University of Calgary

Home , Technology policy

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Metaphor, technology and policy: An investigation of the Alberta SuperNet

Amanda Mary Williams

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN COMMUNICATIONS STUDIES

CALGARY, ALBERTA

JANUARY, 2010

Library and Archives Bibliothèque et Canada Archives Canada

Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de l’édition

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada

Your file Votre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-62185-1 Our file Notre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-62185-1

NOTICE: AVIS:

The author has granted a non- L’auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par télécommunication ou par l’Internet, prêter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non- support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. . The author retains copyright L’auteur conserve la propriété du droit d’auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author’s permission.

In compliance with the Canadian Conformément à la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privée, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont été enlevés de thesis. cette thèse.

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n’y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.

Abstract

This dissertation focuses on how metaphors are used in the context of a particular policy initiative: the Alberta SuperNet. It is an exploratory case study that traces the development of this project from the perspective of policy planners and citizens over a four-year period (2004-2007) by qualitatively analyzing the use of metaphor in both talk

(town hall meetings, focus groups and spokesperson interviews) and texts (the official press releases). The central goal of this work is to promote further dialogue on the roles that metaphors play in policy planning and the acceptance of new technologies by citizens. To do so, it draws on three distinct bodies of literature: political economy of communication, actor-network theory and metaphor. Its key findings include: metaphors are powerful enrolment tools which circumscribe roles for human and non-human actors in official discourse; in the context of planning and acceptance efforts, metaphors simplify, illuminate, problematize and situate policy work; furthermore, metaphors can be used by citizens in unexpected ways, demonstrating points of dissonance in the policy process. Among this research’s core contributions are the general framework it provides for empirical investigations of metaphor in policy; its emphasis on the necessity to appreciate metaphor as a linguistic, pragmatic and cognitive phenomenon; as well as its support for the claim that both actor-network theory and political economy of communication can benefit from incorporating metaphor more purposefully into their analytic frameworks. Finally, this investigation offers the following recommendations regarding technology policymaking writ large: the need for careful planning and visioning when introducing technology projects, the importance of clarity around the expected outcomes of an initiative, the significance of flexible and targeted outreach, the

ii centrality of government and community champions, the benefits of under-promising and over-delivering when branding policy via consciously selected metaphors, and the value of early and sustained citizen involvement in technology planning and implementation.

iii Acknowledgements

The completion of this thesis was facilitated by a variety of people and resources. I am indebted to the Faculty of Communication & Culture for the generous financial, administrative and academic support they supplied throughout my graduate career. The expertise and knowledge offered by Marion Hillier, Barbara Romman and Megan Mitchell was especially valuable in helping me through this process. In addition, the funding provided by the Province of Alberta, the University of Calgary, and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council was instrumental in ensuring my success.

My deepest gratitude is extended to my supervisor Dr. Cooper Langford. One could not ask for a better advisor or mentor. He embraced my project full-heartedly with an open and inquisitive mind and challenged me to always seek academic excellence. I am also greatly appreciative of Dr. Doug Brent’s efforts. His dutiful edits, wonderful questions and constructive suggestions were important to the conceptualization of this document and in my final drafting process. Dr. David Mitchell made the empirical components of this dissertation a possibility. His leadership in securing funds for the Alberta SuperNet Research Alliance permitted me to visit jurisdictions across Alberta. As well, I am grateful to the communities and policy planners who generously donated their time to share their experiences with me. In addition, I wish to thank Dr. Arthur Frank and Dr. Jonathan Rose (my external examiners) for raising new possibilities regarding my work.

My fellow graduate students and the phinished.org community have also been a tremendous source of inspiration. I was particularly blessed to have the friendship and wisdom offered over countless meals and gatherings of Delia Dumitrica (confidante extraordinaire), Janis Goldie, Sharon Mah, Yvonne Poitras Pratt and Sophie Wertheimer.

Lastly, none of this would have been possible without my remarkable family. My parents, sisters, and in-laws, supplied a consistent source of encouragement and enthusiasm, especially when I found it hard to muster in myself. Finally, I am deeply thankful for the love and support provided by my husband Ken. He made this goal a reality by being extremely patient, a wonderful listener and making me laugh when I needed it the most.

iv Dedication To Martha and Moe. Your friendship, intelligence, enthusiasm and caring will remain with me always. Thank you for these remembered joys.

v Table of Contents Abstract...... ii

Acknowledgements...... iv

Table of Contents...... vi

List of Tables ...... viii

List of Figures...... ix

Chapter One: Introduction ...... 1

Chapter Two: Assessing two theoretical maps for a study of metaphor- Political Economy of Communication and Actor-Network Theory...... 18

Chapter Three: Designing a conceptual map for the study of metaphor, policy and technology ...... 59

Chapter Four: Background and methodology- Translating my conceptual map into a practical guide for an empirical exploration of the SuperNet...... 100

Chapter Five: An examination of the use of metaphor in the Alberta SuperNet’s press release corpus...... 136

Chapter Six: An exploration of the role of metaphors in the Alberta SuperNet’s early policy planning efforts ...... 179

Chapter Seven: An investigation of the role of metaphor in citizen responses to the Alberta SuperNet ...... 238

Chapter Eight: Conclusion...... 289

References...... 309

Appendix A: Is evidence policy-making really possible? Reflections for policymakers and academics on making use of research in the work of policy...... 341

Appendix B: Conceptual map for viewing the SuperNet ...... 364

Appendix C: Interviewees and dates...... 366

Appendix D: Recruitment script ...... 367

Appendix E: Ethics form ...... 368

vi Appendix F: Interview questions...... 371

Appendix G: List of GOA press releases...... 372

vii List of Tables Table 4.1: Summary of provincial government broadband deployment initiatives and investments (2002 to 2006)...... 106

Table 5.1: Summary of the SuperNet press release metaphors ...... 173

Table 6.1: Sample metaphors for understanding the technical components of the SuperNet ...... 184

Table 6.2: Conceptual mappings for the SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY metaphor ..... 193

Table 6.3: Conceptual mappings for the SUPERNET AS CULTURE/ CULTURE SHIFT metaphor ...... 199

Table 6.4: Conceptual mappings for the SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER- HUMAN metaphor ...... 207

Table 6.5: Examples of the POLICYMAKING AS MARKETING metaphor ...... 210

Table 6.6: Examples of the POLICYMAKING AS A COMPETITION metaphor ...... 210

Table 6.7: Conceptual mappings for the POLICYMAKING AS MARKETING/ SUPERNET AS A PRODUCT metaphor...... 216

Table 6.8: Conceptual mappings for the POLICYMAKING AS A BATTLE OR AS A GAME/SUPERNET AS A STRATEGY...... 224

Table 7.1: A comparison of the SuperNet’s press release claims and citizen responses 278

Table 7.2: A comparison of policy planner concerns versus community concerns in relation to the SuperNet ...... 281

viii List of Figures Figure 4.1: The SuperNet’s structure ...... 103

Figure 6. 1: Visual representation of the SuperNet ...... 161

ix 1

Chapter One: Introduction

1.1 Exploring metaphor, technology and policy: An articulation of my central research questions and goals

Because we are all members of more than one community of practice and thus of many networks, at the moment of action we draw together many different repertoires mixed from different worlds. Among other things we create metaphors--bridges between those different worlds... Power is about whose metaphor brings these worlds together and holds them there. It may be a power of the zero-point, or a power of discipline; of enrolment or affinity; it may be the collective power of not splitting. Metaphors may heal or create, erase or violate, impose a voice or embody more than one voice. (Star, 1991, p. 52)

As this quotation by Star claims, metaphor forms an essential part of how we understand each other given our diversity of experience. Put differently, Star is drawing attention to metaphor’s ability to function as either an enriching or destructive device when promoting communication both within and across specific “discursive communities”. The term “discursive community” is used within this context to suggest that knowledge is often produced, shared and appropriated locally within a specific group; it also implies that an exploration of communication practices within such a group may yield some fruitful research findings (Gherardi, 2000).1 In addition, Star’s statement proposes that

those who create metaphor have a great deal of power since they can deploy these tropes

as tools of discipline, enrolment and even cohesion. Much of a metaphor’s influence

comes from its ability to structure people’s conceptualizations of the world in quite

particular ways. However, since a metaphor only ever offers a “selection of reality”

1 It is acknowledged that people may be a member of many sorts of different “discursive communities”; thus confining them to simply one for analytic simplicity has some limitations.

(Burke, 1966, p. 45), it always becomes possible to question what a metaphor conceals as well as what it reveals.

Connected to Star’s appreciation of metaphor as a tool that may “heal or create”, “erase or violate”, and “impose a voice or embody more than one voice”, this dissertation aims to unravel what metaphor accomplishes in public policy, explicitly in the context of technology projects. This examination of metaphor, technology and policy, is achieved via a systematic investigation of one particular initiative: the Alberta SuperNet. More precisely, this study traces the understanding of this project from the perspective of

“policymakers”, “policy planners” and rural communities, over a four-year period (2003-

2007) by qualitatively analyzing their use of metaphor in both talk (as articulated in town hall meetings, focus groups and semi-structured interviews) and texts (the official press releases) about the SuperNet. When a reference is made to “policymakers” in this dissertation it includes elected officials, advisors, and civil servants; in contrast, when the term “policy planners” is used, it encompasses all those involved in the formulation and implementation of a policy idea, thus it may include industry representatives and other actors along with the traditionally expected policymakers.

The central goal of this work is to incite, provoke and promote further dialogue regarding my primary research question which is: what roles do metaphors play in both technology policy planning and in the acceptance of new technologies by citizens? Once I had

selected my specific empirical site this research question was modified and became:

using the Alberta SuperNet as a case study, what roles do metaphors play in both

3 technology planning and the acceptance of new technologies by citizens? My secondary point of inquiry is: how do policy planners and citizens come to understand and experience broadband technology via metaphor?

Responding to these questions is expected to achieve at least four outcomes. First, this research anticipates expanding the dialogue of those who have already recognized the importance of metaphor in policy such as Schön (1979), Stone (2001), Van Hulst (2008) and Yanow (2000, 2008). In doing so I am accepting a definition of policymaking which conceptualizes this process as a struggle over ideas. Policymaking is thus positioned as a continuous negotiation over the classification of criteria and the establishment of boundaries for specific categories (Bowker & Star, 1999). Other perspectives that minimize the importance of ideas to policy focus instead on the power of institutions, group dynamics, or socio-economic factors (John, 1998). Second, by answering these questions, I foresee demonstrating how scholars can effectively track the deployment of metaphor within policy empirically. Third, this work aims to enhance conventional approaches to studies of technology and public policy that have not explicitly recognized metaphor as an important part of their analytic toolkit. To do so, this dissertation evaluates two distinct perspectives that can benefit from a more purposeful inclusion of metaphor into their theoretical and methodological approach: political economy of communication (PEC) and actor-network theory (ANT). Finally, since the SuperNet initiative itself has been defined as a “precedent setting case”— due to the scale of the project, the general speed of the network’s construction, and the dynamics of its business case (Mitchell, 2006)— an analysis of this project via metaphor attempts to generate new

4 knowledge about the dynamics of technology policymaking that should be of use to those interested in the future of broadband development both in Canada and elsewhere.

Throughout, this dissertation strives to be “reflexive”. By invoking the notion of reflexivity, I am simply labelling my desire to remain as transparent as possible regarding the following: my position in the selection of a research topic, the methodology pursued, and the relationship established between myself as a researcher with my interview participants. Accordingly, it seems only fitting to begin my discussion with a consideration of the initial concerns that inspired this exploration and guided this research endeavour from beginning to end.

1.2 Curiosity, experimentation and frustration: Motivations for this investigation

This project was driven by a genuine curiosity regarding why we metaphorize technology and how this process works in policy to establish and negotiate specific relationships between policymakers, industry representatives and citizens. My inquisitiveness was based on the initial observation that it is nearly impossible to escape the barrage of metaphors that Western policy planners use to describe technology. The “information highway”, the “knowledge economy”, “e-government”, “digital democracy” are among the more popular metaphors that are, or have been, deployed by those who market policy and others (particularly the mass media) to capture the transformative potential of technology. I was thus interested in why such metaphors are required and what they accomplish in policy.

A review of the literature on technology metaphors reveals a diverse body of work including studies which:

• consider the importance of metaphor to practice for various groups such as

teachers (Carroll & Eifler, 2002; Pannabecker, 1992), computer scientists

(Johnson, 1991), internet users (Ratzan, 1996), mobile phone customers

(Isomursu, Hinman, Isomursu, & Spasojevic, 2007), and “general consumers”

(Denny & Sunderland, 2004);

• highlight the function of metaphor when designing specific user interfaces

(Condon, Perry & Keefe, 2003; Hamilton, 2000; Reese & Bendito, 2003);

• investigate the use of metaphor by the mass media when representing different

areas including biotechnology (Levidow, 2000; Liakopoulous, 2002), genetic

technology (Ryall, 2008), the “Internet” (Wyatt, 2004), and the “information

highway” (Berdayes & Berdayes, 2008);

• examine the deployment of certain metaphors from the past in order to help

understand and prepare for the introduction of a new technology (Mander, 1984;

Sawhney, 1996).

Despite this range of scholarship, research on the use of metaphor in technology policy development, juxtaposed against the deployment of metaphor by a specific user group is notably absent,2 thus motivating my desire to probe deeper into this topic.

2 The case for more studies that prioritize the view of users (via a study of metaphor or otherwise) has been well articulated by Oudshoorn & Pinch (2006).

Intuitively, I endorsed the view that metaphors of technology in policy are not simply

“catchphrases” (i.e. the ornamental language of policy) but are much more complex carriers of meaning both when they are created and when they are interpreted. Moreover,

I anticipated that an analysis of these metaphors might tell us something of interest and importance about technology policy initiatives, particularly why so many projects with best intentions often fail to meet specific expectations (OECD, 2001). Consequently, the sorts of questions I wanted my research to address included:

• What roles do metaphors play in policymaking?

• Is the use of metaphors by policy planners a conscious process that they

willingly acknowledge?

• What does an appreciation of metaphor reveal about how policy planners

communicate technology policy issues?

• How do potential users (such as citizens) respond to the metaphors of

technology presented to them?

In sum, my initial interest was moved by a desire to appreciate technology policy metaphors as complex devices to be examined both from the perspective of those that produce such metaphors and those that consume them.

My general curiosity about metaphors of technology in policy took me one step further to consider how one might go about operationalizing a systematic study of metaphor. Put differently, I wanted to experiment with the methodological possibilities that are opened up when a conceptually sophisticated definition of metaphor is deployed. Prior to formulating my research questions much of my exposure to discussions of metaphor had

7 been with works that offer largely theoretical and decontextualized insights. For example,

I had reviewed many of the classic and contemporary texts on metaphor such as:

Aristotle’s (trans.,1984) early discussions of how metaphor functions and its role in rhetoric, Richards’ (1936) seminal work on what metaphor is, Black’s (1979) efforts to clarify the manner in which the different components of metaphor work, and Lakoff and

Johnson’s (1980) groundbreaking book on the necessity of metaphor for understanding and experiencing most activities within our everyday life. While these discussions were helpful departure points, I was also interested in identifying what sorts of methodological strategies exist for tracing the development and deployment of metaphor in a specific empirical setting. Based on my desire to use metaphor to help appreciate “the social”,3 some of the questions I hoped to explore included:

• What definition of metaphor is most useful when trying to understand the role

of technology metaphors in policy?

• What does it mean to say you are conducting a metaphor analysis?

• How might we evaluate the quality of specific metaphors of technology used

within policy?

Such queries needed to be answered in order for me to start to satisfy my curiosity and be able to successfully identify the best method for tracking metaphor systematically within policy.

3 As Latour (2005) is quick to point out, academics often use the term “social” to imply some sort of hidden causality. I am sympathetic to Latour’s appreciation of the social as something more fluid than this: “a movement , a displacement, a transformation, a translation, or an enrolment” (pp. 64-65).

A final factor that shaped the direction of this research project was a frustration with the existing Canadian scholarship on technology policymaking. In reviewing the literature in this area, it was evident that discussions of policy tended to supply the following: (a) rather broad critiques of a specific policy initiative/or document (such as, Balka, Rodje &

Bush, 2007; Fraser, 2007; Longford, 2002), (b) a statistical picture of the typical internet user (for example, Middleton & Sorensen, 2006; Noce & McKewon, 2007), or (c) a comparative case study of Canada’s overall position when developing information and communication technology programs or policies (d'Haenens & Proulx, 2000; Frieden,

2005; Wu, 2003). Quite generally, the central view of this existing work is that Canada is a global success story due to our relatively high on-line penetration rate (d'Haenens &

Proulx, 2000; Frieden, 2005; Wu, 2003). Nevertheless, it is still recognized that within the Canadian context access to internet is uneven, tending mostly to favour those in urban locations, below the age of 55, who are highly educated, and earn above average incomes

(Middleton & Sorenseon, 2005; Noce & McKewon, 2007). Despite the importance of these contributions, I was disappointed by the lack of scholarship that acknowledges the discursive or linguistic elements of Canada’s position; particularly since scholars such as

Young (2003) have demonstrated that such an approach can reveal a great deal about the values and perceptions towards technology that guide different regions. Additionally, I took quite seriously the recommendations of those scholars working in the areas of communication policy who advocate the need for localized understandings of what is occurring in different Canadian jurisdictions in relation to use (Powell & Shade, 2006;

Ramirez & Richardson, 2005; Shade, Porter & Sanchez, 2005; Viseu, Clement, Aspinall,

& Kennedy, 2006; Wathen & Harris, 2007). This point was nicely articulated by Viseu et

9 al. (2006) who suggest that at present, “we need more in-depth qualitative studies with a policy orientation of which there have been very few in Canada” (p. 634).

To summarize, my curiosity about the use of technology metaphors in policy, my desire

to experiment with the different methods available for tracing metaphor, and my

frustration with the existing literature on Canadian communication policy, were among

the primary motivators driving this research. As a next step, I had to select a relevant

policy initiative that would allow me to examine the aforementioned concerns in a

meaningful manner.

1.3 The SuperNet: Rationale behind the selection of this site

The Alberta SuperNet is a publicly and privately funded $295 million4 initiative that has

connected 422 communities across the province through 13,000 km of fibre optic and

wireless infrastructure. A variety of different social services (schools, libraries,

government offices and hospitals) are connected directly to this infrastructure at points of

presence within each of these 422 locales. Moreover, internet service providers (ISPs)

have the ability to connect at points of presence and buy bandwidth at a standardized and

favourable rate in order to link business and residential users to the SuperNet. Primary

partners in the initiative include: the Government of Alberta who through an investment

of over $193 million funded the building of the publicly owned extended network which

links 395 smaller communities province-wide; the Bell Consortium (Bell) who invested

4 This figure is based on the original project estimate. The actual costs of the initiative are quite a bit higher. In fact it was suggested by some of the participants in Chapter 6 that costs are closer to one billion dollars.

10 over $102 million to build the privately owned base network linking 27 of Alberta’s larger communities; Axia SuperNet Limited (Axia) who manages and operates the network on behalf of the province. (Alberta SuperNet, n.d.)

According to those involved with the management of the SuperNet, this project is

“world’s best IP regional broadband network” and “has opened up an entire world of new opportunities for Albertans, in how they live, work and play” (Axia Net Media

Corporation, n.d.). Moreover, outside observers position the initiative as a success story that can be viewed as a broadband model for jurisdictions around the globe (Cherry,

2004; Dutton, Gillett, McKnight & Peltu, 2004). Such promises and praise encourage a view of the SuperNet as a revolutionary policy initiative of unusual vision and scope.

However, these accolades do not provide insight into the complex interplay of actors (the technology itself, government officials, industry representatives and rural communities) who give the SuperNet meaning; nor does such an endorsement acknowledge the different types of understandings of the SuperNet that are emerging. When I began my dissertation research, these different policy actors were actively engaged in the process of articulating the different dimensions of this project, often via metaphor, thus making it a seemingly attractive case in which to anchor my investigation.

Another major advantage of the SuperNet as a site of exploration was that it was already the focus of an academic researcher project: the Alberta SuperNet Research Alliance.5 In

5The Alberta SuperNet Research Alliance’s website is: http://supernet.ucalgary.ca/

2003, this multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional team received a major three-year grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)

Initiative on the New Economy to investigate the social, economic, and cultural impacts of the SuperNet on Albertan communities. Members of this research team began to explore user relations through public consultations and survey work, and conducted specific studies of tele-heath, distance education, emergency preparedness, libraries, business, and community sense-making practices (Mitchell, 2003). Over a three-year period I was part of this research group’s activities as research assistant studying the opportunities the SuperNet provided for rural business. During this time I was fortunate enough to visit different communities across Alberta (nine in total), conduct focus groups within these jurisdiction (six in total), coordinate technology awareness workshops (in three locales), and participate in two public symposia. Accordingly, I was given the opportunity to observe first hand the way the SuperNet metaphor was taken up differently by various actors. Consequently, my early and sustained work on this project quickly convinced me that the SuperNet would be a helpful empirical site for satisfying my interests in the theoretical and methodological intersections of metaphor, technology and policy.

1.4 The travel plan: Structure of this dissertation

The production of a dissertation has been understood metaphorically in a variety of ways including: writing a play (Fisher & Phelps, 2006), giving birth (Morton, n.d.), composing music (van Schalkwyk, 2002), and travelling /journeying (Foss & Waters, 2007). In reflecting upon my personal experiences with the dissertation process, the metaphor that

12 was most resonant to me was that of a journey. Consequently, I envision the chapters that follow as a detailed account of my intellectual voyage.

The immediate chapters to come (Chapters 2 & Chapter 3), present the theoretical and methodological “maps” created to help navigate through an understanding of the data collected about the SuperNet. In the first of these (Chapter 2), I explore two very different theoretical approaches, both of which offer a great deal of potential for exploring the dynamics of technology policymaking: political economy of communication (PEC) and actor-network theory (ANT). In doing so, I determine what can be drawn from each of these perspectives when aiming to incorporate metaphor as both a conceptual and methodological tool. Overall, it is argued that while both of these views offer tremendous potential for a study of technology policy metaphors, they remain somewhat incomplete. I was thus required to turn to the work of scholars in rhetoric, literature, philosophy and cognitive linguistics, in order to better define metaphor and establish how it can be identified and analysed empirically.

My next step required making sense of the existing literature on metaphor and metaphor analysis and determining what could be gleaned from the empirical contributions of those who had already examined the presence of metaphor in the policy environment.

Consequently, Chapter 3 begins with an assessment of the many different definitions of metaphor in circulation, arguing that from a policy perspective metaphor should not be viewed as any one specific thing but rather appreciated as “conceptual, linguistic, neural-

13 bodily and socio-cultural all at the same time” (Kövecses, 2005, p. 293).6 This requires

looking at public policy metaphors as linguistic utterances (for example in particular

texts), considering their conditions of use (exploring what is the design and purposes of

their deployment), and examining if there seems to be any larger conceptual metaphor at

work that we can study (for instance, do these devices tell us anything about how a

particular subject is understood from an underlying conceptual perspective?). Moreover, I

identify the precise steps involved in a metaphor analysis and review the challenges

inherent in such steps. Finally, I take seriously a key ANT concern: what might

metaphors be said to “do” in policy? This query permitted me to connect the concepts

raised in Chapter 2 to the use of metaphor in policy studies.

Chapter 4 provides the particulars of how I went about translating the conceptual map of

Chapters 2 & 3 into a plan for examining the SuperNet. In this discussion I offer

additional background on the SuperNet itself and justify why I see it as an “extreme”,

“paradigmatic” (Flyvbjerg, 2004) “exemplar” (Kuhn, 1970), for an investigation of the

role of metaphor in technology policymaking. Details are also supplied about what data

were selected, collected and analysed, and the limitations to this investigation.

Chapters 5 to 7 of this dissertation present a description of my empirical journey.

Collectively, the results communicated in these chapters answer the core research

questions identified earlier in this introduction. In Chapter 5, the official press releases

6 In endorsing this broad definition of metaphor I am including genuine metaphors, similes, analogies and personifications as metaphorical.

(N=24) are analysed. This chapter illustrates how metaphors can play a core role in structuring the persuasive efforts of policy planners and how in doing so metaphors become “tricks” and/or tools of enrolment. It assesses who appears to count and not count in the official discourse regarding the SuperNet; additionally, it evaluates the specific vision of technology and technological change that was endorsed by the Government of

Alberta in this instance.

In Chapter 6, the explicit views of the “policy planners” (both industry and government officials) who were involved with conceptualizing the SuperNet as an idea and implementing it as a project are presented. Drawing on the results from 10 semi- structured interviews, it recognizes four different roles that metaphors played in the early planning efforts of the SuperNet along with identifying which metaphors were most prominent in these discussions. This chapter establishes the necessity of metaphors as sense making devices both to understand and experience both technology and policy.

Furthermore, the interpretation of these findings demonstrates how the metaphor analysis of a specific case can produce some beneficial recommendations for broadband policy development.

Chapter 7, the last of the data chapters, offers an analysis of eight town hall meetings conducted in late 2003 by members of the public consultation project from the Alberta

SuperNet Research Alliance, as well as six focus groups which I facilitated from 2004 to

2005. Not only are the rural participants’ responses presented, these findings are juxtaposed against the official representation discussed in Chapter 5, and the

15 contributions of policy planners reviewed in Chapter 6. Based on this juxtaposition of views several wider conclusions are drawn. This chapter’s findings are also used to generate some additional policy lessons.

Chapter 8 chapter marks the end of my journey. It begins with a general summary of this dissertation. Next, the potential methodological, theoretical and policy contributions of this dissertation’s key findings are considered. This chapter concludes by supplying areas for future research and by offering some final reflections on the dynamics associated with the practice of metaphor analysis. Furthermore, the first Appendix of this dissertation

(Appendix A) situates these results in a wider context of social science and humanities research by considering the challenges that policymakers and academics alike face when trying to communicate with each other, via the use of metaphor or otherwise.

1.5 Places not explored: Scope and limitations to this study

Those who are interested in the role of language in policy writ large may be disappointed with the fact that this dissertation explores only metaphors, as there are a variety of other figures of speech which can play an important role in policy exchanges that are overlooked. Moreover, metaphor can be placed in the broader context of narrative practices, since it is just one way in which we tell a story. Nevertheless, it is worth acknowledging that metaphor has been a subject of fascination for scholars since the time of Aristotle and continues to occupy an important place in a variety of different disciplines. This is because many academics imagine metaphor as the most powerful of all the tropes. As an example, in 1979 at a conference Booth projected that “by the year

2039 there will be more students of metaphor than people” (p. 47). While a slight exaggeration, given the current state of the literature there is some accuracy to his claim.

For instance, in 1988 the number of articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) with metaphor in their title, keyword, or abstract was 3 and by the year 2000 it was 145

(Hellsten, 2002, p. 15). This finding is further bolstered by the observation that studies of metaphor are also emerging not only in the expected areas of literature or linguistics but also in other fields including archaeology and anthropology (Tilley, 1999), communications (Smith & Tuner, 1995), economics (McCloskey, 1990), international politics (Beer & De Landtsheer, 2004), science studies (Hellsten, 2004; Maasen &

Weingart, 1995, 2000) and social theory (Rigney, 2001). Such an interest indicates that any investigation that focuses solely on metaphor (as this one does) is valuable because it will contribute to this burgeoning dialogue about these formative tropes.

Since this dissertation is exploratory it is also based on the data generated about only one empirical case study. However, in justifying my choice to remain narrow in scope, I position myself with Flyvbjerg (2004), Kuhn (1970) and Yanow (1992), all of whom stress the importance of the sort of context specific knowledge that can be generated from the investigations of a single case. For example, Flyvbjerg (2004) argues persuasively that a well-chosen case study can be an integral part of the learning and knowledge dissemination process that comes from research. He notes that despite our best efforts to develop effective experimental controls, “predictive theories and universals cannot be found in the study of human affairs”, consequently, “concrete, context-dependent knowledge is…more valuable than the vain search for predictive theories and universals”

(Flyvbjerg, 2004, p. 423). His statement suggests that the complexity of human activities often defies our ability to manage any situations or predict outcomes; consequently we must appreciate the efforts of those who do not try to achieve this but rather attempt instead to provide a detailed and rich picture of a specific context. This position also reinforces another of his central claims that “formal generalization is overvalued as a source of scientific development, whereas ‘the force of example’ is underestimated”

(Flyvbjerg, 2004, p. 425). In doing so, Flyvbjerg again highlights the potential of a single case, or moment within a case, to remain in people’s memories. In other words, he is arguing that a telling example is often the best strategy for promoting further dialogue and debate about any given issue over statistical generalizations. Kuhn (1970) labels such well-chosen cases as “exemplars”; he too proposes that exemplars are a fundamental part of how learning occurs across discursive communities.

Overall, I hope recounting the details of my journey will inspire scholars to think differently about what can be revealed by a systematic exploration of technology metaphors in policy. My travel account is intended to promote further debates about the role of metaphor in technology planning processes and in how new technologies are understood and experienced by those they are intended to serve.

Chapter Two: Assessing two theoretical maps for a study of metaphor- Political Economy of Communication and Actor-Network Theory

He/[she] who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship without a rudder and compass and never knows where [they] may cast. (Leonardo da Vinci, n.d.)

2.1 Introduction

This chapter examines two “ready-made” theoretical maps designed to guide my exploration of practice: that of political economy of communication (PEC) and actor network theory (ANT). These theories were selected because both are commonly deployed when studying two of the major areas covered within this dissertation: policymaking and technology. Moreover, each of these perspectives provides important guidance for deciding how best to answer my primary research concern: using the

Alberta SuperNet as a case study, what roles do metaphors play in both technology planning and the acceptance of new technologies by citizens? These approaches (ANT and PEC) are labelled as “ready-made” because they come with a distinct history of use, the essentials of which are presented below. First via an exploration of the tkey tenets supplemented by examples from the literature; next by an examination of their general methodological techniques; finally, by a consideration of their potential to accommodate metaphor.

2.2 Political economy of communication

2.2.1 An introduction to the approach

In looking at the genesis of the term “political economy”, political is a derivative of the

Greek term polis for the city-state, whereas economics comes from both oikos for ‘house’

19 and nomos for ‘law’. Political economy thus began with an interest in how lessons from the management of family and household affairs could be extended to studying first the city and then the nation-state (Mosco, 1996, p. 24). Presently, political economy can be said to refer to any investigation that makes a concerted effort to connect basic political concerns (of power or otherwise) with questions of economics.

In his review of the state of political economy, Staniland (1985) explores the different forms that have emerged including: new political economy approaches (i.e. rational choice and public choice), international political economy (such as world system theory, realist perceptions and dependency theory) and Marxist approaches. In the process he correctly claims that political economy is no longer really a theory but rather a field. He asserts, that political economy has become “less than an advertisement for some identifiable methodology than a manifesto for intellectual discontent and even an invitation to the stoning of economists and political scientists” (Staniland, 1985, p. 2). Of the potential variations to this field identified by Staniland, the approach most often deployed by Canadian communication scholars is derived from Marx.

Political economy has a rich and well-developed history in Canadian scholarship evident in the early works of scholars such as Harold Innis (1950, 1951) and still predominant in many discussions of policy and the communication industries today. To appreciate the prevalence of this theory, one need only turn to the many historical explorations of

Canadian telecommunications that have emerged over the last two decades which all explicitly or implicitly tackle political economy concerns (such as Babe, 1990; Mussio,

2001; Winseck, 1998). Moreover, a brief glance at the recent discussions of specific policy issues associated with our communications industries indicate that political economy remains a well used theoretical map for many Canadian academics (Barratt &

Shade, 2007; Longford, 2002; Mosco & McKercher, 2006).

Despite the popularity of Marxist inspired political economy work in Canadian scholarship, identifying what constitutes an adequate description of “political economy of communications” (PEC) is open to debate. For instance, Mosco & Reddick (1997) suggest that PEC can be defined in either “general” terms, or rather in a more “focused” manner. They propose that a general definition of PEC would be one in which scholars are preoccupied with unravelling aspects of “control” and “survival” associated with communicative practices. In this case, “control” refers to how groups are organized in terms of adapting to change (i.e. the political dimension) and survival articulates how groups produce what is needed for reproduction and continuity (the economic aspect).

Such a conception is designed to move scholars beyond asking narrow questions about industry dynamics. However, this view of PEC is not without its limitations because it may persuade analysts to overlook what distinguishes specific communicative activities from other general processes of “survival” and “control” (Mosco & Reddick, 1997, p.

13). In contrast, a more focused definition of PEC concentrates on the production, distribution and consumption of communication resources, highlighting the institutional circuit, or value chain, followed by goods. Approaching PEC in this manner can be challenging: it is not always easy to distinguish who is a producer, a distributor, or a consumer (Mosco & Reddick, 1998, p. 12). Between these two approaches (general or

21 focused), the focused definition is most appealing because of the benefits implicit in an approach that requires the examination of specific sites of production, distribution and consumption in the communication process.

Moving beyond simply trying to define PEC at a “general” or more “focused” level as

Mosco and Reddick (1998) do, some basic characteristics of this approach are apparent.

Meehan, Mosco & Wasco (1993) provide an excellent overview of the four “essential dimensions” that constitutes this perspective, each of which is reviewed briefly below.

The first component of most PEC studies is an interest in exploring the broad forces of social change and historical transformation (Meehan et al., 1993, p. 106). This is apparent in the work of classic political economists such as Smith, Ricardo and Mill who were concerned with describing the vast social upheaval that accompanied the shift from feudalism to capitalism. It is also evident in Marx, whose ultimate preoccupation was with identifying factors that would encourage a shift from capitalism to socialism.

Current PEC scholars exemplify this trend in their efforts to explore specific historical trajectories such as globalization (such as Abramson & Raboy, 1999), the emergence of the knowledge economy (Garnham, 2000), and post-industrialism (Mosco & McKercher,

2006).

A second feature of most PEC investigations is an attempt to provide a comprehensive view of the social totality. In order to supply a holistic picture, scholars working in this tradition focus on examining the relationship between the following: (1) commodities,

22 such as media products and their audiences, (2) institutions, including the state, labour and capital, (3) social relations, such as those associated with gender, race and class, and

(4) what they describe as the “taken for granted assumptions” (Meehan et al., 1993, p.107). Taken for granted assumptions in this instance could also be substituted with

“explorations of ideology”. Ideology in this sense taken from Thompson (1990) is understood as “meaning in the service of power” (p. 7), thus highlighting the pejorative aspects of this concept.

Two excellent examples of how these different concerns can be brought together to provide a broad overview of the Canadian policy landscape are evident in the books produced by Babe (1990) and Winseck (1998) on telecommunication policy in Canada.

In these works, these authors provide a sweeping overview of the changes in the telecommunications industries at an institutional level beginning with the development of the telegraph in the mid 1800s up to the introduction of new technologies including satellites and new media in 1990s. Both Winseck and Babe examine these transformations in the context of how the goals of promoting access and ensuring universal service remain in tension with the general aim of capitalist societies to generate profit. For instance, when examining the “taken for granted”, Babe focuses on the common “myths” around technology he feels dominate the field of telecommunication.

To Babe, these myths include:

• “technological nationalism”, the idea that Canada requires technology to exist;

• “technological dependence”, the notion that technological innovation is necessary

and something humans cannot control;

• “technology and industry structuring”, the perception that technologies are

responsible for structuring an efficient industry;

• the myth of “efficacy of regulation”, the view that regulation is designed to

protect Canadian consumers. (Babe, 1990, pp. 5-21)

Babe asserts that the history of telecommunications in Canada has been largely guided by

“recurrent power plays”, “predatory and restrictive trade practices” and “conscious government intervention” in creating strategic separating, segregating and convergence policies, indicating that these myths are false (Babe, 1990, pp. 5-21). However, he states that the central reason why such myths persist is because they are useful to both government and industry. For instance, these myths transform conscious decisions (such as large public expenditures, tax write-offs and subsidies) into seemingly inevitable and natural acts. Moreover, Babe argues that this process of naturalization helps absolve organizations and individuals of responsibilities because the element of choice that goes into making decisions about technology is erased by such myths. In addition, Babe notes that mythologizing technology masks the power dynamics associated with the distribution and allocation of technological resources both domestically and internationally. (Babe, 1990, pp. 256-257) Using a slightly different approach, Winseck attempts to deconstruct the “hype” around convergence that emerged in the 1990s. He argues that although convergence is often presented as natural, new and necessary, it is best understood as a historical process of accumulation that ultimately supports a neo- liberal corporatist agenda. Winseck supports his claim by providing a detailed look at the policy history associated with telecommunications regulation in Canada. Collectively,

Babe and Winseck’s investigations provide an illustration of how discussions about the

24 flow of commodities, institutions, social relations, and the taken for granted, can all be brought together to tell a powerful narrative of state and industry control often promoted at the expense of the public good.

A third component of most PEC studies is an attempt to offer a moral philosophical outlook. As Golding and Murdock (1991) note, scholars using political economy tend to move beyond the concerns of efficiency that “tend to pre-occupy neo-classic economists” and consider how best to promote justice, foster equality and protect the “public good”

(pp. 17-18). This also includes explorations of the role of communication as a “basic right” for all citizens (see for example Birdsall, 1998). Such a moral and philosophical perspective means that PEC investigations often have solutions to the issues that they identify and explanations that they offer in the form of opportunities for future change.

Finally, most political economists claim to be committed to praxis, “transcending the distinction between research and social action” (Meehan et al., 1993, pp. 108-109).

Accordingly, those who subscribe to political economy believe that through teaching, writing and affiliations with other organizations (such as labour unions and government bodies) they can make a material difference within the social world. A leading example of a scholar who demonstrates a solid commitment to praxis is William Melody. A

Canadian by birth, Melody began his career working at the United States’ Federal

Communications Commission (FCC) after graduating from the University of Nebraska.

As the Chief Economist for the FCC, he was the expert witness for the US Department of

Justice’s anti trust suit versus AT&T, a case which led to the eventual divestiture of this

25 carrier and its monopoly control of the industry (LIRNEasia, n.d.; The Media Research

Hub, n.d.). In addition, Melody has founded a number of research centres and programs in the United Kingdom, Australia, Denmark and the Netherlands (Parisi, 2005). He has also created two influential research advisory networks— Learning Initiatives on

Reforms for Network Economies (LIRNE.NET) and the World Dialogue on Regulation for Network Economies (WDR)— which he continues to advise on today (The Media

Research Hub, n.d.). Furthermore, Melody has produced over 150 publications in the field of telecommunications policy and information technology including books, reports and journal articles (Parisi, 2005). In assessing his praxis-like contribution to the field of communication studies he has been praised by others for his “empirical, pragmatic approach to policy, and his applied framework for social science analysis and his resistance to what he referred to as academia’s dogmatic intellectualism” (Parisi, 2005, para. 2).

This brief review of the essential dimensions of PEC studies indicates that it is a broad perspective. A recent volume on the topic of political economy of communication edited by Calabrese and Sparks (2004) indicates the diversity of this approach when applied to technology. In the section of their book on “new media, the information society and other obscure objects” the studies presented include: an exploration of the development of the internet service provider industry in the United Kingdom (Mansell & Jarvay, 2004), a challenge to the mythic nature of the post-industrial thesis in society which posits an end to history, geography and politics as we know it (Mosco, 2004), a questioning of the notion of the “digital divide” as both a conceptual framework and call to action (Murdock

& Golding, 2004), an investigation of the possible impact of the internet on existing media (Sparks, 2004), and a mapping of the potential for European Union candidate countries to catch up in an increasingly competitive technologically oriented global marketplace (Burgleman, Gouvara, & Bogdanowicz, 2004). The extent of creativity and multiplicity in even this small sample indicates that the political economy of communication approach can be quite accommodating. It can be used when one wants to counter a dominant cultural or policy idea, investigate in detail the development of a new media industry, and/or attempt an analysis of a municipality, nation or region’s potential to compete technologically. The only limits seem to be a hesitancy towards thinking holistically about how a seemingly local concern might be linked to the powerful forces of capitalism in action.

Though the actual topics tackled by political economists of new media are quite varied, one commonality they tend to share is a predominantly “anti-technology” stance. An article by Babe (1995) nicely captures the sorts of fears that are continually presented in many PEC studies as innately troubling problems which are deepened by the advent of the so called “information” or “knowledge age”. Such trends include the following: an increase in transnational corporate power, a preference for the support of cyber communities over local and indigenous populations, a reduction in face to face contact, a weakening of labour protection due to an increase in unregulated tele-work practices, the decline of the nation state and its ability to protect information as a public good, user pay services as commonplace phenomenon, a widening of gaps in access to telecommunication services, and a lessening of the overall production of high quality

27 content (Babe, 1995, pp. 201-207). Since most political economy of communication scholars regularly highlight these alarming possibilities, it easy to characterize their general political approach as quite pessimistic. Nevertheless, a second glance would suggest that a more accurate description of their position towards technology is actually one of cautious scepticism. I say this only because in their final analysis political economists of new media always seem prepared to concede that what has been done has the potential to be undone. Babe (1995) helps to crystallize the ambivalent spirit of this literature when he states:

Critical communication studies, seemingly pessimistic due to its realism, is in fact a hopeful and fruitful way of conceptualizing and pursuing human justice, ecological sanity, and human community. This optimism… stems from the fact that it does not take as unalterable our current unjust and moribund economic order… Let it be remembered that the official version of the order of things is never the only version. Let us also hope that from the depth of human despair and out of a longing for human community, for environmental health, for a renewed sense of human dignity, for justice and for a vibrant democracy, alternative modes of thinking, analyzing, feeling and acting will emerge and find expression. (p. 226)

The glimmer of hope that Babe refers to manifests itself materially in the political economy of new media discourse when authors strive to identify potential opportunities for future change (Sparks, 2004); or, provide general or specific policy recommendations of sorts—as is the case in Mansell & Jarvary (2004), Murdock & Golding (2004), and

Burgelman et al., (2004).

In sum, according to Meehan et al. (1993) and supported by some current examples in the literature, PEC theorists can be described as occupying themselves with examining macro

28 level historical phenomenon and suggesting strategic interventions designed to make

“communicating” within the communication industries increasingly fair, democratic and equitable. They tend to be cautiously pessimistic about the role of technology in society and their work can accommodate a wide range of topics and subject matters.

2.2.2 Notes on methods

One element that is surprisingly absent in the PEC literature is any sort of suggested methodological strategy. For example, in Mosco’s (1996) densely ambitious 307 page account of the history and future of the field already discussed above, he devotes little to no space to discussing what sorts of research methods would be best suited for exploring his recommended analytical entry points. In fact, the topic of “research methods” does not even merit a heading in his subject index. Of the general reviews of PEC available

(i.e. Mansell, 2004; Meehan et al., 1993; McChesney, 2000; Mosco, 1996; Mueller,

1995), Meehan et al. (1993) come the closest to offering some sort of specific guidance for scholars interested in conducting an analysis using this approach. They suggest,

“practitioners are expected to follow criteria implicit in the paradigm and to select the method best suited to the problem” (p. 113). This assertion can hardly be characterized as instructive. Nevertheless, Meehan et al. do note that the “quality information” necessary for producing a convincing analysis generally comes from “direct involvement in the world” which is best attained via interviews and the analysis of other primary documentation (Meehan et al., 1993. p. 113). Unfortunately, this is as far as they go, concluding only with the statement that as long as PEC scholars are authentic, credible, representative and meaningful they will succeed in their research pursuits.

Meehan et al.’s (1993) claim regarding what PEC studies ought to demonstrate leaves many important questions unanswered including: authentic, credible and meaningful to whom (i.e. their colleagues, or those whose reality they aim to describe such as the information have nots, the displaced worker, the misguided policy-maker); as well as, representative of what? As the “postmodern turn” (Seidman, 1995; Best and Kellner,

1998) in the social sciences has rightly suggested, claims of authenticity, meaningfulness and representativeness ought not be taken lightly. Such declarations require a certain level of self-reflexivity that does not seem evident in the political economy of communication literature presently available. Mosco (1996) himself acknowledges this oversight in most PEC approaches when he notes, “by placing in the foreground a tendency to look outward in the world, political economy has rarely looked inward to what makes it a central perspective in communication research and a vital set of tools for understanding the global political economy” (p. 136).

If pressed to identify the methodological course pursued in most PEC studies, it tends to involve a critical, descriptive, case study approach designed to illustrate the relations of capital in practice. More precisely, those involved with this tradition always place a specific object of inquiry (be it a concept, policy, industry, product or process) in a specific temporal or spatial framework (what they call a socio-historic context), with their central aim always being to connect their topic of interest with a discussion about how it contributes to the broader process of capital accumulation currently underway—

30 for example via the route of commodification, spatialization or structuration (see Mosco,

1996). Moreover, scholars in this area value the careful interpretation of industry or public documents and print media accounts. For example, looking at the bibliographies of most PEC investigations the core sources of information includes: local, regional, national and international government papers (such as committee reports, industry reviews, public statistics, budget documents, legislation), newspaper articles, corporate records (budgets, annual reports, required public disclosures), and trade journals.

This brief examination of the methodological dimensions of PEC suggests that though little guidance is available in the current discussions about what methods ought to be used, studies within this literature can be characterized as supplying a critical description of a specific area of interest that is based on an interpretation of official documents, all with the general aim of explaining how the concentration of capital functions in our contemporary world.

2.2.3 An assessment of PEC’s potential for a study of metaphor, technology and policy

How might the PEC literature make a positive contribution to a study of metaphor, technology and policy? Drawing on the ideas that were presented above two immediate benefits are apparent.

First, an effort to offer a holistic picture of communications as an overlapping production, distribution and consumption cycle provides an interesting way to build linkages between technology, metaphors and policymaking. In this case policymakers, and even their

31 industry partners, can be seen as the producers and distributors of technology metaphors via official reports, websites and advertisements; while citizens can be considered consumers that negotiate the metaphors placed before them. Metaphors are thus positioned as goods that circulate from business and industry officials to citizens. Such a consideration of how language generally, and metaphors of technology more specifically, work in the broader political and economic conditions encourages the following sorts of questions to be raised: do metaphors contribute to reproducing certain structures of power and how does this process work; 7 have capitalist concepts like “commodification”

spread to encompass all of society, including the metaphors of our policy planners? 8

Along with PEC’s ability to highlight how metaphors may come to form a part of the production, distribution and consumption process of contemporary life, several of the

“essential dimensions” outlined by Meehan et al.(1993) seem particularly relevant to studies of policy. Specifically, the assertion that academic work should involve a general commitment to taking a normative stance and seek to involve praxis (i.e. turn theory and reflection into action) is appealing. By this, I mean that these scholars often chose to study specific sites where decisions that impact social change actually take place (such as the policy sphere); they then analyze a particular issue within this site and supply directives for future change. Such a stance can be related to studies of metaphor by

7 Questions and concepts of importance to this dissertation that be returned to in subsequent chapters are italicized. 8I pinpoint commodification as the most instructive of the three entry points provided by Mosco (1996) as it seems to most clearly encapsulate the broader forces of capital accumulation at work of interest to PEC scholars. Mosco (1996) defines commodification quite simply as the transformation of goods and services into objects with specific market place value (p. 41).

32 asking an appropriately critically oriented question: what sorts of values are being protected and eroded via the metaphors selected? In addition, once specific metaphors have been identified this approach opens up the possibility of exploring the following: are there other metaphors that might be more appropriate when thinking about the notion of the “public good” than those being currently deployed?

Despite such benefits, political economy is not without its limitations. Among its most vocal critics are those scholars situated within the field of cultural studies.9 The

opposition mounted by this school of thought is well articulated by Grossberg (1995), who lists a variety of drawbacks to the PEC perspective. Central to Grossberg’s discomfort is PEC’s reliance on an abstract form of capitalism which focuses almost exclusively on “a binary distinction between the owners of the means of production and waged labour” without adequately capturing how capitalism articulates itself differently in various locations, be this at a national or even more local level (Grossberg, 1995, p.

73). He also suggests that PEC investigations have tended to neglect explorations of consumption practices in everyday life in favour of discussions of production. This ignores the fact that the relationship between these two sites of meaning creation can vary considerably. People do not always consume in the way producers intend. In addition, he highlights PEC’s lack of attention to defining what opposition and negotiation might look like, making it hard for this approach to capture the often “contradictory nature of social practices” embedded within the organization of capital (Grossberg, 1995, p. 76). Overall,

9 To get an example of both sides of this debate see Garnham (1995) versus Grossberg (1995).

Grossberg feels that most PEC studies are highly reductionist since “class and economics” tends to be all that seems to matter (p. 77).

Based on my review of those who use PEC to describe the Canadian communication industries,10 I largely agree with Grossberg’s assessment. Many of the scholars working

within this theoretical framework start with some underlying assumptions about the

existence of power that are reasonably predictable. The idea that power pervades all of

our relationships, and that the source of that power should be inexorably linked to our

mode of production, while a credible departure point, must serve as simply that, a

departure point. Such an assertion necessitates a fair amount of empirical support in order

to not be suspect and even then it will have its critics. Latour (2005) provides a sample of

the scepticism an approach like PEC attracts:

To insist behind every issue there exists the overarching presence of the same system, the same empire, the same totality, has always struck me as an extreme case of masochism, a perverted way to look for sure defeat while still enjoying a feeling of superior political correctness. (p. 252)

As Latour’s comments reveal, any conception of power as broad social force emanating

from capitalist relations can be problematic. To support such assertions requires well-

presented, convincing empirical substantiation, however many PEC studies in their quest

for breadth have sacrificed depth, often lacking compelling support of this nature. Babe’s

(1990) “myths of technology” are an excellent example of such a sacrifice. While the

myths he exposes are interesting and compelling, he fails to support these observations

10 See, Babe (1990), Longford (2002), Mosco & McKercher, (2006), Mussio, (2001), and Winseck (1998).

34 with a detailed examination of any corpus of data that illustrates the frequency or intensity of such beliefs; although he would likely argue that his historical overview provides enough evidence to identify such patterns. In addition, Babe implies that all citizens have been equally swayed by these myths and have forgotten the roles that institutions play in making decisions about technology, though it is questionable whether all people interpret and understand telecommunications history in a similar manner.

As well as the assumptions made about the overarching nature of power, in many PEC discussions the flow of power between industry and government officials is presented as unidirectional. It is clear why this occurs, as industry and state players are those that possess the social capital to marshal specific political and economic resources.

Nevertheless, the process of consumption is not straightforward, individuals have the capacity to negotiate and contest the messages presented to them. Grossberg (1995) summarizes this position nicely in his claim: “power is constructed and lived, and that means not only looking at what people gain from such practices but also at the possibilities for rearticulating such practices to escape, resist, or even oppose particular structures of power” (p. 76). In order to address this issues in the context of my specific research interests, I am compelled to ask a question not often raised by those working within this tradition: is there a space created by citizens which challenge policy planners’ visions of a particular initiative?

In addition to my hesitancy with PECs taken for granted attitude towards power and the unidirectional relationship between citizens and policy planners it posits, my view of

35 technology does not coincide with the political economy of communication perspective.

While I feel many of the trends highlighted by political economists are stimulating, their supposedly cautiously sceptical approach to discussing information and communication technology still tends to focus on only the negative dimensions associated with technological change. I believe their accounts would be more convincing if they took a more balanced approach. Accordingly, I will not begin my analysis with the premise that the SuperNet metaphor is consciously deceptive and that the technology it describes is ultimately destructive. My position is more neutral, I want to suggest simply that the use of metaphor is particularly powerful way for grasping how we control, select, organize and channel ideas (a principle mechanism for the diffusion of knowledge) and is thus worthy of critical consideration.

Finally, I also agree with Manning (2006) who asserts that most PEC studies still struggle with incorporating studies of language into their investigations because they are comfortable with how best to treat linguistic goods. He notes:

Locked in incommensurable universes, language trapped in a world of ideas far apart from the world of material goods that form the object of classic political economy. To unite these opposed worlds becomes something like an act of alchemy, a magical overcoming of the familiar dualisms of words and things, ideas and goods, idealism and materialism (Manning, 2006, p. 271).

Fortunately, while some might find language in general, and metaphors more specifically, not comparable to material goods in circulation, not all PEC scholars feel this way. For example, Graham (2000) argues persuasively for the inclusion of language when trying to appreciate the dynamics of the socio-technical domain created by contemporary

36 capitalism. He advances a more fulsome definition of the production process suggesting our conceptualization ought to include “the entire network of activities and artefacts with which societies reproduce themselves from every perspective and at every level: materially, socially, relationally, mentally and economically” (Graham, 2000, p. 137).

Within this context, language easily constitutes both the relational and mental components of how the dynamics of capital are organized and maintained. Moreover,

Thompson (1990), while not explicitly a political economy of communication scholar, identifies specific strategies of symbolic construction that might help researchers identify coercive power (what he labels as “ideology”), one of which is the use of tropes such as metaphor. However, approaches like Graham’s and Thompson’s are rare; moreover, few concrete examples are currently available of how the forces of capitalism within Canada manifest themselves concretely in the language of those with direct decision-making power in the policy process and those without.11 In sum, while PEC raises some good

questions that could accommodate an appreciation of metaphor, this perspective still

lacks precision regarding how such queries might be answered.

2.3 Actor-Network Theory

2.3.1 An introduction to the approach

A very different approach to that of PEC is actor-network theory (ANT). While PEC

aims for breadth, ANT provides a map that emphasizes the more local and contextual

dimensions of social and technological phenomena.

11 A notable exception is the work of Young (2003) who attempts to identify competing discourses in Canadian policymaking by a broad review of key policy documents.

ANT is generally considered as a sub-field of science and technology studies (STS). In

Woolgar’s (2004) recent assessment of the state of the literature, he suggests that ANT, and other STS approaches, emerged out of a general dissatisfaction with traditional

Whiggish accounts of the history of science and technology. Moreover, STS thinkers were heavily influenced by debates in the 1970s about the nature of an objectivist philosophy of science and concerns regarding how reliable knowledge is generated. In many ways critiquing science seemed like the “hardest case” possible for theorists as scientific knowledge practices had previously remained unquestioned (by virtue of their

“rigorous respect for ‘reason’ and ‘experience’” and obvious material success). Thus they served as an ideal entry point for questioning the dynamics of knowledge production and dissemination in other areas as well. (Woolgar, 2004, p. 342)

STS approaches continue to be important to scholars today. The value for these approaches is nicely captured in Dawson et al’s (2000) praise of STS scholars’ ability to:

[R]ecognize the need for a broader conception of politics which goes beyond the notion of class division and control, and simple representations of manipulation, vested interest, and consent, towards a conception which extends the political process to include elements such as culture, the historical legacy of past events and the social construction of a dominant discourse around technology and change. (p. 5)

The desire of those engaging with these theories to carefully and systematically explore questions of culture and specific discourses of technology is a marked shift from what is generally present in the historical and holistic discussions provided by those using PEC.

The central components of ANT originated in the work of French STS scholars, Michel

Callon and Bruno Latour and British sociologist John Law. It is difficult to do justice to

ANT in a brief space;12 as to truly experience ANT requires a direct and detailed

engagement with their interesting accounts of scallops (Callon, 1986), electric cars

(Callon,1987), scientists (Latour, 1987), microbes (Latour, 1988b), trains (Latour, 1996),

hotel keys (Latour, 1999 ) and aircrafts (Law, 2004). Nevertheless, while each of these

authors varies in their approach and their sites for empirical engagement within their

toolbox, a common set of concepts is generally deployed. These ideas include, but are not

limited to, the following: actors, networks, translation and black boxes. Each of these

concepts is described in detail below.

One of the first articulations of ANT, can be found in Callon’s (1987) work on the

electric car in which he defines an actor-network as being “composed of a series of

heterogeneous elements, animate and inanimate, that have been linked to one another

over a certain period of time” (p. 93). In this sense actors can be defined simply as

entities (human or non-human)13 that form specific linkages (networks). Actor and

network are linked together because actors are not thought to have properties of their

12 Here I concur with Clarke (2002) who notes that any effort to provide a “clear” or “succinct” account of the ANT would “constitute a betrayal since clearest principles involved is an anti-reductionist commitment to working with complexity” (p. 109). 13 Latour suggests he uses the word “actor”, “agent”, and “actant” somewhat interchangeably, “without making any assumptions about who they may be and what properties they are endowed with”. They are said by Latour to have as a key feature, the characteristics of “being autonomous figures”. However, apart from that they may be an “individual”, “a collective”, “figurative”, or ”non figurative” (Latour, 1988b, n11, p. 252).

39 own, but rather “entities take form and acquire their attributes as a result of their relations with other actors” (Law, 1991, p. 3). Actor-networks are thus a relational phenomenon.

To describe an actor-network is to trace linkages among human and non-human actors.

Moreover, describing an actor-network accommodates an exploration of both micro and macro phenomenon, as the start and end of a network description is determined solely by the “actor's own achievement” (Latour, 2005, p. 185). As Stadler (1997) notes, “the size or importance of an actor is dependent on the size of the networks he/she/it can command and the size of the networks depends on the number of actors it can align” (para. 21).

Descriptions will thus vary due to scale and nothing more. Accordingly, within the literature actor-networks cover a variety of diverse topics including large more nebulous concepts such as the “nation” (Abramson, 1997) and “the market” (Callon, 1999), along with more tangible, smaller networks, such as a hospital (Dent, 2003), a project management model (Räisänen & Linde, 2004) and/or a specific product (Lehenkari,

2000).

A central aim in using ANT is to challenge scholars to take material objects and processes more seriously. According to Law (1991) most sociologists are guilty of “the systematic practice of discrimination against other species”(p. 7). For instance, Law

(1991) argues that within modern sociological accounts though there is a sense that technology is present, scholars do not treat “machines with the same analytic machinery as people” (p. 8). Most descriptions tend to position technical acts in one of three ways: as an explanatory (technological determinism); as an expression of social relations (social reductionism); or, as a combination of both (social shaping). To Latour, Law, and Callon,

40 such an approach is not adequate. They believe in speaking not of the social and then the technical but rather of a socio-technical order. In their collective body of work actor- networks are not formed simply of people who perform heroic acts but also of physical materials, texts, machines, devices and buildings.

Some excellent examples of how non-humans speak can be found in Latour’s (1996) book Aramis. This engaging book chronicles the French effort to build a new model of public transport for Paris; one that combined features of both a car and the subway.

Aramis was a project that produced impressive prototypes, gained political support from successive administrations, and was the source of considerable public investment; however, after almost twenty years in the making (1970-1987) this initiative was suddenly cancelled. Latour’s central question is: who, or what, killed Aramis? In his journey to uncover the answer to this query he has the different parts of the train car

“speak”:

“For my part” the motor declares, “I won’t even put up with nonmaterial coupling. Never do you hear me? Never will I allow acceleration and deceleration to be regulated down to the millisecond!”

“Well, as for me,” says the chip, “I bug the CEO and his journalists. A soon as they want to break me in, I break down and keep them from getting started. Ah! It’s a beautiful sight, watching their faces fall, and poor Lamoureux in a rage…”

“That’s pretty good,” says the chassis. “Me on the contrary, I let them move me around with one finger. I glide right over the tracks, since I’m so light, and I even actually let myself be bumped a bit.” (Latour, 1996, p. 59)

In this passage Latour accomplishes two things. First, he familiarizes the reader with some different parts of the technology; second, he captures some of the struggles that the engineers seem to face in trying to create an operational device. Throughout the book,

Latour also supplies Aramis, the technological entity, with the opportunity for expression:

I am not yet among the powers that be. I am only a light breath, a feather drifting in the wind, a murmur in an engineer’s ear, a wasp to be flicked impatiently away, an attractive idea that flirts from seminar to colloquium to investigatory body to research report …My story is told in words and drawings, it is not yet in hard type. What the account book foresees is not yet accounted for, inscribed, engraved, burned forever in the amorphous silicon…. Chase away the people and I return to an inert state. Bring people back and I am aroused again, but my life belongs to the engineers who are pushing me, pulling me, deciding about me, cursing me, steering me… If men stop being interested in me, I don’t even talk anymore… Aramis, I, we, hesitate to exist. (Latour, p. 1996, p. 123)

These lines articulate some of the relationships that ANT theorists posit exist between human and non-human entities. At times Aramis is an actor that can and does enrol subjects into a network, however without human interest and Aramis fails to have an impact. The relationship between social beings and technology is contingent and unstable; it has the potential to be constantly negotiated and renegotiated by all parts within the network.

According to Callon (1986, 1991) and Latour (1987) 14 networks are built through

translation. Translation (a concept variously represented in the original French by

traduction and/or déplacement) is a general process “during which the identity of actors,

the possibility of interaction and the margins of manoeuvre are negotiated and delimited”

(Callon, 1986, p. 6). Callon (1986) identifies four different moments of translation. The

first moment occurs with problematization. This is when actors articulate that they share

a common concern with possible allies. Actors strive to convince others that they have

the necessary skills, knowledge and resources to solve a common problem; they present

themselves as indispensable, an obligatory point of passage that others must pass through

to achieve success. Interessement, the next moment of translation, is how an actor

attempts to stabilize the identities and roles defined in the problematization; it is the effort

to lock entities into place. If interessement is successful, enrolment occurs. Enrolment is

described as “the group of multilateral negotiations, trials of strengths and tricks that

accompany the interessement” (Callon, 1986, p. 10). Callon suggests that enrolment is

not easy and may require physical violence, seduction and consent without discussion.

