For the purposes of our thinking we will use “digital” an umbrella term to describe the set of challenges, opportunities and issues that arise from a combination of information and telecommunications technologies.
Why digital? For one, “technology” is too broad a term. At HKS — and I suspect schools of policy and government in general — technology refers to not only information technology but all technologies and what I think many in the public would think of as areas of science like nuclear energy, biotech and climate change. This is clearly outside the purview of digital (and/or what I’m personally focused on). Words matter. If you run around using technology synonymously with information technology, some very smart and generally supportive people doing important and good work will rightfully be offended. Let’s not fight academic battles with allies — we have more important ones to engage in (privacy, user centric approaches, security, surveillance, regulation, etc..).
On the opposite end, “information technology” feels too narrow. Yes digital is about things like software, the internet, big data, and innovations like smartphones and artificial intelligence. But it must also be more than that. I’ve always loved how Clay Shirky wrestled with this in Here Comes Everybody:
“The tools that a society uses to create and maintain itself are as central to human life as a hive is to bee life. Though the hive is not part of any individual bee, it is part of the colony, both shaped by and shaping the lives of its inhabitants.”
Here at Digital@HKS we are as much, if not more, interested in the social, economic and policy changes brought about by the way digital technologies expand or threaten how we can solve problems, relate to one another, and reimagine institutions and the world. Information technology risks focusing us on the technology. The intent of using “digital” (while admittedly imperfect) is to try to be broader, to allow us to acknowledge the foundational role information technology plays, but focus on how we as individuals and society think about digital, interact with, use and are shaped by it.
This is the second in a series of pieces about how I’m wrestling with how to teach about digital technologies at policy schools. If you’re interested follow me here on eaves.ca. You can also read part one.
Pingback: Teaching Digital at the Kennedy School of Government: Part 3 – Our Users and What They Need | eaves.ca
I prefer to leave the word technology out of the equation as it is transitory and I believe relates to the infrastructure. I like informantion management as a stand alone. The power of digital data. The paint, not the brush. Keep finding and enhancing those new artists.
Pingback: Teaching Digital at the Kennedy School of Government: Part 4: The Trap — Teaching Tech and Concepts | eaves.ca
Pingback: Teaching Digital at the Kennedy School of Government: Part 5: Foundational Topics | eaves.ca
Pingback: Teaching Digital at the Kennedy School of Government: Part 6: Bringing it Together | eaves.ca