Search This Blog

Thursday, January 23, 2020

Generation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation
 
A generation is "all of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively." It can also be described as, "the average period, generally considered to be about thirty years, during which children are born and grow up, become adults, and begin to have children of their own". In kinship terminology, it is a structural term designating the parent-child relationship. It is also known as biogenesis, reproduction, or procreation in the biological sciences

Generation is also often used synonymously with cohort in social science; under this formulation it means "people within a delineated population who experience the same significant events within a given period of time". Generations in this sense of birth cohort, also known as "social generations", are widely used in popular culture, and have been the basis for sociological analysis. Serious analysis of generations began in the nineteenth century, emerging from an increasing awareness of the possibility of permanent social change and the idea of youthful rebellion against the established social order. Some analysts believe that a generation is one of the fundamental social categories in a society, while others view its importance as being overshadowed by other factors including class, gender, race, and education, among others.

Etymology

The word generate comes from the Latin generāre, meaning "to beget". The word generation as a Group or cohort in social science signifies the entire body of individuals born and living at about the same time, most of whom are approximately the same age and have similar ideas, problems, and attitudes (e.g., Beat Generation and Lost Generation).

Familial generation

Five generations of one Armenian family—a child with her mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and great-great-grandmother. (photograph dated from book published in 1901)

A familial generation is a group of living beings constituting a single step in the line of descent from an ancestor. In developed nations the average familial generation length is in the high 20s and has even reached 30 years in some nations. Factors such as greater industrialisation and demand for cheap labour, urbanisation, delayed first pregnancy and a greater uncertainty in both employment income and relationship stability have all contributed to the increase of the generation length from the late 18th century to the present. These changes can be attributed to social factors, such as GDP and state policy, globalization, automation, and related individual-level variables, particularly a woman's educational attainment. Conversely, in less-developed nations, generation length has changed little and remains in the low 20s.

An intergenerational rift in the nuclear family, between the parents and two or more of their children, is one of several possible dynamics of a dysfunctional family. Coalitions in families are subsystems within families with more rigid boundaries and are thought to be a sign of family dysfunction.

Social generation

Social generations are cohorts of people born in the same date range and who share similar cultural experiences. The idea of a social generation, in the sense that it is used today, gained currency in the 19th century. Prior to that the concept "generation" had generally referred to family relationships and not broader social groupings. In 1863, French lexicographer Emile Littré had defined a generation as, "all people coexisting in society at any given time".

Several trends promoted a new idea of generations, as the 19th century wore on, of a society divided into different categories of people based on age. These trends were all related to the processes of modernisation, industrialisation, or westernisation, which had been changing the face of Europe since the mid-18th century. One was a change in mentality about time and social change. The increasing prevalence of enlightenment ideas encouraged the idea that society and life were changeable, and that civilization could progress. This encouraged the equation of youth with social renewal and change. Political rhetoric in the 19th century often focused on the renewing power of youth influenced by movements such as Young Italy, Young Germany, Sturm und Drang, the German Youth Movement, and other romantic movements. By the end of the 19th century, European intellectuals were disposed toward thinking of the world in generational terms—in terms of youth rebellion and emancipation.

Two important contributing factors to the change in mentality were the change in the economic structure of society. Because of the rapid social and economic change, young men particularly were less beholden to their fathers and family authority than they had been. Greater social and economic mobility allowed them to flout their authority to a much greater extent than had traditionally been possible. Additionally, the skills and wisdom of fathers were often less valuable than they had been due to technological and social change. During this time, the period between childhood and adulthood, usually spent at university or in military service, was also increased for many people entering white-collar jobs. This category of people was very influential in spreading the ideas of youthful renewal.

Another important factor was the breakdown of traditional social and regional identifications. The spread of nationalism and many of the factors that created it (a national press, linguistic homogenisation, public education, suppression of local particularities) encouraged a broader sense of belonging beyond local affiliations. People thought of themselves increasingly as part of a society, and this encouraged identification with groups beyond the local. Auguste Comte was the first philosopher to make a serious attempt to systematically study generations. In Cours de philosophie positive Comte suggested that social change is determined by generational change and in particular conflict between successive generations. As the members of a given generation age, their "instinct of social conservation" becomes stronger, which inevitably and necessarily brings them into conflict with the "normal attribute of youth"—innovation. Other important theorists of the 19th century were John Stuart Mill and Wilhelm Dilthey.

Sociologist Karl Mannheim was a seminal figure in the study of generations. He elaborated a theory of generations in his 1923 essay The Problem of Generations. He suggested that there had been a division into two primary schools of study of generations until that time. Firstly, positivists such as Comte measured social change in designated life spans. Mannheim argued that this reduced history to "a chronological table". The other school, the "romantic-historical" was represented by Dilthey and Martin Heidegger. This school focused on the individual qualitative experience at the expense of social context. Mannheim emphasised that the rapidity of social change in youth was crucial to the formation of generations, and that not every generation would come to see itself as distinct. In periods of rapid social change a generation would be much more likely to develop a cohesive character. He also believed that a number of distinct sub-generations could exist.

