The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 15.
IIRC: Reflections on IRC16
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/iirc-reflections-on-irc16
<b>The first edition of the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) series was held on February 26-28, 2016. It was hosted by the Centre for Political Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, and was supported by the CSCS Digitial Innovation Fund. Here we share our reflections on the Conference, albeit rather delayed, and lessons towards the next edition to be held in March 2017.</b>
<p> </p>
<em><strong>Note:</strong> IIRC stands for 'if I remember correctly' in ancient internet acronym culture. Thanks to Sebastian for the inspiration.</em>
<hr />
<p>For several months, we have been trying to organise our thoughts, as well as post-conference documentation efforts, emerging from the Internet Researchers' Conference 2016. We have not been very successful in either till now. And like most unsuccessful ventures, it has been a robust learning experience. We are working on giving the IRC16 Reader a final shape, before it becomes more of an academic legend. We hope to launch the beta version of the Reader in mid-September. Here, let me quickly share my reflections on IRC16, at least what I remember of it.</p>
<h3><strong>A Game of Selections</strong></h3>
<p>The Conference departed from most other academic conferences in two obvious ways: 1) the sessions were not selected by a programme committee but through votes cast by all the teams that proposed a session, and 2) the Conference programme consisted of both panel discussions and workshop sessions, and there was no requirement for the panel discussions to be structured around papers (though some sessions did involve presentation of papers). At the feedback session of the Conference, and also in conversations afterwards, it was pointed out that this manner of session selection (not based on paper abstracts, and through voting by peers) is perhaps “too democratic / too wiki-like,” which undermines the ability to curate the Conference effectively. Several participants also presented the opposite viewpoint – that a more peer-driven selection of sessions better reflects the immediate interests and priorities of the community of internet researchers who are gathering at the Conference. As one participant articulated: “we must have faith in our ignorance.”</p>
<p>We at CIS are still confident about this mode of selection but at the same time we do recognise three key concerns in conducting the selection process:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Anonymity:</strong> The anonymous selection process breaks down since we expect the potential participants of the Conference to share early ideas about their potential sessions, and scout for potential session team members, through the mailing list (and elsewhere) before actually submitting the panel proposal. We still prefer that participants discuss the session before proposing it, so perhaps we will have to live with the incomplete anonymity when it comes to the session selection process. Perhaps we can make the votes non-anonymous too to keep parity – that is, all the proposed sessions would be published with the names of their proposers, and all the teams will publicly indicate which other sessions they are voting for.<br /><br /></li>
<li><strong>Disciplinary capture:</strong> While peer-based voting works very well when it comes to reflecting the interests of the community, it might quite easily break down if there is a concentration of teams coming from a specific disciplinary background. How we approach research objects and questions, and hence how we appreciate how exciting a research object or question is, can be quite intimately shaped by our disciplinary locations. A dominance of a specific discipline among the peer-group (that is among all the teams that have proposed sessions) can potentially lead to a 'capture' of the Conference by research objects and questions of interest to specific disciplines. This is something we have to be more aware of when casting our votes.<br /><br /></li>
<li><strong>Peer-review before peer-votes:</strong> The process followed last year only allowed a session team to vote on the sessions proposed by other teams, but not to review and comment on those proposals. This review process is not only useful to infuse the session proposals with ideas and concerns coming from other disciplinary and methodological locations, but also to support the teams to revisit their articulation and structuring of the session before their peers start to cast votes. This is something we must aspire to do during the selection process for IRC17.</li></ul>
<h3><strong>A Clash of Disciplines</strong></h3>
<p>Continuing from the “disciplinary capture” point above, the presence of researchers and practitioners from various fields and disciplines was, according to me, the most exciting part of the IRC16, and also the part that led to significant frustration. I felt that we were able to gather people from various disciplinary backgrounds – academic and otherwise – but could not provide sufficient space or time for the inter-disciplinary conversations to a take more fuller form. We saw clear disagreements emerging between researchers coming from different disciplinary locations, though most of them did not have the opportunity to be developed into a detailed discussion.</p>
<p>This is quite a high ambition for a conference of this kind; that is given the conference was not focused narrowly on a set of topics. Nonetheless, this remains one of the key objectives of the IRC series, and we need to understand how better to create opportunities for participants to communicate their disciplinary concerns and create inter-disciplinary discussions.</p>
<p>One possible way to create context for more inter-disciplinary conversations is by requesting all the sessions’ teams to include members from different disciplines. Also, we can try to keep more open discussion space (but that means less selected sessions) to provide time for the discussions spilling over from the sessions. Thirdly, we can think of including “inter-disciplinary conversations” as one of the key themes for potential sessions of IRC17.</p>
<p>Further, though we experienced several clashes of disciplines, methods, and approaches, these were all limited to a completely anglophone intellectual environment. We failed substantially, as was pointed out by a participant at the feedback session, to create space at the Conference for Indic language practices and concerns – both for researchers and practitioners working in these languages, and the criticisms of anglophone academic framings and practices coming from such researchers and practitioners. This is something we must address proactively during the future editions of the Conference.</p>
<h3><strong>A Storm of Sessions</strong></h3>
<p>One of the often heard criticisms of the conference was regarding the decision to have parallel sessions. While the decision was taken purely to accommodate as many sessions as possible, this of course imposed an undesirable burden upon the participants to choose between two rather desirable sessions. We as organisers of IRC16 faced the same tough decision of choosing between sessions that should both be part of the Conference agenda, and conveniently decided to let the participants choose (instead of us choosing for them). It is quite likely that we would do this again, or at least would like to do this again – that is, we expect that for IRC17 too we would receive a lot of wonderful sessions and decide against a fully single-track conference.</p>
<p>The question of sessions, however, is not only one of tracks. It is also about formats. In the feedback session, there was a clear recognition of the value of “workshop” sessions – that is sessions that involved <em>all</em> the participants <em>doing</em> something – in a conference like this, which is explicitly interested in the conceptual and technical challenges of digital media research. There was also a demand that we have more workshop sessions in IRC17, as opposed to “discussion” sessions that involved paper presentations. While the original plan was that all the participants will primarily be <em>learning</em> or <em>doing</em> something at a workshop session, and will not be talking, as the discussion sessions were primarily meant for talking, the actual sessions in the Conference differed from each other essentially in terms of whether papers were presented or not.</p>
<p>Thus, it perhaps makes sense, for the IRC17 call for sessions, to not to separate out these session types in terms of workshop/discussion but in terms of paper-driven/non-paper-driven. Maybe this separation itself is avoidable and all that we need to say is that the Conference is fundamentally interested in sessions that drive conversations, both intra- and inter-disciplinary. While presentation of papers can surely drive conversations, they are not necessary at all.</p>
<h3><strong>A Feast for Researchers and Practitioners</strong></h3>
<p>A key objective, if not <em>the</em> key objective, of IRC16 was to build a temporary space for researchers and practitioners studying internet and society in India (though not necessarily from or located in India) to gather and share thoughts. While we felt that the conference has been quite effective in doing that, we have been rather clueless when it comes to sustaining the momentum of interactions that was achieved at the Conference, or documenting the various kinds and threads of conversations taking place there.</p>
<p>The first problem, we may say, is not something that CIS (as the organiser of the conference series) should be concerned with too much, since our aim and responsibility is to make possible this <em>temporary</em> space and not to host <em>all</em> conversations and collaborations coming out of it. In fact, we should <em>not</em> be interested in hosting and/or facilitating all such initiatives. The second problem, however, is a serious one for us. Since the Conference is not organised around pre-written papers, we will have to depend on the efforts by the participants either during, or after (or both) the Conference to produce an <em>output</em> that documents, narrates, and/or reflects on the conversations that took place. Such an approach, thus, is fundamentally based upon the trust that the participants will prepare and share these materials <em>after</em> the Conference. On a lighter note, we also hope that social embarrassment and pressure will also play a role here (but that only works when the majority of the participants are actually sharing).</p>
<p>There are two connected points here:</p>
<ul>
<li>While the majority of the documentation happens either at the Conference or after that, what kind of pre-Conference efforts (by the participants) would be useful in ensuring productive sessions?<br /><br /></li>
<li>Who all contribute to this post-Conference Reader? Should it be restricted to teams/people whose sessions were selected, or all who proposed a session, and/or took part in the Conference?</li></ul>
<p>A recommendation at the feedback session of IRC16 touched upon the first question, while the second question is derived from a critical question posed at the same session. The recommendation was that the teams whose sessions get selected for the Conference should share a more detailed session agenda note before the Conference to better inform the participants about the content and approach of the same. The critical question mentioned earlier was regarding the imagination of the <em>community</em> of researchers and practitioners being gathered at the Conference, and if it is only limited to the people whose sessions got selected. In our minds it is clear that everyone gathering at these conferences, and those who proposed sessions but could not attend, are all part of this imagined community, and thus should also contribute to the post-Conference Reader.</p>
<h3><strong>A Dance with Sustainability</strong></h3>
<p>IRC16 was supported very generously by the Centre for Political Studies at JNU (as part of an ongoing project titled <em>UPE2 Project: Politics on Social Media</em>), the CSCS Digital Innovation Fund, and CIS. The first provided us with the conference venue and accommodation, the second provided financial support towards food and travel expenses (and bit of accommodation too), and the third picked up all the remaining expenses and efforts. While we will keep doing what it takes to organise the next editions of IRC, we are dependent on academic and other institutes that are willing to host the event and accommodate the participants, and on various sources of funding that may be available to cover the miscellaneous expenses.</p>
<p>When we started planning for IRC16, we decided not to conceptualise this as part of an ongoing or future project – that is, the conference series should not itself become a <em>deliverable</em> under a project at CIS. While this gives us intellectual and functional independence, it entails serious financial limitations. We are of course open to the conference series becoming a site for developing or communicating a <em>deliverable</em> under an ongoing project at CIS or any other involved actor (especially the host and funding agencies) but such matters, we feel, are best discussed in a case-to-case basis. The bottom line remains that we need financial and human support to take this conference series forward. This is definitely something to be discussed further at IRC17.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/iirc-reflections-on-irc16'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/iirc-reflections-on-irc16</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroIRC16Researchers at WorkInternet Researcher's Conference2016-09-06T09:28:51ZBlog EntryInternet Researchers' Conference 2016 (IRC16)
