Author: Oleg A. MITROSHENKOV
Communicology. 2017. Vol.5. No.4
Oleg Aleksandrovitch Mitroshenkov, PhD, professor of the Institute of Public Service and Administration, the Institute of Business and Business Administration of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. Address: 84, Vernadskogo Av., Moscow, 119571 Tel.: 8 903 235 95 38; e-mail: omitrosh6@mail.ru
Abstract. echnical means, telecommunications seriously damage the situation of direct communication, or interaction, so crucial for the development of social relations, cognition and social problems solving. It happens due to the erosion of such concepts as “mutual space”, “mutual time” (answering machine, TV programs being recorded) and also because of replacing the actual person in the act of communication with their mere “aspect”, their partial presence in it (telephone conversations, texting, e-mail, messengers, speaking over Skype or other applications, the image of the person on the computer display etc.). Not only are all these a technical consequence of the imperfection of the telecommunications means, but also they symbolize the unwillingness of the interlocutor to become fully involved in the act of communication. In public service and administration technical means of communication often turn a real human actor into an anonymous one, providing for their psychological comfort, saving their effort and time, allowing to escape unwelcome emotions, stress and the necessity of making decisions.
As for understanding of the telecommunications sphere, the interests and the main focus of the Russian intellectuals and those working in public administration are in most of the cases limited to such notions as Hard (hardware, devices and appliances), IT (information technologies) and Hi Tech (advanced technologies). Whereas the society calls for more emphasis on Hi Hume – the human dimension, the management of communication for the benefit of people engaged, more effective administration and the improvement of social relations. What we need is the transition from the dominating technocratic interpretation of telecommunications processes as primarily material and technological issues (computers, modems, networks, software, with a person being simply an addition to those – an object of manipulation) towards a human-oriented paradigm of information technologies development, its humanitarian and anthropological constituent.
Keywords: telecommunications, public service, public administration, direct communication, quasi communication, dehumanization of communication
Text: PDF
For citation: Oleg A. Mitroshenkov. Transformation of communications in the system of public administration. Communicology. Vol. 5. No. 4. 2017. Р. 15-24 DOI 10.21453/2311-3065-2017-5-4-15-24
References
1. Mitroshenkov O.A. Identity: from theories and basic concepts to administrative effects. Power. 2016. № 2. P. 14-27. (In R uss.).
2. Frumkin K. Loss of human ethos. Free Thought. 2001. № 9. P 175, 176. (In Russ.).
3. Shuts A. Logical structure of daily experience. Essays on phenomenological sociology. Moscow, 2003. P. 119. (In Russ.).
4. References Boylaud, O. & Nicoletti, G.“Regulation, Market Structure and Performance in Telecommunications”, OECD Economic Studies 4(1), 2001. 99–142.
5. Cave, M. & Prosperetti, L. “The Liberalization of European Telecommunications” in Cave,
M. & Crandall, R.W. (eds), Telecommunications Liberalization on Two Sides of the Atlantic, Washington D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies. 2001. P. 39-73.
6. Cui, J., Lin, P. & Tang, S. “How do Privatization and Competition impact China Telecommunications Performances?”, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Networking and Services, Valencia. 2009. P. 165-168.
7. Federal Government of Nigeria. The National Policy on Telecommunication. 2000 (online at. http://www.ncc.gov.ng/TelecomsPolicy/ The National Policy on Telecommunication.pdf, accessed 07/15/2011).
8. Fink, C., Mattoo, A. & Rathindran, R. “An Assessment of Telecommunications Reform in Developing Countries”, Policy Research Working Paper 2909, The World Bank Development Research Group. 2002.
9. Idigo, E. N. Government Business Relations: A Comparative Nigerian Perspective, Lagos: XPose Communications & Publishing Co. Ltd. 15. 2003.
10. Imai, H. Assessing the Gains from Deregulation in Japan’s International Telecommunications Industry. Cambridge: John King Fairbank Center for East Asian Research. 2002.
11. Li, W. & Xu, L. C. “The impact of privatization and competition in the telecommunications sector around the world”, The Journal of Law and Economics 47(2), 1-36. 2004.
12. Majumdar, S. K. “Performance in the US telecommunication services industry: An analysis of the impact of deregulation”, Telecommunications Policy 16(4), 1992.327-338.
13. Ndukwe, E. “The Role of Telecommunications in National Development”, a speech presented at the 19th Omoyale Annual Management Lecture on Friday December 5, .2003 at Chartered Institute of Bankers’ Auditorium, Victoria Island, Lagos. 2003.
14. Ndukwe, E. “An Overview of the Nigerian Telecommunications Environment, Nigerian Communications Commission”. 2004 (online at http://www.ncc.gov.ng/archive/speeches_ presentations/EVC’s Presentation/NCC CEO Presentation on Overview of Nigerian Telecoms Industry. pdf, accessed 10/18/2011).
