Anticipating Social and Policy Implications of Intelligent Networks: Choices for Australia
***** HEARN ************EJC/REC Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 1993 ****
ANTICIPATING SOCIAL AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF INTELLIGENT
NETWORKS: CHOICES FOR AUSTRALIA[1]
Greg Hearn
Lyn Simpson
Leanne Holman
Tony Stevenson
June Dunleavy
Queensland University of Technology
Alan Meara
George Sikorski
Telecom Australia
Abstract. The development of the Intelligent
Network in Australia raises important social and
policy issues. As well, it exemplifies the
ongoing theoretical debate between technological
determinists and social constructionists. Here we
argue for a complex and interactive relationship
between technological and social change which
renders the process of technological development
open to influence by human activity and choice.
Given this, we describe a participatory action
research project which sought to anticipate social
and policy issues of Intelligent Networks. The
concerns we believe are most important revolve
around themes of complexity and choice and the
need for public participation in the process of
technology development. Finally we discuss
important practical issues involved in
participatory methods and suggest policy and
research imperatives.
Introduction
Australia's telephone system is currently moving away
from the old analog based service to one taking advantage of
developments in computer processing, software and data
bases, as well as digital switching and signalling.
This penetration of digital technology into the
telephone network (dubbed the Intelligent Network), together
with new forms of transmission, will ultimately enable the
integration of sound, data, graphics full-motion / full
colour video and interactive multimedia services. Such
services could be provided on the one network and delivered
to users on a single integrated terminal.
There are various "levels" of intelligence. Most
basically, intelligence is provided through the use of
computerised and digital techniques at the switch level, for
example ISDN, AXE and System 12. Further levels of
intelligence can be provided by adding data bases and other
devices (commonly referred to as Service Control Points)
that provide information in response to service requests.
The switches "communicate" with the data bases through
computerised Switching Transfer Points which enable
intelligent routing between switches and data bases. In
this way a variety of "intelligence" and features or
services can be added and spread throughout the network.
In short, the combination of fibre optic cable and
computerisation of the network, as well as digital switching
and signalling paths (for example the Integrated Services
Digital Network, or ISDN) to customers' premises, means that
more information can be sent across telecommunications
networks at greater speeds than previously possible. The
Intelligent Network will be able to support network and
customer control of the storage, retrieval and processing of
information in the forms outlines above.
As a result, the breadth of services already
anticipated to be offered by Intelligent Network
capabilities encompasses the following general areas:
o Health and medicine (for example, remote health
monitoring and diagnosis via high definition
television);
o Entertainment (for example, on-line video
selection);
o Education and research (for example, access to
library catalogues and other data bases for personal
and professional research, delivery of books, images
and diagrams to the home/office personal computer
(PC), and interactive educational services);
o Information storage and retrieval applications, for
example, on-line access to job banks, employment
information, stock market quotations and
personalised newspapers;
o Speech and language (for example, speech and data
conversion for the hearing impaired, and automatic
language translation);
o Home based applications (for example, teleshopping,
and control of home appliances such as heating,
lighting, security and alarm sensors).
However, such innovations are also anticipated to
threaten certain long accepted social habits and influence
social change. The social impacts associated with the
implementation of the Intelligent Network have been widely
debated in much of the relevant literature. Most of these
debates centre on the issues of _privacy_ (see for example:
Catlin, 1992; Melody, 1992; Ruggles, 1992; Cordell, 1991;
Katz, 1990a, 1990b; Shultz, 1991a, 1991b); _ownership and
control of information_ (see for example: Samarajiva &
Shields, 1992; Ruggles, 1992; Catlin, 1992; Samarajiva,
1992; Shultz, 1991a, 1991b; Finneran, 1990; Gandy, 1989;
Pacific Bell, 1988, 1987), _security of data being
transported on the Intelligent Network_ (see for example:
Underwood, 1990; Bacon, 1989; Friedberg, Harper & Cerullo,
1988), _equity and access_ (see for example: Deakin, 1992;
Cordell, 1991; Doctor, 1991; Pacific Bell, 1988), _costs_
(see for example: Deakin, 1992, Catlin, 1992; O'Connor,
1992; Cordell, 1991), _consumer education_ (see for example:
Morley 1992; Doctor, 1991; Pacific Bell, 1987),
_implications for people with disabilities_ (see for
example: Newell, 1992; Katz, 1990a; Pacific Bell, 1987),
and _implications for rural Australia_ (see for example:
Horner & Reeve, 1991).
Implicated in these concerns are theoretically
significant issues regarding the relationship of technical
and social change. A view which acknowledges that technical
and social change are interconnected in complex ways is
needed (Carey, 1993; Kinsella, 1993). This avoids both the
trap of a naive technological determinism, which ignores the
significant effect of existing social structures on
technological development and a limited social
constructionist view which distracts attention from
important social consequences of ill-informed technological
decisions.