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16
<b>The first Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC16) will be organised at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi, on February 26-28, 2016. The focus of the Conference is on the experiences, adventures, and methods of 'studying internet in India.' We are deeply grateful to the Centre for Political Studies (CPS), JNU, for hosting the Conference, and to the CSCS Digital Innovation Fund (CDIF) for the generous support. It is a free and open conference. Please use the form to register.</b>
<p> </p>
<h4>It is our great pleasure to announce the beginning of the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC), an annual conference series initiated by the Researchers at Work (RAW) programme at CIS to gather researchers, academic or otherwise, studying internet in/from India to congregate, share insights and tensions, and chart the ways forward.</h4>
<p> </p>
<h4>This conference series is specifically driven by the following interests: 1) creating discussion spaces for researchers studying internet in India and in other comparable regions, 2) foregrounding the multiplicity, hierarchies, tensions, and urgencies of the digital sites and users in India, 3) accounting for the various layers, conceptual and material, of experiences and usages of internet and networked digital media in India, and 4) exploring and practicing new modes of research and documentation necessitated by new (digital) forms of objects of power/knowledge.</h4>
<p> </p>
<h4>The first edition of the Conference, IRC16, is engaging with the theme of 'studying internet in India.' The word <em>study</em> here is a shorthand for a range of tasks, from documentation and theory-building, to measurement and representation.</h4>
<p> </p>
<h2>Dates and Venue</h2>
<p>The IRC16 will take place during <strong>February 26-28, 2016</strong>, at the Convention Centre of the <a href="http://jnu.ac.in/">Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU)</a>, Delhi. We are grateful to <a href="http://www.jnu.ac.in/SSS/CPS/">Centre for Political Studies (CPS)</a> at JNU for hosting the Conference, and to the <a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/cscs-digital-innovation-fund">CSCS Digital Innovation Fund (CDIF)</a> for its generous support.</p>
<p> </p>
<iframe src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m14!1m12!1m3!1d1752.512135244194!2d77.16642650602853!3d28.53899019877363!2m3!1f0!2f0!3f0!3m2!1i1024!2i768!4f13.1!5e0!3m2!1sen!2s!4v1455124383423" frameborder="0" height="300" width="600"></iframe>
<p> </p>
<h2>Registration and Programme</h2>
<p>Conference programme: <a href="https://github.com/cis-india/IRC16/raw/master/IRC16_Programme-v.2.2.pdf">Download</a> (PDF).</p>
<p>Programme booklet: <a href="https://github.com/cis-india/IRC16/raw/master/IRC16_Programme-Booklet.pdf">Download</a> (PDF).</p>
<p><strong>[Important]</strong> Invitation letter to help you enter JNU campus: <a href="https://github.com/cis-india/IRC16/raw/master/IRC16_Invitation-Letter.pdf">Download</a> (PDF).</p>
<p>Please register for the Conference here: <a href="http://goo.gl/forms/uu0HjXWbxK" target="_blank">Form</a> (Google).</p>
<p>We apologise for not being able to provide travel or accommodation support.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Etherpads</h2>
<p>#Methods&ToolsForInternetResearch : <a class="external-link" href="https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-InternetResearch">https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-InternetResearch</a></p>
<p>#DigitalDesires: <a href="https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-DigitalDesires">https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-DigitalDesires</a>.</p>
<p>#InternetMovements: <a href="https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-InternetMovements">https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-InternetMovements</a>.</p>
<p>#WebOfGenealogies: <a href="https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-WebOfGenealogies">https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-WebOfGenealogies</a>.</p>
<p>#MinimalComputing: <a href="https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-MinimalComputing">https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-MinimalComputing</a>.</p>
<p>#STSDebates: <a href="https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-STSDebates">https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-STSDebates</a>.</p>
<p>#ArchiveAnarchy: <a href="https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-ArchiveAnarchy">https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-ArchiveAnarchy</a>.</p>
<p>#ManyPublicsOfInternet: <a href="https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-ManyPublicsOfInternet">https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-ManyPublicsOfInternet</a>.</p>
<p>#DigitalLiteraciesAtTheMargins: <a href="https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-DigitalLiteraciesAtTheMargins">https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-DigitalLiteraciesAtTheMargins</a>.</p>
<p>#FutureBazaars: <a href="https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-FutureBazaars">https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-FutureBazaars</a>.</p>
<p>#PoliticsOnSocialMedia: <a href="https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-PoliticsOnSocialMedia">https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-PoliticsOnSocialMedia</a>.</p>
<p>#SpottingData: <a href="https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-SpottingData">https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-SpottingData</a>.</p>
<p>#WikiShadows: <a href="https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-WikiShadows">https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-WikiShadows</a>.</p>
<p>#FollowTheMedium: <a href="https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-FollowTheMedium">https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-FollowTheMedium</a>.</p>
<p>#AFCinema2.0: <a href="https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-AFCinema2.0">https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-AFCinema2.0</a>.</p>
<p>#LiterarySpaces: <a href="https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-LiterarySpaces">https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/IRC16-LiterarySpaces</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Resources</h2>
<p>Call for sessions: <a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-call" target="_blank">http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-call</a>.</p>
<p>Proposed sessions: <a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-sessions" target="_blank">http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-sessions</a>.</p>
<p>Selected sessions: <a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-selected-sessions" target="_blank">http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-selected-sessions</a>.</p>
<p>Please join the <a href="https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/researchers">researchers@cis-india</a> mailing list to take part in pre- and post-conference conversations.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroConferenceCDIFInternet Researcher's ConferenceFeaturedLearningIRC16Researchers at WorkEvent2016-02-27T06:19:33ZEventInternet Researchers' Conference 2016 (IRC16) - Selected Sessions
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-selected-sessions
<b>We are proud to announce that the first Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC16), organised around the theme of 'studying internet in India,' will be held on February 26-28, 2016, at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi. We are deeply grateful to the Centre for Political Studies (CPS) at JNU for hosting the Conference, and to the CSCS Digital Innovation Fund (CDIF) for generously supporting it. Here are the details about the session selection process, the selected sessions, the Conference programme (draft), the pre-Conference discussions, accommodation, and travel grants. The Conference will include a book sprint to produce an open handbook on 'methods and tools for internet research.'</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Session Selection Process</h2>
<p>We received 23 superb session proposals for the IRC16. All the teams that submitted sessions were invited to vote for their eight favourite session in a double-blind manner - the teams did not know the names of the people who proposed other sessions, and we at CIS did not know which team has voted for which particular set of sessions. After receiving all the votes, we could not help but change the format of the Conference (as planned earlier) to accommodate 15 sessions in total. All Discussion and Workshop sessions of the Conference are double track, except for the three Discussion sessions that received most number of votes.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Selected Sessions</h2>
<ol>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-digitaldesires"><strong>#DigitalDesires</strong></a>: Received 8.15% votes. Proposed by Silpa Mukherjee, Ankita Deb, and Rahul Kumar.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-followthemedium"><strong>#FollowTheMedium</strong></a>: Received 7.60% votes. Proposed by Zeenab Aneez and Neha Mujumdar.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-stsdebates"><strong>#STSDebates</strong></a>: Received 7.60% votes. Proposed by Sumandro Chattapadhyay and Jahnavi Phalkey.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-digitalliteraciesatthemargins"><strong>#DigitalLiteraciesAtTheMargins</strong></a>: Received 7.06% votes. Proposed by Aakash Solanki, Sandeep Mertia, and Rashmi M.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-internetmovements"><strong>#InternetMovements</strong></a>: Received 7.06% votes. Proposed by Becca Savory, Sarah McKeever, and Shaunak Sen.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-futurebazaars"><strong>#FutureBazaars</strong></a>: Received 5.97% votes. Proposed by Maitrayee Deka, Adam Arvidsson, Rohini Lakshané, and Ravi Sundaram.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-minimalcomputing"><strong>#MinimalComputing</strong></a>: Received 5.97% votes. Proposed by Padmini Ray Murray and Sebastian Lütgert.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-webofgenealogies"><strong>#WebOfGenealogies</strong></a>: Received 5.97% votes. Proposed by Ishita Tiwary, Sandeep Mertia, and Siddharth Narrain.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-wikishadows"><strong>#WikiShadows</strong></a>: Received 5.97% votes. Proposed by Tanveer Hasan and Rahmanuddin Shaik.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-literaryspaces"><strong>#LiterarySpaces</strong></a>: Received 5.43% votes. Proposed by P.P. Sneha and Arup Chatterjee.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-archiveanarchy"><strong>#ArchiveAnarchy</strong></a>: Received 4.34% votes. Proposed by Ranjani M Prasad and Farah Yameen.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-afcinema2.0"><strong>#AFCinema2.0</strong></a>: Received 3.80% votes. Proposed by Akriti Rastogi and Ishani Dey.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-manypublicsofinternet"><strong>#ManyPublicsOfInternet</strong></a>: Received 3.80% votes. Proposed by Sailen Routray and Khetrimayum Monish.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-politicsonsocialmedia"><strong>#PoliticsOnSocialMedia</strong></a>: Received 3.80% votes. Proposed by Rinku Lamba and Rajarshi Dasgupta.</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-spottingdata"><strong>#SpottingData</strong></a>: Received 3.80% votes. Proposed by Dibyajyoti Ghosh and Purbasha Auddy.</li></ol>
<p> </p>
<h2>Dates and Venue</h2>
<p>The IRC16 will take place during <strong>February 26-28, 2016</strong>, at the <a href="http://jnu.ac.in/"><strong>Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU)</strong></a>, Delhi. We are delighted to announce that the Conference will be hosted by the <a href="http://www.jnu.ac.in/SSS/CPS/"><strong>Centre for Political Studies (CPS)</strong></a> at JNU, and will be generously supported by the <a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/cscs-digital-innovation-fund"><strong>CSCS Digital Innovation Fund (CDIF)</strong></a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Conference Programme</h2>
<p>Access the draft programme (v.2.1): <a href="https://github.com/cis-india/IRC16/raw/master/IRC16_Programme-v.2.1.pdf">Download</a> (PDF).</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Pre-Conference Conversations</h2>
<p>Please join the researchers@cis-india mailing list to take part in the pre-conference conversations: <a href="https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/researchers">https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/researchers</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Accommodation</h2>