According to Gilleard and Higgs, Mannheim identified three commonalities that a generation shares:
  • Shared temporal location – generational site or birth cohort
  • Shared historical location – generation as actuality or exposure to a common era
  • Shared sociocultural location – generational consciousness or "entelechy"
Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe developed the Strauss-Howe generational theory outlining what they saw as a pattern of generations repeating throughout American history. This theory became quite influential with the public and reignited an interest in the sociology of generations. This led to the creation of an industry of consulting, publishing, and marketing in the field. The theory has alternatively been criticized by social scientists and journalists who argue it is non-falsifiable, deterministic, and unsupported by rigorous evidence.

Generational theory

While the concept of a generation has a long history and can be found in ancient literature, there are also psychological and sociological dimensions in the sense of belonging and identity which may define a generation. The concept of a generation can be used to locate particular birth cohorts in specific historical and cultural circumstances, such as the "Baby boomers".

Historian Hans Jaeger shows that, during this long history, two schools of thought coalesced regarding how generations form: the "pulse-rate hypothesis" and the "imprint hypothesis." According to the pulse-rate hypothesis, a society's entire population can be divided into a series of non-overlapping cohorts, each of which develops a unique "peer personality" because of the time period in which each cohort came of age. The movement of these cohorts from one life-stage to the next creates a repeating cycle that shapes the history of that society. Currently, the most prominent example of pulse-rate generational theory is the Strauss-Howe generational theory; however, Jose Ortega y Gasset and Julian Marias followed this approach before them.

Social scientists tend to reject the pulse-rate hypothesis because, as Jaeger explains, "the concrete results of the theory of the universal pulse rate of history are, of course, very modest. With a few exceptions, the same goes for the partial pulse-rate theories. Since they generally gather data without any knowledge of statistical principles, the authors are often least likely to notice to what extent the jungle of names and numbers which they present lacks any convincing organization according to generations."

Social scientists follow the "imprint hypothesis" of generations, which can be traced to Karl Mannheim's theory of generations. According to the imprint hypothesis, generations are only produced by specific historical events that cause young people to perceive the world differently than their elders. Thus, not everyone may be part of a generation; only those who share a unique social and biographical experience of an important historical moment will become part of a "generation as an actuality." When following the imprint hypothesis, social scientists face a number of challenges. They cannot accept the labels and chronological boundaries of generations that come from the pulse-rate hypothesis (like Generation X or Millennial); instead, the chronological boundaries of generations must be determined inductively and who is part of the generation must be determined through historical, quantitative, and qualitative analysis.

While all generations have similarities, there are differences among them as well. A 2007 Pew Research Center report called "Millennials: Confident. Connected. Open to Change" noted the challenge of studying generations: "Generational analysis has a long and distinguished place in social science, and we cast our lot with those scholars who believe it is not only possible, but often highly illuminating, to search for the unique and distinctive characteristics of any given age group of Americans. But we also know this is not an exact science. We are mindful that there are as many differences in attitudes, values, behaviors, and lifestyles within a generation as there are between generations. But we believe this reality does not diminish the value of generational analysis; it merely adds to its richness and complexity." Another element of generational theory is recognizing how youth experience their generation, and how that changes based on where they reside in the world. "Analyzing young people's experiences in place contributes to a deeper understanding of the processes of individualization, inequality, and of generation." Being able to take a closer looks at youth cultures and subcultures in different times and places adds an extra element to understanding the everyday lives of youth. This allows a better understanding of youth and the way generation and place play in their development.

It is not where the birth cohort boundaries are drawn that is important, but how individuals and societies interpret the boundaries and how divisions may shape processes and outcomes. However, the practice of categorizing age cohorts is useful to researchers for the purpose of constructing boundaries in their work.

Generational tension

Norman Ryder, writing in American Sociological Review in 1965, shed light on the sociology of the discord between generations by suggesting that society "persists despite the mortality of its individual members, through processes of demographic metabolism and particularly the annual infusion of birth cohorts". He argued that generations may sometimes be a "threat to stability" but at the same time they represent "the opportunity for social transformation". Ryder attempted to understand the dynamics at play between generations. 

Amanda Grenier, in a 2007 essay published in Journal of Social Issues, offered another source of explanation for why generational tensions exist. Grenier asserted that generations develop their own linguistic models that contribute to misunderstanding between age cohorts, "Different ways of speaking exercised by older and younger people exist, and may be partially explained by social historical reference points, culturally determined experiences, and individual interpretations".