In general, the themes of this debate are well
summarised by Kinsella (1993); Mackay and Gillespie (1992);
Finnegan (1989); Winner (1989, 1985); Mackenzie and Wajcman
(1985); Bell (1982); Pool (1983a, 1983b); and McLuhan (1967,
1964) and need not be returned to here. For present
purposes, the core of this debate is the nature of social
causality in the first place.
Critics of the technological determinist position argue
that this doctrine offers a naive view of social causality,
seeing technological change as occurring independently of
its social antecedents - independent of social construction.
This criticism, as Kinsella (1993) has shown, is a
superficial reading of much of the technological determinist
position. In one important sense, the criticism misses the
point of the technological determinist argument.
Many of the writings which have been labelled
"technological determinist", particularly those of Innis
(1951, 1950), have definitely not addressed the social
shaping of technology. However, this is not a denial of
that process, but a chosen focus which seeks to illuminate
the sometimes subtle yet far-reaching consequences of
technological change. Most simply, they raise questions
about changes which may occur after technological changes
have occurred, without asserting that any _ultimate_
causality resides with the technological change per se.
Indeed, the very nature of causality per se in the
technological determinist debate is open to question. For
example, many anti-technological determinists (for example
Finnegan, 1989) deny technology as an exogenous "cause" of
social change yet implicate other "causes" of social change,
such as "human agency" and "human choice". These notions
are no less social constructions than technology.
Ultimately, any notion of causality in social life is
complex and problematic.
The causal relationship between technological
development and social change must therefore be seen as more
complex. It is more likely to exhibit reciprocal and
simultaneous causality (Maruyama, 1976), or coevolution
(Allen, 1990), instead of, or as well as, elements of linear
cause-and-effect. Neither technological determinist nor
social constructionist positions adequately explain this
complexity. This is borne out by Abu-Lughod (1992, p. 14),
for example, who has described a paradoxical relationship
between communications revolutions and the social and
physical reorganisation of cities:
The immediate effects of any revolutionary
quantum jump in communications have been to shift
activities to both higher and lower orders of
scale than were previously important. This is
another way of saying that communication
revolutions have routinely permitted
decentralisation of some elements while, at the
same time, they have tended to concentrate others.
However, despite the complex nature of causality in the
relationship between technological and social change, it is
at least possible to describe changes to social and
individual domains that follow after changes to
technologies, without asserting any causality in the strict
linear sense of the word. An awareness that social change
is implicated in technological change is particularly
important for those responsible for introducing new
technology. Moreover, it demands an imperative for public
debate regarding these social changes, as well as more
fundamental issues in the development of technology.
Within this theoretical context, the research described
herein sought to explore the social and policy implications
of the technological developments described above. As well,
the research set out to develop a methodology for
participative identification of social and policy
implications of new communication technologies in general.
Methodology
Rationale
Traditional planning seeks to know and design the
future through prediction based on extrapolation of past
trends and events (Inayatullah, 1990). This has serious
social repercussions since it assumes that:
1. The future is a continuous, linear progression
of the past, with no transformations or
punctuated evolution (quantum leaps).
2. Conventional wisdom, founded in industrialism,
is appropriate for a transformed, future, post-
industrial world.
3. Experts and non-expert users can anticipate and
design tomorrow's social systems and
telecommunications networks without
reconceptualising the transformations of the
future.
To correct these problems, the methodology employed
during this study followed the principles of action learning
and action research. This participant-oriented approach to
research seeks to generate action within ongoing social
contexts as well as knowledge. There are many variants of
action research (for example, Whyte, 1991; Kemmis &
McTaggart, 1988; Lather, 1986; and Argyris, Putman & Smith,
1985). However, they share a focus on critical reflection
within open communication processes and a desire to generate
actionable knowledge. The central process of this family of
research methods is participative sharing of information
which may be personalised and subjective, since this is
crucial to eventual action.
In the context of futures research, action research is
a way of enabling desirable futures to emerge and realise
themselves (Morgan & Ramirez, 1983). The methodology
recognises that prediction of the future, with all its
uncertainties of cross-impacts and transformations, is
impossible (Inayatullah, 1990). Instead it seeks to
_identify alternative likely futures_ to guide policymakers
and planners.
Research Program
A program of action research seminar activities was
conducted, each of which brought representatives of user
groups and invited specialists together with researchers in
an interactive learning environment. The process enabled
these representatives to collaborate on both the assessment
of these new technologies and the social construction of the
preferred future scenario for their use (Inayatullah, 1990).
The program of research relied on the fundamental
cyclical steps of action research - plan, act, observe,
reflect - to identify problems within the methodology as
well as to formulate future research.
