Category: Uncategorized

Did V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai Invent Email? A Computer Historian Responds

Now includes both the original 2012 article comissioned by the Washington Post, a lengthy extension covering Ayyadurai’s susequent claims added in August 2012, a second update focused on Ayyadurai’s new book The Email Revolution: Unleashing the Power to Connect (Allworth, 2013), and a third update covering the evolution of Ayyadurai’s public relations campaign over the next two years.

This page has become rather long, so here is the one paragraph version, focused on some inaccuracies in recent press reports (added September 2014):  V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai is not a member of the MIT faculty and did not invent email. In 1980 he created a small-scale electronic mail system used within University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, but this could not send messages outside the university and included no important features missing from earlier systems. The details of Ayyadurai’s program were never published, it was never commercialized, and it had no apparent influence on any further work in the field. He does not “hold the patent for email” or have a copyright on the word email, though in 1982 he did register a copyright claim covering the exact text of a program called “EMAIL.”  The U.S. Government has not recognized him as the inventor of email and he did not win the Westinghouse Science Talent Search for his program. Electronic mail services were widely used in the 1960s and 1970s and were commercially available long before 1980. To substantiate his claim to be the “inventor of email” Ayyadurai would have to show that no electronic mail system was produced prior to 1980, and so he has recently created an absurdly specific and historically inaccurate definition of electronic mail designed to exclude earlier systems.  Ayyadurai has not even been able to show that he was the first to contract “electronic mail” to “email” or “e-mail” – his first documented use is in 1981 whereas the Oxford English Dictionary shows a newspaper usage in 1979. Despite Ayyadurai’s energetic public relations campaign, which presents him as the victim of a racist conspiracy financed by corporate interests, he has not received support from any credible experts in email technology or the history of information technology. His claims have been widely debunked by technology bloggers and articles based on them have been retracted by the Washington Post and the Huffington Post.

Part 1: Article Comissioned by Washington Post, February 2012

This article was commissioned by the Washington Post on Feb 28, 2012 after it published an article lauding Ayyadurai as the inventor of email. Emi Kolawole, the same journalist who had written the erroneous story, accepted it with very minor changes on March 14 for publication online in her “Ideas@Innovations” department. However, news soon came of a delay caused by unspecified “developments” within the Post, and on March 19 I was informed that the article would not be published. Therefore I am publishing a slightly improved version of the article here. The saga is documented further in a letter I wrote the Post’s Ombudsman.

Electronic mail, or email, was introduced at MIT in 1965 and was widely discussed in the press during the 1970s. Tens of thousands of users were swapping messages daily by 1980. That’s the year in which V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai, then a teenager, “designed and deployed” his own electronic mail system, called EMAIL, “for use at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey.” The problem? Ayyadurai claims to have thereby “buil[t] the first Electronic MAIL system.” He recently convinced a number of journalists and bloggers to repeat this claim as fact.

(Update June 1, 2012: Ayyadurai has recently overhauled his website completely, but you can see somewhat earlier versions of the claims I respond to in archived versions here and here).

As part of its process of correcting the record the Washington Post has asked me to provide an brief history of the early development of email and an evaluation of Ayyadurai’s claims. Press coverage of the controversy shows ongoing confusion regarding several key issues, so I am presenting this history in the form of questions and answers.

What Is Electronic Mail?

Discussion of electronic mail goes back to the 1950s, when the United States Post Office began to plan its response to what was then called the “electronic age.” On November 2, 1959 the Appleton Post- Crescent’s Fletcher Knebel wrote that then-Postmaster General Arthur Summerfield was exploring the future possibility of “split second electronic mail.” Knebel went on to write that, in this new system, “a letter will cost 15 cents. A nickel to send – and a dime to bribe the electronic brain to forget what it read.”   

In this early period there was no clear dividing line between what we would now think of as email and other forms of electronic message transmission such as fax, or even the computerized routing of telex messages in a central switching center. For example, in 1971 advertisements appeared (New York Times, Oct 28, p. 69) for “Mailgram, the new electronic mail service provided by Western Union and the United States Postal Service.” This was essentially a telegram delivered in the mail for $1.60.

Clearly we need a more specific definition that captures the essence of computer based electronic mail as it actually emerged. Here is one I developed in discussion with email pioneers Ray Tomlinson, Tom Van Vleck and Dave Crocker:

Electronic mail is a service provided by computer programs to send unstructured textual messages of about the same length as paper letters from the account of one user to recipients’ personal electronic mailboxes, where they are stored for later retrieval.

Electronic mail systems accomplish this in many different ways, and most add additional capabilities such as sorting messages, composing replies, and sending very long messages. But this definition separates electronic mail as we understand it today from earlier kinds of electronic transmissions and from alternative media such as chat and text messaging.

