Consortium Problem Redefined: Negotiating 'Democracy' in the Actor Network on Standardization

This paper examines the standards consortium problem (i.e., lack democratic procedures) and the democratic rhetoric that surrounds it from a European perspective. The social shaping approach is used. The analysis addresses the organizational level (consortium procedures) and the actor network level (processes of meaning negotiation). The research method includes two in-depth case studies of consortium standardization: Java in ECMA and the Extended Markup Language (XML) in the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The findings illustrate inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the way the consortium problem is defined. They indicate that the dominant rhetoric underestimates the openness of most industry consortia and overestimates the practical implications of the formal democratic procedures. This unbalanced portrayal and sustained indistinctness about what is meant by ‘democracy’ are part of the meaning negotiation that takes place in the actor network. Implicitly, the European actor network is still predominantly defined as an instrument of regulatory governance. This marginalizes the role of consortia. The paper offers several suggestions to redefine the consortium problem.

[1]  Kai Jakobs.  Standardisation Processes in IT: Impact, Problems and Benefits of User Participation , 1999 .

[2]  Ken Krechmer.  Market Driven Standardization: Everyone Can Win , 2000 .

[3]  T. Pinch,et al.  The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other , 1984 .

[4]  Leonard Berkowitz,et al.  A survey of social psychology , 1975 .

[5]  P. Berger,et al.  Social Construction of Reality , 1991, The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society.

[6]  M. Callon.  The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle , 1986 .

[7]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[8]  T. M. Egyedi,et al.  Institutional dilemma in ICT standardization: coordinating the diffusion of technology? , 2000 .

[9]  S. Besen.  THE EUROPEAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS INSTITUTE: A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS , 1990 .

[10]  G. Dosi.  Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories , 1993 .

[11]  Tineke M. Egyedi,et al.  Why Java™ was - not - standardized twice , 2001, Comput. Stand. Interfaces.

[12]  H. M. Collins,et al.  Stages in the Empirical Programme of Relativism , 1981 .

[13]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Social Construction of Technology , 2009 .

[14]  Tineke M. Egyedi,et al.  Shaping standardization: A study of standards processes and standards policies in the field of telematic services , 1996 .

[15]  M. Callon.  Struggles and Negotiations to Define What is Problematic and What is Not , 1980 .

[16]  Bruce Levinson.  Market-Driven Consortia: Implications for the FCC's Cable Access Proceeding , 2000 .

[17]  D. Bloor,et al.  Knowledge and Social Imagery , 1977 .

[18]  E. Romanelli,et al.  The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis , 1992 .

[19]  Martin Weiss,et al.  Consortia in the Standards Development Process , 1992, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[20]  Karel Frits Mulder,et al.  Choosing the corporate future. Technology networks of chiose concerning the creation of high performance fiber technology , 1992 .

[21]  Johan P. Olsen,et al.  Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics , 1989 .

[22]  Albert de la Bruheze,et al.  Political Construction of Technology. Nuclear Waste Disposal in the United States, 1945-1972 , 1992 .

[23]  Roy Rada.  Consensus versus speed , 1995, CACM.

[24]  Jiska Engelbert,et al.  Social construction of reality , 2016 .

[25]  R. Hawkins,et al.  The rise of consortia in the information and communication technology industries: emerging implications for policy , 1999 .

[26]  Michal J. Bonino,et al.  Standards as change agents in the information technology market , 1991 .