Originally, three different socio-cultural contexts in
Queensland were identified for the study, from which people
were selected to participate in the seminars. These were:
a metropolitan city (24 participants); a regional city (21
participants); and a rural town (16 participants). As well,
a seminar with twenty 5 - 17 year olds was conducted in the
metropolitan city. The former two seminars lasted one and a
half days, and the latter two for three hours.
In each seminar, information about new Intelligent
Network services and the informed views of technical and
systems experts were presented to users in such a way as to
facilitate the:
o Sharing of information and ideas;
o Identification of the different standpoints of
various stakeholders;
o Construction of notions of possible futures;
o Responses of potential consumers; and
o Anticipation of social acceptance or rejection of
new information services.
Process Outline
The process used an adaptation of the futures search
conference (Emery, 1982). This process combines Nominal
Group Technique methods (Delbecq, Van de Ven & Gustafson,
1975) with open discussions in both small syndicates and in
plenary. Consistent with open systems planning, the
discussion sessions began by encouraging participants to
sketch a broad picture of a desirable future for society.
These goals would later help define how future technology,
including telecommunication services, might help them to
achieve their goals and how technology might threaten these
goals. The workshops moved through sessions remembering the
"recent history" of technology; imagining future technology;
presenting information on the Intelligent Network through
video and expert input and discussion; and in light of this,
designing an ideal Intelligent Network. The workshop
process was purposely designed to lead to a more specific
debate of the issues, potential problems and opportunities
associated with the implementation of the Intelligent
Network.
Results and Discussion
The seminars produced a rich array of perspectives and
stimulated debate amongst participants. Elsewhere we have
reported detailed narratives which characterise the debates
which took place as faithfully as possible (Hearn et al.,
1993). The following themes are illustrative of the range
of issues:
o Individuality in small societies;
o Viability of democracy;
o Is technological development; desirable?;
o Participation in technology;
o Access, equity and affordability;
o Privacy and security;
o Ownership and control.
Rather than simply report these lengthy descriptions
here, we raise the issues for theory and praxis we believe
are implicated in them. As well, to return to our second
objective, we evaluate and discuss the methodology we used.
Finally we document policy and research imperatives.
Firstly, the seminars confirmed unequivocally the
importance of the issues surveyed in the introduction to
this paper. The participants essentially replicated the
literature debate regarding issues of access and equity (in
terms of cost, disabilities and geography), privacy,
security and ownership of information. We do not intend to
return to these important themes here. Instead we focus on
a number of workshop issues which provide predominantly new
perspectives on the emerging Intelligent Network. They
relate directly to our initial analysis of the
co-evolutionary nature of technological change which
stresses the capacity of human actors to influence
technological development. The themes are summarised around
complexity, choice and participation. They substantiate the
need for methodologies which facilitate participative
technological assessment.
Complexity
The much touted information explosion of the future
provokes mixed feelings. Certain participants in this study
welcomed the likely availability of more information which
would better equip them for decision making. Others felt
that they already were confronted by too much information
and were happy to be less informed.
It is not surprising that complexity is perceived as
threatening. The classical scientific paradigm which
powered the industrial era with the physics and rationality
of Newton assumed predicability and natural order. But,
according to Prigogine and Stengers (1984), we are beginning
to see the limits of Newtonian rationality. Prigogine and
Stengers argue that humankind is in fact in an age of
transition in which science is now seen as complex and
probabilistic.
It is this very complexity, however, or more accurately
the recognition of it, which may yield the opportunities for
an intelligently applied Intelligent Network.
Telecommunications theory has been confirmed, according to
Ploman (1985) as one of the branches of knowledge that is
contributing to the "science of complexity".
On the other hand, Soedjatmoko (1985) questions the
notion of complexity. In a world beset with poverty and
inequality and cases of entirely polarised societies, this
inquiry is timely. Local institutions are incapable of
handling the ensuing conflicts peacefully. Exploration for
understanding and, hopefully, managing complexity becomes
particularly urgent. Soedjatmoko argues that we are in a
situation where no single government or group of governments
can control the world and the historical processes under
way. The problem, to Soedjatmoko, is: how do we learn to
manage effectively a system in which no single power is in
control?
Abu-Lughod (1992) argues that contemporary revolutions
in communications have a paradoxical effect. They increase
opportunities for coordination and empowerment within
decentralised systems, as well as greater social equity,
while simultaneously increasing social power differences and
thus centralised control. If this is so, we could see
corporations increasing their control on a national or
global level while, at the same time, communities developing
more democratic forms through decentralising structures.
Similarly, the Intelligent Network could bring both a
reduction of complexity, or at least simpler access to
complex information environments for individuals, while also
facilitating increased complexity in modern organisational
systems. Such paradoxes are largely foreign to the
Newtonian world we still largely inhabit. Dealing with such
paradox requires an intelligent community to use the
Intelligent Network. Such intelligence demands the
capability to make informed choices amidst complexity.