Karl Mannheim, in his 1952 book Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge asserted the belief that people are shaped through lived experiences as a result of social change. Howe and Strauss also have written on the similarities of people within a generation being attributed to social change. Based on the way these lived experiences shape a generation in regard to values, the result is that the new generation will challenge the older generation's values, resulting in tension. This challenge between generations and the tension that arises is a defining point for understanding generations and what separates them.

List of named generations


Western world

The Western world includes Western Europe, the Americas and Australasia. Many variations may exist within these regions, both geographically and culturally, which means that the list is broadly indicative, but very general. The contemporary characterization of these cohorts used in media and advertising borrows, in part, from the Strauss–Howe generational theory and generally follows the logic of the pulse-rate hypothesis.
  • This photograph depicts four generations of one family: a baby boy, his mother, his maternal grandmother, and his maternal great-grandmother. (2008)
  • The Silent Generation, also known as the Lucky Few, were born from approximately 1928 to 1945. In the US, the cohort includes some who may have fought in World War II, most of those who may have fought the Korean War and many of those who may have fought during the Vietnam War.
  • Baby boomers, also known as Generation W, the Me Generation or Boomers[41], are the generation that were born mostly following World War II, typically born from 1946 to 1964. Increased birth rates were observed during the post–World War II baby boom making them a relatively large demographic cohort.
  • Generation X, commonly abbreviated to Gen X, is the generation following the baby boomers. Researchers and popular media typically use birth years around 1965 to 1980 to define Generation Xers, although some sources use birth years beginning as early as 1960 and ending somewhere from 1977 to 1984. The term has also been used in different times and places for a number of different subcultures or countercultures since the 1950s.
    • In the U.S., some called Xers the "baby bust" generation because of a drop in birth rates following the baby boom. The drop in fertility rates in America began in the late 1950s. But according to authors William Strauss and Neil Howe (who use a twenty year span from 1961 to 1981 for their birth years), by 1991 there were approximately 88.5 million Xers in the U.S.
  • Millennials, also known as Generation Y, are the cohort of people following Generation X. Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with 1981 to 1996 a widely accepted definition. According to Pew Research, the Millennials will surpass the Baby Boomers in numbers in the U.S. in 2019, with an anticipated 72 million Boomers and 73 million Millennials.
  • Generation Z, also referred to as Gen Z is the cohort of people born after the Millennials. Demographers and researchers typically use the mid- to late-1990s as starting birth years, while consensus has not been reached on the ending birth years, although 2012 is a widely accepted cutoff.
  • Generation Alpha, also known as Gen A and as the Generation of the Future, the post Millennial generation, and Generation Z. The accepted starting date is 2011 and will end approximately 2025. Most, but not all, of these babies will be born to millennial parents, and will be the third generation born under the War on Terror (1978–present). Living only in an age of technology, this will be one of the most targeted demographics for advertising; even starting in their toddler years, app developers and brands will be focusing on building loyalty to their products. Being environmentally conscious will heavily influence life style and choices. AI and robot interaction will be commonplace, creating new ways of thinking and ways of doing things. Often referred to having jobs that don't yet exist, higher education and specialization will be key for success, during a new age of automation with neural nets and AI.