<p>CPS and CIS will provide accommodation to all non-Delhi-based team members of the selected sessions, during the days of the Conference.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Travel Grants</h2>
<p>We will offer 10 travel grants, up to Rs. 10,000 each, for within-India travel. The following non-Delhi-based team members of the selected sessions have been selected for travel grants: Aakash Solanki, Dibyajyoti Ghosh, Neha Mujumdar, Purbasha Auddy, Rahmanuddin Shaik, Rashmi M, Rohini Lakshané, Sailen Routray, P.P. Sneha, and Zeenab Aneez.</p>
<p>The travel grants are made possible by the <a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/cscs-digital-innovation-fund">CSCS Digital Innovation Fund (CDIF)</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-selected-sessions'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-selected-sessions</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroInternet Researcher's ConferenceFeaturedLearningIRC16Researchers at Work2016-01-18T09:23:06ZBlog EntryIRC16 - Proposed Session - #PoliticsOnSocialMedia
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-politicsonsocialmedia
<b>This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by Dr. Rinku Lamba and Dr. Rajarshi Dasgupta, with Dr. Mohinder Singh, Professor Valerian Rodrigues and Professor Shefali Jha as co-members.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Session</h2>
<p>Indian politics had witnessed the entry of new social movements in the 1970s, adding a whole set of new issues, actors, and ways of activism to the older nationalist tradition. We suggest a similar change is now taking place, as different ways of governance and interventions aided by latest technologies are emerging in the social media. Websites, blogs, tweets, emails and online petitions are creating a new virtual space for politics, through information, propaganda, debates, appeals and mobilizations.</p>
<p>The proposed session will discuss this emerging field of power, critically considering its democratic potential and interrogating the political issues and ideas at stake in it. The aim is to tackle the new forms of civic and
public-political engagements witnessed in the domain of social media, and analyze their implications for the theory and practice of democracy. In the process our papers would explore conceptual notions such as agency, political act and participation as well as notions of selfhood and subjectivity.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Plan</h2>
<p>We will present four papers, with a question-answer and discussion session at the end. The papers will be addressing broadly three kinds of concerns.</p>
<ul><li>The first concern is to identify novel understandings of the political and political acts in the social media. We ask the following questions in this regard: What are the political issues and ideas at stake and how do they affect conventional understandings of democracy? Who are the new actors outside the fray of party-centered politics and how do they see what is political in the acts of internet-users? How are political institutions including parties reacting to the phenomena?<br /><br /></li>
<li>The second concern relates to probing the new forms of political subjectivity that are emerging in this process. The questions here include: What kind of political actor is getting shaped by the forms of political participation engendered by the social media? How does the virtual nature of practice impact on questions of location and identity as determinants of political membership and political action? Is this nature of virtual participation too fluid for the state to control?<br /><br /></li>
<li>The third concern relates to the forms of exclusion and inclusion that virtual participation entails. This involves questions like: What kind of social capital is necessary for talking part in the process and does it cut across cultural and economic divisions? What kinds of interest drive the social media? How does it shape the meaning of political concepts like representation and rights, accountability and political agency?</li></ul>
<p>It is likely that we will raise more questions than we can answer at this point. However, we think it is important to raise them all the more in keeping with the questions that make up the focus of the conference,
especially, the first question of how do we conceptualize, as an intellectual and political task, the mediation and transformation of social, cultural, political, and economic processes, forces, and sites through internet and digital media technologies in contemporary India.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Readings</h2>
<p>None.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-politicsonsocialmedia'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-politicsonsocialmedia</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroIRC16Proposed SessionsInternet Researcher's Conference2016-01-03T06:51:03ZBlog EntryIRC16 - Proposed Session - #KnowledgeCommunity (Computing, Community and Knowledge Production: Problems and Prospects)
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-knowledgecommunity
<b>This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by Ravikant.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Session</h2>
<p>Our session will approach the history of digital knowledge production and dissemination in India from the standpoint of community-oriented experiments and practices in tool making and resource-sharing in the vernacular domain, mainly Hindi. It will attempt to demonstrate that Hindi public domain represents a depth and diversity that is normally not visible to the monolingually-trained, English-only mode of cognition. We wish to argue that the diversity of content is symptomatic of a culture of deeply-ingrained culture of sharing in South Asia. Free software movement, especially its localisation units, Wikipedia and Web 2.0 platforms in general have played a stellar role in handing us the tools of creation, consumption and sharing beyond scripts. But the full potential of how much we can produce and share has not been realised.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Plan</h2>
<p>We will try and present successful and unsuccessful cases in order to understand why certian efforts worked and not others, and try and suggest a few possible strategies of creative engagement with bhasha communities in general.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Readings</h2>
<p>None.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-knowledgecommunity'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-knowledgecommunity</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroIRC16Proposed SessionsInternet Researcher's Conference2016-01-03T06:54:54ZBlog EntryIRC16 - Proposed Session - #WikiShadows (Techno-Political Contours of Knowledge Production on Wikipedia)
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-wikishadows
<b> This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by Tanveer Hasan and Rahmanuddin Shaik.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Session</h2>
<p>Wikipedia is a group project, and people in the group need to have separate pages to discuss changes and improvements to Wikipedia's content, be that an article, a policy, a help page, or something anything else. Reading these discussion pages is a vastly rewarding, slightly addictive, experience. Sometimes reading Wikipedia can ruffle feathers.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>E.g. 1:</p>
<p>The song, Jana-gana-mana, composed originally in Bengali by Rabindranath Tagore, was adopted in its Hindi version by the Constituent Assembly as the National Anthem of India on January 24, 1950. It was first sung on December 27, 1911 at the Calcutta session of the Indian National Congress. [1]</p>
<p>Whereas Wikipedia entry of National anthem mentions thus:</p>
<p>"<em>Jana Gana Mana</em> is the national anthem of India. Written in highly Sanskritised (Tatsama) Bengali." [2]</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>E.g. 2:</p>
<p>Are these beautiful waterfalls on the Kaveri River located in Tamil Nadu – or on the border between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka – or in Tamil Nadu on its border with Karnataka? Or is it really the Cauvery river, and Hogenakal Falls? [3]</p>
<p><em>Whatever you believe, be sure to bring a (Google) map to the debate, and point out that your opponent's sources are not RS or NPOV!</em></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>E.g. 3:</p>
<p>Born of Serbian parents in a part of the Austrian Empire, which a short time later became a part of the Hungarian half of Austria-Hungary and is now in Croatia. He eventually became a naturalized citizen of the US. [4]</p>
<p><em>So was he Serbian? Croatian? Austrian? Austro-Hungarian? Istro-Romanian? Jewish? American? Martian? You decide! But don't forget to leave an edit summary saying how pathetic it is to choose any other version. (Guess who are we talking about?) Clue: He is inventor par excellence.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>In this day and age where information is often a touch and go process, a forgotten mode, a solitary quest towards creating knowledge sounds romantic (almost). Networked collaborations (such as Wikipedia) which have created Knowledge sites have led to democratic interpretation and assimilation of such knowledge. They also as a basic necessity have sprung up various modes of annotation, verifiability of the Knowledge thus produced and utility quotient of the same. After all, why create and hold on to information that no body really cares about.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Plan</h2>
<p>In this discussion session, the co-leaders of the session shall attempt to peel out the benign face of the visible Wikipedia page(there is a hidden world out there) and discuss the political, technological and social contours of information available on Wikipedia. We shall take the participants through the various stages of discussion about a Wikipedia page and how discussions tend to alter the course of an article. How false consensus is proposed, consent is manufactured and how these efforts are usually defeated by 'Answer People' and 'Vandal Fighters'. It is no less of a war than the one between information and mis-information. The discussion on, calculus, for instance, was host to some sparring over whether the concept of "limit," central to calculus, should be better explained as an "average."</p>
<p>This discussion session brings to the table questions of legitimisation of knowledge and the inherent hierarchies that operate even within open networks of collaboration and offers a critique on consumption oriented knowledge production. The session also aims to ask questions around knowledge as an agent that has levelled some of the earlier existing contours but has introduced some of its own and how that has changed our usages and shapes our experiences.</p>
<p>The session will involve an edit-a-thon on a topic that will be selected by the co-leaders of the session and live commentary on the discussion pages will be tracked for further analysis. The session intends to build a dialogue towards attempting to problematise the questions of the starkly hierarchical and segmented experiences that have played a significant role in production of knowledge in the era of new knowledge practices. The session also will question the 'best practices' in building consent in the present global techno-economic contours of the internet, and its effect on academic spaces, creative practice and intervention.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Readings</h2>
<ol><li> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Using_talk_pages">Using Talk Pages</a></li><li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines">Talk page guidelines</a></li><li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial/Talk_pages">Tutorial on Wikipedia talk pages</a></li><li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_talk_pages/1">Introduction to talk pages</a></li><li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/www.networkcultures.org/_uploads/%237reader_Wikipedia.pdf">A Wikipedia Reader (pdf, 6.6 MB)</a><br /></li></ol>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-wikishadows'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-wikishadows</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroIRC16Proposed SessionsInternet Researcher's Conference2016-01-03T06:57:02ZBlog EntryIRC16 - Proposed Session - #MinimalComputing
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-minimalcomputing
<b>This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by Padmini Ray Murray and Sebastian Lütgert.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Session</h2>
<p>The triumphal mythic narrative of India’s relatively high and rapid rates of Internet penetration is underpinned by the country’s access to data via mobile devices. The black box proprietary technology of the iPhone, or the less explicitly restrictive nexus (pun unintended) between the Android OS with device manufacturers, has meant we have large swathes of technology users whose only encounter with online content has been via these closed ecosystems.
