Punk Aesthetics and Doing Social Sciences Research Online

Social scientists who want to open dialogues online and engage multiple publics with their research need not be professionally trained, nor have the production values of radio and television. As philosopher Nigel Warburton – serving on a panel in CCIG Forum 4 on the social sciences and the uses of Internet technologies – put it, just getting new online content out there is actually ‘kind of punk’. Nigel was referring, I think, to the punk aesthetic, which includes such qualities as radical individuality, non-conformity, adaptation of that which exists, and maybe most importantly, a do-it-yourself (DIY) ethic. Nigel should know: his DIY efforts at getting philosophical thinking out to wider publics includes his work with David Edmonds, on the Philosophy Bites and Ethics Bites podcasts (the former a wholly independent endeavour, the latter with the OU) and his Virtual Philosopher blog. The point of such a punk aesthetic is reflected in some of the most popular user-generated content on the web, such as YouTube videos. These videos aren’t popular despite their poor quality as compared with television or film, but in many ways because of it. There is, in other words, a certain authenticity to user-generated content that just seems to attract and engage people.

For a panel and audience of Open University researchers and teachers, however, this was naturally seen through a particular lens. After all, The Open University is renown for its use of high-quality and multiple media – Internet, CDs and DVDs – in teaching (although contrastingly the aesthetics of its 1970s and 1980s television broadcasts are often an object of humour). Yet many in the panel and audience pointed to an apparent tension between how the Open University’s mission (which Nigel Warburton discussed in his presentation) gets carried out and publicising academic research through new media. It was noted, for example, that since The Open University’s course-based media are produced through well-planned and relatively established production processes, the institution is often ironically ill-suited to take on DIY uses of Internet technologies for research creation and publicity. Partly the issue seems to be the fast-changing and often messy nature of online content; though here perhaps the Open University and its staff are not so particular in being reluctant. Open University sociologist Tim Jordan, another of the panellists, argued that the social sciences and humanities more generally are behind the times in this area. Pointing to diverse examples, such as the online networks of various social movements and the discussion forums of online gamers, Tim noted that there seems to be a unique, unfussy grammar in the most dynamic online dialogue that academics seem (so far) unable to learn or take on.

On the other hand, as Open University geographer and panellist Joe Smith suggested, The Open University is well positioned and ought to be at the very cutting edge of using Internet technologies for research publicity and creation. Joe’s ambitious project, Creative Climate, seeks to create a groundbreaking online longitudinal archive (2010-2020), which though multiple mediums will tell stories about how societies learn about, respond to, and learn to live with global environmental change. This is the kind of project that seems to strike a very interesting balance – one that is not easily negotiated – between engaging publics and doing original and engaging research. Indeed, it was on the topic of striking this balance that there was the greatest span of different opinions amongst panel and audience, not only on the aesthetics of online content but also on how to negotiate the wider tension between the OU’s teaching mission and its commitment to research. It will not be easy, but all likely left the panel with at least some sense that the social sciences, and academics more generally, are on the cusp of doing their work through new and potentially more public mediums.