Other areas

  • In Armenia, people born after the country's independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 are known as the "Independence generation".
  • In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the generation of people born in Czechoslovakia during the baby boom which started in the early 1970s, during the period of "normalization" are called "Husák's children". The generation was named after the President and long-term Communist leader of Czechoslovakia, Gustáv Husák.[53]
  • In the People's Republic of China, the "Post-80s" (Chinese: 八零后世代 or 八零后) (born-after-1980 generation) are those who were born in the 1980s in urban areas of Mainland China. Growing up in modern China, the Post-80s has been characterised by its optimism for the future, newfound excitement for consumerism and entrepreneurship and acceptance of its historic role in transforming modern China into an economic power.[54] There is also the similarly named Post-90s (Chinese: 九零后), referring to modern teenagers and college students.[citation needed] A broader generational classification would be the "one-child generation" born between the introduction of the one-child policy in 1980 and its softening into a "two-child policy" in 2013. The lack of siblings has had profound psychological effects on this generation, such as egoism due to always being at the centre of parents' attention as well as the stress of having to be the sole provider once the parents retire.
  • People born post-1980s in Hong Kong are for the most part different from the same generation in mainland China.[55] The term "Post-80s" (八十後) came into use in Hong Kong between 2009 and 2010, particularly during the opposition to the Guangzhou-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, during which a group of young activists came to the forefront of Hong Kong's political scene.[56] They are said to be "post-materialist" in outlook, and they are particularly vocal in issues such as urban development, culture and heritage, and political reform. Their campaigns include the fight for the preservation of Lee Tung Street, the Star Ferry Pier and the Queen's Pier, Choi Yuen Tsuen Village, real political reform (on 23 June), and a citizen-oriented Kowloon West Art district. Their discourse mainly develops around themes such as anti-colonialism, sustainable development, and democracy.
  • In Israel, where most Ashkenazi Jews born before the end of World War II were Holocaust survivors, children of survivors and people who survived as babies are sometimes referred to as the "second generation (of Holocaust survivors)" (Hebrew: דור שני לניצולי שואה, dor sheni lenitsolei shoah; or more often just דור שני לשואה, dor sheni lashoah, literally "second generation to the Holocaust"). This term is particularly common in the context of mental, social, and political implications of the individual and national transgenerational trauma caused by the Holocaust. Some researchers have also found signs of trauma in third-generation Holocaust survivors.[57]
  • In Germany, generations widely follow the Western world pattern but have many aspects of different Vergangenheitsbewältigung. In German history the start and abolition of Gleichschaltung in mass movements (Nazi Hitlerjugend and later communist Free German Youth) also shaped generations.[citation needed] The baby boomer generation was heavily challenging their parents and relatives with their past in Nazi Germany and in World War II as well as their (individual) responsibility for the Holocaust but also the survival of the Third Reich in (West) German administration, science, legislation and culture due to claimed unsuccessful denazification. It formed German student movement which translated West Germany in some aspects. Later, Generation Golf (named after the VW Golf) is very similar to Generation X describing the generation that was raised in late West Germany with the specific background of the German separation, then deadlocked German question and cold-war threats.[citation needed] The East German generation which was born in the mid-eighties and later was little influenced and indoctrinated by East German Communist education system and not captured by Free German Youth. Children in the New states of Germany who were not older than seven years during German Reunification are often in a stronger cultural contrast to their parents and relatives while those who were slightly older saw a massive change in their school system, syllabi and breakdown of the youth welfare but also unexpected opportunities and chances in modern Germany.[citation needed]
  • In Poland, two important groups with a shared generational identity are recognized: the Generation of Columbuses, who were born during the brief period of Polish independence in the interbellum and survived World War II, and the "generation of free Poland", born after the dissolution of communism in 1989.[citation needed]
  • In Romania, all people who were born in 1989 are called the Revolution Generation because communism fell that year and Romania experienced a violent revolution that ended the communist regime of Nicolae Ceaușescu and brought democracy to Romania.[citation needed] There was also a demographic called "Decrețeii", representing those that were born during the effect of the communism regime applied Decree 770, which lasted between 1967 and 1989.
  • In Singapore, people born before 1949 are referred to as the "Pioneer Generation" for their contributions to Singapore during the nation's nascency. Likewise, those born between 1950 and 1959 are referred to as the "Merdeka Generation" as their formative years were during the political turbulence of the 1950s to 1960s in Singapore.[58]
  • In South Africa, people born after the first democratic election held after apartheid are often referred to in media as the "born-free generation".[59][60][61]
  • In South Korea, generational cohorts are often defined around the democratization of the country, with various schemes suggested including names such as the "democratization generation", 386 generation[62][63] (named after Intel 386 computer in the 1990s to describe people in their late 30s and early 40s who were born in the 1960s, and attended university/college in the 1980s, also called the "June 3, 1987 generation"), that witnessed the June uprising, the "April 19 generation" (that struggled against the Syngman Rhee regime in 1960), the "June 3 generation" (that struggled against the normalization treaty with Japan in 1964), the "1969 generation" (that struggled against the constitutional revision allowing three presidential terms), and the shin-se-dae ("new") generation.[63][64][65] The term Shin-se-dae generation refers to the generation following Millennials in the Korean language. The Shin-se-dae generation are mostly free from ideological or political bias.[66]
  • In India, generations tend to follow a pattern similar to the broad Western model, although there are still major differences, especially in the older generations.[67] One interpretation sees India's independence in 1947 as India's major generational shift. People born in the 1930s and 1940s tended to be loyal to the new state and tended to adhere to "traditional" divisions of society. Indian "boomers", those born after independence and into the early 1960s, witnessed events like the Indian Emergency between 1975 and 1977 which made a number of them somewhat skeptical of government. Gen Xers experienced India's economic ascendance and are more comfortable with diverse perspectives. Generation Y continues this pattern.[citation needed]
  • In the Philippines, people also identify with Western terms such as "Generation X" and "Millennials", with Filipinos born before or during the Second World War (as well as those living as adults in that period) constituting an unofficial generation. "Martial Law Babies" are generally defined as people born in the time period between the imposition of Martial Law by President Ferdinand Marcos on 21 September 1972 and its formal lifting in January 1981.[68] The term is sometimes extended to anyone born within Marcos' entire 21-year rule, while those born after the 1986 People Power Revolution that toppled the regime are sometimes termed "EDSA Babies".[69]
  • In Taiwan, the term Strawberry generation refers to Taiwanese people born after 1981 who "bruise easily" like strawberries – meaning they can not withstand social pressure or work hard like their parents' generation; the term refers to people who are insubordinate, spoiled, selfish, arrogant, and sluggish in work.
  • 9X Generation is a Vietnamese term for people born during the 1990s.
  • In Russia characteristics of Russian generations are determined by fateful historical event that significantly changes either the foundations of the life of the country as a whole or the rules of life in a certain period of time. Are named and given descriptions of Russian generations: the Generation of Winners, the generation of the Cold War, the generation of Perestroika, the first non-Soviet generation (the children of Perestroika, the Witnesses of Perestroika), the digital generation.