Choice
The theme of choice emerged often in the workshops. In
different contexts and in considering different questions,
participants kept returning to a fundamental imperative -
choice. The most basic choice was whether technology
development should occur at all. In concert with many
critics of technological optimism, (for example, Wajcman,
1991), some participants challenged the notion of
inevitability of advanced telecommunication services.
But assuming new technology will develop, the
importance of choice emerged in relation to all aspects of
future telecommunications. Participants asserted the right
and functionality of choice regarding which technology would
be developed, and on matters of ergonomics and interface.
As well, once the hardware is available, choice of services,
sources, methods of payment and so forth are desirable.
The call for choice at all levels is not surprising.
Choice is a hallowed feature of modern democracies and the
consumer's sine qua non in the post-modern, deindividuated
future (Firat & Venkatesh, 1993). However, the right to
choose is predicated on the ability and opportunity to
choose. Consequently, the right to choose is currently
limited.
Choice is limited by various social constructions that
can obscure information needed by consumers to be informed,
as well as by hindering access to decision making processes.
For example, from our research and the literature, women,
for a variety of reasons, feel more constrained in voicing
their choice in relation to technology development (see for
example, Wajcman, 1991).
Additionally, there is the division between the skilled
and unskilled in technology. How do social barriers
construct or contribute to the gap between experts and
non-experts? Lack of information and knowledge about
emerging technology places limits on informed choice. At
the other end of the spectrum, choice is often stifled by
too much detailed decontextualised technical information.
To paraphrase Mitroff (1987) more choice can mean less
choice.
Above all the ability to make choices about technology
demands the opportunity for participation and collaboration
in decision making during the development, implementation
and evaluation of new technology. Participants welcomed the
opportunity the seminar provided for them to participate and
have their views heard in a public forum, and advocated more
participation in future.
Participation
As identified frequently in the literature, individuals
and groups have felt powerless as the forces driving
technology decisions have been dictated by narrowly focussed
economic motives of corporations (Barr, 1992; Samarajiva &
Shields, 1992; Winner, 1989). The participants expressed a
need for consultative processes that allow suppliers and
service providers to know and understand their social needs,
and that allow those needs to be addressed in the
implementation of the technology.
The importance of participation is not to be
underestimated. There is nothing inevitable about the
social impacts of new technologies, and the recognition that
there are choices, heightens awareness of how futures are
created by those choices (Lowe, 1992). The social
implications of the Intelligent Network are so pervasive
that decisions about its social impact should be made by
broad representation of the community as a whole, including
service providers, suppliers and users (especially those
with different or special needs).
As Lowe argues, technology should be seen as a social
activity, its role in shaping the society of the future
recognised, and technologies chosen which are consistent
with the sort of society and future that is wanted.
Participants argued for planners, policy makers and
politicians to respond to community debate on the
implications and issues arising from an assessment of
emerging technologies and the introduction of Intelligent
Networks. Others such as Barr (1985) have pointed to the
appalling neglect of social philosophy that has for decades
characterised technology and communications policy in
Australia.
Barr (1985) further argues for an integrated frame of
reference for decision making which incorporates a
permanently established mechanism whereby a "wide cross-
section of the public can effectively offer input into the
policy decision making process and effectively analyse the
outcomes" (p. 224). Similarly, in our research, there were
strong calls for major policy decisions to be made beyond
the realm of the technical experts.
Lowe (1992) cautions that the community as a whole too
often looks to those who are technically expert for guidance
on technological change. Policy decisions must be limited
and questionable when they rest in the hands of key players
with commercial interests or with small pressure groups.
Supporting this view, Barr (1992) argues that:
A prime paradox of public policy is that
major policy decisions are made in forums which
are essentially private and closed, and within
institutions able to wrap themselves in secrecy
(p. 86).
Similarly, Bjorn-Anderson (1983) argues:
We have reached, with regard to some
technologies, the turning point where we have
become totally dependent on this technology. If
we are to liberate ourselves it is mandatory to
assess the dependencies of these technologies.
And this should not be experts giving their wisdom
from their ivory tower, but the assessment should
emanate from the man-in-the-street (sic) (p. 165).
One objective of this study was to develop and trial a
methodology to address this imperative. As we have shown,
the methodology described in this study does enable such a
participative and anticipatory assessment of technology to
be made. The results of the study demonstrate the
capability of the methodology employed to generate insights,
develop future scenarios, raise issues, and educate and
motivate participants toward relevant action. Nevertheless,
the study also made evident a number of theoretical and
practical issues related to the ongoing development of the
methodology which should be examined.
Methodological Issues and Opportunities
Conceptually the following issues can be considered.
Firstly, how are the relationships between stakeholders in
the research process including researchers, participants,
the broader community, sponsoring organisations and
technology developers best managed? Secondly, what is the
nature and validity of "knowledge" generated in such
methodology?