The final moment of translation involves the mobilization of allies and the designation of

a spokesperson. Discussions in this instance occur among a very few. Callon (1986)

astutely notes, “to speak for others is to first silence those in whose name we speak” (p.

14). A successful, or complete, translation is thought to generate a shared space,

14I focus on Callon in this section as he is trying to describe a general idea of what “a sociology of translation” might look like, and his description is brief and highly accessible. However, in Science in Action, Latour devotes an entire chapter (Chapter 3) to some the specific strategies of translation available. He identifies how when scientists build facts they use translation to control the behaviors of humans and non-humans and make actions more predictable. Latour’s chapter reinforces and details many of the elements discussed by Callon (1986) above.

43 equivalence, commensurability and alignment; in contrast, an unsuccessful translation is one in which actors no longer communicate, they reconfigure themselves in separate places with no common measures or linkages (Callon, 1991, p. 145). Moreover, irreversibility occurs at the moment when a social investment reaches a point where withdrawal would be unlikely (Callon, 1991).

Callon (1991) suggests that intermediaries are devices that facilitate translation: translations flow through and are held in place by intermediaries. Some examples of intermediaries that actors might use in translation include texts (literary inscriptions), technical artefacts, skills and money. According to Callon “actors define one another by the mean of intermediaries that they put into circulation” (p. 140). The social can thus be understood in the “inscriptions that mark the intermediaries” (p. 140). He argues that the need to speak of actors and not just intermediaries is because an actor is “an intermediary that puts other intermediaries into circulation” (p. 141), thereby making a difference to the network. The division between an actor and an intermediary thus becomes an empirical practicality that depends entirely on the interests of the analyst.

To appreciate the ANT notion of translation is to investigate how series of negotiable hypotheses regarding the identity, relationships and goals of different actors are constrained, and a network of connections solidified. According to Callon (1986),

“translation is a process before it is a result” (p. 19); it helps us track the displacement that occurs as a network is formed. It is a heuristic that facilitates a description of a complex process that “mixes together social and natural entities” and provides an

44 explanation of “how few obtain the right to represent the many silent actors of the natural and social world they have mobilized” (Callon, 1986, p. 19).

In contrast to PEC theorists, actor-network scholars do not envision power as something that is a “reservoir, stock, or capital that will automatically provide an explanation”

(Latour, 2005, p. 64). “ANTs” are urged to “be sober with power” (Latour, 2005, p. 260), as power is something that is “produced, made up and composed” (Latour, 2005, p. 64).

In short, translation provides a way of looking at how power is articulated, negotiated, and contested, on a moment-to-moment basis as networks are formed and solidified.

In viewing historical events after networks have stabilized, the analyst must open up the

“black box”15 of a particular system of relations, so that you do not simply understand the

outputs and inputs of a particular configuration, but rather how an actor-network came to

be (Latour, 1987). Stadler (1997) provides a nice example of this idea:

The law… is a collection of black boxes. In its formation stage a law is a contested set of competing sentences around which occasionally large alliances are built to influence their specific shape. During the legislative process they are fluid and open. Once the legislation has been passed, contested sentences turn into a black box, sealing all the elements, however arbitrary they might be, in a fixed and stable relationship that cannot be questioned easily.(para. 15)

In making an effort to expose the inner workings of seemingly black-boxed networks,

“ANTs” generally find themselves looking for controversies, disagreements and/or

15 "A black box contains that which no longer needs to be considered, those things whose contents have become a matter of indifference" (Callon & Latour, 1981, p. 285).

45 debates within the realm of the socio- technical. Thus the less we are likely to question a

“fact” the more probable it is that it has been black boxed.

2.3.2 Some notes on methods

While labelled a theory (actor-network theory), ANT is not necessarily always recognized as such. For example, in an effort to assess the development of this approach and its future possibilities, Law and Hassard (1999) put together a volume of collected works, entitled Actor network theory and after, in which both Law (1999) and Latour

(1999) argue that ANT is better thought of as a theory-method, rather than as a theory alone. According to Law (1999), ANT is simply “the ruthless application of semiotics”

(p. 3). Due to its focus on relational elements and interpretation of signs, this perspective offers “both theoretical and practical” sensibilities (Law, 1990, p. 11) and thus is not something that can be neatly labelled. To Latour (1999), ANT was never intended as a theory but rather as “another way to be faithful to ethnomethodology" (Latour, 1999, p.

19). Latour (1999) asserts that ANT is “simply a way for social scientists to travel from one spot to the next, from one field site to the next, not an interpretation of what actors do simply glossed in a different more palatable universal language” (p. 21). In his most recent work, Latour (2005) deviates slightly when he claims ANT is “a theory, and a strong one I think, but about how to study things, or rather how not to study them― or rather to let actors have some room to express themselves” (p. 142).16 ANT thus becomes

difficult to categorize, as according to its leading spokespeople it offers both

16 Latour (2005) apologizes for the inconsistencies in his recent work (2005) and his previous position in 1999: “whereas at the time I criticized all of the elements of this horrendous expression, including the hyphen, I will now defend all of them, including the hyphen” (Latour, 2005, n9, p. 9)!

46 methodological (via semiotics and ethnomethodology) and theoretical (through concepts such as actors, networks, black-boxes and translation) possibilities.

To Callon (1986), a good ANT account respects three methodological principles

“faithfully”. The first guideline is to remain an agnostic observer. Researchers must strive to be impartial and non-judgmental towards arguments that are offered by actors and refrain from censoring them when they speak about themselves and their social environment. In an ANT account, “no point of view is privileged and no interpretation is censored” (p. 4). The second rule is that of “generalized symmetry”. Analysts should ensure they do not switch repertoires, or change registers when describing elements from society (subjects) and nature (objects). Both deserve equal attention. Akrich (1992) expands on how symmetry can be understood, by suggesting that it be viewed as a process in which actors use technology as script. In such a case actual users read and interpret this script. However, the script itself still constrains human actions; it assigns specific roles to both human and non-human actors based on presumed use. This concept is remarkably useful as “the notion of actant (actual users) and script (presumed user) encourages us to analyze the ways in which users resist the roles ascribed to them”

(Howcroft, Mitev & Wilson, 2004, p. 346). The final component that Callon (1986) insists upon is “free association”. Researchers have to be willing to “abandon all a priori distinctions between natural and social events” (Callon, 1986, p. 4). No pre-established grid should be used when approaching an area of concern; the observer must “simply follow the actors” (Callon, 1986, p. 4).

In his “rules of methods” in Science and Action, Latour (1987) offers similar advice.

While his proposals are designed as a guide for the study of science in particular, when considered more broadly for a study of the “social” they would include the following sorts of recommendations. First, the most interesting elements of study are not those that have been black-boxed but rather are actor-networks in formation; if something has been black-boxed (accepted as fact) we should follow its controversies in order to re-open it

(rule 1). Second, researchers should not describe the intrinsic qualities of actors but rather the transformation they undergo in the “hands of others” (rule 2). Third, the efforts to enrol human and non-human resources are equally important in one’s analysis (rule 4).

Finally, we must remain undecided regarding which actors to follow and what the social is made of. Researchers should study both the inside and outside of particular networks and be prepared to make a list “no matter how long and heterogeneous of those who do the work” on both sides (rule 5). (Latour, 1987, p. 258)

To summarize, according to Callon (1986) and Latour (1987) an ANT account is: impartial, treats objects and subjects equally, and involves no expectations about what we will uncover. Based on such advice, one can clearly see why two of Latour’s empirical studies, (Laboratory Life and Aramis), are likened to detective fiction by Austin and

Farnsworth (2005). They note, “following actors and things in time is also the method of the detective… indeed it is possible to see the detective as ethnographer as much as the ethnographer as detective” (Austin & Farnsworth, 2005, p. 152).

2.3.3 An assessment of ANT’s potential for a study of metaphor, technology and policy

At present there are a limited number of ANT studies directly related to policy. However,

Woolgar (2004) suggests that policy could benefit tremendously from STS, ANT particularly, since politics seem to be escaping critical analytic attention. He claims:

[Politicians’] presentations, demonstrations and declarations seem impervious to ‘obvious’ rebuttal… they never answer the question, their claims seem obviously flawed, and their use of concepts such as “evidence’ seem laughably unsubstantiated, yet they nonetheless proceed to operate with impunity in important decision making spaces. In all this they deploy technologies and appeal to scientific expertise. (Woolgar, 2004, p. 346)

To Woolgar, politics, in which policymaking plays a major role, has perhaps replaced science as the “hardest case possible” for scholars today. This is an important claim, which has yet to be taken up seriously by ANT scholars. 17

When reflecting rather specifically about how ANT could be applied to a study of the metaphor, technology and policymaking, some clear benefits emerge. The first comes from conceptualizing metaphor as an actor. In doing so, metaphors become a dynamic part of the policy process with the potential to have tremendous significance within a given network. They are thus given an analytic primacy that might be equal to that of other actors that are traditionally conjured up when one thinks of policy (i.e. citizens, and government and industry players). By thinking about metaphors in policy in this manner, several key questions emerge which include: what does it mean to be an actor in policy; what are some of the sorts of activities that metaphors can be thought to accomplish;

17 Notable exceptions include Dugdale (1999) and Strathern (1999).

what are the sorts of network relationships that can be observed between policy planners,

citizens, metaphors and even the technology itself?

As previously noted, Callon (1991) asserts that the division between an actor and an intermediary in ANT is seen as an empirical practicality that depends on the choices made by a researcher. If metaphors are positioned as an intermediary a slightly different question emerges: how are metaphors used to circumscribe which behaviours count, and what counts as behaviour, for both human and non-humans in policymaking? If metaphor is viewed as an intermediary it is also closely linked to the concept of translation. Translation thus becomes a process in which the movement of metaphor in policy can be tracked. For example, one can ask how metaphor functions in the different stages of translation (i.e. problematization, interessement, enrolment and mobilization) with the final and most useful question being, are the metaphors selected by policy planners ones in which a shared space is created, or rather do they indicate an incomplete translation?

In addition to the interesting theoretical tools ANT provides to researchers, its ethnomethodological roots encourage an active engagement with policy planners, one that moves beyond the analysis of documents typical of PEC studies to one in which the words, ideas and concepts offered by those who participate in the policy process are of value.

Notwithstanding its advantages, ANT (both as a theory and as a method) has been subject

to criticism (see for example, Maclean & Hassard, 2004; Whittle & Spicer, 2008, Winner,

1993). At a general level, Winner (1993) provides an excellent illustration of the types of

50 attacks ANT has been subjected to. He asserts that most social constructivist approaches to technology, of which ANT is included, tend to encounter three major problems. First, they rely too heavily on providing descriptions of technical artefacts and processes, at the expense of exploring the personal experiences and social relations that result from such network formations. Second, such investigations focus on the “immediate needs, interests, problems and solutions of a specific network” often ignoring the wider context in which such networks are situated (i.e. the micro versus the macro debate). Finally, these studies do not reflect enough upon what it means to be excluded from a specific network. (Winner, 1993, 362-365) This last concern regarding exclusion is something that feminist scholars have also highlighted as a drawback to many ANT accounts (Star,

1991; Wajcman, 2000). For example, Wajcman (2000) suggests that many of the narratives about successful technological networks currently available have male

“heroes” at the forefront of their descriptions, thus never addressing questions about why women tend to be invisible and marginalized in the socio-technical world. While there is certainly validity in all of these contentions, I think it is fair to suggest that some ANT accounts do a better job at addressing such elements of concerns than others. It is thus possible to assert that such problems are not completely connected to the approach per se but rather to the manner in which specific ANT studies have been conducted and presented.

Despite my general feeling that ANT studies can surmount most of Winner’s and feminist-oriented objections, I still find myself to be somewhat sympathetic to his discomfort with this perspective’s tendency to not take a normative stance (i.e. what

“ought to be”) regarding specific technologies. For example, it seems likely Winner

(1993) would contend that there is some value in PEC studies because they have “always shown a concern for the conditions of the working class and the world’s downtrodden, expressing suspicion of the manipulation of capital and a hope that the dynamics of history would produce human liberation” (p. 375). In contrast, ANT theorists generally abstain from “calling into question the basic commitments and projects of modern technological society” (Winner, 1993, p. 375). Fujimura (1991) expresses her frustration with Latour on this front by claiming:

In contrast to Latour, I am still sociologically interested in understanding why and how some human perspectives win over others in the construction of technologies and truths, why and how some will go along with the will of other actors, and why and how some human actors resist being enrolled…. I want to take sides, to take stands. (p.217)

I disagree with the Fujimura’s direct attack on Latour, as I think a network analysis can address issues around why there are some winners and losers in technology construction.

For example, in his work on Aramis, Latour’s goal was precisely that: to discover why one transportation solution failed while another succeeded, focusing mostly on issues of weak network dynamics and incomplete translations. However, I do believe that in the case of policy research perhaps ANT does not go far enough. Academics who are studying policy are expected to take a position on these activities and evaluate government approaches. This is where I think some of the questions raised by PEC scholars in the previous section, which might cause some ANT theorists discomfort, should not be overlooked such as: have capitalist concepts like “commodification” spread to encompass all of society, including the metaphors of our policy planners; what

52 sorts of values are being protected and eroded via the metaphors selected; are there other metaphors that might be more appropriate when thinking about the notion of the

“public good” than those being currently deployed? These questions touch upon

Winner’s larger context issues associated with the current state of our modern technological society. Moreover, these queries serve to connect my interest regarding the role of metaphor in technology policymaking to wider issues of public interest that may not be addressed by simply following the actors (be they metaphors or something other).

I am not alone in my sentiments that ANT is not quite adequate in terms of providing a critical stance. For example Dent (2003) uses Foucault’s notion of governmentality to complement his discussion of ANT when exploring actor-networks in the hospital setting; moreover, Räisänen & Linde (2004) use critical discourse analysis along with

ANT to examine a project management system. In fact Doolin & Lowe (2002) suggest that even Latour himself sometimes hints “that something else needs to be added to the network when asked to provide policy or pass judgement” (p. 74). However, by drawing attention to PEC, I do not want readers to assume that I believe ANT is “unreflexive” or

“acritical”. Rather this additional connection is made simply because I believe that ANT can benefit from the theoretical insights supplied by other approaches, be it PEC or otherwise. Just as I feel PEC scholars can gain many valuable insights from ANT.

In addition to concerns with the general theoretical position of ANT, issues about its methodological suitability have been raised. The most often expressed concern centres around how best to use the “highly abstract nature of the ideas and concepts” (Howcroft

53 et al., 2004, p. 343). Such a claim is substantiated by the fact that the accounts provided by many of its key thinkers diverge tremendously. For example, reading Law’s Aircraft

Stories is much different from experiencing Latour’s Aramis. Moreover, Latour’s The

Pasterization of France is quite a different book than Aramis. Such variance makes it challenging at times to imagine how one could produce their own ANT analysis.

Howcroft et al. (2004) highlight additional issues raised by ANT’s methodological ideas.

These include: “[knowing] what ‘all’ the actors are; how to treat small and large actors and their power and political differences; knowing where one network starts and another stops; and understanding how they overlap” (Howcroft et al., 2004, p. 355). Finally, while it has been suggested that while the concept of symmetry is helpful because it encourages including non-humans into our accounts, knowing how precisely to let non- humans speak is not easily overcome (Collins & Yearley, 1992). What the aforementioned criticisms collectively highlight is that ANT requires the analyst to make some specific methodological choices that are not neatly prescribed in the methodological advice they offer.

2.4 Summary and concluding thoughts on the PEC & ANT maps

This chapter began by suggesting that theory is a map that academics rely on to help guide their travels, particularly when they intend to explore specific empirical examples.

It then proceeded to look at two quite different theories: political economy of communication (PEC) and actor-network theory (ANT). Both perspectives are popular in current academic literature, PEC (for studies of policy and the communication industries

54 in Canada) and ANT (for investigations of technology), and thus offer a great deal of promise for constructing a solid theoretical base for thinking about the connections between metaphor, technology and policy.

I argued that from PEC the idea that metaphor can be thought holistically as part of a broader cycle of production, distribution and consumption (as a relational and mental good) is useful; it raises important questions about how relations of capital are organized and maintained in the actions of policy planners; it also encourages scholars to think seriously about what our language says about our current state of commodification and what it can tell us about some of deeper values around technology. Moreover, PEC’s tendency to take a normative position and strive for praxis is well suited for studies of public policy.

Despite such advantages, PEC is not without its drawbacks, particularly as it relates to a study of metaphor. Among these are fairly predictable assumptions about how power works, how citizens and governments interact, and about the “impact” of technology.

Moreover, many scholars in this tradition are uncomfortable with assigning language a comparable value as a good when conceptualizing how relations of capital are both produced and maintained. Such challenges can be mitigated by providing detailed empirical support about the construction of power, factoring in the ability of citizens to negotiate policy meanings, and attempting to remain neutral about the effect of technology on society.

While PEC offers the opportunity to position metaphor as part of the relational and mental goods within technology policymaking, ANT provides a rather different way of thinking about these devices. ANT opens up the possibility for metaphor to become an even more integral part of one’s analytic focus, as either a key actor or central intermediary in the policy process. Metaphors are thus personified and given life and the power to “do” something of significance within the policy world. This is an incredibly fruitful line of inquiry and is consequently expanded upon in the chapters that follow.

ANT’s emphasis on including both human and non-human actors takes us away from binary understandings of the relationship between technology and society involved with either social shaping approaches (people always impose their will on essentially passive things) and technological determinist explorations (which personify and empower technology with an internal logic independent of human intervention). We do not simply metaphorize technology or let technology metaphorize us; rather technology policy development and its implementation is a process open to interpretation. Planners, users, the technology itself, and metaphors, are all potential actors in the formation of specific socio-technical configurations, thereby providing a wide scope for analysis. This is particularly instructive when we think of technology, as Ackrich (1992) instructs, as a script in which we explore presumed use by policymakers, over its actual use (or readings) by citizens.

In general, ANT avoids many of the problems highlighted with PEC in this chapter. First,

ANT takes away the rigid predictability of PEC accounts by suggesting that power is not

56 a given but something that must be established through a process of systematic tracing and empirical engagement. In doing so it actually becomes feasible to say that any given case is not always best viewed in the context of relations of capital, though it does not completely foreclose this possibility. ANT also encourages a more ethnographic approach than the typical archival, statistical and economically based research found in

PEC discussions. Consequently, it promotes speaking to policy planners and users directly, if possible. Moreover, by including user views in one’s investigation, PEC’s unidirectional assumptions about power can be investigated, as they are not simply a given. We can ask, were citizens enrolled successfully; as well as, what were the conditions of their inclusion in a particular socio-technical network? Finally, technology as a coercive force is not an agreed upon departure point but rather something that has to be proven.

Notwithstanding its benefits, ANT has some limitations. For example, when studying policy despite possible ANT protests, taking sides may be required, as this is a core part of how researchers can enrol policymakers to accept their academic accounts. I have attempted to overcome this potential weakness by choosing to keep PEC concerns within my theoretical framework as those questions associated with the values implicit in the metaphors selected are one not likely to be raised by ANT theorists as they tend to avoid

“calling into question” the basic commitments of our current technological society

(Winner, 1993). In addition, ANT lacks some precision about how to best to achieve its directives particularly in determining which actors to follow and how best to describe these. To counter this, analysts must be open and transparent about their particular

57 research design, and the limitations and boundaries of the networks they are evaluating. I engage in this process of critical reflection for my specific exploration of the SuperNet in

Chapter 4.

To conclude, both PEC and ANT provide concepts and ideas that offer a useful foundation for building linkages between metaphor, technology and policymaking.

However, it cannot be overlooked that they are still missing a detailed engagement with the central topic of this dissertation: metaphor. Neither of these theories offers guidance about how to define metaphor, where to identify metaphor within the policy process, and how best to explore metaphor empirically in a useful and comprehensible manner. This is of course not an inherent weakness of these perspectives, since neither ANT nor PEC scholars have chosen to include metaphor as a core subject within their analysis.

Fortunately, placing metaphor at the heart of one’s investigation is a task that scholars in rhetoric, literature, philosophy and cognitive linguistics have taken very seriously.

Accordingly, the next chapter reviews the literature specifically devoted to metaphor, while still keeping the following valuable insights from ANT and PEC in mind:

• Metaphors can be seen as goods (or semantic objects) that are produced, circulated

and consumed in a wider socio-historic context.

• Metaphors may tell us something significant about how relations of capital are

organized and maintained.

• Normative suggestions may emerge out of studying the use of metaphor in the policy

process.

• Metaphors can be both actors and intermediaries in the policy process, enabling or

preventing successful translations.

Thus far this chapter has provided some preliminary structure for my journey.

Nevertheless, additional directives were still required before my travels could begin particularly in terms of defining metaphor, determining the process of metaphor analysis, and connecting the ideas from this chapter to such an exploration.

Chapter Three: Designing a conceptual map for the study of metaphor, policy and technology 18

3.1 Introduction

Much like the right side of the cartoon above, what follows is a diverse mix of concepts and methodological insights brought together to provide a conceptual map for understanding the complex dynamics of metaphor, technology and policy. This map will be used to guide my discussion of the SuperNet in subsequent chapters; however, the ideas presented below are not intended solely for this investigation. The central aim of this chapter is to provide direction for scholars interested in pursuing empirical examinations of policy metaphors, be they metaphors of technology or otherwise; this is accomplished not only by demonstrating how best to operationalize a study of metaphor,

18 A portion of this chapter has been published by L’Harmattan as a book chapter entitled, “Metaphor, policy and power: A reflection on the role of metaphor as a tool for critical policy analysis”, see Williams (2009).

60 but also by illustrating how metaphor can be appreciated as a device whose influence within policy should not be underestimated.

My quest for a comprehensive map begins with brief review of three questions: (1) what

is metaphor, (2) why do we use metaphor to communicate, and (3) how does one

conduct a metaphor analysis? By responding to these queries, I provide a working

definition of metaphor and identify those terms required to carry out a systematic

investigation of how metaphors work in policy. The second part of this chapter is

devoted to considering an actor-network theory (ANT) inspired concern: if metaphors

are thought to “do” something in policy (i.e. perform as actors that make a difference in

how a network is composed), what might they accomplish? Additionally, an effort is

made to connect this question to some of the ideas raised in the previous chapter from

political economy of communication (PEC) and ANT. Overall, the material used for

producing this conceptual and methodological map draws upon a wide range of sources

from a diverse selection of literature including but not limited to the following

disciplines: anthropology, applied linguistics, literary theory, philosophy, rhetoric and

policy studies.

3.2 PART 1: Defining the terms

The goal of this section is threefold. First, it defines the key object of study: metaphor.

Second, it outlines suggestions as to why metaphors are used in communication. Finally, it reviews the steps involved with metaphor analysis, taking into account the intricacies associated with making choices about what to study and how to present one’s findings.

3.2.1 What is Metaphor?

Any scholar hoping to incorporate metaphor into their research agenda― for the purposes of changing policy or otherwise― must endeavour to try and make sense of this subtle concept. Defining metaphor is not easy. The literature can overwhelm with its plethora of terms (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), the barrage of arguments around what metaphor accomplishes (Black, 1962, 1979; Davidson, 1978), and the highly technical discussions of neural and sensory processes associated with an understanding of metaphor

(Fauconnier, 1997; Fauconnier & Turner, 1998; Turner, 1996). Below, clarity is brought to the wealth of material on metaphor by highlighting several distinct ways that metaphors have been presented: linguistically, pragmatically, and cognitively. I then contend that it is best to exploit elements from all three of these approaches to capture the complexity of how metaphors function in policy.

Efforts to categorize metaphor are not unique to this dissertation. Two excellent reviews, which this section of the chapter draws heavily from, are Charteris-Black (2004) and

Beer & De Landtsheer (2004). Chateris-Black uses the same categories presented here but substitutes “linguistics” with “semantics”, and Beer & De Landtsheer discuss metaphor in terms of semantics, syntax and pragmatics. Another way to organize the conceptualization of metaphor theory is in terms of the substitution, comparison and interaction views. Such a review deals exclusively with the relationship between the parts of the metaphor (Cameron, 2003, pp. 15-18). More recently, Kornprobst, Pouliot, Shah &

Zaiotti (2008) differentiate metaphor by identifying three distinct approaches: those that

62 suggest that metaphors’ describe reality (mirrors), theories that explore metaphors’ ability to constitute reality (magicians), and perspectives that examine metaphors’ potential to both criticize and transform reality (mutineers) (p. 5).

3.2.1.1 Metaphor as a linguistic manifestation

Some propose that metaphor is best viewed quite simply as a linguistic device deployed in speech (Aristotle, trans. 1984; Booth, 1979). In this instance, metaphor is what literary

theorists would call a trope, a twist and turn of language, one that can be compared to

other tropes such as a metonym, synecdoche, or irony (Tilley, 1999). In its basic form the

Greek roots of the term “meta” (over) and “phereras” (to carry) provides a linguistically

oriented definition of metaphor; simply put, a metaphor is a figure of speech that

transports an idea from one domain to another (Foss, 2004).

Consequently when embracing a linguistic definition, and attempting to locate metaphor,

one is simply looking for colorful language; an explanation of an object or idea that

involves the combination of dissimilar concepts. This could for example include

describing a courageous person as having a “heart of a lion.” Here, the use of a lion to

depict a person’s approach to the world is used in an unexpected way. In doing so, a

metaphor brings attention to the differences inherent between what you might anticipate a

person’s heart to be and what is presented; this contrast is known as “semantic tension”

(Chateris-Black, 2004, p. 21).

Despite the simplicity of an approach that positions metaphor as simply a clever way of using language to combine two previously unlinked concepts, this perspective has limitations. Historically, the linguistic focus on metaphor has meant that it is thought to function as something unique or abnormal and generally belonging to the realm of literature, particularly poetry. Moreover, presenting metaphor as part of poetic speech has encouraged the suggestion that metaphor is “primarily ornamental… and not necessary”

(Ortony, 1979, p. 3). This idea of metaphor as merely an excess of language has allowed many scholars (such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke) to portray metaphor as a device of distortion or deception, even advocating that an effort should be made to rid speech of this misleading trope (Hamilton, 2000). Schön (1979) summarizes this nicely when he asserts: “Much of the interest in metaphor on the part of linguists and philosophers of language has had to do with metaphor as a species of figurative language that needs explaining, or explaining away” (p. 254).

A linguistic definition of metaphor provides some value to policy research as it offers guidance as to what to take notice of: you are simply looking for an unexpected coupling of concepts. Overall, it encourages us to acknowledge metaphor’s presence within the broader discursive system found in policy documents. However, this stance also permits metaphor to be positioned as device that is “nice to have” but not required, thereby discounting the contributions of those scholars who argue that metaphor is a fundamental, unavoidable part of how we communicate about, and experience, the world.

3.2.1.2 Metaphor as a pragmatic phenomenon

A second possible way for conceptualizing metaphor is as a pragmatic occurrence. 19

Here the focus becomes metaphor as a unit of knowledge that circulates as part of our

everyday communicative practices (Eubanks, 1997; Gheradi, 2000; Hellsten, 2002;

Maasen & Weingart, 2000). In this case, metaphor is not just about acknowledging a

grouping of words but rather recognizes that this use of language comes “from particular

people and groups in [specific] places and times that are inevitably shaped by the

interests and historical circumstances of their makers” (Rigney, 2001, p. 6). In addition to

situating metaphor in an explicit temporal and spatial dimension, this perspective

positions metaphor as an interpretive act involving a speaker and a listener, in which the

listener struggles to overcome the juxtaposition of terms that metaphor creates. Metaphor

is thus shifted away from just being about a play of words into a situated event (i.e. a

form of action). Such discussions imagine metaphor deployment as a conscious act with a

designated purpose.

19 The pragmatic tradition offers a rich history of thought about how language and action ought to be studied that extends far beyond the scope of this analysis. This tradition is often viewed as having originated in the late nineteenth century in the work of Charles Peirce and received more recognition in the early twentieth-century ideas of thinkers such as William James, John Dewey and George Herbert Mead. In summarizing what such theorists share in common Mintz (n.d.) notes they: “saw knowing as an open-ended quest for greater certainty, grounded in practical experience, and motivated by a desire for successful actions” (para. 2). Moreover, such scholars emphasize the unique ability of human beings to share symbols and create meaning. Fillmore (1976) provides a nice distinction between syntax, semantic and pragmatic understandings of language, which has relevance to discussions of metaphor. Studies of syntax are interested in the form that language takes; semantics focuses on the form and the function of language; and, pragmatics concerns itself with form, function and the actual setting in which speech exchanges occur. Accordingly a pragmatic study of metaphor would focus on highlighting factors such as identity, location, relative social status and the social and institutional contexts of either oral or written dialogue (Fillmore,1976, p. 85).

The pragmatic approach to metaphor is instructive because it highlights that there can be different interpretations of the same metaphor. In addition, this way of thinking draws attention to the fact that metaphors do not work in isolation but feed off each other and past deployments (Eubanks, 1997). Chateris-Black (2004) provides an excellent pragmatic definition of metaphor when he suggests metaphor is “an incongruous linguistic representation that has the underlying purpose of influencing judgment by persuasion; this purpose is covert and reflects a speaker’s intentions within particular contexts of use” (p. 21). Key questions pragmatists might ask of policy metaphors are: what types of utterances are likely to be interpreted as metaphor; what are the conditions of their use? (Chateris-Black, 2004, p.16) Within this context, scholars are also challenged to think about how metaphors work as devices of rhetoric and even as carriers of certain values in the policy world (Rigney, 2001, pp. 201-212). Thus one is not only interested in identifying a metaphor like he/she has a “heart of a lion”, but rather one is concerned in determining who deployed this metaphor, in what context, for whom, and with what effect?20

While thinking about metaphor pragmatically encourages posing interesting questions

about the deliberate use and interpretation of metaphor, measuring the influence of a

metaphor and its effectiveness as a tool of persuasion is not an easy task. The causal link

between the deployment of a metaphor and its supposed impact is not “easy to nail

down” (Beer & de Landtsheer, 2004, p. 7). In addition, some would contend a pragmatic

20 This is of very similar to Harold Lasswell’s discussions of how best to study media effects.

66 view lacks a way to explain how we actually comprehend metaphor; or more precisely, how we are able unconsciously to make the connection between the words and phrases taken from one domain and placed into another within our mind. To get a sense of how this mental processing potentially functions, we must turn to the cognitive dimensions of metaphor that have been discussed in the literature.

3.2.1.3 Metaphor as a cognitive experience

A final idea of metaphor that has been developed extensively is that of metaphor as a cognitive phenomenon. Much of the foundation for this perspective can be found in

Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) seminal work, Metaphors we live by.21 Their exploration

presents a sharp contrast to the linguistic view of metaphor where metaphors are

positioned as “simply nice to have”. They assert:

Most people think we can get along perfectly well without metaphor… we have found on the contrary, that metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of how we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 3)

Lakoff and Johnson (1980) claim that the essence of metaphor requires “understanding

and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another” (p. 5). Through an emphasis on

understanding and experience, they claim that metaphor is not about a transfer of words,

rather metaphor is fundamental to how we reason about our surroundings: “The locus of

21 Black (1962) provided important groundwork for such discussions. In addition, Jäkel (1997) suggests that several European philosophers (Kant, Blumemberg and Weinrich) made contributions to the cognitive view long before Lakoff and Johnson. The work of Nersessian (2008) also supplies a thought provoking look at the complexity of cognitive processes (analogies, visual representations and thought experiments) in producing creative and novel ideas within science introducing an added body of literature (i.e. those working within the cognitive-historical tradition) where many of these ideas were expressed earlier than by Lakoff and Johnson.

67 metaphor is not in language at all, but in the way we conceptualize one mental domain in terms of another” (Lakoff, 1992, p. 211). Moreover, they believe that language contains

“thousands of conceptual metaphors” and thus our job as analysts is to help track and identify these metaphors (Lakoff, 1992, p. 211). An example of such a project can be found in the Hamburg Metaphor Database “an online database of French and German metaphors which came into being in 2002” (Eilts & Lönneker, 2002).

Lakoff and Johnson advise that one of the best ways to describe a metaphor is as consisting of three parts: the source22 domain, which is a concrete object based on a sensory or bodily experience; the target domain, an abstract concept not easily expressed

in literal terms; and the mappings, or the bridge in between the target and source

domains, which permits individuals to cognitively appreciate the juxtaposition of the two

domains (Kövecses, 2006, pp. 115-220). Thus in the example LOVE IS A JOURNEY the

target domain is “love” and the source domain is “journey”. The correspondences, or

mappings, between the source and target domains include: the travelers as the lovers, the vehicle as the love relationship, the destination as the purpose of the relationship, the distance covered as the progress made in the relationship, and obstacles along the way as the difficulties encountered in the relationship. In this instance, LOVE IS A JOURNEY is considered the conceptual metaphor complemented by individual metaphorical linguistic expressions, such as “we’re stuck in a rut”. The LOVE IS A JOURNEY example is discussed in great detail in Kövecses (2005, 2006).

22 The terminology, quotations and questions of interest, italicized in this chapter highlight their importance for use in subsequent chapters.

Lakoff and Johnson always capitalize the metaphor they are discussing to help illustrate they are referring to an overall conceptual system. They define the general structure in which the mappings occur as the “conceptual metaphor”, and suggest that accompanying linguistic words or phrases be described as “metaphorical linguistic expressions”

(Kövecses, 2006, pp. 115-116). Central to Lakoff and Johnson’s view of metaphor is the

“invariance principle” which asserts that metaphorical mappings preserve the image schemata (stored in our memory and associated with our sensory experiences) of the source domain, in a way that is coherent with the inherent structure of the target domain.

This opposes the linguistic and pragmatic view of metaphor, which often emphasizes how metaphors may cause friction between what is said and what is meant for both sender and receiver via a juxtaposition of terms (Chateris-Black, 2004, p.12).

The terms used by Lakoff & Johnson differ from those originally proposed by Richards

(1936) of vehicle and tenor. I prefer the cognitive linguistic vocabulary for several reasons. First, a consideration of mappings encourages a wide range of analytic possibilities. Second, the idea that a conceptual metaphor is based on a series of linguistic expressions is a useful way to start organizing data. Finally, cognitive linguistic theorists support the claim that metaphors work in terms of understanding something less concrete via something more tangible, whereas those deploying vehicle and tenor do not always assume that this is the direction for the process of metaphorization (Vinogradovas, 2002).

However, I recommend a small but significant change to Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) formulation based on a point raised by Yanow (2008); I advocate that conceptual

69 metaphors should be appreciated not simply as TARGET IS A SOURCE (i.e. LOVE IS A

JOURNEY) but rather TARGET AS A SOURCE (LOVE AS A JOURNEY). Yanow

(2008) argues that “seeing as” is preferable to “seeing is”, since it captures the potential of metaphors to be both models of policy (i.e. a reflection of our tacit understandings based on our prior experiences of the source) and models for policy (in that they embody the possibilities for future action that follows from the underlying logic upon which they are based) (Yanow, 2008, pp. 226-230).

An additional insight from Lakoff and Johnson’s contribution is that while metaphors have many positive uses, metaphors always mask or hide specific components of how we interact. In doing so their ideas overlap somewhat with pragmatist concerns. They note that metaphorical structuring is always partial and never total: “if it were total one concept would be the other, not merely be understood in terms of it” (Lakoff & Johnson,

1980, p. 13). Put differently, no matter how much individuals believe they are representing reality, they are only ever able to offer a “selection a reality” via metaphor

(Burke, 1966, p. 45). With each metaphorical exchange, people are involved in the process of directing intentions in a particular manner. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) also assert that metaphors have the ability to become such a natural part of our conversation, so self-evident, that we often forget that alternative metaphors are possible (pp. 17-18).

Their claim does not suggest that metaphor is not implicitly a direct misrepresentation or manipulation of the social world but rather “a mode of representation that can be used, abused and contested” (Tilley, 1999, p. 10).

Finally, Lakoff and Johnson (1987) draw attention to the idea that “metaphor is not a harmless exercise in naming… it is one of the principle means by which we understand our experience and reason on the basis of that understanding… to the extent that we act on our reasoning, metaphor plays a role in the creation of reality” (p. 79).23 Thus,

according to Lakoff and Johnson (1987) metaphors have material consequences. People

not only think in metaphor but metaphorical reason can shape the decisions they make

thus influencing how they act in the world. For example, Lakoff and Johnson (1980)

suggest that ARGUMENT IS WAR is a key metaphor within our current cultural context.

Consequently, people talk about arguments using war-like terminology. This is reflected

in statements such as: “your claims are indefensible”; “I won the argument”; and “he shot

down all that I said” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, pp. 4-6). Moreover, this metaphor encourages individuals to act like arguments are battles, though they are not engaged in actual combat, by treating the people they are arguing with as opponents and by structuring their argument to try and achieve victory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, pp. 77-

82). They suggest that our way of interacting with each other would be different if another sort of metaphor, such as ARGUMENT IS DANCE, guided us (Lakoff &

Johnson, 1980, p.5).

Any effort to examine metaphor inevitably requires a way to classify and organize the analysis. In this instance, the cognitive approach to metaphor is well suited for scholars

23 Nersessian (2008) complements this view in her discussion of how scientist reason; she demonstrates the importance of analogy, visual representations and thought experiments when encouraging creative thinking and subsequent action.

71 interested in discussing policy metaphors. Presenting metaphor in terms of conceptual metaphor, target, source, mappings, and metaphorical linguistic expressions, offers an instructive way for explaining the dimensions of metaphor that occur in policy discussions. In fact a number of scholars have applied this approach with minor modifications in terminology to explore the usage of metaphors in the media, politics and other arenas (Chateris-Black, 2004; Hellsten, 2002; Santa Ana, 1999; Straehle et al.,1999).24 Moreover, Lakoff and Johnson’s insights around the partial structuring of metaphor reminds us that with the use of every metaphor one thing is highlighted at the expense of another (i.e. ARGUMENT IS WAR versus ARGUMENT IS DANCE). This has important implications for policy as it encourages asking: what might be missing in the account of an issue being presented? In addition, their reminder that metaphors are not simply figures of speech but can actually structure the way we problem solve and reason illustrates the importance of metaphor not simply in policy formulation but also in policy implementation.

Although attentiveness to the cognitive dimensions of metaphor gives us a way to classify and describe how metaphor encourages the manifestation of particular linguistic

expressions in the policy world, it does have drawbacks. Among them are Lakoff and

Johnson’s focus on the bodily, or experiential nature of conceptual metaphor. Such a

view is restrictive as these are not the only the only foundations for metaphor (Hellsten,

2002); the sources of metaphor may come from other influences within the socio-cultural

24 I myself used this approach with success to discuss the concept of “clusters” as a target and in identifying specific sources that emerged in the innovation literature on this topic (Williams, 2005).

72 environment and may also vary due to specific cognitive preferences (Kövecses, 2005,

2006; Nersessian, 2008). Moreover, as Mottier (2008) astutely points out, what Foucault has successfully demonstrated is that even an embodied subject is an outcome of learning structures and “work”, which is ultimately a product of culture (p. 186). In addition, cognitive studies tend to locate an individual’s mind as the point of interface for understanding metaphor, which does not fully extend to examining how metaphors are taken up and used strategically in particular socio-historic situations (Eubanks, 1999).

According to Mottier (2008), this is because this tradition has tended to focus on

“utterances” as their unit of analysis, thus failing to account for the global and contextual factors from which such utterances emerge (Mottier, 2008, p. 187). As Schmitt (2005), reminds us metaphor can be studied at a transcultural, cultural, and even sub-group level; thus moving beyond simply focusing on individual cognition.25 Finally, Lakoff and

Johnson provide limited guidance on how to proceed methodologically when deploying their work, leaving many questions unanswered and much to the imagination of the analyst (Cienki, 2008; Schmitt, 2005; Short, 2001). They “bypass (the often) difficult task of identifying and reconstructing [a metaphor’s] conceptual meaning” (Schmitt, 2005, p.

369). Thus while the cognitive approach is instructive— in that it provides an illuminating classificatory framework for organizing a discussion of metaphor in policy, highlights the partial nature of these devices, and reminds us that there are tangible consequences because we sometimes act upon our metaphorical reasoning— it misses

25 Lakoff (1996) did later apply a cognitive linguistic approach to in order to study the metaphors within American politics.

73 capturing some of the important pragmatic concerns associated with metaphor and lacks clear steps which guide how best to conduct a metaphor analysis.

This brief introduction to metaphor has illustrated that a study of the use of metaphor in policy could be approached in one of three ways (linguistically, pragmatically or cognitively). Each has benefits and limitations. Accordingly, when assessing these possibilities, the definition of metaphor that offers the most potential for a fulsome analysis of the role of metaphor in technology planning processes and acceptance by citizens (my primary research question) is one that combines linguistic, pragmatic and cognitive sensibilities. Consequently, the definition of metaphor which this dissertation draws upon is “a linguistic representation that results from the shift in a use of a word or phrase from the context and domain in which it is expected to occur to another context or domain where it is not expected to occur… it may have linguistic, pragmatic and cognitive characteristics” (Chateris-Black, 2004, p.21). This definition is further complemented by Yanow’s (2008) helpful elaboration of metaphor. She notes, “metaphor is the juxtaposition of two superficially [unexpected] elements in a single context, where the separately understood meanings of both interact to create a new perception of each especially of the focus of the metaphor… subjected to analysis [this relationship] yields a set of criteria which are shared by both [the source and the domain]” (Yanow, 2008, p.

28). This means that public policy metaphors ought to be appreciated as linguistic utterances that can be observed in particular texts, as pragmatic and rhetorical tools with the possibility of having an intended purpose and producing effects in the world, and as symbols of wider conceptual reasoning at work.

3.2.2 Why do we need metaphors to communicate?

The definitions above do not explicitly cover the different theories around why metaphors are such a fundamental component of our daily communicative activities. According to

Tilley (1999), metaphors are a fundamental part of how we communicate because of the

“inherent problems in the precise relationships between a world of words and a world of things, events or actions” (p. 6); Tilley’s work builds upon a seminal essay produced by

Ortony (1975) which makes a compelling case for why metaphors are not simply “nice to have” but a “necessary” component of our general sense making practices.

Both Ortony (1975) and Tilley (1999) highlight three reasons regarding why we deploy metaphors, none of which are mutually exclusive. The first, the inexpressibility thesis, argues that metaphor supplies a way of giving form to ideas and descriptions of the world that are virtually impossible to create by using literal language. Metaphors permit individuals to connect objects and events that appear empirically disparate and unconnected and link abstract ideas to concrete thoughts. In many ways metaphors allow for “imagination to be put into action” (Tilley, 1999, p.7).26 Linked to this claim is the

view that metaphors form an essential part of our capacity to be creative and generate

new ideas (Nesisssen, 2008).27 A second reason for using metaphor, the compactness

26 Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) suggest this need to “put imagination into action” is why many organizations use metaphor. They state, “through metaphors, people put together what they know in new ways and begin to express what they know but cannot say…as such metaphor is highly effective in fostering a direct commitment to the creative process in the early stages of knowledge creation” (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p.13). 27 Nersessian (2008) tracks this creative, idea generation process in the realm of science quite successfully.

75 thesis, centres on the fact that metaphor “provides the simplest or most parsimonious means of communication between socialized individuals” (Tilley, 1999, pp.7-8).

Metaphors enable people to put complex ideas into fewer words, thus facilitating more concise communication. Or in the words of Ortony (1975), metaphors let “large chunks of information be converted or transferred… constrain[ing] and direct[ing] particularizations” (p.47). Finally, according to the vividness thesis, metaphor may

“facilitate the capturing of our phenomenological experience of the world in a unique way” (Tilley, 1999, p.8). In this sense, metaphors link our concrete and subjective realities in a vivid and memorable manner and in doing so facilitate learning (Ortony,

1975, p. 51). According to Ortony, we seek vivid metaphors for topics that we understand well and also for the unfamiliar; we are simply looking for a way to make a specific image or idea remain in the mind of the interpreter. In sum, metaphor may be required when literal words do not adequately capture what needs to be expressed; when the complex phenomenon of the world need to be translated into simpler terms; or, when a lasting impression, or vivid image, is the desired outcome. These three distinct ways of thinking about why metaphor is needed when we communicate provide guidance as to why metaphor is necessary in specific policy situations and what it may accomplish.

3.2.3 What is metaphor analysis?

Metaphor analysis can be defined as a systematic practice designed to identify, describe and evaluate the use of metaphor in an empirical setting. At first glance it may seem unlikely that this definition should be problematic. However, a careful review of the literature on metaphor analysis, and actual empirical studies of metaphor, indicates that

76 words such as “systematic”, “identification”, “description”, and “evaluation” are all concepts that require an analyst to take a position that will produce significantly different results.

Most efforts to describe metaphor analysis supply a step-by-step guide (such as Foss,

2004; Gozzi, 1999; Maasen & Weingart, 2000; Pragglejaz Group, 2007; Schmitt, 2005).

By breaking down these different steps, as is done below, a clearer understanding of the complexities associated with the process emerges. The steps of metaphor analysis do not always occur in the order that follows. For example, often times selecting one’s topic of investigation may come after choosing and reviewing a text, or series of texts. Much of this depends on a researcher’s approach to their subject and whether they prefer using more of an inductive (theory comes from research) or deductive (research is formulated from a hypothesis) strategy.

3.2.3.1 Step 1: Select a topic of investigation

An important departure point for conducting any sort of metaphor analysis involves deciding on an analytical focus. Discussions of metaphor can be approached in a variety of ways. Among the possibilities are investigations of how a target can be expressed using different sources. An example of which can be found in Kirby and Harter’s (2003) exploration of “diversity”, in which they illustrate how management texts and websites generally present diversity via sources such as “a resource to be managed for increased profit” and “quick fixes to organizational issues”. In addition, there are those studies that analyse a particular source and its implications for a target. This is evident in Levidow’s

(2000) interrogation of how critics of genetically modified products in Britain have used

“pollution” as a powerful source for encapsulating the target of “agricultural biotechnology”. Finally there are also empirical explorations of the popularity of certain broad conceptual metaphors in a body of discourse. For instance, Chateris-Black (2004,

Chapter 4) probes the most popular conceptual metaphors to emerge in the platforms of

British political parties including: LIFE IS A STRUGGLE FOR SURVIVAL, SOCIETY

IS A PERSON, and PURPOSEFUL ACTIVITY IS TRAVELLING ALONG A PATH

TOWARDS A DESTINATION. While each of these tactics offers a different analytic force they are similar in that, while they may supply some interesting observations about metaphor use at a general level, most of their findings are related to a specific topic or issue, and how these subjects come to be articulated via metaphor.

It is also possible to look at how metaphors function more generally in language without such a specific topic-oriented focus. For example, Cameron & Stelma (2004) explore the phenomenon of metaphor clustering (where speakers or writers produce multiple metaphors in bursts) by drawing on examples of classroom talk. In their investigation, they are not preoccupied with highlighting what specific metaphors are deployed in the classroom but focus instead on determining how metaphors work in speech writ large.

Their goal is to provide some general rules around the patterns associated with metaphor use.

Efforts to combine both strategies, a broad focus on how metaphor works in language along with empirical explorations of particular topics, are also possible. An excellent

78 illustration of this can be found in Maasen & Weingart (2000). In their book, Metaphors and the Dynamics of Knowledge, they aim to say something substantive about how metaphors travel across discursive communities and contribute to the flow and accumulation of ideas in society. In addition, Maasen & Weingart provide three interesting empirical case studies that when read alone provide insight as to how the metaphors “the struggle for existence”, “paradigm”, and “chaos” have operated over diverse time frames and been used by various groups (scientists and non-scientists).28 The overall impact of their work is one that leads the reader to gain a better understanding of how metaphors contribute to knowledge exchanges generally, and also how specific metaphors have come to be taken up by different communities.

Finally, as Kövecses (2005) highlights, producing work that is devoted exclusively to understanding metaphor as an embodied experience is feasible. Generally such investigations are concerned with two sorts of issues. The first is how people think metaphorically when they engage in action. For example, Boroditsky & Ramscar (2002) studied people’s experiences of time on a moving train to test whether actual movement impacts how individuals think about temporal issues. Secondly one might try to determine subjects’ experiences with source domains that are known. For instance, Gibbs

(1999, 1994) had participants discuss pressurized containers to see what sorts of targets they might attach to the internal build up of pressure. Studies of this sort are not

28 Maasen and Weingart’s (2000) definition of metaphor is very broad. They suggest metaphor be defined as a “discursive unit”, or an idea, model, concept, or theory, that has been transposed from its original discipline on to another (p. 20); this explains why they consider “struggle for existence”, “chaos” and “paradigm” metaphorical, as these are all ideas that have traveled from scientific to non-scientific domains.

79 concerned with exploring metaphors as they relate to a specific subject, or in developing general rules about how metaphor operate in language use, but rather with connecting the sources of metaphor to people’s sensorial experiences in the world.29

3.2.3.2 Step: 2 Select an artefact or body of work that will assist with one’s study of metaphor

Both the actual number of texts required, and sort of texts that are appropriate in order to

make an analysis of metaphor systematic are contestable. Researchers that emphasize

quantitative approaches note that the larger the corpus, and the more analysts coding the

data, the better the study (Chateris-Black, 2004; Pragglejaz Group, 2007). In sum,

quantity increases quality. This bias towards volume, is apparent in the recent

methodological discussion offered by the “Pragglejaz Group”(2007) 30 in which they provide details for a measurement of intra and inter coder reliability in order to produce credible assessments of the presence or absence of metaphor in a core body of texts (pp.

18-23), and in the work of Chateris-Black (2004) who recommends drawing on large

known corpuses of data for analysis. A quantified approach to metaphor analysis is also

evident in Zimmerman & Cuddington’s (2007) content analysis of student survey

responses to the “balance of nature” metaphor. Their work involved a follow up survey in

which they sought to confirm that the responses identified in their initial sample are

representative of the larger educated population. Moreover, De Landtsheer (2004) has

developed a “metaphor power index” specifically designed for quantitative metaphor

29 See Kövecses (2005) for more details on this sort of work (pp. 20-23). 30 They label themselves as a group instead of listing individual authors.

80 content analysis. He uses this approach to examine political anxiety during a crisis (De

Landtsheer, 2004), and it is again deployed by Vertessen & De Landtsheer (2008) to study political language during elections. These examples highlight that some scholars value an objectification of interpretation and statistical validation as essential to the process of systematic analysis.

In contrast, researchers who encourage a more qualitative approach to metaphor analysis believe that it is not the quantity of texts that are brought together but rather how compelling one’s interpretation is that matters when assessing the completeness of a study. In fact some qualitative metaphor analyses include the examination of only one text. For example, David & Graham (1997) look at the use of epic metaphors in organizational discourse simply by examining in great detail the speech of one CEO.

Aside from an examination of a small number of written texts, focus groups and in depth interviews have provided the data for other qualitatively oriented studies of metaphors.

Among these are Undie, Crichton & Zulu’s (2007) study of how young people in Malawi conceptualized sex and sexual relations via metaphor; as well as, Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik,

& Albert’s (2006) exploration of how metaphors are used to articulate the emotional pain of workplace bullying; moreover, Rees, Knight, &Wilkinson (2007) offer a multi- stakeholder examination of the metaphors constructed around student/doctor-patient relationships.

In a general discussion of rhetorical criticism, Foss (2004) offers some useful criteria for assessing an analysis based on a small sample and qualitative approaches. These include:

81 providing a strong justification for the selection of data (i.e. drawing on ample accurate quotes that are representative of the body of work selected); using reasonable inferences, which requires a convincing move from data to claims; as well as supplying a general level of coherence in which the analysis is not simply descriptive but aims to provide something more (Foss, 2004, Chapter 2). Thus to some scholars selecting texts for analysis to create a product that is systematic is not about increasing the number of sources and analysts but rather about improving the nature and depth of our understanding.

3.2.3.3 Step 3: Identify the metaphor(s), or parts of metaphor(s) within the text

In the previous section (in which metaphor was defined) it was suggested that cognitive linguistics provides one of the most useful ways to talk about metaphor. Terms such as conceptual metaphor, source, target, mappings, and metaphorical linguistic expression, help to clarify what parts of a study of metaphor are being considered. However even this vocabulary may vary, as was noted earlier.

While using terminology on metaphor is necessary and instructive, the Pragglejaz Group

(2007) recently suggested that most empirical explorations of metaphor lack clear criteria on what is and what is not metaphor. They propose a method that they deem is “explicit, reliable and flexible”, as well as appropriate for both written and spoken discourse

(Pragglejaz Group, 2007, p. 2). In order to establish whether a metaphor exists the entire text must be considered to come to a general understanding of its meaning. Next one must identify the lexical units in the text (words or phrases) and for each unit determine

82 the following: (a) its meaning in context, (b) whether it has another more basic meaning

(for example concrete, bodily), usually found by consulting a dictionary, and (c) decide if its contextual meaning contrast with the basic meaning but can be understood in comparison with it. If an analyst says “yes” to this final condition, it is a metaphor.

(Pragglejaz Group, 2007, p. 3).

The steps proposed by the Pragglejaz Group (2007) are consistent with the definitions of metaphor offered earlier in this chapter— metaphor is “a linguistic representation that results from the shift in a use of a word or phrase from the context and domain in which it is expected to occur to another context or domain where it is not expected to occur… it may have linguistic, pragmatic and cognitive characteristics” (Chateris-Black, 2004, p.21) and, “metaphor is the juxtaposition of two superficially [unexpected] elements in a single context, where the separately understood meanings of both interact to create a new perception of each especially of the focus of the metaphor… subjected to analysis [this relationship] yields a set of criteria which are shared by both [the source and the domain]” (Yanow, 2008, p. 28) — as a certain tension is always generated from the contrast that occurs between the understanding of a word or phrase “in context” and its

“basic” meaning.

Despite a set of seemingly straight forward directives for how to identify metaphor, as was previously noted in the discussion of the challenges inherent in the cognitive linguistic approach to metaphor, several analysts have suggested that the ability to identify conceptual metaphors based on the use of metaphorical linguistic expressions is

83 not an easy task and requires a level of creativity on the part of the analyst that can be contested (Cienki, 2008; Schmitt 2008; Short, 2001). Much of this exists because the contrast between basic and contextual use is at times “rather fuzzy” (Rees et al., 2007, p.

735).

An added complication to these boundaries is the distinction made between

“conventional” and “novel” metaphors. It has been suggested that conventional metaphors are those that are easy to interpret and quite familiar, whereas novel metaphors require more work to comprehend. For example, the conceptual metaphor of IDEAS

ARE FOOD (supported by linguistic expressions such as “that idea was half-baked”, and

“that class gave me food for thought”) would likely be considered conventional. In contrast, a more novel metaphor might be that of THEORIES ARE FATHERS

(supported by a linguistic expressions such as “classical theories are patriarchs who father many children”). (Lai, Curran & Menn, 2009, pp. 145-146) Additionally, several analysts have differentiated between “alive” and “dead” metaphors. “Alive” metaphors are those that still provide new analytic insights and surprises by their use whereas “dead” metaphors are so taken for granted that to some they cease to be metaphorical (Tsoukas,

1991). For example, Müller (2008) argues that there is a degree of difference in the expression “broken heart” and “you are the dancer in a storm”; “broken heart” is “dead” because it no longer has a real metaphorical power, whereas “you are the dancer in a storm” is more engaging and unusual and thus “alive”(p. 80). Nevertheless, the distinction between “novel” and “conventional” metaphors, as well as “dead” and “alive” metaphors, are not always easy to make.

3.2.3.4 Step 4: Describe the metaphor(s)

If the task of a metaphor analyst is to simply describe what they have found, the discussion of results is rather straightforward. Those deploying a more quantitative approach are concerned with tabulating frequencies of metaphor use, collocation relationships, and tracking utilization based on such findings over time. As Chateris-

Black (2004) notes, in such studies key questions are: “how common is a particular word or phrase?” and “how typical?” (p.32) In contrast, qualitative approaches focus on a detailed breakdown of a text (or texts) supported by direct quotes. Here the guiding concern is: “what are the different meanings attached to a word or phrase” (Chateris-

Black, 2004, p. 32)?

3.2.3.5 Step 5: Evaluate the metaphor(s)

In most discussions of metaphors a description is simply not enough. There is almost always an effort to place metaphor in a broader context and perhaps even provide alternatives (as is strongly recommended by Gozzi, 1999). To Rigney (2001), the potential to evaluate metaphor is central to what makes studies of its occurrence so valuable. He notes:

Those who practice metaphorical analysis [can] perform a service by helping to raise cultural awareness to a new level, giving us a subtler understanding of the poetry and rhetoric of public discourse. It is one thing to create and use metaphors. This is something we all do. It is another thing entirely to reflect carefully on our metaphors and probe their deeper implications. This, a much rarer skill, is the essential task of metaphor analysis. (Rigney, 2001, p. 213)

Rigney goes one step further than simply advocating the importance of evaluation and actually provides a list of useful questions one can ask when assessing a metaphor including:

• Does the metaphor have heuristic value?

• Does it show promise of yielding unexpected results?

• Is the metaphor adequately developed or explicated?

• Does the metaphor lead to the discovery of general explanatory principles?

• Does it generate any testable hypothesis or procedures?

• Is the metaphor particularly creative?

• Does the metaphor serve rhetorically to advance some desirable end in a persuasive

way… and whose interest does the metaphor serve? (Rigney, 2001, p. 204)

Only some of these questions will be appropriate and relevant to specific researchers.

However, all of these criteria are an excellent standpoint to begin judging the sorts of metaphors found in policy and elsewhere. In my mind those concerns that seem most significant to an investigation of policy metaphors are a metaphor’s heuristic value, its explication, and its rhetorical power. Such queries encourage scholars to think critically about why metaphors were deployed and interrogate a metaphor’s effectiveness in determining the relationships among different actors.

The discussion above demonstrates that the seemingly straightforward task of completing a metaphor analysis focuses attention on the issues that lie at the heart of debates between quantitative/objectivist and qualitative/interpretative researchers. What also becomes

86 evident is just how important it is for any scholar to be clear about the methodological choices they have made when presenting empirical findings.

3.3 PART II: Connecting ANT and PEC with studies of metaphor

The purpose of this section is to link the tools provided from the previous chapter on PEC and ANT to the literature on metaphor in policy.

As the last chapter suggested, one of the most interesting but sometimes problematic aspects of ANT is that it includes both human and non-human actors as feasible parts of one’s analysis and recommends that researchers interested in a certain issue be willing to

“follow the actors”. However, as noted, deciding on which actors to follow and where to start one’s investigation can be a difficult task. Though my primary area of analytic focus for this dissertation is metaphor, knowing where to begin and how best to arrange my observations in a way that would allow me to follow metaphor as an actor through the policymaking process was not clear. This is not surprising, given that the focus in social science research has been primarily on studying social processes and not “non-human actors”; thus the majority of the guidelines available for following actors, via an ethnographic approach or otherwise, has been devoted to the study of humans.31

Consequently, in order to have additional tools for my study of metaphor, policy and technology, I turned to the relatively small body of literature available on the use of metaphor in policymaking (such as, Hardy-Short & Short, 1999; Herbeck, 2005; Howarth

31 A notable exception to this, beyond the ideas of ANT scholars themselves, is Hodder (1998).

& Griggs, 2008; Kovecses, 2005; Nicoll & Edwards, 1999; Sawhney, 1996; Schön, 1979;

Stone, 2002; van Hulst, 2008; Yanow, 2000, 2008) and asked: if metaphors are thought to

“do” something in policy what might they accomplish? Armed with this question, I confronted this literature endowing metaphor with the capacity to be seen as something that produces consequences for other actors within the network. In doing so I identified two promising analytic possibilities linked directly to Callon’s (1986) conception of translation. My discussion of these possibilities are however intentionally brief, as they are expanded upon and refined in greater detail in Chapters 5-8 when discussing the empirical findings of the SuperNet case study and when supplying some wider conclusions.

3.3.1 Problematization & interessement

A central task of metaphor in the policy world is to guide the initial conceptualization of an issue as it is problematized.32 In his compelling article on metaphor in policy, Schön

(1979) asserts that while we often think of policy as solution seeking, it is far more about

problem setting. He notes: “contrary to the problem-solving perspective, problems are not

given, nor are they reducible to arbitrary choices that lie beyond inquiry… we set social

problems through the stories we tell—stories whose problem solving potency [often]

derives…from metaphor (pp. 268-269). To Schön, the policy stories that emerge around a

particular issue are often grounded in metaphor. More specifically he asserts that most

32 Problematization is sometimes known as framing. There is an extensive literature on framing, much of which was inspired by Goffman. According to Gitlin (1980) frames “are the principle of selection, emphasis and presentation composed of little tacit theories about what exists, what happens and what matters”(p.6). I contend that all metaphors are frames, yet not all frames (particularly in the context of those who conduct frame analyses) are metaphors.

88 policy issues centre around a metaphorical perception of “what is wrong and what needs fixing” (p. 256). He also suggests that we engage in critical analysis once we start to

“spell out the metaphor, elaborate the assumptions that flow from it, and examine the appropriateness in the present situation” (p. 255). In sum, right from the start we can begin to see metaphor’s potential power in policy by establishing the way we see a policy problem and the solutions that become available.

To demonstrate the potential of metaphor to set the course for actual policy solutions,

Schön turns to the problem construction of urban housing in the United States and its shifts in conceptualization. He emphasizes that in the 1950s the predominant metaphor employed for understanding urban housing policy was that of “blight and renewal”.

