Hugh Mackay

ANALOGUE SWITCH‐OFF: Multi‐channel viewing by “the reluctant 50%”

The paper addresses the switch‐off of analogue television in the UK and explores key issues about technology, audiences and communications policy. The main argument is that the characteristics of the “second 50%” are very different from the first half of households that have chosen to adopt digital, and that concerns are as much about content as cost. The paper reports a small, largely qualitative, study of households where analogue television has been switched off – the only place in the UK where this has happened, as a Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) trial. Qualitative data on the transformation of audience behaviour with the arrival of digital is contextualised by an analysis of British government policy on analogue switch‐off. The paper compares and contrasts the discourse of digital TV with viewing expectations and experiences. It reflects on choice, viewing behaviour and the shaping of technology and raises critical questions about government policies on analogue switch‐off.

Time and representational devices in Rapid Application Development

This paper discusses an ethnographic study of a commercial prototyping software development project. A distinguishing feature of the development was its concentration in one span of time and in one room, with both users and developers participating. This gave rise to a working practice based around the use of low technology representations of design. The case study explores practical issues important for prototyping: time management, user involvement, everyday design representations and the development environment. The mundane nature of design representations facilitated user participation. The public representations of work on the walls showed the current state in design of different components of the system and facilitated collaborative activities. The case study was part of a larger research project (1995–1998) which investigated the commercial use of prototyping in the UK. The development was influenced by a recent trend in commercial prototyping practice, Rapid Application Development (RAD). Implications of the case study for RAD and participatory design are discussed.

User involvement, organisational sub‐cultures and development trajectory

In this paper we discuss some of the particular features of user involvement in information systems (IS) development projects with reference to the idea of the trajectory of development being a political/cultural process. The main aim is to attempt to supply more depth to an understanding of the pragmatics of user involvement in IS development projects. We illustrate how in one particular project, differences in organisational sub‐cultures, and in particular the way in which the technology was ‘framed’, led to differences in the way in which an information system was conceived. These differences, in turn, contributed to elements of organisational conflict between stakeholder groups over the future trajectory of the IS development. We conclude with a critique of some generally held assumptions concerning user involvement.

Alistair Duff: A normative theory of the information society

Alistair Duff’s book does what it says in the title: it argues why we need, and it provides, a normative theory of the information society. In other words, he argues for a set of principles that should underlie this society and its policies. This follows Duff’s earlier important critical evaluation of the information society thesis, Information Society Studies (Routledge 2000). In the latter, Duff explored the key issues and thinkers in information society debates and concluded that we do indeed live in an information society. In his latest book he shifts from what is to what ought to be, to how our society should be organised. Duff’s work is normative and philosophical but also interdisciplinary. It fits well with the interests of readers of Ethics and Information Technology. Duff’s rationale for the book is that he sees in the information society a ‘normative crisis’, and is of the view that we should be moving towards a more just society. New norms are needed in the information society, compared with those that were developed for, and underpinned, industrial society. In four chapters, Duff outlines (1) the need for such a theory; (2) the theoretical framework he has chosen and developed (a synthesis of Rawls and Tawney, who both connect ethics with politics); (3) what this might mean in practice—by applying this particular social democratic theory to the case of news information and how this should be distributed and regulated; and (4) the implications of his theory for the appropriate nature and scope of social engineering in post-industrial societies. For Duff, some synthesis, updating, and application, of the ideas of Tawney and Rawls—on social democracy, justice and fellowship—provide the framework for his normative theory. Rawls, on the right, developed a doctrine of social justice, in which he upheld equal rights and the equality of man, and asserted that individual rights cannot be over-ridden by the welfare of society. Tawney, on the left, saw society as governed by ideals not self interest in his argument for moral egalitarianism (shared humanity) and ethical socialism; whilst not wanting the abolition of differentials, he did not want them turning into a class society. Both Rawls and Tawney reject the idea that the ends justify the means. Duff sees his fusion of the work of these two ethical and political thinkers as a politics of the centre, of social democracy. His argument is that the information society begs a new form of social engineering, which should be underpinned by his normative framework. The book—and Duff’s reading—is impressively broad, spanning political theory, information studies, core dimensions of sociology, and with a good dose of economics, media and internet studies, social policy and more. At the heart of his approach is that information is not simply a commodity, to be distributed by the market, but a social utility. Information is a key part of justice and democracy, and its distribution connects with, and needs to be informed by, notions of civil and political liberties. Thus information is a ‘primary good’ in Rawls’ terms—it is what every rational person is supposed to want, so information qualifies as an entitlement, a good in its own right, and requires equality of results. Rawls second principle, ‘the difference principle’, applies when inequalities can be justified—though Duff tempers this with Tawney’s principle of ‘fraternity’, which constrains the degree of inequality that is acceptable. Despite its clarity of structure and argument, I was left unsatisfied with Duff’s theory—for three reasons. First, I wonder about the worth of such normative work. H. Mackay (&) Department of Sociology, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK e-mail: Hugh.Mackay@open.ac.uk

Review: Thomas Berker, Maren Hartmann, Yves Punie and Kate Ward (eds), Domestication of Media and Technology. Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press, 2005. £20.99. 255 pp

there is no clear interpretive framework for understanding when communication corporations did not get their way, such as when public broadcasting was established or AT&T was broken up. How should we understand the obligations and quid pro quo that government sometimes imposed on communication corporations, such as non-discrimination of service, obligation to serve and regulated tariffs in the carrier arena and public trusteeship or the Fairness Doctrine in the broadcast arena? And how should we understand that critical, even occasionally anti-corporate viewpoints find their way on mainstream corporate media outlets? Moreover, while ‘corporate power’ is a compelling term, how do we know which segment of capital will prevail when, as is often the case, corporations vie with one another over policy? There are suggestions in the book about the power of social movements and strong presidents and the power of competition, but a coherent theory of this is not to be found. But this may be asking the book to be something it is not. Prologue to a Farce is a smart and readable overview of the history of American communications policy built on a foundation of important secondary sources and propelled by a strong thesis. It is certainly the case that US communications have been dominated by private power, but it is not just a matter of corporations’ clout, it was also the particular legacy of the American version of liberalism and the distrust of governmental power from the outset of the republic. A particularly interesting chapter explores a few examples where local citizens and governments have endeavored to create better and cheaper informational access through municipal ownership of a telecommunications system, as in Tacoma, Washington and three small towns in Illinois, or the success of Chicago Access Network TV due to strong municipal control of the cable television franchise. But these are the exceptions, and even they are usually challenged in court by corporate providers of communications services. That the First Amendment guarantee of free speech and the general distrust of government have largely empowered corporations over citizens is one of the mysteries of American history and law that this book begins to explain.