Minimal computing is both an intellectual intention and pragmatic response that seeks to disrupt these systems by subverting existing frameworks and creating new infrastructures, acknowledging the ground realities that exist in India, such as lack of resources and access. This position essentially privileges “ease of use, ease of creation, increased access and reductions in computing—and by extension, electricity” (Gil). The intention of this workshop is to explore, discover, discuss and build resources that observe these tenets, under different heads, such as physical computing, archives, interface, database.</p>
<p>One of the obvious outcomes of the growth of digital technology in the region is the increasing intersection with the scholarly record – be that a theorizing of these new contexts, as is the case at this conference, or in the building of dissemination tools for memory institutions or academic scholarship. As such scholarship (which would be considered under the rubric of the digital humanities) is still in its early stages, it is incumbent upon us to set an example for other scholars when we build these resources; fast to load, easy to build and administer, which can function in low-bandwidth areas – especially as we embark on larger scale projects that are now possible through advances in digitization of different forms of content, as well as of Indic language character sets.
Uses of technology in India are often anarchic, and the digital is constantly imbricated with the analogue and these grassroots, informal practices could usefully inform scholarship in this area, and possibly be transposed to other similar environments, such as those found in the global south.</p>
<p>The other crucial exploration that will be undertaken in this workshop will be how to use guerilla computing and other methods to safeguard our fundamental human rights both online and offline, strategies increasingly essential in a country where censorship against individuals and misuse of personal data is rapidly on the rise. The online citizen must be encouraged to think about the virtual space in which s/he works and plays, and learn how to navigate it responsibly, by being alert to the dangers of the networked world being overly regulated, and this workshop will also discuss surveillance and collection of personal data by governments, corporations, advertisers, and hackers, and how to circumvent it using relatively simple methods.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Plan</h2>
<p>At the outset of the workshop, participants will be introduced by the co-leaders to some examples and concepts in #minimalcomputing, and then to a range of tools and resources such as Markdown, Jekyll, Pan.do/ra, Pandoc etc., as well as simple encrypting methods. Participants will also be encouraged to share examples of good practice that they might have encountered in their own contexts.</p>
<p>Participants will then be asked to consider a digital project that they might be in the process of building, or envisioning, or to reflect on their personal digital footprint and be facilitated by the co-leaders on how to rebuild and reimagine these using a minimal computing perspective, and to document these ideas so they might be shared with the rest of the group, and promote more discussion.</p>
<p>The aim of the workshop is to draw upon collective expertise to create a handbook of sustainable, scalable resources that can be created without over reliance on third party infrastructures, in order to retain agency over projects initiatives and digital identities; and provide a roadmap for an alternative Internet that meets the needs of users in both personal and professional contexts.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Readings</h2>
<p>Budish, Ryan and West, Sarah Myers and Gasser, Urs. Designing Successful Governance Groups: Lessons for Leaders from Real-World Examples (August 2015). Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2015-11. Available at SSRN: <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=2638006" target="_blank">http://ssrn.com/abstract=2638006</a>.</p>
<p><em>This reading sets out how an effective multistakeholder governance group might be structured, convened and operate and its stated values of inclusiveness, transparency, accountability, legitimacy, and effectiveness might serve as a useful guide to how we might envision a #minimalcomputing community.</em></p>
<p>Gil, Alex. The User, the Learner and the Machines We Make. Minimal Computing website. (May 2015). Available at: <a href="https://go-dh.github.io/mincomp/thoughts/2015/05/21/user-vs-learner/">https://go-dh.github.io/mincomp/thoughts/2015/05/21/user-vs-learner/</a>.</p>
<p><em>This reading sets out some of the underlying concepts of #minimalcomputing and raises important questions that might be flagged up for discussion during the workshop.</em></p>
<p><a href="https://github.com/xpmethod/dhnotes/">https://github.com/xpmethod/dhnotes/</a></p>
<p><em>A growing resource for relevant material and information on #minimalcomputing – start here.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-minimalcomputing'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-minimalcomputing</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroIRC16Proposed SessionsInternet Researcher's Conference2016-01-03T06:57:20ZBlog EntryIRC16 - Proposed Session - #SmartThings (Conceptualizing Internet/Digital Technologies in the Age of "Smartness")
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-smartthings
<b>This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by Ravi Shukla and Bharath Palavalli.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Session</h2>
<p>With the increasing focus on making things - devices, services, cities, even planets - smart, there is a need to engage with the idea of smartness. What constitutes it? Who decides? Is there a need to re-conceptualize our understanding of these increasingly pervasive technologies and if so, how do we begin to do so?</p>
<p>The session engages with two inter-related questions - a) What constitutes a smart city? and b) How can we approach internet/digital technologies as enablers of basic, urban public services?</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Plan</h2>
<p>The session is broken up into three sections of half an hour each.</p>
<p><strong>Content Overview</strong></p>
<p>The first section involves the presentation of the findings of a survey across different social groups of what constitutes a "smart city". This is followed by a Q & A session with the audience.</p>
<p>The second section involves presenting the findings of a pilot project using SMS technology as an enabler for public services within a community. This is followed by a Q & A session with the audience.</p>
<p>The third section involves asking people in the audience to list 5 characteristics that constitute (or in some cases, *don't* constitute) public services in a "smart" city. Depending on the size of the audience, either these responses can be collected individually or it can be broken into groups of 3-5 people. The responses are then collected and shared with the audience - either during the session (if time allows) or over email/website.</p>
<p><strong>Expected Outcomes</strong></p>
<p>At the end of the session we expect a set of responses on what characterizes public services in a "smart" city. These are seen as helping in drawing out a research/practice agenda on how internet/digital technologies may act as enablers of public services.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Readings</h2>
<p>None.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-smartthings'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-smartthings</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroIRC16Proposed SessionsInternet Researcher's Conference2016-01-03T06:59:58ZBlog EntryIRC16 - Proposed Session - #LiterarySpaces (Online Literary Spaces in India)
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-literaryspaces
<b>This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by P.P. Sneha and Arup Chatterjee.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Session</h2>
<p>The last decade has seen a slow but steady emergence of online literary spaces in India, marked by the ubiquitous nature of the internet and digital technologies, growing mobile phone penetration and increased access to devices such as tablets and e-readers. By literary spaces we refer to online journals, magazines and blogs, as well as reading groups and discussion spaces focused on writing in English and Indian languages. These range from those exclusively focusing on contemporary literature to others that feature writing on news, culture and arts. These spaces raise some intriguing questions about the growth a new online or digital literary culture, which may be mapped through the evolution of reading and writing practices as very explicitly technologized practices, and the changes in the notion of text and textuality, scholarship and pedagogy, among other things.</p>
<p>Some examples of such spaces that have come up in the recent years are <em>The Little Magazine</em> <strong>[1]</strong>, <em>Muse India</em> <strong>[2]</strong>, <em>Kritya</em> <strong>[3]</strong>, <em>Coldnoon: Travel Poetics</em> <strong>[4]</strong>, <em>Kindle</em> <strong>[5]</strong>, <em>Almost Island</em> <strong>[6]</strong>, <em>The Indian Quarterly</em> <strong>[7]</strong> and among several others. Many of these journals have both an online and print presence, while some are purely online and seek to reach a diverse audience featuring different genres of writing. While many carry an eclectic mix of creative and critical writing, perceptions about readership on the internet often dictate the form and manner of writing that is featured. The much anticipated and debated ‘disappearance’ of long form writing is one of the questions that may be asked of the emergence of these literary journals, which have in some way re-imagined this form in the digital sphere and have been instrumental in its growth. So even as there are books on twitterature <strong>[8]</strong>, there are interesting ways in which online literary journals have tried to define the space of contemporary writing on the internet in India.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Plan</h2>
<p>This panel discussion proposes to examine this phenomenon of the growth of online literary journals to understand the imagination of the ‘digital’ in their practices of writing and publication, whether as medium, content or context, as a way to explore how writing and reading practices today have been shaped by these changes. This also includes questions on methods of literary analysis that may have changed with the advent of the digital, and from a broader perspective, the production of literary scholarship and pedagogy in India. Some questions that could be points of discussion are as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li>What is the pedagogical role, if any of digital/online journals? Are they simply cost-effective modes of production of knowledge or are they indicative of some other form discrimination? Perhaps a discrimination between what gets read and what does not? Is a voluminous archive of nineteenth century writings of the same pedagogical merit as a list of 100 Hollywood romantic comedies? If the former is arguably much more educational, why then is the latter the source of the greatest traffic? Is pedagogy then a misnomer, and a non-entity in the world of online magazines?<br /><br /></li>
<li>Can the rise of online magazines be related with the rise of print culture and the subsequent rise of the novel? The novel was educational and, while English was still a very evolving language in the 17th and 18th centuries, the form helped both shape the language and educate the masses, bourgeoisie, and the aristocracy about the nuances of the still-nascent English language. Can a similar function be said to have been fulfilled by online journals? Or have they failed in playing this radical role of disseminating new language and new vocabulary, which is required to articulate new modes and conflicts within modernity--sexualities, queerness, televised elections, middle-eastern (Syrian, Palestinian, Israeli, Iraqi) mayhem in times of democracy, globalization, urbanization, travel, genocide, partition, terrorism, and so on? Are there any exceptions among the journals in being able to somehow fulfil the criteria of engendering a new language? What are the examples, if any? How popular are they?<br /><br /></li>
<li>Is online literature less literary than print? Is it more amenable to news, while print continues to be literary? Or is this only a misconception? Is online literature prone to non-serious, or populist sources of pedagogy, which serve more to titillate through trolling, humour, half-baked information, gossip, or is it playing a serious role too in portions? Apart from those newspapers and journals/magazines which also have print components, which are possibly the portals that create viable, meritorious, and universal categories of knowledge? Or, invocation of 'merit' and 'universal' essentially a flawed mechanism to judge online literatures?</li></ol>
