I’m proud to link to this blog post on the Cornell Tech Digital Life Initiative blog by Jake Goldenfein, Daniel Griffin, and Eran Toch, and myself.
The academic funding scandals plaguing 2019 have highlighted some of the more problematic dynamics between tech industry money and academia (see e.g. Williams 2019, Orlowski 2017). But the tech industry’s deeper impacts on academia and knowledge production actually stem from the entirely non-scandalous relationships between technology firms and academic institutions. Industry support heavily subsidizes academic work. That support comes in the form of direct funding for departments, centers, scholars, and events, but also through the provision of academic infrastructures like communications platforms, computational resources, and research tools. In light of the reality that infrastructures are themselves political, it is imperative to unpack the political dimensions of scholarly infrastructures provided by big technology firms, and question whether they might problematically impact knowledge production and the academic field more broadly.Goldenfein, Benthall, Griffin, and Toch, “Private Companies and Scholarly Infrastructure – Google Scholar and Academic Autonomy”, 2019
Among other topics, the post is about how the reorientation of academia onto commercial platforms possibly threatens the autonomy that is a necessary condition of the objectivity of science (Bourdieu, 2004).
This is perhaps a cheeky argument. Questioning whether Big Tech companies have an undue influence on academic work is not a popular move because so much great academic work is funded by Big Tech companies.
On the other hand, calling into question the ethics of Big Tech companies is now so mainstream that it is actively debated in the Democratic 2020 primary by front-running candidates. So we are well within the Overton window here.
On a philosophical level (which is not the primary orientation of the joint work), I wonder how much these concerns are about the relationship between capitalist modes of production and ideology with academic scholarship in general, and how much this specific manifestation (Google Scholar’s becoming the site of a disciplinary collapse (Benthall, 2015) in scholarly metrics is significant. Like many contemporary problems in society and technology, the “problem” may be that a technical intervention that might have at one point seemed like a desirable intervention by challengers (in the Fligstein (1997) field theory sense) is now having the political impact that is questioned and resisted by incumbents. I.e., while there has always been a critique of the system, the system has changed and so the critique comes from a different social source.
Benthall, S. (2015). Designing networked publics for communicative action. Interface, 1(1), 3.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Science of science and reflexivity. Polity, 2004.
Fligstein, Neil. “Social skill and institutional theory.” American behavioral scientist 40.4 (1997): 397-405.
Orlowski, A. (2017). Academics “funded” by Google tend not to mention it in their work. The Register, 13 July 2017.
Williams, O. (2019). How Big Tech funds the debate on AI Ethics. New Statesman America, 6 June 2019 < https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/technology/2019/06/how-big-tech-funds-debate-ai-ethics>.