Opening the black box:
The social construction of
search engines
Astrid Mager
HUMlab, Umeå University/ Sweden
Lecture @ Wits School of Arts,
University of the Witwatersrand/ Johannesburg,
March 2011
HUMlab
founded in 1997/ 2000 (studio space)
meeting place for the humanities, culture
and information technology/ Umeå University, Sweden
„digital humanities“ – work at the intersection of computing/ new media &
humanities (social sciences) / Patrik Svensson
International collaboration/ 2 year postdoc fellowships
Googlization of Everything?
(Vaidhyanathan)
Microsoft
© Joel Saget/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Critique of search engines/
focus on implications
-
„Googlepoly“ (Pasquinelli) / gatekeeper of knowledge
Algorithm: ordering of knowledge based on popularity/ scientometrics (Mayer)
Business Model „service for profile“/ surveillance (Elmer/ Rogers)
© http://landofthefreeish.com/
© http://lonesailor.wordpress.com/
Opening the Black Box
i)
How are search engines socially constructed?
- Who are the dominant actors shaping the technology?
- What interests do they follow & what implications result from that?
- What is expected from the future?
ii) What „information politics“ do search engines trigger?
- How do search engines present, hierarchize, display their results?
- Who succeeds in the battle for attention?
- What broader consequences does this ordering mechanism trigger?
Analysis I
Analysis II
Social construction of technology (SCOT)
Basic idea:
Innovation is not a linear process,
but involves complex negotiations of
actors/ interests
„Ordinary bicyle“ back then & now –
how did this happen?
© Skoda Museum, Chech Republic,
photo by: Agnieszka Kwiecień Nova
Stabilization in actor-network of engineers, different types of cyclists & industry
– within the societal context of the emancipation of women
=> Innovation develops in the context of economic & social relationships/ within
society
Core Actor-Network
Core Actor-Network
Server Farms
Websites
Universities
Start-Ups
Interests
Skills
Technology
Money
SEO
Economic relations
Server Farms
Websites
Universities
Start-Ups
Interests
Skills
Technology
Money
SEO
Economic relations
Server Farms
Websites
Universities
Start-Ups
Business Model
SEO
Advertising
Brand Value
Interests
Skills
Money
Technology
Spamming
Feed-Back
User Profiles
Tensions & Negotiations
information retrieval:
"more data means
better results"
critical scholar: „ahm, yeah, I use
Google constantly and I do love
it, (...) it is a great search engine
for giving me what I want“
engineer: „that improves the
quality of the information (...) and
makes your site actually more
valuable“
Tensions & Negotiations
politics: "it clearly
concerns the business
and they don't deny that"
critical scholar: „that’s
to worry, that’s
information we would
not wanna have a state
to have of us“
SEO: „I mean there is dirty
things you can do to make
your website more prominent“
Contracts
Information society/ economy
Competitors
Search Engines
User Data
Mobile
Technology
Facebook,
Twitter
& co.
Contracts
Information society/ economy
Competitors
Search Engines
User Data
Mobile
Technology
Facebook,
Twitter
& co.
China
Street View
Media
Activists
Alternatives
Hacker
Education
Civil society
Open source community
Contracts
Information society/ economy
Competitors
Search Engines
User Data
Mobile
Technology
China
Street View
Media
Activists
Alternatives
Facebook,
Twitter
& co.
Hacker
Education
Civil society
Open source community
Consumer/ Data
Protection
Politics
Legislation
Nation states
UNO
FTC
EU
Contracts
Information society/ economy
Competitors
Search Engines
User Data
Mobile
Technology
China
Street View
Media
Activists
Alternatives
Facebook,
Twitter
& co.
Hacker
Education
Civil society
Open source community
Consumer/ Data
Protection
Politics
New Actor?
Legislation
Mediator
Nation states
UNO
FTC
EU
Controlling Institution
Custodian
Foundation data protection
First conclusions
SCOT perspective shows that search technology is developed/ shaped/
stabilized in a complex actor-network
 Search engine may be seen as a location where societal values are
negotiated
Core network is dominated by an economic logic – political, legal, cultural
actors stabilize the actor-network through inaction
 Incorporates the ideology of the information economy/ capitalist society
 Search engine bias/ „exploitation of collective intelligence“ (Pasquinelli)/
commercialization of knowledge
Future developments?
Not enough to blame the „Googlepoly“ (Pasquinelli)
 understand the mechanisms behind power creation and stabilization
 understand that we are all part of the picture
Future is not set
 open to debate and potential social intervention
Questions to ask:
Do we really want to leave the task of „organizing the world‘s information“ to
a private firm with a clearly commercial agenda?
Who else could/ should take part in the shaping of search technology/ the
culture of search/ our access to knowledge/ construction of social reality?
How could we – as a society – strengthen these actors & their interests?
Further info/ contact
Thanks for your attention!
astrid.mager@humlab.umu.se
http://www.notesfromastridmager.tk/