<p>Addressing some of above questions through a study of two or more online journals, this session will attempt to open them up to a broader discussion on the nature and growth of an online literary culture in India, and the need for and significance of research in this area.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Readings</h2>
<p>None.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Notes</h2>
<p><strong>[1]</strong> See: <a href="http://www.littlemag.com/" target="_blank">http://www.littlemag.com/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[2]</strong> See: <a href="http://www.museindia.com/" target="_blank">http://www.museindia.com/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[3]</strong> See: <a href="http://www.kritya.in/" target="_blank">http://www.kritya.in/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[4]</strong> See: <a href="http://coldnoon.com/" target="_blank">http://coldnoon.com/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[5]</strong> See: <a href="http://kindlemag.in/" target="_blank">http://kindlemag.in/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[6]</strong> See: <a href="http://almostisland.com/" target="_blank">http://almostisland.com/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[7]</strong> See: <a href="http://indianquarterly.com/" target="_blank">http://indianquarterly.com/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[8]</strong> See: <a href="http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/307055/twitterature-by-alexander-aciman/9780143117322/" target="_blank">http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/307055/twitterature-by-alexander-aciman/9780143117322/</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-literaryspaces'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-literaryspaces</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroIRC16Proposed SessionsInternet Researcher's Conference2016-01-03T06:59:25ZBlog EntryIRC16 - Proposed Session - #DisruptiveTransport (Aggregators, Ownership, Tracking, Space, Internet Models)
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-disruptivetransport
<b>This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by Srinivas Kodali and William F. Stafford Jr.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Session</h2>
<p>Transportation has been seeing disruptions through Internet aggregators using complex models which nobody understands in detail. This is primarily being seen in the space of urban transport, but is not limited to them alone. 1960`s saw disruptions in airline industry when each airline was fighting for it's own space in flight reservations and aggregations. This disruptive trend is now being observed globally in other transport modes. Aggregators are playing an important role in transporting people and disrupting markets globally. Internet Models are varying within aggregators who are not limiting themselves to ticket reservation, but are also providing information about the availability of transportation options. With increasing demand and surge pricing taking up the market, what is the role of the state. What are the ownership rights of an aggregator? What are licensing/lease models of a provider? What about un-fair practices and consumer rights? What forms of labour and regulation are imagined? What is the role of state run aggregators like IRCTC in this changing landscape?</p>
<p>Many of the platforms that have been created, primarily in the beginning concerning tracking or making complaints, were accessed through websites and have since been migrated either to a combined website/ app structure, or wholly to smartphone apps. This raises interesting and important questions concerning the imagination of an increased reliability and accesibility of services, as well as a power to hold public institutions accountable, as they relate to the question of access to these technologies and the habits of their use, especially demographically and linked to class.</p>
<p>Furthermore, both the near and far future promise an reworking of the internet as a system with which commuters and others interface to consume or deliver a service, to transport as one part of a mobility ecosystem, which is currently being tooled (both in regulatory frameworks and industrial planning) as a microcosm of the internet of things. With internet being connected to personal transport at every intersection of the road, what is the scope of
privacy and accountability, the role of encryption layer and also the importance of governance in the fragile/disrupting space. How will the internet impact personal transport of citizens and the economy? Cashless payments, driver-less cars, surge-congestion pricing with disruptive internet models need regulation before they
over-run and create chaos with the system.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Plan</h2>
<p>The session will focus on Delhi as a case study.</p>
<p>Discussants will present their current work around these questions, and then open a discussion among those present on the issues raised therein.</p>
<p>The first discussant will present on the changing architecture of the auto-rickshaw meter as a regulatory platform, from the recent introduction of GPS to the creation of various surveillance and business models which either exploit its native GPS or duplicate and substitute it through the use of smartphones, and the folding
of autos into the emerging e-hailing environment and the possible implications of changes being sought in the regulatory framework for connected vehicles. These include technological treatments of questions of class, trust and accountability, as well as significant policy and material changes in the classification of what is owned, by whom, and its conditions of transfer.</p>
<p>Srinivas will continue the presentation on transport data by showing use cases and potential harms about the data. How big data is changing the landscape of transportation systems and privacy concerns with the future of autonomous vehicles and intelligent traffic management systems. Data driven decisions are a big concern when data can also be used to lie at a scale. Data ownership and rights are a challenge the state and the citizen need to think about before forcibly submitting data.</p>
<p>The discussion will be primarily around:</p>
<ol>
<li>Digital Ownership and Physical Ownership</li>
<li>Scope of Internet Governance on Aggregators</li>
<li>Pricing Models and Service Availability</li>
<li>Future of On-Demand Transportation Services vs Public Transportation</li></ol>
<p> </p>
<h2>Readings</h2>
<p>None.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-disruptivetransport'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-disruptivetransport</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroIRC16Proposed SessionsInternet Researcher's Conference2016-01-03T07:00:57ZBlog EntryIRC16 - Proposed Session - #DigitalLiteraciesAtTheMargins
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-digitalliteraciesatthemargins
<b>This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by Aakash Solanki, Sandeep Mertia, and Rashmi M.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Session</h2>
<p>The session intends to initiate a discussion on digital literacies in the wake of ‘Digital India’ programme drawing on the empirical insights from three different field situations. The discussion will be anchored in the social and material context of Digital India but will not be limited to it. The questions we raise in this specific context may be extended to understand the current conceptual as well as practical deployment of many ICT4D programmes as envisioned by both government and non-government actors. The idea of digital literacy is central to both the conceptualization and the execution of such programmes, and the actors in charge work with their own understanding of the context and needs of the people they aim to empower. There have been very few attempts to systematically understand the concept of digital literacy which leave much scope for either lenient contextual interpretations or context insensitive one-size-fits-all approach towards technological interventions. This session is an effort to begin one such discussion which we hope will refine the prevalent understanding of digital literacy/literacies in India.</p>
<p>From a glance at the structure of Digital India programme, it is apparent that the programme is designed to achieve digital inclusion and is primarily directed towards the digitally marginalized in spite of having a more comprehensive agenda. The schemes such as National Digital Literacy Mission (NDLM) and the way they are conceived are indexical of the kind of target groups which the programme plans to address. A key concern for us is to think through the mismatches between the frameworks of the digital literacy initiatives and the local socio-technical contexts which we observed in our field sites. The objective of the session is not as much to arrive at the definitional fixity of the concept of digital literacy as it is to complicate and problematize the prevalent definitions of digital literacy implicit in both visualization and execution of such initiatives. We plan to meet this objective through empirical insights we have on three different field sites.</p>
<p>The session will also focus on certain methodological questions that might help us better understand digital literacy. This part of the session addresses questions such as: how can we conceptually define digital literacy/literacies? What parameters should go into the measuring of digital literacy? How should we theoretically understand it – as technical skills or knowledge or some higher cognitive ability? How can we best pedagogically achieve it given the complexity of ground reality? The questions will be directed towards encouraging thought in this area rather than providing answers. The session will also try and discuss various kinds of policy and pedagogical documentation available on digital literacy and critically debate their conceptualization and execution by juxtaposing them against various uses of ICTs on the ground by specific groups of users. This part of the discussion will draw upon scholarly and other kinds of documentation available on the topic and use them to evaluate various government and corporate initiatives to achieve digital literacy in India.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Plan</h2>
<p>In keeping with the spirit of the conference, the three discussants’ will try to put forth empirical insights from their respective field situations and frame nuanced research and discussion questions on digital literacies at the margins of techno-cultural capital and/or access. Further the discussion will be aided by specific readings and the insights drawn from them. The idea is to have a symmetrical, reciprocatory and anthropologically comparative conversation on questions of technology, materiality, access, meaning making, development and literacy, by moving back and forth between different fieldsites and interpretive frameworks.</p>
<p><strong>Field Note I</strong></p>
<p>The first discussant's work on social media use in rural Rajasthan discusses socio-technical changes instituted by the introduction of ICTs despite their developmental failures. He claims that these changes have been often viewed from technologically or socially deterministic positions and that there are significant empirical gaps between such technocratic discourses and the grassroots experiences of technology. There is a growing usage of social and digital media in rural areas where ICT4D and e-Governance pilot projects have failed to meet their goals. Based on an ethnographic study of ICTs in two villages of Rajasthan, his work aims to situate social and digital media in a complex rural society and media ecology using co-constructivist approach. Focusing on context sensitive meaning making of ICTs, it will seek to contribute to an empirically sound discourse on media, technology and rural society in India.</p>
<p><strong>Field Note II</strong></p>
<p>The second discussant's work on mobile phones and multimedia consumption among the digitally marginalized users in Bangalore brings into focus the popular usage of ICTs, specifically mobile phones, among the subaltern users. While such popular usage indicates a certain level of literacy already achieved by the digitally marginal groups by mere exposure and peer learning, it is not sufficient to do away with all kinds of guided training required to make such users participate in informationalized environments. Her observations on the mobile phone usage among the subaltern users in Bangalore problematize the notion of digital literacy and invite us to think about it as a more layered and stratified concept. They raise questions such as ‘what constitutes digital literacy?’ – some complex use of gadgets learnt by mere exposure and peer knowledge or an awareness about the social relevance of the technologies and knowledge about their appropriate deployment in different social contexts? While mere access and some nominal training might be helpful in equipping people with some knowledge about gadget-use, her study points out that such initiatives are far from achieving the right degree of digital literacy needed to make these people participate in new media ecologies. Thus it contends the claims of 1. Organic literacy attained by mere exposure and peer sharing of technological knowledge and 2. Literacy attained by current training programmes which might equip the digitally marginalized with knowledge of technological use but not necessarily inform them about the context relevant knowledge needed for their appropriate deployment.</p>