15. Ndukwe, E. “Telecommunications as a Vehicle for Socio-Economic Development”.2009. (online at http://www.ncc.gov.ng/speeches_presenstatations/EVC’sPresentation/2009/socio.pdf, accessed 07/17/2010).
16. Nigerian Communications Commission. “Public Forum on Quality of Service”, (Online at http://www.ncc.gov.ng/qos_comm_07.htm, accessed 07/17/2010). 2007.
17. Nigerian Communications Commission. “Industry Statistics”, (Online at http://www.ncc.gov. ng/, accessed 12/05/2010). 2010.
18. Nigerian Communications Commission. “Determination on Dominance in Selected Communications Markets in Nigeria” 2010 (online at http://www.ncc.gov.ng/RegulatorFramework/ LegalNCC_Dominance_Determination.pdf, accessed 10/04/2011).
19. Nigerian Communications Commission. Trends in Telecommunications Market in Nigeria, 2003-2004, Abuja: NCC. 2005.
20. Oniki, H., Oum, T. H., Stevenson, R. & Zhang, Y. (1994), “The Productivity Effects of the Liberalization of Japanese Telecommunication Policy”, Journal of Productivity Analysis. 5(1), 63-79.
21. Pyramid Research. The Impact of Mobile Services in Nigeria: How Mobile Technologies are Transforming Economic and Social Activities, Abuja: Pyramid Research. 2010.
22. Rezende DA. Planejamento de estratégias e informações municipais para cidade digital: guia para projetos em prefeituras e organizações públicas. Atlas, São Paulo, Brazil. 2012.
23. Nolan RL, Seger KN. Note on information technology and strategy. Harvard Business School, Boston, USA. 1993.
24. Rezende DA, Abreu AF. Tecnologia da informação aplicada a sistemas de informação empresariais: o papel estratégico da informação e dos sistemas de informação nas empresas. Atlas, So Paulo, Brazil. 2013.
25. Weitzen HSO. O poder da informação: como transformar a informação que você domina em um negócio lucrativo. Makron Books, São Paulo, Brazil. 1991.
26. Heeks R. Reinventing government in the information age: international practice in IT-enabled public sector reform. Routledge, London, UK. 2001.
27. Stair RM. Principles of information systems: a managerial approach. Delmar Cengage Learning, USA. 2007.
28. Bhatnagar S. E-government: from vision to implementation. Sage Publications, New Delhi, India. 2004.
Communicology. 2017. Vol.5. No.4
Oleg Aleksandrovitch Mitroshenkov, PhD, professor of the Institute of Public Service and Administration, the Institute of Business and Business Administration of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. Address: 84, Vernadskogo Av., Moscow, 119571 Tel.: 8 903 235 95 38; e-mail: omitrosh6@mail.ru
Abstract. echnical means, telecommunications seriously damage the situation of direct communication, or interaction, so crucial for the development of social relations, cognition and social problems solving. It happens due to the erosion of such concepts as “mutual space”, “mutual time” (answering machine, TV programs being recorded) and also because of replacing the actual person in the act of communication with their mere “aspect”, their partial presence in it (telephone conversations, texting, e-mail, messengers, speaking over Skype or other applications, the image of the person on the computer display etc.). Not only are all these a technical consequence of the imperfection of the telecommunications means, but also they symbolize the unwillingness of the interlocutor to become fully involved in the act of communication. In public service and administration technical means of communication often turn a real human actor into an anonymous one, providing for their psychological comfort, saving their effort and time, allowing to escape unwelcome emotions, stress and the necessity of making decisions.
As for understanding of the telecommunications sphere, the interests and the main focus of the Russian intellectuals and those working in public administration are in most of the cases limited to such notions as Hard (hardware, devices and appliances), IT (information technologies) and Hi Tech (advanced technologies). Whereas the society calls for more emphasis on Hi Hume – the human dimension, the management of communication for the benefit of people engaged, more effective administration and the improvement of social relations. What we need is the transition from the dominating technocratic interpretation of telecommunications processes as primarily material and technological issues (computers, modems, networks, software, with a person being simply an addition to those – an object of manipulation) towards a human-oriented paradigm of information technologies development, its humanitarian and anthropological constituent.
Keywords: telecommunications, public service, public administration, direct communication, quasi communication, dehumanization of communication
Text: PDF
For citation: Oleg A. Mitroshenkov. Transformation of communications in the system of public administration. Communicology. Vol. 5. No. 4. 2017. Р. 15-24 DOI 10.21453/2311-3065-2017-5-4-15-24
References
1. Mitroshenkov O.A. Identity: from theories and basic concepts to administrative effects. Power. 2016. № 2. P. 14-27. (In R uss.).
2. Frumkin K. Loss of human ethos. Free Thought. 2001. № 9. P 175, 176. (In Russ.).
3. Shuts A. Logical structure of daily experience. Essays on phenomenological sociology. Moscow, 2003. P. 119. (In Russ.).
