Drop that damn e!
14 October 2007 at 2:02 (Europe/London) in OpinionsE-fad has been over in the corporate world already for many years. The perspective has shifted from pondering what the internet does to business to what business can do with the internet. Thus, no more need to talk about e-this and e-that. I suggest that in most cases the academics should do the same and stop talking about, for instance, ‘e-government’.
I guess most of the researchers are, after all, interested in the thing in itself and not just some e-aspect of it. A particularly weird moniker I have recently come across is ‘e-Science‘.
“The term e-Science (or eScience) is used to describe computationally intensive science that is carried out in highly distributed network environments, or science that uses immense data sets that require grid computing; the term sometimes includes technologies that enable distributed collaboration, such as the Access Grid.”
(Wikipedia)
Evolving information and communication systems obviously empower researchers to do new things, but does it really warrant hinting at a new kind of science? Although I am not an e-xpert on e-science, this does not sound very convincing. Some people are even talking about ‘e-Social Science‘:
e-Social Science is a more recent development in conjunction with the wider developments in e-Science. It is social science using Grid Computing and other IT technologies to collect, process, integrate, share, and disseminate social and behavioral data.
(Wikipedia)
Here the ‘e’ merely connotates the methodological evolution of social research. Why not, in a similar vein, talk about c-Social Science (case studies) or s-Social Science (surveys)? Prefixing research with the ‘e’ may still, for a while, be an useful rhetorical strategy for funding applications, but does it really open up a new, fruitful perspective in research?
It takes more to convince me than just pointing out that the Wikipedia articles I refer to are rather superficial.
This is an interesting (and quite justified) line of argument being advanced but it is hard to see how we can move away from the “distinguishing” element (and the associated technological kudos that it inevitably brings with it).
Having been involved with EU level projects on “e-learning” and “e-government”, it is hard to accept that the “e” should stand for “electronic” any longer: in an ideal situation, “e” could refer to “enhanced” (in a rather holistic and perhaps somewhat esoteric sense).
If we can not get rid of the damned “e” too easily, due to over a decade of sociological (complex and multi-interest and -faceted) marketing, could we perhaps start a dialogue about have we can alter it semantically?
[As to the EC research agenda, “e-learning” now seems firmly replaced by the broader term of TEL: Technology Enhanced Learning. "e-government" discourse seems to have evolved to "e-services" (which can of course be "electronically enhanced"] to include the emerging mobile and/or ubiquitous u- and m-services; Will we be wanting to get rid of the damend “u” or “m” in a while?]
And let’s not forget about the i-somethings…
To me it seems that the distinguishing element (as Neek calls it) - be “e” or “i” - might be useful for attracting funding. I guess we can not get rid of the necessity of following comtemporary trends and rhetoric in this sense. The problem arises when this kind of rhetoric starts to drive research. Whether these two ways of using “e” or “i” prefix can be separated is another question.
Neek suggests that “e” might stand for “enhanced”, but then what would be “enhanced government” or “enhanced learning” mean? Aren’t different domains of social life supposed to make some progress over time. Sounds like age old Enlightenment ideal of continous progress…
I somehow like the approach represented by Neek’s other example TEL, technology enhanced learning, more. It is much less glorious and less all-encompassing, even obscure term, but provides much more focus for the discussion and debate.
To Isabel, whose talk in IS554 seminar series at the Information Systems and Innovation Group at LSE I was listening on 30 October, I would like to say that your answer to my question why did you not frame your own Ph.D. work with “e” was perfect.
Aleksi’s point about “e” or “i” being used as the “newest new” things (cutting-edge, state-of-the-art,… and hence justified to be funded by Public funds) is a fair one: No easy way around it, as actually, some (although very limited) number of these “new new” things, will be truly innovative and could make a real difference (somewhere, somehow…).
As to the “e” for enhanced government, one could make a fairly strong argument that offering a 24/7/365 public service (online) counter is an “enhancement” of sort although I appreciate that is (still in 2007) more of an aspiration than practice.
Aleksi has good point about keeping the concept less “glorious and all-encompassing”. Otherwise it is easy to see how it will become another bandwagon. As to Isabel’s seminar, and her legendary quick wits, I am sorry I missed it: look forward to catching-up with LSE friends soon.
As Neek poinst out, the e-bandwagon has not really realized 24/7 public service although some progress has been many on many fronts.
In fact, I have to admit that I love technology and all the possibilities it provides for societal development yet this is precisely the reason bandwagons and hype are so dangerous. They draw the attention away from the nitty-gritty of everyday practices making up heterogenous assemblages of humans, technologies, politics etc.
From a slightly different perspective, it would be interesting to know if somebody has studied hype and bandwagon effects as an industry in itself. It is as if there were inconspicuous class of consultants, writers and preachers selling inspiring survival talk to anybody feeling left behind in the whole new 2.0 world (that is what they call it in business life these days).