<p><strong>Field Note III</strong></p>
<p>The third discussant's work on e-governance initiatives in an Indian state plans to return the gaze on to the bureaucracy itself and takes the conversation from the margins back to the centre. His work moves away from the target groups generally alluded to in programs such as the NDLM. It takes into accounts the struggles, anxieties, hopes and promises of/for a bureaucracy in coming to terms with a gradual but seemingly eventual shift from paper work to digital paper work. The users in this case are staff members tasked by the higher-level bureaucracy-who have little or no clue about it themselves- to learn a new tool and migrate all paper work to the digital domain. Many of e-governance projects are spearheaded by corporate organizations, which in turn dictate the terms of the conversation on Digital Literacy even within the government. What impact does this have on how Digital Literacy is understood, articulated and executed in ICT4D programs within and without the government.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Readings</h2>
<p>Terranova, Tiziana. 2004. Chapter 5: Communication Biopower, 131-157. <em>Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age</em>. London: Pluto Press.</p>
<p>Mazzarella, William. 2010. Beautiful Balloon: the Digital Divide and the Charisma of New Media in India. <em>American Ethnologist</em>, 37(4), 783-804.</p>
<p>Smith, Richard Saumarez. 1985. Rule-by-Records and Rule-by-Reports: Complementary Aspects of the British Imperial Rule of Law. <em>Contributions to Indian Sociology</em> 19(1): 153–176.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-digitalliteraciesatthemargins'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-digitalliteraciesatthemargins</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroIRC16Proposed SessionsInternet Researcher's Conference2016-01-03T07:20:26ZBlog EntryIRC16 - Proposed Session - #DigitalDesires
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-digitaldesires
<b>This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by Silpa Mukherjee, Ankita Deb, and Rahul Kumar.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Session</h2>
<p>We propose to design the panel as a workshop with three paper presentations followed by an open discussion with the house exploring the key question of media objects‟ (in the form of film/film music/memes/gifs/trolls) changing relations with law; copyright and piracy having attained newer connotations in the age of media convergence. While we deal with the materiality of cinema in the new media moment, the session will open out debates on the mutability of media objects in a networked digital terrain ushered in by fast growing and cost-effective internet culture in urban India.</p>
<p>In terms of methodology the panel deploys media archaeology to trace the mutations that film culture has undergone in the digital age. The coexistence of the obsolete media copyright with its meme and its digitally re-mastered copy on torrent informs the research that the three papers involve. A certain engagement with the logic of informed/fan-cinephilic digital labour that unwittingly maintains and updates the algorithmic database of Web 2.0 services will run through the presentations. Along with archival research and interviews with professionals
involved with online media companies and “users” who are now the "pirate/prosumer-cinephiles" of media objects, we will carry out extensive digital ethnography to map the chimera of digital territory that user traffic based internet culture in India helped produce.</p>
<p>The digital is a space of intervention: a space for the users to intervene and play with the material online. It is a constant form of participation underscoring a potential for democratic authorship. The definitive notion of authorship voices the overarching body of the state through its legal status. Thus copyright as a legal entity produces a discourse of power through this form of authorship. The contemporary medium or rather the multi-media
constellation driven by internet culture in India produces an alternative discourse on authorship, complicating the notion of copyright and piracy at the same time. This charged terrain of (il)legality is also due to the nature of piracy in the digital domain, which does not exist in isolation but have now created bodies or spheres where it has been appropriated as a sub-cultural practice. The figure of the “pirate”/ the “troll”/ the “fan” and the “cinephile” now merges with the technologically enabled body of the user of new media who negotiates with the medium in multiple ways (and morphs it) and thereby touches all kinds of spaces within and outside the webspace. It has changed the physical scope of cinephilia as addressed in the paper "A Laptop and a Pen-drive: Cinephiles of Mukherjee Nagar," where the culture of networked sharing evolves from and further complicates physical stations. It has permeated into the body of film music in the paper "Licensed, Remixed and Pirated: Item numbers and the web", which interrogates the layers of user-based morphs that the text of a dance number in Bollywood undergoes in the culture of web based remixing and hacking. It changes the way protected materials like films circulate in the space designated as YouTube, marked by its ability to reproduce copyright materials without violating the law as the third paper titled "Online Streaming in the Era of Digital Cinephilia" points out; the logic of the obsolete
license of old Hindi films which gains a new viral life on YouTube with its official upload vying with the multiple hacker-user uploads.</p>
<p>Thus the panel intends to explore the dizzying overlaps that produce this internet induced distinct zone of ambiguity that neither the law nor the state or the author can claim ownership over. The very embodiment of the material in the digital is in transition i.e. in a state of being morphedby the blurring of the identities of the multiple bodies at work at each moment. Through the three papers we intend to chart this transitional aesthetic sometimes contained and sometimes flowing out of the body of the media text onto the physical, technological and
extra textual objects as well. The panel seeks to position this new world of media objects that overlap and form an uncontainable entity, seeking newer forms of negotiations with the older existing order. We seek to explore then what happens to the very essence of author(ity)ship when digital enters its domain.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Plan</h2>
<p><strong>A Laptop and a Pen-drive: Cinephiles of Mukherjee Nagar</strong></p>
<p>With the changes technology has brought to contemporary life, cinephiles – for whom movies are a way of life, films and how they are experienced have undergone major changes. The classic cinephile, as the term was adopted in the 1960s has undergone a major change in the era of internet piracy. I will look at the way pirated films via torrent downloads are consumed by students in certain pockets in New Delhi especially around Mukherjee Nagar area. These students who come from the upwardly mobile Indian middle class families are engaged inpreparations of competitive exams to land a lucrative government job. Circumstances dictate that these students own a laptop to watch films but not a high speed internet connection. To fuel their cinephilic urge, they are dependent upon soft copy vendors of pirated films. These vendors are like a video library, the repository here being a laptop and a storage drive. These professional film pirates depend upon the p2p file sharing commonly referred as "torrent."
DVD and Blu Rays released by official sources are ripped at a bigger size by certain uploaderswhich are downloaded by another one who rips it to an even smaller size, fit enough to be downloaded by pirates with a slower broadband till it reaches places like Mukherjee Nagar. Using this particular case study, where the world of online film piracy merges with a third world piracy domain, I plan to interrogate the logistics of a new kind of cinephilia and
try and frame this particular form of informal circuit of media production and consumption into a coherent perspective.</p>
<p>Relevant websites: <a href="https://kat.cr">https://kat.cr</a>, <a href="https://yts.la/">https://yts.la/</a>, <a href="https://torrentfreak.com">https://torrentfreak.com</a>.</p>
<p>Relevant software: Handbrake, uTorrent / Deluge / Vuze.</p>
<p>Relevant reading: Treske, Andreas. <em>The Inner Life of Video Spheres: Theory for the YouTube Generation</em>. Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam, 2013</p>
<p><strong>Licensed, Remixed and Pirated: Item Numbers and the Web</strong></p>
<p>The coming of new digital technologies has rendered the relationship of media objects’ with law extremely malleable and volatile. It urges us to rethink certain categories we have been working with, viz. piracy and copyright. The specific focus of the paper will be on item numbers’ relationship with changing technology and the law. The proprioceptive body being the central node of enquiry here: the law that affects the body that moves on screen and the body that is moved by the screen is made flexible in the digital age with Web 2.0’s unique design that spawns hackability and remixability. Through the registers of music licensing to YouTube, circulation of content offline as MP3 downloads in cheap mass storage devices, user generated morphed content related to item numbers (in the form of memes, GIFs, trolls, posters, tumblr blogs and listicles) spawned by amateur digital culture and remixing videos of film content the paper traces the gray zone between web based music piracy and its copyright rules. It will interrogate the moment when the entertainment industry has recognized the clear
shift of its spectatorship from the older media to the more digital platforms and appropriates the contingency brought in by the algorithmic anxiety of Web 2.0 and its unique relationship with law and hence censorship regulations to innovate newer means of mass circulation and bypassing censorship.</p>
<p>Relevant content: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2O2dBonBok">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2O2dBonBok</a>.</p>
<p>Relevant user-traffic-oriented platforms: <a href="http://www.memegenerator.com">http://www.memegenerator.com</a>, <a href="http://www.trolldekho.com">http://www.trolldekho.com</a>, <a href="http://www.imgur.com">http://www.imgur.com</a>, <a href="https://www.tumblr.com/">https://www.tumblr.com/</a>.</p>
<p>Relevant curated online media platforms: <a href="http://scoopwhoop.com/">ScoopWhoop</a>, <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/tag/india">Buzzfeed India</a>, <a href="http://blog.erosnow.com/">blog.erosnow.com</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Online Streaming in the era of Digital Cinephilia</strong></p>
<p>Digital piracy has allowed for certain democratization of film distribution and consumption through a parallel economy of piracy. The lack of control over these channels of distribution produces a blatant threat to the copyright and intellectual property rights that are quintessential to the mainstream culture of commercial film distribution. This paper will focus on the intersection of these two dichotomous cultures through the experience of
watching old films via online streaming. The resurfacing of old films hosted by big corporations like Shemaroo, Venus and Ultra who began as film rights and video rights owners at one point host their old video content in a user generated space called youtube. The video content is a very specific form here. It is an obsolete entity, defined by its ambiguity with copyright that is able to make a legal transgression in order to circulate.</p>
<p>The circulation of the feature films in a web space that is primarily known for its clip culture also provides an interesting paradigm for the copyright material. The big corporate copyright floats in a culture of pirated experiences where the legal domain becomes a dizzying site of contradictions. Through this paper I will draw parallels between the history of these companies and their work in the field of film circulation and to the creation of a new form of cinephilia and its complicated relationship to the law. I will use a variety of archival sources, legal documents and discourses on online streaming to contextualize my argument.</p>
<p>Relevant websites: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/ShemarooEnt">https://www.youtube.com/user/ShemarooEnt</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/VenusMovies">https://www.youtube.com/user/VenusMovies</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/UltraMovieParlour">https://www.youtube.com/user/UltraMovieParlour</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Readings</h2>
<p>None.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-digitaldesires'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-digitaldesires</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroIRC16Proposed SessionsInternet Researcher's Conference2016-01-03T07:03:52ZBlog EntryIRC16 - Proposed Session - #InternetMovements