Other terminology

The term generation is sometimes applied to a cultural movement, or more narrowly defined group than an entire demographic. Some examples include:
  • The Stolen Generations, refers to children of Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islander (AATSI) descent, who were removed from their families by the Australian Federal and State government agencies and church missions, under acts of their respective parliaments between approximately 1869 and 1969.
  • The Beat Generation, refers to a popular American cultural movement widely cited by social scholars as having laid the foundation of the pro-active American counterculture of the 1960s. It consisted of Americans born between the two world wars who came of age in the rise of the automobile era, and the surrounding accessibility they brought to the culturally diverse, yet geographically broad and separated nation.
  • Generation Jones is a term coined by Jonathan Pontell to describe the cohort of people born between 1954 and 1965. The term is used primarily in English-speaking countries. Pontell defined Generation Jones as referring to the second half of the post–World War II baby boom. The term also includes first-wave Generation X.
  • MTV Generation, a term referring to the adolescents and young adults of the 1980s and early 1990s who were heavily influenced by the MTV television channel. It is often used synonymously with Generation X.
  • In Europe, a variety of terms have emerged in different countries particularly hard hit following the financial crisis of 2007–2008 to designate young people with limited employment and career prospects. The Generation of 500 is a term popularized by the Greek mass media and refers to educated Greek twixters of urban centers who generally fail to establish a career. Young adults are usually forced into underemployment in temporary and occasional jobs, unrelated to their educational background, and receive the minimum allowable base salary of €500. This generation evolved in circumstances leading to the Greek debt crisis and participated in the 2010–2011 Greek protests. In Spain, they are referred to as the mileurista (for €1,000), in France "The Precarious Generation", and in Italy also the generation of 1,000 euros.
  • Xennials, Oregon Trail Generation (based on a pioneering video game that only members of the generation can recall), and Generation Catalano are terms used to describe individuals born during Generation X/Millennial cusp years. The neologistic term "Xennials" is a portmanteau blending the words Generation X and Millennials to describe a "micro-generation" or "cross-over generation" of people whose birth years are between the late 1970s and the early to mid 1980s.

Oxford Internet Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Internet_Institute
 
Front door of the Oxford Internet Institute on St Giles, Oxford.

The Oxford Internet Institute (OII) is a multi-disciplinary department of social and computer science dedicated to the study of information, communication, and technology, and is part of the Social Sciences Division of the University of Oxford, England. It is housed over three sites on St Giles in Oxford, including a primary site at 1 St Giles, owned by Balliol College. The department undertakes research and teaching devoted to understanding life online, with the aim of shaping Internet research, policy, and practice.

Founded in 2001, the OII has tracked the Internet's development and use, aiming to shed light on individual, collective and institutional behaviour online. The department brings together academics from a wide range of disciplines including political science, sociology, geography, economics, philosophy, physics and psychology.

The current director is Professor Philip N. Howard

Research

Research at the OII covers a huge variety of topics, with faculty publishing journal articles and books on issues including privacy and security, e-government and e-democracy, virtual economies, smart cities, digital exclusion, digital humanities, online gaming, big data and Internet geography. The OII currently has the following research clusters reflecting the diverse expertise of faculty:
  • Digital Politics and Government
  • Information Governance and Security
  • Social Data Science
  • Connectivity, Inclusion and Inequality
  • Internet Economies
  • Digital Knowledge and Culture
  • Education, Digital Life and Wellbeing
  • Ethics and Philosophy of Information
The faculty and students of the OII have made many advances to the study of technology and society. Director Helen Margetts' book Political Turbulence was the first book-length manuscript on the impact of social media on public life. Viktor Mayer-Schönberger's book Big Data was the first to define and explain the importance of big data in contemporary economics, culture, and politics. His 2018 work Reinventing Capitalism in the Age of Big Data focuses on the role of platforms for allocating demand and supply beyond the price mechanism. Professor Philip N. Howard was the first political scientist to define and study astroturfing and has been responsible for significant research on fake news, bots and trolls in international affairs. Luciano Floridi is the world's leading ethicist on AI and big data. 

