socofpowerСоциология властиSociology of Power2074-04922413-144XThe Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public AdministrationYMCUPZsocofpower-314Research ArticleСТАТЬИARTICLESИнтернет-исследования: исторический обзор и анализ производства знанияInternet Studies: Historical Review and Analysis of the Knowledge ProductionКолозаридиПолина В.KolozaridiPolina V.

Кандидат социологических наук, интернет-исследователь, научный сотрудник

PhD in sociology, internet researcher

poli.kolozaridi@gmail.comНИУ Высшая школа экономикиРоссияNRU “Higher School of Economics”Russian Federation2018110820253036992Copyright © Колозариди П.В., 20252025Колозариди П.В.Kolozaridi P.V.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://socofpower.ranepa.ru/jour/article/view/314

Статья посвящена анализу специфики интернет-исследований (Internet Studies) как междисциплинарного направления социальных наук, которое сочетает в себе академический и прикладной элементы. Автор показывает, что эволюцию этого направления целесообразно изучать через историю организаций, занимающихся проблемами взаимосвязи интернета и общества. В первой части статьи предложена периодизация истории направления, разграничивающая его зарождение, институционализацию и разделение на новые исследовательские «сферы»: цифровые исследования, онлайн-исследования, исследований данных. Вторая часть статьи рассматривает специфику знания, которое производится в интернет-исследованиях. На материалах исторического анализа и интервью автор устанавливает, что в данном случае нельзя говорить о «научном знании» с единой теоретической базой и жесткими дисциплинарными границами. Ключевым свойством интернет-исследований оказывается совпадение предмета и объекта, и сами исследователи считают свою деятельность со-производством интернета через производство знания о нем. Таким образом, речь о знании, которое в большей степени связано с объектом своего исследования, чем с дисциплинами, чьи теоретические или методологические ресурсы привлекаются. Автор предлагает понятие «исследовательского знания», которое не является научным, не претендует на дисциплинарное развитие, «совпадает» внутри и вне исследовательской организации. В заключение автор демонстрирует, что интернет-исследования можно понимать как способ получения социального знания, связанного с конкретными видом изменений, а именно - с социально-техническими трансформациями, обусловленными интернетом.

This article problematizes Internet Studies as a sub-discipline in social research. Internet Studies is an interdisciplinary research field encompassing both academic and non-academic research focusing on the internet and societal issues. The key institutions where Internet Studies develop tend to either be university-based or independent. The article focuses on these organizations and aims to reconstruct their history and areas of research as well as the type of knowledge they produce. The first part of the article is more descriptive and historical, explicating howlnternet Studies developed. The author suggests a classification of three key periods of Internet Studies development: the emergence, institutionalization and development of sub-fields, e.g. data science, digital research of different objects such as death, childhood, humanities, arts, and online-research. The key finding of this analysis is that in the internet studies there are no strict boundaries between the theoretical and empirical object. The researchers consider themselves to be co-producers of the internet. The second part of the article problematizes this type of knowledge that is constructed in internet studies, and this part is mostly based on interviews with researchers. The author brings out an idea, that internet studies does not have strict epistemological borders and strong theoretical or methodological limitations; it therefore cannot justifiably be called scientific. As such, the meaning of knowledge becomes problematic. To address this problem, the term "research knowledge” is introduced. This type of knowledge is not scientific, it does not pretend to be disciplinary and is the same inside and outside the organization and in its products. In conclusion, the findings of this research aim to contribute to the development of Internet Studies as a sub-discipline - a sub-discipline which does not aim to study an entity but a transformation of social life due to the internet.