The Relationships Between Stakeholders
Traditional social research has evolved a research
process which defines relationships between research
sponsors, researchers, participants and communities. Roles
are compartmentalised. In particular, it is only the
researchers who are constructed as "doing" research. As
such, domains of knowledge about, and perceptions of, the
research process are therefore differentiated. For example,
researchers are often more aware of hypotheses than
participants.[2] Difference in knowledge leads to
differences in power. As Argyris (1980) argues, this limits
the validity of data that researchers are able to access.
The data that participants provide is often limited to
conscious, socially acceptable espousals. For research
which seeks to produce action beyond the researchers, this
is particularly problematic. Action often requires critical
reflection, insight and surfacing of fears and emotional
risk taking. The traditional research process limits the
production of these precursors to action.
As well, in traditional social research, the transfer
of knowledge generated is seen as a separate problem from
the research process, (both in terms of transfer to sponsor
organisations and the broader community).
The action research approach adopted in this project
sought to overcome these problems. In theory at least, the
model seeks to establish integrated learning/research
processes composed of groups of researchers, sponsors and
community members. These research groups are involved in
both didactic and experiential learning and, as such, offer
the opportunity to deal with information complexity and to
reduce defensive interference. Under these conditions, it
is more likely that transfer of new knowledge can be
generated. In particular, insights regarding the social
issues concerned can be embedded in sponsoring
organisations.[3]
In theory therefore, there seem to be advantages for
all stakeholders in this conception of the research process.
For example, community members have an opportunity to give
voice to their viewpoints in direct interaction with
researchers, technologists and other stakeholders from very
difference spheres of life. This transfer, of course, is
two- way and provides technologists with first-hand
experience of community members with whom they are unlikely
also to interact. For sponsoring organisations the
involvement of key stakeholders from their organisation in
an intensive action learning process, increases the
likelihood of the transfer of knowledge. Not only is
intellectual understanding of the problem increased but key
ingredients for action are also; namely, emotional
commitment, tangible experience, tacit knowledge and
challenged perspectives.
Despite these advantages, a number of problems became
obvious throughout the research process. The nature of the
relationship with the sponsoring organisation to the
research project raised suspicion among many of the seminar
participants. For example, there was an initial perception
that the seminar was a public relations exercise. As well,
the question of ownership of research output in terms of
product information and other strategic insights can be
raised. Should this material be part of the public domain
or proprietary for the sponsoring organisation?
Other conflicts of interest were evident throughout the
seminars. Stereotyped differences between the technophobics
and technophiles were evident. While the current project
provided examples of confrontation and openness, it was not
totally successful at all times. The conditions that
encourage more open discussion and more confrontation of
difficult issues need further research (Argyris, Putnam &
Smith, 1985).
The Nature and Validity of Knowledge Generated
An important point in relation to the nature of the
information and knowledge generated relates to the context
of its genesis. Action research purports to be essentially
non- directive with regard to the participation of
respondents. We raise the question here of the extent to
which it is possible to be essentially non-directive with
research participants.
Indeed, we acknowledge that the design of the workshop
itself shaped many of the frames of thinking that
respondents used in making their technological assessments
and discussing new technology. Often, the participants'
lack of familiarity with such processes meant that the
seminars required sensitive facilitation. Such facilitation
may violate non- directive assumptions. The solution which
emerged in these workshops was to explicitly acknowledge the
facilitation role and its likely effect on the direction of
the workshop.
Finally, the particular problems of generating
knowledge about future hypothetical and often intangible
situations must be raised. In this seminar in particular,
it was difficult to define the Intelligent Network
technically, despite the use of various hands-on
demonstrations, video displays and expert input.
Participants clearly need to construct conceptions of such
future technology in terms of their own frame of reference
and relate the technology to their own experience. The
extent to which this challenging cognitive task is possible
in a short workshop is possibly limited and further research
needs to address ways to make future technology more
assessable for research participants.
Conclusion: Policy Imperatives for Service Providers
To reiterate, new technology can bring expected and
unexpected problems and opportunities. For example, the
sophisticated functions and services of an Intelligent
Network will provide obvious benefits to businesses and
emergency services organisations. They will provide access
to the global network and improve Australia's
competitiveness in the global market (Asher, 1992; Catlin,
1992; Deakin, 1992; Ruggles, 1992). For rural Australia,
the Intelligent Network may stimulate the development of
Telecottages, providing an improved means of communications
for isolated townships; a means for community response to
local problems; and on-line access to weather and market
information and business advice (Horner & Reeve, 1991).
Yet these same new functions and services bring with
them a whole new set of concerns about privacy and equity.