Communities were viewed as “diseased” and in need of “a cure”. Out of this guiding metaphor, the solution proposed was to redesign and rebuild certain localities, with the overall goal of programs to “nurse” the community back to health. However, Schön notes that in the 1960s this metaphor was gradually replaced by the idea that areas in disrepair were actually places that ought to be preserved; or, by what he labels as “the slum as a natural community” metaphor. The course of action that this particular metaphorical conceptualization encouraged was not to dislocate people and rebuild but rather to reinforce and rehabilitate communities through particular initiatives that preserved their present strengths. (Schön, 1979, pp. 260-268)

A further example of the material consequences of metaphor is highlighted in Kövecses’

(2006) discussion of drug use. He claims that if policymakers embrace a metaphorical

89 view of drug users as “enemies” they will tend to invest public dollars in improving surveillance and punishing offenders; for instance, by increasing prison terms and devoting additional resources to policing. However, if drug users are metaphorically conceptualized as having a “disease”, policy funding will target strategies that encourage therapeutic treatment; for example, by improving hospital care and rehabilitation facilities. Kövecses clearly asserts that “the two metaphors have distinct social consequences”, creating quite different “social realities” particularly for those impacted by the policy directly. (Kövecses, 2006, p.144)

The policy issues explored by Schön and Kövecses confirm that metaphor can be thought to play an important role in constructing a meaning for a policy issue. Both illustrations highlight that “to use a metaphor repeatedly is to open up certain policy options and close off others”(Wiggins & Pauley, 2005, p. 47). They also make it quite easy to see why

Lakoff and Johnson claim metaphor is “not a harmless exercise in naming” but rather

“the principle means by which we understand our experience and reason on the basis of that understanding” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1987, p. 293). Based on this discussion, several

Canadian policy issues come to mind that would benefit from an analysis of how they are problematized including the implications of envisaging multiculturalism as a “mosaic” versus a “melting pot”, the shift from a dialogue regarding “unemployment insurance” to

“employment insurance”, and the recent debates around labelling the “swine flu” (which encourages a metaphorical mapping) to “H1N1” (which arguably does not).

The idea that metaphor may play a fundamental role in constructing the parameters in which we can discuss a policy can be linked to the ANT notion of translation. In particular the moments of problematization and interessement in which an actor (in this case policymakers) strive to convince others (such as citizens) that they have a common concern and then attempt to lock specific roles or identities into place. The key questions that were raised in the last chapter that are relevant to metaphor’s ability to construct policy issues are: how is an issue constructed via metaphor; how are metaphors used to circumscribe which behaviours count, and what counts as behaviour, for both human and non-humans in policymaking? Moreover, when thinking about how to structure one’s empirical engagement with those who create policy another concern becomes: if asked, why might policy planners claim to use metaphors?

3.3.2 Enrolment and the mobilization of allies

Another function that metaphor can play in policy is as a tool of opposition or contestation in the enrolment process and the mobilization of allies. As Schön (1979) asserts, in many cases “debates over social policy turn often not on problems but on dilemmas” in which “participants in the debate bring different and competing frames, generated by different competing metaphors” (p. 256). Moreover, van Hulst (2008) reminds us that sometimes “actors may not just use distinctive metaphors… they may use the same metaphor in distinctive ways” (p. 223). In such instances, conflicts over policy may be resolved by the ability of various “ discursive communities” (see Chapter 1) to use either separate metaphors, or the same metaphors in divergent ways, to advance a particular position.

An excellent demonstration of a debate in which different groups embraced competing metaphors is Hardy-Short and Short’s (1999) account of clashes in the late 1980s in the

United States over policies on forest management. More specifically, they trace the various responses to forest fires in Yellowstone Park; fires that began as a part of a government planned “natural burn strategy” but due to dry conditions and high winds became uncontrollable. In analyzing public reactions to the unmanageable fires in the park, Hardy-Short & Short expose a distinct clash over metaphor; one that involved proponents of the existing policy (government officials and scientists) envisaging fire metaphorically as “rebirth”, and critics (such as the mass media and public interest groups) viewing the natural burn policy as destructive, metaphorically equating fire with

“death”. They claim that both the death and rebirth metaphors “helped observers define the situation and gave advocates a… tool for advancing specific arguments regarding fire policy and national park management” (Hardy Short & Short, p. 107). Moreover, they assert that these metaphors made it quite impossible for groups to deviate from their positions. Thus those embracing the death metaphor could only discuss the fire from the perspective that “fire destroys life if not managed” and Yellowstone’s “charred, blacked remains [could] only be a sign of death, both literally and figuratively”(Hardy Short &

Short, p. 120). In contrast, those embracing visions of rebirth positioned the fires as “an essential step in the life-cycle”, as “ultimately fire would yield new life, regardless of the immediate consequences” (Hardy Short & Short, p. 121). Moreover, they remind readers that while those advancing the “fire as death” metaphor did not manage to dismantle the natural burn policy completely this conceptualization helped pressure the government

92 department responsible for the burns to suppress fires for a period of time and forced policymakers to be more flexible in their approach to land management. Based on such an example it is clear that metaphors give “advocates a foundation for rhetorical appeals” and entrench their specific position (Hardy Short & Short, p. 120). Moreover, different groups can use metaphor to help encourage a radical shift in thinking or to solidify a previously defined policy position.33

An additional example of how metaphor might work to mount opposing positions can be

found in the work of van Hulst (2008). His ethnographic investigation examines the

decision-making process of a Dutch municipality struggling with where best to build a

new centre for their town. Overall, he notes that much of the community’s debate focused

around the metaphor of imagining this new centre as a “heart”. Nevertheless, the heart

metaphor took on two diverse meanings within the planning discussions. One faction of

planners conceptualized the “heart as life” and thus promoted creating a vibrant locale

based on supporting a vital organ; another group, argued for a view of the “heart as love”,

and focused on the need to build a caring and emotive centre. While all the stakeholders

agreed that the centre lacked a heart and thus needed one, the idea of what kind of heart

was most suitable was contested and used to articulate the justification of selecting one

location over another. In identifying these competing views of the heart metaphor (as

either “life” or “love”), van Hulst argues that seeing a policy issue as something (in this

case a town centre as a heart) does not always link to precise solutions about what to do

33 The debates over abortion (i.e. pro-life versus pro-choice) would also demonstrate this space of contestation via metaphor quite nicely.

93 since sometimes “a single metaphor can simultaneously call for and advise against the same action” (p. 223).

The notion that metaphors can serve as devices which competing groups can use in different ways within policy is also related to the later phases of the ANT translation process: enrolment and the mobilization of allies. Enrolment is the “multilateral negotiations” “trials of strengths,” “tricks”, and even physical force that actors use to try and garner consent for the roles that have been circumscribed in a network. It is a process followed by the designation of a “spokesperson”: the one who can speak on behalf of the many. (Callon, 1991) As was noted in the previous chapter, a complete translation is thought to generate a shared space, equivalence, commensurability and alignment; whereas an incomplete translation is one in which actors no longer communicate, they reconfigure themselves in separate places with no common measures or linkages (Callon,

1991, p. 145). Consequently, when thinking about the potential for metaphor to act in policy, the question of relevance becomes: are the metaphors selected by policy planners ones in which a shared space, equivalence, and/or alignment is evident, or rather do they show traces of an incomplete translation? In taking this function of metaphor as a negotiation device more seriously, important connections can also be made to the PEC claim that those in power limit the nature and scope of policy dialogues. In this case it is possible to ask: is there a space created by citizens that challenges the official vision of a particular initiative?

Finally, an awareness of the contestation involved with the use of metaphor in policymaking can be linked to concerns that ANT theorists raise in their discussions of black boxes; and PEC thinkers in their discussions of ideology. Researchers can explore the formative stages of policy issues in which competing metaphors emerge and examine if such metaphors become fixed or stable (black boxed or ideological), or rather remain fluid and open. Here the work of Murdoch (1998) is instructive. He asserts that ANT can be used more creatively if it is recognized that different configurations within networks are plausible. There are network spaces “where translation is perfectly accomplished; the entities are effectively aligned and the network is stabilized”. In this case the network becomes “heavy with norms”, “predictable”, and “taken to be a fact” (a central component of ideology). In contrast, other sorts of spaces may emerge “where the links between the actors and intermediaries are provisional and divergent, where norms are hard to establish and standards are frequently compromised”. Such networks are “fraught with difficulty” and remain more fluid. (Murdoch, 1998, p. 362) Here facts within the network are not yet black boxed. Murdoch also notes that these “spaces shade into each other” and can co-exist in the same network (p. 363). In my mind, metaphors have the potential to encourage the formation of both these types of arrangements and it is important to be aware of such possibilities. However, if a network is indeed viewed as stable one can start to look at it more critically from a PEC perspective and ask: what sorts of values are being protected and eroded via the metaphors selected?34

34 Maasen and Weingart (2000) note that the conceptualization of metaphor as ideology has to be approached with a level of caution, as it tends to present an automatic analytic mistrust of metaphors and can appear highly interpretive and reductionist (p. 30). Nevertheless, they believe coupled with an

As this brief review of the literature on metaphor in policy illustrates, metaphors occupy a central and formative position in policy. Among the sorts of tasks these actors can perform are: to establish the parameters of a specific policy problem and define its subsequent solution; as well as to serve as devices of negotiation when trying to shift a specific policy, or to destabilize an already established socio-technical network configuration. Moreover, as was shown, these are both activities that can be connected with the PEC and ANT tools highlighted in the previous chapter including actor-network dynamics, translation, black boxes and ideology.

3.4 Summary and Concluding Thoughts

This chapter brought together a combination of ideas from a diverse set of literatures in order to create a conceptual map for identifying, describing and evaluating metaphors in policy. In the first section, it was argued metaphor is best defined all at once as a linguistic, pragmatic and cognitive phenomenon. A space was thus opened in which researchers can ask important questions about a policy issue or initiative including: where do metaphors occur in texts and dialogue about a particular policy; what do these metaphors accomplish; are there larger conceptual metaphors at work that can be identified? Moreover, key vocabulary was provided: conceptual metaphor, target, source, mappings and metaphorical linguistic expressions. This terminology supplies a constructive way to classify and organize the metaphors found in policy.

awareness that metaphors interact within and across specific communities a more fulsome analysis of ideology and metaphor is possible (Maasen and Weingart, 2000, p. 30).

Next some fundamental reasons that metaphors are needed when we communicate were identified. Among the options reviewed were that metaphors can capture ideas that are virtually impossible to describe in literal words (the inexpressibility thesis); that metaphors may simplify complex concepts in order to facilitate communication (the compactness thesis); finally, that metaphors are devices designed to make an impression

(the vividness thesis). These various possibilities encourage scholars to think about why those who create policy use metaphors and what these tools manage to achieve in a specific context.

Consideration was also given to the different steps involved with metaphor analysis including: choosing an analytic focus, selecting the appropriate corpus of data, and the identification, description and evaluation of metaphor. It was noted that metaphor analysis is not a straightforward process, as there is a variety of important methodological choices that differentiate a qualitative and quantitative view of metaphor. Analysts looking at metaphors in policy (or elsewhere) were advised to be clear and transparent when documenting the methodological steps followed.

The second part of this chapter connected the ideas reviewed in the previous chapter by

PEC and ANT scholars with the literature on metaphor in policy. A significant actor network question was raised as a rigorous test: if metaphors are thought to “do” something in policy, what might they accomplish? In response to this query two roles were highlighted. First, as part of problematization metaphors help shape the initial

parameters of policy issues and guide the formation of their subsequent solutions.

Secondly, as a mechanism of opposition, metaphors function as rhetorical devices that

can then be mobilized by different groups (such as the media, citizens, not for profits,

public relations officials. and industry players) in order to encourage or even hinder

policy change. Taken collectively, these actions can be linked to the discussion provided

last chapter by PEC and ANT theorists about actor-network dynamics, translation, black

boxes, and ideology.

In sum, the past two chapters have presented a series of departure points, in the form of

concepts, questions, methodological steps and terminology, all of which help guide my

engagement with the empirical world in the upcoming chapters and should be of value to

others interested in such issues. In assessing how these ideas work together, three general

areas of concern are apparent. The first involves examining the actions and intentionality

of policy planners, as reflected in the metaphors they use. Among the questions that can

be addressed are:

• How is a specific policy issue constructed?

• How are metaphors used to circumscribe which behaviours count, and what counts as behaviour, for both human and non-humans in policymaking?

• Why do policy planners claim to use metaphor (or how do they talk about this process)?

The second area of interest focuses on the responses of citizens/users to such metaphors.

The primary research questions guiding this concern are:

• Do competing metaphors exist around the policy issue?

• Are the metaphors selected by policy planners ones in which a shared space, equivalence, and/or alignment is evident, or rather do they show traces of an incomplete translation?

• Is there a space created by citizens that challenges the official vision of a particular initiative?

Finally, the sorts of values expressed in the metaphors used by policy planners in a broader policy context are of interest. These lead to a wider set of questions, which drawing from PEC and ANT insights can include:

• Have capitalist concepts like commodification spread to encompass all of society, including the metaphors of our policy planners? 35

• What sorts of values are being protected and eroded via the metaphors selected?

• Are there other metaphors that might be more appropriate when thinking about

the notion of the “public good” than those being currently deployed?

• What are the sorts of socio-technical network relationships that can be observed

between policy planners, citizens, metaphors and even the technology itself?

Overall, I anticipate that by tackling such concerns and responding to the many questions

presented above, a greater and more nuanced understanding of how metaphor, policy and

technology can be explored theoretically and empirically will be provided. Moreover, I

expect additional insights and queries to emerge upon my engagement with the empirical

material of my case study, ideas that promote a sustained dialogue about the role of

35 As noted in Chapter 2 commodification was selected as the analytic point of inquiry because it seems to most clearly encapsulate the broader forces of capital accumulation at work of interest to PEC scholars.

99 metaphors in policy and our contemporary attitudes towards technology manifested in the metaphors we chose to deploy. My next chapter charts the final steps in preparing to explore the SuperNet. Here, I describe my strategy for selecting, collecting and analyzing data, thus illustrating how the ideas highlighted above can be translated into a specific methodological approach.

While this chapter is meant as a map for my empirical exploration, the significance of the theoretical and methodological contribution supplied should not be discounted. In his more recent discussion of ANT, Latour (2005) is adamant that accounts of the social ought only contain descriptions of those actors that “do” something within socio- technical networks. The main premise advanced in the later half of this discussion is that metaphors ought to be taken seriously as a potential actors since the existing literature has already demonstrated they have the potential to shape, create and challenge policy. The idea that metaphors have the potential to accomplish great things in policy permeates the ensuing chapters of this dissertation, and the implications of such a stance for both theory and practice will again be reflected upon in the conclusion of this dissertation.

100

Chapter Four: Background and methodology- Translating my conceptual map into a practical guide for an empirical exploration of the SuperNet

4.1 Introduction

The discussion in the preceding chapters led me to develop a theoretical map, summarized in Appendix B, in order to answer my primary research questions: using the

SuperNet as a case study, what roles do metaphors play in both technology policy planning and in the acceptance of new technologies by citizens; and, how do policy planners and citizens come to understand and experience broadband technology via metaphor? Moreover, this map, derived from a review of the literature on political economy of communication, actor-network theory, and metaphor, helped to further refine these broad research questions, along with offering a variety of valuable definitions and concepts to be deployed in the chapters that follow. Furthermore, it supplied a set of questions to return to, upon the completion of my journey.

Despite having this well-defined map, my investigation still required me to make choices about how best to deploy my resources. Among these decisions, an assessment of why the SuperNet is an instructive case for exploration and a reflection about what sort of data selection and collection strategy would facilitate answering my research concerns was needed. Consequently, the purpose of the discussion that follows is to document the nature of my next steps in the dissertation journey. It begins with some background on the empirical site I selected to examine, in which I review the following: what is the

SuperNet, what do we know about it so far, and what makes it a compelling site for a

101 study of metaphor use? Next, I clarify the nature of my overall research paradigm36 and describe the data I deemed necessary for my analysis. I also consider how the analytical steps of metaphor analysis supplied in the previous chapter were applied to my particular study. Finally, I review issues of trustworthiness associated with qualitative studies in general and this project in particular, and identify some limitations with both my data and general approach.

4.2 The SuperNet: Background and rationale for selection

As was noted in the introductory chapter of this thesis, the Alberta SuperNet is a publicly and privately funded designed to connect over 422 communities across the province through 13,000 km of fibre optic and wireless infrastructure. A description of this initiative by Axia gives a sense of the project’s overall complexity:

The Alberta SuperNet is a network designed to connect approximately 4,200 locations across Alberta including provincial Government offices, Libraries, Schools, Colleges, Universities, Hospitals, Regional Health Centres and Municipal main offices with high-quality, high-speed, cost-effective broadband connections suitable for voice, video and data applications. Service providers can also use the network by buying SuperNet bandwidth to offer high- speed commercial services to rural communities.”(Axia Net Media, 2006, p. 25)

In sum, social services within different communities connect directly to a “point of presence”; these points of presence are called “meet me facilities” in the base network’s urban locales. Internet service providers (ISPs) also have the opportunity to connect at

36 I am using paradigm in this sense to refer to the global embracing “disciplinary matrix” of shared commitments among social scientists (Kuhn, 1977, p. 297).

102 these points of presence and buy bandwidth at standardized rates in order to link business and residential users to the SuperNet.37

Cherry (2004) describes how this model works in terms of speed and costs: “Monthly

rates [are] the minimum needed to provide enough revenue for continued investment and

upgrading-CA $50 per guaranteed Mb/s. That's almost as much capacity as the traditional

T -1 connection of 1.5 Mb/s, which can be as much as 10 times as expensive” (p. 3).38

Despite the affordability of bandwidth on the SuperNet, once ISPs are linked into a

SuperNet point of presence, they still require a “last mile” solution (be it wireless, cable,

ADSL or fibre) to connect to commercial and residential users. In addition, they need

access to e-mail and web servers in order to provide such services. Ultimately, the ISP

decides the end price for the customer and the speed of the services they will supply. As

well, despite an initial capitalization by government, public facilities (such as hospitals,

health centres, government offices, libraries and schools) linked directly at a point of

presence must still pay for their monthly internet service. These costs vary, ranging from

$242.50 (for 256 Kbps of speed) to $697.00 for 20 Mbps of speed (Alberta SuperNet

website, n.d.).

The figure below depicts the structure of the SuperNet and its business model:

37 This competition among ISPs is only permitted in the extended network area. 38 Modern dial-up modems generally have a maximum theoretical speed of 56 Kb/s so the move into Mb/s for this low of a cost is significant. Moreover, the latency period of connectivity makes certain applications, such as videoconferencing, nearly impossible at slower speeds.

103

Figure 4.1: The SuperNet’s structure 39

Early on, outside commentators positioned the Alberta SuperNet as a “success story”, one that that can be recognized as a model of broadband leadership for jurisdictions around the globe (Dutton et al., 2004; Cherry, 2004). For example, in an article for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Cherry (2004) claimed: “the SuperNet, with its combination of fibre optics and relatively inexpensive radio-based long-distance links, reliance on the internet protocol (IP), and most of all, its ingenious business model, offers the best blueprint yet for a bridge over that digital divide” (p. 2). The “digital

39 Taken from Alberta SuperNet website (GOA, 2005a, p. 28), see Appendix G.

104 divide” referenced is one that has existed historically (in telephone use) and persists currently (in high speed internet access) between urban and rural citizens. 40 His

comments highlight the SuperNet’s presumed ability to make access and affordability to

advanced internet services (which require higher speeds) far less contingent on place.

Cherry’s statement also positions the SuperNet as an initiative with transformative

potential. Such accolades were reinforced in 2005, when the Consulting Engineers of

Alberta granted a merit award to Morrison Hershfield Limited for building "the longest

link”, which was the Fort Chipewyan wireless component of the SuperNet (Alberta

SuperNet website, n.d.). Despite such enthusiastic endorsements, those who have been

actively engaged in discussions with some of Alberta’s communities expecting to receive

the SuperNet have offered a slightly more cautious view of this project.41

A more moderate position on the SuperNet emerged when this initiative became the

subject of study of a multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional team lead by David Mitchell

from the University of Calgary: the Alberta SuperNet Research Alliance. I was a member

of this group from the outset of my doctoral studies in 2004 until 2007 when the project

ended. During this time I had not only the opportunity to collect data on the SuperNet as

it was first marketed and promoted within the province but also participated in academic

and community events designed to foster a better understanding of the SuperNet. From

2003, this research consortium received major three-year funding from the Social

40 For a review of how digital divide issues have been dealt with historically and currently see Murdock & Golding (2004). 41 Some citizens have also taken a public stance against this initiative. For example, the following blog entry captures some current citizen concerns: http://ken-chapman.blogspot.com/2008/10/old-fashioned- telephone-lines-and.html

105

Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) under the Initiative on the New Economy. The consortium proposed to examine the social, economic, and cultural impacts of the SuperNet on Albertan communities (Mitchell, 2003). In total, 13 representative locations were selected for study intended to reflect the diversity of rural locales within Alberta. This included jurisdictions along major transportation routes, those off of transportation corridors, more remote locations in the province, and

Aboriginal communities (Mitchell, 2007).

In general, members of the Research Alliance consistently recognized and promoted the potential of the SuperNet. For example, the lead investigator described this initiative as

“precedent setting” due to the scale of the project (in terms of geographic coverage and number of connections), the speed of the network’s construction (as it was built in under four years), and the dynamics of its business case, in that it represented a unique public and private partnership arrangement (Mitchell, 2007). Moreover, it was acknowledged that the investment for this project was considerable particularly given the expenditures in other provinces on broadband deployment, as is evident in the table below.

106

Table 4.1: Summary of provincial government broadband deployment initiatives and investments (2002 to 2006) 42

Province/Territory Funding Description ($ millions) Alberta 193.0 SuperNet project linking 422 communities across Alberta. British Columbia 1.0 NetWork BC project to expand SPAN/BC broadband network (Note 1) to 366 communities across B.C. In addition, NetWork BC provided funds to bring last mile solutions to 56 communities. Manitoba 47.0 Upgrade and expansion of the Province's provincial broadband network to reach an additional 85 communities. New Brunswick 12.5 Joint project with federal government and Bell Aliant that extended broadband coverage to over 327 communities. Newfoundland and 5.0 Private/public initiative focused on educational institutions Labrador across the province. Nova Scotia 1.0 Information Economy Initiative focused on educational institutions across the province (Bell Aliant contributed $5M to the project). Ontario 2.4 COBRA: aimed at funding the construction in rural and northern communities in Ontario – suspended as of mid- 2004. Quebec 150.0 Villages Branchés du Québec aimed at linking educational and municipal institutions to provincial government's broadband network. Saskatchewan 117.0 Community Net I & II and Northern Broadband Network initiatives providing broadband services in well over 450 communities. Yukon 17.0 Connect Yukon initiatives provided broadband availability in 11 communities. Total 545.9

Note: (1) No explicit contribution made by the provincial government

42 Taken from Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (2007), p. 129.

107

In the 1990s building an information highway was a priority for Canada as it was for many nations around the globe. Consequently, in 1994, the federal government formed the Information Highway Advisory Council (IHAC). This committee produced two major reports, The Canadian Information Highway: Building Canada's Information and

Communications Infrastructure (2004), and Connection, Community, Content: The

Challenge of the Information Highway (2005), along with a government response,

Building the Information Society: Moving Canada Into the 21st Century (1996).

Moreover, it received additional attention with the formation of the National Broadband

Task Force in 2001. However, despite such reports, which urged the federal government to be proactive in terms of funding connectivity to all Canadian communities, there has been very little federal support devoted to making this goal a reality (Matear, 2002).

Consequently, the efforts indicated in Table 4.1 demonstrate how provinces have attempted to tackle the lack of federal engagement regarding making universal broadband access a priority.

Despite the impressiveness of the Alberta government’s efforts to be a leader regarding broadband development, particularly in comparison to other provinces (as noted in Table

4.1 above), throughout the course of our research, members of the team remained concerned that the rural communities, who were targeted as this initiative’s prime beneficiaries, were not actively involved in the development of the network.43

43 A lack of involvement in technology tends to go against an approach that has become increasingly popular in academic discussions of technology planning processes: constructive technology assessment (see Rip, Misa & Schot, 1995).

108

Consequently, a good deal of the researchers’ efforts were devoted to exploring community attitudes and ambitions in a broad range of areas including education, health, business and everyday use, much of which has been documented (Anderson &

Christiansen, 2006; Bakardjieva, 2008; Jennett, Yeo, Scott, Herbert & Teo, 2005;

Williams, Langford & Matos, 2007).

In reviewing the work of the Alberta SuperNet Research Alliance members, it is apparent that while many of these studies touch on the issues of citizen acceptance, none had chosen to focus on the nature of the planning process associated with the SuperNet.44

Additionally, the research team had yet to consider the role of metaphor within this

initiative both in terms of potential to construct policy issues and open up sites for a

possible negotiation or opposition of meaning. I thus saw an immediate way to link my

interests with what the research group had already accomplished and provide additional

insights on the early development of the project that would further expand our

understanding of how the SuperNet came to be.

My initial concern in the SuperNet was also encouraged by my observation that early on

a variety of metaphors seemed necessary to explain the technical components of the

network such as “last-mile” connections, “meet me facilities”, “points of presence” and

the “digital divide”. Furthermore, when I began my dissertation research, I noted that

various actors (policymakers, industry representatives, academics and community

44 According to David Mitchell this was not for lack of trying, but the Government of Alberta did not openly encourage academics participation prior to 2001 (personal communication, October 12, 2009).

109 members) were all actively engaged rather differently in the process of articulating and understanding the dimensions of this project. In doing so, they often turned to metaphor, thus making the SuperNet an increasingly attractive site for exploring my research questions.

All told, based on the characterization of the SuperNet by its promoters (the provincial government and Axia), outside observers, and members of the SuperNet Research

Alliance, along with my initial observations of what seemed to be going on in relation to the SuperNet, it was evident to me that the SuperNet would be an excellent case in which to examine my research commitment and elaborate my conceptual framework. This led me to consider two other questions in relation to this initiative: (1) what does it mean to do case study research, and (2) what kind of case is the SuperNet?

In consulting the literature on potential methods, it is evident that “case study” research is understood and appreciated in a multitude of ways. In fact, Yin (2003) suggests that at present we lack a distinction for appreciating the differences between “the case study as a research tool from (a) the case study as a teaching tool, (b) ethnographies and participant- observation, and (c) qualitative methods” (p.xiv). Much of this confusion exists because case studies are often incorporated as pedagogical strategies though they are not based on specific research but rather hypothetical examples; every qualitative technique has a unique history and aim (for instance, ethnographies are firmly rooted in the anthropological tradition) but still offers the material necessary to support a “case”; case studies have increasingly incorporated mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative);

110 moreover, the case approach has been embraced by those doing qualitative work in significantly different ways depending on one’s general epistemological and ontological orientation.45 In general, I agree with Lincoln and Guba (1990), who assert that a “case

study” should be understood as a strategy of presentation for qualitative inquiries; thus if

well presented, all qualitative work can serve as powerful cases. 46 Consequently, my aim

in using the SuperNet as a case is to supply an enlightening description, which heightens

the academic and policy communities’ awareness about the deployment of metaphor in

the policy process and the sorts of metaphors being utilized to understand technology.

According to Berg (2007), case studies can be both narrow and broad. It is a method that

entails “systematically gathering enough information about a particular person, social

setting, event, or group to permit the researcher to effectively understand how the subject

operates or functions” (p. 283). A question that is left to the discretion of the researcher in

this instance thus remains: how much information will be sufficient to gain an effective

understanding? Most case studies deploy mixed methods including interviews, the use of

documents, and participant observation. Additionally, much of the information you

collect is determined by how your case is bound and your specific research question.

(Berg, 2007, pp 286-290) Berg also suggests that case studies deploy a “a variety of lines

of action” in terms of data gathering in order to “make use of and contribute to the

application of theory” (p. 283). Thus case study research can endorse both a “theory

45 See for example Yin (1998) versus Lincoln & Guba (1990). 46 Some of the criteria Lincoln and Guba (2002) encourage for quality case research are: resonance; a rhetorical style that highlights the researcher’s passion commitment and political stance; the production of a text that activates and stimulates the reader making them think differently about a given phenomenon.

111 before research” model (which advocates theory development prior to data collection), as well as a “theory after research” perspective, in which theory is generated based on what was observed, the view typically supported by those engaged in producing “grounded theory” (Berg, 2007, 285-288). In the context of my work, this investigation of the

SuperNet incorporates both inductive and deductive approaches to knowledge generation.

For example, as the sections that follow illustrate, I have used theory to help me structure what I looked for in my data, however I also intended to generate new insights about the relationship between metaphor, technology and policy via my exploration of the

SuperNet.

In terms of situating my project as a “case”, I found the work of Flyvbjerg (2004) particularly instructive, not only because he provides a compelling justification for why the ideas produced from qualitative cases are so important to social science research today but also because he categorizes the kinds of cases that one might look for. He claims that at least four different types of qualitative cases can be sought. The first type is an “extreme case”. Such cases are selected not because they are an average example but rather because they “activate more basic actors and more basic mechanisms in the situation [being] studied”. They thus stand to get a point across in a more dramatic way, such as Freud’s discussion of “Wolf-man” and Foucault’s “Panopticon”. Secondly, there are “critical cases”, which tend to have “strategic importance in relation to [your] general problem”. (Flyvbjerg, 2004, p. 245) Here you are seeking a case where you might be able to say “if it is valid for this case, it is valid for all (or many) cases.” For example, if you are interested in testing the velocity of falling objects, you might pick lead and

112 feather as your test materials, since they are extremes on the weight continuum

(Flyvbjerg, 2004, p. 426-427) Another possibility is to seek cases which are

“paradigmatic” in that they “highlight more general characteristics of the society in question”. Clifford Gertz’s exploration of the deep play within a Balinese cockfight used to highlight the importance of certain rituals to society is an illustration of this type of case. (Flyvbjerg, 2004, p. 427)47 Finally, one can look for “maximum variation cases”.

This is where you might chose “three to four cases that are very different in one dimension: size, form or organization, location, budget, etc” (Flyvbjerg, 2004, p. 426).

Flyvbjerg acknowledges that recognizing what type of case you are dealing with is not easy, and is often based on intuition. Moreover, he claims that one particular case can be simultaneously “extreme, critical and paradigmatic” (Flyvbjerg, 2004, p. 428).

What kind of case is the SuperNet? I would argue that in many ways it is an “extreme” case, in that it activates a multitude of actors in technology policy-making planning and use (academics, citizens, industry metaphors, policymakers and technology). I also see it as “paradigmatic”, or using the Kuhn’s (1969) term an “exemplar”, as it will permit me to elicit general ideas about what metaphors accomplish in policy. The justification for my

47 Kuhn (1970) would characterize this type of paradigmatic case study as an exemplar. He argues “that because the term [paradigm] has assumed a life of its own” there is a need for the term “exemplar” (Kuhn, 1970, p. 186). Exemplars are “the concrete problem-solutions that students encounter from the start of their scientific education, whether in laboratories, on examinations, or at the ends of chapters in science texts. ... All physicists, for example, begin by learning the same exemplars: problems such as the inclined plane, the conical pendulum, and Keplerian orbits; instruments such as the vernier, the calorimeter, and the Wheatstone bridge. As their training develops, however, the symbolic generalizations they share are increasingly illustrated by different exemplars. Though both solid-state and field-theoretic physicists share the Schrodinger equation, only its more elementary applications are common to both groups” (Kuhn, 1970, p. 186). The SuperNet represents an exemplar for both academics and policy makers in that it is a case that they would benefit from knowing about; acknowledging that they will recognize their own specific strategies as they move forward.

113 classification of this case come from the observations presented above, which include: currently in Canada, the SuperNet is considered the leading example of provincially supported top down infrastructure creation for broadband (as it represents the largest provincial government investment to date); it is a case already replete with metaphorical language as various actors strive to make sense of this specific network formation; moreover, it has also been the focus of academic, industry and policy attention, having often been labelled as “precedent setting”.

A final insight from the literature on case studies, that helped guide my investigation were the skills identified by Yin (1998) as essential for conducting “good” case study research. They include:

• constantly questioning the insights of your data,

• an eagerness to be a good “listener” and avoid preconceptions,

• a willingness to be adaptable and flexible in one’s research design,

• developing a firm grasp of the issues being studied (i.e. looking to see if one’s data is

contradictory and if more data is required),

• and an unbiased approach.

Overall, while somewhat unrealistic (particularly an unbiased approach) what Yin (1998) is advocating is that researchers approach their case study with an open mind and a willingness to see where their research takes them. These qualities are remarkably similar to the directives offered by Callon (1986) and Latour (1987) discussed in Chapter 2, both of whom stress the need for openness when exploring a specific network. To Yin (1998), the test of “bias” in one’s research design comes from how others react to your

114 interpretations, and a researcher’s subsequent openness to alternative meanings. Using actor-network terminology, this means that the strength in one’s analysis comes from our ability to enrol others (be it our research participants, or other academics) in our own research networks. Some general strategies for ensuring this sort of confidence in your work, so that others might easily be enrolled in your research network, are examined later in this chapter when I discuss issues of trustworthiness.

4.3 Study Design: Data selection and collection

When considering questions of study design, it has been suggested that researchers need to take great care in ensuring there is congruence between one’s overall research paradigm, epistemological and ontological commitments and methodological choices

(Crotty, 1998; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Guba & Lincoln (1994) distinguish four possible paradigms all of which compete as guides for informing a researcher’s choices. These paradigms include: positivism, postpositivism, critical theory, and constructivism.

In reviewing these four positions, my approach to knowledge generation and conception of reality are most firmly grounded in both the critical theory and constructivism. This is already evident based on my decision to maintain elements of both actor-network theory and political economy of communication in my discussion of metaphor and my sympathies with an approach to metaphor that is at once linguistic, pragmatic and cognitive. The critical and constructivist paradigms are commensurable in that both recognize the role of positionality in research (i.e. they believe it is impossible to separate

115 the investigator from the investigated) and also appreciate the value of qualitative techniques for generating knowledge about the world (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).

Despite such similarities, constructivism and critical approaches do differ. For example, critical theory emphasizes a historical realism that suggests that reality is somewhat accessible. Scholars working within this tradition assume that structural forces (in the case of political economy of communication, economic and political factors) have been

“reified into a series of structure that are now (inappropriately) take as ‘real’ ” (Guba &

Lincoln, 1994, p. 110). Methodologically the critical perspectives seek to foster a dialogue that is “dialectical in nature to transform ignorance and misapprehensions… into more informed consciousness” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 110). In contrast to critical theory, constructivism (where actor-network is more firmly situated) advocates that

“realities are apprehendable in the form of multiple, intangible mental constructions, socially and experientially based and local and specific in nature… constructions are no more or less ‘true’ ” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, pp. 110- 111). In sum, such an approach does not look for a singular truth but values a multiplicity of views and is not make judgements around whose claims ought to be privileged. From a methodological standpoint the goal for constructivist approaches is to improve “individual constructions… through interactions between and among investigators and respondents”

(Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 111).

When evaluating what this dissertation hope to accomplish, it embraces a constructivist position more fully than a critical theory approach. This is because it aims to highlight

116 the local and specific constructed nature of realities, not hoping so much to expose

“subjugated knowledges that point to experiences of suffering, conflict and collective struggle” (Giroux, in Lincoln & Guba, p. 110) but rather to “to distil a consensus construction that is more informed and sophisticated than any of the predecessor constructions” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 111). However, it should not be discounted that in producing this “consensus construction”, this work may expose points of struggle in the policy environment. Nevertheless, as was noted in Chapter 2, I do not assume that citizens are naturally subjugated and that certain power dimensions within the capitalist mode of production are a given; I want to make sense of how metaphor works without such a preconception.

By identifying with the constructivist paradigm, I would argue that this dissertation can be characterized as “interpretivist”.48 According to Seale (2004), interpretivist research emphasizes “the meaningful nature of people’s participation in social and cultural life… researchers working within this tradition analyze the meanings people confer upon their own and other’s actions” (p. 508). Case study and ethnography are the two research techniques embraced by this perspective because of their capacity to focus intensively

“on a single setting or small number of people” (Seale, 2004, p. 75) and explore how people behave as they normally might in the context of their everyday lives (sometimes termed “naturalism”). The emphasis in interpretative inquiry becomes on providing

48 Babbie & Baxter (2004) suggest that there are four distinct paradigms of knowing available to communication scholars: positivism, systems theory, interpretivism or critical approaches.

117 research accounts that privilege depth over the breadth and focus on originality and discovery as indicators of quality. (Seale, 2004, pp. 75-76)

After reflecting upon the nature of this research design and identifying with constructivist and interpretivist perspectives, it was necessary to turn to my precise research questions in order to determine what type of primary material my case study of the SuperNet required. An assessment of the central research question guiding this work indicated the need for at least two types of data. First, information was required that would help illustrate the use of metaphor in relation to the planning and initial creation of the

SuperNet by its primary partners. Second, a way to explore user perceptions of the

SuperNet was needed.

In terms of examining the policymaking planning process I opted to follow Latour’s

(1987, 2005) advice that the best way to proceed with understanding any situation is to begin with a systematic effort to “follow the actors”. Consequently, I turned to the literature and discussions of the SuperNet and identified human actors I could contact about the project. Among my obvious first choices were the key partners in the initiative: members of the provincial government, and industry representatives from the company contracted to build the SuperNet (Bell) and the company who would be managing the network on the province’s behalf (Axia). I was nonetheless not just interested in interviewing anyone within these organizations but rather those individuals who represented a certain position within such enterprises. Latour (1987) suggests that often times in particular sites (be it a laboratory or otherwise) specific people become the

118 mouthpiece of others, and can be labelled as “spokespersons” (p. 71). In such instances these are individuals “who do not talk by and for themselves but can talk in the presence of what they represent” (Latour, 1987, p.72).

I thus started my interviews by seeking out such spokespersons. My initial contact was with those I knew had been actively involved in creating the SuperNet and were instrumental in guiding it from being a policy idea to an actual project which entailed laying of fibre in the ground across the province. Consequently, my sampling strategy could be described as one of non-probability, combining both “purposive” and

“snowball” approaches;49 I began with an idea about who I needed to speak to but then let

my actors guide me, ending each conversation with the following question: “are there

any particular people involved with this initiative that you think I should contact?”

My search for such spokespersons led to me to discussions with the following people: a

member of the committee that first looked at requests for proposals (RFP) to build and

implement the SuperNet (Ken Hewitt); two deputy ministers whose department

(Innovation and Science) sought approval and monitored the build (Dan Bader and Roger

Palmer); the Minister of Innovation and Science of the time who served as a public face

for the initiative when it was first announced and presented to the public (Lorne Taylor);

49 “Purposive” or “judgment sampling” can be defined as selecting one’s samples based on “your own knowledge of the population, its elements and your research aims” (Babbie & Baxter, 2004, p. 35). I began my research my contacting those who were highlighted as key members of the SuperNet project in press releases. Snowball sampling, is a process in which “each located participant suggests others” (Babbie & Baxter, 2004, p. 135). Snowball sampling is well suited to Latour’s (2005) suggestions that researchers should “follow the actors themselves” (p. 12).

119 the head of the communication team that first came up with the name the SuperNet (Val

Mellesmoen); the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Axia, who bid on the government RFP and won, and now manages the SuperNet on the government’s behalf

(Art Price); the Executive Assistant to the Minister of Innovation & Science, who was instrumental in helping ensure that the SuperNet initiative passed through Cabinet relatively smoothly (Ken Faulkner); two senior civil servants responsible for managing the SuperNet on the provincial government’s behalf now that it is operational (Holly

McStravick and Dennis Mudryk); an internet service provider whose company was responsible for quality control and assurance during the building of the network (Kelly

Candy).50 All of these individuals were recruited first via e-mail. I then met them for a

face-to-face interview, which in most cases lasted between an hour to an hour and a

half.51

The names of those who were a part of my research are all supplied above because each of these participants signed a consent form that gave me the opportunity to identify them.

They also had the chance to review the interview transcript upon completion.52 Not

surprisingly, given that they are, or were, spokespersons for particular organizations, they

all agreed to be named in the findings. Even though these actors opted to keep their

identities visible, I found their responses to be candid and frank. They did not appear

hesitant to disclose their thoughts and feelings about my questions. Notably, there were

50 The specific dates of each of these interviews are summarized in Appendix C. 51 My recruitment notice can be found in Appendix D. 52 My consent form can be found in Appendix E.

120 requests by some interviewees at certain points in our dialogue to keep what was said

“off the record”. In such cases, these respondents suggested I could use their ideas in my work as long as the statements were not directly attributed to them. The very few issues raised in this context were thus used to inform both my analysis and conclusion but were never included as direct quotes.

The questions I formulated for these interviews were based on the review of political economy of communication, actor-network theory and metaphor, and were focused around telling the story of how the SuperNet came to be, the genesis of the SuperNet label, and network-building challenges.53 For example, the PEC literature which draws

attention to the myths of technology and advocates that work on policy ought to have a

normative dimension encouraged me to probe the visions of technology supplied by the

policy planners and solicit the “lessons learned” in order to be able to formulate plausible

policy recommendations for the future. Based on this perspective my questions included:

do you feel the promotion of the SuperNet was mostly for social, cultural, political or

economic gains; what aspects of broadband do you think are the most promising for

Albertan communities; what aspects of broadband do you think pose the greatest

challenge; if you were to build a SuperNet today, how might it differ?

As noted above, ANT provided the methodological guidance that encouraged direct

engagement with policy planners and also influenced my sampling strategy. This

53 For a full list of the interview questions see Appendix F.

121 approach also alerted me to the need to probe into the dynamics of this initiative’s progress and “feed off controversies” (Latour, 2005, p. 24), as disputes often tell us a great deal about the translation process. Accordingly, the questions I developed for my interview guide based on ANT were: what is your role in relation to the SuperNet initiative; why was the particular business model for the SuperNet chosen; were others considered; what are the biggest challenges in building a broadband network; are there any particular players involved with this initiative that you think I should contact?

Finally, the multi-disciplinary work available on metaphor persuaded me to investigate the nature and use of metaphor in policy planning initiatives. I wanted to discover first hand what role these policy planners felt the specific metaphorical labelling of the initiative played, along with gaining some general impressions about what broadband meant to them. My questions thus included: why was the actual term “SuperNet” selected; might other terms have been more appropriate to capture what you were trying to accomplish; is it accurate to call the network a “SuperNet”; what does the term broadband mean to you?

My exchanges with these participants were semi-structured which meant that while there were a number of predetermined questions “typically asked of each interviewee in a systematic and consistent order”, yet I still probed beyond my prepared script (Berg,

2007, p. 94). Each interview was transcribed in full in order to allow me to appreciate the nuances of the metaphors manifested in particular linguistic utterances.

122

In regards to addressing the second component of my central research question (i.e. the acceptance of new technology by citizens) I turned to different sources, some already in existence and others that I collected myself. As previously noted, for three years during my doctoral program I was a member of the Alberta SuperNet Research Alliance, a government funded project with the stated goal of examining the social, economic, and cultural impacts of the SuperNet on Albertan communities. One of the benefits of this membership was that I had access to data that was compiled by other members of this research team. When the Research Alliance began its work in 2003 (prior to my involvement), the public consultation sub-project carried out a series of town hall meetings in 13 communities across the province. In each of these sessions community members were introduced to the SuperNet itself and then an effort was made to engage community members in conversation about what the technology might do, and how communities might “define [their] distinctive needs and aspirations” in relation to this technology (Mitchell, 2007, p. 10).

As Mitchell notes (2007) the rational for a selection of the communities for these town hall meeting was “purposive”, in that a selection of communities was targeted to represent the diverse sorts of rural communities that might be present in Alberta. They encompassed a range of locales including: a bedroom community near a major city

(Morinville), towns not on major transportation routes but ones in which citizens “might just as easily drive for business and economic services rather than access them online”

(Canmore, Vegerville), rural towns off of major transportation routes where a drive option is not so readily available (Athabasca, Oyen, Drumheller, Pincher Creek, Vulcan),

123 a truly remote community (Grande Cache), and several Aboriginal communities

(Sturgeon Lake, Kikino Metis, Red Crow College) (Mitchell, 2007, p. 9). Complete transcripts of eight54 of these meetings were available on-line. Upon my initial review of

these transcripts it was clear that a wide variety of citizens (N=75)55 expressed opinions

about the SuperNet.

In addition to the town hall meetings, as a research assistant for the virtual clusters sub-

project within this research consortium, I had the opportunity to visit first hand six56 of

these eight communities from 2004-2005. During this time I organized and conducted

focus groups with rural business users on possible uses of the SuperNet presented in the

form of business-oriented scenarios. Each of these focus groups drew a diverse set of

participants (N=36) and our discussion often went beyond the expected one-hour time

frame. While these focus groups were designed to answer a different set of questions than

the town hall meetings, the results of which have been published elsewhere (see Williams

et al., 2007), I found that the exchanges I had with community members in this instance

were less about the merits of the actual scenarios in question and far more about how

people felt about the introduction of this initiative into their communities. Consequently,

though there was overlap in the locations from which the town hall meetings and focus

54 The communities whose transcripts that were available included: Athabasca (ATH), Canmore (CTH), Drumheller (DTH), Grand Cache (GTH), Morinville (MTH), Pincher Creek (PTH), Rocky Mountain House (RTH), Vulcan (VTH). They can be found on-line at the Alberta SuperNet Research Alliance website: http://supernet.ucalgary.ca/. 55 I did not include University of Calgary representatives and government or industry participants in this count of participants. Moreover, in reviewing the transcripts these other representatives comments about the SuperNet were not coded since I was interested in determining community reactions. 56 In the subsequent chapter these focus groups are numbered (FG 1-6). The communities I visited were Canmore, Drumheller, Grand Cache, Morinville, Rocky Mountain House and Vulcan. I cannot however identify which community represents which focus group number under my initial ethics clearance.

124 groups solicited responses, these focus groups, which I transcribed in full, widened the corpus of data I could draw upon to start assessing how citizens in this instance used metaphor to understand and experience the SuperNet.

My final source of information for this project came from press releases available on the

Government of Alberta’s website for the project. The reason that I wanted to examine these documents is that I saw them as an excellent representation of how the SuperNet was constructed in official discourses allowing me to address my secondary research concern: which precise metaphors do policymakers and citizens use when understanding and experiencing a broadband technology project? While I certainly had some useable data from my interviews with spokespersons about the SuperNet, I also recognized that what people say in interviews can be different from the material traces, actually produced, about an initiative (Hodder, 1998). I thus felt that such press releases provided a stronger sense of how the SuperNet was formally and officially codified. Moreover, since I was interested in early understandings of the SuperNet, and data which coincided with the time period in which the town hall meetings and focus groups were conducted, I reviewed only those releases that were available prior to and immediately following the

SuperNet’s completion; altogether, 24 policy documents were analysed selected from the

Government of Alberta’s website. A complete list of the press releases chosen can be found in Appendix G.

As the last chapter indicted, a potential role for metaphor as an actor within policy is to serve as a device of opposition that different actors can use for strategic ends. By

125 juxtaposing official government constructions of the SuperNet with the spokesperson interviews and citizen discussions of this initiative I sought a clearer picture of whether and how their vision of this initiative differed, thereby providing me with greater insights into the dynamics of how metaphors function within the policymaking process (my primary analytic concern).

4.4 Notes on data analysis

As the previous chapter noted, metaphor analysis is a process that can be broken down into rather specific steps. Those that are common and have already been identified are:

(1) select a topic of investigation, (2) choose an artefact or body of work that will assist with one’s study of metaphor, (3) identify the metaphor(s), or parts of metaphor(s) within the text, (4) describe the metaphor; and (5) evaluate the metaphor(s). How each of these components actually applies to my specific project is described below.

In terms of selecting my topic of study, I had a clear interest inspired by my primary research questions. In evaluating these questions I wanted to accomplish two things. First

I was interested in developing a deeper understanding of how metaphor works in both policy planning and the acceptance of new technologies writ large, thus expanding our understanding of metaphor use in policy at a general level. Moreover, while I had some working conceptions developed from the literature (i.e. metaphors help to problematize policy issues and serve as tools of enrolment), I was interested in testing this in the case of the SuperNet, with the hope of refining my appreciation of how these processes work.

Secondly, I wanted to determine what sorts of metaphors were being used to understand

126 and experience the SuperNet. I positioned “SuperNet” as a target, an abstract concept not easily expressed in literal terms, that was to be described with different sources, a more concrete object, based on a sensory bodily, or socio-cultural experience. Put another way,

I was curious about the sorts of understandings of technology advanced by those attempting to enrol potential users in a network (policy planners) and understood by those on the receiving end of these efforts (citizens within rural Albertan communities).

Using the data selected for analysis—the ten interview transcripts, eight town hall meeting transcripts (N=75), six focus groups transcripts (N=36) and 24 press releases—

I felt that I had the adequate material necessary to address my core research concerns.

The interviews would permit me to understand the policy planning process more fully, whereas the juxtaposition of the press releases and the town hall meeting and focus groups would crystallize the use of metaphor by citizens and could potentially reveal any conflicting interpretations. Collectively, these sources also provided a deeper appreciation of the sorts of metaphors being deployed to understand and experience technology by both users and planners.

In order to identify metaphors within the data, the interview, town hall meeting and focus groups transcripts and press releases, were read fully before my coding began. This step came from the recommendations within the literature that processes of metaphor analysis should begin with a clear idea of what was said and what went on (Foss, 2004). I then looked at the transcripts (from the interviews, town halls and focus groups) along with the press releases, and coded them line-by-line for the use of metaphors at a general level.

127

Based on my definition of metaphor, as “a linguistic representation that results from the shift in a use of a word or phrase from the context and domain in which it is expected to occur to another context or domain where it is not expected to occur… it may have linguistic, pragmatic and cognitive characteristics” Chateris-Black, 2004, p.21), and following the advice of the Pragglejaz Group (2007), I looked at meanings within particular sentences, evaluated whether there were other more basic meanings possible, and determined if the contextual and basic meanings conflicted. In the first instance, I was interested in determining, when policy planners and citizens used metaphors and what were the metaphors seemed to accomplish. Next, I coded all the material for specific articulations of the SuperNet. Anytime the SuperNet was appeared, I asked: what is this word being understood as? In this instance, my primary concern was to identify examples of more concrete sources that were being connected to this target. Descriptors were given to the different sources present, most of which came from specific metaphorical linguistic expressions. The cognitive linguistic practice of capitalizing the postulated conceptual metaphors was followed in parts of my write-up (Chapter 5-7). I also italicized linguistic expressions that supported particular conceptual metaphors.

In “describing the metaphors”, the questions raised in the previous chapters remained my guide. For the policy planning (i.e. the interviews and press releases) I was interested in: how is an issue constructed via metaphor; how are metaphors used to circumscribe which behaviours count, and what counts as behaviour for both human and non-humans in policymaking; why do policymakers claim to use metaphors? For the acceptance by users, (juxtaposed by an exploration of the press release metaphors and town hall and

128 focus groups) my key organizing questions were: do competing metaphors exist around the policy issue; are the metaphors selected by policymakers ones in which a shared space, equivalence, and/or alignment is evident, or rather do they show traces of an unsuccessful translation; is there a space created by citizens that challenges the official vision of a particular initiative? These questions elicited from my literature review played a fundamental role structuring both the presentation of my findings and my subsequent analysis.

Finally, in evaluating these metaphors, I kept in mind both Rigney’s (2001) criteria

(particularly a focus on a metaphor’s heuristic potential and its capacity to serve certain strategic rhetorical ends) and the broader questions that emerge from my review of political economy of communication and actor-network theory, which included: have capitalist concepts like commodification spread to encompass all of society, including the metaphors of our policy planners; what sorts of values are being protected and eroded via the metaphors selected; are there other metaphors that might be more appropriate when thinking about the notion of the public good than those being currently deployed; what are the sorts of socio-technical network relationships that can be observed between policy planners, citizens, metaphors and even the technology itself? For help with answering these questions I turned again to the existing literature to determine how best my findings could be connected to other studies of technology metaphors explored indifferent contexts. My responses to all of these questions are interspersed throughout my data analysis chapters and within my conclusion.

129

One of my chief dilemmas once I had coded the three selected data sources was in deciding how best to order the presentation of my findings. Two options were feasible based on my general research design. The first was to highlight the differences according to process focused concerns. A process centred approach would begin by presenting the policy planner debates over the SuperNet, followed by the codified representations of the

SuperNet in the official press releases, and then conclude with the citizen responses. The second option was to focus on the contrast between the official codified descriptions of the policy versus the unofficial accounts. This choice would start with an analysis of the press releases and then proceed to compare these with the metaphorical interpretations of the project offered in the policy planner interviews and citizen dialogues. I decided to focus on the second of these two options as it more vividly drew out the complexity associated with the production and consumption dynamic and the problematization, enrolment and mobilization challenges that emerge via metaphor when a researcher looks at metaphor use beyond simply an investigation of the official construction of a specific initiative. Put differently, this alternative illustrates more clearly the diversity of metaphorical responses that can emerge from a direct engagement with the various human actors within a particular socio-technical network.

4.5 Issues of Trustworthiness

A key question for any study, qualitative or quantitative, is: how can a researcher persuade others that the findings of their inquiry are “worth attention” (Lincoln & Guba,

1985, p.290)? In their seminal work in the 1980s, Guba and Lincoln (1982) substituted the parallel concept of “trustworthiness” in qualitative work for reliability and validity,

130 the core evaluative criteria for quantitative studies. In order for a qualitative study to be considered trustworthy they suggested it should conform to the following four tests: (a) credibility, whether your results ring true, (b) transferability, the applicability of one’s findings to other contexts, (c) dependability, which concerns whether your results are consistent and can be repeated, and (d) confirmability, the degree to which results are the product of the focus of the inquiry, and not simply to the biases of the researcher (Lincoln

& Guba, 1985). In order to better address their constructivist leanings, they later introduced authenticity, the ability for a researcher to represent a range of different realities, as another standard by which one’s research can be judged (Lincoln & Guba,

2002).

According to Creswell (1998), at least eight procedures for verifying these different components of trustworthiness are plausible. These procedures include: prolonged engagement and persistent observation, triangulation, peer review or debriefing, negative case analysis, clarification of researcher bias (reflexivity), member-checking, rich and thick description, and external audits. Moreover, he recommends that a researcher aim to employ at least two of these strategies in their work (Creswell, 1997). Though such strategies have been criticized as a way of completing “post hoc” checks

(Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson & Spiers, 2002), these processes still provide a useful way to begin evaluating the quality of one’s overall research strategy.

In reviewing my project, it is clear that many of the criteria specified by Creswell (1997) were met in the collection, analysis, and presentation of my data. For example, in terms

131 of prolonged engagement and persistent observation my work on the SuperNet project extended over 3 years. Additionally, during this time I attended public symposia, research retreats, and conferences, in which I constantly discussed this case and my preliminary findings. As well, I conducted six focus groups, arranged and attended another focus group for a research team member, and co-ordinated 3 additional outreach sessions about the SuperNet in Aboriginal communities across Alberta. Also, during my time as a research assistant on the project, I produced various reports (for the communities,

SSHRC and Industry Canada) documenting my activities and those of the team more generally, along with publishing an academic article. While not all of my work on the project is used directly in this dissertation, my exposure to this initiative over an extended period of time provided a way for me to continually refine my grasp of the issues being studied. Secondly, as my previous chapters and the discussion within this chapter regarding the types of data used for this investigation illustrates, my exploration of the

SuperNet relies on multiple sources of data and deploys several theoretical lenses.

Consequently, the criterion of triangulation— the use of numerous data collection strategies and different theoretical perspectives (Berg, 2007, p. 6)— has been met.

Throughout this dissertation, I also attempt to clarify my research bias, in that I have endeavoured to discuss the details of my journey as openly as possible and have attempt to recognize the delineations of my work and its limitations (more of which follows).

Given that I am embracing a constructivist approach, I also willingly concede that my interpretation is one of several possible that could emerge from a review of my data.

Additionally, I did engage in some form of member checking as the data analysis of the policy planner interviews was sent to 5 of the participants upon their request for any

132 comments of feedback. Furthermore, in the chapters that follow, in which I present the findings from my review of the transcripts and press releases I have sought to provide a rich and thick description of the ideas and views of both policy planners and citizens.

Finally, I would suggest that the process of producing and defending a dissertation is an external audit, as via this process graduate students open themselves to feedback that may lead to the development of better-articulated results.

In sum, when reviewing the standards of trustworthiness associated with qualitative work my study meets many of these criteria. This is however, not to suggest my investigation is without limitations.

4.6 Limitations to study design and analysis

There are several limitations to both my data and overall approach. The first is that this analysis deals exclusively with early attitudes towards the SuperNet and thus provides only a snapshot of these opinions. Using Latour’s (1987) terminology, this is a study of

“policy in the making” as opposed to “ready-made policy”. 57 It is both possible and

probable that as communities have more exposure to the possible benefits of this

initiative the metaphors they deploy can change. Moreover, what citizens actually do with

the SuperNet if they become connected via residential service and how this is connected

to such metaphorical understandings would be worthy of future attention. Nonetheless, I

57 While Latour (1987) uses these terms in relation to descriptions of science (ready made science versus science in action), Woolgar (2004) suggests that the discussions of science as environment in which specialized knowledge is created can equally be applied to policy and that such an activity is well worth the effort, as it may open up some exciting possibilities for scholars within science and technology studies (see Chapter 2).

133 believe that these early metaphorical conceptualizations provide important insights into those areas with which communities may experience difficulties since the initial metaphors we select often become deeply entrenched, acting as “the compass which serves to orient us” (Hart, 2003, p. 1). An awareness of such metaphors also supplies an interesting benchmark for assessing changing attitudes for those interested in pursuing further research on this initiative.

As for my data sources specifically, I acknowledge that my network tracing process in the interview process has some gaps .58 For example, the input of those who worked at

Bell and Telus (the two telecommunication companies who bid to be primary partners in

the SuperNet) are noticeably missing from my analysis. This is because spokespersons

from the organizations who were involved with these early planning efforts no longer

work for these companies and were not available. However, I feel that those I spoke to

represent a strong sample of the sorts of individuals that were involved in the creation of

the SuperNet. Moreover, I found that full transcription of my interview responses yielded

ample data to address my concerns around the roles that metaphors can potentially play in

a technology planning process.

Another possible drawback to my data sources is that the sample of communities

contacted for this project is limited (8 communities is only 2% of the total 395 within the

58 Several other people (7 in total) were contacted for interviews but were unable to participate. This could be considered a prime limitation to my data as I could not successfully follow ALL of the actors recommended to me. Nevertheless, I took some comfort in the fact that after completing my 10 interviews there was some “saturation” in the accounts, in that I started to hear many of the same things. For a discussion of the importance of “saturation” to qualitative work see Baxter & Babbie (2004), p. 319.

134 extended network) and no specific sampling strategy was used to achieve a particular cross section of respondents for either the focus groups or the town hall meetings.

Nevertheless, members of the Alberta SuperNet Research Alliance were careful in choosing the communities targeted for this study. Specific locations were selected to represent a robust cross section of the sorts of communities due to receive this service.

Furthermore, as this study is qualitative in nature the descriptions of metaphors found in the ensuing chapters are not to be read as broad generalizations but rather a way to start exploring the value of focusing on the use of metaphor in studies of technology planning.

As well, focus groups and town hall meetings, like all data sources, are not without some limitations. Chief among these are their inability to provide the same level of depth as semi-structured interviews or the rich observational data that would emerge from an extended ethnographic project (Berg, 2007). One also has to be careful with use of the data, as group influences may distort individual opinions (Berg, 2007, p. 160). Despite such limits, I still believe that the focus groups and town hall meetings provided a rich source of information. Particularly because I endorse Waterton and Wynne’s (1999) assessment that these approaches may be the best way to promote interaction on topics that are relatively new to participants. The SuperNet was an initiative that met this criterion of uniqueness since it was not something to which communities had previous exposure. I was also inspired by the richness of descriptions produced by others who have used focus groups and community talk to examine issues as diverse as workplace bullying (Tracy et al., 2007), young people’s conceptualizations of sexuality (Undie et al., 2007), and student/doctor-patient relationships (Rees et al., 2007). Such investigations

135 gave me confidence in the utility of this data type for generating new knowledge of value in policy.

Finally, critics of my approach might take issue with the fact that I was the sole person responsible for coding both the press releases and community transcripts. They would argue that increased confidence in my results would come with more coders examining the data (Pragglejaz Group, 2007). Fortunately, both the press releases and town hall transcripts are publicly available for any researchers interested in questioning my coding decisions. An effort has also been made to provide a reasonable sample of the dialogue upon which my decisions were based in order to allow outside readers the opportunity to form their own judgements about the nature of the metaphors in question.

4.7 Concluding remarks

Overall, the goal of this chapter was to illustrate how the theoretical ideas articulated in the previous chapters helped form a conceptual map that informed the nature of my engagement with material about the SuperNet. It is hoped that the logic and interconnections of theory and practice were made clear, as well as how the different components (selection of the case, study design, notes on analysis, and recognition of limitations) collectively contributed to the strengthening the methodological integrity of my investigation.

