Re: is this internet studies?
I am wondering what David means by the term "Internet studies". The military has been one of the largest supporters of technology research in general and Lee is right, ARPAnet was a military research project. Now one of the largest military projects is "semantic web". Something that might, in the future, be as integral to our lives as Internet now is (in my opinion, semantic web, is part of the Internet studies as well). The military also happens to be one of the largest backers of research in general. I do not think as a field, we have a choice of whether our field is funded, at least in part, with military money. We have that choice only as individual researchers, when we choose which grants to apply for and accept. My other concern is David's statement that this direction is new. The USC institute - the Institute of Creative Technologies - has been in existence for at least 5 years. This direction is not new. If anything, its come full circle. Irina Shklovski Graduate Researcher Human Computer Interaction Institute Carnegie Mellon University =================================== http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~irinas http://miswritings.blogspot.com "To create means to live, forever creating newer and newer things." -Kazimir Malevich, 1915 =================================== Irina Shklovski Graduate Assistant Human Computer Interaction Institute Carnegie Mellon University ========================== http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~irinas "I can handle reality in small doses but as a lifestyle its much too confining..." --Lily Tomlin C L I M B O N ==========================
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Irina Shklovski wrote:
general. I do not think as a field, we have a choice of whether our field is funded, at least in part, with military money. We have that choice only as individual researchers, when we choose which grants to apply for and accept.
i agree that we have a choice as individual researchers, but i strongly disagree that we don't have a choice on larger levels. i think we can make our ideas known in, say, faculty and graduate meetings and in university-level committees. i also wonder what the role of air is. if air exists, in part, to give collective voice to internet researchers, then this is something that might want to be addressed, discussed, debated, etc. in the very least, it should be something that is made visible. just because militarization has always been a part of academia, esp US academia, doesn't mean we have to continue along this path. if we diverge, there will be of course certain losses (like $45 million grants from the US army) but those losses come with certain gains too. david
David says,
i also wonder what the role of air is. if air exists, in part, to give collective voice to internet researchers, then this is something that might want to be addressed, discussed, debated, etc. in the very least, it should be something that is made visible.
But aoir is an organization, and organizations are made of people and of communication. So aoir is what our members make it - or, here on the listserve, what those who actively participate make it. I don't think aoir as an association takes a stand on this or any issue, does it. I mean, aoir can't think. Only people can. It's the members' voices that make others associate a particular orientation with the organization. It's community created, so to speak. And - we're talking about it right now, so we are addressing, discussing, debating it, aren't we? It's made visible by all of our willingness to listen to all kinds of perspectives on this topic here on the list rather than ackknowledging only one side or the other, or none at all. Action would come from members/participants. Aoir as the association gives people a forum for their voice. That's my personal opinion, by the way, and not some sort of exec member statement. Ulla
A further difficulty may be in determining the boundaries of such a gesture, at least to a degree such that the preponderance of researchers could agree upon it. For example, a rejection of funding directly from the military would likely be a relatively easy pill to swallow, at least for some. While I am sure that there are those on the list who receive funding from, say, the US Navy or from DARPA, they make up a fairly small minority. But this is only the most direct connection. Do we also reject funding related to "defending our homeland," for example? For those with NIH or NSF funding, it would have been hard not to notice the change in funding priorities over the last two years. Do we reject industry- sponsored research from companies that profit during war and its aftermath? There are a number of sources remaining for funded research beyond these two, but this list becomes increasingly attenuated when you eliminate funding that is in any way related to military action. Finally, I think it is worth asking whether "the military" is really responsible for wars. Of course, they have the greatest proximate responsibility, but it may very well be that other sources of funding provide the impetus for such wars. I certainly do not think all wars are fought over profits, but most are fought over resources. In that regard, at least, I think Bucky Fuller had the right idea: focus on distribution and resource allocation, and you may find the leverage needed for peace. Indeed, the most effective way of providing for peace, rather than being more conscientious consumers of research funding, may be making the causes of war a focus of our research. With hopes for a peaceful new year, Alex Quoting david silver <dsilver@u.washington.edu>:
just because militarization has always been a part of academia, esp US academia, doesn't mean we have to continue along this path. if we diverge, there will be of course certain losses (like $45 million grants from the US army) but those losses come with certain gains too.
david
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
participants (4)
-
david silver -
halavaisļ¼ buffalo.edu -
Irina Shklovski -
Ulla Bunz