Studies of Wikipedia

OII has published several studies in Internet geography and Wikipedia. In November 2011, the Guardian Data Blog published maps of geotagged Wikipedia articles written in English, Arabic, Egyptian Arabic, French, Hebrew and Persian. OII Senior Research Fellow Mark Graham led the study and published the results on his blog, Zero Geography. Graham also leads an OII project focused on how new users are perceived, represented, and incorporated into the Wikipedia community. In 2013, OII researchers led by Taha Yasseri published a study of controversial topics in 10 different language versions of Wikipedia, using data related to "edit wars". As of late, the OII has, amongst other things, been involved in research on the effects of computational propaganda, the ethics of big data in different contexts and the political implications of the Internet and social media. It closely collaborates with other institutions of the University of Oxford such as the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, the department for computer science and the Oxford Martin School. 

Teaching

Since 2006, the OII has offered a DPhil (doctoral) degree in "Information, Communication, and the Social Sciences." Since 2009, it has offered a one-year Master of Science (MSc) degree in "Social Science of the Internet". From 2015, prospective students can apply to study the MSc degree part-time over two years. In addition, the department also runs an annual Summer Doctoral Programme which brings outstanding PhD students to study at the OII for two weeks each July. From 2018, prospective students also have the option to apply for a one-year Master of Science degree in Social Data Science with the related DPhil in Social Data Science available from 2020 onward.

History

The Oxford Internet Institute was made possible by a major donation from the Shirley Foundation of over £10m, with public funding totalling over £5m from the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

The idea originated with Derek Wyatt MP and Andrew Graham, then Master-Elect of Balliol. Two Balliol Alumni, who knew Dame Stephanie from The Worshipful Company of Information Technologists, approached Dame Stephanie for support.

The Oxford Internet Institute is part of a small network of research centres that includes the centres like the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society and Information Society Project at Yale Law School. But it is the only one that functions as a fully functioning, degree-granting department. 

Directors


Faculty


OII awards

For its 10th anniversary the OII launched the OII awards for lifetime achievement awards on the internet research field and the Internet & Society awards for significant recent contribution to develop the internet for public good.

Lifetime achievement awards winners

2016:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:

Internet and society awards

2016:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society

 
Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society
BKC Ltd Horz RGB.png
MottoExploring cyberspace, sharing in its study & pioneering its development.
Formation1998
TypeTechnology research center
Location
Websitecyber.harvard.edu

The Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society is a research center at Harvard University that focuses on the study of cyberspace. Founded at Harvard Law School, the center traditionally focused on internet-related legal issues. On May 15, 2008, the Center was elevated to an interfaculty initiative of Harvard University as a whole. It is named after the Berkman family. On July 5, 2016, the Center added "Klein" to its name following a gift of $15 million from Michael R. Klein.

History and mission

The location at 23 Everett Street

The center was founded in 1996 as the "Center on Law and Technology" by Jonathan Zittrain and Professor Charles Nesson. This built on previous work including a 1994 seminar they held on legal issues involving the early Internet. Professor Arthur Miller and students David Marglin and Tom Smuts also worked on that seminar and related discussions. In 1997, the Berkman family underwrote the center, and Lawrence Lessig joined as the first Berkman professor. In 1998, the center changed its name to the "Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School". Since then, it has grown from a small project within Harvard Law School to a major interdisciplinary center at Harvard University. The Berkman Klein Center seeks to understand how the development of Internet-related technologies is inspired by the social context in which they are embedded and how the use of those technologies affects society in turn. It seeks to use the lessons drawn from this research to inform the design of Internet-related law and pioneer the development of the Internet itself. The Berkman Klein Center sponsors Internet-related events and conferences, and hosts numerous visiting lecturers and research fellows.

Members of the center teach, write books, scientific articles, weblogs with RSS 2.0 feeds (for which the Center holds the specification), and podcasts (of which the first series took place at the Berkman Klein Center). Its newsletter, The Buzz, is on the Web and available by e-mail, and it hosts a blog community of Harvard faculty, students, and Berkman Klein Center affiliates.

The Berkman Klein Center faculty and staff have also conducted major public policy reviews of pressing issues. In 2008, John Palfrey led a review of child safety online called the Internet Safety Technical Task Force. In 2009, Yochai Benkler led a review of United States broadband policy. In 2010, Urs Gasser, along with Palfrey and others, led a review of Internet governance body ICANN, focusing on transparency, accountability, and public participation.

Projects and initiatives

The Berkman Klein Center's main research topics are Teens and Media, Monitoring, Privacy, Digital art, Internet Governance, Cloud Computing and Internet censorship. The Berkman Klein Center supports events, presentations, and conferences about the Internet and invites scientists to share their ideas.

Digital Media Law Project

The Digital Media Law Project (DMLP) was a project hosted by the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. It had previously been known as the Citizen Media Law Project. The purposes of the DMLP were:
  1. To provide resources and other assistance, including legal assistance as of 2009, to individuals and groups involved in online and citizen media.
  2. To "ensur[e] that online journalists, media organizations, and their sources are allowed to examine and debate network security and data protection vulnerabilities without criminal punishment, in order to inform citizens and lawmakers about networked computer security."
  3. To facilitate the participation of citizens in online media.
  4. To protect the freedom of speech on the Internet.
In 2014, Berkman Klein Center announced that it would "spin off its most effective initiatives and cease operation as a stand-alone project within the Berkman Klein Center."