136

Chapter Five: An examination of the use of metaphor in the Alberta SuperNet’s press release corpus

5.1 Introduction

“Metaphors are much more tenacious than facts.” (de Man, 1973, p. 123)

As Chapter 3 suggested, a fundamental premise of this dissertation is that metaphors ought to be taken seriously as actors since the existing literature demonstrates they have the potential to create an understanding of a policy problem, shape an endorsement of certain policy solutions over others, and challenge existing policy approaches. It is precisely because metaphors have the capacity to be such “tenacious” actors within policy (as de Man claims in the quotation above) that this chapter seeks to identify what precisely they accomplished within the SuperNet’s official discourse. In doing so, the discussion that follows “begins”59 to address this dissertation’s primary research

question: using the SuperNet as a case study, what roles do metaphors play in technology

planning? Moreover, using an actor-network theory (ANT) inspired concern, first raised

in Chapters 2, this examination probes: how are metaphors used to circumscribe which

behaviours count, and what counts as behaviour, for both human and non-humans in

policymaking? The answer to this query emerges through a systematic exploration of the

behaviours expected of technology, citizens, government and industry based on the

particular “script” (Akrich,1992; Akrich & Latour,1992) that was provided with within

the corpus selected.

59 The word “begin” is used here to indicate that this question we will be revisited in the next chapter.

137

Overall, this chapter’s central argument is that metaphors play a core role in structuring the persuasive efforts of policy planners and in doing so metaphors become tools of enrolment. Moreover, this discussion illustrates that an interrogation of an initiative’s key metaphors reveals a great deal about who are expected to be the important actors within a network and who are not, along with illuminating the overall vision of technology and technological change being endorsed. In the case of the SuperNet, it is clear that the dominant metaphors deployed encouraged a very limited range of behaviours for government and citizens but allotted central roles to both industry and technology.

Additionally, the holistic approach to technology and technological change being promoted was disappointingly narrow; thus indicating that alternative metaphorical conceptualizations, which endorse a more inclusive understanding of broadband development within Alberta, might have been considered.

5.2 Methodological notes

This first assessment of data is based on an examination of 24 press releases produced by the Government of Alberta about the SuperNet, a detailed list of which can be found in

Appendix G. The press releases selected for consideration were limited to the promotional material developed just as the technical network was completed and became operational within communities, making it consistent with the time frame of the material used in the chapters that follow.60 These press releases were produced as the project

advanced, consequently, they can be interpreted as texts that demonstrate a partial

60 It must be remembered that the focus of this study remains to capture the understandings of the SuperNet in its early phases.

138 stabilization of the network of government representatives and their industry partners around the definition of goals for the project. In other words, these press releases help transmit the fragile policy consensus that emerged as this particular socio-technical network developed. Community reactions to this initiative, and uptake of the metaphors being promoted, followed the circulation of these press releases. The promotional character of the press releases and the way they document the official position of the government makes them useful raw material to begin my analysis and offer a point of comparison for the chapters to come.

The two-step coding process described in detail within Chapter 4 was followed when organizing and analyzing the press release data. This included as a first step, the identification of all metaphorical linguistic expressions in the corpus; and, then as a second step, an exploration whereby the SuperNet was viewed as target to be understood using more concrete sources (experiential or otherwise). After isolating all the occurrences of specific metaphorical linguistic expressions, these utterances were grouped together, and “possible” conceptual metaphors were determined. I use the word

“possible” here because the “reconstruction” (Schmitt, 2005) of conceptual metaphors is one of the points of metaphor analysis where the analyst supplies orderings that could be arranged differently by others. This process involves producing a label, which is based on grouping a series of metaphorical utterances together thematically, which may not always explicitly refer to the chosen category. Nevertheless, this step is not much different from the decisions that any qualitative researcher has when they identify broader themes in their data, or the choices that a quantitative investigator must make when they are

139 deciding how best to operationalize specific variables. After these conceptual metaphors were identified an effort was then made to distinguish what sorts of broader roles metaphors played in the press releases and which conceptual metaphors could be associated with these functions. Next, the behaviours being circumscribed for the different actors were considered in relation to the commonly deployed conceptual metaphors. As well, any existing literature in which these metaphors had been discussed was consulted and compared.

In reviewing the press releases, a total of 316 linguistic expressions were isolated. This represented 27 pages, or approximately 25%, of the 109 pages analyzed. Several methodological stipulations are relevant to how the data were both evaluated and presented:

• Some utterances contained more than one conceptual metaphor, and were thus coded

multiple times bringing the overall number of coded utterances to 350.

• Since it would be a challenge to discuss and evaluate all of the metaphors isolated,

those metaphors that appeared most frequently were the focus of this particular

analysis.

• Because this work draws on the cognitive linguistic tradition, the reconstructed

conceptual metaphors are capitalized, and the specific words or phrases within a

linguistic expression that show evidence of this metaphor are italicized.61

61 See as examples, Chateris-Black (2004), Hellsten (2002), Santa Ana (1999) and Straehle et al.(1999).

140

• Any time a rich source of linguistic material is subjected to attempts to group it into

wider categories (for example as a conceptual metaphor) some of the subtle nuances

of both the text and the specific linguistic expressions are lost.

5.3 Findings

In exploring the 24 press releases, one key role for metaphor was apparent, as a tool of enrolment.

5.3.1 Metaphor as tools of enrolment

Though translation was described briefly in Chapter 2, and some linkages between translation and the literature on the use of metaphor in policy were made in chapter 3, it is helpful to return to this process again because translation so nicely describes what metaphors accomplished within this corpus. As previously noted, Callon (1986) suggests that translation can be analyzed using four key dimensions: (1) problematization, (2) interessement, (3) enrolment, and (4) the mobilization of allies. During problematization, an actor initiates network formation by defining a problem and recommending solutions.62 At this early phase, the initiating actor will strive to position themselves, or another actor, as an indispensable resource for solving whatever problem exists (Latour,

1987, pp. 119-121); in doing so they become an “obligatory point of passage”(Callon,

1986). Interessement is the stage in which the initiator tries to convince others of the validity of their claims. This is accomplished by making the identities and interests of the other actors seem entirely consistent with their specific interests, as a form of goal

62 This closely echoes Schön’s (1979) claim, first noted in Chapter 3 that policy issues are typically guided by a central story of “what is wrong and what needs fixing” (p. 256).

141 alignment. The anticipated outcome of interessement is to lock potential allies in place, and co-opt those not yet convinced, which might require providing certain incentives. If interessement succeeds, enrolment is possible. Callon suggests that enrolment involves a definition of the roles of the various actors within the network. It is a strategic process which entails “multilateral negotiations, trials of strength and tricks” to achieve success

(Callon, 1986, p. 211). The final dimension of translation, mobilization, requires the enlistment of a dedicated group of spokespersons who speak on behalf of the many and behave according to the roles that were circumscribed for them, thus supporting the initiator’s interests.63 Once such allies are mobilized, the socio-technical network begins

to achieve stability. This is because its underlying logic (including the problem set, the

assigned solution, and the circumscribed roles) are all taken as fact (i.e. black-boxed) and

consistently supported by the spokespersons. However, the stability achieved via

translation is precarious and can be challenged at any moment. Moreover as Chapter 3

indicated, socio-technical networks can be comprised of multiple spaces—in which

certain facts or roles are black-boxed while others remain fluid— that “shade into each

other” (Murdoch, 1998, p. 363).

It should be acknowledged that the various dimensions of translation are best appreciated

as “iterative, ongoing and disjunctive” as opposed to a linear, straightforward set of steps

that can be applied formulaically to any technology project (Whittle & Spicer, 2008,

p.619). Nevertheless, in the case of the SuperNet, the dimensions of translation

63 Latour (1987) covers this point nicely in Science in Action in his discussion of the diesel engine (see p. 137).

142 highlighted by Callon provide a constructive approach for appreciating the role of the press releases in this initiative, and why it is useful to label metaphors as “tools of enrolment”. In this instance, the Alberta government was clearly the leader in the formation of this socio-technical network since they were its initiators. It thus became necessary for them to persuade those that they wanted involved in the project (such as citizens) that this was indeed a worthwhile project. They required an effective and compelling problematization. That is, policy promoters had to convince other actors that the SuperNet itself was an “obligatory point of passage”.64 Through the very act of producing these press releases the interessement process began.65 Metaphors then easily

became one of the “tricks” of enrolment that accompanied this promotional effort.

Metaphors are “tricks”, or “tricky”, precisely because while they often give the

impression of being complete, they are always only a “selection of reality” (Burke, 1966,

p. 45), revealing some possibilities within a particular communicative exchange while

inevitably masking others.

64 The press releases are just one way of transforming the SuperNet into an obligatory point of passage. It is possible that with a different design the technical network itself could have become an obligatory point of passage. For instance, if it were impossible to provide internet access in Alberta without using the SuperNet, it would easily become an obligatory point of passage for both ISPs and rural citizens alike. Though making the SuperNet the only technical network that ISPs could use, would be quite a different undertaking than the subtle persuasion offered by the press releases. An excellent example of a physical object that has been designed in such a way that it is an automatic obligatory point of passage is the door. As Latour (2000) notes doors always “extract energy” from the “unwitting passerby” as no “matter what you feel, think, or do you have to leave a little bit of your energy, literally at the door” to get by if it is closed and you want to pass through (Latour, 2000, pp. 233-234). 65 It is important to note that the persuasion process of enrolment in ANT need not focus ONLY on data that can be studied linguistically (i.e. metaphors or texts).

143

Three key metaphors figured prominently both within and across the corpus. 66 All served as tools of translation; or put differently as ways to mount a convincing case regarding both the necessity of the SuperNet and efforts to lock this socio-technical network’s main actors into quite particular roles. These metaphors included: the

SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN, the SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY, and

TECHNOLOGY POLICYMAKING AS A COMPETITION.

A general description of how these metaphors worked in the press release corpus follows, accompanied by attention given to the precise roles these metaphors constructed for government, industry, technology and citizens. The key advantages and limitations to these metaphors are evaluated generally; next the presence of these metaphors is assessed specifically in the context of the SuperNet case study.

66 This is not to say that other conceptual metaphors were not apparent. The understandings of the SuperNet were diverse within the press release corpus. In addition to the conceptual metaphors being discussed in the findings, the other metaphors identified included: the SUPERNET AS AN ANIMAL, the SUPERNET AS ANOTHER TECHNOLOGY (phone, television, radio), the SUPERNET AS A BUILDING, the SUPERNET AS A CONTAINER, the SUPERNET AS ELECTRICITY, the SUPERNET AS A FASTERNER, the SUPERNET AS FOOD, the SUPERNET AS AN INVESTMENT, the SUPERNET AS A LEVELLER (in relation to the “digital divide”), the SUPERNET AS A MACHINE, the SUPERNET AS AN ORGANIZATION, the SUPERNET AS A PRODUCT, the SUPERNET AS A TRAIN, the SUPERNET AS WATER, and the SUPERNET AS A WHEEL. Among the more unique conceptualizations, both found in the GOA, October 2006 promotional insert, were: the SUPERNET AS A FORTRESS as a safeguard for privacy; as well as the SUPERNET AS A TREE (in describing how the connection via an ISP could occur for business and residential users it was noted, “here’s how the leaf attaches to the twig, then the branch, the trunk of the SuperNet tree”). Some of the less prevalent metaphors highlighted in the findings but still present within and across the corpus were: the SUPERNET AS A TOOL (11 occurrences), the SUPERNET AS A CULTURE SHIFT (8 occurrences), and THE SUPERNET AS DIGITAL (8 occurrences), which was signified by the SuperNet’s capacity to create an e-world, e- health, etc. (8 occurrences). There were also several other metaphorical understandings of policymaking present including: POLICYMAKING AS A GAME, POLICYMAKING AS A BATTLE, and POLICYMAKING AS GARDENING.

144

5.3.1.1 The SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN

The desire to personify the SuperNet was prevalent in the early press releases. The

SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN was a conceptual metaphor that occurred frequently both within and across the corpus. In the 24 press releases reviewed, 15 contained at least one use of this metaphor. Additionally, out of the 350 linguistic expressions coded, 124 of these incorporated some sort of deployment of this metaphor.

For instance, there was a tendency throughout the press releases to award the SuperNet human or even super human abilities to “help”, “support”, “work for”, “serve” and

“enable” rural communities. Examples of statements from this corpus which describe the broadband network as exhibiting the “potential” (GOA, September 2005) to transform rural communities— either directly (through interventions explicitly aimed at citizens) and indirectly (via its influence on “the economy” or social services)— included descriptions of the SuperNet as:

• “shak[ing] things up, inspir[ing] the knowledge economy” (GOA, November 2000);

• “remo[ving] technological barriers and enabl[ing] access” (GOA, February 2002);

“end[ing] the disparity” between urban and rural communities’ access to high-speed

network services (October, 2003);

• “spur[ring] on Alberta’s high-tech economy” (GOA, July 2004);

• serv[ing] more than 86 percent of Alberta’s population” (GOA, July 2005a);

• “help[ing] provide rural access to the global marketplace” (GOA, July 2005b);

• “working for Albertans” (GOA, September 2005);

145

• “open[ing] the door” to both “the development of innovative high-speed

applications” (GOA, September 2005b) and “new economic opportunities” (GOA,

October 2006);

• providing rural communities with “a little help…” as “it’s ready and waiting” (GOA,

October 2006).

Furthermore, the SuperNet was described as having a body part: a “backbone” (GOA,

September 2003; GOA, October 2003; GOA, December 2003; GOA, March 2004).

Finally, the network itself was also understood in interpersonal terms, comprised of both

“points of presence” and “meet me facilities” (GOA, September 2003; GOA, October

2003; GOA, December 2003; GOA, March 2004; GOA, April 2004).

As the statements above reveal, within the press releases, technology was personified as a powerful presence with the “potential” to do quite remarkable things in Alberta. Among the additional roles specified associated with this conceptual metaphor within the press release corpus included positioning the telecommunication provider (Bell) as the metaphorical parents responsible for “bring[ing] to life the capabilities of this world- class network” (GOA, September 2005); they were also anticipated as “help[ing]

Albertans find ways to embrace the SuperNet” (GOA, October 2006). Moreover, ISPs were expected to piggy-back onto the SuperNet (GOA, October, 2003; GOA, April

2004). Furthermore, Axia (a private organization) was described as the one to “manage” its development (GOA, November 2000; GOA, July 2005a). Finally, within this metaphorical conceptualization citizens were positioned as friends of the technology who

146 were “eagerly awaiting the arrival of SuperNet” (GOA, February 2002), and “looking forward to Alberta SuperNet going live” (GOA, August 2005; GOA, February 2005a).

In sum, within the press release corpus, the conceptual metaphor of the SUPERNET AS

A PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN endowed the broadband network itself with agency

(though it is in fact not human); it positioned industry as the provider of life; finally, it constructed citizens as eager recipients of this human or super-human presence. A notable absence within this particular metaphorical conceptualization was a role for government within the phases of the SuperNet’s life cycle since it was not credited with the birth, growth, and/or death of the broadband network itself.

The idea that individuals often understand technology as a person has been demonstrated in a variety of literature including experimental work (Nass & Moon, 2000; Reeves &

Nass, 1996), corpus based studies (Izwaini, 2003; Johnson, 1991; Palmquist, 1996), and field research (Carroll & Eifler, 2002; Denny & Sunderland, 2005). For example, based on the results from 35 laboratory experiments, Reeves and Nass (1996) suggest that even technologically savvy users treat computers and television as though these objects were real human beings. While Reeves and Nass’s methodology is open to criticism (Flores,

1997), among their core findings are that research subjects were polite to computers; responded favourably to the computer’s praise; preferred computers with “personalities” like their own; valued the expertise endowed to a television, regardless of its performance; favoured masculine-sounding computers; and judged feminine-sounding computers as more knowledgeable about matters concerning love and relationships.

147

Reeves and Nass thus demonstrate implicitly that TECHNOLOGY AS A PERSON is not simply a metaphor but reflected in the actual experiences and behaviours of users.

Examples of how the personification of technology has been taken up in corpus based studies include Johnson’s (1991) claim that among the competing metaphorical lenses used by computer scientists to describe their discipline, the COMPUTER AS AN

AGENT capable of “cognitive and decisive acts” is extremely significant (Johnson, 1991, p. 275). Additionally, Palmquist’s (1996) analysis of various commercial databases on science, information technology and technical popularizations, reveals how common it is for such texts to anthropomorphize “the internet” and “the web”. Moreover, in an exploration of an extensive corpus of specialized technology texts, Izwaini (2003) illustrates the prevalence of the COMPUTER AS A LIVING BEING metaphor.

Furthermore, when evaluating the patterns within their ethnographic work with consumers who use computers, Denny and Sunderland (2005) argue that there has been a pronounced shift in people’s construction of technology in the past two decades; it has moved from a dialogue in which computers are understood as a presence that operates outside of the consumer’s range of action but is still personified, to a more positive appreciation in which computers are characterized as “good”, “friends”, and “helpers”

(Denny & Sunderland, 2005, p. 1460). Finally, in an examination of teachers’ talk about the technical, Carroll & Eifler (2002) note the tendency for educators to describe technology in the following manner: as an entity with needs, capacities and appetites, as a tease, and as a butler that serves them.

148

The benefits and drawbacks to understanding TECHNOLOGY AS A PERSON have been indirectly or directly67 discussed by a variety of scholars including but not limited

to:

• several of the writers reviewed above (Carroll & Eifler, 2002; Denny & Sunderland,

2005),

• those investigating the use of metaphor in science and technology and advocating the

general value of anthropomorphising technology (Latour, 1992, 1996; Law, 1992;

Pannabecker, 1991; Ryall, 2008; Sussman, 1997),

• those interested in human-interface design (Fineman, 2004; Marakas, Johnson &

Palmer, 2000; Marsh, Meech, Dautenhahn, & Nowell, 2002).

Among the more convincing benefits of personifying technology, is the argument that this metaphor creates a more compelling and complete account of how socio-technical networks work;68 this is because such networks are best understood as a mixture of both

the social and technical, where neither human or non-humans are privileged as actors

endowed with the power to “do” something. (Latour, 1991, 1996; Law, 1991)

Additionally, this metaphor provides a structured and rich source domain that can be

easily deployed because it capitalises on a fundamental understanding: the experience of

being human (Fineman, 2004). In doing so, this conceptual metaphor offers tremendous

potential when thinking about how technology can be designed to be more “socially

67 I make the distinction between indirect and direct discussions in order to acknowledge that some writers do not explicitly treat the tendency to personify technology as metaphorical, whereas others do. 68 Latour’s (1996) Aramis is one such compelling account. In the end, according to Latour (1996) Aramis “died” simply because the other actors involved in this project did not “love” this technological presence nearly enough.

149 adept” (Marsh et al., 2002).69 Moreover, because the TECHNOLOGY AS A PERSON

conceptualisation is such an automatic, almost default, trope for users (Nass & Moon,

2000), when engaged thoughtfully and purposefully this metaphor has the potential to

greatly enhance training and educational efforts (Marakas et al., 2000). Finally, by

making technology “personally positive” it becomes easier for people to “tolerate” and

integrate this presence as a natural part of their daily practices (Denny & Sunderland,

2005).

While the conceptual metaphor of TECHNOLOGY AS A PERSON offers the potential

for creating compelling narratives of socio-technical network formation, provides a rich

source of entailments that may improve design and outreach, and makes technology more

tolerable for people, it is not without drawbacks. Among the limitations associated with

this specific metaphor is that by endowing technology with transformative potential it

becomes very easy to create a misleading perception of what this presence can and will

accomplish (Ryall, 2008).70 This conceptual metaphor also requires critical consideration

of what it means to have agency. For example, the type of criteria that defines agency

might include an agent’s capacity to do the following: (1) act on behalf on others, (2) be

responsive and capable of learning, (3) display competence by demonstrating contextual

69 Some examples of more socially adept technologies might include: cell phones that do not ring in socially inappropriate venues; interfaces capable of adapting to your mood; a technological presence that facilitates interactions with people in various cultures; and devices that are able to respond to your situation without being told what is right (Marsh et al., 2002). 70 Ryall (2008) raises this argument in relation to the general tendency to personify genetic technology. She notes that, “when we speak of genes ‘fighting’ for survival, the picture it elicits is misleading… As Richard Dawkins… said ‘DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is’ ” (Dawkins in Ryall, 2008, p. 364). Further, drawing on a quote from Nordgren (2003), she asserts “[in talking] about the causal responsibility of genes, almost everything that is associated with ‘responsibility’ in the etymological sense is dispensed with. Genes are not called to appear in courts, neither are they in financial debt”(Nordgren in Ryall, 2008, p. 365).

150 knowledge about the user, and (4) exhibit some form of social intelligence (Fineman,

2004, p. 21). Unfortunately, most technologies (including the SuperNet) do not meet these conditions of agency. Moreover, while the conceptual process of personifying technology often highlights the similarities between technology and humans, it tends to conceal the dissimilarities (Marakas et al., 2000). Further, by providing technology with human attributes, this presence tends to appear as a “discrete force” with “its own discernible direction and influence” (Pannabecker, 1991, p. 43); in doing so it deprives users/citizens of their own capacity to direct technology in certain ways.71 Finally, some

critics haven gone so far as to suggest that the tendency to anthropomorphise technology

contributes to the process of commodity fetishism.72 This critique’s main contention is

that by personifying technology people risk replacing their personal relationships with

object oriented interactions; in doing so this metaphor also blurs the dynamics of

consumption and production. For instance, such a metaphor encourages those responsible

for production (be it designers, industry actors, or policy planners) to be attentive to the

objects they construct over the needs of the user. Moreover, consumers risk becoming so

fixated on the object itself (in this case the technology) that they do not interrogate the

political and economic dimensions associated with how the technology was produced, or

71 The general tendency to view technology as an external force with a life of its own has been labeled “technological determinism”. For a review of this term and its significance to communication studies see Chandler (1995). 72 Commodity fetishism is a concept discussed by Marx in volume I of Das Kapital.

151 the benefits that this technology supplies for some people at the expense of others.

(Sussman, 1997, pp. 28-29)73

As illustrated, the conceptual metaphor of TECHNOLOGY AS A PERSON, has inspired both praise and criticism. In the case of the SuperNet many of the benefits and limitations associated with this metaphor are quite relevant. Clearly, this metaphor permits an appreciation of the SuperNet as an integral actor needed to solidify this particular socio- technical network. In addition, it can be contended that such a metaphor makes this broadband network more appealing and tolerable to citizens, precisely because the

SuperNet is endowed with the ability to radically transform communities by “helping”,

“supporting”, “working for”, “serving” and “enabling” them. However, policy promoters should be careful of the metaphors they choose, since metaphors create expectations that may not be realistic. Among the questions that the presence of the SUPERNET AS

PERSON metaphor raises include: how feasible is it for the SuperNet to actually accomplish what is being assured; has the SuperNet been given a form of agency that this

73 It is worth noting that many of the criticisms of personifying technology can also be applied to ANT quite generally, since it is (see Chapter 2) an approach which suggests that we must be willing to “seriously heed the ‘agency of things’ ” (Laurier and Philo, 1999, p. 1055). While there are certainly some concerns with endowing objects with agency— for example Pickering (1992) argues that it is problematic because he believes that human being do indeed have a superior moral status to non-humans— one should not discount the value of a theory-method which widens our theoretical and analytic repertoire to consider what it means to conceptualize the ideas of both agency and action for both humans and non humans. We can learn from this activity by asking: what is it about technology that makes us want to personify it; where is this metaphorical imaginary constructive; where might it be not quite so appropriate? It seems prudent to acknowledge here that I have in fact consciously chosen to personify metaphor as an actor in policy because I believe it to be a useful analytic strategy that draws out questions and concerns about my case study that would not have been considered otherwise. Nevertheless, this does not mean that I am not aware of the challenges of trying to sort out where there are differences between humans and non-humans, many of these issues are nicely summarized in Laurier and Philo (1999) who argue ultimately that we can borrow parts of this perspective as long as we recognize such limitations.

152 presence does not possess; finally, are the similarities and dissimilarities between the broadband network and people adequately explicated? Additionally, it is also striking that most of the expressions within this corpus linked to the personification of the SuperNet circumscribe an extremely passive role for citizens;74 it focuses not on people’s ability to

direct technology but rather on the technology’s facility to direct them. The press release

corpus also offers no mention of how the government ought to relate to this technological

presence. Finally, this corpus tends only to discuss the positive capacity of the human-

techno relationship, ignoring many of the negative dimensions involved with introducing

this presence into rural communities (for example its “impact” on existing social

relations) that could be considered and addressed in a persuasive manner.

5.3.1.2 THE SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY

Another conceptual metaphor that was prevalent within and across the corpus was that of

the SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY. This metaphor was evident in 16 of the 24 press

releases reviewed. It was also apparent in 92 of the 350 utterances coded. While the

SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN metaphor discussed in the previous

section may not have been obvious to some (since our desire to personify objects is so

common that we sometimes take it for granted), this was not true in relation to the

74 The one exception to this observation is the GOA (October 2006) promotional material. However, endowing the communities with an active role in this case was more closely associated with the SUPERNET AS A TOOL metaphor.

153 highway imagery presented.75 Within this particular corpus, the highway metaphor was

easy to isolate, as it was often deployed to make the broadband network itself more

comprehensible via direct comparisons. The press releases where this metaphor was

found often stressed the need to “get on” the SuperNet. Moreover, this conceptualization

tended to highlight two things: (1) the speed of travel this route permits, and (2) the

physical distance covered. Examples from the corpus which illustrate such usages include

the following assertions: “ the Alberta SuperNet is longer than the entire Trans Canada

Highway which took over twelve years to build” (GOA, July 2005b); as well as, “on dial-

up, data can be uploaded and downloaded at a maximum speed of 56 kilobits per

second… the upgrade [to SuperNet]… is equivalent to trading in your car that goes 160

kilometres per hour for one that goes 172,200 kilometres per hour…” (GOA, October

2006). The highway metaphor was also sometimes employed as an additional descriptor

to make this particular infrastructure seem significant. For instance, the SuperNet was

characterized as: “a new information highway”(GOA, February 2002), “the infrastructure for the 21st century” (GOA, October 2006), and “a broadband superhighway”(GOA, October 2006). Furthermore, this metaphor simplified the various technical components associated with broadband. In fact, this aim for simplification is nicely demonstrated in the following description provided of the SuperNet’s protocol:

75 Some might label TECHNOLOGY AS A PERSON as “dead” metaphor. Tsoukas (1991) defines such metaphors as ones that are “familiar and so habitual that we have ceased to be aware of their metaphorical nature and use them as literal terms” (p. 268). However, since this metaphor still lends itself to further conceptual development particularly in the area of human-interface design (see Fineman, 2004; Marakas, et al.,2000; Marsh et al., 2002), it can still be viewed as a metaphor that is very much “alive”.

154

The Alberta SuperNet uses MultiProtocol Label Switching – MPLS. It’s a technology that works like a traffic cop, prioritizing the information that moves through it, like cars in lanes of traffic. MPLS provides dedicated lanes that make videoconferencing or VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) possible and ensures they don’t degrade or become choppy through network delays. (GOA, October 2006)

Likewise, the overall design of the network was explained by drawing analogical attention to just how similar this project was to constructing a highway, as is highlighted in the statement below:

Building Alberta SuperNet is a lot like constructing a major roadway system. Entrance and exit ramps are needed in each community to direct the flow of traffic on the system. Local roads are required within communities to take traffic to specific places. And major highways must be built between communities to link them together… Work is proceeding on three key fronts: building Alberta SuperNet point of presence (POP) facilities (the network's “entrance and exit ramps”)…building connections to Alberta SuperNet service locations (the network's “local roads”)… [and] building links between Alberta SuperNet communities (the network's “major highways”). (GOA, August 2003)

Finally, this metaphorical conceptualization specified what sort of “traffic” (GOA,

August, 2003; GOA, October 2003; GOA, February 2005) the SuperNet would carry along its “corridors” (GOA, October 2002) as the following claims demonstrate:

• “SuperNet customers routinely move data on and off the network at speeds of up to

megabits per second – and that’s nowhere near the network’s capacity” (GOA,

October 2006);

• “You can’t travel on it, but because it’s here, maybe you won’t have to travel quite as

much” (GOA, October 2006);

155

• “Data travels on the Alberta SuperNet from Zama to Manyberries in less than 10 one-

thousandths of a second” (GOA, October 2006).

The examples above offer only a sampling of the expressions that were isolated from the corpus, nevertheless they highlight the more general trends associated with the deployment of this metaphor. In sum, when the highway metaphor occurred in the press releases it accomplished the following: emphasised the speed and impressive coverage of the SuperNet, functioned as an additional descriptor, simplified the more technical components of the network, and clarified the subtleties of how the network ought to be used.

In addition to highlighting these deployments, it is also possible to identify the sorts of roles that the SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY metaphor circumscribed for the various actors within this socio-technical network. Within the corpus, the broadband network itself was positioned as a route for the movement/transmission of data. Moreover, as demonstrated above, the various parts (points of presence, and the MPLS) of this broadband network were presented as integral to ensuring the SuperNet could successfully transport information. Additionally, it was data (another non-human agent) that was expected to travel on the SuperNet. Interestingly, Albertans were again awarded a fairly passive role in this particular conceptualization as it was specified that they were not the ones to travel on the SuperNet but rather start the data’s journey. Finally, government and industry players were both identified as essential to building this network; with the government as the funder and industry as both a source of financial support and charged with overseeing the general construction and connection of the

156 broadband network itself (for example, Bell was recognized as the actor that will

“build… Alberta SuperNet’s point of presence”, “build… connections” and “build… links” in communities [GOA, August 2003]).

The deployment of transportation metaphors as way to understand technology has been well documented. For instance, several studies have highlighted the presence of such metaphors including:

• Berdayes and Berdayes’ (1998) narrative analysis of the use of the “information

highway” concept in contemporary magazines, in which they confirm the popularity

of this particular metaphor;

• Isomursu, Hinman, Isomuru, and Spasojevci’s (2007) examination of user

understandings of mobile internet, where they identify the “information

superhighway” as one the six core metaphors being called upon;

• Izwaini’s (2003) exploration of a specialized IT corpus in which the prevalence of the

INTERNET AS A ROAD metaphor is noted, though it was demonstrably less

popular than other metaphors (such as the INTERNET AS A STATE OF WAR, A

BUILDING, and/or A BOOK);

• Johnson’s (1991) suggestion that among the competing metaphorical lenses used by

computer scientists to describe their discipline, that “traffic” metaphors are well used;

• Palmquist’s (1995) multi-corpus study of different article titles (in both technical and

popular databases), where the reliance on “travel” metaphors is shown to be quite

common, particularly in more specialized databases;

157

• Ratzan’s (2000) survey work on metaphor use, who claims that more women deploy

the highway metaphor over men in their descriptions of the World Wide Web, as do

those who self-identify as less skilled in the on-line environment.76

There are also a variety of historical explorations that stress the importance of transportation metaphors for understanding the emergence of other technologies. As an illustration, Mander (1984) provides a detailed investigation of the dominance of transportation metaphors in both the written and oral debates about the future of

American public broadcasting during the 1920s.77 Moreover, Sawhney (1996) has

examined the centrality of the highway metaphor to the development of public telephony

in the United States in order to contextualize its use and relevance in contemporary

debates. Finally, several discussions of the highway metaphor take its presence as a given

and aim for critique. Among such works is Stefik’s (1997) book on the “myths”,

“metaphors” and “archetypes” of the internet, which supplies alternative metaphors that

he believes could enrich the current articulations of the “information highway” metaphor

including expanding upon the idea of a digital library, electronic mail, the electronic

marketplace, and a digital world. The highway metaphor is also one of the many

criticized by Gozzi (1999) in his assessment of those tropes that dominate our “current

age of electronic media”. Additionally, Meyer (2005) suggests that the information

highway has played a pivotal role in shaping how distance education is thought about.

76 The explanation for these results offered by Ratzan (2000) was that the highway metaphor is accessible, well structured, and more gender neutral, as opposed to other transport conceptualizations (such as plane or ship metaphors). 77 In fact, Mander (1984) suggests that the origin of understanding communication in terms of transportation metaphors dates back to as early as the 15th century, during the period of exploration and discovery associated with movement from the Old World to the New World (p. 171).

158

Taken collectively, this literature indicates that the presence of transportation metaphors generally, and/or the highway metaphor specifically, in the discussions about the

SuperNet should be no real surprise; the conceptual metaphor of TECHNOLOGY AS A

HIGHWAY/TRANSPORTATION has been demonstrated to be prevalent in different discursive contexts (i.e. popular representations, technical communication, discipline specific discussions and in policy dialogues) over time.

The advantages and limitations to the TECHNOLOGY AS A HIGHWAY/

TRANSPORTATION metaphors have also been considered within existing scholarship.

Among the more compelling benefits elucidated, is that this particular conceptualization encourages an appreciation of communication as a linear process with multiple routes; this is because highway systems do not permit simply one way of journeying from A to B but rather offer a diversity of travel options in terms of vehicles, speeds and possible routes (Meyer, 2005). Consequently, the highway metaphor has also been noted to provide a powerful visual representation of what communication can be (Isomorsu et al.,

2007; Markham, 2003; Stefik, 1999). Moreover, driving on, or even being surrounded by a highway, is an experience that most people can relate to. As a result, this metaphor is viewed as “accessible” since it offers a series of highly structured positive and negative mappings to draw upon which include but are not limited to:

• road blocks (in terms of access, construction, traffic jams),

• maps (manuals, search engines, etc.),

• activities/skills (passing, speeding, staying, exiting, merging),

159

• pricing structures connected to toll booths (for example clarifying whether it is a

private or public roadway),

• vehicles (in terms of applications),

• danger (i.e. “highway robbery” such identity theft and copyright violations),

• and pollution, from factors such as data overload, physical damage, and or/noise.

(Gozzi, 1999; Meyer, 2005; Palmquist, 1995; Ratzan, 1996)

Furthermore, more often than not highways are funded and even maintained by government, thus encouraging an active “public” role for subsidising access, ensuring the proper upkeep, and providing enforcement for telecommunication networks (Sawhney,

1992).

Despite such advantages, some limitations associated with the highway metaphor have been acknowledged. Among them is the observation that transportation systems have become a symbol of modern expansion, thus by associating the highway metaphor with the construction of telecommunication infrastructure, communication practices become linked to unrestricted economic growth (Berdayes & Berdayes, 1998; Mander, 1984).

Highways are of course also something that tends to be publicly funded, as building these routes is believed to promote the expansion of commercial activities in a given jurisdiction. Consequently, this metaphor simultaneously tends to encourage two seemingly conflicting goals based on the same economic imperative: government support for building the infrastructure and the growth of the private industry (Berdayes &

160

Berdayes, 1998).78 As well, some believe that the highway metaphor provides an illusory sense of access since the internet is not a public resource in the same ways highways are; after all the terms and conditions of on-line are controlled to some degree by commercial carriers (Berdayes & Berdayes, 1998; Solomon & Walker, 1995; Wyatt, 2006).

Moreover, the highway metaphor has been identified as problematic since it focuses on the particularities associated with the route itself, as opposed to thinking about the needs and wants of those who must initiate the travel of data including their skills, comfort levels and knowledge (Menzies, 1996). Finally, the highway metaphor tends to focus on point-to-point transmission, with its primary concern on promoting quick, far-reaching

exchanges; in doing so it may avoid exploring the cultural and social-networking

opportunities potentially facilitated by new technologies (Carey, 1988; Isomorsu et al.,

2007; Menzies, 1996; Sawhney, 1996). Put another way, since the highway only ever

stops at your driveway, it becomes easy to view it (and subsequently technology) as

instrumental, functional and external to the user, as opposed to something that can be

integrated successfully into one’s daily practices (Sawhney, 1996).

As the previous paragraphs show, the conceptual metaphor of TECHNOLOGY AS A

HIGHWAY incites both positive and negative responses. In the case of the SuperNet

many of the ideas above are relevant. Clearly, the SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY

metaphor is particularly useful for illuminating the overall scope of the project (i.e. they

78 The presence of this contradiction becomes very clear in the policy planner chapter that follows.

161 are connecting over 400 communities across the province) in a visually appealing way.

An example of this is represented in Figure 6.1, in an image taken from a press release:

Figure 6. 1: Visual representation of the SuperNet 79

It is also evident that the press release corpus drew upon many of the mappings

encouraged by a highway conceptualization: both in trying to simplify the structure of the

broadband network (via references to transportation “corridors”, “entrance” and “exit

79 Taken from GOA, October 2006 (see Appendix G).

162 ramps”, having “dedicated lanes”, “directing traffic flows”, and “traffic cops”, as well as differentiating between “local roads” and “major highways”); as well as in justifying the government as a logical source of funding for the project. However, Albertans are seemingly given little choice but to accept the dynamics of how the SuperNet is being built including: who will be building it, where it will go in their communities, and whether ISPs may or may not be interested in providing business and or residential connectivity (potentially leaving them abandoned at the side of this telecommunication pathway). In other words, the utilization of this metaphor within the corpus perpetuates a view of citizens as users who must trust the government, industry and the technology, to represent their best interests and are not required to do much else. Additionally, while many of the positive mappings encouraged by the highway metaphor are showcased (in terms of emphasizing both speed and scope), the negative dimensions of such transport systems (noise, pollutions, roadblocks, etc.) are not acknowledged or addressed (for example, with specific strategies of mitigation) within the press release corpus. Finally, it also appears that this concern with speed and scope have overtaken any serious reflection about the skills, activities or vehicles required to make the SuperNet a well used transportation route for all Albertans.

5.3.1.3 TECHNOLOGY POLICYMAKING AS A COMPETITION

The final metaphor that was present both within and across the corpus was that of

TECHNOLOGY POLICYMAKING AS A COMPETITION. This metaphor was not nearly as popular as the SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN, or the

SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY conceptualizations, since it was only apparent in 34 out

163 of the 350 utterances coded. Nevertheless it was present in 9 out of the 24 press releases reviewed, and was an essential part of promoting the project as both progressive and essential. The following statements illustrate examples of the competition conceptualization in use:

• “This is us planting our stake in the ground to say ‘we’re players’— we get it and we

will be leaders in the rapidly changing economy… it puts Alberta ‘on the map’ ”

(GOA, November 2000).

• “This project will make us a world-leader in the new economy and it is not something

Alberta can wait for” (GOA, December 2001).

• “Within three years, Alberta will be the first jurisdiction in North America to ensure

that citizens, schools, hospitals, libraries and provincial government offices have

access to affordable, high-speed, broadband internet. Alberta is quickly becoming

recognized globally as a high-tech hub. SuperNet will help to cement the province's

position in the knowledge economy” (GOA, July 2001).

• Alberta SuperNet will have one of the most extensive fibre optic networks in the

world, and we are proud to be part of the team bringing it to Alberta…this is going to

make the world stop and look at what we are doing here in Alberta.” (GOA, July

2001).

• The SuperNet will “offer broadband services… that would be the envy of Tokyo,

Helsinki or New York… and makes Alberta one of the most-tech savvy locations in

the world”(GOA, July 2005b).

There is certainly some additional complexity to the metaphorical understandings apparent within the aforementioned utterances (such as TECHNOLOGY

164

POLICYMAKING AS GARDENING, the SUPERNET AS CEMENT, and

PROVINCES/NATIONS AS PEOPLE or HUBS), however when taken collectively these expressions are promoting a narrative of technological competition which includes references to competitors (“players” and “the team”) and strategy (“getting it”,

“positioning” oneself). The central assumptions being advanced in the examples listed above, which support a general storyline of competition, include: broadband is required to be successful in the economy of the future; Alberta is the “first” in achieving the comprehensive connectivity permitted by the SuperNet; in building the SuperNet the province is now a place that other locales “look at” and “envy” thus earning them an international reputation as “tech savvy”, and/or a “high tech hub”. In doing so, these statements support an overall understanding of technology policymaking as a competition, or race, with various locales all vying to catch up and surpass one another.

Additionally, within the corpus, the SuperNet was noted not only to benefit Alberta in this global competition but Canada as a whole, as the following press release claim suggests: “This project reflects the Government of Canada’s commitment to position our nation as a world leader in developing and applying technologies of the 21st century”

(GOA, March 2004). This metaphor of competition was also demonstrated in this corpus

when the project was linked to another government strategy explicitly designed to

highlight Alberta’s enviable positioning in comparison to other locales: the “Alberta

Advantage” (a government branding effort which emphasizes the various resources that

make Alberta the place to live). Such linkages include the discussions in the corpus of

“Alberta’s SuperNet Advantage” (GOA, October, 2006); the suggestion that businesses

are beginning to “seize the SuperNet enhanced Alberta Advantage”; as well as the claim

165 that “this initiative is the Alberta Advantage for the 21st century” (GOA, July 2001). In

sum, the conceptual metaphor of TECHNOLOGY POLICYMAKING AS A

COMPETITION was deployed to present the project as a key strategy for ensuring that

Alberta would be perceived as a leader in the global economy.

Most of the roles for the different players associated with this metaphor were well

articulated within the corpus. As the statements above reveal, the technology was

supposed to give Alberta a “leading edge” by making others “stop and look” and “take

note” of what Alberta was doing. More specifically, it was hoped that technology would

help rural communities “catch up” with their urban counterparts and other nations so as

not to be caught “lagging behind” (GOA, October 2006). Moreover, Albertans quite

generally, and rural citizens more particularly, were assumed to want to catch up as they

were expected to “grow their businesses and better compete in the new economy” (GOA,

July, 2001). Additionally, Bell was to be depended upon to set up this world-class

network; and ISPs facilitate its delivery to rural communities. Finally, the government

promised to help “harness the private sector and ensure that rural communities have

competitive access” (GOA, February, 2005). To summarize, within this conceptualization

technology was a pivotal actor circumscribed to secure leadership for Alberta and

Albertans; citizens were expected to take advantage of these opportunities in order to

contribute to the general economic well being of the province; industry actors would

make the SuperNet available to Albertans; finally, the government was responsible for

equipping private industry with a “competitive” environment to make this strategy

possible.

166

The conceptual metaphor of TECHNOLOGY POLICYMAKING AS A COMPETITION has received some attention in the existing literature as well. For instance in a comprehensive categorization of the root metaphors within politics, Beer & De

Landtsheer (2004) highlight the importance of the POLITICS AS A GAME category in which POLITICS AS A COMPETITION, A CONTEST and/or A RACE, are all included

(p.18). Moreover, Herbeck (2004) provides a compelling account of the significance of sports and competition metaphors more generally in curtailing public policy debate on contentious issues such as Desert Storm. Additionally, Krugman (1993) argues that in recent years both policymaking and politicking have become quite reliant on competition rhetoric; so much so that few people would think to question the assertion that a nation’s economic fortune is largely determined by their technological success within the global economy, despite the paucity of evidence supporting such an assumption. Moreover,

Gozzi (1999) identifies the “technological race” as one of the many metaphors that have come to dominate the present age of electronic media. Finally, Hill (1989) suggests that coupling technology and international competitiveness together has redefined our metaphorical understanding of “progress” today.80

80 Other writers have also drawn attention to the significance of the TECHNOLOGY AS PROGRESS metaphor. For example, Wyatt identifies “progress” as one of the core “metaphorical themes” within Wired magazine. Moreover, Islam (2008) posits that the “technology as progress” understanding has its roots in the Enlightenment; more specifically in the espoused desire for advancement via the development of value- free technology and science. The progress metaphor has also been noted in popular representations of science, see for example Hellsten (2002) and Liakopolous (2005).

167

The idea that nations can be imagined as competing in a metaphorical race against each other is neither a new, nor a particularly surprising conceptualization. For example, during the 1950s both the “arms race” and the “space race” came to occupy popular consciousness (Gozzi, 1999). Hill (1989) provides a convincing explanation as to why it is that technology became so easily understood as something worth competing for in our present age. According to Hill, since the 1980s there have been four distinct shifts in attitudes towards technology, which have encouraged it to become conceptually linked to competition and the metaphorical symbol of national “progress”. These shifts include:

(1) The perception that the decline in the United State’s manufacturing sector could

be attributed to a lack of efficient technologies, thus endorsing the sentiment that

investing in new technologies would increase national competitiveness.

(2) The unprecedented growth in certain areas based on technology driven and

entrepreneurial industries (such as “Route 128” and the Silicon Valley) which

made it plausible to imagine technology as the key contributor to local and

regional economic revitalization.

(3) The increased visibility of key figures who had achieved tremendous financial

and material gains (i.e. Bill Gates, Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs) as leaders of

technology corporations that drew attention to technology as a potential source of

extreme wealth.

(4) The supposed failure of the dire environmental and ecological predictions from

the 1960s and 1970s to materialize which supported the belief that investing in

technological innovation was something manageable and desirable as opposed to

something dangerous and risky. (Hill, 1980, pp. 38-40)

168

In sum, to Hill these factors increased the appeal of technology as something that could potentially provide nations with a strategic position over others. Moreover, since most of these attitudes are still resonant today, they provide a plausible explanation as to why the metaphorical conceptualization of TECHNOLOGY POLICYMAKING AS A

COMPETITION continues to be popular.

Many of the aforementioned works (Gozzi, 1999; Hill, 1989; Krugman, 1993) are useful in assessing the advantages and disadvantages of the TECHNOLOGY

POLICYMAKING AS A COMPETITION metaphor. In fact, at least three benefits to this metaphor have been identified, none of which are mutually exclusive. First, this metaphor helps organize the complexities associated with technological innovation, national policy approaches, and general success in the global economy, in a way that nicely orients people towards “what seems to be going on” (Gozzi, 1999, p. 130). For example, it is quite feasible to design measures regarding who is ahead and who is behind in terms of the progress being made with the development of any given technology. This metaphor also encourages the creation of predictive measures and even “best practices”, which permits picking potential winners and continuously measuring a jurisdiction’s achievements against the accomplishments of other recognized leaders. 81 A second

related advantage to this metaphor is that it is highly accessible. Competition, and

especially competition in business, is something most people have had some experience

81 For example, one needs only look at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) broadband measures to see how countries are being constructed as competing for leadership in a diverse range of areas including: pricing, services and speed provided, overall usage and general coverage being supplied (see http://www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband). Countries are “ranked” in each of these areas.

169 with, or at least feel they can relate to (Krugman, 1993). This is why according to

Krugman (1993) this metaphor can be described as offering an apparent level “of sophistication without the pain of hard thinking” (p. 39). Finally, the competition conceptualization generates excitement precisely because everyone loves the thrill of a good race (Gozzi, 1999) or competition (Herbeck, 2004); in doing so this metaphor tends to makes an issue that would not normally be of interest to the public, such as telecommunications policy, seem all the more engaging.

Despite these positive views of the TECHNOLOGY POLICYMAKING AS A

COMPETITION metaphor, some limitations to this metaphor have also been identified.

For instance, it has been claimed that the competition conceptualization is far too simplistic for understanding the dynamics of policymaking (Herbeck, 2004; Gozzi,

1999). As Hill (1989) notes, it is important not only to focus on the result of a competition (i.e. the win or loss) but also on the process itself, which can be encouraged by considering the following sorts of questions: “if Progress is marked by

Competitiveness what do we mean by it”; “how can we achieve it”; “how might seeking to become more competitive effect our lives and our society?”(p. 33). Nevertheless, most of the time when the competition metaphor is deployed such considerations are overlooked (Krugman, 1993). In addition, Gozzi (1999) claims that sometimes the thrill of the race appears so gripping that we fail to consider why it is important to win. He contends that there are instances where being in the middle of a group is in fact more advantageous than being the actual leader. Moreover, he suggests that the “winner” in the short term may be the “loser” in the long term. A second potential drawback to the

170 competition metaphor is that it has the capacity to minimize substantive public debate on important policy issues. This is not only because the end goal of the competition is rarely questioned, and it reduces outcomes to either a win or lose situation but also because this metaphor typically positions citizens as subservient observers who are expected to be passive and loyal spectators; as opposed to active participants in the competition itself

(Herbeck, 2004). Thirdly, the competition metaphor is considered dangerous to policymaking because it encourages a seemingly never-ending logic of producing more and more, thus making it hard to determine when enough is simply enough (Gozzi,

1999). Such a techno-centric logic also makes it difficult to imagine spending resources on those policy areas where a technological focus is neither required nor appropriate

(Krugman, 1993).

Obviously, many of the general benefits and limitations to the TECHNOLOGY

POLICYMAKING AS A COMPETITION metaphor just discussed are quite relevant to thinking about the use of this particular metaphor within the SuperNet press releases.

Based on the review of the corpus provided, it appears that this metaphor did in fact nicely orient the reader to the necessity and urgency of this project. For example, as remarked upon in the opening paragraph of this section, the core narrative of competition advanced was one which implied broadband was now a requirement to compete in the global economy and Alberta was one of the first jurisdictions to recognize and act upon this need. Additionally, this metaphor was seemingly deployed to garner some excitement for this initiative and make telecommunication policymaking decisions seem accessible; as was reflected in the press release claims that because of the SuperNet

171

Albertans now had something that other jurisdictions would “look at” and “envy”(an emotion that most people can relate to). Nevertheless, it was also apparent that the primary use of this metaphor in the corpus was simply to highlight the nature of this overall accomplishment; or, put differently, to emphasise Alberta’s potential to be viewed as a winner. Consequently, among the substantive policy concerns associated with this metaphor that were not addressed within the corpus included: why is the competition for building a broadband infrastructure of this scale and scope so urgent; is being the first to build such an infrastructure a true benefit to all Albertans, particularly when the

SuperNet’s current business model does not guarantee business or residential users access; what would the “new economy” or “knowledge economy” represent to Alberta; furthermore, why is the expenditure of public taxpayers’ dollars on building a technological infrastructure a better policy decision than committing these resources to other areas of concern in Alberta? Finally, it was evident based on the role circumscribed for citizens by this metaphor (to make use of the SuperNet), that they were being expected to accept the this race as a legitimate policy priority, since “it is not something that Alberta can wait for”; after all. no Albertan would want to be held responsible for blocking the general economic progress of the province.

5.4 Chapter summary and concluding remarks

Overall, the systematic review of the press release corpus revealed one central role for metaphors in these texts: as tools of enrolment. They were labelled as such because it was suggested that within the press releases they can be interpreted as one of the many

“tricks” of enrolment which Callon (1986) refers to but leaves open to interpretation.

172

Metaphors are considered “tricky” devices precisely because they highlight certain contexts of actions for various actors within the project’s socio-technical network and identify general policy priorities while obscuring others. Thus in evaluating the work metaphors accomplish it is possible to assess both what they reveal (in terms of their advantages) as well as what they may conceal (in terms of their disadvantages).

Within the SuperNet press releases, three metaphors occurred frequently within and across the data and were thus viewed as central to policy enrolment. These metaphors were: the SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN, the SUPERNET AS A

HIGHWAY and TECHNOLOGY POLICYMAKING AS COMPETITION. In the previous section each of these metaphors was presented separately and examined based on the following characteristics: how it was used within the corpus; the roles it circumscribed for government, industry, technology and citizen actors; its general and its case-specific advantages and disadvantages. Nevertheless, when assessing the overall significance of these devices, it is constructive to look at these metaphors as a collective.

Consequently, Table 5.1 provides a summary of this chapter’s major findings.

173

Table 5.1: Summary of the SuperNet press release metaphors SUPERNET AS A SUPERNET AS TECHNOLOGY PERSON/SUPER- HIGHWAY POLICYMAKING HUMAN AS A COMPETITION Government Unclear Funder and Planner as… supervisor Competitor (the province)

Industry Parent (Bell) Builder (Bell) Facilitator (Bell) as… Guardian (Axia) Enforcer (Axia) Manager (Axia) Piggybacker (ISPs) Connector (ISPs)

Citizens Friend Initiators of Spectator as… travel/Voyeur

Technology Helper/Saviour Route for the Strategy (i.e. will as… movement of data provide the leading (broadband network) edge) Travellers (data)

Advantages Acknowledges Illuminates the scope Promotes a sense of to its use in technology as an integral of project pride and urgency the press actor in this socio- Provides a rich associated with the release technical network source of entailments SuperNet corpus Makes the SuperNet to help explain the Makes relatable and appealing complexities of the telecommunication initiative policymaking exciting

Limitations Provides too much Concern with speed Focuses on the to its use in agency and responsibility and scope dwarfed outcome and not on the press to the SuperNet discussions of skills, the competitive release Passive role for citizens activities, vehicles process itself corpus Absent role for Passive role for Fails to address government citizens substantive policy Focuses only on positive Focuses only on the concerns associated elements of this presence positive elements with broadband (i.e. avoids consideration (avoids discussions development (i.e. of its impact on existing of noise, pollution, why do we need social relations) danger etc.) broadband over other policy priorities?) Passive role for citizens

174

When assessing the significance of the results presented in Table 6.1, two observations are particularly noteworthy. Firstly, these metaphors help communicate which actors count within this initiative and which do not. Secondly these metaphors reveal a great deal about the underlying vision of both technology and technological change being endorsed.

5.4.1 Exploring who counts and who does not in a socio-technical network via metaphor

According to the press release metaphors those actors that truly mattered in this specific socio-technical network were the technology itself and industry representatives; whereas government and citizens were positioned as actors of minimal importance. For example, these metaphorical conceptualizations all at once presented technology as the “saviour” and “helper” that would radically transform Alberta, the primary route for the transmission of electronic data, and the competitive edge that would ensure Alberta’s leadership in the global race for technological victory. Moreover, within these metaphorical articulations industry representatives (Bell, Axia, and ISPs) simultaneously became those who brought this technology to life. They were those who would build the communication infrastructure and make it available to the communities across the province. They were also part of the “team” that would secure Alberta’s triumph in the global competition of technology policymaking. Paradoxically, despite being the initiators of this project the government granted themselves a far less significant role in this initiative. They were either absent, or occupied non-interventionist positions, as funders, supervisors and/or planners. It is difficult to determine whether this detached

175 stance was a conscious strategy, since it helps absolve the government of responsibility if the project does not succeed. Nevertheless, this positioning can also be interpreted as a reflection of the government’s general discomfort with intervening in the telecommunications sector; since it is a policy arena, like so many of the communications industries, that has become increasingly commercial, private, liberalized, and global in nature (Mosco, 1996).82 However, the most troubling pattern within these metaphorical

circumscriptions is the generally passive role allotted to citizens. In the SUPERNET AS

A PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN metaphor, the broadband network remained a force

external to them, requiring minimal citizen involvement to ensure a radical

transformation within their communities. The central message was thus: they need not

worry about pressing issues surrounding rural health care, education, government or

business, since the SuperNet could address these. Furthermore, when the network was

imagined as a highway, it was something that citizens could only “get on” with private

industry assistance. Moreover, the underlying assumption of the competition metaphor

was that citizens ought to accept broadband development as an urgent policy priority if

they endorsed Alberta’s efforts to do well in the global economic environment. Writ

large, according to the press release metaphors, citizens were expected to simply observe,

as opposed to participate in the stabilization of this particular socio-technical network. It

is indeed ironic that although the prime users of this network were supposed to be rural

citizens, they were presented with a representation of this project that discouraged their

direct and active engagement with technology.

82 For more details on these processes of spatialization on the communication industries see Mosco (1996), pp. 173-211.

176

5.4.2 Using metaphor to review the press release corpus’ vision of technology and technology change

Just as it is possible to use these results to understand who counts and who does not within this particular socio-technical network configuration, it is also feasible to get a sense of the overall vision of both technology and technological change being advanced.

When evaluating the press releases conceptualizations holistically, it is evident that they offered an extremely narrow appreciation of both these areas. For instance, only the positive characteristics associated with technology were emphasized. Additionally, none of these metaphors managed to highlight the social or cultural possibilities connected to broadband; instead, they drew almost exclusive attention to the technical and economic capacity of this infrastructure. It was the reach, speed, prestige and general transformative capabilities that the SuperNet offered rural communities that was highlighted over the creative potential for sharing, collaborating, and communicating that could have been stressed if different, or even additional metaphors, were incorporated into the corpus. The press release metaphors also failed to acknowledge that using a new technology often requires a cognitive and behavioural shift, which can be facilitated with specific training and skill development. These omissions in the public representation of this initiative are a result not only of the metaphors that were frequently deployed but also in the types of mappings that were actually elaborated upon in those metaphors that were selected. For example, the highway metaphor tends to encourage a “transmission” view of communicative exchanges (as a point to point process), as opposed to the “ritualistic” components where communication is embedded in people’s everyday practices (Carey,

177

1988). Nevertheless, the SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY metaphor could have permitted a consideration of the new learning required to use broadband by discussing the sorts of roadmaps that would be provided to Albertans for this data transport route; yet such a mapping was not included within the press release corpus.

To summarize, when examined holistically the results of this metaphor analysis demonstrated the subtleties associated with appreciating metaphors as “tricks” and/or tools within policy enrolment efforts. First, a systematic analysis of a project’s metaphors revealed a great deal about who was thought to count and who was not within a given socio-technical network configuration. Secondly, an evaluation of an initiative’s metaphors was one way to demonstrate which policy priorities were being emphasized and which were overlooked. For instance, an examination of the SuperNet’s key metaphors revealed an unexpected inconsistency within this project: despite the fact that policy planners intended rural communities to make active use of the SuperNet, the official representation of the project presented citizens as passive observers in the establishment of their broadband future. Moreover, this investigation of the SuperNet press release metaphors nicely documented the limited vision that the Government of

Alberta endorsed in their public presentation of this initiative. Both the metaphors they selected, and the mappings of these metaphors which they chose to deploy, focused primarily on the positive economic and technical dimensions of broadband, thus overlooking the cultural and social possibilities of use, as well as the cognitive and behavioural components associated with technological transformations.

178

Fortunately, the highway, the person, and the competition metaphors are not the only ways to imagine technology and technological change. Some alternative metaphors will be provided in the chapters that follow, alternatives which accommodate a more inclusive, socially responsive, and complex understanding of technology and the technology policymaking process. Moreover, as Akrich (1992) and Akrich & Latour

(1992) have argued, no actor within a socio-technical network is resigned to accept the terms and conditions of the scripts they are supplied with. It is precisely because such as space for contestation does exist that this dissertation now turns to an assessment of both the policy planners and community members understandings’ of the SuperNet initiative; here the goal is to consider whether these actors accepted these narrow metaphorical articulations or did in fact manage to provide some unexpected conceptualizations.

179

Chapter Six: An exploration of the role of metaphors in the Alberta SuperNet’s early policy planning efforts

6.1 Introduction

The meaning of metaphor resides in the situation in which it is used, in the community that uses it, and in the context of action generated by it. (Gheradi, 2000, p. 1064)

What roles do metaphors play in policymaking? Why do policy planners claim to use metaphors? Do they acknowledge how “tricky”, as mentioned in Chapter 5, these tools of enrolment can be? What exactly is it about technology and policy that we have trouble understanding? What can metaphors teach us about the dynamics of building a socio- technical network? Moreover, what are some of the areas of network instability that are present in conversations with those responsible for the SuperNet not apparent in the press release descriptions of this project? These are among the many concerns this chapter will explore. It is based on ten semi-structured interviews conducted in 2007 with key figures who conceptualized, named, and oversaw the construction of the SuperNet, all of whom agreed to be identified by name (see Appendix C for a list of the interviewee names and titles). In addition to addressing the specific queries raised above, this discussion answers the first part of this dissertation’s primary research question: using the SuperNet as a case study, what roles do metaphors play in technology policy planning? Moreover, it provides insight into my secondary research concern: how did policy planners come to understand and experience broadband technology via metaphor? This chapter tackles these research questions in a slightly different manner than the previous chapter did; instead of relying on the official documentation about this initiative, it uses the interview responses to further unravel the “context of action” (see comment by Gheradi above) that

180 this project’s core metaphors establish. Consequently, this discussion illustrates the complexity of metaphor use that emerges via a direct engagement with those human actors involved in creating, marketing and implementing policy.

As a contextual note, all those interviewed were enthusiastic about their contributions to the SuperNet initiative. Nevertheless, their answers were not simply positive endorsements of the project. Respondents acknowledged that there were many valuable lessons to be learned from this initiative both to promote future broadband use in rural communities and for other jurisdictions considering building their own ‘SuperNet’.

Moreover, these criticisms were often expressed metaphorically, or easily linked to specific metaphorical understandings of the SuperNet; consequently, this makes telling the SuperNet’s story via metaphor a constructive way to begin evaluating this project and the challenges it faced.

Overall this chapter demonstrates the necessity of metaphors as sense making devices in technology policymaking. For those interested in the particularities associated with the

SuperNet case itself, the discussion that follows considers what the policy planners’ choice of metaphors reveals about their attitudes towards technology and policymaking; it also considers how these particular understandings might be evaluated. Additionally, the interpretation of these findings illustrates how an analysis of metaphor use within a specific initiative can yield recommendations of benefit to policy.

181

6.2 Methodological notes

The two-step coding process described in Chapter 4 was followed when organizing and analyzing the interview transcript data. This included as a first step, the isolation of all metaphorical linguistic expressions in the corpus; then as a second step it involved an examination of the SuperNet viewed as target to be understood using more concrete sources (experiential or otherwise). After identifying all the occurrences of metaphorical linguistic expressions, the utterances were grouped together, and “possible” conceptual metaphors were distinguished. The word possible is used to acknowledge that the selection of these categories is the choice of the analyst and thus might be interpreted otherwise. An effort was then made to determine what sorts of roles metaphors played in the policy discussions and which conceptual metaphors could be associated with these functions. Subsequently, any additional literature where these particular conceptual metaphors occurred were reviewed to situate these findings.