Concern has been expressed by consumer organisations,
women's shelters, civil liberties organisations, certain law
enforcement groups and associations representing people with
disabilities (Melody, 1992). There is much debate over
policy issues regarding privacy and consumer protection from
the misuse or unauthorised use of personal information
(Catlin, 1992; Morley, 1992; O'Connor, 1992; Ruggles, 1992;
Samarajiva, 1992; White, 1992).
Similar opportunities and concerns arose in the
workshop and are documented more fully elsewhere (Hearn et
al, 1993; Stevenson & Holman, 1992). However, the more
fundamental point to emerge from our research is the need
for service providers and policy makers to develop social
processes to allow such issues to be addressed. Economic
and technological imperatives are inadequate bases for
development of the Intelligent Network.
Given this, our research raises a number of important
social policy imperatives for telecommunications providers
to address in development of the Intelligent Network. The
requirements are for:
1. Acceptance of their educative responsibility,
given the complexity of the new technology and
the complexity of associated social change to
(a) ensure that the community becomes informed
and involved and (b) encourage the development
of a strong public awareness to enable
assessment of current technologies and future
options.
2. Provision of user choice at all stages in
development and implementation of the
Intelligent Network.
3. Participative and collaborative decision-making
processes with users (especially those with
different or special needs) for future
telecommunications policy, design,
implementation and assessment.
4. Consolidated legislation and policy making to
reflect the convergence of technology so that
there is transparency of the technology within
the legislative and policy making processes;
separate Acts need to be replaced by one
consolidated Act.
5. Implementation of future telecommunications
developments based on thorough investigation of
its social implications and recognition of the
opportunity which technological change offers
to redesign inadequate social institutions.
6. An integrated frame of reference for decision
making which would include anticipatory
research methodologies to assist policy
formulation.
In conjunction with policy development, research could
profitably be conducted to encourage active user
participation. Specifically, further research issues
include the refinement and development of a useful and valid
anticipatory methodology; the exploration of the
relationship between communication technologies such as the
Intelligent Network and urban and social forms; the
development of a process of selection and facilitation of
community participants from representative groups in public
forums, especially leading public stakeholders in the
development of the Intelligent Network; the exploration of
the implications of the Intelligent Network for
special-interest or disadvantaged groups such as women,
people with disabilities, aged, multicultural, and rural
Australians; and further consideration of the effect of
demographic and regional differences for the Intelligent
Network.
Notes
[1] The manuscript is based on a Report submitted to
Telecom Australia, entitled _Anticipating Social and
Policy Implications of Intelligent Networks: Choice,
Complexity and Participation_, July 1993, and is based
on a paper entitled _Anticipating Social and Policy
Implications of Intelligent Networks: Preliminary
Findings_, presented at the Australian Communication
Association National Conference, Melbourne, Victoria,
7-9 July 1993. The project was sponsored by the
Telecom Fund for Social and Policy Research in
Telecommunications.
[2] The logic of some social research paradigms indeed
demand this.
[3] Mink, Mink and Owen (1987) argue that the ability to
interact with social environments composed of multiple
values and perspectives is critical for organisations.
A unified value position facilitates the ability of the
organisation to deal with multiple values coherently.
Action learning is one way this process can be
achieved.
References
Abu-Lughod, J.L. (1992). Communication and the metropolis:
Spatial drift and the reconstitution of control. Asian
Journal of Communication, 2(3), 12-30.
Allen, P. (1990). Why the future is not what it was.
Futures, 22(6), 569.
Argyris, C. (1980). Inner contradictions of rigorous
research. New York: Academic Press.
Argyris, C., Putman, R., & Smith, D.M. (1985). Action
science. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Asher, A. (1992). Consumer and public interest
perspectives. In B. Melody (Ed.), The intelligent
telecommunications network: privacy and policy
implications of Calling Line Identification and
emerging information services (pp. 66-71). Proceedings
of CIRCIT Conference, 3 December 1991. Melbourne:
CIRCIT.
Bacon, M. (1989). Assessing public network security.
Telecommunications, 23(12), 19-20.
Barr, T. (1992). Telecommunications: Technology assessment
for the future. In T. Stevenson & J. Lennie (Eds.),
Australia's communication futures (pp. 82-88).
Brisbane: The Communication Centre, Queensland
University of Technology, 82-88.
Barr, T. (1985). The electronic estate. Melbourne:
Penguin.
Bell, D. (1982). The third technical revolution. Business
Quarterly, Summer, 33-37.
Bjorn-Anderson, N. (1983). Public participation in
technology assessment. In N. Szyperski, E. Grochla, U.
Richter & W. Weitz (Eds.), Assessing the impacts of
information technology (pp. 154-167). Braunschweig:
Viaweg.
Carey, J. (1993, July). Everything that rises must diverge:
Notes on communication technology and culture. Paper
presented to the Annual Conference of the Australian
Communication Association. Melbourne.
Catlin, J. (1992). Intelligent telecommunications networks:
Opportunities for serious privacy protection. CIRCIT
submission to the AUSTEL Inquiry into the Privacy
Implications of Telecommunications Services.
