Untitled - socium.ge

136 Steve Woolgarprogram. The question mark is meant to signal the spirit of analytic skepticism(cf. Woolgar, 1999) that needs to run in concert with balder depictions of technologicalimpact. It signals, for example, that the very notion of “impact”needs critical attention, not least because it implies a separation of technologyand the contexts that constitute it. This very separation should instead bebrought into scrutiny as part and parcel – perhaps even the crucial centralfocus – of the phenomenon to be explained (cf. Agar et al., 2002).Of course, no one could expect that the simple insinuation of a punctuationmark would by itself achieve the subtle and difficult goal of bringing audiencesof diverse expectations into easy coexistence. The question markacquired a seen, but unnoticed quality. It became apparent that some peopleclose to the program only first noticed the question mark in the title afterseveral months of dealing with its papers and committees. Frequently, the titleof the program was transcribed without the question mark into public writtenstatements such as announcements of conferences, acknowledgments in academicpublications (for example, Castells, 2001: xi), and seminar reports. Thequestion mark was either overlooked altogether or it was assumed to be a typographicalerror in the information supplied to the publisher. Perhaps mosttelling of all, it turned out that the protocol for website addresses does notallow the inclusion of a question mark. We had to make do with www.virtualsociety.org.uknot www.virtualsociety?.org.uk. Such observations are iconic ofthe extent of the challenge of sustaining analytic skepticism in a context characterizedpredominantly by definitive versions of the capacity and effect ofnew technologies. The extent of the challenge can be understood as the degreeof effort required simultaneously to satisfy audiences with quite diverseexpectations.CONCLUSIONSThe preceding discussion could be read as rather emphasizing some of the keyconditions of researching the British network society than reporting its “actualcharacteristics.” It stresses the context in which the work is done rather thansimply reporting the results, and so could be viewed as a “more epistemologicalthan sociological” discussion.It is important to recognize, however, that epistemology and sociology aremuch closer in many British academic circles than elsewhere, especially, forexample, in mainstream sociology in the US. From a British perspective, theconditions of researching and knowing themselves provide potentially richresearch insights; they cannot be divorced from putatively pure results. Thisreflexive sensibility partly reflects the legacy of hermeneutic and Europeaninterpretivist traditions. It is especially evident in the influence in Britain of