What Was The First Electronic Mail System?

The earliest well documented electronic mail system was part of the Compatible Time Sharing System (CTSS) at MIT. CTSS was one of the first timesharing operating systems. It allowed dozens of people to use a big IBM computer simultaneously, each working on their own files and running their own programs. Its MAIL command had been proposed in a staff planning memo at the end of 1964 and was implemented in mid-1965 when Tom Van Vleck and Noel Morris, junior members of the institute’s research staff, took the initiative to write the necessary code. Hundreds of people had CTSS accounts and some accessed the system remotely over phone lines from other institutions. As Van Vleck explained recently in IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, these people used MAIL for a variety of personal and professional purposes.

Similar communications programs were built for other timesharing systems. One of the most ambitious and influential was Murray Turoff’s EMISARI. Created in 1971 for the United States Office of Emergency Preparedness, EMISARI combined private electronic messages with a chat system, public postings, voting, and a user directory. All were stored as entries in a consolidated database.

How About Mail Between Users of Two Different Computers?

During the 1960s it was common to connect a large number of terminals to a single, central computer. Connecting two computers together was relatively unusual.

This began to change in the 1970s with the development of the ARPANET, the ancestor of today’s Internet. The project was funded by the Department of Defense to interconnect the elite computer science researchers it supported at universities scattered across the country. ARPANET provided a test bed on which to experiment with a variety of network applications. Programming them was relatively easy, as the network itself handled the mechanics of sending and receiving data packets.

In 1971 Ray Tomlinson adapted the SNDMSG program, originally developed for the University of California at Berkeley timesharing system, to give it the ability to transmit a message across the network into the mailbox of a user on a different computer. Tomlinson worked for Bolt, Beranek and Newman, a technology company responsible for building the ARPANET which by this point included about two dozen computers, each with many users. For the first time it was necessary to specify the recipient’s computer as well as his or her account name. Tomlinson decided that the underused @ (for “at”) key would work to separate the two. To the surprise of the ARPANET’s creators, this “network mail” turned out to be its most popular application.

Because different ARPANET sites used different kinds of computer a network-wide service such as mail could not be established simply by writing one program and asking each lab to use it. Instead, ARPANET users negotiated common standards for electronic mail transmission that would allow the development of compatible email programs for different computers. These standards were published as a series of numbered Requests for Comments (RFCs). Thanks to this process we have a much clearer picture of the development of ARPANET mail than we do for other early systems.

Capabilities evolved rapidly. Sending a message across the network was originally treated as a special instance of transmitting a file, and so a MAIL command was included in RFC 385 on file transfer in 1972. Because it was not always clear when or where a message had come from, RFC 561 in 1973 aimed to formalize electronic mail headers (still with us today) including fields such as “from,” “date,” and “subject.” In 1975 RFC 680 described fields to help with the transmission of messages to multiple users, including “to,” “cc,” and “bcc.” In 1977 these features and others went from best practices to a binding standard in RFC 733.

Who Used Electronic Mail Before 1980?

Public interest in electronic mail was rising rapidly during the late 1970s as part of a broader wave of enthusiasm for what was often called the “computer revolution” or “information society.” The social impact of electronic mail was explored in popular books such as Alvin Toffler’s The Third Wave (1980) and Starr Roxanne Hiltz and Murray Turoff’s The Network Nation (1978). 

Queen Elizabeth II of England became the first head of state to send electronic mail while ceremonially opening a building in the British Royal Signals and Radar Establishment in 1976. Jimmy Carter’s 1976 campaign team used electronic mail for internal communication. Gary Thurek, an overly enthusiastic marketer for the Digital Equipment Corporation addressed a message remembered as the first spam to around 600 APRPANET users.

What Was New About Ayyadurai’s System?

In a word, nothing. It was an impressive accomplishment for a teenager, but even  Ayyadurai’s own description of its capabilities includes no features that had not already been used in other electronic mail systems. (Update Aug 2012 — Ayyadurai has now changed the description of features, see below for new analysis).

To “invent” something you have to devise some kind of new technology or capability that had not existed before. A computer program is not invented; it is “written” or “developed.” So, for example, it would make sense to say that Dan Bricklin and Bob Frankston invented the spreadsheet when they wrote Visicalc. It wouldn’t make sense to say that Google invented the web browser when it developed Google Chrome, as many previous browsers existed, or even that it “invented the world’s first Google Chrome” as that is a specific system rather than a technology.