Cordell, A.J. (1991). The perils of an information age.
Options Politiques, April, 21-24.
Deakin, E. (1992). Calling line identification and consumer
issues. In B. Melody (Ed.), The intelligent
telecommunications network: Privacy and policy
implications of Calling Line Identification and
emerging information services (pp. 14-20). Proceedings
of CIRCIT Conference, 3 December 1991. Melbourne:
CIRCIT.
Delbecq, A.L., Van de Ven, A.H. & Gustafson, D.H. (1975).
group techniques for program planning. Glenview, IL:
Scott, Foresman.
Doctor, R.D. (1991). Information technologies and social
equity: Confronting the revolution. Journal of the
American Society for the Information Science, 42(3),
216-228.
Emery, M. (1982). Searching. Canberra: Centre for
Continuing Education.
Finnegan, R. (1989). Communication and technology.
Language & Communication, 9(2/3), 107-127.
Finneran, M. (1990). Let's give Calling Line Identification
a chance. Business Communications Review, 20(1),
68-71.
Friedberg, A.H., Harper, R.M. & Cerullo, M.J. (1988).
Reliance on optical fibres to increase
telecommunication security. Information Age, 11(2),
73-77.
Firat, F.A. & Venkatesh, A. (1993). Postmodernity: The
age of marketing. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 10(3), September, (forthcoming).
Gandy, O.H. Jr. (1989). The surveillance society:
Information technology and bureaucratic social control.
Journal of Communication, 39(3), 61-76.
Hearn, G., Simpson, L., Holman, L., Stevenson, T., Dunleavy,
J., Meara, A. & Sikorski, G. (1993). Anticipating
social and policy implications of the Intelligent
Network: Complexity, choice and participation. Report
to Telecom Australia. The Communication Centre,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Horner, D. & Reeve, I. (1991). Telecottages: The potential
for rural Australia. Report prepared for the
Department of Primary Industries and Energy. Canberra:
AGPS.
Inayatullah, S. (1990). Deconstructing and reconstructing
the future: Predictive, cultural and critical
epistemologies. Futures, March, 115-141.
Innis, H.A. (1951). The bias of communication. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Innis, H.A. (1950). Empire and communication. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Katz, J.E. (1990a). Looming privacy issues have wide
ramifications. Telecommunications, 24(10), 60-61.
Katz, J.J. (1990b). Social aspects of telecommunications
security policy. Telecommunications Policy, 14(4),
324-332.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research
reader (3rd ed.). Victoria: Deakin University.
Kinsella, W. J. (1993). Communication and information
technologies: A dialectical model of technology and
human agency. New Jersey Journal of Communication,
1(1), 2-18.
Lather, P. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological
research: Between a rock and a soft place.
Interchange, 17(4), 63-84.
Lowe, I. (1992). Social impact analysis of information
technologies. In T. Stevenson & J. Lennie (Eds.),
Australia's communication futures (pp. 48-59).
Brisbane: The Communication Centre, Queensland
University of Technology.
Mackay, H., & Gillespie, G. (1992). Extending the social
shaping of technology approach: Ideology and
appropriation. Social Studies of Science, 22, 685-716.
Maruyama, M. (1976). Toward cultural symposium. In E.
Jantsch & C.H. Waddington (Eds.), Evolution and
consciousness: Human systems in transition (pp.
198-213). Reading: Addison-Wesley.
McKenzie, D.A. & Wajcman, J. (Eds.). (1985). The social
shaping of technology: How the refrigerator got its
hum. Philadelphia: Milton Keynes.
McLuhan, M. (1967). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of
typographic man. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media. New York:
Signet.
Melody, B. (Ed.). (1992). The intelligent
telecommunication network: Privacy and policy
implications of Calling Line Identification and
emerging information services. Proceedings of a CIRCIT
Conference, 3 December, 1991. Melbourne: CIRCIT.
Mink, O. Mink, B. & Owen, K. (1987). Groups at work. New
Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
Mitroff, I.I. (1987). Business not as usual. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Morgan, G., & Ramirez, R. (1983). Action learning: A
holographic metaphor for guiding social change. Human
Relations, 37, 1-28.
Morley, E. (1992). Consumer protection. In B. Melody
(Ed.). The intelligent telecommunications network:
Privacy and policy implications of Calling Line
Identification and emerging information services (pp.
72-75), Proceedings of CIRCIT Conference, 3 December,
1991. Melbourne: CIRCIT.
Newell, C. (1992). Emerging information services and people
with disabilities. In B. Melody (Ed.). The
intelligent telecommunications network: Privacy and
policy implications of Calling Line Identification and
emerging information services (pp. 78-80). Proceedings
of CIRCIT Conference, 3 December, 1991. Melbourne:
CIRCIT.