In total, 306 metaphorical deployments (captured in sentences and/or paragraphs) by respondents were isolated. 83 This represented 36 pages of text and approximately 20% of

the 175 pages of interview transcripts produced. Sometimes a particular utterance

contained several metaphorical expressions that could be related to different conceptual

metaphors. When this occurred each metaphorical expression was independently coded,

83 Some samples of the types of utterances that were isolated, with the metaphorical expressions italicized include: “There wasn’t enough traffic to justify facility based competition, or even to justify a single entity to put in the infrastructure” (Dan Bader); “It was exactly because we had a coalition of interests at a time when rural economic development was pretty important to Cabinet and we had the opportunity to do something at the time, we also had some really angry municipal people” (Roger Palmer); “It was to try and get Albertans to understand the capabilities. It was pioneering in the new age with what is now available” (Val Mellesmoen).

182 bringing the total coded utterances to 328. Since it is not possible, nor desirable, to describe all of the metaphors present, those highlighted in the findings are the conceptual metaphors that appeared most frequently in the interview responses and/or seemed integral for establishing certain policy dynamics. Nevertheless, in every effort to summarize the rich data produced from interviews, something is lost. I was thus acutely aware in writing up results, that as I simplified and grouped the various metaphors together some of the subtle nuances that emerged in my conversations disappeared. As is the practice in most metaphor analysis work that draws upon the cognitive linguistic tradition, the conceptual metaphors being reviewed are capitalized and the accompanying linguistic expressions upon which these conceptualizations are based are italicized

(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).84 The reader will also note that other statements (both

metaphorical and non-metaphorical) from the interviews that do not use italics are

sometimes included in the findings to elaborate certain points; this is because such

comments do not directly contain a metaphorical linguistic expression supporting the

conceptual metaphor being discussed, but nonetheless provide important contextual details central to the argument being advanced.

6.3 Findings: Metaphors that simplify, illuminate, problematize and situate the SuperNet

A review of the data indicated that metaphors played four central roles in the interviews: they simplified, illuminated, problematized and situated the project. Each of these roles is considered below via a discussion of the most frequently occurring or significant

84 See as examples, Chateris-Black (2004), Hellsten (2002), Santa Ana (1999) and Straehle et al.(1999).

183 conceptual metaphors surrounding this function. Any criticisms or specific network dynamics that were drawn out through the use of these particular metaphors are considered. The four roles presented are not meant to be mutually exclusive as some of the conceptual metaphors could belong in more than one of these categories.

6.3.1 Simplifying the technical

When reviewing the transcripts it was evident that metaphors were invoked to help simplify the various “technical” 85 dimensions of the project. Consequently, such

metaphors are excellent examples of the compactness thesis described in Chapter 3,

which involves translating complex ideas (in this instance highly technical terms) into

more manageable chunks. In the case of the SuperNet, several concrete sources86

accomplished this simplifying function. Those that were most prevalent are presented in

Table 6.1:

85 The term “technical” in this instance refers to the things such as the connection types (i.e. DSL, ISDN, T- 1, Satellite), speeds (such as kbit/s), protocols (IP versus Public Switched Telephone Networks) etc. 86 Other sources used to describe the technical components of the SuperNet included: a system, plumbing, food, a drug, a natural resource, a container, and cable television. However, these metaphors occurred less than 5 times in the overall corpus of utterances analyzed and were often clustered in one particular response, hence why they are not presented in Table 6.1.

184

Table 6.1: Sample metaphors for understanding the technical components of the SuperNet Conceptual Sample Linguistic Expressions Frequency Metaphor (N=328) SUPERNET AS • “There wasn’t enough traffic to justify facility 34 A HIGHWAY based competition, or even to justify a single entity to put in the infrastructure.” (Dan Bader) • “A good example is Calgary to Edmonton. Where you have one of your main backbones… you are going to have all of your traffic from anywhere on the network routing somehow through Calgary.” (Holly McStravick) SUPERNET AS • “The SuperNet was really designed as an 7 A TOOL economic tool for rural Albertan, this is where it has failed.” (Lorne Taylor) • “It is not just an information sharing tool, it is a very powerful communication tool.” (Val Mellesmoen) SUPERNET AS • “Lighting up the fibre in ‘Manyberries’ was very 5 ELECTRICITY symbolic that we had achieved our original goal.” (Roger Palmer) • “The advice came back that we need to wire the province, we need to put in a high-end data network, and then basically connect the population and that was the background on how it emerged.” (Dan Bader)

While Table 6.1 indicates that there was certainly some diversity of understanding in the responses, it is nevertheless clear that one particular metaphor dominated the transcripts when simplifying the technical, one that was popular in the press release corpus as well but was used in a slightly differ way: that of the SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY.

The presence of the highway metaphor in the policy planner responses should be no great surprise. In the 1990s governments across the globe were eager to begin building information highways. This began with Singapore’s proclamation they wanted to build an

185

“intelligent island” and became increasingly publicized with Al Gore’s expressed desire in 1993 to build a National Information Infrastructure in the United States. (Kahin &

Wilson, 1997, p. viii) As was noted in Chapter 4, Canada itself was not immune to this enthusiasm having formed the Information Highway Advisory Council in 1994.

Nevertheless, over the next decade the federal enthusiasm for creating an information highway that connected all Canadians across the country waned (Matear, 2002); consequently, universal connectivity became more of a policy priority for certain provinces over others (see Table 4.1 of this dissertation).

The SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY metaphor was found frequently in the total utterances isolated (34 times). It was also apparent in all ten of the interview responses and was used in a multitude of contexts (sometimes moving beyond just simplifying the technical components of the network). Instances of how this metaphor was deployed included Dan Bader’s discussion of the rationale surrounding the SuperNet’s business model in which he noted: “One of critical pieces of the contract …stipulated that any bona fide ISP can ensure decent transport.” Moreover, Roger Palmer, in describing what the government had achieved by building the SuperNet, invoked highway imagery when he said, “I thought of this network much in the same way as building the roads to the town and not building the houses.” He also provided an example of how users (in this case physicians) might understand the SuperNet as a space in which to transport information: “Physicians… talk about electronic health records and how they can move images and information around” (Roger Price). Additionally, Art Price used highway terminology to illustrate the technical subtleties of the project by claiming: “All other

186 services are ‘best effort’ and ‘up to’ services. The more people using it the slower things go…They are not even bi-directional and all of those things… The SuperNet is the reverse of this” (Art Price). As well, he claimed that the SuperNet “has become critical infrastructure… it is as critical for health care as it is for agriculture, as it is for learning, as it is for security, it is the modern highway” (Art Price). Furthermore, Val Mellesmoen characterized the SuperNet as an “engineering feat”, just as you might a highway, since it was “recognized as one of the toughest projects of the year by the International

Engineering Association.” Finally, many of the interviewees (Dan Bader, Kelly Candy,

Holly McStravick, Dennis Mudryk, Roger Palmer) mentioned “last mile” and “first mile” issues, thus using the markers of distance that would be expected when discussing transportation (be it highway travel or otherwise). Collectively, these examples not only support the presence of the SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY metaphor within the transcripts but also provide insight regarding the different ways this metaphor was deployed. Respondents used this transportation conceptualization to:

• capture the dynamics of the business model (ISPs ensure the smooth flow of traffic

by monitoring who travels on the SuperNet and how) and user behaviour (people

move information on this route),

• differentiate the network’s technical components (i.e. it permits rapid bi-directional

exchanges),

• suggest a greater symbolic significance for the project (as the modern highway and

critical infrastructure for Albertans),

• and describe access issues (the on and off ramps for business and residential users

are also thought of in terms of “first” and “last” mile).

187

As these functions illustrate the policy planners expanded the use of the mappings for this metaphor from those of the press release corpus; their responses were not simply a discussion of speed and scope.

While the SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY metaphor helped simplify the various dimensions of this project, thus making them easier to discuss, it was also used when criticizing the initiative (something that unsurprisingly was not apparent in the promotional efforts of the press releases). For example, when evaluating the general goals of the SuperNet, Kelly Candy suggested that the government’s aim in building this roadway was probably too ambitious:

When you build a road, for instance when Alberta Highways builds a road into a community, the first road that goes in there is a gravel one. When there is enough traffic and people in the community, it becomes a chip sealed road, and then a paved one. Eventually it may become a four-lane highway. This all depends on the community and the growth of the community. And essentially because you are able to base things on how that community is growing you can decide what to build there. To build that four lane highway right away, as they did in the case of the SuperNet, in the hopes that the community will get large, this kind of that ‘if you build it they will come mentality’ …is just not a real effective business model.

By using highway imagery, this comment vividly argues against the construction of large-scale technological infrastructure projects premised on the “if you build it they will

188 come” 87 philosophy, an approach embraced in the case of the SuperNet. Instead he

advocates smaller builds motivated by community demand. In sum, in this instance an

argument against the business model selected by the government is simplified by

deploying some powerful imagery associated with the differences between a gravel road

and a four-lane highway.

The overall design of the technical network was another component that was criticized by

drawing on the highway conceptualization. Several interviewees (Kelly Candy, Ken

Hewitt, and Dennis Mudryk) raised such concerns. For instance, Kelly Candy noted:

“The network, when it was first constructed, was very linear. So all along the route there

were single points of failure…There were no loops or redundancies built in, at least not in

the plan that went forward.” Dennis Mudryk supported this assertion noting “that what

we are doing right now with Bell and Axia is to build a ring” because when communities

lose access they end up “feeling isolated.” Respondents thus recognized that users

require uninterrupted access (devoid of fibre cuts) to the SuperNet in order for them to be

confident that it is in fact a feasible transportation route; nevertheless the SuperNet’s

early design did not guarantee this type of stable provision of access. Here we see how

the ideas gleaned from highway design helped explain the broader lessons associated

87 “If you build they will come” is a saying largely inspired by popular culture, more specifically the 1989 American movie Field of Dreams. According to Kaul, Janakiram,& Wattenstrom (2008), this expression “has since served to codify a philosophy of service introduction, and to represent the core of an old argument. Do services have to be known and quantified before an investment in infrastructure, or will revenue-producing services self-materialize when society is enabled with suitable infrastructure?” (p. 132). This debate can also be framed in the language of economics. In this case “if we build it will come” supports a “supply side” approach to the construction of large scale technical infrastructure, where it is assumed that users will automatically see the advantages of the infrastructure once it is constructed, versus a demand side approach in which users are the ones that dictate the scope of development (Anderson & Christiansen, 2007).

189 with broadband network planning. The notion of redundancy in the aforementioned quote also suggests that the SuperNet is being connected not only with transportation networks but communication networks as well such as ARPANET—the first and early form of the internet (Hauben & Hauben, 1998)

An additional problem mentioned by interviewees that also drew upon the understanding of the SuperNet as a highway concerned “first” and “last mile” issues.88 Many

respondents (Dan Bader, Kelly Candy, Holly McStravick and Roger Palmer) echoed

Dennis Mudryk’s claim that the government should have “done something more on the

last mile and first mile.” They also acknowledged that solving this issue remains a core challenge for the project today.89 The transcripts indicated that finding a resolution for the

first and last mile problem is complicated by two factors. First, at present the SuperNet

requires an ISP to connect business and residential users to the actual technical network.

Yet many ISPs are not interested in connecting smaller communities because according

to Kelly Candy “quite frankly there is no money in it…. you have to have a lot of

customers to make it work.” While it might be possible to fund ISPs in order to make last

mile provision a more attractive option, this still raises the question: “how can you

subsidize an ISP when tons of ISPs are going to put their hands up and say subsidize me

88 The terms first and last mile were used interchangeably in the interview transcripts. However, Paisley and Richardson (1999) draw attention to the differences in the implication of first and last mile for ICTs in developing nations: “The concept of the ‘last mile’ carries a lot of negative connotations and compels us to assume the perspective of an urbanite looking down at the rural margins…. [we can] turn this statement on its head and… think instead of rural communities as being at the ‘first mile of connectivity.’ This term expresses a more equitable and far less urban-centric view of the challenge of providing everyone with the option of connecting themselves to the rest of the world and all it has to offer.” (para. 1) 89 For example though the SuperNet project has been operational for almost four years, a review of the Axia website in April 2009 indicates that over 185 communities of the 422 in Alberta still do not have an ISP offering service in their community (Axia Net Media Corporation, 2009).

190 as well” (Kelly Candy)? Secondly, the Alberta government remains conflicted about what their precise role in the telecommunication sector ought to be. On the one hand, the

Alberta government espouses [that] they are “not in the business of being in business… they just want to reward the entrepreneurial spirit with the SuperNet” (Val Mellesmoen); yet they also desire ubiquitous connectivity “even if the government has to get involved to reduce the cost” (Dan Bader). In sum, the government “wants to enable but not compete…that is really the crux of the first mile and last mile situation we are facing today...how do we ensure Albertans have access to services while we don’t take business out of the access game?” (Holly McStravick) Clearly, Holly McStravick believes that there is a possibility for compromise when promoting access, one that involves managing the SuperNet using a cooperative structure similar to the way that natural gas is provided to rural Albertans. However, ultimately her comment captures an existing conflict in perspectives: unfortunately, offering access for all, and allowing unregulated competition within the telecommunication industry, are two goals that are not generally mutually attainable.90 As the last chapter noted this a core dilemma of the highway metaphor:

transportation systems have become a symbol of modern expansion, thus by associating

the highway metaphor with the construction of telecommunication infrastructure,

communication practices become linked to unrestricted economic growth (Berdayes &

90It is important to note that when the SuperNet was first conceived, the provincial government acknowledged that first and last mile access issues could be problematic. Consequently, they obliged Bell as part of their contractual agreement to be a “provider of last resort” to those communities in which no ISP was present. Nevertheless, Bell’s approach to meeting this provision has been somewhat unexpected, as Kelly Candy revealed: “Bell did manage to address access by providing direct wave satellite service… as a viable alternative it would qualify them to be the provider of last resort. In other words if they sold someone a satellite dish no matter where in the province, they are still getting internet so that means they have met their obligation….The result is that it was not what the government intended… it does not really fulfill the spirit of the contract but it does fulfill the letter of the contract.”

191

Berdayes, 1998;Mander, 1984). However, highways also tend to be publicly funded as a way to promote economic activity in a given location. As a result, this metaphor helps encourage two seemingly conflicting goals based on the same economic imperative: government support for building the infrastructure and unlimited commercial expansion

(Berdayes & Berdayes, 1998).

A final criticism of the SuperNet, still connected to an appreciation of it as a highway, concerned the current availability of useful “vehicles”; applications in this sense were understood as vehicles. Art Price acknowledged that at present we lack suitable forms of transport for the SuperNet: “I would say… it is real early in terms of the types of services or vehicles that can be offered on a network like this…” Some of the shifts he envisions include the creations of interfaces which appeal to “a single customer as opposed to a demographic.” He believes:

Google is a good example of this because they are doing it with advertising. They make you a customer of one. For example, I am a nurse so I will sign up for my postgraduate continuous update; how much does it cost I will buy it? At the same time I am interested in tennis, I want the files of the French Open so I will just click on here and I will have it. Right? So I am not stuck with one thing being pushed at me. I get to pick, and all the services are services that I want… I do not need to be a computer whiz in order to be able to do this.(Art Price)

Like Art Price, Holly McStravick feels the development of additional “vehicles” would facilitate the flow of information on the SuperNet. She suggested that what is needed to ensure the use of this network by citizens includes: “IP telephone for saving long distance, communities partnering in order to do data back ups and that sort of thing… all

192 to leverage the infrastructure. I think probably as things progress we will also see shared applications that will enable municipalities to do better business” (Holly McStravick).

What these statements highlight is that respondents used the highway metaphor to acknowledge that the “vehicles” necessary to make full use of this new route still need to be developed. Again, the use of vehicle terminology is interesting as it illustrates the ease of which we talk about complex applications needed for communication networks with transportation imagery in mind.

The above discussion demonstrates many of the different ways that the SUPERNET AS

A HIGHWAY metaphor was deployed in the specific linguistic expressions of the policy planners. Overall, this conceptual metaphor effectively depicted the technical dimensions of the project in a highly accessible manner. In doing so it made it possible to have discussions about its overall goals, design, access in the communities, and applications without the need for a specialized vocabulary. Examples of the sorts of project components that this metaphor described within the interviews are summarized in Table

6.2.

193

Table 6.2: Conceptual mappings for the SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY metaphor Highway (Source) SuperNet (Target) road itself the technical components of the network (i.e. paved with fibre) travellers/goods information planners provincial government builders Bell, contractors enforcers/police Axia tollbooth attendants ISPs vehicles applications on ramps/off-ramps (first and last mile) connection to business and residential users communities potholes/obstacles fibre cuts/ensuring business and residential user access

Additionally, when respondents invoked this metaphor they raised some important concerns associated with this project. These included:

• questioning the rationale for a single large scale broadband infrastructure project

over an incremental build based on community demand,

• the linear design of the route itself,

• the problems associated with adequately addressing first and last mile access given

the current business model and competing approaches regarding the project’s overall

goals (i.e. balancing the desire between competition and ubiquitous access),

• and finally the lack of compelling vehicles (applications that would make people

want to use this route).

6.3.2 Illuminating the cognitive and behavioural dimensions of a new technology

The metaphors highlighted in Table 6.1 offer a range of ways that the complex dimensions of the SuperNet project were described deploying more accessible terms. All

194 these metaphors are examples of how a concrete source made policy planner discussions of the SuperNet more manageable. For example, they suggest that access to, or use of, broadband technology, can be understood in relation to familiar experiences such as travelling on a highway, operating a tool, or using electricity. In contrast to this process of simplification via the deployment of such concrete concepts, the interview transcripts contained another type of metaphor. This was a metaphor that did not rely on the experientially familiar but rather on illuminating that there was something more to the

SuperNet: a transformative capacity that involved a radical change in the behaviour and thinking of Albertans. The conceptual metaphor which best encapsulates the collection of related utterances promoting this idea is that of the SUPERNET AS CULTURE/ A

CULTURE SHIFT. Moreover, since this metaphor did not simplify the dimensions of the project, it was a much clearer illustration of the inexpressibility thesis described in

Chapter 3; a hypothesis that argues when individuals struggle to find the literal words to put their imagination into action, metaphor becomes a necessary form of expression. In this instance that which seemed inexpressible was the perception that the SuperNet could create an environment where the knowledge, utilization, and appreciation of broadband would become a new, shared, experience for all Albertans. This acknowledgement of the cognitive and behavioural dimensions of broadband use was of course a metaphorical articulation that was minimized and almost absent in the press release corpus.

In reviewing the transcripts it was apparent that many of the interviews (7 out of the 10, and in 28 out of the 328 utterances), included descriptions of the SuperNet which positioned it as something quite distinct from the material components of the technical

195 network. To various respondents it symbolized the emergence of a deeper shared collective understanding hence the categorization of the SUPERNET AS CULTURE/A

CULTURE SHIFT seems strikingly appropriate. Evidence of this metaphor’s deployment included Val Mellesmoen’s statement: “With the SuperNet …the infrastructure is just the how, not the what. The greatest challenge is exactly that… getting people to understand how to use it beyond going to E-bay or surfing the net. [The SuperNet] represents a shift in your mind about how you think and how to work.” Or her suggestion that, “the

SuperNet is about thinking differently… It is about trying to get Albertans to understand the capabilities of the future… it is pioneering a new age with what is now available and these are cultural changes that still have to occur with people” (Val Mellesmoen). Art

Price also supported the conceptualization of a culture shift with his assertion that, “At the end of the day this is not about a network, it is what this network enables… It enables a whole different opportunity.” Moreover, his claim that we need to develop new

“knowledge spaces” that will encourage people to “approach their jobs quite differently” indicated a belief that there are different cognitive and behavioural skills fostered by the

SuperNet. Similarly, Lorne Taylor, suggested the SuperNet was about fostering a “a mindset first” which requires “technological literacy” in order for people to be aware of how technology might be used in a different way. One of his central recommendations was:

196

If I was to do it all over again, I would work with the AAMDC [the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties] and get to the rural councillors as a start. Show them the economic opportunities this could generate for them. Especially, barley marketing. You could market your barley worldwide or you could conduct a cattle auction in real time. (Lorne Taylor)

Finally, Holly McStravick stressed that policy planners should “work with local people to help them understand how they can use technology… they need success stories before they understand.” Collectively these comments illustrate that planners did in fact imagine the SuperNet as representing something more than simply a technical network that people need to “get on” to move information; to them it was also a new way of thinking and behaving reinforced by symbolic exchanges such as success stories in which examples of broadband use in people’s daily lives are essential as an effort to promote a new technological literacy.

As was the case with the highway metaphor, several challenges associated with the outreach components of the project were highlighted using the SUPERNET AS

CULTURE/ A CULTURE SHIFT metaphor. For example, it was recognized that creating a new culture is by no means an easy task. As Val Mellesmoen noted, “getting people to understand the vision and to realize the opportunities is hard.” Dan Bader also provided a powerful example to express how difficult acquiring new skills can be:

197

I use the analogy of you take somebody out of a fairly comfortable sedan and you give them a jet fighter and the you say ‘go fly’, it shouldn’t really be surprising that people don’t understand the SuperNet and know what it can do for them, there is an educational component that needs to be there.

His comment implies that thinking and behaving in another way does not come naturally but requires a learning strategy. Unfortunately, in the case of the SuperNet, outreach efforts to the communities were a secondary concern. Lorne Taylor admitted, “there always needs to be an educational program and that is what we did not do…we did not provide a follow up… we were too caught up in finalizing the contract.” Further to this,

Holly McStravick suggested that such an outreach process is useful not only when communicating with external stakeholders (such as communities) but also internally. This is to ensure that different government departments and partners in the project share a collective appreciation of what they are trying to accomplish. In reflecting on what the provincial government might have done differently in the case of the SuperNet she remarked:

I would have done the education and the cooperation up front before we started the build. Getting everybody on board to understand what is required in municipal land leases, rights of way. Getting everyone together to understand what we are trying to achieve, what they could use it for. What getting their agreement to these different land leases and tower leases will enable. We could have done this. (Holly McStravick)

The above responses are all certainly promoting the need for a better-managed outreach component. However, Kelly Candy provided a slightly different perspective. He astutely remarked that jurisdictions across Alberta may be in very different situations in relation to their openness to using broadband. He noted, “if we put internet in Fort Chip do we

198 honestly expect it is suddenly going to change the cultural or socio-economic situation in that community? People there don’t know, they don’t even have computers, never mind the technology to have gigabyte speeds for example” (Kelly Candy). His comment provides a helpful reminder that the assumption that everyone will want, and be able to use, broadband is perhaps unrealistic even with the appropriate energy devoted to education and outreach.

In sum, in contrast to more concrete sources that were used to describe the technical components of the SuperNet project, a more abstract source was also invoked when attempting to describe the change in mindset and behaviour that accompanies the introduction of a new technology. The SUPERNET AS CULTURE/ A CULTURE

SHIFT metaphor encapsulated many of the utterances, which articulated the more elusive dynamics of this transformation. Its conceptual mappings are summarized in Table 6.3.

199

Table 6.3: Conceptual mappings for the SUPERNET AS CULTURE/ CULTURE SHIFT metaphor Culture/Culture Shift (Source) SuperNet (Target) change in collective meanings and values convincing Albertans that the use of broadband is important a transformation of behaviours and shared new literacy, a different mindset, knowledge targeted educational and outreach component patterned practices embraced not by a few should become a part of people’s daily individuals but by a group practices including their work (i.e. part of their accepted tacit knowledge) reinforced symbolically success stories the emergence of sub-cultures different communities, non technology users and users bounded spatial dimension seen as a distinctly Albertan approach

As this table illustrates, the SUPERNET AS CULTURE/ A CULTURE SHIFT metaphor captured the hopes of planners that the SuperNet would encourage a unique shared set of values, knowledge, and practices all developed within a distinct space (the province of

Alberta). In addition, when using this metaphor, respondents highlighted some critical issues associated with this project. They suggested that fostering a different cultural sensibility is a challenge. Incorporating an early and well-developed outreach component

(to gain internal and external support for the initiative) was undervalued in the case of the

SuperNet. This is not to say that no community outreach occurred; however, it could have been more systematically integrated into the initial development of the project. Moreover, it was also recognized that sub-cultures of users and non-users may exist, thus an all- encompassing shift in Alberta’s cultural attitudes is perhaps too optimistic a goal.

200

6.3.3 Problematizing the policy and justifying a technological solution

Chapter 3 contended that metaphors can be integral in helping to initially problematize policy issues. In his seminal work on the role of metaphors in social policy, Schön (1979) argues that policy issues are typically guided by a central story of “what is wrong and what needs fixing” (p. 256).91 Schön further claims that metaphors are central to the

creation of these narratives and in the formulation of ensuing solutions. That is to say that

the metaphors that problematize a particular issue also help policymakers make the

normative leap from “what is to what ought to be” (van Hulst, 2008, p. 213). In

recognizing the importance of these statements for appreciating the role of metaphors in

policymaking, the key questions related to the SuperNet that can be asked are: was there

a story being told about “what is wrong and what needs fixing”; if so, was it guided by

metaphor?

In reviewing the transcripts it was evident that “what [was] wrong and what need[ed]

fixing” was a decline of Alberta’s rural communities. As the previous chapter suggested

what was wrong and what needed fixing in the press release corpus centred not on rural

decline but more on Alberta’s global technological position, we thus get a much richer

understanding of the SuperNet’s initial problematic via an analysis of these interview

responses. Several comments illustrate the different components associated with this

particular story. Among them was Val Mellesmoen’s answer to the interview question

91 This is further supported, and nicely elaborated, by Stone (2001). For example, see chapter 8 on causal stories as problem definitions.

201

“Do you feel the promotion of the SuperNet was mostly for social, cultural, political or economic gains?” She suggested:

You know rural Alberta is supposedly dying, though a lot of people would like the lifestyle of small town Alberta. But [the SuperNet] gives you the possibility to have all of the social and cultural abilities that we have in Edmonton in a quieter, safer, and more secure environment. A know your neighbours kind of place. You can run a business. All you have to have is an e-mail address and a cell phone and you can do anything. Really…What more do you need? (Val Mellesmoen)

Glimpses of the narrative were also evident in Lorne Taylor’s description of how he first came to believe that there was a the need for a SuperNet:

Rural Alberta was going through rough times. I saw [the SuperNet] as a way to create economic opportunities to keep young educated people in rural Alberta with technology. So they could create a business if they wanted to. It wasn’t education, it wasn’t health care. Now that is not to say these things are not important. But I could see economic opportunities for rural Alberta created by the SuperNet.

Elements of this story were also crystallized in Ken Faulkner’s attempt to capture the

“essence” of the SuperNet in which he notes:

If I can be so bold as to sum it up in one statement: there is absolutely no reason why people in the rural parts of the province should not receive the same government services, and access to the same business opportunities. Where you live should not matter. You can continue to enjoy your quality of life without moving into the big city… Whether you live in Calgary or Manyberries this should not matter.

Collectively, these comments highlight the major dimensions of this project’s central plot. It was a policy story that began with an image of decline in which rural communities were metaphorically conceptualized as dying (thus positioning RURAL COMMUNITIES

202

AS PEOPLE). The cause of death was the departure of their youth and the fact that they presently lack the same sorts of opportunities that their urban counterparts possess.

However, it was also a tale of hope, in that it argues that the quality of life (i.e. lifestyle choices) that rural communities provide is unique and worth preserving. Finally, it involved an element of salvation, in which the SuperNet was appreciated as an enabler of new opportunities. Additional support for the presence of this narrative of rural decline, hope and salvation, also emerges via a more systematic examination of the use of the

SUPERNET AS PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN metaphor, a conceptual metaphor that occurred frequently throughout and across the interview transcripts (not unlike the press release corpus).

The metaphorical conceptualization of the SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-

HUMAN was present in all of the 10 interviews, evident in 50 of the 328 isolated utterances, and invoked in a variety of different contexts, many of which were quite similar to how it was used in the press release material. One way this metaphor was deployed was the respondents’ tendency to attach human qualifiers to the SuperNet. For instance, Kelly Candy described the SuperNet as “agnostic” and “fallible”; Art Price depicted it as “committed, “unconflicted”, and “high performing”. It was also noted to have a body part, a “back bone” (Dennis Mudryk). In his praising this initiative, Ken

Faulkner commended the SuperNet because “it touched everyone in the province” and suggested it was a “wonderful project”, which “arrived at our door”. Moreover, Dan

Bader stated it could be imagined as “a network on steroids” that was “ahead of its time”.

Further to such characterizations of the technical network itself, the transcripts also

203 contained multiple images of the SuperNet’s human (and perhaps super-human)92 powers

and abilities. Among the sorts of things the SuperNet was expected to accomplish was to

“eliminate geography” and “make everybody connected” (Dan Bader); “bring immediate

benefits to Albertans”, “build business opportunities” (Roger Palmer); “help rural

development as it evolves”(Holly McStravick); and “support rural communities” (Lorne

Taylor). The comments above substantiate the claim that the SUPERNET AS A

PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN was an important metaphorical conceptualization to the

policy planners. They used this metaphor to describe components of the technical

network and its distinguishing positive characteristics. Furthermore, it is through

statements about what the SuperNet was expected to do in rural locales that an

appreciation of the storyline of decline, hope and salvation, was perpetuated. After all

strong, healthy and vibrant communities do not require the help, support and benefits of a

SuperNet.

Similarly to previous metaphors discussed, the SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-

HUMAN metaphor was also used to reveal some issues associated with the development

path of this particular project. For instance, several respondents recognized that there was

some confusion over the true nature of the SuperNet. As Ken Hewitt noted “most people

think the internet is coming to their community and that is just not true.” Dennis Mudryk

supported this assertion:

92 It seemed those describing the SuperNet, at times, truly believed it had powers beyond their comprehension. This was nicely captured in a statement made by Lorne Taylor: “This fiber can help rural communities but how exactly it does this I don’t have a clue”.

204

When going to the community you have to position it properly. When you are going to a business or residential user in the community it is not SuperNet you are bringing [sic] them. It is not the SuperNet that should resonate with them; it is the ISP service. The SuperNet brings connectivity to the community and after that it is the private sector providing a service to the community. So when you are talking about the SuperNet to residents it is the wrong thing.

These statements suggest that the SuperNet was understood as a perplexing persona, one that citizens tended to confuse with that of the internet. Moreover, according to Ken

Hewitt, it may have missed fulfilling its potential based on what it might have offered

(i.e. a direct connection for business and residential users to the internet as opposed to one that they could only access via libraries or schools) versus what it actually delivered

(a connection mediated by ISPs deciding whether or not to provide such services).

Another drawback to the project drawn out by the SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-

HUMAN metaphor was that perhaps the SuperNet was not the salvation that rural communities themselves would have selected. For example, when assessing the value of the project in retrospect, Lorne Taylor acknowledged (while also exemplifying the narrative of decline):

There are huge stresses in rural Alberta at the moment. They are quite depressed economically. I mean you look at BSE and the price of commodities. Rural Alberta is depressed. The average age for a farmer is 54 or something and they are advising their kids ‘Do not go into agriculture’. So with the huge stresses out there they maybe have more important things to think about than the SuperNet.

205

Moreover, Dan Bader noted: “If you try to sell the SuperNet to somebody in [rural communities] who did not want it in the first place do not be surprised if you get push back.” Both these comments suggest that the need for increased connectivity via the

SuperNet did not seem as urgent, nor as welcomed by rural constituents, as was initially imagined.

It is worth noting, that a secondary narrative of “what [was] wrong and what need[ed] fixing” was present within the transcripts. It surrounded the potential emergence of a

“digital divide.” 93 This is labelled as secondary because it was only explicitly94 discussed by two respondents both of whom suggested the SuperNet was needed not so much to solve an existing problem but rather to prevent the emergence of a new one:

Initially I think the SuperNet was largely an economic development tool for rural communities to eliminate the possibility in a kind of an overused phrase now, the digital divide. (Dan Bader)

93 The digital divide as a conceptual metaphor involves the target of a TECHNICAL CONNECTION being imagined in terms of a more concrete source: A DIVIDE (such as a separation, gap, crack, or fissure). As a metaphor it seems more “conventional” than “novel” since it has become a fairly standard part of our linguistic repertoire. It is now even defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as: “(a) a division between those in favor of the extensive use of digital technology (esp. computers) and those against it; (b) (now the usual sense) the gulf between those who have ready access to current digital technology (esp. computers and the internet) and those who do not; (also) the perceived social or educational inequality resulting from this” (OED Online, 1989). This metaphor has been extensively criticized due to due to both its simplicity and under-conceptualization (see Baker, 2001; Gurnstein, 2003; Gunkel, 2004; Potter, 2006; Selwyn, 2004; and Warschauer, 2002). Among the most compelling arguments mounted against the use of this metaphor are: the fact that it promotes a view of access focused almost exclusively on ensuring a technical connection when policymakers could embrace a much wider conception of “access”, thus focusing too much on the divide and not the divided (Warschauer, 2002); and, that it allows the “technologically privileged” to “situate their experiences with technology as normative, so that those without access to similar systems and capabilities become perceived as deficient and lacking” (Gunkel, 2004, p. 507). 94 Despite the fact that it was only explicitly used by two respondents, implicit discussions of the need for equal access at reasonable rates for all Albertans (in order to prevent a division) was raised as a concern in 7 out of the 10 transcripts.

206

When the government first said it was willing to put its business on the table, it issued an RFP [Request for Proposal] that suggested it needed these key outcomes met. The first key outcome was that rural Alberta could get connected. This meant businesses and residents in rural Alberta could get connected to the metropolitan space in Alberta by the SuperNet so that there wasn’t a digital divide. (Art Price)

Evidently these respondents saw the digital divide (a difference in broadband access between rural and urban users) as another example of an emerging problem. However, the digital divide metaphor can easily be linked to the wider story of decline, hope and salvation of rural communities reviewed above. After all, the digital divide is simply another factor that could potentially contribute to the decline/potential “death” of rural communities. It is for example also possible to argue (though none of the respondents did) that unless first and last mile issues discussed previously are adequately addressed, that the divide that the SuperNet was expected to prevent will be widened; as there may now be a gap in access not only between rural and urban communities but also between rural communities with access to the SuperNet and those without, or those in the centre of such communities and those further out.

In sum, when exploring the SuperNet’s central narrative regarding “what [was] wrong and what need[ed] fixing”, the state of rural communities was the topic of concern. An examination of the transcripts presented a tale of rural decline (i.e. they are dying), hope

(since their lifestyle/quality of life is worth preserving) and salvation, in which the conceptual metaphor of the SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN was invoked as a potential solution. In fact, the SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN

207 metaphor was used consistently throughout the transcripts to discuss other dimensions of the technical network. The sorts of conceptual mappings that it encouraged are summarized in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4: Conceptual mappings for the SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER- HUMAN metaphor PERSON (Source) SUPERNET(Target) body/body parts technical network itself/ back bone qualities next generation, on steroids, unconflicted capabilities/abilities support communities, help them, be welcomed, eliminate geography, provide economic/business opportunities, prevent rural youth from leaving friends Albertans life cycle the SuperNet grows and evolves

This table reveals how the different components of being human were easily applied to

understanding the SuperNet in much the same as they were used in the press releases.

However, not unlike the SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY and the SUPERNET AS

CULTURE/ A CULTURE SHIFT metaphors, this conceptualization and the digital

divide metaphor also emphasized some of the challenges associated with this project.

Firstly, the SUPERNET AS PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN metaphor revealed that policy planners feared that citizens would find it difficult to distinguish between the SuperNet and the internet. Secondly, this particular metaphor helped respondents recognize that citizens might not have agreed with identifying this as a key solution to the current problems within their communities. Finally, the digital divide metaphor can be linked to the previous section’s discussion of the SUPERNET AS HIGHWAY metaphor. This section suggested the business model selected to guide the provision of access by the

208

SuperNet by no means guarantees that divisions of connectivity between urban and rural users will be addressed. In fact because last mile issues have yet to be resolved, the potential now exists that certain jurisdictions will be further “divided” as the rest of the province starts to use the SuperNet. The SuperNet could thus be characterized as a presence that may in fact have contributed to magnifying the initial problem it was expected to alleviate (i.e. the decline of rural communities in Alberta).

6.3.4 Situating the project as part of the broader policy process

The final types of metaphor present in the transcripts were those that situated the

SuperNet within the overall process of policy making. This collection of metaphors operated on two levels: first they helped to simplify the complexity of the policymaking process by drawing on more concrete sources (thus representing another example of the

“compactness thesis” described in Chapter 3); and, secondly they were deployed by respondents when they wanted to illustrate how this particular project could be understood as part of the activity of policymaking writ large. Thus, this grouping of metaphors provides an appreciation of how those interviewed made sense of their collective identities as policy planners in which the SuperNet became just one example of their daily practices. Examples of such metaphors were not nearly as common in the press release data, though there are some parallels, and their presence in this material was enlightening.

209

A plethora of source domains were used for understanding policymaking (with the

SuperNet embedded as part of this process).95 However, two metaphors were prevalent both within and across the transcripts: (1) POLICYMAKING AS MARKETING with the

SUPERNET AS A PRODUCT, and (2) POLICYMAKING AS A COMPETITION with the SUPERNET AS STRATEGY (this metaphor was also highlighted in the press release corpus). The labels given to these conceptual metaphors were intentionally broad, in order to permit the inclusion of several subcategories of metaphor as Tables 6.5 and 6.6 illustrate.

95 Among the conceptual metaphors present but not discussed in this section, since they were either deployed infrequently or clustered in only one response were: POLICYMAKING AS CONSUMPTION/ SUPERNET AS FOOD, POLICYMAKING AS AN EXPERIMENT/SUPERNET AS VARIABLE, POLICYMAKING AS FIRE/SUPERNET AS A SPARK, POLICYMAKING AS A MACHINE/SUPERNET AS A PART, POLICYMAKING AS GARDERNING/ SUPERNET AS A PLANT, POLICYMAKING AS A PUZZLE/ SUPERNET AS A PIECE, POLICYMAKING AS STEWARDSHIP/SUPERNET AS A RESOURCE, and POLICYMAKING AS THEATER/SUPERNET AS A PROP.

210

Table 6.5: Examples of the POLICYMAKING AS MARKETING metaphor Sub-metaphors Sample Expressions POLICY MAKING AS • “It [is] about developing an understanding of where your SALES/SuperNet as the audience is coming from, what is important to them so product whatever your policy agenda is you have to package in it a way that it will be seen as a benefit to them.” (Val Mellesmoen)

Case study examples: • “it was a made in Alberta solution…” (Dan Bader) • “The Bell Axia bid won. and our job was to go out and sell it effectively.” (Ken Faulkner) • “Bell made a pact with the devil to get the deal.” (Val Mellesmoen) POLICYMAKING AS • “In the real estate business it is location, location, REAL ESTATE location. In policy is it timing, timing, timing.” (Roger Palmer)

Table 6.6: Examples of the POLICYMAKING AS A COMPETITION metaphor Sub-metaphors Sample Expressions POLICY MAKING • “If you get a coalition of interests for doing something there AS BATTLE/ is a strong possibility of moving ahead.” (Roger Palmer) SuperNet as a • “When you are in Cabinet you are constantly fighting for weapon your budget.” (Lorne Taylor)

Case study examples: • “You had the telcos who really wanted to get into each others territory.” (Dan Bader) • “There was an anti SuperNet side.” (Art Price) • “It was not about big bad Eastern company coming in to take over it was about doing the right thing…” (Ken Faulkner) POLICY MAKING • Politics is a tough game. Once you have lost once you are AS GAME /SuperNet maybe okay, but once you have lost three or four times you as the strategy are easy game, you lose credibility.” (Lorne Taylor)

Case study examples: • “SuperNet was also part of a multi-pronged strategy in terms of positioning Alberta as a globally competitive player in IT as result of the decision making.” (Dan Bader)

211

While these tables provide a brief snapshot of the dimensions associated with these broad conceptual metaphors a more detailed description of each is provided below.

The conceptual metaphor of POLICYMAKING AS MARKETING was apparent within and across many of the transcripts. It appeared in 36 of the 328 isolated utterances, and in

7 out of the 10 interviews. Examples of how this particular metaphor was used by respondents included Lorne Taylor’s assertion that “the SuperNet was a big thought…we had to present it in the right way to get approval… this required understanding the technology side but you also had to understand the political and sales side as well.”

Evidence of this metaphor was also apparent in Val Mellesmoen’s statement that the

SuperNet required a “targeted promotion strategy”, as “it was about developing an understanding of where your audience is coming from, what is important to them so whatever your agenda is you have to package it in a way that it will be seen as a benefit to them.” Moreover, its presence was supported by Ken Faulkner’s claim that that “the

SuperNet was something that touched everywhere in the province, which made it a whole lot easier to sell to other MLAs.” As well, this metaphor was apparent in Dan Bader’s description of the SuperNet as a “full package deal, “a branded concept”, and “a made in Alberta solution”. Collectively, these comments highlight some of the different deployments of the POLICYMAKING AS MARKETING metaphor. Respondents used this metaphor to illustrate how a policy idea moved from being a “big thought” to an

212 actual product that required effective packaging and “branding”96 to various audiences

(including citizens and other politicians).

A clear benefit to discussing a policy initiative as a product or service that needs to be

packaged is that it offers insights into the rationale behind the conscious insertion of

metaphor into policymaking. For example, when responding to the interview question,

“why was the actual term “SuperNet” selected?”, Val Mellesmoen replied: “we needed to

brand this, package it and get a name out there… though I knew it would be tough

because how do you describe something that is that significant in one word?” She noted

that other names were considered (for example JetNet), however the SuperNet was

appealing because:

To me the SuperNet was not the internet, it was the SuperNet internet. It was not just the ISP dial up connection. It was fast broadband high speed. It was not just to the cities but to all communities. So different things worked on all the different levels. You could define it and interpret it your own way as well as the way we presented it. I had no idea what these messages would be.

She further stated:

96 The conceptualization of metaphors as “branding” devices for policy project evokes powerful imagery. Branding was initially defined as “the action of marking with a hot iron, as a surgical operation; or of burning a mark upon a criminal, or an article for sale” (OED Online, 1989), thus implying a sense of permanence. More recently however its definition has been widened to include “the promotion of consumer awareness of a particular brand of goods or services” (OED Online, 2004).

213

The SuperNet was obviously the right name for the project because it captured all those things in a way that the media picked up on it. The public picked up on it long after we left. The ownership of the team that had to work on the build identified with it and they are the ones who enforced it upon Axia. We branded it so well that the department staff who were in charge of the construction and the infrastructure put signage out, ‘SuperNet build underway’, which then helped to make it you know even more. This reinforces it and brands it. People are driving down the highway and they see construction going on in a ditch and they see the sign. I thought that it was brilliant and it became something used by all the different people on the project. (Val Mellesmoen)

As Val’s comments indicate, metaphors may be attractive to those who market policies precisely because of their polysemous capacity; they can guide various stakeholders’ thinking along certain lines, while still permitting some flexibility in interpretation.

Other interviewees were equally enthusiastic around the appropriateness of the

“SuperNet” brand. Their comments not only illustrate what the policy planners liked about the SuperNet in particular but also indicate how they might evaluate a consciously selected metaphor. For instance, in assessing this metaphor Holly McStravick stated,

“ ‘SuperNet’ is simple and easy to remember…it is kind of like the Alberta spirit.”

Moreover, Dennis Mudryk suggested, “The metaphor… plays a dual role, covering both the enterprise and commercial aspects… So having a brand name that is more neutral is positive. It does not say government, so it is probably perfect.” Additionally, Dan Bader noted, “SuperNet was a label people relate well to. It also lends itself well to putting t- shirts out with a big S and that kind of stuff.” Art Price further acknowledged the need for such a metaphor in his assertion, “It needed to be differentiated somehow because in the

214 telecom sector there is a huge amount of branding.” Such comments suggest that a metaphor may be valuable to policymaking for a variety of reasons including:

• simplicity (see the compactness thesis described in Chapter 3),

• a capacity to be memorable (see the vividness thesis described in Chapter 3),

• marketing potential based on specific symbolic connotations,

• and its overall ability to distinguish the project by making it appear as something

more than typical.

Surprisingly, not everyone supported the need for this particular brand, urging caution in the placing too much value on the choice of one specific metaphor over another. For instance, Roger Palmer argued: “The SuperNet was merely a catchphrase to give the minister profile about something we had achieved in Innovation and Science and it was no more than that.” Upon further probing about whether the SuperNet metaphor meant, or came to mean, something distinctive, he stated: “No more than a Mars bar does not come from Mars. They are nice names, which people find catchy enough to jump on and go along with. It has no more real significance though. Of course we also thought we were the best.” Moreover, Kelly Candy remarked:

The SuperNet is a term that was used for political purposes. It is a great catch phrase and makes great media. There are also a couple of networks built in the past that were called SuperNets. Its pretty much a colloquialism because it does not really described what distinguishes it from other networks out there. Most other networks are built as sonic networks but this is Ethernet and IP.

Both of the aforementioned statements imply that calling the SuperNet a “super” “net” was not overly significant (i.e. it is just a name, and or a colloquialism). Moreover, they

215 are claiming that the actual metaphor is not nearly as consequential as whether or not additional people put it to use. However as Ortony (2001) notes, a “well chosen” metaphor has been recognized as pivotal for “giving insight and comprehension”, whereas a poorly chosen one is thought to “generate confusion and despair” (p. 18). It can thus be postulated that is it precisely because the SuperNet seemed like a “well chosen” metaphor to more than just policymakers that others deployed it.

A final point worth noting, related again to the conscious insertion of metaphors to brand policy projects, was raised by Val Mellesmoen. She suggested that in choosing the

SuperNet metaphor the provincial government “made a promise to Albertans and created an expectation… but what we were going to do changed under a new minister and we did not deliver on this promise.” Her claim is a useful reminder of a metaphor’s potential power in establishing certain dynamics for a policy project: once a metaphor is in circulation an impression of things to come is generated. Unfortunately, in the case of the

SuperNet, while certain expectations were generated about what this project would accomplish, they were not met (particularly in terms of the first and last mile issues). This makes this specific metaphor subject to additional scrutiny, prompting the following questions: should the Alberta government have been more cautious in its selection of metaphor; was promising to deliver a “super” “net” perhaps too ambitious?

In sum, the above discussion of the POLICYMAKING AS MARKETING with the

SUPERNET AS A PRODUCT illustrates that policy planners clearly appreciated their daily practices as a process in which they transformed a big idea into a packaged and

216 branded product. The types of mappings respondents used when drawing on this metaphor are summarized in table 6.7.

Table 6.7: Conceptual mappings for the POLICYMAKING AS MARKETING/SUPERNET AS A PRODUCT metaphor Marketing (Source) Policymaking (Target) marketing cycle policy process marketing pitch policy idea (we should connect rural communities) product requires branding service/program provision requires branding (a name such as the SuperNet) marketing team politicians and their staff potential audience/customers stakeholder groups (other politicians, citizens, the media)

In addition to describing policy more generally, it was also noted that this conceptual

metaphor provides some valuable insight as to why those involved with policy feel the

need to consciously insert metaphors into the policy process. Among the reasons supplied

for using the SuperNet metaphor were: to begin guiding stakeholder conceptualizations

but allow some flexibility in interpretation, to promote simplicity, to make a project

distinguishable and memorable, and to capitalize on one’s marketing opportunities by

drawing on a certain symbolic potential. Moreover, it was suggested by respondents that

a policy metaphor could be evaluated based on whether or not it is deployed by others in

creative and positive ways. Finally, it was recognized that metaphors have tremendous

power in setting expectations. Once chosen they require follow through.

A second conceptual metaphor that figured prominently in many of the interviews was

the perception of the POLICYMAKING AS COMPETITION (most often in terms of

game and battle terminology) with the SuperNet as either a strategy or a weapon. As

217 noted previously the competition metaphor was not as surprising as it was emphasized in the press release data as well, however it was deployed in a much more complex manner within these interview transcripts. This metaphor was present in present in 60 of the 328 coded utterances and in 7 out of the 10 interviews. Examples of how this metaphor was used in discussions of policymaking quite generally included Ken Faulkner’s claim that he believes all of policymaking is akin to war: “My approach to policy is like the US army going into the gulf, you have every conceivable advantage but you cover all bases, so you have 500,000 troops that land on the shore and you have got an army that is saying ‘oh no’. It gets everybody in Cabinet to stand down almost immediately” (Ken

Faulkner). Moreover, Lorne Taylor characterized working in Cabinet as a battle:

When you are in Cabinet you are constantly fighting for your budget and obviously the dollars you get is a dollar that is not going to go somewhere else like healthcare, education, or highways. So if you are talking about technology upgrades, to be quite frank, not a lot of people including me understand it around the Cabinet table it is almost a lost cause because other things, healthcare, education, and highways they kind of always come before it. 97

Instances of the conceptual metaphor of POLICYMAKING AS COMPETITION were also present in specific discussion of the SuperNet. For example, Val Mellesmoen asserted that planning for the project took both “skill and strategy… to look at it how it

all works together and communicate it effectively”. As well, Roger Palmer noted that the

SuperNet was successful simply because there was: “a coalition of interests at a time

when rural economic development was pretty important to Cabinet.” Collectively, these

97 An interesting aside is that when the SuperNet project was approved the GOA budget was not fixed therefore despite the use of this battle imagery it was not zero-sum battle with other ministries. Today it is.

218 examples not only support the presence of this metaphor but also illustrate how the language of competition forms a subtle part of policy planners’ metaphorical understandings of their daily practices; they talk about “fights” (that were not real physical confrontations), getting people to “stand down”, deploying “skill and strategy”, and the formation of “coalitions”.98

The POLICYMAKING AS COMPETITION metaphor was also deployed as a way of

appreciating the SuperNet as part of wider battle/game plan (which is quite similar to

how it was used in the press release corpus). In this context the SuperNet was understood

both in terms of other policy activities and in relation to an overall goal, both of which

are summarized in Dan Bader’s comment: “The SuperNet was part of a multi-pronged

strategy in terms of positioning Alberta as a globally competitive player in information technology.” More precisely, the primary policy activity to which the SuperNet was linked (i.e. another prong in this strategy) was the publication of the Alberta Science and

Research Authority’s (ASRA) 1998 document, entitled A Strategy for Information and

Communication Technology in Alberta. This was a report produced by the Information

Technology Task Force (a small group of business, academic and government representatives) in consultation with over 65 stakeholders across the province. Most of the respondents interviewed (7 out of 10) suggested that the ASRA document provided the initial inspiration for the SuperNet project. For example, Dan Bader noted:

98 This metaphor clearly supports Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) claim that people more generally view all discussions (be they policy or otherwise) in terms of war like language.

219

Looking back at it, it was a question asked by ASRA: how do you position Alberta? You have to put in the context of $10 oil, there was a real need to diversify the economy… the advice came back that we needed to wire the province, we needed to put in a high-end data network, and then basically connect the population.

Further to this, Val Mellesmoen claimed that, “as Alberta moved forward to compete with the SuperNet the bigger picture was definitely the vision articulated in the ICT strategy”.

The report’s key recommendations included: (a) investing in education, (b) developing the ICT infrastructure, (c) demonstrating a government commitment to a pervasive ICT culture of use, (d) increasing the investment in research and development, and (e) increasing ICT business (Alberta Science and Research Authority, 1998). The SuperNet thus met the requirement of developing the ICT infrastructure, and could also be connected to developing a culture of use and promoting more ICT business opportunities.

Several participants (Val Mellesmoen and Dan Bader) also linked the SuperNet to the

Alberta Advantage (as was the case in the press release material); a government branding effort, which aimed to highlight the opportunities that the province offers, both natural and policy generated that make Alberta a particularly desirable place to live and do business. Building the SuperNet meant the province could remain true to its Alberta

Advantage assertion of being a locale with “a strong commitment to innovation and knowledge based progress.” 99 In terms of the overall goal of such strategies, respondents believed they provided Alberta with “a competitive advantage” (Dan Bader), made it

“leading edge” (Art Price), helped it become “a lead community” (Roger Palmers),

99 The government of Alberta’s Alberta Advantage website can be found at: http://www.alberta.ca/home/43.cfm

220 and/or “a world leader in technology” (Val Mellesmoen). Such utterances promote an appreciation of policymaking as a global competition in which different jurisdictions compete and use technology as a way to achieve their strategic gains, thus mirroring much of how this initiative was presented in the official press releases.

Another place where the POLICYMAKING AS COMPETITION metaphor was prevalent was in understanding the internal dynamics that occurred as the project developed. In fact, respondents vividly recounted three key “battles” in the project with metaphorical descriptors. The first of these fights focused on deciding what type of technology should be used. As Dan Bader recalled:

There was a huge battle over the technology, whether it should be kind of conventional telecommunications technology or whether it should be internet based protocol. Art Price was one of the very strong adversary on the IP side, and Roger Palmer and Grant Cheney who was the Chief Technology officer at the time made the decision to go with the IP side. At the time there were three IP networks, so it was very much leading edge.

The second “battle” identified by respondents occurred between Telus, Bell and the provincial government, over the terms of the SuperNet’s initial contract. Ken Faulkner presented the nature of this particular conflict:

221

Telus pulled out all the stops with respect to lobbying efforts. It was a miscalculation on their part. What happened is they said ‘we need to get in front of politicians and key decision makers because we know Mr. Taylor has to bring it through the system’. They got in front of everybody they could and said ‘this is a bad idea and this is Telus, the largest private sector employer in the province, what are you thinking all you are doing is opening the door to an Eastern company and giving away our jobs’… For Lorne it was not about the big bad Eastern company coming in to take over it was about doing the right thing What happened at the end of the day is all of the MLAs rallied around Lorne and said ‘we trust you, you are under siege right now’. It actually made it easier to bring it through the process at the end of the day...Any opposition was pretty much stopped.

The third “battle” raised by respondents involved the resolution of “internal issues between Bell and Axia inside the contract about who was in control and who owns [the

SuperNet]”(Dan Bader, 2007). Art Price provided his interpretation of these events:

The biggest challenge was that there were two components to the way [the SuperNet] was conceived of and executed…There is the Bell network and the rural network (extended) area and the fact that the relationship between Bell and Axia went through an extended period of litigation. Bell was litigating that relationship. So that caused a lot of complications during the execution. Once that was resolved and Axia won on all fronts, the whole organization adjusted to the agreement that already there and once that was behind us it was completed quite quickly and effectively.

What connects all of these accounts is the terminology and imagery they deploy; picking sides, having winners, being “under siege”, “miscalculating”, “rallying around”,

“conceived and executed” all suggest that respondents understood the negotiations over what technology to use, the discussions around who would secure the contract, and the

222 litigation proceedings in terms of battle. Telecommunications policymaking in general was thus presented as an arena fraught with tension.

The final area where the POLICYMAKING AS COMPETITION was a necessary metaphor surrounded the participants’ discussions of leadership in policy, and more specifically the role of a “champion”. The word champion has many different dictionary definitions100 all of which relate to being a fighter and or defender of a cause, hence why it can be categorized within the broader conceptualization of the competition metaphor.

An illustration of when policy planners talked about champions included Dan Bader’s claim: “In policy you always need that political champion and someone who is going to

be able to put an understanding and a belief into it….” Moreover, Lorne Taylor suggested

that for a policy to be successful “Someone has to put it on their shoulders and carry it.

[Policy] needs a champion. Without a champion, things just do not get done.” Ken

Faulkner also remarked: “ you always need a champion, if a minister or bureaucracy

elects not to push through on particular pieces then it is going to be an uphill battle.” In

addition, it was acknowledged that when Lorne Taylor moved portfolios the SuperNet

project no longer had a champion.101 Val Mellesmoen noted:

100 For example, according to the Oxford English Dictionary a champion can be defined as: (1)“a fighting man, a combatant; a stout fighter, a man of valour”; (2) “one who fights on behalf of another, or on behalf of any cause”; (3) “one who in any kind of contest or conflict acts as the acknowledged defender of a person, cause, or side: one who stoutly maintains any cause (the literal sense is sometimes distinctly in view, sometimes out of sight)”; and (4) “he who holds the first place in prize-fighting, rowing, walking, or other trial of strength or skill and one who has defeated all opponents, and is open to contend with any new competitor” (OED Online, 1989). 101 O’Connor (1995) argues that the champion conceptualization is problematic because it places the bulk of organizational change all on the shoulders of one person (i.e. the epic hero), as opposed to assessing the overall readiness of an organization for a given project or policy (p. 791).

223

In policy you need someone to keep the torch burning as it were… because if the torch is extinguished you lose so much… the SuperNet lost its champion in government… The next minister he was not a champion. He did not have the understanding of what the SuperNet meant for Alberta and for rural communities. He looked at this as a government infrastructure project and… it never really regained momentum.

Further to this, Lorne Taylor suggested that such a champion must also be willing to think from a strategic point of view and engage in some long term planning.

Unfortunately this did not occur in the case of the SuperNet because:

Our energy was taken up on the implementation of the project…While I did understand the technology, I did not conceptualize what we would go through in four years. I did not say. ‘Okay what is this going to look like in four years?’ That is probably my fault. As a leader I should be pushing this question… that was likely our biggest lesson and biggest weakness. Even if you are not going to be the Minister after you establish something, you have to have a plan so that when you leave it will continue.

What his statement suggests is that without a long-range vision it becomes difficult for people to know what they are “fighting” for.

All told, the conceptual metaphor of POLICYMAKING AS COMPETITION was a metaphor that was used in a variety of ways throughout the transcripts. Policy planners clearly understood their daily activities in large part through battle and game imagery. A summary of the types of mappings that were highlighted by respondents when using this metaphor is supplied in Table 6.8.

224

Table 6.8: Conceptual mappings of the POLICYMAKING AS A BATTLE OR AS A GAME/SUPERNET AS A STRATEGY BATTLE/GAME (Source) POLICY PROCESS (Target) weapons/ strategies SuperNet, ASRA, Alberta Advantage conflict zone/area of play control over telecommunication market (provincially and globally)/global and provincial arena winners versus losers • IP versus network technology • GOA versus Telus • Bell versus Telus • Axia versus Bell leaders/heroes community champions, political figures

As this table illustrates, this conceptual metaphor was used by respondents in the following ways: to help clarify what they were competing for (i.e. global technological supremacy); to connect a policy project to additional strategies that were of use from a tactical point of view (such as the ASRA report and the Alberta Advantage); and finally as a way to discuss some of the internal tensions (in terms of battles and leadership) which emerged as the project developed. It was evident that the SuperNet was indeed a project subject to many conflicts which likely made the overall goal of trying to compete globally using technology a far greater challenge than was expected.

6.4 Chapter Summary and Concluding Remarks

Thus far each of the metaphor functions and the metaphors themselves have been presented independently. However, as was demonstrated with the press release data in the previous chapter these findings can also be assessed holistically to draw out some useful conclusions. In doing so at least three areas merit interpretation and additional commentary. First, a collective evaluation of how these metaphors works tell us

225 something interesting about this dissertation’s major focus: the need and use of metaphor in technology policymaking. Second, an examination of the sorts of metaphors that dominate the interviews permits an interrogation of the values that these particular policy planners hold both towards technology and the activity of policymaking writ large. In doing, the nature of the policy planners’ choices and the benefits and limitations associated with their current understandings can be considered and alternatives offered.

Finally, drawing on the criticisms that were elicited using the different conceptual metaphors, it is possible to develop some recommendations for those planners who might be contemplating building their own ‘SuperNet’ in the future.

6.4.1 Appreciating metaphor as essential tools for understanding technology and policymaking

As these findings illustrate, respondents drew on a variety of sources to understand the

SuperNet, ranging from the very concrete and experiential (such as a highway or a person) to the more ambiguous (i.e. a culture). Collectively the diversity of articulations present in the transcripts supports the claim that there are many things about technology and policymaking that policy planners have trouble talking about. According to these findings, both technology and policymaking exemplify the three features that make metaphors “necessary and not just nice to have” (Ortony, 1975), first raised in Chapter 3.

First, both technology and policymaking are highly complex, particularly when it comes to sorting out the various technical components associated with a specific technology and the many internal and external processes in policy; policy planners thus require metaphors to make their discussions compact and manageable. Second, the dynamics of

226 technology and policymaking are often hard to capture with existing literal expressions, necessitating a metaphorical way of articulating the seemingly inexpressible. Finally, there is a constant effort to make projects involving technology memorable and vivid.

Consequently, policy planners consciously introduce metaphors into communicative exchanges, as the “tricks” of enrolment (see Chapter 5 for a theoretical and empirical elaboration of this idea), with the hope that other stakeholders will take them up; in fact how citizens choose to take up such metaphors is the focus of this dissertation’s next chapter.