4. References Boylaud, O. & Nicoletti, G.“Regulation, Market Structure and Performance in Telecommunications”, OECD Economic Studies 4(1), 2001. 99–142.
5. Cave, M. & Prosperetti, L. “The Liberalization of European Telecommunications” in Cave,
M. & Crandall, R.W. (eds), Telecommunications Liberalization on Two Sides of the Atlantic, Washington D.C.: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies. 2001. P. 39-73.
6. Cui, J., Lin, P. & Tang, S. “How do Privatization and Competition impact China Telecommunications Performances?”, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Networking and Services, Valencia. 2009. P. 165-168.
7. Federal Government of Nigeria. The National Policy on Telecommunication. 2000 (online at. http://www.ncc.gov.ng/TelecomsPolicy/ The National Policy on Telecommunication.pdf, accessed 07/15/2011).
8. Fink, C., Mattoo, A. & Rathindran, R. “An Assessment of Telecommunications Reform in Developing Countries”, Policy Research Working Paper 2909, The World Bank Development Research Group. 2002.
9. Idigo, E. N. Government Business Relations: A Comparative Nigerian Perspective, Lagos: XPose Communications & Publishing Co. Ltd. 15. 2003.
10. Imai, H. Assessing the Gains from Deregulation in Japan’s International Telecommunications Industry. Cambridge: John King Fairbank Center for East Asian Research. 2002.
11. Li, W. & Xu, L. C. “The impact of privatization and competition in the telecommunications sector around the world”, The Journal of Law and Economics 47(2), 1-36. 2004.
12. Majumdar, S. K. “Performance in the US telecommunication services industry: An analysis of the impact of deregulation”, Telecommunications Policy 16(4), 1992.327-338.
13. Ndukwe, E. “The Role of Telecommunications in National Development”, a speech presented at the 19th Omoyale Annual Management Lecture on Friday December 5, .2003 at Chartered Institute of Bankers’ Auditorium, Victoria Island, Lagos. 2003.
14. Ndukwe, E. “An Overview of the Nigerian Telecommunications Environment, Nigerian Communications Commission”. 2004 (online at http://www.ncc.gov.ng/archive/speeches_ presentations/EVC’s Presentation/NCC CEO Presentation on Overview of Nigerian Telecoms Industry. pdf, accessed 10/18/2011).
15. Ndukwe, E. “Telecommunications as a Vehicle for Socio-Economic Development”.2009. (online at http://www.ncc.gov.ng/speeches_presenstatations/EVC’sPresentation/2009/socio.pdf, accessed 07/17/2010).
16. Nigerian Communications Commission. “Public Forum on Quality of Service”, (Online at http://www.ncc.gov.ng/qos_comm_07.htm, accessed 07/17/2010). 2007.
17. Nigerian Communications Commission. “Industry Statistics”, (Online at http://www.ncc.gov. ng/, accessed 12/05/2010). 2010.
18. Nigerian Communications Commission. “Determination on Dominance in Selected Communications Markets in Nigeria” 2010 (online at http://www.ncc.gov.ng/RegulatorFramework/ LegalNCC_Dominance_Determination.pdf, accessed 10/04/2011).
19. Nigerian Communications Commission. Trends in Telecommunications Market in Nigeria, 2003-2004, Abuja: NCC. 2005.
20. Oniki, H., Oum, T. H., Stevenson, R. & Zhang, Y. (1994), “The Productivity Effects of the Liberalization of Japanese Telecommunication Policy”, Journal of Productivity Analysis. 5(1), 63-79.
21. Pyramid Research. The Impact of Mobile Services in Nigeria: How Mobile Technologies are Transforming Economic and Social Activities, Abuja: Pyramid Research. 2010.
22. Rezende DA. Planejamento de estratégias e informações municipais para cidade digital: guia para projetos em prefeituras e organizações públicas. Atlas, São Paulo, Brazil. 2012.
23. Nolan RL, Seger KN. Note on information technology and strategy. Harvard Business School, Boston, USA. 1993.
24. Rezende DA, Abreu AF. Tecnologia da informação aplicada a sistemas de informação empresariais: o papel estratégico da informação e dos sistemas de informação nas empresas. Atlas, So Paulo, Brazil. 2013.
25. Weitzen HSO. O poder da informação: como transformar a informação que você domina em um negócio lucrativo. Makron Books, São Paulo, Brazil. 1991.
26. Heeks R. Reinventing government in the information age: international practice in IT-enabled public sector reform. Routledge, London, UK. 2001.
27. Stair RM. Principles of information systems: a managerial approach. Delmar Cengage Learning, USA. 2007.
28. Bhatnagar S. E-government: from vision to implementation. Sage Publications, New Delhi, India. 2004.
