While Castells and other network theorists often treat the network as a force that is somehow seen to precede the social, the findings of our study of networked technology in the university setting indicate that the so-called logic of the network is marked by a number of potential trajectories. Thus, while networked technology has a materiality and is a social agent in its own right, the potentialities of the network form are not defined from the outset by a set trajectory but are socially embedded and therefore highly variable.
The term network is widely used in academic and policy circles, but is often poorly defined. This is no doubt related in part to the fact that the concept of the network or information society is often associated with a discourse of techno-utopianism, which like its dystopian counterpart, derives much of its power from a large degree of hype rather than critical analysis. That said, when used as a metaphor for a number of complex contemporary social processes, the network does have a certain symbolic potency. Many aspects of everyday life in today’s globalised, virtual society are undoubtedly marked by features of the network society outlined in Castells’ work. However, while the notion of the network offers a potentially useful framework for comprehending contemporary social relations, one of the drawbacks of seeing the network as a kind of zeitgeist is that we risk treating it as an unstoppable and therefore incontestable force. As Judy Wajcman (2002) notes, at the core of the major social theories about contemporary social change is a concept of technology and its social impact that is based on a deterministic conception of technological effects. It is easy to slip into ‘the language of causality’ when discussing the socio-technological realm rather than viewing it in terms of ‘a theory of complexity’.
The association of the network with a kind of technological logic or rationality has produced a tendency to universalise the impact of networked forms of technology and sociality. In his critique of what he terms Castells’ one-dimensional network society, Jan Van Dijk argues that while network structures are emerging as an important organisational feature of contemporary society, they are not the content of that society and that questions of social specificity are still central to understanding the way in which the complexities of the network society are being played out at a grassroots level. For Van Dijk, Castells’ lack of attention to the social content of networks means that he tends to gloss over the social struggles of individuals, groups and organisations within and over the networks themselves, thereby offering a meta-sociological analysis at the cost of a focus on grounded social processes.
In this essay, we have sought to highlight some of the dominant discourses circulating in network universities. The findings of our study suggest that these discourses are highly contested. For example, while managers were often concerned with using technology to strengthen centralised systems of control, support standardised teaching and learning software, and develop uniform administrative and evaluative systems, many of the teachers interviewed were more interested in the distributed and collaborative possibilities of networked technology. While these academics were often seen to operate within the broader organisational/managerial agenda laid out for networked technologies, at the same time they also found ways of pushing alternative agendas such as using technologies to help democratise the classroom. In other words, managerialist concerns with using technology as a driver of certain kinds of organisational change also created spaces for academics to negotiate different interpretations of the potential uses of network technology.
Although figures like Noble argue that hegemonic forces within the university have linked networked technology to essentially conservative organisational agendas, our findings indicate that the network university is a more complex and contested site than such claims would suggest. The complex organisational cultures at play in networked and networking universities show that network technology, while marked by certain historical tendencies and assumptions, can be articulated to a number of goals, not all of them necessarily tied to purely instrumental or technocratic concerns.
NOTE: bolds by GB
While Castells and other network theorists often treat the network as a force that is somehow seen to precede the social, the findings of our study of networked technology in the university setting indicate that the so-called logic of the network is marked by a number of potential trajectories. Thus, while networked technology has a materiality and is a social agent in its own right, the potentialities of the network form are not defined from the outset by a set trajectory but are socially embedded and therefore highly variable.
The term network is widely used in academic and policy circles, but is often poorly defined. This is no doubt related in part to the fact that the concept of the network or information society is often associated with a discourse of techno-utopianism, which like its dystopian counterpart, derives much of its power from a large degree of hype rather than critical analysis. That said, when used as a metaphor for a number of complex contemporary social processes, the network does have a certain symbolic potency. Many aspects of everyday life in today’s globalised, virtual society are undoubtedly marked by features of the network society outlined in Castells’ work. However, while the notion of the network offers a potentially useful framework for comprehending contemporary social relations, one of the drawbacks of seeing the network as a kind of zeitgeist is that we risk treating it as an unstoppable and therefore incontestable force. As Judy Wajcman (2002) notes, at the core of the major social theories about contemporary social change is a concept of technology and its social impact that is based on a deterministic conception of technological effects. It is easy to slip into ‘the language of causality’ when discussing the socio-technological realm rather than viewing it in terms of ‘a theory of complexity’.
The association of the network with a kind of technological logic or rationality has produced a tendency to universalise the impact of networked forms of technology and sociality. In his critique of what he terms Castells’ one-dimensional network society, Jan Van Dijk argues that while network structures are emerging as an important organisational feature of contemporary society, they are not the content of that society and that questions of social specificity are still central to understanding the way in which the complexities of the network society are being played out at a grassroots level. For Van Dijk, Castells’ lack of attention to the social content of networks means that he tends to gloss over the social struggles of individuals, groups and organisations within and over the networks themselves, thereby offering a meta-sociological analysis at the cost of a focus on grounded social processes.
In this essay, we have sought to highlight some of the dominant discourses circulating in network universities. The findings of our study suggest that these discourses are highly contested. For example, while managers were often concerned with using technology to strengthen centralised systems of control, support standardised teaching and learning software, and develop uniform administrative and evaluative systems, many of the teachers interviewed were more interested in the distributed and collaborative possibilities of networked technology. While these academics were often seen to operate within the broader organisational/managerial agenda laid out for networked technologies, at the same time they also found ways of pushing alternative agendas such as using technologies to help democratise the classroom. In other words, managerialist concerns with using technology as a driver of certain kinds of organisational change also created spaces for academics to negotiate different interpretations of the potential uses of network technology.
Although figures like Noble argue that hegemonic forces within the university have linked networked technology to essentially conservative organisational agendas, our findings indicate that the network university is a more complex and contested site than such claims would suggest. The complex organisational cultures at play in networked and networking universities show that network technology, while marked by certain historical tendencies and assumptions, can be articulated to a number of goals, not all of them necessarily tied to purely instrumental or technocratic concerns.
NOTE: bolds by GB