O'Connor, K. (1992). Privacy in an information society. In
B. Melody (Ed.). The intelligent telecommunications
network: Privacy and policy implications of Calling
Line Identification and emerging information services
(pp. 24-33). Proceedings of CIRCIT Conference, 3
December, 1991. Melbourne: CIRCIT.
Pacific Bell (1987). The intelligent network task force
report. Sacramento, CA: Pacific Bell.
Pacific Bell (1988). Pacific Bell's response to the
Intelligent Network Task Force Report. Sacramento, CA:
Pacific Bell.
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos:
man's new dialogue with nature. London: Flamingo.
Ploman, E.W. (1985). Introduction. In S. Aida, et al,
(Ed.), The science and praxis of complexity.
Contributions to the symposium held at Montpellier,
France, 9-11 May, 1984. Tokyo: The United Nations
University.
Pool, I. (1983a). Forecasting the telephone: A
retrospective technology assessment. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Pool, I. (1983b). Technologies of freedom. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press.
Ruggles, M.A. (1992). Telecommunications privacy: Conflict
in control of personal information flows and
boundaries. CIRCIT submission to the AUSTEL Inquiry
into the Privacy Implications of Telecommunications
Services.
Samarajiva, R. (1992). The `Intelligent Network':
Implications for expression, privacy and competition.
In B. Melody (Ed.) The intelligent telecommunication
network: Privacy and policy implications of Calling
Line Identification and emerging information services
(pp. 34-60). Proceedings of CIRCIT Conference, 3
December, 1991. Melbourne: CIRCIT.
Samarajiva, R., & Shields, P. (1992). Towards a theoretical
perspective. Media, Culture and Society, 14, 397-419.
Shultz, P. (1991a). Caller ID technology and public policy,
Part 1: Can we torch Big Brother without burning
Galileo? Rural Telecommunications, 10(4), 19-25.
Shultz, P. (1991b). Caller ID technology and public policy,
Part 2: The Tarheel state's debate. Rural
Telecommunications, 10(5), 31-37.
Soedjatmoko, N. (1985). Opening statement. In S. Aida, et
al, (Eds.), The science and praxis of complexity (pp.
7-24). Contributions to the symposium held at
Montpellier, France, 9-11 May, 1984. Tokyo: The
United Nations University.
Stevenson, T., & Holman. L. (1992, July). Public policy
issues with the advent of the Intelligent Network.
Paper presented at the national conference of the
Australian Communication Association, Bond University,
Gold Coast.
Underwood, S. (1990, April). Public networks go personal.
Management Today, 97-104.
Wajcman, J. (1991). Feminism confronts technology.
Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
White, P.B. (1992). "Your number, please?" Calling line
identification and calling number display in Australia:
An issues paper. CIRCIT Policy Research Paper, No. 20.
Melbourne: CIRCIT.
Whyte, W.F. (Ed.). (1991). Participatory action research.
Newburg Park: Sage.
Winner, L. (1989). Mythinformation in the high-tech era.
In T. Forester (Ed.), Computers in the human context:
Information technology, productivity and people (pp.
82-96). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Winner, L. (1985). Do artifacts have politics?. In D.
Mackenzie & J. Wajcman (Eds.). The social shaping of
technology: How the refrigerator got its hum (pp.
27-38), Philadelphia: Open University Press, Milton
Keynes.
------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Greg Hearn is Senior Lecturer within the School of
Communication and Organisational Studies and Assistant
Director of the Communication Centre, both within the
Faculty of Business at Queensland University of Technology.
Ms. Lyn Simpson is the Acting Head of the School of
Communication and Organisational Studies and Member of the
Communication Centre.
Ms. Leanne Holman is a Senior Research Assistant at the
Communication Centre.
Mr. Tony Stevenson is an Associate Professor in the
School of Communication and Organisational Studies and
Director of the Communication Centre.
Ms. June Dunleavy is a Lecturer in the School of
Marketing, Advertising and Public Relations in the Faculty
of Business and is a Member of the Communication Centre.
Mr. Alan Meara is a strategist in the Strategic
Planning Unit of Telecom Australia.
Mr. George Sikorski is a Communications Consultant in
the Corporate and Government section of Telecom Australia.
Correspondence: Dr Greg Hearn
The Communication Centre
Faculty of Business
Queensland University of Technology
GPO Box 2434
Brisbane Q 4001
email C/o: holman@qut.edu.au
tel: (07) 864 2192
fax: (07) 864 1813
------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1993
Communication Institute for Online Scholarship, Inc.
This file may not be publicly distributed or reproduced
without written permission of the Communication Institute
for Online Scholarship, P.O. Box 57, Rotterdam Jct., NY
12150 USA (phone: 518-887-2443).
 CIOS Support Staffsupport@cios.org
Branch to CIOS home page
|