интернетинтернет-исследованиясоциология знаниясоциология организацийисследовательское знаниеinternetinternet studiesorganisational sociologysociology of knowledgeresearch knowledgeReferencesАбрамов Р.Н., Бруккмайер К., Гаврилов К.А., Девятко И.Ф., Зотов A.A., Катерный И.В.,.. Сапов В.В. (2015) Обыденное и научное знание об обществе: взаимовлияния и реконфигурации.Abramov R.N., Bruckmeier K., Gavrilov K.A., Deviatko I.F., Zotov A.A., Katernyi I.V., Sapov V.V. (2015) Obydennoe i nauchnoe znanie ob obshchestve: vzaimovliianiia i rekonfiguratsii.Архипова A.C., Радченко Д.А., Титков A.C., Козлова И.В., Югай Е.Ф., Белянин С.В., Гаврилова М.В. (2018) «Пересборка митинга»: интернет в протесте и протест в интернете. Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены, 1 (143).Aouragh M., Alexander A. (2011) The Arab spring| the Egyptian experience: Sense and nonsense of the internet revolution. International Journal of communication, 5, 15.Гребер Д. (2016) Утопия правил: о технологиях, глупости и тайном обаянии бюрократии. М.: Ад Маргинем Пресс.Arkhipova A.S., Radchenko D.A., Titkov A.S., Kozlova I.V., Iugai E.F., Belianin S.V., Gavrilova M.V (2018) “Peresborka mitinga”: internet v proteste i protest v internete. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniia: ekonomicheskie i sotsial’nye peremeny, 1 (143).Колозариди П.В. (2015) Утопия и идеология в исследованиях Интернета. Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены, 5 (129).Bacci M. (2017) Credibility, expertise and the challenges of science Communication 2.0. Public Understanding of Science 26(8): 890–893.Лиотар Ж.Ф. (1998) Состояние постмодерна; пер. с фр. H.A. Шматко. М.: Институт экспериментальной социологии.Baron N.S. (2005) Who wants to be a discipline? The Information Society, 21(4): 269-271.Маклюэн М. (2004) Галактика Гутенберга. Сотворение человека печатной культуры. Киев: Ника-Центр, Эльга.Bastow S., Dunleavy P., Tinkler J. (2014) The impact of the social sciences: how academics and their research make a difference. Sage.Рыков Ю., Нагорный О. (2017) Область интернет-исследований в социальных науках. Социологическое обозрение, 16(3).Berners-Lee T., Hall W., Hendler J.A., O’Hara K., Shadbolt N., Weitzner D.J. (2006) A framework for web science. Foundations and Trends® in Web Science, 1(1): 1-130.Aouragh М., Alexander А. (2011) The Arab springl the Egyptian experience: Sense and nonsense of the internet revolution. International Journal of communication, 5, 15.Boyd D., Crawford K. (2012) Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, communication & society, 15(5): 662-679.Bacci M. (2017) Credibility, expertise and the challenges of science Communication 2.0. Public Understanding of Science 26(8): 890-893.Cook S.D., Brown J.S. (1999) Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance betweenBaron N.S. (2005) Who wants to be a discipline? The Information Society, 21(4): 269-271.organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization science, 10(4): 381-400.Bastow S., Dunleavy P., Tinkler J. (2014) The impact of the social sciences: how academics and their research make a difference. Sage.Dutton W. (2013) Internet studies: The foundations of a transformative field. The Oxford handbook of internet studies. Oxford University Press.Berners-Lee Т., Hall W., Hendler J.A., O'Hara K., Shadbolt N., Weitzner D.J. (2006) A framework for web science. Foundations and Trends® in Web Science, 1(1): 1-130.Epstein D., Katzenbach C., Musiani F. (2016) Doing internet governance: practices, controversies, infrastructures, and institutions. Internet Policy Review.Boyd D., Crawford K. (2012) Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, communication Sr society, 15(5): 662-679.Ess C., Consalvo M. (2011) Introduction: What is “Internet Studies”? The handbook ofCook S.D., Brown J.S. (1999) Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization science, 10(4): 381-400.internet studies: 1-8.Dutton W. (2013) Internet studies: The foundations of a transformative field. The Oxford handbook of internet studies. Oxford University Press.Flichy P. (2007) The internet imaginaire. MIT press.Epstein D., Katzenbach C., Musiani F. (2016) Doing internet governance: practices, controversies, infrastructures, and institutions. Internet Policy Review.Graeber D. (2016) Utopiia pravil: o tekhnologiiakh, gluposti i tainom obaianii biurokratii. M.: Ad Marginem Press.Ess C., Consalvo M. (2011) Introduction: What is "Internet Studies"? The handbook of internet studies: 1-8.Jasanoff, S. (Ed.) (2004) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and the social order.Flichy P. (2007) The internet imaginaire. MIT press.Routledge.Jasanoff, S. (Ed.) (2004) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and the social order. Routledge.Kakoli M. (2017) Is there a gap between the scientific and non-scientific community? Available at: https://www.editage.com/insights/is-there-a-gap-between-the-scientificand-non-scientific-communityKakoli, M. (2017) Is there a gap between the scientific and non-scientific community? Available at: https://www.editage.com/insights/is-there-a-gap-between-the-scientific-and-non-scientific-community.Kolozaridi P.V. (2015) Utopiia i ideologiia v issledovaniiakh Interneta. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniia: ekonomicheskie i sotsial’nye peremeny, 5 (129).Lavis J.N., Robertson D., Woodside J.M., McLeod C.B., Abelson J. (2003) How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? The Milbank Quarterly, 81(2): 221-248.Lavis J.N., Robertson D., Woodside J.M., McLeod C.B., Abelson J. (2003) How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? The Milbank Quarterly, 81(2): 221-248.Lievrouw L.A. (1990) Communication and the social representation of scientific knowledge. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 7(1): 1-10.Lievrouw L.A. (1990) Communication and the social representation of scientific knowledge. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 7(1): 1-10.Lievrouw L.A., Livingstone S. (Eds.) (2002) Handbook of new media: Social shaping and consequences of lCTs. Sage.Lievrouw L.A., Livingstone S. (Eds.) (2002) Handbook of new media: Social shaping and consequences of ICTs. Sage.Livingstone S. (2005) Critical debates in internet studies: reflections on an emerging field. London: LSE Research Online. Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/1011 Mansell R. (2012) Imagining the Internet: Communication, innovation, and governance. Oxford University Press.Livingstone S. (2005) Critical debates in internet studies: reflections on an emerging field. London: LSE Research Online. Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/1011Markham A.N. (2005) Disciplining the future: A critical organizational analysis of Internet studies. The Information Society, 21(4): 257-267.Lyotard J.F. (1998) Sostoianie postmoderna. M.: Institut eksperimental’noi sotsiologii.Marwick А.Е., Boyd D. (2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media Sr society, 13(1): 114-133.Mansell R. (2012) Imagining the Internet: Communication, innovation, and governance. Oxford University Press.Morozov E. (2012). The net delusion: The dark side of Internet freedom. PublicAffairs.Markham A.N. (2005) Disciplining the future: A critical organizational analysis of Internet studies. The Information Society, 21(4): 257-267.Norman D.A. (1999) Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3): 38-43.Marwick A.E., Boyd D. (2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media & society, 13(1): 114-133.Peng T.Q., Zhu J. J.H., Zhang L., Zhong Z. J. (2011) Mapping the Landscape of Internet Research: Text Mining of Social Science Journal Articles 2000-2009. Joint Working Paper of the Faculty of Humanities and Arts, Macau University of Science and Technology, and the Web Mining Lab, Department of Media Sr Communication, City University of Hong Kong.McLuhan M. (2004) Galaktika Gutenberga. Sotvorenie cheloveka pechatnoi kul’tury. Kiev.: Nika-Tsentr, El’ga.Pooly J. (2018) The Post-Program Era: The Rise of Internet & Society Centers-and a New Interdiscipline. Culture Digitally. Available at: http://culturedigitally.org/2018/03/the-post-program-era-the-rise-of-internet-society-centers-and-a-new-interdiscipline/.Morozov E. (2012). The net delusion: The dark side of Internet freedom. PublicAffairs.Smith A.N., Fischer E., Yongjian C. (2012) How does brand-related user-generated content differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter? Journal of interactive marketing, 26(2): 102-113.Norman D.A. (1999) Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3): 38-43.Suchman L.A. (1987) Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge university press.Peng T.Q., Zhu J.J.H., Zhang L., Zhong Z.J. (2011) Mapping the Landscape of Internet Research: Text Mining of Social Science Journal Articles 2000–2009. Joint Working Paper of the Faculty of Humanities and Arts, Macau University of Science and Technology, and the Web Mining Lab, Department of Media & Communication, City University of Hong Kong.Vostal F. (2016) Accelerating academia: the changing structure of academic time. Springer.Pooly J. (2018) The Post-Program Era: The Rise of Internet & Society Centers—and a New Interdiscipline. Culture Digitally. Available at: http://culturedigitally.org/2018/03/the-post-program-era-the-rise-of-internet-society-centers-and-a-new-interdiscipline/Wellman B. (2004) The three ages of internet studies: ten, five and zero years ago. New media & society, 6(1): 123-129.Rykov Iu., Nagornyi O. (2017) Oblast’ internet-issledovanii v sotsial’nykh naukakh. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie [Russian Sociological Review], 16(3).Wellman B. (2011) Studying the Internet through the Ages. The handbook of internet studies Consalvo and Ess (eds.): 17-23.Smith A.N., Fischer E., Yongjian C. (2012) How does brand-related user-generated content differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter? Journal of interactive marketing, 26(2): 102-113.Suchman L.A. (1987) Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge university press.Suchman L.A. (1987) Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge university press.Vostal F. (2016) Accelerating academia: the changing structure of academic time. Springer.Vostal F. (2016) Accelerating academia: the changing structure of academic time. Springer.Wellman B. (2004) The three ages of internet studies: ten, five and zero years ago. New media & society, 6(1): 123-129.Wellman B. (2004) The three ages of internet studies: ten, five and zero years ago. New media & society, 6(1): 123-129.Wellman B. (2011) Studying the Internet through the Ages. The handbook of internetWellman B. (2011) Studying the Internet through the Ages. The handbook of internetstudies Consalvo and Ess (eds.): 17–23.studies Consalvo and Ess (eds.): 17–23.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.