The Westinghouse Science Talent Search entry reproduced on his website describes a simple electronic mail system running on a HP/1000 timesharing minicomputer. It served “several hundred users” via terminals hooked into this central computer through modems and other links. CTSS MAIL had used similar techniques to serve a larger user population. Ayyadurai’s diagram of the system seems to show two computers exchanging messages (the lower left portion is illegible on the original), but this was also far from novel. I have seen no evidence that the system included what patent lawyers called an “inventive step” of any kind, still less that Ayyadurai invented, as he has frequently claimed, “the world’s first EMAIL system.”

The Smithsonian itself has explained that in accepting Ayyadurai’s offer of the materials describing his program the museum did not endorse his claim to have invented email. The system will still be of interest to historians as a representative example of a low-budget, small scale electronic mail system constructed from off-the-shelf components, including the HP/1000’s communications, word processing, and database programs.

Ayyadurai has claimed that his system was the first to be inspired directly by interoffice paper mail, or to be usable by office workers. As early as September 13, 1976, Business Week had run a story headed “When the Interoffice Mail Goes Electronic,” profiling this new field. By 1980 electronic mail systems aimed at the office environment were readily available from companies such as DEC, Wang, and IBM. They had even been developed for early personal computers such as the Apple II.

Xerox created the most advanced office information technology of the era. Researchers at its PARC lab created many of the key technologies of later personal computers, including Ethernet, laser printing, and the graphical user interface approach used by Windows and other modern operating systems. By 1978 the PARC electronic mail software, Laurel, ran on the user’s local computer, was operated with a mouse, and pulled messages from the PARC server to a personal hard drive for storage and filing. Laurel, as you can see in this 1979 Xerox commercial, split the screen into several window panes to simultaneously display the text of one message and a list of other messages.

Laurel set the template for modern email client programs such as Outlook Express. An even more advanced electronic mail capability was commercialized with the Xerox Star, launched in 1981.

How Did Ayyadurai Make His Claim?

The most striking thing about Ayyadurai’s claim to have invented electronic mail is how late it comes. Somehow it took him thirty years to alert the world to greatest achievement. In the late 1990s, when he led a company focused on automating email replies, his website called him merely a “pioneer in E-Mail technology.” (Update, 2014: Ayyadurai’s 1997 book The Internet Publicity Guide claimed that he had “developed one of the world’s first electronic mail (e-mail) systems” (p. xiii) but made no suggestion that he had invented email).

The delay was not a result of false modesty. Ayyadurai has described himself as the “world’s foremost authority on integrating systems of medicine” and creator of the discipline of Systems Visualization. He has asserted his authority as an MIT faculty member in an attempt to browbeat critcs, even though his actual job of lecturer does not give him faculty status. Neither can the delay be attributed to shyness. He is, after all, the author of The Internet Publicity Guide: How To Maximize Your Marketing And Promotion In Cyberspace. At least some of the many labs, institutes, and initiatives he boasts of leading appear to have little reality beyond his own web pages. For example, his “MIT Email Lab”, was launched February 2012 on one of his private websites. Unusually for a laboratory its webpage mentions no MIT faculty, research activities, facilities, grants, or working papers. It does prominently feature his own descriptions of email history, his definitions of email, and his press clippings. (Around March 12 the site suddenly erased all claims to MIT affiliation and removed the MIT logo).

Making up for these decades of uncharacteristic reticence, Ayyadurai registered the domains historyofemail.net on July 2, 2010 and inventorofemail.com on July 5, 2010. That was around the time the description “Inventor of the World’s First E-Mail System” appeared on his existing website. Somewhere along the road, according to the Post, he hired a public relations firm. On 30 August 2011 he registered at Wikipedia and set about “correcting” the entry on email. His angry pleas failed to prevent established editors from repeatedly blocking his edits, and he was soon barred from making further changes.

His press clippings show that Ayyadurai had more success in convincing bloggers with his new websites and a slick infographic laying out his vision of the history of email. An August 2011 blog story celebrated the 29^th anniversary of his invention of email and was picked up around the web, including the Huffington Post. Fast Company’s website was soon reporting the advice of “the man who designed email as we know it” to the United States Postal Service. TIME posted a lengthy online interview with “The Man Who Invented Email.” The Washington Post was no more credulous than these other publications in its story “Inventor of E-mail Honored by Smithsonian.” But the story’s transition from blog to print brought it greater scrutiny and, ultimately, an apology from the newspaper’s Ombudsman.

What Influence Did Ayyadurai’s Work Have on Later Systems?

As far as we know, none.