6.4.2 Reviewing policy planners’ values towards technology and technology policymaking with metaphor

Just as it was possible to begin evaluating the vision of technology, technological change and policymaking itself within the SuperNet’s press release corpus, the sorts of values endorsed by the metaphors within the interviews can also be assessed. Based on the literature that was reviewed in the previous chapter, it is not surprising that the metaphors of the SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY and the SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-

HUMAN were present in these responses; various studies have demonstrated that these particular metaphors are a common way to understand technology and have appeared in different discursive contexts (i.e. popular representations, technical documentation,

227 interview transcripts) to describe technology both recently and historically.102 Moreover,

as was noted in the case of the press release corpus these metaphors may position

technology as a positive, instrumental and functional actor and a powerful force external

to citizen control. In reviewing the policymaker responses these concerns are valid. For

example, in their deployment of the SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN

metaphor technology was touted as a presence that would do quite remarkable things (i.e.

it “would make everyone connected”, “eliminate geography”, “support” communities); in

doing so the idea still being communicated is that Albertans do not have to directly

interact with the SuperNet in order for their communities to be transformed. Nevertheless

because those interviewed also invoked the SUPERNET AS CULTURE/ A CULTURE

SHIFT metaphor, their overall vision of technology can be characterized as more

complex than that which was offered within the SuperNet press release corpus. In this

case the deployment of this metaphor permitted these policy planners to discuss the

cultural and social potential of broadband and also acknowledge the behavioural and

cognitive dimensions of technological change. This finding was somewhat unexpected

because elsewhere policymakers have been presented as typically endorsing simply a

technological determinist and, or transmission approach (see for example, Babe, 1990;

Menzies, 1997), without recognizing that communication also focuses on “sharing”,

102 Studies which illustrate the presence of the TECHNOLOGY AS HIGHWAY metaphor include but are not limited to: Berdayes and Berdayes (1997), Isomursu et al. (2007), Izwaini (2003), Johnson (1997), Mander (1984), Palmquist (1995), Sawhney(1996), and, Ratzan (2000). Moreover, investigations which identify the importance of the TECHNOLOGY AS A PERSON metaphor include but are not limited to: Carroll & Eifler (2002), Denny & Sunderland (2005), Izwaini (2003), Johnson (1991), and Palmquist (1996). These works do not always focus exclusively on these particular metaphors but nevertheless recognize that both the highway and person are one the potential sources for understanding and experiencing technology that can and does appear in a variety of contexts.

228

“participation”, “association”, “fellowship” and “the possession of a common faith”

(Carey, 1988, p. 18).

The tendency to conceptualize technology as culture and or a culture shift, or some elaboration of this theme, has been identified in other studies of technology metaphors

(Christidou, Dimopoulos & Koulaidis, 2004; Isomorsu et al., 2007; Markham, 2003).103

Rigney (2001) argues these types of metaphors—ones that present large constructs such as “technology” or “society” more discursively than mechanistically—are exciting because they imply we have enormous potential to creatively author the constructs around us (p. 188). That is to say it is quite empowering to imagine that people actually have the capacity to externally impose a specific cultural framework upon others and determine their role within it. Rigney (2001) does however caution against the deployment of these metaphors because they are based on the assumption that “we can author any sort of world we wish” (p. 188). Such an illusory premise is complicated by at least two factors: (1) external constraints (including biological, physical, and economic considerations), and (2) the dilemmas associated with finding legitimacy and coherence in multiple accounts of the same culture (Rigney, 2001). Fortunately, the challenge of trying to orchestrate a broadband culture shift in Alberta was something that policy

103For example, Isomursu et al’s (2007) discussion of users understandings of the mobile internet documents the predominance of the “campfire” and “watering hole” metaphors in helping people appreciate the social, cultural, and community oriented nature of technology use as a way to learn, tell stories, and feel like they belong. Moreover, Christidou, Dimopoulos & Koulaidis (2004) have suggested that both science and technology are often positioned as extending and or changing knowledge in order to make these areas seem conceptually closer to the experiences of non-specialists (p. 353). Additionally, Markham (2003) recognizes that the internet is often understood as both a place and way of being, two essential components of forming a “culture”.

229 planners recognized. Regrettably however, this awareness did not translate into a well- planned outreach strategy. Nor did their use of this metaphor inspire an approach which acknowledged the differences that rural communities might bring to an appreciation of broadband based on external factors such as their current skill levels, their desire to learn, and their access to the other hardware and software components needed for the SuperNet to function.104

While the general attitudes towards technology revealed by the policy planners could be

interpreted as encouraging in comparison to the press release data that was analysed, the

same could not be said for the two metaphors that policy planners used for describing

policymaking writ large. For example, the presence of the POLICYMAKING AS

COMPETITION metaphor was not unexpected, given the claims made by authors such

as Hill (1989) and Krugman (1993) who stress the centrality of this conceptualization to

our modern understanding of politics and technology policymaking. Nevertheless, as was

suggested in Chapter 5, the competition conceptualization is quite limiting. Among the

most troubling aspects associated with this metaphor is that it tends to draw almost

exclusive attention to producing outcomes (i.e. winning) as opposed to highlighting the

accompanying processes and rational which underlie the endeavour itself (Hill, 1989;

Krugman, 1993). It can also be argued that such a metaphor fosters an oppositional

perception of how citizens and government, government and industry, and nations and

104 For an excellent metaphorical conceptualization of the different dimensions of ICT use one can look to Clement and Shade (1998) whose idea of the access “rainbow” encourages moving beyond just a discussion of literacy to also recognize the importance of “governance”, “service providers”, “content”, “carriage facilities”, and “devices”.

230 other nations, ought to interact (Herbeck, 2004). Consequently, it becomes possible to ask what the implications might be to the material practices of policymaking itself if policy planners embraced metaphors that were not results-oriented or oppositional?105 For

example, what if policymaking was more commonly understood and experienced as

either a collaboration and/or a partnership? What difference might this make not only to

the way in which policy was talked about but also in how it was dealt with on a daily

basis?

The possibility of considering alternative metaphors also seems prudent when thinking

about the presence of the second metaphor which dominated the policy planner

responses: POLICYMAKING AS MARKETING. In fact, the frequency of both the competition and marketing metaphors in these interviews supports the recognition in other studies regarding the growing number of business-oriented metaphors said to permeate public policymaking discussions (Box, 1999; Schachter, 1999; Smith &

Huntsman, 1997).106 Both metaphors support the rhetoric of capitalist economics, since

capitalism requires competition to work and good marketing is believed to increase

competitiveness. To some, the use of the POLICYMAKING AS MARKETING

metaphor is positive. This metaphor obviously draws attention to the need to “please” the

customer; thus potentially encouraging an approach to governance that is responsive to

105 Here I am borrowing an analytic strategy from Lakoff & Johnson (1980), when they suggested that we consider the material of consequences of treating ARGUMENT AS DANCE instead of conceptualizing ARGUMENT AS WAR. 106 The origins of market metaphors more generally and their implications for public administration theory and practice extends far beyond the scope of what this dissertation can accommodate. However, many of the issues raised by this problematic are nicely addressed by Box (1999).

231 citizens’ needs as it produces services that are of value to them (Box, 1999).

Additionally, it has been suggested that imagining citizens as consumers (a key mapping of the POLICYMAKING AS MARKETING metaphor) is appealing because “everyone is a consumer and knows what is expected of them” (Halchin in Schachter, 1999, p. 13).

Nevertheless, the idea that we ought to be running the government like a business, and promote it accordingly, elicits tremendous “discomfort” since this representation does not seem entirely appropriate to an activity with the ultimate goal of protecting the public interest (Box, 1999). For instance, those who would criticize the marketing metaphor worry that such a conceptualization imagines citizenship as a passive individualistic activity since customers often have their agenda set by others and buy alone (Box, 1999;

Schachter, 1999). We have to consider in this instance whether a citizen’s role in the development and implementation of public policies related to their general well being

(such as health or education) is conceptually equal to buying different items at the store, such as shampoo (Schachter,1999). Additionally, metaphorically understanding citizens as customers and policies as products does not adequately reflect the government citizen interface because when a government offers services they rarely have the “niche” customer that businesses aim to serve (Schachter,1999).

According, to Kozolanka (2006) the deployment of the POLICYMAKING AS

MARKETING metaphor in these responses should be no surprise, particularly given the recent developments within the Canadian policymaking landscape. She notes that in the past three decades policymakers at a federal level have increasingly embraced a market- oriented approach to communications. She argues that this is because the overall the

232 boundaries between the political and neutral public service have become blurred due to the following: an increased reliance on outside experts, a general effort to downsize government, and an accelerated media cycle. With this blurring there has been a far greater concern with developing the right image of a policy over communicating its substance, thus favouring policy “promotion” over information “provision” (Kozolanka,

2006). While Kozolanka’s work examines shifts in the federal communication landscape, these trends seem probable at a provincial level because these governments have faced similar pressures. The presence of the POLICYMAKING AS MARKETING metaphor in the dialogue of the policy planners interviewed certainly supports the conjecture that an emphasis on image and promotion are indeed a current priority in Alberta.

In thinking about the implications of her findings, Kozolanka (2006) also notes that,

“although Canadians have more information from government than ever before, only part of it takes the form of two-way consultation or collaboration that enhances their role as citizens” (p. 358). In light of this comment, the same question that was posed of the

POLICYMAKING AS COMPETITION metaphor can be asked of the

POLICYMAKING AS MARKETING metaphor: if policymaking was experienced as being less about marketing and promotion, and more about the participatory process and substance, what might the material implications mean for how citizens are involved in governance? If one believes that the democratic process itself is more functional when it is built upon a mutual relationship of trust between citizen and state, as opposed to one that takes the form of a commercially oriented transaction, favouring the use of metaphors that promote a more active dialogue between citizen and government would be

233 advisable. Several authors have made an effort to consider what these types of metaphors might be. For example, Schachter (1997) and Smith and Huntsman (1997) recommend emphasizing the POLICYMAKING AS A VALUE CENTERED ACTIVITY metaphor into our metaphorical repertoire of citizen-government exchanges. Moreover, Ramirez

(2007) suggests that we ought to consider conceptualizing ICT policymaking as a form of

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT. To these scholars, such metaphors are appealing because they do not conceptualize policy as something in which products are being promoted and customers being served; they focus instead on how best to create value or worth within communities, by preserving and building upon their existing assets in a way that is both responsible and collaborative. In such conceptualizations rather than being spectators, and or customers (as is fostered by the POLICYMAKING AS COMPETITION and

POLICYMAKING AS MARKETING metaphors), citizens are positioned as co-investors who willingly contribute to their communities and government to produce value and improve the environment around them. Consequently, such metaphors, though still business oriented, offer tremendous potential for widening the types of discussions that are possible regarding the dynamics of government-citizen-technology associations.

Interestingly, in their exploration of the complexities associated with medical relationships, Rees et al. (2007) claim that perhaps partnership metaphors are less common in people’s daily talk because building successful collaborations and partnerships is difficult in the “real world”; in other words partnership understandings do not easily resonate with individuals’ lived experiences. They nonetheless advocate that scholars and practioners alike seek strategies that would disrupt the use of oppositional

234 metaphors if our ultimate goal is to transform the sorts of relationships that exist among different stakeholders (Rees et al., 2007). Albeit, it has to be acknowledged that recommending a change in metaphor is much easier to do than actually integrating new metaphors as a normal part of daily communicative exchanges (Short, 2001).

6.4.3 Developing policy recommendations based on metaphorical criticisms

Lastly, it is also plausible to use the results of this metaphor analysis to devise specific policy recommendations. The ability to formulate suggestions based on these metaphors is possible because respondents used conceptual metaphors not only to characterize the

SuperNet but also to criticize the project. Many of these discussions can be elaborated and transformed into ideas about what ought to be done for those considering building their own ‘SuperNet’ in the future. In this instance, metaphors become tools that when extrapolated reveal key learnings about the technology policymaking process.

In reviewing the criticisms articulated via metaphor and their implications at least four major recommendations are apparent. The first of these expands upon the ideas presented in the respondents’ deployment of the SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY and the

SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN metaphors. The exchanges that drew on these conceptual metaphors indicated that policy planners ought to think carefully about the different components of a broadband network’s technical design (as you might if building a complex highway system) and consider how best to make it is “user-friendly”

(so that people feel comfortable integrating it within their daily lives). This should begin with a very serious consideration of the rationale guiding one’s strategy. Here it is

235 important to ask, do we want a gravel road with expansion based on community demand; or a four-lane highway that might eventually be required to meet community needs; why or why not? Moreover, it seems imperative to design a network with built in loops and redundancies. Users want to feel confident that they will not be subject to delays when using this route. Finally, ensuring the appropriate “vehicles” have been developed that make the technical network appealing is essential. This might be encouraged by providing additional funding for the development and promotion of specific applications in tandem with the construction of the physical broadband network itself.

A second suggestion, which emerged from the respondents’ use of the SUPERNET AS A

HIGHWAY conceptual metaphor, and specifically their struggles with what to do about first and last mile (i.e. how do we enable access but still allow to the telecommunications industry to remain competitive?) is to recognize that industry competition and ubiquitous access are not mutually achievable goals. It is thus best to clarify up front which of these two goals is most important. If universal access is desired it will require creative ways to subsidize access beyond what something like the SuperNet’s current business model offers.

A third directive, which emerged out of discussions regarding the SUPERNET AS

CULTURE/ A CULTURE SHIFT and POLICYMAKING AS A COMPETITION metaphors, is that policy planners must be prepared to devote substantial resources and energy to the development of a targeted yet flexible outreach program for both internal and external stakeholders. Ensuring that everyone has a similar vision internally is crucial

236 both to the early progress and long-term sustainability of a project (especially when it comes to having committed “champions”). For example, in the case of the SuperNet many of the internal “battles” around this initiative might have been avoided if this recommendation had been followed. It is also worth acknowledging that the expected user group should by no means be assumed to be homogenous; user groups may have strong differences in terms of their openness to use, literacy and availability of hardware.

Thus having a level of flexibility in the selected outreach approach is advisable.

A final recommendation, which can be derived from the insights offered in connection to the POLICYMAKING AS MARKETING metaphor, is that policy planners should be modest with their expectations of technology and cautious with their guarantees, particularly those imparted via metaphorical branding. In this instance the adage “under promise and over deliver” is very fitting (Jones, 1991). For example, while most respondents were enthusiastic about the choice of the SuperNet as a name, it establishes high expectations. Had the province promised less (for example not a “super” “net”, not a solution to the digital divide, not new business opportunities for rural residents etc.) and delivered more (especially broadband internet access to business and residential users in

ALL of the 422 communities) a different interpretation of this project’s success might be plausible. However, given some of the challenges identified by the policy planners within this chapter (particularly around solving first and last mile, along with the lack of suitable outreach), it appears as though the SuperNet has yet to live up to its metaphorical guarantee that it is indeed “super”, or a even a “net”. Moreover, whether or not

237 communities came to view it as “super” given some of the project’s early struggles is a question that will be considered in the chapter that follows.

The aforementioned recommendations should not be surprising, or new, to those engaged with the issues associated with technology planning. For example, similar sorts of recommendations have been made by other who have investigated ICT projects in

Canada (Ramirez, 2001; Ramirez, Aikin, Kora & Richardson, 2002) and elsewhere

(Grimsley & Meehan, 2007; Kumar & Best, 2006).107 Nevertheless, the suggestions

above bear repeating, as it seems that the allure of new technologies is something which

policy planners have trouble resisting and technology projects tend to be costly. Perhaps

the excitement of translating a “big idea” into a product is so seductive that it can help

explain why the promotion of technology policy projects receive so much attention, while

the substantive work it takes to encourage the adoption and adaptation of new

technologies (thus making the project a reality) is overlooked.

107 For example, in their evaluation of Canadian community based networks use of ICTs Ramirez (2001) and Ramirez et al. (2002) emphasize the importance of the following: (1) a team of community champions, (2) sustained, consistent stakeholder involvement, (3) a continuum of different policy incentive programs beyond just infrastructure building, and (4) the importance of trust and proper follow through. Additionally, Kumar & Best (2006) after an assessment of an e-government project in India, stress the need for: a good design, sustained public leadership (i.e. a champion), and continuous engagement of private stakeholders. Moreover, Grimsley & Meehan’s (2007) study of the e-government systems in Britain argues that e- government systems raise citizen expectations; consequently, government planners and technology developers who seek to develop trust and consistent user patterns must deliver on the promises being made.

238

Chapter Seven: An investigation of the role of metaphor in citizen responses to the Alberta SuperNet

7.1 Introduction

Metaphor is the dreamwork of language, its interpretation reflects as much on the interpreter as on the originator. The interpretation of dreams requires collaboration between a dreamer and a waker…and the act of the interpretation is itself a work of imagination. So too understanding a metaphor is as much a creative endeavour as making a metaphor... (Davidson, 1978, p. 31)

Drawing on the insights offered in Davidson’s statement quote it becomes possible to ask the following in regards to the SuperNet: how do rural community members “interpret” the “dreamwork” of the technology metaphors surrounding this project; did they deploy the same metaphors, in similar ways, as the policy planners? Moreover, it becomes plausible to consider what a juxtaposition of different interpretations of metaphor tells us about the sorts of socio-technical network dynamics present. For example, in the case of the SuperNet we can explore the following: did citizens accept how this project was problematized, the assigned solution, and their roles as potential users without question; was there evidence of a shared interpretation (an alignment of goals and network stability); or rather were there traces of an incomplete translation? Additionally, it is interesting to investigate whether or not citizens supplied metaphors that could be thought to actually challenge the policy conceptualizations of this initiative. The results that follow attempt to answer such queries, first by examining the deployment of metaphor in discussions by rural respondents about the SuperNet; next, by comparing their specific conceptualizations with those raised in the previous two chapters. As a complement to the previous chapter, this discussion addresses the second part of this dissertation’s primary

239 research question: using the SuperNet as a case study what roles do metaphors play in the acceptance of new technologies by citizens? In doing so new knowledge is also generated regarding its secondary research concern: how did citizens come to understand and experience broadband technology via metaphor?

These findings are based on a series of eight town hall meetings conducted in late 2003 by members of the public consultation project from the Alberta SuperNet Research

Alliance, as well as six focus groups, which I facilitated from 2004 to 2005. The town hall meetings and focus groups provide unique insight into the issues of citizen uses and reinterpretation of metaphor. As indicated in Chapter 4, these sources represent a purposive sample of the early attitudes towards the SuperNet within rural communities; the data was collected when the project was first being promoted and just as the technical network became operational across the province.

The results below will demonstrate that rural respondents deployed many of the metaphors used by the policy planners discussed in Chapter 6 to problematize the rural situation, describe the technical network, and consider the cognitive and behavioural change associated with new technologies. There are also some similarities with the press release data. While citizens sometimes used these metaphors to talk about parallel problems with the project, they also highlighted some additional concerns. Moreover, instead of passively accepting this initiative as simply a positive effort (as it was suggested they ought to in the press release corpus), rural participants offered creative ideas for change, which they often expressed metaphorically. Additionally, this

240 examination of community participants’ deployment of metaphor reinforces all of the recommendations provided in the last chapter. Finally, these results supply some additional suggestions for those policy planners contemplating building their own

‘SuperNet’ in the future; especially the value of incorporating a much more inclusive approach to technology policymaking writ large. Overall, this chapter’s central contention is that metaphors leave important traces of how translation works which emerge when comparing understandings across different discursive communities (such as policy planners versus community members) and contexts (i.e. official representations versus community responses); moreover, a great deal can be gleaned from interrogating such traces.

7.2 Methodological notes

Since an account of the steps followed for analysing the town hall and focus group data has already been articulated (see Chapter 4), few additional details are needed here.

Briefly stated, the results in this chapter were attained by following a two-step coding process. The first step was an initial isolation of utterances; the second step undertook a more detailed consideration of the SuperNet as a target, understood via the more concrete sources. After which, similar utterances were grouped together in order to “reconstruct” a series of conceptual metaphors (Schmitt, 2005). Finally, these conceptual metaphors were considered in the context of the broader functions, or work, that metaphor accomplished for rural citizens in relation to the SuperNet project.

241

In total, 260 metaphorical linguistic expressions were isolated. This included: 121 utterances in the six focus group transcripts, generating 26 pages of text from the 102 pages analysed (thus approximately 25% of the total text contained metaphors); and 139 utterances in the eight town hall transcripts, generating 27 pages from the 127 pages analysed (thus approximately 21% of the total text was in some way metaphorical). In those cases where a particular utterance was isolated and contained more than one metaphor, each metaphorical expression was coded (bringing the total metaphorical linguistic expressions coded to 310). Since it is not possible, nor desirable, to list all the metaphors present, those discussed represent the ones that occurred most frequently across and within the transcripts and/or those metaphors that were quite unique. It is recognized however, that via the process of conceptual metaphor reconstruction and in describing the different roles metaphors play, some of the more subtle nuances of the community exchanges were lost. Moreover, as was the case in the previous chapters, the broader conceptual metaphor is capitalized while the accompanying linguistic expressions are italicized to indicate which part of the statement was distinctly metaphorical. In addition, other quotes are sometimes included in these findings which are not italicized this is because: (a) they are either not metaphorical but help refine a particular argument; or, (b) they do not contain a metaphorical linguistic expression relevant to the broader conceptual metaphor being presented but are metaphorical in another way not discussed in this instance. Finally, the town hall meetings are identified in the findings below based on the communities they represent: Athabasca (ATH),

Canmore (CTH), Drumheller (DTH), Grand Cache (GTH), Morinville (MTH), Pincher

Creek (PTH), Rocky Mountain House (RTH), and Vulcan (VTH); whereas the focus

242 groups are labelled simply according to the order in which they were completed (i.e.

FG1, FG2, FG3, etc.).

7.3 Findings

Based on the two-pass code review of the transcripts, and bearing in mind the ideas generated in the previous chapter, four broad roles were identified for the metaphors within the citizen responses, which were to:

• problematize the rural experience and situate technology as a positive and

negative “presence”,

• simplify the technical network and highlight issues of access, applications, cost

and scope,

• illuminate the cognitive, behavioural and revolutionary dimensions of technical

change and clarify questions of leadership,

• and provide new considerations for the direction of the policy project by raising

issues of what it means to imagine both broadband and communication as a

“public good”.

Each of these roles is described below, and supported via a consideration of the most frequently occurring or significant conceptual metaphors surrounding this function. It is important to note however, that these roles are not meant to be mutually exclusive, as there might be some overlap regarding where certain conceptual metaphors could be placed.

243

7.3.1 Problematizing the rural experience and situating technology as a positive and negative “presence”

The previous chapter suggested that within the policy responses a central narrative of

“what was wrong and what needs fixing” (Schön, 1979) was certainly apparent. This story included a perception of rural decline (i.e. rural communities are dying), hope (they are worth preserving due to the quality of life they offer), and salvation (via the

SuperNet). Different components of this same narrative were also present within the community dialogues. Moreover, in exploring the dynamics of this storyline from the perspective of rural communities, a much deeper appreciation emerges of just how important metaphors were to understanding and experiencing what it means to be a rural citizen today; and also for assessing the role of technology as both a positive and negative

“presence” within their communities.

The conception of rural decline was expressed in moderate frequency both within and across the community responses. For instance, of the 260 metaphorical linguistic expressions isolated, 24 dealt with the challenges facing rural communities and offered insight regarding possible causes. Additionally, this idea was raised in four of the eight town hall meetings (ATH, DTH, PTH, VTH); it was also present in four of the six focus groups (FG2, FG4, FG5, FG6). Respondents developed this narrative not only by talking about the impending “death” of the rural community but also when they questioned the

SuperNet’s ability to solve their problems. For example, one town hall participant noted:

“I live is a small town… with 30 people and it is dying…will this [the SuperNet] have an effect? Will it be able to help people there?” (DTH). As well, a focus group respondent

244 asserted: “Obviously small towns across Canada are dying…Is [the SuperNet] the right thing? Is it time to take back the small towns and level the playing field with the urban cities?” (FG2). Rural participants also identified a variety of causes for this rural decline, many of which were couched in metaphor including (but not limited to):

• “A los[s] of a knowledge base in the agricultural sector ” (PTH);

• “Small agri-businesses have to compete with other nations” (PTH);

• “Rural communities are shrinking as people of all ages leave this land” (PTH);

• “Cities are forging ahead” (VTH);

• “Urban sprawls, as cities are getting bigger and bigger” (FG2);

• “The brain drain” (FG4).

As these comments demonstrate the respondents relied upon a common conceptualization of bounded localities (be they rural communities, urban spaces or even nations) as people

(i.e. who can live or die, have a brain, sprawl or be contained, compete and lead). The presence of these statements within and across the transcripts supports the suggestion that in general rural community members believed that the decrease in their population base and a loss of agricultural knowledge means the “life” of their communities is in jeopardy.

Further to this, it was evident that participants saw themselves as being in direct competition with urban centres and/or other nations for people and markets, a competition that they were losing (hence their decline).108 However, they did not

automatically accept the SuperNet as a fix to their problems. Metaphor was thus an

important device in helping community members make sense of their current challenges

108 This is not surprising given the messages being transmitted in the press release corpus.

245 and identify causes for such problems, along with allowing them to assess potential solutions.

As was noted in Chapter 6, to policy planners the SuperNet, and more specifically the

SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN, was the key source of hope for rural communities; they believed that the SuperNet was a being that could “support” and

“help” these jurisdictions, along with creating significant new opportunities for people living within these locales. Certainly, this same desire to personify the SuperNet was evident in the participant responses. In fact out of the 260 metaphorical expressions isolated, 91 of them contained some conceptualization of the SUPERNET AS A

PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN. This metaphor was apparent in all of the town hall meetings and focus groups. Every one of the sources talked about the SuperNet “coming to” communities and “reaching” citizens. Among the specific examples of how this metaphor was deployed, included respondents’ references to the SuperNet as having: a “backbone”

(VTH, FG4, FG6); a “broad reach” and “a leg up” (FG4). Participants also suggested and that they hoped the SuperNet would function “without a hiccup”(VTH); and, be

“reliable” and “consistent” (DTH). Additionally, one community member suggested that the SuperNet “might be great and look great in the community” (VTH). Another respondent stressed that even though the SuperNet was not yet “here”, rural citizens were already “embracing the technology” as something they “need …everyday” (FG1).

Collectively, these statements illustrate that the SuperNet was something which rural respondents understood using conceptions of personhood; it possessed body parts and

246 was described using the qualifiers and capabilities that we generally assign to human beings.

Despite the aforementioned comments, which might support a perception that there was a general level of enthusiasm regarding the SuperNet’s arrival, other perspectives (mostly negative) were evident within this corpus. For instance, both the focus group and town hall transcripts indicated that some rural respondents found the SuperNet to be a very confusing persona (ATH, FG2, FG4, FG5, FG6). This confusion was particularly pronounced when it came to differentiating the SuperNet from the internet and other forms of service provision (such as ADSL and cable); it was also evident in the respondents’ struggles with understanding what the SuperNet should be expected to “do”.

This confusion was one that the policy planners in the previous chapter suspected might be present in rural communities. The general level of uncertainty about the SuperNet expressed by respondents, was well captured in the following admission from a town hall participant:

It seems the more I hear, the more confused I am getting… we were discussing between us what we thought the SuperNet was, I had at least three different versions in my mind and now I have 4 or 5. It seem to me the marketing of it, ‘the ‘be all and end all’ of it… it’s coming to your doorstep…it’s like the new coming.’ (ATH)

It was further argued by this community member that rural citizens require clarification regarding “what the SuperNet is and what it isn’t” in order to assess its true potential:

“There is a whole lot of benefit and loss, depending on the outcome… as a result of the

SuperNet not fully doing what it is blowing itself up to do. I don’t have a problem with it

247 not doing these things but don’t string me along… It is a big tease” (ATH). Among the sorts of things that made the SuperNet a “tease” to participants were the perceived inconsistencies about where the SuperNet would connect to communities. For, example one respondent noted that, “the SuperNet has been very secretive about where it is going”

(FG2). Many respondents also expected that it would connect directly to their homes

(ATH, CTH, DTH, PTH, FG3, FG4, FG5). Moreover, there was also some frustration about the lack of accurate details surrounding when the SuperNet might reach rural communities. As one community member noted: “We haven’t really got a scenario where we think it through. We just lack the knowledge. I think that has been a real detriment to the SuperNet. Setting dates and resetting them… I don’t think people have a lot of confidence in the SuperNet” (FG5). These comments support the importance of the

SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN metaphor to respondents since they understood the SuperNet as something that was “coming to your doorstep”, “doing” something, acting like a “tease”, and not “inspiring confidence”. Moreover, these statements illustrate that respondents used the SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-

HUMAN metaphor not only to discuss the project’s potential but also to express dissatisfaction regarding the lack of clarity about what the SuperNet could or would do for rural communities.

In addition to arguing that the SuperNet was a confusing persona, some respondents went so far as to suggest it was a potentially destructive presence; even crediting it with exacerbating the present challenges facing rural communities. As was noted in the previous chapter, though policy planners implicitly and explicitly drew upon the digital

248 divide metaphor, they did not readily acknowledge the potential for the SuperNet to further “divide” urban and rural communities. Nevertheless, this possibility was not lost on the rural participants. In fact, the potential for the SuperNet to segregate rural communities was an issue raised in several of the town hall meetings (ATH, CTH, MTH,

PTH). For example, respondents argued that the SuperNet could “ghettoize” (MTH) rural communities and make them further “isolated” from their urban counterparts (ATH).

Another town hall participant used components of the digital divide metaphor persuasively to argue that the current business model “will…result in the haves and the haves nots” (MTH).109 This same discussant also suggested that: “unless every

community is connected [only] then will it truly be a SuperNet” (MTH). Moreover, in a

different town hall meeting a community member remarked: “if the SuperNet is only

developed as far as the terminal nodes in rural towns it may accelerate the present exodus

from the land to the cities” (PTH). These comments reveal that rural respondents not only

personified the SuperNet by awarding it a power of action (i.e. it would ghettoize, isolate,

and accelerate), they also drew upon the metaphor of the digital divide to make the

potential force of the SuperNet as another way to segregate communities seem even more

vivid.

As well as raising concerns with the SuperNet’s divisive powers, the community

discussants also argued that it could potentially be a negative influence on the existing

109 An additional metaphorical expression raised in the Athabasca town hall meeting, which supports a view of the SuperNet as a potential source of segregation between rural and urban jurisdictions, included the suggestion that the SuperNet could be understood in much the same way as health care. A respondent worried that the SuperNet could lead to the formation of “a two tiered computing province like our two tiered health system” (ATH).

249 social dynamics within rural communities. Here the super-human capabilities of the

SuperNet were emphasized and it was imagined quite broadly as a SUPER-HUMAN

FORCE110 with an “impact”. In fact, the social “impact” of the SuperNet was a theme

raised in three of the town hall meetings (ATH, PTH, VTH). In elaborating this concern,

and drawing on the narrative of the impending rural decline, one community member

suggested:

In small communities, we’re losing the population, and I still think, in the end, we’re still going to need that one-on- one contact. [The SuperNet] will be great in certain areas, but there is still going to be a social impact? (VTH)

This worry was also articulated by a respondent in another town hall, who stressed:

“Rural people by definition are isolated and I’m wondering…whether or not this

broadband experience is actually isolating people even more as their need for using the

computer suddenly increases” (ATH). These comments demonstrate that participants

were not entirely enthusiastic about the presence of the SuperNet as they anticipated it

would negatively transform the current quality of life within rural locales. Moreover,

these statements again illustrate how the SuperNet was endowed with the almost super

human capacity to transform their communities.

In addition to seeing the SUPERNET AS A SUPER-HUMAN FORCE, with the

possibility of an “impact”, several community members spoke about the SuperNet as

force with positive “potential” (VTH, PTH, FG5); in fact one participant enthusiastically

characterized the SuperNet as having “awesome potential” (DTH). In identifying where

110 Note that the technical definition of ‘impact’ is generally that of a “force” acting over time.

250 precisely respondents believed that the SuperNet showed the greatest promise was in its capacity to be able “attract” people to rural communities. The SuperNet’s ability to

“attract” professionals, the IT community, and a wider demographic in general to rural communities was an idea raised in several of the town halls (PTH, DTH) and one of the focus groups (FG2). This idea of SuperNet as having an impact and potential, can be interpreted in one of two ways: either as an extension of the person metaphor since people impact each other, are often said to have potential/and or can attract others to them; or, as an understanding based upon the scientific idea of a “force”, an object that has energy and the potential to act upon other things. No matter which of these interpretations is accepted, these usages more broadly suggest that respondents fundamentally understood technology as a presence with tremendous power, with the potential for both negative and positive transformations within their communities.

A final conceptual metaphor of interest, though not as popular within and across the transcripts as the SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN metaphor (since it only appeared 3 times and within two transcripts, PTH & VTH) was that of the SUPERNET

AS A WEAPON. What makes the weapon metaphor so significant is that it is a striking example of the mixed emotions that respondents felt towards the project specifically, and technology more generally. In an effort to evaluate the SuperNet’s overall contribution, a community member asserted:

251

I guess I see this [the SuperNet] as a double-edged sword. I see that we have some immediate real needs in this community… mental health and education, that this could be a really great benefit, but I am very concerned with the long term impact on the community overall. (PTH)

In this same town hall, the weapon metaphor was again deployed when it was suggested the SuperNet itself could be used to harm communities by encouraging technical solutions as opposed to human creativity:

There are very, very few professional level jobs in a town of this size, and if we start eliminating potential teaching jobs [with technology], they are going to be cutting the throats of people who do want to live here and love this community. (PTH)

The imagery provided by these statements encapsulates the general tone of the transcripts reviewed, in which rural respondents were clearly somewhat uncomfortable with the

SuperNet. One of their core key messages was that they believed the SuperNet could possibly do more harm than good and thus should be approached with a degree of measured care.

What links the different concepts presented in this section is that they illustrate how important metaphors were in helping respondents accomplish the following: (1) problematize the rural experience, and (2) assess the potential of the SuperNet as a positive or negative presence (whether it is imagined as a PERSON, SUPER-HUMAN

FORCE or as a WEAPON, or the source of the digital divide) in dealing with their present struggles (i.e. the “death” of the rural community). While there are clearly some similarities to how citizens and policy planners understood the SuperNet in the context of

“what is wrong and what needs fixing”(Schön, 1979), community members gave a much

252 more nuanced understanding regarding the causes of rural decline. Though it was acknowledged by policy planners that rural respondents might find the SuperNet a bit confusing (which they did), and perhaps not as important in terms of their general priorities, they did not predict many of the powerful criticisms that rural respondents articulated regarding the overall impact of broadband on their communities. Nor were these anywhere to be found in the press release data. Unlike the policy planners, these participants were not easily swayed by the allure of a technical presence. They argued instead for the need to be both cautious and sceptical when introducing a technological initiative because from their perspective, though technology has the potential to improve people’s daily lives it also has the capacity to yield unexpected and even negative change.111

7.3.2 Simplifying the technical network and highlighting issues of access, applications, cost and scope

Just as the policy planners (last chapter) used metaphor to help simplify the complexity of

the technical network itself so too did rural respondents. Community members actually

drew on many sources when talking about the various components of this broadband

111 In the economics literature this is known as the “law of unintended consequences” (Norton, 2002).

253 network.112 However, not surprisingly (given the previous chapters’ results and contributions in existing literature)113, the conceptualization that was observed most frequently within and across the town hall and focus group transcripts was that of the

SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY.

The SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY metaphor appeared in 38 of the 260 utterances isolated; moreover, it was present in five out of the eight town hall meetings (ATH, GTH,

MTH, PTH, and RTH) and all six of the focus groups. Among the most common ways this metaphor was deployed by participants included the consistent references about the need to “get on” the SuperNet, discussions about sending information “over” the

SuperNet, and exchanges about the different “speeds” required for data transmission. The

SuperNet was also directly referred to as a “highway”(MTH); and labelled as “a fibre

optic infrastructure”(RTH). Additionally, just as people sometimes refer to

“transportation corridors” (i.e. the main route for a particular flow of traffic), one of the

focus groups suggested that the SuperNet might help create a “corridor of new

technology” (FG5). A more developed utilization of this metaphor included a remark

112 Among the other conceptual metaphors that were used included: the SUPERNET AS A CONTAINER, the SUPERNET AS A DRUG, the SUPERNET AS ELECTRICITY, the SUPERNET AS AN EXPERIMENT, the SUPERNET AS FOOD, the SUPERNET AS AN INVESTMENT, the SUPERNET AS AN ORGANIZATION, the SUPERNET AS PLUMBING, the SUPERNET AS A PRODUCT, the SUPERNET AS A RESOURCE, the SUPERNET AS A SERVICE, the SUPERNET AS A SYSTEM, the SUPERNET AS A TOOL, and the SUPERNET AS A TOY. Nevertheless, these metaphors did not occur frequently within and across the focus group and town hall transcripts. Aside from the SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY metaphor the only three metaphors that were deployed more often but still was only observed infrequently (i.e. less than 10 times in the 260 utterances isolated) included: the SUPERNET AS ELECTRICITY (being “lit up” etc.); the SUPERNET AS PLUMBING (in terms of referencing the “pipes” along which information travels); and, the SUPERNET AS A TOOL (often invoked directly, such as the SuperNet is a “tool” we can use). 113 Such as Berdayes & Berdayes (1997), Gozzi (1999), Mander (1984), Mezies (1996), Sawhney (1996), Solomon & Walker (1995), and Stefik (1997).

254 made by a participant in a town hall meeting who, when considering the advantages the

SuperNet might bring to rural jurisdictions, noted: “I see costs coming down in the future if there’s enough users on the SuperNet then there would be competition for connecting to the SuperNet, however there is still only one transit company” (RTH). In this comment, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) while not literally transportation organizations were conceptualized in this manner. Collectively these examples demonstrate some of the different ways community members deployed the components of the highway metaphor. They relied upon transportation imagery to understand what the SuperNet was, how it works, and who controls it. However, an even greater appreciation of the significance of the highway metaphor to rural respondents comes from examining the different criticisms of the project that were mentioned using this particular metaphor as a guiding conceptualization.

Like the policy planners that were interviewed, but unlike the press release findings, community members drew on the SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY metaphor in order to articulate specific problems with this policy initiative. An issue raised by some respondents (FG4 & RTH), which had also preoccupied those interviewed in the previous chapter, was the best way to ensure “first” and “last” mile connectivity. When talking about first and last mile issues, participants questioned the rationale of the business model selected and whether this project should be considered a wise investment of taxpayer

255 funds.114 For example, in expressing their disappointment with the SuperNet a focus group member claimed: “When they say last mile they mean the last 300 miles” (FG4).

This discussant went on to advocate rethinking the approach adopted by the policy

planners, suggesting that:

They should have taken the whole budget and started the other way. Not try and build this network because the network is already there. If anything, [the government] should go to the small communities that don’t have anything and ask them what they want and connect them to the major centres. Not go the other way. By leaving the last mile they still have not solved anything. (FG4)

Referring to “first” and “last mile” illustrates that community members understood access

concerns metaphorically using the distance markers of highway travel. Furthermore, as

these comments suggest, similar to the policy planners, some respondents were frustrated

about the government’s general ambiguity around how best to ensure ubiquitous access.

Participants also had reservations about the policy decision to build a large-scale

infrastructure project predicated on creating a supply, over a more incremental approach

driven by citizen demand.

Besides helping to illustrate some general misgiving about access, and to question if the

SuperNet was indeed the “right” kind of infrastructure (i.e. not a repetition of existing

114 Questioning the rationale behind the business model of the SuperNet was something that occurred in all the town hall meetings and the focus groups, though respondent concerns were not always expressed metaphorically. Overall participants were puzzled, and frustrated, that the SuperNet was not being made directly accessible to residential and business users. Consequently, some community members suggested the SuperNet was a “waste” of taxpayer money and/or a “drain on our pockets” (FG4); others simply expressed frustration that this was how taxpayers funds were being used (PTH). In the context of understanding the SuperNet as an investment, respondents were also interested in knowing how you could “make a dollar off it” (FG5) and or “generate revenue” (GTH), since at present this was a part of the SuperNet business model that remained unclear. General issues with costs and return on investment occurred in 15 out of the 260 utterances isolated.

256 services or something that communities did not need), respondents used highway imagery in order to identify what things were presently missing from the project. More specifically, they considered what exactly was needed to ensure that rural communities would be able to “get on” the SuperNet. For example, one town hall discussant observed that the SuperNet is:

A lot like running a highway, you know you have to build the highway and then we have figure out how people get cars. I know from libraries and the work I have done with them they are not too happy, some don’t have phones and we offer them fibre optic internet…(MTH)

As this remark indicates participants recognized that there are additional costs associated with making the SuperNet a route of choice for communities (even at the points of presence such as libraries). A concern about the cost of vehicles necessary to travel on the

SuperNet (in terms of acquiring both the required hardware and software) was brought up within and across several of the community discussions (ATH, GTH, RTH, VTH, FG2,

FG3, FG6). Sometimes this issue was discussed metaphorically (as was the case in the previous example) and other times quite directly (i.e. the SuperNet is “pricey”, “costly”, and/or “expensive”). Another illustration of how the highway conceptualization was deployed to suggest an absence of something in the current project plan was apparent in this comment: “All it is a wire in the ground that you might have seen this summer…. It gets to your door but it is like when you are standing in the car dealership and they say

‘want that car over there? Well you can have it but the keys are over here and you can’t have the keys’ (PTH). Using metaphorical imagery this community member notes that even if the vehicles to travel on the SuperNet are available at an affordable price, people

257 in rural communities may lack the knowledge (i.e. the keys) to unlock them, thereby preventing them from making full use of this particular information pathway.

A final place where the importance of the SUPERNET AS HIGHWAY metaphor emerged was in discussions regarding the overall coverage of the network itself and in relation to this pathway’s general level of accessibility. Several focus groups discussants questioned why the SuperNet was only being built in Alberta and what the implications of having such a local route would mean when sending information on the SuperNet to other destinations (FG3 and FG6). For example, one participant probed: “We are high speed internet, and SuperNet in Alberta. We are good for Alberta but the minutes we go past Alberta what is the connection? Will the rest of Canada be on the SuperNet?” (FG6).

In addition to concerns regarding the scope of the network, a town hall respondent argued that the government had created a route that would remain far too exclusive to ever be of real use to rural communities: “it could be a small research project in urban centres to possibly put giagabits over the SuperNet but rural is many years away” (ATH). It was later referred to in the same town hall as “a private network that is being made available

[by the government] through the wonderful goodness of their hearts to the rest or some

Albertans” (ATH). The belief that the SuperNet might remain restricted in terms of its users base was again raised by a focus group member who, drawing on a variety of metaphorical conceptualizations (i.e. the SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY, A PERSON and A SERVICE), asserted: “I don’t see an awful lot of demand for the speeds that the

SuperNet claims to deliver for what they do… it is basically a government service, a service for the government not for communities” (FG4). In sum, when talking about the

258

SuperNet, respondents used the highway conceptualizations to suggest it was route with limited coverage which risks remaining private, thus making it difficult to imagine how rural communities will make use of it.

These examples illustrate the many different ways community members used the conceptualization of the SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY. Several of their deployments were quite similar to the policy responses reviewed in the previous chapter. For example both groups understood the SuperNet as something that you get “on”, has a “first” and

“last mile”, and requires appropriate vehicles (“cars”) to make it driveable. Nevertheless, the rural respondents also extended the policy planner criticism of the project when using the highway metaphor by highlighting the following concerns and questions:

• the cost of travel (how will communities afford the hardware and software

necessary to travel on the SuperNet?);

• the need for the keys (i.e. knowledge) to make the different vehicles being used

accessible (who will provide this training and how?);

• the scope of this network’s coverage (what are the consequences of having a local

route confined to Alberta, rather than one that extends across the rest of the country;

what are the implications of the SuperNet simply being a private roadway mainly

used by government for government?).

259

7.3.3 Illuminating the cognitive, behavioural and revolutionary dimensions of technical change and clarifying concerns with leadership

As noted in Chapter 6, there was a perception that the SuperNet itself could be understood as something more than simply a technical infrastructure that information travels on, or people can plug into, or rather to be used as a tool. Accordingly, linguistic expressions which positioned the SuperNet as something more, when discussed in the context of the policy planner responses, were collectively categorized under the broader conceptual metaphor of the SUPERNET AS CULTURE/A CULTURE SHIFT; a conceptual metaphor in which the SuperNet embodies a new set of learning and practices all within a bounded space (the province of Alberta). It was also recognized that the source of this metaphorical conceptualization, a culture shift, is not nearly as concrete as relying on a highway, electricity, or a tool, to make sense of broadband. Yet this choice of a less experiential source cannot be helped, as it demonstrates that there is still a great deal about broadband, and the way it may become a part of people’s daily lives, that remains tentative and hard to express. A review of the town hall and focus group transcripts, reveals that just as the policy planners interviewed understood the SuperNet as potentially encouraging a transformation in the behaviour, knowledge, and meanings within Albertan communities, so too did rural respondents (though again this was a conceptualization noticeably underemphasized in the press release corpus).

The SUPERNET AS CULTURE/ A CULTURE SHIFT metaphor was apparent in 20 out of the 260 utterances isolated, thus it was not necessarily deployed as frequently as some of the other metaphors (i.e. the SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY and the SUPERNET AS

260

A PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN) already discussed in this chapter. Nevertheless, community members used this metaphor (in some form or another) in five out of the eight town hall meetings (VTH, RTH, MTH, DTH, CTH) and five out of the six focus groups (FG1, FG2, FG3, FG5 and FG6). Among the different ways this particular metaphor was invoked included quite general comments about how the SuperNet would promote a new way of thinking and behaving in rural locales. For instance, a town hall respondent claimed they believed the SuperNet was something that would quite simply help rural “people do a whole lot better” (RTH). Moreover, in articulating their excitement about the SuperNet and illustrating that they believed the SuperNet represented a cognitive capacity of sorts, a focus group participant proclaimed: “The

SuperNet…it is incredible what you can do if you put your mind to it. It is a whole lot more.” (FG3). In addition, another discussant argued that the possibilities offered by the

SuperNet (such as web casting and videoconferencing) were “beyond [their] thinking”

(DTH). These statements are all examples of views in which the SuperNet was understood as representing a different form of thinking about, or using technology, to some community members.

Further to comments that generally positioned the SuperNet as a change in practices and mindset, were those responses that suggested the SuperNet could be imagined as analogous to the extensive societal transformation of the Industrial Revolution. A view of the SuperNet as akin to the Industrial Revolution was apparent in two different town hall meetings (CTH, MTH). In one town hall, a respondent claimed: “In the Industrial

Revolution… we had an acceleration from the rural communities into the cities…

261 perhaps now we have the potential to develop the best part of the cottage industry, where children and families worked and studied together… perhaps we have an ability to enhance family lives through distance technologies”(CTH). Moreover, in a separate meeting, a participant remarked: “during the Industrial Revolution there was a common area where families all worked together on whatever it was as a group … we are beginning to see a return to this with home schooling… part of this may be mythological but I would really like to know if anyone has a vision of how small to medium businesses can benefit from this ” (MTH). These two examples illustrate that the SuperNet was in fact understood by some rural respondents not as a just as a general change in the way we think or behave; rather it was indicative of a much broader mythological or visionary shift in the social dynamics of rural communities, particularly in transforming the boundaries between education and work within the home.

It should be noted that not all rural participants were eager to position the SuperNet as a symbol of such sweeping social upheaval. In fact, a more measured response was also apparent in several of the community discussions (ATH, DTH, FG3, FG4, FG5). An illustration of the less radical stance presented by some, was well articulated by a focus group discussant who stated:

262

I think I am a little spoiled in [my community]… because we do have high-speed access but I have colleagues in other smaller areas who are severely curtailed in what they can do because they just have dial-up service available. So just even to have access to get onto to SuperNet will definitely change their lives and their businesses. But for me it is not going to revolutionize things. (FG3)

This comment clearly indicates that the SuperNet was also understood in relation to current high-speed offerings; in this context some respondents had difficulty appreciating the SuperNet as something significantly different. Put another way, this metaphorical comment demonstrates that participants had yet to be convinced that the SuperNet was really distinct from the conventional offerings of high-speed presently available.

As the previous chapter noted, to the policy planners an additional element associated with the SUPERNET AS CULTURE/ A CULTURE SHIFT metaphor was the perception that outreach activities would have to occur in order to promote change. The need for a well-coordinated educational component was another detail that was not overlooked by participants. In fact several of the focus group and town hall discussions identified training as a fundamental need within rural communities (CTH, VTH, FG1, FG2, FG5,

FG6). For example, a town hall respondent aptly stated: “[The SuperNet] is only as good as the access we have to people that have the knowledge to run it” (VTH). Moreover, several focus group comments indicated that community members wanted to increase their technological literacy in order to make full use of the SuperNet:

263

One of the messages we got when we started doing the rural connections, especially from businesses is now that we have it, what can we do with it? They didn’t want just a broadband connection they wanted help beyond that… [this involves]… being able to understand what is going with your network and kind of take the magic out of it. (FG1)

Basically turning your computer on to all the way up. You name it. There are people in this community who want to learn. (FG6)

Not surprisingly, given the admission of the policy planners that outreach to rural communities became less of a priority with a shift in leadership and the ensuing project

“battles”, participants were unsure about who should be leading these efforts. One town hall respondent queried: “How much energy are we going to put into training and how are we going to make sure local citizens understand what [the SuperNet] means?”

(CTH). Others worried because it seemed that there was no willingness on the part of the government to “show people how this will work and what they can do” (FG6). In sum, rural respondents acknowledged that with the SuperNet comes new learning (i.e. “taking the magic out” and “showing people”) and were interested in determining how precisely the provincial government intended to address these issues (i.e. how and when would they commit to taking on the educational components associated with this initiative?).

Strongly connected to these understandings of literacy, and the government’s role in outreach, were questions about how rural jurisdictions could encourage the new behaviours and shared knowledge accompanying the SUPERNET AS CULTURE/ A

CULTURE SHIFT, from within. While the policy planners talked about the need for

“champions” (i.e. defenders of the cause) to be present in government, community

264 members argued that it was also essential to have such “champions” in their communities. The necessity of community “champions”, and leadership more generally, was raised in almost all of the focus groups (FG1, FG2, FG3, FG5, FG6) and several of the town halls (CTH, GTH, VTH). Moreover, when discussing leadership, community members drew on a variety of different metaphorical conceptualizations. This included the perception that technological leadership could be understood in terms battle or competition imagery, as was reflected in the following comments:

A lot of companies in town would rather hop on the band- wagon115 when it shows up rather than book a seat in advance… you show them how it works then they will hop on the bandwagon. But if you do not show them how it works they will not. It isn’t really going any place. You have to really show people the difference and why. Or else people are going to stick with what they know. (FG6)

In each community somebody needs to take charge…. (FG2)

You need a champion to lead the charge… (FG5)

Inspiring leadership in the communities was also imagined as a physical challenge, as was evident in the following statements taken from two of the focus groups: “to get organization, someone would have to take the bull by the horns116 and run with it to be

the champion of it…. This is not easy” (FG1); and “People in small towns are not going

to grab hold of this and run with it… the federal and province of Alberta need to help

115 According to the Oxford English Dictionary, jumping on the bandwagon can be associated with competition. Their definition suggests: “to climb, hop, jump, etc., on the band-wagon, [is] to join in what seems likely to be a successful enterprise, to strive to join the winning side” (OED On-line, 1989). 116 “Taking the bull by the horns” is a metaphor which describes facing a difficult situation. The most dangerous part of a bull is its horns. Any horned animal hates to be handled by its horns. In this context the bull by the horns metaphors is being used to suggest leadership is required to help get communities engaged and excited about the SuperNet but this metaphor evokes an appreciation that this will not be easy.

265 make this happen” (FG2). Finally, leadership was understood in terms of literacy, for example there was a reference made to an attempt to get people in rural communities “on the same page” (FG6) so they can use the SuperNet; and as a journey, (i.e. a process of getting “people on board”[GTH]). Despite the diversity of understanding surrounding leadership (as a battle/competition, as a physical challenge, as literacy, or as a journey), leadership was always identified as a priority for promoting change within rural communities.

While the need to have a champion was clear in the community discussions, respondents were again unsure about how to make this happen or who should be responsible for developing this particular skill set. Such a perspective was nicely summarized in the following focus group comment:

There is still so much about the internet that we do not know. I do not think you will get your champions until people know what the capabilities are and what opportunities are there. And is it up to the SuperNet to show people what those opportunities are? Or is it up to people to find out on their own and say there is a niche that I can fit into to? (FG5)

Even with the participant concern that finding a champion would be hard, several respondents suggested that there was one clear source of hope: their younger demographic. This view is captured in the following statements:

Above a certain age, they are going to do it the same way as normal, the same way they have always done it. However, below a certain age level they are innovators, connectors, leaders, they are flexible, and the internet is another tool for them to sell their product and market themselves. (FG3)

266

You have to wait for the next generation to push the SuperNet. We are looking at things and it may be hard to convince business owners who are in retirement that they have to make this whole shift in how you are going to market your business, or how you are going to get your message out, or how you are going to sell. (FG5)

I do think with the new generation coming out of the schools it will change the way we buy in the future. (FG5)

As these assertions indicate some participants believed that the “innovators”,

“connectors”, “leaders” and/or “champions” would only come from “the new” or “next” generation as they would be the ones to embrace such a change or shift in their practices.

In this instance, metaphor thus became a key way to express both their uncertainty and their hope for the future.

This section has illustrated some of the different ways that participants used the

SUPERNET AS CULTURE/ A CULTURE SHIFT metaphor. As the comments above demonstrated, like the policy planners, rural respondents appreciated the SuperNet as being something far more than a technical connection but also as a new mindset and/or set of practices. In fact some community members went so far as to suggest that SuperNet could be understood in terms of the same sorts of societal shifts that took place during the

Industrial Revolution. However, others remained more cautious about proclaiming such a radical transformation, arguing that the place that change would most likely occur was for those still using dial-up, thus clearly not recognizing the capacity of the SuperNet to be greater than their current understanding of “high-speed”. Further to this general appreciation of the SuperNet as constituting a modification in thinking and behaviour, rural respondents recognized that enabling such a culture would most certainly require

267 additional training. In their discussions of outreach and education, discussants were concerned that leadership on the part of the provincial government seemed minimal (an absence which is not surprising given the admissions of the policy planners that education became an increasingly marginal priority for the project). Via different metaphorical understandings of leadership, respondents also drew attention to the fact that in order for a technology project to be a success “champions” are required not only in the policy environment but also within rural communities; a capacity that remains lacking at present. Finally, some participants argued that efforts to promote change in rural locales is not likely to come from the present leaders but rather from their youth, since this is the demographic they perceive as being the most open to the shifts in knowledge, work, and interaction, that the SuperNet could potentially encourage.

7.3.4 Providing new considerations for policy by re-claiming broadband and communication as a “public good”

Thus far the findings presented have dealt with how rural respondents deployed many of the same metaphors as the policy planners (i.e. the SUPERNET AS PERSON, the

SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY, and the SUPERNET AS CULTURE/ A CULTURE

SHIFT). The results have also shown how community members employed these same metaphors but in different ways, thus managing to raise additional issues with the project.

As well, all of the metaphors examined thus far (with the exception of the SUPERNET

AS A WEAPON) have been deployed frequently within and or across the town hall and focus group transcripts. However, the metaphors considered in this final area are not ones that called for analysis within the policy planner responses, or press release corpus, nor

268 should they be regarded as significantly frequent (since both were limited only to the focus group in which they were raised). Rather, what makes these particular metaphors distinctly interesting is that they represent two ways of imagining the SuperNet as a

“public good”. This approach to imagining the SuperNet as a “public good” would be welcomed by political economy of communication scholars since their central concern remains to ensure that communicating within the communication industries (be it broadband or otherwise) be increasingly fair, democratic and equitable (see Chapter 2). In doing so these two metaphors— the SUPERNET AS A PUBLIC UTILITY and

COMMUNICATION AS A BASIC RIGHT— provide yet another example, beyond those previously noted, of how rural participants actively offered their own fresh interpretations and ideas about a policy project that was intended by its formulators to be a help, support and benefit to them.

The first of these metaphors, the SUPERNET AS A PUBLIC UTILITY, was raised as a reaction to the project’s current business model. As this chapter has already demonstrated the guiding logic behind how the SuperNet would reach, connect or transform rural jurisdictions was highly problematic to rural respondents. For example, in terms of the

SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY metaphor, community members were frustrated with the current handling of “first” and last “mile” issues. Additionally, in relation to the

SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN metaphor, participants were confused about the nature of this particular persona, as they thought it was a presence that was coming directly to their homes. Moreover, in the context of the SUPERNET AS

CULTURE/ A CULTURE SHIFT, some discussants had trouble differentiating this

269 version of broadband as really distinct from their perceptions of what it means to have

“high-speed”. Aside from simply expressing misgivings about this model as the previous examples do, one focus group respondent actually supplied an alternative for conceptualizing how the SuperNet could be managed; arguing for a model that does not require profit motivated ISPs to ensure access for business and residential users. Below is the exchange in which this particular metaphorical formulation was presented:

The problem that I have, or my questions for the SuperNet, people is: can you make a model that is more like a utility company? One that says: ‘We understand, like gas, we want our connection to reach all the communities so we are going to put in all the infrastructure not only to make sure it gets to government but also so it gets to all the right areas’... There should be something that is a bit more fair of a model where you each pay, or everybody pays a base fee and then they get the SuperNet. There is a huge missing link in this process because nobody owns it… nobody is taking charge of this as a utility to make a business model. (FG2)

This perception of the SuperNet as a public utility was then endorsed by other respondents within the focus group, as illustrated in the subsequent comments offered by participants: “the utility companies model is ideal for the SuperNet”; and, “the utility type of model…. that is the idea that I really tuned in on” (FG2). As these statements reveal, another business model for the SuperNet is plausible: one in which the SuperNet is viewed as a public utility and thus the provision of broadband is not contingent on there simply being an adequate business case for each ISP to connect, or in which satellite service becomes an acceptable option.

270

Recent academic work (Powell, 2009; Ramirez, Graham, Bingham & Pellerin, 2007) acknowledges the importance of the public utility metaphor when setting a direction for technology infrastructure projects. It is both a model (it that it is a way to financially structure an industry) and a metaphor in that it provides some directions for how newly emerging industries can be thought about. The public utility conceptualization is commended as a metaphor since it promotes a view technology as a shared resource, which should serve the common good, over simply being understood as a commodity that will generate profit for industry players. However, Powell (2009) and Ramirez et al.

(2007) both argue for the need to move beyond this metaphor since this tends only draw attention access issues associated with the technical infrastructure. In doing so it misses acknowledging the importance of the context in which a technology becomes embedded

(Powell, 2009; Ramirez et al. 2007). As an alternative, Ramirez et al. (2007) suggest that the idea of an “information commons” offers some additional promise because it “sheds light on the wealth through which innovation arises” (p. 8); in fact they even provide an effective visual representation of this metaphor (http://forumonpublicdomain.ca/home).

They note: “in broadband, this public square is not bound by physical space, each

inhabitant enters the space with/as an ‘IP address’ to find information, exchange ideas,

buy and sell goods, encounter others or just go for a stroll” (Ramirez et al., 2007, pp. 7-

8). This metaphor thus emphasises that broadband use can be understood as an activity

that has the potential for social, commercial, educational and simple enjoyment, as its

benefits.

271

The public utility model is likely attractive to these rural community members precisely because a successful example is already operational within the province. At present, the

Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops (Fedgas) provides gas and electricity to all rural jurisdictions across Alberta. This federation was first formed in 1964 by “by a small group of gas co-ops in the Brooks area to promote the idea of member owned co-ops” and “to provide buying power and to become a unified voice for all gas co-ops”. Credit for “the success of the gasification” is said to belong to “those individuals who devoted their time to canvas and sell the idea to their community”. Today Fedgas operates “the largest rural natural gas system in the world”.117 (Fedgas, Our History, 2009, paras. 1,3,8)

Put another way, since 1964 the work of community “champions” in rural locales has

made the provision of gas and electricity in hard to reach areas a reality. The metaphor of

the SUPERNET AS A PUBLIC UTILITY thus not only provides an alternative to the

project’s current business model where a business case is thought to drive ISP provision;

it also makes it possible to consider whether it is feasible to use the existing electricity

and gas co-operative network in order to provide broadband offerings to business and

residential users (i.e. perhaps these co-ops want to become providers).

It should be acknowledged that since the completion of this research work, treating the

SuperNet as public utility managed by the existing co-ops within Fedgas is an option that

has received additional consideration (recall it was mentioned by Holly McStravick,

117 In fact according to the Federation’s website: “to date, the co-op and county owned systems have installed more than 100,000 km of pipeline to serve more than 100,000 farms and acreages with natural gas services. The unified voice of over 100,000 urban and rural members is represented by a nine-member board of directors elected from nine zones throughout the province” (Fedgas, Membership Eligibility, 2009, para. 4).

272 quoted in the previous chapter in the context of achieving balance between promoting

ISP competition while ensuring ubiquitous access). There are now several pilot projects underway in the province in which particular co-ops are testing the feasibility of incorporating broadband services as part of their regular utility charge. Moreover, the

Government of Alberta recently launched the “Rural Connections: Community

Broadband Infrastructure Pilot Program” which “consists of $9 million in new funding to targeted rural communities for projects that enable access to reasonable high-speed broadband service” (GOA, 2008, para.1). Cooperatives that do not distribute profits to their members or shareholders, like those affiliated with Fedgas, are listed among the eligible applicants. 118 The SUPERNET AS A PUBLIC UTILITY is thus an instance of a

metaphor that has moved from being something that was a “nice to have”

conceptualization to rural respondents, into a more tangible possibility. Moreover, this

conception illustrates just how innovative community members can be in their thinking,

since this focus group suggestion was made prior to these provincial initiatives.

