggle list
T3.3. Conference Track: ICTs and power relations
Session Chair
Mr. Stefan Strauß
T4. Conference Track: Information in the exact sciences and symmetry
Chair of the stream: Gyorgy Darvas. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. György Darvas, IRO Hungarian Academy of Sciences; and the Symmetrion
T5. Conference Track: Informational warfare
Chair of the stream: Mariarosaria Taddeo. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. Mariarosaria Taddeo
T6. Conference Track: Multi-level semiosis
Chair of the stream: Luis Emilio Bruni. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. Luis Emilio Bruni
T7. Conference Track: Music, information and symmetry
Session Chair
Dr. Konstantin Zenkin
T7.1. Conference Track: Natural disasters
Session Chair
Dr. Marianne Penker
T7.2. Conference Track: Progress in Information Studies in China
Session Chair
Professor Xue-Shan Yan, Peking University
T8. Conference Track: Searching to create a humanized civilization
Chair of the stream: Elohim Jimenez-Lopez. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. Elohim Jimenez Lopez
Show all accepted abstracts (1) Hide accepted abstracts (1)
List of Accepted Abstracts (1) Toggle list
T8.1. Conference Track: The ethics of foundations
Session Chair
Professor Rainer E. Zimmermann, Lehrgebiet Philosophie
T9. Conference Track: The Global Brain
Chair of the stream: David R. Weinbaum. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. David R. Weinbaum (Weaver)
T9.1. Conference Track: Transdisciplinary response and responsibility
Session Chair
Dr. Søren Brier
T9.2. Conference Track: Triangular relationship
Chair of the stream: Marcin J. Schröder. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. Marcin Jan Schroeder, Akita International University
T9.3. Conference Track: Weaving the understanding of information
Session Chair
Dr. José María Díaz Nafría