Internet and Democracy Project

The Berkman Klein Center operated the now-completed Internet and Democracy Project, which describes itself as an:
initiative that will examine how the Internet influences democratic norms and modes, including its impact on civil society, citizen media, government transparency, and the rule of law, with a focus on the Middle East. Through a grant of $1.5 million from the US Department of State's Middle East Partnership Initiative, the Berkman Center will undertake the study over the next two years in collaboration with its extended community and institutional partners. As with all its projects, the Berkman Center retains complete independence in its research and other efforts under this grant.
The goal of this work is to support the rights of citizens to access, develop and share independent sources of information, to advocate responsibly, to strengthen online networks, and to debate ideas freely with both civil society and government. These subjects will be examined through a series of case studies in which new technologies and online resources have influenced democracy and civic engagement. The project will include original research and the identification and development of innovative web-based tools that support the goals of the project. The team, led by Project Director Bruce Etling, will draw on communities from around the world, with a focus on the Middle East.

StopBadware

In 2006, the Center established the non-profit organization StopBadware, aiming to stop viruses, spyware, and other threats to the open Internet, in partnership with the Oxford Internet Institute, Google, Lenovo and Sun Microsystems. In 2010, StopBadware became an independent entity supported by Google, PayPal, and Mozilla.

Digital Public Library of America

The Digital Public Library of America is a project aimed at making a large-scale digital public library accessible to all.

Ethics and Governance of Artificial Intelligence

In 2017, the BKC received a $27M grant with the MIT Media Lab to "advance Artificial Intelligence research for the public good" and "to ensure automation and machine learning are researched, developed, and deployed in a way which vindicate social values of fairness, human autonomy, and justice".

Members



The center also has active groups of faculty associates, affiliates and alumni who host and participate in their projects each year.

Students for Free Culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Free_Culture 
 
Students for Free Culture
Free Culture dot org logo.png
Websitefreeculture.org

Students for Free Culture, formerly known as FreeCulture.org, is an international student organization working to promote free culture ideals, such as cultural participation and access to information. It was inspired by the work of former Stanford, now Harvard, law professor Lawrence Lessig, who wrote the book Free Culture, and it frequently collaborates with other prominent free culture NGOs, including Creative Commons, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Public Knowledge. Students for Free Culture has over 30 chapters on college campuses around the world, and a history of grassroots activism.

Students for Free Culture is sometimes referred to as "FreeCulture", "the Free Culture Movement", and other variations on the "free culture" theme, but none of those are its official name. It is officially Students for Free Culture, as set for in the new bylaws that were ratified by its chapters on October 1, 2007, which changed its name from FreeCulture.org to Students for Free Culture.

Goals

Students for Free Culture has stated its goals in a "manifesto":
The mission of the Free Culture movement is to build a bottom-up, participatory structure to society and culture, rather than a top-down, closed, proprietary structure. Through the democratizing power of digital technology and the Internet, we can place the tools of creation and distribution, communication and collaboration, teaching and learning into the hands of the common person -- and with a truly active, connected, informed citizenry, injustice and oppression will slowly but surely vanish from the earth.
It has yet to publish a more "official" mission statement, but some of its goals are:
  • decentralization of creativity—getting ordinary people and communities involved with art, science, journalism and other creative industries, especially through new technologies
  • reforming copyright, patent, and trademark law in the public interest, ensuring that new creators are not stifled by old creators
  • making important information available to the public

Purpose

According to its website, Students for Free Culture has four main functions within the free culture movement:
  1. Creating and providing resources for its chapters and for the general public
  2. Outreach to youth and students
  3. Networking with other people, companies and organizations in the free culture movement
  4. Issue advocacy on behalf of its members

History


Initial stirrings at Swarthmore College

Students for Free Culture had its origins in the Swarthmore Coalition for the Digital Commons (SCDC), a student group at Swarthmore College. The SCDC was founded in 2003 by students Luke Smith and Nelson Pavlosky, and was originally focused on issues related to free software, digital restrictions management, and treacherous computing, inspired largely by the Free Software Foundation. After watching Lawrence Lessig's OSCON 2002 speech entitled "free culture" however, they expanded the club's scope to cover cultural participation in general (rather than just in the world of software and computers), and began tackling issues such as copyright reform. In September 2004, SCDC was renamed Free Culture Swarthmore, laying the groundwork for Students for Free Culture and making it the first existing chapter. 