Another metaphor that demonstrates vision on the part of respondents, and is again

connected to imagining the SuperNet as a “public good”, was the participant suggestion

that communication could be recognized as a basic right. This particular

conceptualization was raised in FG4, when a discussant argued that the current plan

around first and last mile provision was inadequate. They claimed:

118 More details on this can be found at: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/general/progserv.nsf/all/pgmsrv367

273

In the communities who don’t have the SuperNet who is going to pay for it? Right now it is supply and demand. If the community is big enough, Telus is in there. If it is not who wants to be in there…It doesn’t matter if they lose money…. As a Canadian I think everyone deserves communication, it is our right. But that is not the case anymore. The ISPs… they are picking areas that they want to do and that they know they will make money so it still does not solve the last mile issue 100%. (FG4)

This comment suggests that it is also possible to place this specific project in a broader context, by considering the SuperNet as part of a more general set of normative assumptions regarding what communications “ought to be”. Overall, as this community participant noted, envisioning communication as a “basic right” would encourage an approach to broadband infrastructure management in which a government does not leave last mile solutions to private industry. Instead the government would ensure that rural citizens have connectivity not only in their communities via points of presence but in their homes and places of business despite the cost, or the required enforcement efforts.

The participant claim, “everyone deserves communication, it is our right”, was particularly striking since imagining communication as a legal right has preoccupied scholars, legal experts, and government officials in numerous countries since the 1970s

(McIver, Birdsall, & Rasmussen, 2003). Moreover, this conceptualization has been recently revived in the context of new media. For example, McIver et al. (2003) argue that no time is better than the present for incorporating a “right to communicate” within

274 the “soft law”119 of various nations due to the intersections promoted by globalization and

the internet. In terms of broadband specifically, Matear (2002) also makes a case for why

making high speed ubiquitous across the country should become national priority in

Canada; although she does not go so far as to argue broadband connectivity should be

thought of as a fundamental right but simply as an “essential service” comparable to

health care and education.

While this idea of formalizing the right to communicate has been discussed within

academic and policy circles (Birdsall, 1998) it is not a notion that has permeated our

popular understandings of new media until quite recently. In the fall of 2008, a New

Brunswick provincial Conservative by- election candidate (Jack Carr) filed a provincial

human rights complaint over the lack of high-speed internet access in rural areas. Carr

argued that the internet was an essential tool and slow service (via dial-up) amounts to

discrimination against rural residents. His complaint was linked to the human rights

stipulation that discrimination should not be condoned due to place of origin. (CBC,

2008). Whether or not to view communication broadly, and broadband specifically, as a

human right is a contentious topic. On one side of the debate many people would have

difficulty envisaging broadband as comparable to our fundamental freedoms and other

rights (such as democratic, mobility, legal, language) as it seems like a “luxury”

119 Mciver et al. (2003) define “soft law” as agreements in principles and norms reached via consensus that do not have strict binding legal force such as charters, declarations, guiding principles, regulations and codes.

275

(Anderson, 2008).120 However, others believe that broadband is ultimately a viable

alternative to subsidizing conventional telephones for countries interested in offering

“universal access” and is thus worth the investment (Lasar, 2008).121 Regardless of the

various positions endorsing the right to communicate, and/or broadband as a component

of this, it was both surprising and encouraging to see this idea raised within this particular

focus group. In the context of this case, it is yet another example of how community

members offered constructive novel ideas about communication and its potential to have

a greater significance within rural communities.

To summarize, the metaphors discussed in this section, the SUPERNET AS A PUBLIC

UTILITY and COMMUNICATION AS A BASIC RIGHT, indicate that rural

participants not only understood the SuperNet in ways that mirrored those of the policy

planners but were able to provide alternative perceptions of how the SuperNet could be

imagined. More specifically, they envisaged communication not simply as part of a wider

economic plan to encourage competition amongst telecommunication providers or

improve the economic opportunities for rural communities but also as a “public good”. In

many ways, these “public good” metaphors seem much closer to what the policy planners

had in mind initially when the SuperNet was simply a “big idea” to help, support and

benefit rural communities. Though, as the last chapter illustrated, this vision was

120 For a sampling of some public views on this issue see the “social comments” associated with the CBC story at: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2008/10/16/nb-rural-internet- access.html?ref=rss#socialcomments. 121 The move by the Federal Communications Commission in the United States to subsidize broadband over conventional telephones indicates has been read as a sign of a change in attitude by some (Anderson, 2008).

276 ultimately overshadowed in internal battles, a decision to promote competition over ubiquitous connectivity in terms of last mile and first mile provision, and a loss of project leadership within government.

7.4 Chapter Summary and Concluding Remarks

As was demonstrated in the two previous data analysis chapters, not only is it useful to look at each of the metaphor functions and conceptual metaphors in the citizen responses independently, it is also valuable to consider the implications of what a holistic assessment of these results offers; in doing so, four areas merit additional commentary.

First, comparisons of the metaphors found in the press release corpus, and those used by citizens, allows for evaluation of this particular enrolment effort and whether the overall process of translation was completed. Second, it is possible when considering the metaphors selected by citizens, particularly in contrast to the policy planners’ choices reviewed in the previous chapter, to comment about the general understanding of technology and technological change being supplied. Third, similarly to what was accomplished in Chapter 6, an assessment of the issues raised by the citizens via metaphor, makes developing alternative potentially practical policy recommendations of achievable; in this case the suggestions previously provided can be further refined.

Finally, in assessing what these metaphors reveal— particularly in terms of citizens’ abilities to generate alternative perspectives on this initiative and raise additional concerns— the findings within this chapter claim that a richer and more diverse approach to technology policymaking is needed (metaphorically and otherwise), especially if a successful translation, goal alignment and network stability is the desired outcome.

277

7.4.1 Examining the results of a translation effort using metaphor

As the introduction to this chapter suggested one of the key goals of this discussion was to answer the following sorts of questions in relation to the SuperNet:

• did citizens accept how this project was problematized, the assigned solution (i.e.

the SuperNet as an obligatory point of passage), and their roles as potential users

without question?

• were the metaphors selected by policy planners one in which a shared space,

equivalence, and/or alignment is evident, or rather do they show traces of an

unsuccessful translation?

By juxtaposing the different usages of metaphors discussed thus far the hypotheses suggested by these questions can be assessed. Consequently, an effort to summarize and compare the findings from the press release corpus and the citizen reactions is provided in Table 7.1.

278

Table 7.1: A comparison of the SuperNet’s press release claims and citizen responses Press Release Claims (The Community Respondent Claims SuperNet is…) (The SuperNet is…)

SUPERNET A presence all Albertans are An exciting and potentially AS A eagerly awaiting and cannot transformative presence (i.e. PERSON/ wait to “embrace” “attract” people to our SUPER- A presence that will “help”, communities) HUMAN “support”, “work for”, “serve” A presence whose arrival FORCE and “enable” citizens encourages confusion (what is it?), frustration (missed deadlines, “secretive”), hesitation (can it deliver?), and fear (will it be destructive, “ghettoize”, “isolate”, and divide communities?)

SUPERNET A prestigious highway with A highway that some rural AS A tremendous scope and speed citizens will not be able to HIGHWAY travel on due to lack of appropriate “vehicles” (applications), “keys” (knowledge) and cost Too local (what happens when you leave Alberta?) Private not public Incomplete (what about first or last mile?) Do we need this speed?

SUPERNET The key to Alberta’s economic A double-edge sword that may AS A success in the global market take jobs away from Albertans STRATEGY Part of the Alberta Advantage Essential to building a knowledge economy

The juxtaposition within this table indicate that the SuperNet is not yet demonstrably a well-aligned network, where translation is accomplished, and the network is stabilized.

At the time when this data was collected, citizens were still clearly struggling to

279 understand the SuperNet and did not acknowledge broadband delivery via the SuperNet as an “obligatory point of passage” (i.e. a necessary part of their lives they could not do without). That is to say citizens had yet to embrace the guiding metaphor of this initiative: the project was viewed as neither “super”, nor as a “net” (in terms of a having a broad reach), according to their responses.

The claim that the process of translation associated with the SuperNet as a socio- technical configuration was “unsuccessful” can be better understood by reflecting on the other points of network instability raised in the previous chapter. Several factors likely contributed to the citizen un-ease evident in Table 7.1. For example, the technology itself did not always co-operate since it was designed in a way that made it vulnerable to disruptions, likely making it appear less trustworthy to citizens. Additionally, the “battle” between Axia and Bell,122 which they resolved via formal litigation, caused delays in the

construction of the SuperNet and thus its ability to reach citizens when expected. As well,

according to the policy planners, minimal efforts were made to convince citizens or other

actors within this socio-technical network of the project’s importance, or their roles

within it, via an extended outreach and educational plan; this was partially due to the lack

of a consistent committed ministerial government champion (or what ANT theorists

would label as a “spokesperson”).

122 See Chapter 6, p 221 for a discussion of this battle.

280

In sum, the SuperNet initiative as a socio-technical network has struggled to solidify in its early development; traces of this instability become highly visible by interrogating the contradictions offered in the metaphors that some of its key actors deployed (as illustrated in Table 7.1). Nevertheless, it is worth returning to the insights of Murdoch

(1998) raised in Chapter 3. He argues that some socio-technical networks are best imagined as mixed spaces, comprised of both points of stability and instability, rather than as examples of successful or unsuccessful translations. Given this conception, it seems the SuperNet itself could be viewed as such a mixed space, since despite its failure to align citizens and other actors it still manages to persist as a project. Nevertheless, this initiative remains vulnerable, and an analysis of its metaphors highlights points of instability that might eventually contribute to this project’s dissolution and abandonment by the government.

7.4.2 Assessing citizen attitudes towards technology and technological change

A second interpretation of these findings that merits additional comment is an assessment of the tacit understandings of technology and technological change that the citizen responses offer. Here another question raised in this chapter’s opening comments can be answered: did citizens supply metaphors that could be thought to actually challenge the policy conceptualizations of this initiative? This is accomplished by comparing the policy planners’ criticisms of this initiative with those generated by citizens; such a juxtaposition of views is provided in Table 7.2. Those particular points of difference in the citizen responses, which can be interpreted as a negotiation or challenge to specific policy understandings are bolded and italicized within this table.

281

Table 7.2: A comparison of policy planner concerns versus community concerns in relation to the SuperNet Conceptual Policy Planner Concerns Community Concerns Metaphor SUPERNET Design (redundancies, AS A loops) HIGHWAY Incremental build versus Incremental build versus large large scale scale First and Last Mile First and Last Mile Vehicles (applications) Vehicles (applications) Cost (of software and hardware) Keys (knowledge) Scope (is it too local?) SUPERNET Subcultures (literacy, Subcultures (literacy, hardware, AS hardware, willingness) willingness and age) CULTURE/ A Outreach and Education Outreach and Education CULTURE Revolutionary or simply high- SHIFT speed? Capacity for internal community leadership SUPERNET Confusing (does it go into Confusing (does it go into homes AS PERSON/ homes and how does it differ and how does it differ from high- SUPER- from high-speed?) speed?) HUMAN Has positive potential to Has negative potential to FORCE help, support and benefit ghettoize, isolate, and accelerate rural communities migration Can impact social relations Can attract people to communities SUPERNET Not raised Positives: education & health AS WEAPON Negative: job loss SUPERNET Not raised Does a public utility model AS A PUBLIC make sense? GOOD (i.e. a Should broadband and or public utility communication be considered a or a basic basic right? right)

When comparing the two perspectives it is evident that while the policy planners were able to be critical of the project itself their general attitudes towards technology tended to

282 be positive. Conversely, the overall tone of the responses supplied by the community members was not so optimistic. That is not to say that no enthusiasm emerged from the town hall and focus group discussions about the SuperNet. Yet, assessed collectively the metaphorical conceptualizations demonstrate a much more complex evaluation of both the project itself, and technology at a more general level which was unrecognized by the planners. For example, as Table 7.2 illustrates, citizen discomfort with this initiative was particularly striking in their deployment of the SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-

HUMAN and the SUPERNET AS A WEAPON metaphors.

The perception of citizens as more discriminating consumers of technology— less likely be to be swayed by the allure of a technological solution for their communities— is also supported from a collective breakdown of the total utterances that were isolated for analysis. In this instance out of the 260 metaphorical utterances identified, 50 could be categorized as positive and 82 as negative, while the rest were neutral (in that they were not direct comments about either the nature of the initiative or technology in general).123 This division within the data supports the claim that citizens were indeed more hesitant in their views of both the project itself and technology more broadly.

123 Counting the overall frequency of positive versus negative utterances, while not part of my initial coding plan, was done later in order to supply a useful indicator of the overall “tone” of the data for the reader. Among the sorts of samples statements that were coded as positive were: “The SuperNet has potential” (VTH); and, “It could be a legacy like our phone system is today” (PTH). In contrast, those utterances that were coded as negative included: “If [the SuperNet] is going to one more hill to climb for the agricultural sector then what are we going to do about it?” (PTH); and, “It would be wonderful if you could plug the SuperNet in but you have to consider the cost of hardware” (MTH). Finally the types of statements that were considered neutral included: “The SuperNet “hooks us up” (VTH); and, “is everyone lit up?” (MTH).

283

Some scholars of technology might find these citizen responses to be quite unexpected. A central concern of modern intellectuals such as Jacques Ellul (1964), George Grant

(1969) and Herbert Marcuse (1941) is that technology curtails the creative capacity of the individual. In fact it is the contribution of such scholars that has inspired much of the pessimism towards technology apparent in the political economy of communication perspective described in Chapter 2. The predominant theme in these thinkers’ discussions is that technological advancement has become such a dominant force within our “modern condition” that it is impossible for individuals to evaluate the technical with any sort of critical sensibility. For example, Ellul (1964) warned of the power of “technique”, which he defined not only as machines (i.e. the material components of any given technology) but also as “the totality of methods rationally arrived at and having absolute efficiency

(for a given stage of development) in every field of human activity” (p. xxv). To Ellul

“technique” was dangerous precisely because it “tolerates no judgment from without and accepts no limitation ” (p. 134). Put differently, he worried that the prevalence of

“technique” in contemporary culture has made it impossible for individuals to question both technology’s guiding logic and its necessity.

In the case of the SuperNet the power of “technique” is evident in the rural respondents desire to personify technology and make the SuperNet equal or even superior to a human being in its abilities to help communities. Nevertheless, it is also possible to argue based on these findings that community members were still able to form judgments “from without”. As Table 7.2 shows, community members not only questioned the project but also the overall impact of technology on their communities. They were worried about

284 what technology might do to existing jobs, social relations, and the division between urban and rural locales; thus they were not willing to simply accept technology for the sake of technology. Moreover, by offering the possibility that broadband and communication could be metaphorically appreciated as “public goods”, some respondents drew attention to the fact that there are indeed quite specific values associated with technologies; this is an important idea notably articulated by Winner (1980), who aptly comments that artefacts do indeed have “politics”, their design and implementation always settles the affairs of communities in one particular way over another.

7.4.3 Building upon the policy planner recommendations using citizen metaphors

Just as the criticisms of the project generated by the policy planners offered the potential, when extrapolated to be used to formulate policy recommendations, so too do the citizen contributions. In fact the ideas they expressed metaphorically by the citizens can be used to support and refine many of the policy suggestions offered in the previous chapter. For example, based on the ideas that emerged from the deployment of the SUPERNET AS A

HIGHWAY metaphor, Chapter 6 argued that policy planners should “not leave first and last mile access to the private sector” if ubiquitous access is the goal. In challenging the current business model of the SuperNet in which an ISP would only offer service to business and residential users if there was an adequate business case, the community respondents supplied an alternative metaphorical conceptualization: the provision of broadband as a public utility. Another specific suggestion advanced in the previous chapter, based the policy planners’ discussions of the SUPERNET AS CULTURE/A

CULTURE SHIFT was to “be prepared to devote substantial resources to a targeted yet

285 flexible outreach program” in order to address differences across and within communities in openness to use, literacy and availability of hardware. In their discussion of the

SUPERNET AS CULTURE/ A CULTURE SHIFT, rural respondents identified each of these target areas as important, while also stressing age as a key consideration when thinking about the different sorts of sub-cultures to consider. In addition, they indicated that outreach could also focus on identifying and supporting leadership within communities. This might mean highlighting successful examples of “champions” in rural jurisdictions and even designing workshops focused on building technology leadership skills in local communities.

7.4.4 Making a case using metaphor for involving citizens in policymaking writ large

As a final point, these findings demonstrate that when given an opportunity to speak about a technology project expected to serve their needs, rural respondents had unique ideas that can and do challenge those of policy planners. In doing so, these results clearly support the possibility of a different method and metaphorical approach for technology policymaking. As the previous chapters have shown policy planners are often understood as top down “leaders”, “champions”, “strategists”, “marketers” of technology projects associated with the conceptual metaphors of POLICYMAKING AS COMPETITION,

BATTLE, MARKETING/CORPORATION. However, they can also be imagined as “co- creators” and thus align themselves more closely with the conceptual metaphors of

POLICYMAKING AS COLLABORATION, COOPERATION or COMMUNITY.

286

A general approach to technology planning which emphasizes the need for a continuous dialogue between potential users and those who design, develop and promote technology initiatives that has received much attention is constructive technology assessment, or

CTA (Genus, 2006; Genus & Coles, 2005; Heiskanen, 2005; Schot & Rip, 1996). While the specific articulations of CTA may vary124, the major components associated with this

perspective are:

• the inclusion of relevant social actors in the development, promotion and assessment,

of a new technology project (Genus, 2006; van Merkerk & Smits, 2007);

• an anticipation of the impacts of the technology (Schot & Rip, 1996), this anticipation

can be developed through collaborative processes such as scenario development,

consensus conferences, electronic consultation, public inquiries and citizen juries

(Genus, 2006);

• deep-learning and reflexivity, which enables the actors involved to refine goals and

the consider the ensuing values associated with design options, users demands, and

issues of political and social acceptability (Schot & Rip, 1996);

124 For some examples of how CTA has been used specifically in regards to emerging technologies see van Merkek & Smits (2008) who talks about CTA in relation to nano-technology, and Roelofsen, Broese, de Cock Buning, & Bunders (2008) who used this approach for ecogenomics.

287

• a persistent cycle of feedback and evaluation (Schot & Rip, 1996).125

A true CTA approach did not occur in the case of the SuperNet, as the provincial

government (the initiator of this project) chose not to widen the planning dialogue to

include rural respondents. Nor did they engage in a concerted visioning activity for this

initiative. Moreover, little effort has been made on the government’s part to evaluate the

SuperNet’s success publicly. Nonetheless, the activities of the Alberta SuperNet Research

Alliance, which generated the data used for this chapter, certainly embraced many

components of CTA by bringing together a diverse group of stakeholders in the town hall

meetings and via the scenario building approach deployed used for the focus groups. It is

likely that had the government led an inclusive dialogue early on, and sustained it

throughout the duration of the project, policy planners would have had a much stronger

appreciation of rural citizens’ apprehension about the SuperNet; apprehensions which are

quite clear when looking at their choices of metaphors. In doing so the provincial

government would have been better equipped to address such concerns in subsequent

125 The CTA process has been criticized as being too “idealistic” and/or vague. However, there have been attempts to increase its rigour (Genus, 2006; Genus & Coles, 2005). Among the recommendations supplied to improve the CTA approach are: the need to ensure genuine reflection on the part of the government; an assurance that the arena in which the discussions occur is as democratic and transparent as possible; the inclusion of a representative population, while also making room for typically marginalized voices; and, reasonable cost and time parameters set around the process. (Genus & Coles, 2005, pp. 436-438) Such suggestions will of course not avoid all the tensions associated with CTA such as: having adequate public voices while still moving forward on sometimes seemingly irreconcilable issues; the power dimensions associated with deliberative discussions (in terms of framing the problem, and who can speak and how); and, the challenges of meaningfully incorporating this process effectively in the overall design and implementation cycle of technology. Nevertheless, trying to incorporate these proposals in a meaningful way will most certainly mediate some of these concerns.

288 outreach and educational efforts. Put differently, via CTA, the government would have had a stronger idea of precisely how best to enrol citizen into this particular socio- technical network. For example, they could have incorporated the insights of the community members’ metaphors into their planning when thinking about how best to approach the questions of design and implementation associated with this project. In doing this initiative’s potential to become a stable network of aligned interests and an example of a successful translation in practice would surely have increased.

289

Chapter Eight: Conclusion

8.1 Introduction

After the completion of most academic journeys, scholars go back and look for highlights of their travels. During this time it is not uncommon to reflect upon whether this voyage should be repeated, in terms of deploying the same theoretical framework and methodology, and where one might journey next in regards to future research. This final chapter incorporates all of these processes. To do so, this discussion begins by presenting the most significant ideas within the chapters offered up to this point. Next, it assesses the wider implications and potential contributions of these findings. Lastly, it considers areas for further elaboration and provides some final reflections on both the challenges and value of metaphor analysis.

8.2 Chapter summaries

This dissertation began (Chapter 1) by expressing the following: a general curiosity about why and how we use metaphors in policymaking, and a desire to better appreciate how metaphors can be operationalized successfully (both conceptually and methodologically).

This chapter also expressed frustration with the existing literature on telecommunication policymaking in Canada because it tends to minimize the importance of language in policy. It was suggested that this curiosity and frustration could be moderated by considering the roles that metaphors play in both technology policy planning and in the acceptance of new technologies by citizens; as well as, via a consideration of how policymakers and citizens come to understand and experience broadband technology via

290 metaphor. Furthermore, the SuperNet was introduced as a useful empirical site to begin responding to these particular research concerns.

Chapters 2-4 of this dissertation provided the theoretical and methodological grounding necessary to conduct this study: first by linking several promising, yet previously unconnected bodies of thought together (Chapters 2 & 3); next, by justifying the specific choices made regarding study design (Chapter 4). Consequently, Chapter 2 of this work evaluated the potential of political economy of communication (PEC) and actor-network theory (ANT) for accommodating metaphor. Several conceptual insights were drawn from this review. Based on the ideas generated from the PEC literature, the following claims were made: metaphors can be seen as goods/semantic objects that are produced, circulated and consumed in a wider socio-historic context; metaphors can tell us something significant about how relations of capital are organized and maintained; finally, examining the deployment of metaphors potentially provides constructive normative suggestions of significance to policy. Furthermore, drawing upon the key constructs offered by ANT scholars, it was asserted that metaphors have the potential to be both actors and intermediaries in the policy process, enabling or preventing the formation of stable socio-technical networks.

Despite the benefits of using both PEC and ANT to explore metaphor, the need to engage with the questions of empirical and methodological dynamics of metaphor itself was recognized. Consequently, Chapter 3 brought together the findings from a wide of array of literature dedicated to examining metaphor, metaphor analysis and the use of metaphor

291 in policy. In doing so it was concluded that metaphor is best defined as a linguistic, pragmatic and cognitive phenomenon (Chateris-Black, 2004). Moreover, the specific steps of metaphor analysis were identified: choosing a focus, selecting an appropriate corpus of data, and the identification, description, and evaluation of metaphor. The challenges associated with actually operationalizing these steps were also considered.

Additionally, this chapter supported the claim first made by Ortony (1975) that metaphors are not simply “nice to have” but rather “necessary” communication tools precisely because they can help simplify complex ideas, increase the vividness of conceptualizations, and make the seemingly inexpressible more comprehensible.

Not only did Chapter 3 provide the basics associated with metaphor and metaphor analysis, it also related the contributions of ANT and PEC highlighted in Chapter 2 to the literature on the deployment of metaphor in a policy setting. By making these linkages, this chapter elaborated on a key idea proposed in Chapter 2: endowing metaphors with the potential to “act” in policy is a useful analytic strategy that opens up constructive points of exploration. For instance, it was demonstrated that as part of problematization and interessement, metaphors can shape the initial parameters of policy issue and guide the formation of ensuing solutions. In addition, it was stressed that as a mechanism of opposition (i.e. in terms of enrolment and the mobilization of allies), metaphors play an important pragmatic function; they are devices that can be used by different groups— including the media, citizens, not for profits, public relations officials and industry players— to encourage, or hinder, policy change.

292

Building upon the conceptual framework provided in Chapters 2 and 3, Chapter 4 justified the selection of the SuperNet as a case study and reviewed the methodological details of this particular study. Drawing on both Kuhn (1970) and Flyvbjerg (2004), the

SuperNet initiative was categorized as an extreme, paradigmatic exemplar. It was characterized as such because it is the leading Canadian example of provincially supported top down infrastructure creation for broadband (representing the largest provincial government investment to date). Details were also supplied as to why this investigation of the SuperNet quite could best be described as “interpretivist” (Seale,

2004) and “constructivist” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). In addition, the specifics regarding the selection of data sources, the data collection methods, the metaphor analytic techniques deployed, and the limitations to this work, were all topics addressed. Chapter

4 also introduced the criteria of trustworthiness provided by Creswell (1998). It was noted that this study could be claimed to be both reliable and valid because it meets the following guidelines: prolonged engagement and persistent observation, triangulation, a limited form of member-checking, rich and thick description, and an external audit.

With a suitable theoretical and methodological map in place, the remainder of this investigation (Chapters 5-7) responded to the primary research questions upon which this dissertation was based: using the SuperNet as a case study, what roles do metaphors play in both technology policy planning and in the acceptance of new technologies by citizens; as well as, how do policymakers and citizens come to understand and experience broadband technology via metaphor?

293

Chapter 5 answered these research questions by examining the early press releases

(N=24) about the SuperNet. Based on the metaphor analysis of this data, it was asserted that in the context of shaping the official discourse surrounding a specific policy metaphors can serve as powerful tools of enrolment that help circumscribe important roles to both human and non-human actors. Moreover, it was demonstrated that by identifying the roles provided by those metaphors that dominated the corpus a great deal could be determined about which actors count, and which do not within a particular socio-technical configuration. Furthermore, it was shown that an analysis of these common metaphors in the press releases can reveal a great deal about a specific government’s general attitudes towards both technology and technological change. For example, in the case of the SuperNet, three key conceptual metaphors were prevalent within the press release corpus: the SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN, the

SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY, and TECHNOLOGY POLICYMAKING AS A

COMPETITION. This chapter concluded that in selecting these specific metaphors and emphasizing only certain entailments the initiative’s official representation was extremely limited. As an illustration, despite the fact that this project was promoted as an infrastructure for rural communities, citizens were represented metaphorically in all of these conceptualizations as relatively passive actors. Additionally, the Alberta government itself was positioned in non-interventionist roles. In contrast, based on the metaphors present, technology and industry players were viewed as those accountable for determining the direction of Alberta’s technological future. The narrowness of the government vision was further reinforced by the fact that the use of these metaphors centred solely on the speed, reach prestige and general transformative potential of

294 technology, in contrast to exploring the social or cultural dimensions, or what Carey

(1998) labels as technology’s “ritualistic” aspects.

Chapter 6 provided insight regarding this dissertation’s research concerns by drawing on the responses of 10 semi-structured interviews with government and industry representative (i.e. spokespersons for the initiative). In this instance, metaphors were viewed as serving four key functions in the technology planning process as devices that:

(1) simplified the technology, (2) highlighted the cognitive and behavioural dimensions of use, (3) problematized the policy issue, and (4) helped describe the process of policymaking writ large. In doing so a much more nuanced view of how metaphors work, than that which was supplied in Chapters 3 & 5, was offered. These general functions were supported by the predominance of the following metaphors in the policy planner responses: the SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY, the SUPERNET AS CULTURE/A

CULTURE SHIFT, the SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-HUMAN,

POLICYMAKING AS COMPETITION, and POLICYMAKING AS MARKETING.

Overall, the findings within this chapter were presented as significant because they illustrated a level of complexity associated with government attitudes towards technology and technological change that was not apparent by simply assessing the official discourse surrounding this initiative, or by consulting the general literature on policymaking in

Canada (i.e. Babe, 1990 and Winseck, 1998). For example, it was considered a positive sign that the policy planners were not completely unaware of the cognitive and behavioural dimensions associated with the introduction of new technologies into rural communities (as was evident in their use of the SUPERNET AS CULTURE/A

295

CULTURE SHIFT metaphor). Nevertheless, the presence of the POLICYMAKING AS

MARKETING and POLICYMAKING AS COMPETITION metaphors, were seen as indicators of a growing and troubling trend already observed in the federal political landscape: the use of business oriented language to represent both politics and the policy process (Kozolanka, 2006). The utilization of these particular metaphors was presented as problematic because imagining GOVERNMENT AS A BUSINESS is not a conceptual metaphor which is conducive to promoting the public good, nor does seem that useful for encouraging an active and engaged citizenry. Consequently, the following question was raised: what might the implications be for how policy functions if alternative metaphors were more consistently promoted, such as POLICYMAKING AS A VALUE

CENTERED ACTIVITY (Schachter, 1997; Smith & Huntsman, 1997), or

TECHNOLOGY POLICYMAKING AS ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT (Ramirez,

2007)?

While Chapters 5 & 6 answered this dissertation’s central research questions by focusing on the policy planning process, Chapter 7 drew attention to how metaphors work in relation to the acceptance of new technologies by citizens. Six focus groups and eight town hall meeting transcripts were analysed to explore how rural communities used metaphors to formulate their understanding and experiences of the Alberta SuperNet.

Here it was discovered that when assessing citizen perception towards technology policymaking via metaphors, metaphors functioned in many of the same ways as they did in the planning process. In this instance they helped citizens understand and situate a specific policy problem; they assisted with simplifying the discussion of the technology;

296 they also made the cognitive and behavioural dimensions associated with technological change that the government had failed to address easier to articulate. Additionally, many of the same metaphors raised in the previous data chapter were present in the citizen discussions of the SuperNet including: the SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-

HUMAN FORCE, the SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY, and the SUPERNET AS

CULTURE/A CULTURE SHIFT. However, it was also noted, that sometimes citizens used these same metaphors in quite different ways to indicate their uncertainty with both the project and technology more generally. Moreover, it was recognized that rural respondents offered alternative and unexpected conceptualizations of this project (such as the SUPERNET AS A WEAPON, the SUPERNET AS A PUBLIC UTILITY or

COMMUNICATION AS A BASIC RIGHT). Based on these observations, this chapter concluded that citizens should not be simply positioned as passive recipients of the official metaphorical constructions of the policy initiatives presented. Put another way, they should not be imagined as some previous thinkers have implied— Babe (1990),

Ellul (1964), Grant (1969), Marcuse (1941)— doomed to accept technological change as an inherently positive process.

8.3 Assessing the potential significance of this dissertation’s results

The results of this empirical investigation has theoretical, methodological and policy implications. An effort to draw out the most significant of this work’s potential contributions is provided below.

297

The findings of this dissertation should be of interest to those sympathetic with the

“interpretivist” or “post-positivist” policy tradition (Fischer, 2003; Yanow, 2000). This approach to policy studies—as the opening chapter of this dissertation noted— promotes the importance of ideas to the development of policy rather than focusing on the power of certain institutions, group dynamics, or other socio-economic factors such as the growth of the workfare state and globalization (John, 1998). As the results of this study show the daily of activities of policymakers can indeed be appreciated as contextual and discursive. Furthermore, what this investigation can add to the interpretivist/post- positivist tradition is a detailed conceptual map (Appendix B) for studying the deployment of metaphor in empirical settings. While this conceptual map was developed with the SuperNet in mind, it was also intended to provide general theoretical and methodological insight about how best to approach the investigation of metaphor in any policy setting. Consequently, it is hoped that other researchers can and will deploy, challenge, refine and expand upon this particular heuristic tool.

The need for a more precise methodological framework that demonstrates how to identify metaphors in policy has been recognized in the current political science literature. For, instance, in a recent collected volume of works on political language and metaphor,

Carver and Pikalo (2008) argue that while political scientists have successfully highlighted the importance of metaphor to politics, and effectively critiqued the use of certain metaphors over others, they have overlooked the methodological dilemmas associated with these influential tropes. Consequently, they advocate “drawing theory into practice” via systematic case study research to illustrate the dynamics of methods in

298 action (Carver and Pikalo, 2008, p. 2). Put differently, they stress the importance of thinking about the use of metaphors in politics and policy as opposed to simply discussing the advantages or limitations of particular metaphors (Carver & Pikalo, 2008).

The steps of metaphor analysis reviewed in Chapter 3, as well as the conceptual map provided in Appendix B, can thus be positioned as an appropriate departure point for responding to their call to action because collectively they offer precise directives about how to begin such case study work and distinguish those areas that are particularly problematic when conducting an analysis including: deciding on one’s analytic focus, selecting an appropriate corpus, determining what is metaphorical, and how best to evaluate a specific metaphor’s impact and effectiveness (see Chapter 3).

In addition to what this work can offer interpretive policy analysts and the political science community, these findings may also provide direction for those scholars interested in expanding the potential of actor-network theory (ANT). For example, this dissertation demonstrates how useful metaphor can be to operationalizing some central constructs associated with this theory-method. As Chapter 2 highlighted, critics of ANT have struggled with how best to deploy its “highly abstract…ideas and concepts”

(Howcroft et al., 2004, p. 343). Opponents of this approach argue it is hard to know where to begin and where to stop in an ANT investigation (Maclean & Hassard, 2004;

Whittle & Spicer, 2008). However, as the analysis offered in the last three chapters demonstrates, metaphor offers a manageable way to trace the translation process and evaluate its success on the basis of whether an alignment of metaphors that express goals and roles is in fact apparent. By looking at how the initiators of the SuperNet (the

299

Government of Alberta) used metaphor to circumscribe specific roles for policy actors in

Chapter 5 in the press release data (i.e. the official account of this project), the expected outcomes for this initiative were clarified (i.e. who was thought to count and who was not was not within this network became clear). Nevertheless, in comparing these official representations with the diversity of metaphorical understandings articulated by both the policy planners and the rural respondents (contained in Chapters 6 and 7 respectively), the challenges that this socio-technical configuration faced when it came to problematization, interessement, enrolment and the mobilization of allies became apparent. It was clear that this socio-technical network despite showing some goal alignment and consensus in the press releases was not without its controversies and struggles, struggles that were often articulated metaphorically by respondents. Among this socio-technical network’s biggest issues were:

• conflicting goals associated with the SuperNet’s problematization (i.e. should the

focus be on promoting ubiquitous access or competition in the telecommunication

industry),

• a lack of continuity in maintaining compelling spokespersons to speak on behalf each

of the different actors (complicated by a series of internal “battles”),

• and an inability to convince rural respondents that the SuperNet was in fact an

“obligatory point of passage”—which became evident by juxtaposing the

metaphorical approaches of citizens as they struggled to make sense of this project

with the official roles presumed by the metaphors provided within the press release

corpus.

300

Moreover, identifying these metaphorical disjunctures clarified why the SuperNet is best thought of as a socio-technical network not heavy with norms, predictable, or black boxed but rather fluid, provisional and vulnerable to dissolution despite a considerable financial investment by the Alberta government. In sum, this investigation provides a concrete example of how tracing metaphor can clarify issues with translation and make the presence of network instability, and specific controversies, easier to observe and describe.

Another potential benefit of this work to ANT relates to a concept not yet discussed in this thesis: multiplicity. While not a theoretical construct found in early discussions of

ANT (i.e. Latour, 1987; Callon, 1986), multiplicity is a notion that has become increasingly popular in more recent ANT articulations. Two studies that specifically address this idea are Law’s (2003) archival examination of the failed British effort to build a military aircraft known as the TSR2, and Mol’s (2002) ethnographic discussion of atherosclerosis within a Dutch hospital. While both Mol and Law see actor-network configurations as important, they focus on highlighting how “precarious” an achievement the development and maintenance of a socio-technical network actually is. In both these works, socio-technical networks are envisioned as “fractional coherences” that paradoxically exist in multiple forms yet manage to consolidate into a unified narrative

(Law, 2003); identifying these points of unity and dissonance and considering their implications is presented as instructive by both Law and Mol. This dissertation’s findings suggest that metaphor provides another possibility for illuminating such tensions. For example, the results presented in Chapters 5-7 illustrate that the SuperNet was not

301 understood by deploying simply one source to describe the technical, but rather it was imagined using multiple and sometimes seemingly incompatible conceptualizations (i.e. the SUPERNET AS A HIGHWAY and the SUPERNET AS A PERSON/SUPER-

HUMAN FORCE). However, when comparing the press release and policymaker perceptions with citizen understandings of the SuperNet (see for example Chapter 7, tables 7.1 & 7.2), consistency was evident in part because both groups used many of the same metaphors, yet dissimilarities were also apparent in the sorts of metaphorical mappings that were emphasized. Metaphor is thus another way of showing how coherence and difference can co-exist in socio-technical networks, thereby demonstrating a manifestation of multiplicity in practice.

In addition to what this investigation may offer ANT scholars, it can potentially make a meaningful contribution to the existing political economy of communication (PEC) literature. This study could not be interpreted as a true representation of PEC, since it was not designed to, nor did it manage to, expose the Government of Alberta’s “real agenda” over its “official representation”; such a goal could only have been met if a detailed and systematic exploration of the contracts, budgetary records, official discussions of the initiative and a set of spokesperson interviews in which quite different questions were posed, was undertaken. Even so, the findings from this work provide results that should not only be of interest to PEC scholars, but also might encourage them to more purposefully incorporate an awareness of metaphor into their theoretical and methodological repertoire. Chapter 2 of this dissertation revealed that a core concern for scholars working in the PEC tradition is to embrace a view of the social totality where the

302 connections between commodities, institutions, social relations and “taken for granted assumptions” are made explicit (Meehan et al., 1993). However, it was noted a major problem with most PEC investigations is that their discussions of the “taken for granted” often lack a precise unit of analysis that uncovers what they are really interested in exploring: ideology, which Thompson (1990) defines as “meaning in the service of

[capitalist] power” (p. 7). Moreover, it was acknowledged that PEC often sacrifices a depth of description for breadth in their examinations. The findings in this thesis indicate that metaphor can help PEC overcome these challenges.

As this dissertation indicates, metaphor may provide a suitable unit of analysis for PEC scholars because it permits a commentary on the wider concerns brought about by the symbolic representations of capitalism, is supported by a systematic method (i.e. metaphor analysis), and enables drawing on specific examples to substantiate claims of such representations. This potential was nicely demonstrated in Chapter 6’s discussion of the POLICYMAKING AS MARKETING and POLICYMAKING AS COMPETITION metaphors. The presence of these metaphors within the policy planners’ dialogue permitted a consideration of what it means to a democracy when the public good is understood using private sector conceptualizations; in doing so these metaphors identified how certain capitalist values were articulated and also encouraged an assessment of their implications. Additionally, metaphor analysis permits a critical approach to the evaluation of public policy, another goal frequently endorsed in PEC investigations. After all, once the existence of certain metaphors is established, it becomes possible to envisage how things might be different with the deployment of other metaphors (for

303 example, POLICYMAKING AS A COLLABORATION in place of POLICYMAKING

AS A COMPETITION or TECHNOLOGY AS A CULTURE SHIFT instead of

TECHNOLOGY AS A HIGHWAY). All told, metaphor can assist PEC scholars in making some broad claims about representations of capitalism at work that are based on a precise methodological unit of analysis (metaphor); moreover, it permits them to be critical as they endeavour to promote those metaphors that would encourage a fair, democratic, and equitable approach to technology policymaking.

This dissertation’s findings also suggest that metaphor can provide a way to capture some of the “contradictory nature of social practices” that PEC scholars have been accused of ignoring, particularly by cultural studies critics (see Chapter 3). Instead of promoting reductionist claims about the dominance of class economics in contemporary understandings of technology, an analysis of metaphor helps illustrate the complexity associated with both the production and consumption of such representations. As Chapter

6 revealed, while policy planners endorsed economic/transmission models of communication exchanges, this was not the only view of technology they supplied; they did in fact recognize the cognitive and behavioural dimensions of technological change.

Additionally, as Chapter 7 illustrated, citizens were not simply passive recipients of the press release visions. They negotiated these meanings (by using the same metaphors in different ways) and also challenged official representations by providing alternative metaphorical understandings. In fact, when assessed collectively, the metaphors presented in both Chapters 6 and 7 indicate that both policy planners and citizens alike understood and experienced the SuperNet in complex ways. This diversity of views is not

304 a subtlety that tends to emerge easily in PEC discussions of communication policy, as they tend to take certain power dynamics as a given (i.e. citizens are oppressed by an

“ideology of technology” and industry and policy representatives are partially responsible for perpetuating such subjugation). Consequently, it can be argued that metaphor offers the opportunity to greatly enhance the ability of those using a PEC approach to appreciate the multifaceted nature of the relational and mental dimensions of production and consumption within capitalism.

Finally, these results will likely be significant to those concerned with the future of broadband development both in Canada and elsewhere. Among the specific policy recommendations raised by this metaphor analysis are:

• the need for careful planning and visioning when introducing technology, including a

consideration of technical design and user compatibility (Chapter 6),

• the benefits of under-promising and over-delivering when branding policy via a

consciously selected metaphor (Chapter 6),

• the significance of flexible and targeted outreach which accounts for factors such as

age demographics, technological literacy and current technological situation (i.e.

availability of hardware, software, and appropriate technical support) (Chapters 6 &

7),

• the value of community and government champions in maintaining project

momentum (Chapters 6 & 7),

305

• the importance of clarity around the expected outcomes of an initiative, specifically

whether ubiquitous access is more important than increasing competition within a

jurisdiction’s telecommunication sector (Chapters 6 & 7),

• and the merits of early and sustained citizen involvement in technology planning and

implementation as supported by the constructive technology assessment approach

(Chapter 7).

Most of these recommendations should come as no surprise to those who study the development of government information projects; yet, they reaffirm an interpretation offered in Chapter 6: sometimes translating a technology idea into a product is so seductive that the actual substantive work it takes to encourage the adoption and adaptation of such an initiative is overlooked. Additionally, of all the aforementioned recommendations listed, the finding that metaphors are powerful devices that have the potential to brand policies, and create ensuing citizen expectations, is the claim that offers the most promise for future work, particularly when assessing how the creation of policy has changed over the last decade and will be transformed in the future.

In sum it can be asserted that the theoretical, methodological and empirical impact of this dissertation is potentially significant. The ideas and findings supplied should be of interest to the following groups:

• those working in the interpretivist/post-positivist policy tradition looking for

additional evidence of the importance of ideas, and metaphor more specifically, into

descriptions of policy,

306

• political scientists seeking guidance around how best to draw metaphor theory into

practice,

• ANT scholars interested in new approaches for operationalizing translation,

evaluating network stability, exploring technology controversies, and demonstrating

multiplicity,

• PEC enthusiasts who want to make their explorations of ideology more precise and

offer a more nuanced view of the production/consumption dynamic that exists

between policy planners and citizens,

• and those interested in the development of broadband projects in Canada and

elsewhere.

The diversity of these prospective contributions also highlights the value of encouraging an inter-disciplinary perspective when examining the potential intersections between metaphor, technology and policy.

8.4 Final reflections

It is hoped that this work will contribute to a wide range of disciplines as suggested above; however, based on these findings there is also more case-specific work that can be done. For example, studies drawing upon this investigation’s results might want to compare the occurrence of the metaphors identified with those being deployed in other jurisdictions (within Canada or internationally) using the following questions as a departure point: were different metaphors embraced; with what effect? Moreover, since it had been shown that the specific utilization and the actual metaphors selected can shift over time (Ignatow, 2003; Knudsen, 2005; Liakopoulos, 2002), this examination of early

307 metaphorical understandings of the SuperNet provides base-line data for future studies of the policy landscape within Alberta (or for those adopting a similar strategy elsewhere).

The possibility of expanding these results has become increasingly compelling given that the province has recently engaged in a re-branding exercise abandoning the promotion of the “Alberta Advantage” in favour of a “freedom to create and spirit to achieve” slogan

(see http://albertabrand.com); consequently, the potential to trace this shift metaphorically, and explore its implications seems promising. Moreover, as Appendix A indicates, the results generated by this dissertation has encouraged me to seriously reflect upon what academics and policymakers alike can gain from working together; as well as the challenges these group face when trying to collaborate for the sake of producing evidence based policy.

Notwithstanding the inspiration that exploring metaphor can supply, it seems prudent to provide a final reminder that conducting a metaphor analysis is by no means an easy process. Based on the work completed for this dissertation, it is apparent that one of the greatest issues for any potential metaphor analyst is in finding the balance between an identification of specific metaphors—a strategy deployed in both linguistic and cognitive investigations of metaphor— and capturing the pragmatic dimensions of metaphor. Put differently, identifying prominent metaphors and successfully telling the policy story can be difficult. Additionally, the process of re-constructing conceptual metaphors based on a series of linguistic utterances is not clear-cut. As Chapter 3 pointed out, this is because the labelling of these conceptual metaphors and the placement of particular utterances in these categories requires the analyst to make “intuitive” judgements (Cienki, 2008),

308 added to which, the differentiation between basic and contextual use of language (i.e. novel and conventional, and dead or alive metaphors) is at times “rather fuzzy” (Rees et al., 2007, p. 735). Nevertheless, multiple passes of the data, narrowing the presentation of results and analysis generally to those frequently occurring or novel metaphors, and discussing these findings with others (i.e. my committee members and interested interview respondents) can help minimize such difficulties; thus a key recommendation remains that wherever possible one ought to include other coders or outside commentators to assess specific metaphorical categorizations. Despite the aforementioned challenges associated with conducting a metaphor analysis, identifying, describing and evaluating policy metaphors in a systematic manner is an incredibly rewarding process; after all, metaphors highlight the struggles policy planners and citizens alike face as they attempt to better understand and experience the environment in which they live, and make sense of the policy initiatives which are expected to advance their complex and sometimes contradictory interests.

309

References

Abramson, D. (1998) Translating nations: Actor-network theory in Canada. CRSA, 35

(1), 1-19.

Abramson, B., & Raboy, M. (1999). Policy globalization and the "information society":

A view from Canada. Telecommunications Policy, 23, 775-791.

Akrich, M. (1992) The de-scription of technical objects. In W. Bijker & J. Law

(Eds.), Shaping Technology/ Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change

(pp. 205–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Akrich, M. & Latour, B. (1992). A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the

semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.),

Shaping technology/ building society (pp. 259–264). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Alberta Science and Research Authority (1998). A strategy for information and

communication technology in Alberta. Retrieved f rom

http://www.asra.gov.ab.ca/resources/publicdocs/ict/ICTtoc.html

Alberta SuperNet (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2009, from

http://www.servicealberta.gov.ab.ca/AlbertaSuperNet.

Anderson, T., & Christiansen, J. (2006). Perceptions on the ground: Principals' perception

of government interventions in high-speed educational networking. Electronic

Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 5. Retrieved from

http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume5/Anderson.pdf

310

Anderson, N. (2008, October 20 ). Canadian poll: broadband not a luxury, but basic

human right. Ars Technica. Retrieved from

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/10/canadian-pol-broadband-not-a-luxury-

but-basic-human-right.ars

Aristotle (1984). Trans. I. Bywater. The complete works of Aristotle:

The revised Oxford translation. J. Barnes (Ed.). Princeton: Princeton University

Press.

Austrin, T & Farnsworth, J. (2005). Hybrid genres: Fieldwork, detection and the

Method of Bruno Latour. Qualitative Research, 5(2), 147-165.

Axia Net Media Corporation (n.d.). “Success stories” and “Benefits of Axia’s

approach”. Retrieved August 14, 2009, from

from http://www.axia.com/open_access_networks/alberta_supernet.asp

Axia Net Media Corporation (2006). Service provider enabler: information package.

Retrieved from www.axia.com/documents/networks/SP_enabler.pdf.

Axia Net Media Corporation. (2009). Alberta SuperNet - Service provider listing by

community. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from

http://www.axia.com/documents/networks/ISP_by_community.pdf

Babbie, E. & Baxter, L. (2004). The basics of communication research. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Inc.

Babe, R. (1990). Telecommunications in Canada: Technology, industry and

government. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

311

Babe, R. (1995). Communication and the transformation of economics: Essays in

information, public policy, and political economy. Boulder: Westview

Press.

Balka, E. Rodje, K., & Bush, C. (2007). Rose coloured glasses: The discourse on

information technology in the Romanow Report. Canadian Journal of

Communication. 32, 475-494

Bakardjieva, M. (2008). Making sense of broadband in rural Alberta, Canada.

Observatio, 4, 33-53. Retrieved from

http://www.obercom.pt/ojs/index.php/obs/article/download/81/146

Baker, P. (2001).Policy bridges for the digital divide: Assessing the landscape and

guaging the dimensions. First Monday, (6)5, Retrieved from

www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_5/baker/index.html

Barratt, N. & Shade, L. R. (2007). Net neutrality: Telecom policy and the public

interest. Canadian Journal of Communication, 32, 295-305.

Beer, F. &, de Landtsheer, C. (2004) Metaphorical world politics. (pp. 5-52)

Michigan: East Lansing.

Berdayes, L. & Berdayes, V. (1998). The information highway in contemporary

Magazine narrative. Journal of Communication, 109-124.

Berg, B. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th edition).

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Best, S. & Kellner, D. (1997). The postmodern turn. London: The Guilford Press.

312

Birdsall, W. (1998). A Canadian Right to Communicate? Government Information in

Canada, 15. Retrieved from http://library2.usask.ca/gic/15/birdsall.html

Birdsall, W. & Rasmussen, M. (2000). Citizens at the crossroads: The right to

communicate. Government Information in Canada, (20). Retrieved from

http://library2.usask.ca/gic/20/birdsall2.html

Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca,

New York: Cornell University Press.

Black, M. (1979). More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought

(pp. 19-41).New York: Cambridge University Press.

Booth, W. (1979). Metaphor and rhetoric. In S. Sacks (Ed.), On Metaphor (pp. 47-70).

University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Boroditsky, L., & Ramscar, M. (2002). The roles of body and mind in abstract thought.

Psychological Science, 13, 185–188.

Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its

consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Box, R. (1999.) Running governments like a business: Implications for public

administration theory and practice. American Review of Public Administration,

29 (1),19-43.

Burgleman, J., Gouvara, E. & Bogdanowicz, M. (2004). Building the information society

in EU Countries: a long way to go. In A. Calabrese & C. Sparks (Eds.), Toward a

political economy of culture: Capitalism and communication in the twenty first

century (pp. 261-287). Lanham, Maryland: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Los Angeles: University of California.

313

CBC. (2008, Oct 16). Human rights complaint on rural internet service 'hypocrisy':

Byrne. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-

brunswick/story/2008/10/16/nb-rural-internet-access.html

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (2007). CRTC

Telecommunications Monitoring Report, 2001-2007. (Cat no. 14513). Ottawa,

ON.

Calabrese, A. & Sparks. C. (2004). Toward a political economy of culture:

Capitalism and communication in the twenty first century. Lanham, Maryland:

Rowan & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the

scallops and the fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action

and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? Sociological review monograph (pp.

1-27). London: Routledge.

Callon, M. (1987). Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for

sociological analysis. In W. Bijker, T .Hughes & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social

construction of technological systems (pp. 83-103). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT

Press.

Callon, M. (1991)Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A

sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 132-

164). London: Routledge.

314

Callon, M. & Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big leviathan: How actors

macrostructure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In K. D. Knorr-

Cetina and A. V. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology:

toward an integration of micro- and macro-Sociologies (pp.277-303). Boston,

MA, Routledge.

Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continum.

Cameron, L., & Stelma J.(2004).Metaphor clusters in discourse. Journal of Applied

Linguistics, 1 (2), 27–36.

Carey, J. (1988). Communication as culture. Boston: Unwin.

Carroll, J. & Eifler, K. (2002). Servant, Master, Double-Edged Sword: Metaphors

teachers use to discuss technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher

Education. 10 (2), 235-246.

Carver, T & and Pikalo, J. (2008). Political Language and Metaphor. New York:

Routledge.

Chandler, D. (1995). Technological or media determinism. Retrieved from

http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tdet02.html

Chateris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to critical metaphor analysis. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Cherry, S. (2004). Across the great divide. Spectrum IEEE, 41(1), 36–39.

Christidou, V., Dimopoulos, K. & Koulaidis, V. (2004) Constructing social

representations of science and technology: The role of metaphors in the press and

the popular scientific Magazines. Public Understanding of Science, 13 (4), 347-

362.

315

Cienki, A. (2008). The application of conceptual metaphor theory to political discourse.

In T. Carver and J. Pikalo (Eds.), Political language and metaphor (pp. 241-256). New

York: Routledge.

Clarke, J. (2002). A new kind of symmetry: Actor-network theories and new literacy

studies. Studies in the Education of Adults, 34(2), 107-124.

Clausen, C. & Yoshinaka, Y. (2004) Social shaping of technology in TA and HTA.

Poiesis & Praxis: International Journal of Technology Assessment and Ethics of

Science,2, 221-246.

Clement, A. and L. Shade (2000) The access rainbow: Conceptualising universal access

to the information/communication infrastructure, in M. Gurstein (Ed.)Community

Informatics (pp. 32–51). Hershey, PA: Idea Publishing.

Collins,H. & Yearley, S. (1992) .Epistemological Chicken, in A. Pickering (Ed.) Science

as practice and culture (pp. 301-326). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Condon, C., Perry, M. & O’Keefe, R. (2004). Denotation and connotation in the human-

computer interface: The ‘save as…’ command. Behaviour & Information

Technology, 23(1), 21-31.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. d'Haenens L. & Proulx S. (2000). The changing stance of the Canadian government in an

age of globalization and information. International Communication Gazette, 62(3-

4), 281-299.

316

David, C., & Graham, M. (1997). Conflicting values: Team management portrayed in

epic metaphors. Journal of Business and Technical Communications, 11(1), 24-

28.

Davidson, D. (1978). What metaphor means. In S. Sacks (Ed.), On metaphor (pp. 29-

46). University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Dawson, P., Clausen, C., & Nielsen, K. (2000). Political processes in management and the social shaping of technology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 12 (1),

5-16.

De Man, P. (1973). Semiology & Rhetoric. Diacritics, 3(3), 127-133.

Denny, R & Sunderland, P. (2005). Researching cultural metaphors in action: metaphors of computing technology in contemporary U.S. life. Journal of Business Research,

58(10), 1456-1477.

Dent, M. 2003. Managing doctors and saving a hospital: irony rhetoric and actor

networks. Organization,, 10, 107–27.

Doolin, B & Lowe, A. (2002). To reveal is to critique: actor-network theory and critical

information systems research. Journal of Information Technology, 17, 69-78.

Dugdale, A. (1999) Materiality: juggling sameness and differences. In J. Law & J.

Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 113-135). Oxford: Blackwell

Publishers.

Dutton, W., Gillett, S., McKnight, L.., & Peltu, M. (2004). Bridging broadband Internet

divides: Reconfiguring access to enhance communicative power. Journal of

Information Technologies, 19, 28-38.

Eilts C. & Lönneker B. (2002) The Hamburg Metaphor Database. Metaphorik.de, 3.

317

Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York: Knopf.

Eubanks, P. (1997). Conceptual metaphor as rhetorical response: A reconsideration of

metaphor. Written Communication, 16 (2), 171-199.

Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1995). Conceptual integration and formal expression.

Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10, 183-204.

Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

FedGas, 2009. “Our History” and “Membership Eligibility”. Retrieved August 20, 2009,

from http://www.fedgas.com/

Fillmore. C. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. In Annals of the New

York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of

Language and Speech, 280.

Fineman, B. (2004). Computers as people: Human interaction metaphors in human-

computer interaction. MA thesis: Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved from

http://mildabandon.com/paper/paper.pdf

Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fisher, K & Phelps, R. Recipe or performing art? Challenging conventions for writing

action research theses. Action Research, 4 (20), 143-164.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Five misunderstanding of case study research. In C. Seale, G.

Gobo, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 420-434).

London: Sage.

Foss, S. (2004). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice (3rd edition). Illinois:

Waveland Press Inc.

318

Foss, S. K., & Waters, W. (2007). Destination dissertation: A traveler's guide to a done

dissertation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Fraser, N. (2007). Creating model citizens for the information age: Canadian internet as

civilizing discourse policy. Canadian Journal of Communication, 32 (2), 201-

218.

Frieden, R. (2005). Lessons from broadband development in Canada, Japan, Korea and

the United States. Telecommunications Policy, 29(8), 595–613.

Fujimura, J. (1991). On methods, ontologies and representation in the sociology of

science: where do we stand? In: D. Maines (Ed.), Social organization and social

processes: Essays in honor of Anselm L. Strauss (pp. 207-248). Hawthorne, NY:

Aldine de Gruyter.

GOA (2008). Rural Connections: Community broadband infrastructure pilot project..

Retrieved from http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/general/progserv.nsf/all/pgmsrv367

Garnham, N. (1995). Political economy and cultural studies: Reconciliation or divorce?

Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 12 , 62–71.

Garnham, N. (2000). Emancipation, the media, and modernity: Arguments about the

media and social Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Genus, A. (2006). Rethinking constructive technology assessment as democratic,

effective, discourse. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73 (1), 13-26.

Genus, A. & Coles, A. (2005). On constructive technology assessment and limitations on

public participation in technology assessment. Technology Analysis & Strategic

Management, 17, 433–443.

319

Gheradi, S. (2000). Where learning is: Metaphors and situated learning in a planning

group. Human Relations, 53(8), 1057-1080.

Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gibbs, R. (1999) Taking Metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world.

In R Gibbs & G. Stern (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 57- 77).

Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Golding, P. & Murdoch, G. (1991). Culture, communication and political economy. In J

Curran & M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Mass media and society (pp.15-32). London:

Edward Arnold.

Gozzi Jr., R. (1999). The power of metaphor in the age of electronic media. Creskill, NJ:

Hampton Press Inc.

Graham, P. (2003). Political economy of communication: A critique. Retrieved from

http://www.philgraham.net/MME%20Chapter_Final.pdf

Grant, G. (1969). Technology and empire: perspectives on North America. Toronto:

Anansi.

Grimsley, M. & Meehan, A. (2007). E-Government information systems: Evaluation-led

design for public value and client trust. European Journal of Information Systems,

16(2), 134–148.

Grossberg, L. (1995). Cultural studies vs. political economy: Is anyone else bored of this

debate? Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 12(1), 72-81.

Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic

inquiry. Educational Communication and Technology Journal 30 (4), 233-252.

320

Guba E. & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research." In N.

Denzin & Y.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand

Oaks: Sage.

Gunkel, D. (2004). Second thoughts: Towards a critique of the digital divide. New Media

and Society, 5,(4), 499–522.

Gurstein, M. (2003). Effective use: A community informatics strategy beyond the Digital

Divide. First Monday, 8(12). Retrieved from

http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1107/1027

Hamilton, A. (2000). Metaphor in theory and practice: the influence of metaphor

on expectations. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24 (4), 337-253.

Hardy-Short, D. & Short, C. (1999.). Fire death and rebirth: A metaphor analysis of the

1988 Yellowstone fire debate. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 103-125.

Hart, J. (2003). Organizational orienteering: Charting the terrain. American

Communication Journal, 6(2), 1-9.

Hauben, M & Hauben, R (1998). Behind the net: The untold story of the ARPANET and

computer science. First Monday, 3.

Hellsten, I. (2002). The politics of metaphor: Biotechnology and Biodiversity in the

Media. Finland: Tampere University Press. Retrieved from

http://acta.uta.fi/pdf/951-44-5380-8.pdf

Herbeck, D. (2004). Sports metaphor and public policy: The football theme in Desert

Storm Discourse. In F. Beer & C. de Landtsheerm (Eds.) Metaphorical world

politics (pp. 121-139). Michigan: East Lansing.

321

Hill, C. T. (1989). Technology and international competitiveness: Metaphor for

progress. In S. L Goldman, (Ed.), Science, technology and social progress (pp.

33-47). Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press.

Hodder, I. (1998). The interpretation of document and material culture. In N. Denzin &

Y. Lincoln (Eds.),Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp.110-129).

Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Howarth D. & Griggs, S. (2008). Metaphor, catachresis and equivalence: The rhetoric of

Freedom to Fly in the struggle over aviation policy. In T. Carver and J. Pikalo

(Eds.) Political language and metaphor (pp. 197-211). New York: Routledge.

Howcroft, D. Mitev, N, & Wilson, M. (2004) What we may learn from the social shaping

of technology approach. In L. Willcocks & J. Mingers (Eds.) Social theory and

philosophy for information systems. (pp. 329-371). London: John Wiley and Sons

Ltd.

Ignatow, G. (2003). “Idea hamsters” on the “bleeding edge”. Poetics, 31(1), 1-22.

Innis, H. (1950). The bias of communication. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Innis, H. (1951). Empire and communication. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Islam, S. (2008). Problematizing information and communication technology as

progress: Assessing the wider social and political role of free and open source

movement. Presented at Materialities of Democracy, 9th Transnational Sociology,

Bangladesh. Workshop. Retrieved from

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mislam/www/Translational_FOSS.pdf

Isomursu, P., Hinman, R., Isomursu, M., Spasojevic, M. (2007),. Metaphors for the

mobile Internet. Journal on Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 20 (4), 259-268.

322

Izwaini S. (2003). A corpus based study of metaphor in information technology. A

corpus linguistics workshop presentation, Birmingham, England. Retrieved from

http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mgl/cl2003/papers/izwaini.pdf.

Jäkel, O. (1999.) Kant, Blumenberg, Weinrich: Some forgotten contributions to the

cognitive theory of metaphor. In. R. Gibbs and G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in

cognitive linguistics (pp. 9-27). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.

Jennett P., Yeo ,M., Scott, R., Hebert, M, Teo W. (2005) Delivery of rural and remote

health care via a broadband Internet Protocol network - views of potential users.

Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 11(8), 419-24.

John, P. (1998). Analysing public policy. London: Pinter.