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-internetmovements
<b>This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by Becca Savory, Sarah McKeever, and Shaunak Sen.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Session</h2>
<p>Since its early days the Internet has been conceived in terms of both movement and landscape - from “cyberspace” to the “Information Superhighway” - and in popular perception is often viewed as a boundless space imagined in terms of limitless possibilities. Indeed, across our research fields, from digital media to performance and social activism, we find that the Internet is frequently perceived as a space of mobilisation: where moving bodies are
remediated within online content; where the movement of images, ideas and bodies can occur freely, with the rapid transmission of the “viral”; and where movement(s) frequently spill over into physical geographies.</p>
<p>Yet increasingly the Internet is also a space of fractured and fragmented movement(s): of blockages and blockades, discontinuities and disappearances. Landscapes become territorialized and movement(s) confined or obstructed. On this basis, we propose an interdisciplinary discussion session around the theme of
"#InternetMovement(s)". We ask how we can conceive of movement(s) in relation to the Internet in India, in terms of both mobility and immobility, fissure and flow.</p>
<p>To encourage fluidity, we propose to structure the session around three "nodes" rather than three separate research papers. Our nodes are as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li>How can we conceive of movement(s) in relation to Internet research in India?</li>
<li>What are the forms that movement(s) take in our respective fields?</li>
<li>What "stop" or blocks" movement in these cases?</li></ol>
<p>The three co-conveners will each prepare a 5-minute response to each of these nodes, based on our specific areas of research. At each nodal point we will then allow time for wider discussion, enabling inter-disciplinary discussion and flow to underpin the session.</p>
<p>We perceive the session to speak to the first of the conference’s core questions: “How do we conceptualise, as an intellectual and political task, the mediation and transformation of social, cultural, political, and economic processes, forces, and sites through internet and digital media technologies in contemporary India?”</p>
<p>Each of the three co-convenors is approaching this question in their own research, asking how online media and communications mediate, remediate and transform the fields of film-media, social activism, and performance. We also ask the corollary: what are the limits and impediments to those transformations or mediations? The following section outlines the co-convenors’ approaches in more detail.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Plan</h2>
<p><strong>Statement of Intent I</strong></p>
<p>The internet increasingly impresses traces on nearly all media technologies everyday. The once stable film body, gets disaggregated into various new forms of loop videos, GIFS, photo-memes, as clips and stills from disparate films get extracted, re-edited, patched and re-moulded into new user-generated media material. Solitary moments and gestures from films (a menacing wink by Jack Nicholson from The Shining, a clap from Charles Kane, a tear from the Tin-Man in The Wizard of Oz) get completely unchained from the original narrative context and used as discrete independent communicative units (Kane’s a popular Birthday wish gesture, while Nicholson’s Is a common linguistic unit signifying playful flirtation.) One of the primary ontological pegs of cinema - movement, today becomes the center of urgent debate around the status of photographs, movement-image forms like GIFs, and traditional moving images as the basic configuring elements of contemporary cinema. Using the film-GIF form as its primary vector this paper opens up the category of ‘movement’ philosophically as well as a constituent form to understand cinema today within the context of India.</p>
<p>As the cinematic object disperses into thousands of fragments hurtling through innumerable new online contexts, questions related to stardom also get radically transformed. I will be investigating a particular site of cinematic re-instansiation - the recent Alok Nath meme phenomenon. Long relegated to the margins of films as the venerable Hindu middle class father, the ‘’Alok Nath is so sanskaari..’’ set off a viral maelstrom that suddenly recast his cinematic body and the memory of a whole host of films (the Suraj Barjatya Hindu joint-family films). The paper focus on questions around movement as a philosophical arena as well as radical new form re-inscribing the cinematic in hitherto unprecedented shapes today.</p>
<p><strong>Statement of Intent II</strong></p>
<p>An examination of social movements with digital components in India begs several questions: What forms do social movements take in the digital world? How do we conceptualise social movements using digital and physical evidence? How does the context of India – as a functioning democracy - allow or restrict digital and physical social movements and define what is an “acceptable” protest movement? Engaging with these questions demands an interdisciplinary perspective, and exploring the interplays between the physical and the digital in regard to social issue protest movements.</p>
<p>Movement in my particular research area is understood in two aspects: the physical mobilisation of individuals to protest against perceived grievances and the movement of information around specific issue areas. The physical movement of bodies in public places is intimately connected to flow of information throughout digital networks, generating entangled and complex interfaces between the digital and the physical and creating new imagined
possibilities of the efficacy of social protest (Castells 2012; Gerbaudo 2012). Examining recent social movements in New Delhi allows us to explore the linkages and disjuncture between the physical and digital, using theoretical developments in social movement theory to anchor the study (Earl, Hunt, and Garrett 2014; Krinsky and Crossley 2014).</p>
<p>Examining the repercussions and strategies of physical/digital mobilisation can lead to a confrontation between the “imagined” possibilities of digital mobilisation and the realities of technological and physical blockages. These blockages can exist at the level of the network – both in digital and physical limitations – but also at the level of digital informational flow and who is allowed to view data? Confronting the “imagined” capabilities with the reality of entrenched power networks contests the notion of the digital as a free superhighway of information into a series of blocks and stoppages, restricting what is possible and feasible. By exploring question of movement(s) in New Delhi, I will explore the disjuncture between the imagined possibilities and the restriction of information – by nature of the algorithms that govern our capabilities and our own social networks – and complicate the triumphal narrative of the affordances of digital mediums on protest movements.</p>
<p><em>References</em></p>
<p>Castells, M. (2012) Networks of Outrage and Networks of Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age, Cambridge, MA: Polity Press</p>
<p>Earl, J., Hunt, J., and Kelly Garrett, R. (2014) ‘Social Movements and the ICT Revolution’ in van der Heijden (Ed.) <em>Handbook of Political Citizenship and Social Movements</em>, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Pgs. 359-383</p>
<p>Gerbaudo, P. (2012) <em>Tweets and the Streets: Social Media and Contemporary Activism</em>, London: Pluto Press</p>
<p>Krinsky, J. and Crossley, N. (2014) ‘Social Movements and Social Networks: An Introduction’, <em>Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest</em>, Vol. 13, No. 1. Pgs. 1-21</p>
<p><strong>Statement of Intent III</strong></p>
<p>My research centres on the recent history of flash mob performance in India and analyses the transformations that have taken place within the genre: firstly, as an initially American, then “global,” performance form becomes re-situated and adapted within an Indian context; and secondly, as the form has evolved over time in relation to the transitioning of the Internet from a predominantly text-based medium to a predominantly image- and video-based one (see Strangelove 2010).</p>
<p>In the field of flash mob performance, we see moving bodies becoming re-mediated as moving images, and mobilised into the flow of global circuits of online reception. My underlying concern when approaching this research is: who is mobile in these contexts? Who becomes visible through movement, and by extension, who may disappear in these
same moments?</p>
<p>I intend to approach this session by examining what is enacted through the movements of flash mob performance, focusing on the more recent phase of the genre in which flash mobs become mobilised through online video-sharing practices. I argue that they perform mediated representations of “New India” for an online national and international audience, valorising the new “non-places” (Augé 1992) of Indian supermodernity, through the acts of a
mobilised “digerati” (Keniston 2004). If we consider that performance can play a role in the construction of cultural memory (Roach 1996; Taylor 2003), and that the Internet as an archive can become a repository of performances and thus memories(Gehl 2009), I ask if online performance in these contexts may be seen as an aspect of the processes that structure a “politics of forgetting” (Fernandes 2006) in globalising India. Which narratives are rendered visible and which invisible through these performances? Who appears and who disappears? Movement on the Internet thus becomes a political question concerned with comparative mobilities, visibilities, and participation in the narratives of “India” that are constructed for global circulation.</p>
<p><em>References</em></p>
<p>Augé, M., 1992. <em>Non-places : introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity</em>. Translated by J. Howe. 1995. London & New York: Verso.</p>
<p>Fernandes, L., 2006. The politics of forgetting: class politics, state power and the restructuring of urban space in India. In Y. Lee and B.S.A. Yeoh eds., <em>Globalisation and the Politics of Forgetting</em>, London; New York: Routledge.</p>
<p>Gehl, R., 2009. YouTube as archive: Who will curate this digital Wunderkammer? <em>International Journal of Cultural Studies</em>, 12(1), pp.43-60.</p>
<p>Keniston, K., 2004. Introduction: The four digital divides. In K. Keniston & D. Kumar eds., <em>IT experience in India: bridging the digital divide</em>, New Delhi; Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.</p>
<p>Roach, J.R., 1996. <em>Cities of the Dead: Circum-atlantic performance</em>. Chichester and New York: Columbia University Press.</p>
<p>Strangelove, M., 2010. <em>Watching YouTube: Extraordinary videos by ordinary people</em>. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.</p>
<p>Taylor, D., 2003. <em>The archive and the repertoire: Performing cultural memory in the Americas</em>. USA: Duke University Press.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Readings</h2>
<p>Noys, B. (2004) Gestural Cinema?: Giorgio Agamben on Film. In <em>Film Philosophy</em> Vol. 8 no. 22. Available at: <a href="http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol8-2004/n22noys" target="_blank">http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol8-2004/n22noys</a>.</p>
<p>Couldry, N. (2015) ‘The Myth of ‘Us’: Digital Networks, Political Change and the Production of Collectivity’, <em>Information Communication and Society</em>, Vol. 18, No. 6. Pgs. 608-626 .</p>
<p>Appadurai, A., (2010) How histories make geographies: circulation and context in a global perspective. <em>Transcultural Studies</em>, 1. Availabile at: <a href="http://heiup.uni-heidelberg.de/journals/index.php/transcultural/article/view/6129" target="_blank">http://heiup.uni-heidelberg.de/journals/index.php/transcultural/article/view/6129</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-internetmovements'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-internetmovements</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroIRC16Proposed SessionsInternet Researcher's Conference2016-01-03T07:04:11ZBlog EntryIRC16 - Proposed Session - #WebOfGenealogies
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-webofgenealogies
<b>This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by Ishita Tiwary, Sandeep Mertia, and Siddharth Narrain.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Sessions</h2>
<p>The Internet today, as we know, is one of the most challenging socio-technical systems to understand and theorise. As a hybrid medium that perpetually, reinvents, redesigns and re-markets itself and its publics it defies all forms of historical, social, legal and technological determinisms and/or generalisations. The complex nature of the medium
and the social and cultural lives of the information packets which flow through it can perhaps be better understood by heeding critical attention towards longer histories of media circulation, technology-society relationships and legal regulations.</p>