OPG v. Diebold case

Within a couple of months of founding the SCDC, Smith and Pavlosky became embroiled in the controversy surrounding Diebold Election Systems (now Premier Election Solutions), a voting machine manufacturer accused of making bug-ridden and insecure electronic voting machines. The SCDC had been concerned about electronic voting machines using proprietary software rather than open source software, and kept an eye on the situation. Their alarm grew when a copy of Diebold's internal e-mail archives leaked onto the Internet, revealing questionable practices at Diebold and possible flaws with Diebold's machines, and they were spurred into action when Diebold began sending legal threats to voting activists who posted the e-mails on their websites. Diebold was claiming that the e-mails were their copyrighted material, and that anyone who posted these e-mails online was infringing upon their intellectual property. The SCDC posted the e-mail archive on its website and prepared for the inevitable legal threats.

Diebold sent takedown notices under the DMCA to the SCDC's ISP, Swarthmore College. Swarthmore took down the SCDC website, and the SCDC co-founders sought legal representation. They contacted the Electronic Frontier Foundation for help, and discovered that they had an opportunity to sign on to an existing lawsuit against Diebold, OPG v. Diebold, with co-plaintiffs from a non-profit ISP called the Online Policy Group who had also received legal threats from Diebold. With pro bono legal representation from EFF and the Stanford Cyberlaw Clinic, they sued Diebold for abusing copyright law to suppress freedom of speech online. After a year of legal battles, the judge ruled that posting the e-mails online was a fair use, and that Diebold had violated the DMCA by misrepresenting their copyright claims over the e-mails. 

The network of contacts that Smith and Pavlosky built during the lawsuit, including dozens of students around the country who had also hosted the Diebold memos on their websites, gave them momentum they needed to found an international student movement based on the same free culture principles as the SCDC. They purchased the domain name Freeculture.org and began building a website, while contacting student activists at other schools who could help them start the organization. 

FreeCulture.org launching at Swarthmore

On April 23, 2004, Smith and Pavlosky announced the official launch of FreeCulture.org, in an event at Swarthmore College featuring Lawrence Lessig as the keynote speaker (Lessig had released his book Free Culture less than a month beforehand.) The SCDC became the first Freeculture.org chapter (beginning the process of changing its name to Free Culture Swarthmore), and students from other schools in the area who attended the launch went on to found chapters on their campuses, including Bryn Mawr College and Franklin and Marshall.

Internet campaigns

FreeCulture.org began by launching a number of internet campaigns, in an attempt to raise its profile and bring itself to the attention of college students. These have covered issues ranging from defending artistic freedom (Barbie in a Blender) to fighting the Induce Act (Save The iPod), from celebrating Creative Commons licenses and the public domain (Undead Art) to opposing business method patents (Cereal Solidarity). While these one-shot websites succeeded in attracting attention from the press and encouraged students to get involved, they didn't directly help the local chapters, and the organization now concentrates less on web campaigns than it did in the past. However, their recent Down With DRM video contest was a successful "viral video" campaign against DRM, and internet campaigns remain an important tool in free culture activism.

Increased emphasis on local chapters

Currently the organization focuses on providing services to its local campus chapters, including web services such as mailing lists and wikis, pamphlets and materials for tabling, and organizing conferences where chapter members can meet up. Active chapters are located at schools such as New York University (NYU), Harvard, MIT, Fordham Law, Dartmouth, University of Florida, Swarthmore, USC, Emory, Reed, and Yale

The NYU chapter made headlines when it began protesting outside of record stores against DRM on CDs during the Sony rootkit scandal, resulting in similar protests around New York and Philadelphia.
In 2008, the MIT chapter developed and released YouTomb, a website to track videos removed by DMCA takedown from YouTube.

Other activities at local chapters include:
  • art shows featuring Creative Commons-licensed art,
  • mix CD-exchanging flash mobs,
  • film-remixing contests,
  • iPod liberating parties, where the organizers help people replace the proprietary DRM-encumbered operating system on their iPods with a free software system like Rockbox,
  • Antenna Alliance, a project that provides free recording space to bands, releases their music online under Creative Commons licenses, and distributes the music to college radio stations,
  • a campaign to promote open access on university campuses.

Structure

Students for Free Culture began as a loose confederation of student groups on different campuses, but it has been moving towards becoming an official tax-exempt non-profit.

With the passage of official bylaws, Students for Free Culture now has a clear governance structure which makes it accountable to its chapters. The supreme decision-making body is the Board of Directors, which is elected once a year by the chapters, using a Schulze method for voting. It is meant to make long-term, high-level decisions, and should not meddle excessively in lower-level decisions. Practical everyday decisions will be made by the Core team, composed of any students who are members of chapters and meet the attendance requirements. Really low-level decisions and minutiae will be handled by a coordinator, who ideally will be a paid employee of the organization, and other volunteers and assistants. A new board of directors was elected in February 2008, and a new Core Team was assembled shortly thereafter. There is no coordinator yet.

Operator (computer programming)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_(computer_programmin...