Johnson, G. (1991). Agents, engines, traffic, objects and illusions: Paradigms of

computer science. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 21 (3), 71-

83.

Jones, J. (1991). Over-promise and under-delivery. Marketing and Research Today, 19

(4), 195-203.

Kahin, B. & Wilson, E. (1997). National information infrastructure initiatives: Vision

and policy design .Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kaul, S., Ali, F., Janakiram, S. & Wattenstrom, B. (2008) .Business models for

sustainable telecoms growth in developing economies. Chichester: Wiley.

Kirby, E. & Harter, L. (2002). Speaking the language of the bottom-line: The metaphor

of “managing diversity”. The Journal of Business Communication, 40 (1), 28-49.

323

Knudsen, S. (2005). Communicating novel and conventional scientific metaphors: A

study of the development of the metaphor of genetic code. Public Understanding

of Science, 14 (4), 373-392.

Kövecses, Z. (1997). Metaphor: does it constitute or reflect cultural models? In R Gibbs

& G. Stern (Ed.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 167- 188). Amsterdam:

John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Kozolanka, K. (2006). The sponsorship scandal as communication: the rise of politicized

and strategic communications in the Federal Government. Canadian Journal of

Communication, 31(2), 343-356.

Krugman (1994). Competitiveness: A dangerous obsession. Foreign Affairs. 73(2), 28-

44.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). ‘Postscript 1969’, in Structure of the scientific revolutions, (2nd

Edition) (pp. 174-210). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1977). Second thoughts on paradigms: the Essential Tension. In T. Kuhn

(Ed.). Selected studies in scientific tradition and change.(pp. 293-319). Chicago:

Chicago University Press.

Kumar, R., & Best, M. (2006). Impact and sustainability of e-government services in

developing countries: lessons learned from Tamil Nadu, India. The Information

Society, 22(1), 1-12.

Lai V., Curran, T., Menn L. (2009). Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors:

An ERP study. Brain Research, 144-155.

324

Lakoff, G. (1992). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.).Metaphor

& thought (2 edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.(1987).The metaphorical logic of rape. Metaphor and Symbolic

Activity, 2, 73-79.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Afterword. In Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.

Lasar, M. (2008, May 4). Fewer phones, more broadband: FCC struggling to fix USF.

Ars Technica. Retrieved from http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/fewer-

phones-more-broadband-fcc-struggling-to-fix-usf.ars

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through

society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Latour, B. (1988a). Mixing humans and nonhumans together: The sociology of a door-

closer. Social Problems, 35(3), 298-310.

Latour, B. (1988b). The pasteurization of France. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University

Press.

Latour, B. Technology is society made durable. (1991). In J, Law (Ed.), A sociology of

monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 103-131). London

Routledge.

Latour, B. (1996). Aramis, or the love of technology. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Latour, B. (1999). On recalling ANT. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network

theory and after (pp. 15-25). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

325

Latour, B. (2000). When things strike back: A possible contribution of ‘Science Studies’

to the Social Sciences. British Journal of Sociology, 51, 107–23.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Laurier, E. and Philo, C. (1999). X-morphising: a review essay of Bruno Latour's 'Aramis

or the love of technology'. Environment and Planning A, 31(6) , 1047 – 1071.

Law, J. (1991). Introduction: monsters, machines and sociotechnical relations. In J. Law

(Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp.

1-25). London Routledge.

Law, J. (1999). After ANT: complexity, naming & topology. In J. Law & J. Hassard

(Eds.) Actor network theory and after (pp. 1-14). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Law, J. (2002). Aircraft stories. Durham: Duke University Press.

Law, J. (2004). After Method: mess in social science research. New-York: Routledge.

Lehenkari, J. (2000). Studying innovation trajectories and networks: The case of benecol

magarine. Science Studies, 1, 50-67.

Leonardo da Vinci (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/l/leonardo_da_vinci.html

Levidow, L. (2000). Pollution metaphors in the UK biotechnology controversy. Science

as Culture, 9 (3), 325-351.

Liakopoulos, M. (2002). Pandora’s box or panacea? Using metaphor to create public

representations of biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 5-32.

Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

326

Lincoln, E., & Guba, E. (1990). Judging the quality of case study reports. Qualitative

Studies of Education, 3(1), 51-59.

Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E.. (2002). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and

emerging confluences. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln, (Eds.), Handbook of

qualitative research (2nd edition) ( pp.163-188). London: Sage.

LIRNEasia (n.d.) William Melody, Chair. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from

http://lirneasia.net/about/iab/melody/

Longford, G. (2002). Rethinking E-government: dilemmas of public service, citizenship

and democracy in the digital age. The Workshop on Public Sector Innovation.

University of Ottawa. 1-24.

Maasen,S. & Weingart,P. (1995). Metaphors--messengers of meaning. Science

Communication, 17, 9–31.

Maasen, S. & Weingart, P. (2000). Metaphors and the dynamics of knowledge. London:

Routledge.

Mander, M. (1984).The public debate about broadcasting in the twenties: An interpretive

History. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 28(2), 167-178.

McLean, C., & Hassard, J. (2004). Symmetrical absence/symmetrical absurdity: Critical

notes on the production of actor-network accounts. Journal of Management

Studies, 41(3), 493-519.

Manning, P. (2006). Words and things, goods and services: Problems of translation

between language and political economy. Language and Communication, 26(3),

270–284.

327

Mansell, R. (2004) Political economy, power and new media. New Media and Society, 6

(1), 96-105.

Mansell, R. & Javary, M. (2004). New media and the forces of capitalism. In A.

Calabrese & C. Sparks (Eds.), Toward a political economy of culture: Capitalism

and communication in the twenty first century (pp. 228-243). Lanham, Maryland:

Rowan & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

Marakas, G. M., Johnson, R. D., & Palmer, J. W. (2000). A theoretical model of

differential social attributions toward computing technology: when the metaphor

becomes the model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52, 719-

750.

Marcuse, H. (1941). Some social implications of modern technology. Studies in

Philosophy and Social Science, 138-163. Retrieved from

http://users.ipfw.edu/tankel/PDF/Marcuse.pdf

Markham, A. (2003). Metaphors reflection and shaping the reality of the Internet: Tool,

Place, way of being. Paper presented at the Association of Internet Researchers

Conference. Toronto, ON.

Marsh, S., Meech, J.., Nowell, L. & Dautenhahn, R. (2002) The philosophy and design of

socially adept technologies. Proceedings CHI 2002, April 20-25,2002,

Minneapolis, Minnesota: ACM, pp. 918-920.

Matear, M. (2002). Canada must make broadband infrastructure a priority. Canadian

Journal of Communication, 27 (2), 461-468.

328

McChesney, R. (1998). The political economy of global communication. In R.

McChesney, E. Wood, J. Foster (Eds.), Capitalism and the information age: The

political economy of the global communication revolution. (pp. 1-26). New York:

Monthly Review Press.

McChesney, R. (2004). Making a molehill out of a mountain: the sad state of political

economy in US media studies. In A. Calabrese & C. Sparks (Eds.), Toward a

political economy of culture: Capitalism and communication in the twenty first

century (pp.41-64). Lanham, Maryland: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

McCloskey, D. (1990). If you’re so smart: The narrative of economic expertise. London:

University of Chicago Press.

McIver, W., Birdsall, W. & Rasmussen, M. (2003). The Internet and the right to

communicate. First Monday, 8(12). Retrieved from

http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_12/mciver/index.html

Meehan, E., Mosco, V., & Wasco, J. (1993). Rethinking political economy: Change and

continuity. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 105-116.

Menzies, H. (1996). Whose brave new world?: The information highway and the new

economy. Toronto: Between the Lines.

Meyer, K. Common metaphors and their impact on distance education: What they tell us

and what they hide. Teachers College Record ,107(8), 1601-1625.

Middleton, C. & Sorensen, C. (2006). How connected are Canadians? Inequities in

Canadian households' Internet access. Canadian Journal of Communication, 30

(4).

329

Mintz, J. (n.d.) Some thoughts on the merits of pragmatism as a guide to environmental

Protection. Retrieved from http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta

elements/journals/bcealr/31_1/01_TXT.htl

Mitchell, D. 2003. The Alberta SuperNet Research Alliance. Canadian Journal of

Communication, 28, 219–226.

Mitchell, D. (2007). Broadband at the Margins: Challenges to SuperNet deployment in

rural and remote Albertan communities, in M. Bakardjieva, F. Pannekoek and D.

Taras (Eds.) How Canadians Communicate. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.

Mol, A. (2003). The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice (Science and Cultural

Theory). Duke University Press.

Mosco, V. (1996). The political economy of communication. London: Sage.

Mosco, V. (2004) Capitalism Chernobyl? From ground zero to cyberspace and back

again. In A. Calabrese & C. Sparks (Eds.), Toward a political economy of culture:

Capitalism and communication in the twenty first century (pp.211-227). Lanham,

Maryland: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

Mosco, V. McKercher, C. (2006). Convergence bites back: Labour struggles in the

Canadian communication industry. Journal of Communication, 31(3), 733-752.

Mosco, V., & Reddick, A. (1997) Political economy, communication, and policy.In M.

Bailie & D. Winseck (Eds.), Democratizing communication? Comparative

perspectives on information and power (pp. 11–32). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press

Inc.

330

Morse J.M., Barrett M., Mayan M., Olson K. & Spiers J. (2002) Verification strategies

for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International

Journal of Qualitative Methods 1(2), Article 2.

Morton, L. (n.d.). Eleven reasons why writing a dissertation is harder than having a

baby. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from

http://web2.uwindsor.ca/courses/edfac/morton/ph_d__humour.htm.

Mottier, V. (2008). Metaphors, mini-narratives and Foucauldian discourse theory. In T.

Carver and J. Pikalo (Eds.). Political language and metaphor (pp. 182-194). New

York: Routledge.

Müller, C. (2008). Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: a dynamic view.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mueller, M. (1995). Why communications policy is passing mass communication by:

Political economy as the missing link. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 12, 457–

472.

Murdock G. & Golding, P. Dismantling the digital divide: rethinking the dynamics of

participation and exclusion. In A. Calabrese & C. Sparks (Eds.),

Toward a political economy of culture: Capitalism and communication in the twenty first

century (pp. 244-260) . Lanham, Maryland: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

Murdoch, J. 1998. The spaces of actor-network Theory. Geoforum, 29, 357–74.

Mussio, L. B. (2001) Telecom nation: Telecommunications, computers, and

governments in Canada. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press

Nass, C. & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers.

Journal of Social Issues,56, 81-104.

331

Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

Nicoll, K. & Edwards, R. (1999). Reading policy texts: lifelong learning as metaphor.

International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19 (5). 439-469.

Noce, A. A., & McKeown, L. (2007). A new benchmark for internet use: A logistic

modeling of factors influencing internet use in Canada, 2005. Government

Information Quarterly, doi:10.1016/j.giq.2007.04.006

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Norton, R. (2007). Unintended consequences. In D. Henderson (ed.). Concise

encyclopedia of economics. Retrieved from

http://www.ccsindia.org/lssreader/22lssreader.pdf

O’Connor E. 1995. Paradoxes of participation: textural analysis and organizational

changes. Organization Studies, 16(5),769–803.

OECD (2001). The hidden threat to e-government. Avoiding large government IT

failures. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/12/1901677.pdf

Oxford English Dictionary On-line (1989). New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Oxford English Dictionary On-line (2004). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ortony, A. ( 1975). Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Education Theory,

26, 395-398.

Paisley, L & Richardson, D. (1999). The first mile of connectivity: Why the first mile and

not the last? Sustainable Development Department, Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from

http://www.fao.org/sd/Cddirect/CDre0026.htm

332

Palmquist, R. (1996). A qualitative study of Internet Mmtaphors. Proceedings of the

17th National Online Meeting. New York, NY.

Pannabecker, J. R. (1991). Technological impacts and determinism in technology

education: Alternate metaphors from social reconstructivism. Journal of

Technology Education, 3 (1), 43-54.

Parisi, J. (2005). Networking knowledge for information: A book review. The Digest,15.

Retrieved from http://neuf.cprost.sfu.ca/digest/digests/digest15/networking-

knowledge-for-information/

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd edition). Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Pickering, A. (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Potter, A. (2003). Zones of silence: A framework beyond the digital divide. First

Monday, 11(5). Retrieved from

http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1327/1247

Powell, A. (2009). Wi-Fi as Public Utility or Public Park? Metaphors for Planning Local

Communication Infrastructure. SSRN. Retrieved from

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1330913

Powell, A., & Shade, L. R. (2006). Going wi-fi in Canada: Municipal and community

initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 23(3-4), 381-403.

Pragglejaz Group, 2007. MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in

discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(10), 1-39.

333

Raboy, M. & Abramson, B. (1999). Policy globalization and the "Information Society":

a View from Canada. Telecommunications Policy, 23 (10), 775-791.

Räisänen, C. & Linde, A. (2004). Technolologizing discourse to standardize projects in

multi-project organizations: Hegemony by consensus? Organization,11 (1), 101-

122.

Ramirez, R. (2001). A model for rural and remote information and communication

technologies: A Canadian exploration. Telecommunications Policy 25(5), 315–

330.

Ramirez, R.,Aitkin, H., Kora, G, & Richardson, D. (2002). Community engagement,

performance measurement and sustainability: Experiences from Canadian

community based networks. Canadian Journal of Communication, 30(2), 259-

279.

Ramirez, R., Graham, G., Bingham, F., & Pellerin, D. (2007). Broadband for what?

Policy implications of an essential public utility. Retrieved from

http://www.forumonpublicdomain.ca/files/ramirez_paper.pdf.

Ramirez, R. & Richardson, D. (2005) Measuring the impact of telecommunication

services on rural and remote communities, Telecommunications Policy, 29(1),

297-319.

Ratzan, L. (2000). Making sense of the Web: A metaphorical approach. Information

Research, 6(1). Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/6-1/paper85.html

Rees, C., Knight, L., Wilkinson, C. (2007). Doctors being up there and we being down

here: A metaphorical analysis of talk about student/doctor–patient relationships.

Social Science and Medicine, 65(4), 725-737.

334

Reese, D & Bendito, P. (2003). Enhancing e-solution animations through conceptual

metaphor. Journal of Visual Literacy, 23(2), 163-176.

Reeves, B. & Nass, C. (1998). The media equation: How people treat computers,

television, and new media like real people and places. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Richards, I. (1936). The philosophy of rhetoric. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Rigney, D. (2001). The metaphorical society: An invitation to social theory. New York:

Rowman and Littlefield.

Roelofsen, A., Broerse, J., de Cock Buning, T. & Bunders, J. (2008). Exploring the

future of ecological genomics: Integrating CTA with vision assessment.

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75 (3), 334-355.

Ryall, E, (2008). The language of genetic technology: Metaphor and media

representation. Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 22 (3), 363-373.

Sawhney, H. (1996). Information superhighways: metaphors as midwives. Media,

Culture & Society, 18, 291-314.

Santa Ana, O. (1999). ‘Like an animal I was treated’: anti-immigration metaphor in US

public discourse. Discourse & Society, 10(2), 191-224.

Schachter, H. (1999). The use of market metaphors in public participation discourse.

International Review of Public Administration. 4(2), 13-21.

Schmitt, Rudolf (2005). Systematic metaphor analysis as a method of qualitative

research.. The Qualitative Report, 10(2), 358-395.

335

Schön, D. (1979). Generative metaphor: a perspective on problem steering in social

policy. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 254-283). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Schot, J. & Rip, A. (1996). The past and future of constructive technology assessment.

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54, 251–268.

Seale, C. (2004). Researching society and culture. Thousands Oaks: Sage.

Seidman, S. (1995). The postmodern turn: New perspectives on social theory.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Selwyn, N (2004). Reconsidering popular and political understandings of the digital

divide. New Media and Society, 6(3), 341–362.

Shade, L., Porter, N., & Sanchez, W. (2005). "You can see anything on the internet, you

can do anything on the internet!" Young Canadians talk about the internet.

Canadian Journal of Communication, 30, 503-526.

Short, D. (2001). Shining a torch on metaphor in HRD. Advances in Developing Human

Resources, 3(3), 297-308.

Skjerdal, T. S. (1998) Structures vs. interaction, political economy vs. cultural studies.

Centre for Cultural and Media Studies, University of Natal. Retrieved from

http://www.geocities.com/terjeskjerdal/pol_ec.htm.

Smith, G. & Huntsman, G. (1997). Reframing the metaphor of the citizen-government

relationship: A value-centered perspective. Public Administration Review, 57 (4)

309-318.

336

Smith, R. & Turner, P. (1995). A social constructionist reconfiguration of metaphor

analysis: An application of “SMC” to organizational socialization theorizing.

Communication Monographs, 62,152-181

Solomon, J. and Walker, D. (1995) .Separating infrastructure and service provision: The

broadband imperative. Telecommunications Policy, 19(2), 83-89.

Sparks, C. (2004). The impact of the Internet on existing media. In A. Calabrese & C.

Sparks (Eds.), Toward a political economy of culture: Capitalism and

communication in the twenty first century. (pp. 307-326) . Lanham, Maryland:

Rowan & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

Stadler, F. (1997). Actor-network theory and communication networks: towards

convergence. University of Toronto. Retrieved from

http://felix.openflows.org/html/Network_Theory.html#2.

Staniland, M. (1985) What is political economy? New Haven: Yale University Press.

Star, S. (1991) Power technologies and the phenomenology of conventions: On being allergic to onions. In J Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology

and domination (pp. 26-58). London Routledge.

Stefik, M. (1997). Internet dreams: Archetypes, myths, and metaphors. Cambridge:

MIT Press.

Stone, D. (1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science

Quarterly, 104 (2), 281-289.

Stone, D. (2001). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (Revised Edition).

New York: Norton.

337

Straehle,C., Weiss, G., Wodak, R., & Sedlak, M. (1999). Struggle as metaphor in

European Union discourses on unemployment Discourse & Society, 10(1), 67-99

Strathern, M. (1999). What is intellectual property after?', in J. Law, J. & J. Hassard,

(Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 156-180). Oxford: Blackwell

Publishers.

Streeter, T. Romanticsm in business culture: the internet, the 1990s and the origins of

exuberance. In A. Calabrese & C. Sparks (Eds.), Toward a political economy of

culture: Capitalism and communication in the twenty first century. (pp. 286-

306). Lanham, Maryland: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers.

Sussman, G. (1997). Communication, technology, and politics in the information age.

Thousand Oaks: Sage.

The Media Research Hub (nd). William H Melody. Retrieved from

http://mediaresearchhub.ssrc.org/william-melody/person_view

Thompson, J. (1990). Ideology and modern culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Tilley, C. (1999). Metaphor and material culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Tracy, S., Lutgen-Sandvik, P. & Alerts, J. (2006). Nightmares, demons, and slaves.

Exploring the painful metaphors of workplace bullying. Management

Communication Quarterly, 20(2), 148-185.

Tsoukas, H. (1991). The missing link: A transformational view of metaphors in

organizational science. Academy of Management Review, 16, 566-585.

Turner, M. 1996. The literary mind. New York: Oxford University Press.

338

Undie, C., Crichton, J. & Zulu, E. (2007). Metaphors we love by: Conceptualization of

sex among young people in Malawi. African Journal of Reproductive Health,

11 (3), 221-235. van Hulst, M (2008). Love and life in Heart-less Town: or the use of metaphor in local

planning. In T. Carver and J. Pikalo (Eds.), Political language and metaphor (pp.

212-224). New York: Routledge. van Merkerk, R. Smits, R. (2007). Tailoring CTA for emerging technologies.

Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 75(3), 312-333. van Schalkwyk, G. (2002). Music as a metaphor for thesis writing. The Qualitative

Report, 7(2). Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR7-

2/schalkwyk.html

Vinogradovas, M. (2002). The notions of “schemata” and “schemas” in the study of

literary fictions. Respectus Philologicus 1(6). Retrieved from

http://filologija.vukhf.lt/102/vinograd.htm

Viseu, A., Clement, A., Aspinall, J., & Kennedy, T. (2006) .The interplay of public and

private spaces in internet access. Information, Communication & Society (iCS), 9

(5), 633 – 656.

Wajcman, Judy. (2000). Reflections on gender and technology studies: In what state is

the art? Social Studies of Science 30(3), 447-64.

Warschauer, M. (2002).Reconceptualizing the digital divide. First Monday, 7(7)

Retrieved from

http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1798/1678

339

Wathen, C. & Harris, R. (2007). I try to take care of it myself. How rural women search

for health information. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 639-651.

Whittle, A. & Spicer, A. (2008) Is actor-network theory critique? Organization Studies

29(4), 611-629.

Wiggins, D.J. & Pauley, J. (2005). What is politics: an inventory of meanings. In R. Hart,

S. Jarvis, W. Jennings, D. Smith Howell (Eds.), Political Keywords: Using

language that uses us (pp. 44-64). London: Oxford University Press.

Williams, A. (2005). Understanding clusters: How metaphors help to reveal and conceal.

Innovation Systems Research Network’s Annual Meeting, Graduate Student

Session, Toronto, ON.

Williams, A., Langford, C. & Matos, S. (2007). The Alberta SuperNet: What does it

mean to rural business communities? The International Journal of Technology,

Knowledge and Society, 2 (9), 25-34.

Williams, A. (2009). Metaphor, policy and power: A reflection on the role of metaphor as

a tool for critical policy analysis. In S David, J. Przychodzen & F. Boucher (Eds.)

Que peut la métaphore?: Histoire, savoir et poétique (pp. 169-186 ) Paris:

L'Harmattan.

Winseck, D. (1998). Re-convergence: A political economy of telecommunications in

Canada. Creskill: Hampton Press.

Winner, L. (1980). Do artefacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121-136.

Winner, L. (1993). Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social

constructivism and the philosophy of technology. Science, Technology & Human

Values, 18 (3), 362-78.

340

Woolgar, S. (2004). What happened to provocation in science and technology studies?

History & Technology, 20(4), 339-349.

Wu, I. (2004). Canada, South Korea, Netherlands and Sweden: Regulatory implications

of the convergence of telecommunications, broadcasting and internet services.

Telecommunications Policy, 28(1), 79–96.

Wyatt, S. (2004). Danger! Metaphors at work in economics, geophysiology, and the

Internet. Science, Technology and Human Values, 29 (2), 242-261.

Yanow, D. (1992). Supermarkets and culture clash: The epistemological role of

metaphors in administrative practice, American Review of Public Administration,

22, 89–109.

Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Yanow, D. (2008). Cognition meets action: metaphors as models of and models for. In

T. Carver and J. Pikalo (Eds.). Political language and metaphor (pp. 225-238). New

York: Routledge.

Yin, R. (1998). The abridged version of case study research. in L. Bickman & D.Rog

(Eds.), Handbook of Applied Social Research (pp. 229-259). Thousand Oaks:

Sage.

Yin, R. (2003). Case study research, design and methods, 3rd ed. Newbury Park: Sage

Publications.

Young, D. (2003). Discourses on Communication Technologies in Canadian and

European Broadcasting Policy Debates. European Journal of Communication, 18

(2), 209-240.

341

IS EVIDENCE POLICY-MAKING REALLY POSSIBLE? REFLECTIONS FOR

POLICYMAKERS AND ACADEMICS ON MAKING USE OF RESEARCH IN

THE WORK OF POLICY

A.1. Introduction

It has been argued persuasively (Colebatch, 2006; Radin, 2000) that mainstream Western accounts of the policymaking process often bear little resemblance to the realities of those who “accomplish” policy work on a daily basis. The discussion that follows examines an area where the disjuncture between outcome focused accounts of how things ought to work, and interpretive descriptions of how things actually are, is pronounced: the translation of academic research into something that is of use in policy work. In this case, the lack of congruency between process challenges and outcome expectations occurs at all levels of the knowledge creation process (i.e. in the production, dissemination and utilization of results), and differently by various participants, thereby increasing the level of complexity associated with attempts to understand and resolve this problem. Nonetheless, the exploration below aims to illuminate this topic by highlighting the diverse concerns that researchers and policymakers alike bring to its articulation.126

Overall, my discussion is based on four major premises:

1. Creating effective policies for citizens is a goal that policymakers and academic

researchers often share;

126 This is a draft of a chapter for an edited collection on policy work, the revised version will be published by Amsterdam University Press in 2010.

342

2. Both sides of the research and policy nexus tend to overlook the challenges of

“the other” when conceptualizing the complexity of using academically generated

knowledge in policymaking;

3. There is a need for more critical reflection on the part of both groups regarding

the role they play in perpetuating divisions;

4. Specific strategies can be pursued which may encourage the formation of more

successful collaborations.

While the ideas for this appendix are based on the issues raised in the existing literature on knowledge translation, this discussion is also highly personal. It developed out of this dissertation’s research and is also a reflection of the fact I have occupied many roles within the academy and the government; consequently, the concepts that resonate most with my experiences as a Canadian policy worker and scholar are those that are emphasized.

I begin first by considering the most pressing dilemmas associated with trying to be a policymaker that effectively uses evidence, and a researcher who produces policy relevant research. Next, the types of claims made by both groups against the “other” when trying to promote successful collaborations are identified. Finally, several recommendations for moving forward are provided.

343

A.2. A question of outcomes: The central problematics for the modern day

policymaker and researcher

Problematic one: To be “ruled by evidence” or to be “managed by measurement”?

Policy workers are urged, on the one hand, to use evidence in making policy decisions

(Black 2001; Solesbury 2002), and operationally, to ‘manage via measurement’ – as

Noordegraaf and Amba (2003) describe the urgent search for ‘objective’ indicators as the basis for initiating and evaluating action. Both these expectations are outcome focused but the constraints each places on everyday policy are often incompatible, making it remarkably challenging for these objectives to be reached simultaneously. Those doing policy work are thus often forced to decide what is of greatest value: focusing on activities that promote the systematic integration of research into policy decisions and require a significant investment of human and financial resources to be meaningful, or rather to appear as a responsible manager of funds? This challenge is magnified because the “use” of research is not easy operationalized as a return on investment, although some organizations have begun to assess the possibilities available for successfully quantifying research impact (Grant, 2006). At present we are really only at the start of understanding what it might be like to achieve both these goals, as strong examples of fiscally responsible, research rich policy environments, are not readily apparent. However,

Sanderson (2003) argues that we must not only reflect upon whether being “ruled by evidence” and “managed by measurement” are mutually attainable but also whether such objectives are desirable in light of the complexity, ambiguity, and the moral/ethical dimensions of contemporary policy issues.

344

A.2.1. Problematic two: How to cope with disorder while still maintaining legitimacy?

A second dilemma, one that has been well articulated by post-positivists as a critique of the post war policy developments, surrounds the assumption that research findings can and will be systematically integrated into the policy practices to achieve better results.

Interpretivist scholars such as Fischer (2003), Stone (1988, 2001) and Yanow (2000) have been instrumental in making a case for the need to view policy not as a rational, objective, transparent process in which research could be used but rather as a contextual, non linear, discursive, politically charged reality, where academic results could be overlooked. At present, while policymakers may be able to appreciate the value of a more interpretive reading of their activities (because this more accurately describes what occurs in their everyday practice) they continue to rely on positivist sorts of trappings for developing, implementing and evaluating policy (such as cost benefit analyses and environmental impact assessments). In this context, the current enthusiasm for evidence- based policy becomes simply another component of the positivist arsenal whose deployment requires “cautious scepticism” as it does not fit comfortably into the non- linearity of daily activities (Sanderson, 2003). Policymakers must contend with a core dilemma: if they acknowledge the messiness of policymaking – what Colebatch (2006) labels as the ‘profane’ (i.e. the ‘interests’, ‘contests’ and ‘ambiguity’ inherent in policy work) – will the policies that are the outcomes of these contests be seen as legitimate ?

The dominance of ‘instrumental rationality’ in current ‘acceptable public discourse’ about government reflects societal expectations of how democracies ought to operate

(Colebatch 2006). Citizens in a rationalist Western democracy expect to be assured that the application of public authority is determined by clear decisions arrived at through

345 informed and systematic choice; it thus may not be ‘helpful’ to describe these as provisional and ambiguous outcomes reached through the interplay of partial and partisan perspectives.

Problematic three: What happens to curiosity when impact becomes the desired outcome?

Policymakers are not alone in feeling pressures to integrate research more fully into policy. Academics also face their own set of challenges when evaluating what sort of studies they should produce in order to assist policy. For example, in Canada researchers are being compelled to be more accountable to public funding agencies regarding the use of their work. Our leading granting council, the Social Sciences and the Humanities

Research Council (SSHRC), recently proclaimed that “maximum knowledge impact” and

“interactive engagement” should be introduced as two new values that guide all future funding decisions (SSHRC, 2005). For researchers that study policy, this means rethinking how best to deliver research results so that they have an impact on the policy community and serve to engage policymakers more effectively. Nevertheless, SSHRC’s expectations do not support the image of a scholar that has traditionally been presented in graduate training and beyond. For example, the existing model, which is still a prevalent part of the university culture in Canada and elsewhere, is one in which academics build their research portfolio based on their personal curiosity towards the social world and are often only expected and rewarded for engaging with a small group of other intellectuals around specialized research domains. It is an elite and exclusionary process since the typical dissemination activities encouraged include only attending conferences and

346 producing publications in peer reviewed journals. While internal and external funding expectations have started to push Canadian academics towards structuring their research agendas to meet strategic priorities, as perhaps too has the growing popularity of research methodologies (such as participatory action research) which promotes the direct involvement of research subjects in the formulation and evaluation of research, this is still not the norm in most social sciences and humanities departments. Accordingly, the demand to produce research with an impact is not something that many academics are entirely at ease with. This discomfort was highlighted in a response to SSHRC’s desire to create research with an impact (which could not be guaranteed) in which scholars raised the following questions: how should research mobilization be measured; who would determine success; finally, most importantly, how can we still maintain a place for intellectual endeavours of a more theoretical, non practical nature that may be of value, given the requirement to have an impact (Knowledge Mobilization Symposium, 2005)?

Problematic four: How can we be relevant and still acknowledge the validity of other forms of knowledge

The twin demands that policy be based on evidence and that academic research be shown to have an impact on policy are grounded in an assumption that research will produce a higher-order, “objective” knowledge which will therefore produce better policy outcomes. Nevertheless, this widely-shared assumption has itself been challenged by academic research. In the “postmodern turn” in the social sciences, it is argued that the knowledge academics produce is not the only knowledge of any value, and that

347 experience (for instance) can also produce valid knowledge. While many researchers still claim to maintain an appearance of “objectivity and trustworthiness that is incontrovertible” (Huberman, 1994), and strive to mask the messiness of both their process and final results (Law, 2004), when social science is positioned as an

“oxymoron” as postmodernity suggests it is, such strategies are less powerful. For example, if there is nothing scientific about the social sciences and humanities research, it quickly loses its capacity to “claim superior knowledge and privileged expertise”.

Researchers are thus required to exchange their findings “on equal footing with practioners, both in terms of their status and in the validity of their data”. (Huberman,

1994, p. 12) Such equality makes some academics uncomfortable as it seemingly questions the validity of their craft and renders their scholarly contribution as less relevant than they believe it to be.

A.3. A question of process: The barriers to collaboration created by the “other”

Attempting to balance efficiency and research utilization, legitimacy and disorder, impact and curiosity, and relevance and multiplicity are among the most challenging problematics that policymakers and academics experience when they consider how best to integrate research into policymaking. Moreover, as a result of these broad institutional barriers these groups have been highly critical of each other. Identifying these key points of contention supplies additional insights into why these two communities tend to function as “unlinked” and “asynchronous” entities (Lavis, 2006).

348

The problems with policymakers

Among the sorts of issues academics raise regarding policymakers are:

• Access to do research- Academics are acutely aware that they have limited access

To government documents, people and processes, particularly the core artefacts that

help move policy forward (within the Canadian context this includes Cabinet

correspondence, briefing notes, consultation papers); many of these objects remain

protected (even with the additional flexibility that legislation around access to

information permits) and are not available on public sites (Atkinson-Grosjean, 2006).

Even for those actually engaged in ethnographic work, in which they observe the

daily activities of policymakers, there is a great deal of what they see that cannot be

reported, or which they choose not to reveal due to the nature of their relationship

with their research participants (Schrecker, 2001). This means that academic

descriptions of particular policy situations may not capture all that has been observed,

making it quite difficult for those academics on the outside looking in to appreciate

how the policy world operates and anticipate where specific gaps in information exist.

• Communication of needs and awareness/respect for the research process-

Academics have accused policymakers of making minimal efforts to effectively alert

the research community of what they want in terms of information, why they would

like particular findings, and how they intend to use research within a certain political

context (Whitehead et al., 2004). Moreover, when policymakers do seek out precise

knowledge, they often treat research as a product and position themselves as

349 consumers that should be able to pick from a series of pre-packaged research goods in order to help answer complex questions in a short time frame. As Lomas (2000) notes, “This view recognizes neither the depth or breadth of studies that could be done, nor the numerous stages involved in choosing which of those studies to do and how to do them” (p. 141). Huberman (1990) expresses the discomfort academics feel with policymakers’ awareness of the research process: “if it takes a research team two years to get hold of its study conceptually, why should we assume that reading a single research report in a few days… will bring enlightenment (for the decision maker)” (p. 22)? In addition, some policymakers have quite negative attitudes towards the research process, and lack the skills and to interpret and use results

(Lavis, 2006). In sum, academics have difficulty in simply predicting where policymakers need assistance and often feel that policymakers lack awareness of, comfort with, and respect for, their research contribution.

• Misuse- Researchers spend a great deal of time selecting the appropriate theories and methods for their work. Since research is apt to have professional and personal value to most scholars, a fear that sometimes manifests itself regarding the use of their findings in policy deliberations is that their results will be taken out of context, misunderstood, or misrepresented. Policymakers themselves admit to the fact they sometimes use research for quite different purposes than was intended, illustrating that this concern is by no means unfounded (Petticrew et. al, 2004). Public policy is developed and delivered explicitly “through the use of power” and that the coercive influence of the state remains in the hands of “democratically accountable politicians”

350

(Solesbury, 2004 p. 95). The utilization of research in the art of persuasion is not

something that all academics are comfortable with, making some scholars less likely

to produce results that can easily become an integral part of the “policy spin”.

The problems with academics

Conversely, policymaker have raised some valid critiques of the academic community which include:

• Awareness and political savvy- In a study of public officials attitudes

towards integrating research into the policy process academics were described as

“blissfully unaware” and “politically naïve” (Petticrew et al., 2004). Among the key

factors that researchers tend to underestimate when thinking about decision making

are: the pressures of the legislative calendar, the stress of managing competing

interest groups, the shifts associated with media attention, and the short terms of

political appointees (Rist, 1998). It has been suggested that academics’ biggest

mistake is that they remain committed to a view in which policy is conceptualized as

an event, “as if policy were made by a small discrete group of actors clustered in a

room at a specified time, perhaps until a puff of white smoke is emitted” (Lomas,

2000, p.140). By treating decision-making as a discrete moment rather than an

extended process, academic researchers often miss out on contributing in areas where

their input could be quite constructive (Rist, 1998). When thinking about how best to

contribute to the policy world, academics tend to ignore or underestimate the complex

351 pressures faced by their counterparts and fail to appreciate the diffuse and sometimes unpredictable realm of decision-making.

• Relevancy/Applicability of Research- In relation to the sorts of work that most researchers are producing, policymakers have been critical of the general relevance and applicability of the studies that are presently available. The current body of research that exists has been described as “policy free” (Petticrew et al., 2004) and critiqued for being “inward looking, too piecemeal, too supplier driven…, rather than focusing on key concerns to policymakers” (the DfEE cited in Sanderson, 2003, p.334). As one policymaker asserted, “many researchers do not see it as their responsibility to think through the policy implications of their work− they need to move beyond preaching to other researchers” (Petticrew et al., 2004, p. 813).

Researchers have been encouraged to “give up the gold standard” and develop methods that are appropriate to the policy area they are interested in assessing

(Petticrew et al., 2004). Among the type of information that policymakers have suggested might be of greatest use to them are evaluations on the cost effectiveness of programs and initiatives (money always talks in the policy world), predictive studies, the development of indicators to achieve targets, and systematic reviews (Petticrew et al., 2004).

• Communication/Dissemination Strategies- While the academic community devotes a great deal of time recognizing the limitations when presenting their research much of the policymaker disapproval is focused on most scholars’ inability to

352

effectively communicate their results in a comprehensible and useful format to other

audiences (Petticrew et al, 2004; Puchner, 2001; SSHRC, 2005). A shift in thinking

has been recommended because questions regarding “methodological soundness” and

“degree of uncertainty” (which remain central in typical journal articles and

dissertations) often “cloud the message” for policymakers (Petticrew et al., 2004, p.

814). Policymakers want clear, straightforward narratives, not carefully-qualified

accounts of academic research; in a recent study, a policymaker claimed, ‘what is

important is how convincingly the evidence is presented, and how interesting you

make it […] the face validity of a good story is an example of how policy style can

influence politics’ (Petticrew et al. 2004: 812). They also highly favour the

establishment and maintenance of knowledge relationships to occur through face-to-

face contact (Martens and Roos, 2005).

A.4. Possibilities for moving forward and bridging the policy/research gap

As the above discussion demonstrates, there is a variety of outcome and process pressures that make being a policymaker who effectively uses evidence, and a researcher who produces policy relevant accounts, quite difficult. Nevertheless, our current situation is not one without the possibility for transformation; that is if the will to change daily practices and devote additional efforts to increasing interaction from both parties is present. With that in mind I offer some final reflections on the broad strategies available for improving the quality of collaborative initiatives between policymakers and researchers.

353

First, we need to lay the groundwork for supporting a culture of engaged communication across academic and policymaking communities. While studies that evaluate specific initiatives aimed at fostering partnerships are somewhat limited and spread across many different disciplines (Landry et al., 2001), what is apparent in the reviews available is that the early and active engagement of policymakers throughout a research project (including the investment of funds) dramatically increases the likelihood of its findings being used at some point within policy deliberations; direct involvement fosters a much stronger sense of ownership and accountability becoming attached to the research process (Lavis, 2006; Lomas, 2000; Martens and Roos, 2005; Nutley et al.,

2002). There are at least two major steps involved in establishing a solid foundation for exchange between the two communities (Nutley et al., 2002). The first is to determine a common understanding of what constitutes evidence. This requires taking stock of what policy problems we can actually expect to be able to research, encouraging an “openness to methodological pluralism” in which both qualitative and quantitative studies are perceived as valuable, and accepting that knowledge generated from other sources

(including the experience of policymakers) is worthwhile. In doing so it is expected that a wider climate of respect and trust can be fostered. The second step involves a more targeted activity in which a focused effort is made to develop research and development

(R&D) strategies around policy issues. Here the overall aim should be to determine how best to produce a rich and robust knowledge base upon which policymakers can depend.

Formulating a corpus of research such as this will be challenging since the types of questions that have to be confronted include:

354

• What constitutes methodologically sound research to policymakers and researchers

alike?

• How much new primary research needs to be supported over the secondary analysis

of existing data?

• How might the requirement for valid/reliable research be compared with the need to

produce timely findings of practical relevance?

• How can gaps be identified in our current knowledge base?

• How should issues be prioritized that require attention?

• How might we balance the need for researchers to remain free from political coercion

and the desire for close cooperation between the providers and users of research?

(adapted from Nutley et al., 2006, p. 4)

Addressing these issues is a necessity if policymakers and researchers want to work together effectively. Researcher organized workshops, government led priority-setting exercises, and scoping activities designed by funding agencies, are the sorts of venues where these types of exchanges might occur (Lavis, 2006). In addition, secondments in which researchers and policymakers are exposed to the daily routines and pressures of the other may be another valuable tool for promoting a sustained dialogue (Nutley et al.,

2002; Whitehead et al., 2004). These strategies, which help take stock of specific policy areas, are designed to help researchers and policymakers establish some common goals.

In doing so, researchers are offered a greater awareness of what type of research is needed (making them less likely to focus on irrelevant concerns), while policymakers are forced to actively reflect upon where they could most use academic findings (requiring them to have a much stronger sense of their own organizational needs and abilities).

355

Secondly, we need to find new and creative solutions for dissemination and access. For researchers this means being amenable to generating their research findings in diverse formats, for a variety of audiences, using multiple channels (particularly different kinds of media). This strategy must be approached cautiously and realistically however. For example, Fenwick (2008) provides a thought provoking account of her efforts to present social science findings differently and in doing so argues that new ways of presenting knowledge often require skills that go much beyond the typical expertise that academics have, particularly when it comes to using alternative formats such as theatre. Other practical tips consist of providing accessible summaries of research (executive summaries, take home message handouts, short sound bites), using language that will engage readers (here again my work on metaphor could quite constructive), and always aiming to draw out policy implications from research findings (Nutley et al., 2002;

Petticrew et al., 2004; Lavis, 2006; Martens and Roos, 2006). Scholars are also encouraged to “be proactive” and make concerted efforts to stay in contact with relevant policy and delivery bodies (Nutley et al., 2006). Those who fund research can also play a role. Strategies for such agencies may be to allow dedicated resources within research grants to be deployed for alternative dissemination activities (beyond conference attendance and peer reviewed publication); to consult policymakers when commissioning research; as well as, to provide funds for research synthesis and evaluation activities

(Knowledge Mobilization Symposium, 2005, Nutley et al., 2006). Among the roles that policymakers and the bureaucratic system might play is to increase access to documents which reveal how policy decision are made; highlight research that has fed into policy

356 decisions; also, torequire departments to show evidence of research use when applying for program funds (Nutley et al. 2006). Collectively, these types of solutions help decrease issues of access and exposure by making it easier for policymakers to use research (since it becomes available in accessible forms) and by providing academics with greater insight as to where, when, and how their research is being deployed (if at all).

Thirdly, we should facilitate, recognize and reward the uptake of research in policy. In terms of encouraging utilization, the establishment of “one stop shopping” sites where policymakers have immediate access to up to date research and a rapid response to any of their questions has been recommended (Lavis, 2006). Moreover, researchers and policymakers may be able to work together to develop self-assessment tools that determine an organization’s capacity to adapt and utilize research (Lavis, 2006). It has also been suggested that policymakers can and should be given specific training about how to read and interpret findings (Lavis, 2006; Nutley et al., 2002). In terms of recognizing and rewarding policymakers for using research one promising possibility is to link R&D strategies to departmental business plans (Nutley et al., 2002). If one returns to a point raised earlier, that we have few examples of fiscally responsible, research rich, policy environments, it is apparent that implementing these sorts of suggestions would be designed to increase policymakers and researchers collective learning regarding how the research exchange process actually works, since we are still struggling to build a solid knowledge base around this area (Abramson et al., 2007; Landry et al., 2001).

357

In Canada, an excellent example of an organization that has been a true leader in meeting all of these recommendations is the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation

(CHSRF): http://www.chsrf.ca (Lavis, 2006). Among the types of the materials they

supply are:

• “Mythbusters”, research summaries that offer evidence that tends to be contrary to

accepted wisdom in Canadian healthcare debates;

• “Evidence boost” which includes brief discussions of healthcare issues where

research findings point to a preferred course of action in policy;

• “Promising practices in research use” which highlight specific healthcare

organizations that have invested their time, energy and resources to improve their

ability to use research.

In addition, CHSRF offers the Executive Training for Research Application (EXTRA), a

two-year program for capacity and leadership to optimize the use of research evidence in

managing Canadian healthcare organizations. They also provide assistance for new and

established academic researchers, allowing them to work with mentors in order to

reorient their work toward applied health services or policy research. As well, they

organize “Listening for Direction”, a policy-scoping activity in which they identify short-

term (one to two years) and longer-term (three to ten years) health system priorities.

Finally, CHSRF’s funding goes to projects that bring the best available evidence together,

highlight how to act based on such evidence, and/or promote specific transformations

within the healthcare system itself.

358

As well, a newly established partnership in Canada that illustrates promise in the context of such recommendations is Research Impact: http://www.researchimpact.ca (Phipps,

2008). This joint initiative, partially funded through SSHRC, brings together two

universities (York University and the University of Victoria). Their website supplies

highly accessible research summaries in a variety of areas (education, social welfare,

crime and justice), representing many different disciplines (such as anthropology, fine

arts, law, philosophy, humanities and women’s studies), all of which provide

recommendations on some level for both knowledge users (policymakers) and knowledge

creators (other researchers). They also offer a comprehensive database of Canadian and

international organizations dedicated facilitating knowledge transfers and exchanges

between academic researchers and policymakers. Moreover, both universities have

integrated a permanent knowledge brokering capacity into their institutional structure in

which they actively seek out the relevant research issues and needs of government

decision makers and then link them to appropriate researchers (faculty and students).

8.5 Concluding thoughts

The challenges for policymakers seeking to use evidence effectively, or researchers

trying to be policy-relevant cannot easily be overcome. There are divergent expectations

and competing accounts of what policy and academic work ought to be. As this appendix

has argued, among the biggest concerns for policymakers are efforts to balance efficiency

and research utilization and find legitimacy while acknowledging ambiguity. For

researchers, it involves regulating expectations around doing research with impact and

satisfying the standards of general curiosity within the academic community, along with

359 managing concerns of relevancy in an intellectual climate that embraces the multiplicity of different forms of knowledge. Additionally, for the recommendations above to become common practice both parties will have to change their behaviours. Policymakers will have to willingly provide more meaningful access to their internal processes, be prepared to learn about different methods and projects, and reflect critically about their individual and organizational needs and capacities in regards to using research. Academics (and academic institutions) on the other hand will have to begin recognizing the practical constraints that policymakers face when trying to use research, transform how they write and what they focus upon when presenting their findings, and be amenable to rewarding, and being rewarded for, reaching audiences beyond simply their peers.

The transformations listed above cannot be expected to occur quickly or easily.

Consequently, we must be prepared to be realistic about our expectations. It has been suggested that “evidence influenced” or “evidence aware” decisions as opposed to evidence-based is a more reasonable perception of what we can anticipate attaining

(Nutley et al., 2002); in other words a shift in metaphor may be needed. Moreover, we must recognize that if academic evidence is to shape policy debates, this will often occur indirectly through channels such as “mediated dialogues” between stakeholders and through an effort to “interpret for policymakers who inhabit one world what it is like to live in another” (Elliott and Popay, 2001, p. 330). All told, our goal should be to work together “to create contextual understanding about an issue, build linkages that will exist over time” and to collectively educate each other (Rist, 1998, p.403). Advancing such a moderate aspiration may be a disappointment to some readers, who were hoping that this

360 discussion would offer straightforward ideas about how to ensure that research influences the policy process, yet given the complexity of the challenges involved, this would be a target that both researchers and policymakers might aim to achieve.

References

Abramson, B., Shtern, J., & Taylor, G. (2008). ‘More and better’ research? Critical

communication studies and the problem of policy relevance. Canadian Journal of

Communication, 3(2), 2008.

Atkinson-Grosjean, J. (2006). Public science, private interests: Culture and commerce

in Canada’s Networks of Centres of Excellence. Toronto: University of Toronto

Press.

Black, N. (2001). Evidence based policy: Proceed with care. British Medical Journal,

323, 275-279.

Colebatch, H. (2006). What work makes policy? Policy Sciences, 39(4), 309-32.

Elliott, H., & Popay, J. (2000). how are policy makers using evidence? models of

research utilization and local NHS policy Mmking. Journal of Epidemiology &

Community Health, 54, 461-468.

Fenwick, T. (2008). Considering ‘Knowledge Mobilization’ in educational research:

what knowledge, what mobilities, what responsibilities? Educational Insights,

12(2).

Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative

practices. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

361

Grant, J. (2006). Measuring the benefits from research. Rand Corporation.

Howlett, M. (2007). Policy analytical capacity as a source of policy failure. Paper

Prepared for Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association.

University of Saskatchewan: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Huberman, M. (1990). Linkage between Researchers and practitioners: a qualitative

study. American Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 363-391.

Huberman, M. (1994). Research utilization: The state of the art. Knowledge, Technology

& Policy, 7(4). 363-391.

Knowledge Mobilization Symposium (2005). Unpublished Conference Proceedings.

Banff, Alberta. Retrieved from http://km.ucalgary.ca.

Lavis, J. (2006). Research, Public policymaking, and knowledge-translation processes:

Canadian efforts to build bridges. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health

Professions, 26(1), 37-45.

Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. New York: Routledge.

Lomas, J. (2000). Connecting research and policy. ISUMA, 140-144.

Martens, P., & Roos, N. (2005). When health service researchers and policymakers

interact: Tales from the tectonic plates. Healthcare Policy, 1(101), 72-84.

Noordegraaf M., & Abma, T. (2003). Management by measurement? Public management

practices amidst ambiguity. Public Administration, 81(4), 853-871.

Nutley, S., Davies, H., & Walter, I. (2002). Evidence based policy and practice:

Cross sector lessons from the UK. University of St Andrews: Research Unit for

Research Utilisation, Department of Management.

362

Perl, A., & White, D. (2002). The changing role of consultants in Canadian policy

analysis. Policy & Society, 21(1) 49-73.

Pettircrew, M., Whitehead, M., Macintyre, S., Graham, H., & Egan, M. (2004). Evidence

for public health inequalities: The reality according to policymakers. Journal of

Epidemiology and Community Health, 58, 811-816.

Phipps, D. (2008). Turning research into action. Research Money, 22(16), 8.

Puchner, L. (2001).Researching women’s literacy in Mali: A case study of dialogue among researchers, practitioners, and policy makers. Comparative Education Review, 45(2), 242–256. Radin, B. (2000). Beyond Machiavelli: Policy analysis comes of age. Washington DC:

Georgetown University Press.

Rist, R. (1998). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research. In N.

Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and Interpreting qualitative materials

(pp. 400-424). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Sanderson, I. (2003). Is it ‘what works’ what matters? Evaluation and evidence-based

policy-making. Research Papers in Education, 18(4), 331-345.

Schrecker, T. (2001). Using science in environmental policy: Can Canada do better? In E.

Parson (Ed.), Governing the Environment: Persistent Challenges, Uncertain

Innovations (pp. 31-72). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Social Science and Humanities Research Council (2005). Volume 3: Report on the consultations.

Solesbury, W. (2002). The ascendancy of evidence. Planning Theory and Practice, 3(1),

90-96.

363

Stone, D. (2001). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York:

W.W. Norton & Company.

Weiss, C. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration

Review, 426-431.

Whitehead, M., Petticrew, M., Graham, H., Macintyre, S.J., & Bambra, C. (2004).

Evidence for public health inequalities: Assembling the evidence jigsaw. Journal

of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58, 811-816.

Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Newbury Park CA: Sage

Publications.

Young, D. (2003). Discourses on Communication Technologies in Canadian and

European Broadcasting Policy Debates. European Journal of Communication,

18(2), 209-240.

364

APPENDIX B: CONCEPTUAL MAP FOR VIEWING THE SUPERNET Research Questions (using the SuperNet as a case study)

• What roles do metaphors play in both technology policy planning and in the acceptance of new technologies by citizens? • How do policymakers and citizens come to understand and experience broadband

technology via metaphor?

Background Curiosity • Why are metaphors so prevalent in our discussions of technology? • What roles do metaphors play in policymaking? • Is the use of metaphors by policy planners a conscious process that they willingly acknowledge? • What does an appreciation of metaphor reveal about how policymakers and industry representatives communicate technology policy issues? • How do potential users (such as citizens) respond to the metaphors of technology presented to them by policy planners? Experimentation • What sort of definition of metaphor is most useful when trying to understand the role of technology metaphors in policy? • How can a study of metaphor be operationalized? • What does it mean to say your are doing metaphor analysis? • How might we evaluate the quality of specific metaphors of technology used within policy? Frustration • Current literature on communications policy in Canada relatively limited on the importance of metaphor, language, and discourse. Political Economy of Communication (PEC) Actor Network Theory (ANT) • Metaphors can be seen as goods that are produced, circulated and consumed in a wider socio-historic context. • Metaphors can be both actors and • Metaphors may tell us something significant about how intermediaries in the technology relations of capital related to technology are organized and planning policy process, enabling maintained. or perhaps preventing translation. • Normative suggestions/recommendations about technology policymaking may emerge out of studying the use of metaphor in the policy cycle.

Metaphor Literature

• Offers methodological definitions: metaphor, metaphor linguistic expression, source domain, target domain • Offers methodological steps: (1) select an artefact or body of work that will assist with one’s study of metaphor, (2) identify the metaphor(s), or parts of metaphor(s) within the text, (3) describe the metaphor, and (4) evaluate the metaphor(s) 365

Connecting Metaphor with PEC and ANT

1) Problematization & Interessement: • How is an issue constructed via metaphor? • How are metaphors used to circumscribe which behaviours count, and what counts as behaviour for both human and non-humans in policymaking? • Why do policymakers claim to use metaphors?

2) Enrolment & Mobilization of Allies: • Do competing metaphors exist around the policy issue? • Are the metaphors selected by policy planners ones in which a shared space, equivalence, and/or alignment is evident, or rather do they show traces of an incomplete translation? • Is there a space created by citizens that challenges the official vision of a particular initiative?

Broader Theoretical Questions for Consideration

• Have capitalist concepts like commodification spread to encompass all of society, including the metaphors of our policy planners? • What sorts of values are being protected and eroded via the metaphors selected? • Are there other metaphors that might be more appropriate when thinking about the notion of the public good than those being currently deployed? • What sorts of socio-technical network relationships can be observed between policy planners, citizens, metaphors and even the technology itself?

366

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEWEES AND DATES

Date Name Position/Role April 12, 2007 Dan Bader • Deputy Minister for Innovation & Science April 17, 2007 Ken Hewitt • President of Netera • Member of the RFP review team April 23, 2007 Lorne Taylor • Former Minister of Innovation & Science • brought SuperNet through Cabinet May 18, 2007 Roger Palmer • Deputy Minister for Innovation & Science, formerly ADM in education • Introduced initial SuperNet proposal May 18, 2007 Val Mellesmoen • Communications Director for Innovation & Science • Head of the team that communication team that branded the SuperNet June 11, 2007 Art Price • Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Axia Net Media Corporation • Part of ICT review committee, bid on RFP and won, now manages the SuperNet on the government’s behalf July 18, 2007 Ken Faulkner • Executive Assistant to the Minister of Innovation & Science • Helped ensure that the SuperNet initiative passed through Cabinet relatively smoothly August 21, 2007 Holly McStravick • Field Manger for SuperNet • Liaison between Bell and Axia August 21, 2007 Dennis Mudryk • SuperNet contract manger September 12, 2007 Kelly Candy • Internet Service Provider • Company did quality control and quality assurance during the build

367

APPENDIX D: RECRUITMENT SCRIPT

My name is Amanda Williams and I am a doctoral student in the Faculty of Communication and Culture at the University of Calgary. My research, both for my dissertation, and as member of the SuperNet research Alliance, is around the policy dynamics of broadband infrastructure in Canada.

At this point I have reviewed the key policy documents produced by provincial governments quite extensively. However, in order to widen the scope of research I feel that interviewing a variety of different individuals involved with the policy deliberations and building of the network would be useful. I know that you have been actively engaged with issues of public policy as they relate to broadband/SuperNet, hence your input would be invaluable.

If possible I was hoping that you might be available for a one-hour telephone/face to face interview. Questions about the decision-making process and some of your general perceptions of what broadband/SuperNet means to you would be discussed.

With my research I am hoping to promote a broader understanding of broadband initiatives as well as consider some of the social, political and economic implications of the visions being advanced.

If you are willing to participate I will send you an e-mail with the questions and a letter that details consent. We could the schedule and interview at your convenience. I do hope you can assist me. Your participation is greatly appreciated.

368

APPENDIX E: ETHICS FORM

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY CONJOINT FACULTIES RESEARCH ETHICS BOARD

CONSENT FORM: VERBAL (for telephone) OR WRITTEN (for face to face)

Research Project Title: “Understanding the “who”, “how”, and “what” of broadband technology initiatives in Canada” and “Metaphor, ICTs & policymaking: An investigation of the Alberta SuperNet Initiative”.

Investigator(s): Amanda Williams, Doctoral Student, Faculty of Communication and Culture, University of Calgary

Co-Applicant/Supervisor: Cooper Langford, Faculty Professor, Faculty of Communication and Culture, University of Calgary

This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is only part of the process of informed consent. It should give you the basic idea of what the research is about and what your participation entails. If you would like more detail about something discussed here, or information not included here, you should feel free to ask. Please take the time to read this carefully.

This research is a part of my work both as a research associate on the Alberta SuperNet Research Alliance project, under the direction of Cooper Langford, and will be used for my dissertation. My work seeks to understand broadband policy initiatives and the processes involved with making decisions about such initiatives. My methods include interviews, participant observation, an analysis of public web sites and an examination of key policy documents. The results of my research are intended to inform policy-makers and network developers.

You have been invited to participate in the research because of your expertise and because you have been actively engaged with issues of public policy as they relate to broadband. I don’t expect you to experience any discomfort and/or inconvenience associated with your participation and encourage you to state openly any concerns that you might have throughout the research procedures.

The research will involve the following procedures:

1. Face to face or telephone interviews that assist me with the understanding the “who”, “how”, and “what” of broadband technology initiatives in Canada.

369

2. Participant observation of any meetings that might be of use for helping me understand the “how” of broadband technology initiatives in Canada.

Note: If possible the discussion/observation will be audio recorded.

The nature and format of the procedure will be explained to you. You are not going to incur any financial cost because of your participation in this research other than your regular expenses of using computer/telephone equipment.

Your name will not be revealed in research reports and documents, unless you explicitly allow disclosure of your personal identity. Research reports will utilize pseudonyms for subjects (i.e. participant 1, personal interview) unless subjects agree to disclosure of their identity. Nevertheless, due to the public nature of this initiative full anonymity cannot be guaranteed. All data originating from the interview will be securely stored and access will be limited to myself and my supervisor.

You will be entitled to receive copies of my dissertation or any publications in which I use this data, if you so desire. I will also give you the opportunity to see the transcript/notes of the interview prior to inclusion in my research should you wish to make any edits or deletions.

Your signature on this form indicates that you have understood to your satisfaction the information regarding participation in the research project and agree to participate as a subject. In no way does this waive your legal rights nor release the investigators, sponsors, or involved institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities. You are free to withdraw from the study at any time. Your continued participation should be as informed as your initial consent, so you should feel free to ask for clarification or new information throughout your participation. If you have further questions concerning matters related to this research, please contact:

Amanda Williams Faculty of Communication and Culture University of Calgary Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4 Phone: (403) 202-0809 E-mail: [email protected]

If you have any issues or concerns about this project that are not related to the specifics of the research, you may also contact the Research Services Office at 220-3782 and ask for Mrs. Patricia Evans.

370

Do you wish your identity to be kept confidential? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Do you wish to review the transcripts or notes taken during the course of this interview/observation?

YES [ ] NO [ ]

Participant’s Signature (if face to face) Date

Investigator and/or Co-Applicant’s Signature Date

A copy of this consent form has been given to you to keep for your records and reference.

371

APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

ANT questions

1) What is your role in relation to the SuperNet initiative?

2) Why was the particular business model for the SuperNet chosen?

3) What are the biggest challenges in building a broadband network?

4) Are there any particular players involved with this initiative that you think I should contact?

Metaphor questions

5) ****Why was the actual term “SuperNet” selected?

6) ***Might other terms have been more appropriate to capture what you were trying to accomplish?

7) Is it accurate to call the network a “SuperNet”?

8) What does the term broadband mean to you?

Political Economy of Communication questions

9) Do you feel the promotion of the SuperNet was mostly for social, cultural, political or economic gains?

10) What aspects of broadband do you think are the most promising for Albertan communities?

11) What aspects of broadband do you think pose the greatest challenge?

12) If you were to build a SuperNet today, how might it differ?

*** (asked only of policymakers)

372

APPENDIX G: LIST OF GOA PRESS RELEASES

1. The Rural Connection - Alberta Venture Special Insert (October 2006)

2. Northeast Alberta communities to learn about Alberta SuperNet (October 2005)

3. Alberta SuperNet now operational throughout the province (September2005a)

4. Southeast Alberta communities to learn about Alberta SuperNet (September 2005b)

5. Calgary Region communities to learn about Alberta SuperNet opportunities at September 14 workshop (Sept 2005c)

6. Local communities invited to learn about Alberta SuperNet (August 2005)

7. New Alberta SuperNet agreements will better server Albertans (July 2005a)

8. Alberta SuperNet: Klondike Day Presentation (July 2005b)

9. Alberta SuperNet meets April 30 milestone for rural communities. (May 2005)

10. Government of Alberta, Axia, and Bell Canada announce SuperNet completion plan. (February 2005a)

11. Alberta SuperNet Interactive Community Map Launched (February 2005b)

12. SuperNet Update (April 2004)

13. SuperNet benefits northern students via RACOL Project (March 2004)

14. Alberta SuperNet Update Newsletter (October 2003)

15. Zoning in on Accelerated Construction (September 2003)

16. Build fact sheet (August 2003)

17. Alberta SuperNet Update Newsletter (December 2003)

18. SuperNet's progress boosted by TELUS contribution Edmonton (April 2003)

19. SuperNet build on track for 2004 completion (March 2003)

373

20. SuperNet construction advances along the Lethbridge-Calgary Corridor (October 2002)

21. SuperNet is linking Alberta to the e-world (February 2002)

22. Alberta SuperNet is closing the digital divide (December 2001)

23. SuperNet approach set to take Alberta to new heights (July 2001)

24. SuperNet to connect communities to the 21st century at warp speed (November 2000)