<p>The panel attempts to understand the way digital technologies (the Internet/the current digital moment) mediate aspects of our contemporary being through the history of media circulation, legal regulation and data infrastructure. The papers in the panel focus on three crucial periods - the 1940s early history of statistical mediation, the 1980s video moment and the early 2000s advent of legal regulation of the Internet. Each of these moments is marked by socio-technical, cultural and legal disruption as seen through both moral anxieties and utopian claims that circulate at the time. The panel attempts to understand media technologies through their technological affordances (unpacking current debates around data analytics through a history of statistical mediation) and the social and legal disruptions that follow their advent (video in the 80s and the Internet in late 90s).</p>
<p>The papers in the panel approach the Internet and networked digital media as an assemblage of media infrastructures, bringing together both conceptual and material layers of their experience. The papers in this panel use a media archaeology approach (Elsaesser, 2004) to engage with the longer history of electronic communication in India by looking at both its material nature (how law produces the representation of digital
media and the Internet), and the history of non narrative framework of databases (the Internet as a massive data infrastructure) which have become increasingly diverse and distributed through a network of institutions, practices and technological platforms.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Plan</h2>
<p><strong>Abstract I: 'What is Video?' Video and the Moment of Legal Disruption</strong></p>
<p>The advent of YouTube changed the way users interact with media content as now they are making videos, watching videos, editing them, sharing them and discussing them at a frantic speed, creating new communities as they go along (Manovich, 2008).</p>
<p>The YouTube phenomenon and its implications cannot be understood without contextualizing it within the broader history of video. In India, the Asiad Games heralded the arrival of analog video technology, although there was no legal producer of video content in the country. In a sense video was an illegal object that spawned a vibrant economy of video films, video magazines and pornography.</p>
<p>Video cassettes were primarily in the pirate economy and circulated all across the country through video libraries and parlours. New Bollywood and Hollywood releases as well as pornographic films were available on video cassettes which initially did not have any film certification regulation. The new mode of circulation made these video exhibition spaces a lynchpin of moral paranoia and economic anxiety for those in authority-video was like a plague that needed to be monitored and regulated. This led to a string of legal regulations to keep the ‘video menace’ in check. Associations, organizations and forums protested the new wave of regulations as it pitched the
medium of video against that of cinema, demanding new medium specific laws instead of amendments to previous laws on cinema.</p>
<p>In this paper, I will examine how the wave of regulations and contesting bodies creates a charged force field of the period that gives one a sense of a social, cultural and legal disruption caused by the arrival of a new technology. Particularly, I want to focus on how video as an illegal object circulates through informal circuits at a rapid pace and how the law deals with this new technological development. By looking at the example
of video, it would be productive to think about the resonances the extended genealogies of how the law is interacting with the current digital moment through the prism of analog video.</p>
<p><strong>Abstract II: Big Data 2.0 -- A History of Statistical Remediation</strong></p>
<p>One of the fast emerging themes in the understanding of the Internet is centred on its various technological affordances to generate, collect, measure, analyse, mine andvisualise data. With the recent (circa 2010) advent of the hype cycles of Big Data and data revolution, the socio-technical imaginaries which reveal the Internet as a massive data infrastructure have been gaining momentum. ‘Data’ which in many ways is an ontological byproduct of the Internet, is now increasingly becoming the object of thought and computation for understanding and analysing the Internet. This moment of flux invites us to reflect upon the genealogies of the concepts, techniques and practices which are consciously or otherwise informing the incredible epistemic investment in data-driven systems. With an aim to unpack some of the long histories of the contemporary data analytics movement and moment, this paper tries to trace some of the inflection points in the genealogies of analytics and statistical remediation in
colonial and post-colonial India, with an emphasis on the works of P C Mahalanobis and the statistical framing of planning and governance in the pre- and post-independence era.</p>
<p>The author will utilise ethnographic and archival material from his on-going fieldwork on emerging data-driven systems in the social sector in India, to reflect upon the shifts in materiality of data, classificatory affordances of paper and software based systems, and their epistemic implications across two different epochs. In addition, as a methodological reflection, the paper will argue that – developing lateral, conceptual connections between pre-digital circulations and meaning making of numbers and their contemporary algorithmic ecologies, is crucial for moving beyond causalities and the Big Data hubris, towards a thicker anthropology of data-driven knowledge production across times, infrastructures and networks.</p>
<p><strong>Abstract III: The History of Internet Law in India</strong></p>
<p>The relationship between law and media technology in India has been broadly characterized as the law catching up with technological change. To unpack this statement, one needs to take into account how the law both shapes and is shaped by media technologies. As the law ‘catches up’ with new technology, it also characterizes this technology, brackets it, and helps reinforce popular perception of technology. This paper will examine the early history of Internet law in India, the debates that arose in the pre web 2.0 era, and the ways in which a wide variety of factors, over a period of 15 years, has gradually shaped the scope and extent of the law that governs the Internet,
the Information Technology Act (IT), 2000.</p>
<p>The IT Act, being relatively recent legislation is an ideal illustration to study the manner in which government policy, public perception, judicial pronouncements, parliamentary committee proceedings, legislative debates, and rapidly changing technology have influenced the shaping of this specific media infrastructure. By examining these
documents I would like to open up a series questions around law and media technology How is the relationship between law and media technology staged through public discourse? What are the ways in which both the extremes – utopian hope and moral panic play out, and how are these then related to the more functional aspects of
technology? Who were the major actors, individuals and institutions, who drove Internet law and regulation at this time?</p>
<p>By addressing these questions, this paper seeks to examine a small slice of the longer history of electronic communication in India.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Readings</h2>
<p>Lovink, Geert and Nadiere, Sabine ed. Video Vortex Reader: Responses to YouTube, Amsterdam, Institute of Network Cultures, 2008.</p>
<p>Lisa Gitelman and Virginia Jackson, Introduction, Raw Data is an Oxymoron. Edited by Lisa Gitelman. Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, 2013.</p>
<p>Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. Full text of judgement available at <a href="http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427183283.pdf" target="_blank">http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427183283.pdf</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-webofgenealogies'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-webofgenealogies</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroIRC16Proposed SessionsInternet Researcher's Conference2016-01-03T07:07:18ZBlog EntryIRC16 - Proposed Session - #ManyPublicsOfInternet
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-manypublicsofinternet
<b>This is a session proposed for the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) 2016 by Sailen Routray and Khetrimayum Monish.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Session</h2>
<p>The discussion in this session will focus on the cultures of practices around digital / information networks. The objective would be to open up the understanding around notions of identity and rights in the context of governance on one hand, and the proliferation of various subcultures on the other. The objective is to try and understand the political and cultural imaginations 'of and as the public' enabled by internet and digital technologies. In this, we are trying to connect the whole discussion to the first two questions the conference focuses on:</p>
<ul>
<li>How do we conceptualise, as an intellectual and political task, the mediation and transformation of social, cultural, political, and economic processes, forces, and sites through internet and digital media technologies in contemporary India?<br /><br /></li>
<li>How do we frame and explore the experiences and usages of internet and digital media technologies in India within its specific historical-material contexts shaped by traditional hierarchies of knowledge, colonial systems of communication, post-independence initiatives in nation-wide technologies of governance, a rapidly growing telecommunication market, and informal circuits of media production and consumption, among others?</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h2>Plan</h2>
<p>Each discussant will present for 20 minutes after which the session will be thrown open for discussion amongst all the participants of the session.</p>
<p><strong>Abstract I</strong></p>
<p>Internet in India has led to the proliferation of practices and notions of governance and citizenship simulated by information networks and data. On one hand, the internet has captured the imagination of citizens and the reassertion of user agency; on the other, the experiences with the internet reflects the new ways of how the state imagines itself and the citizens. Hence, not only a critical mass replete with the possibilities of user agency, but also one aggregated by the state as part of a political project. Initiatives such as Digital India, the Aadhar project, rural internet and increased emphasis on mobile internet services are some of ways through which the logic of access and participation now operates. The paper will draw perspectives from four case studies in Assam - the
Mahanagar Project (internet and mobile services), the National Register of Citizens (NRC) update, the Aadhaar Project and rural internet kiosks (Common Service Centers). With these, it focuses on the larger context of the cultures of digital practices; and techno-politics through the various sites and projects through which the internet operates in India.</p>
<p><strong>Abstract II</strong></p>
<p>Those of us who have jumped or meandered across to the wrong (or perhaps the right) side of thirty by now, first came to consume internet in what were called, and are still called, cyber cafes or internet cafes. Their numbers in big Indian cities is dwindling because of the increasing ubiquity of smartphone, and netbooks and data cards. The cyber café seems to be inexorably headed the way of the STD booth in the geography of large Indian cities. The present paper is a preliminary step towards capturing some of the experience of running and using internet cafes. With ethnographic fieldwork with cyber café owners and internet users in these cafes in the Chandrasekharpur area of
Bhubaneswar (where the largest section of the computer industry in the state of Odisha is located), this paper tries to capture experiences that lie at the interstices of ‘objects’ and spaces - experiences that are at the same time a history of the internet as well as a personal history of the city. By doing so it tries to ask and answer the question - what kinds of publics does the consumption of the internet in spaces such as cybercafes create?</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Readings</h2>
<p>Escobar, Arturo, et al. 1994. Welcome to Cyberia: Notes on the Anthropology of Cyberculture [and Comments and Reply]. <em>Current Anthropology</em>. 35(3): 211-231.</p>
<p>Nayar, Pramod K. 2008. New Media, Digitextuality and Public Space: Reading "Cybermohalla". <em>Postcolonial Text</em>. 4(1):1-12.</p>
<p>Kurian, Renee and Isha Ray. 2009. Outsourcing the State? Public–Private Partnerships and Information Technologies in India. <em>World Development</em>. 37(10): 1163-1173.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-manypublicsofinternet'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc16-proposed-manypublicsofinternet</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroIRC16Proposed SessionsInternet Researcher's Conference2016-01-03T07:06:54ZBlog Entry