Nothing in the portfolio of evidence on Ayyadurai’s website suggests that his system was ever widely known or that its technical details were ever published in conference proceedings, journal articles, or technical reports. It is therefore hard to see how the world would have found out about any novel features it possessed. His strongest evidence for impact is the publication of the name of his entry in the awards booklet of the 1981 Westinghouse Science Talent Search and a 1980 report in the West Essex Tribune described his “design and implementation of [an] electronic mail system.” Winning the Westinghouse competition, or even being national finalist, might attract attention but in fact he was merely awarded “honors,” a distinction shared by 12 youngsters in New Jersey alone that year. The West Essex Tribune did no single out anything about the system as novel, but did call it sophisticated and useful. It felt no need to explain the concept of an electronic mail system to its readers.

What About Ayyadurai’s “First U.S. Copyright On Email”?

Journalists reporting on Ayyadurai frequently confuse the kinds of intellectual property protection provided by copyright, patent, and trademark. For example, Callie Crossley of WGBH stated, a week after the Washington Post’s lengthy Mea Culpa, that he “owns the copyright to the term email, and the concept.” Patents protect inventions and will be awarded only to the initial creator of an invention. So being awarded a patent reflects at least a preliminary judgment of novelty. Trademark protection can be applied to a new word or phrase to enforce exclusive commercial use. Ayyadurai does not hold a patent for the invention of email, or a trademark on the word. All he has is copyright on his program code and its user manual.

Ayyadurai himself has contributed to this confusion by referring to his copyright form as if it was a milestone in email history. His history of email states that “August 30, 1982 marks the 29^th Anniversary of EMAIL, marked by the formal issuance of the copyright for ‘EMAIL’ by the US Copyright Office.” This infographic also implies that copyright to his program gave him ownership of its title by asserting that Associated Press must have been “unaware of U.S. Copyright for ‘EMAIL’” to have decided to stop hyphenating “e-mail” last year.

Under the Copyright Act of 1976 Ayyadurai would have held the copyright to his program whether it was registered or not. Copyright prevents anyone from duplicating his code without his permission. All that the “Certificate of Copyright Registration” featured prominently on Ayyadurai’s website proves is that in 1982 he mailed a printout of his computer code, $10, and a handwritten form to the US Copyright Office. It deposited the check and filed the printout, then stamped the form, added a registration number, and mailed it back to him.

This did not reflect a judgment that the program was in any way novel, and it provided him with no rights over the concept of email or the word “email.” Nobody can copyright a word. Copyright protection explicitly excludes ideas, titles, and short phrases. So the code of Ayyadurai’s program is covered by copyright, but not its title of “EMAIL.” Consider a musical example. Lou Reed wrote a song called “Rock and Roll.” So did Led Zeppelin. Both the songs were copyrighted by their respective publishing companies. Neither of them owned the term “Rock and Roll” as a result of writing these songs. Neither of them had to show that they had invented rock music to receive the copyright. Neither of them coined the phrase (that was Alan Freed).

Did He At Least Create the Word “Email”?

“Electronic mail” was widely discussed in the 1970s, but was usually shortened simply to “MAIL” when naming commands. However, the Oxford English Dictionary (3^rd edition online) gives a June 1979 usage (“Postal Service pushes ahead with E-mail”) so Ayyadurai was not the first to use this contraction in print.

The program name “EMAIL” is not mentioned in the 1980 newspaper article on Ayyadurai but does appear in his 1981 Westinghouse competition submission. By that year the name EMAIL was in use by CompuServe. Compuserve had offered timesharing computer access and electronic mail to businesses for years. In 1979 it launched a new service, aiming to sell otherwise wasted evening computer time to consumers for the bargain price of $5 an hour. A trademark application (later abandoned) that CompuServe made for “EMAIL” listed 1981/04/01 as its first use by the company, which fits with this May 1981 message mentioning CompuServe’s “EMAIL program.” By January 1983 “Email™” (for trademark) was part of CompuServe’s advertising campaign.

For years CompuServe users could type “GO EMAIL” to read their messages. Whether Ayyadurai or CompuServe was the first to adopt “EMAIL” as a program name it is clear that CompuServe popularized it.

Conclusion

Who invented email? Ayyadurai is, to the best of my knowledge, the only person to have claimed for him or herself the title “inventor of email.”

Email has no single inventor. There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of people who contributed to significant incremental “firsts” in the development of email as we know it today. Theirs was a collective accomplishment, and theirs is a quiet pride (or at least was until recent press coverage provoked them). Email pioneer Ray Tomlinson has said of email’s invention that “Any single development is stepping on the heels of the previous one and is so closely followed by the next that most advances are obscured. I think that few individuals will be remembered.” None of them have hired public relations firms to remedy this.

However there are billions of us who clearly didn’t invent email. V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai is one of the billions of people who didn’t invent email. No hedges or qualifiers needed.

Further Reading

The history of ARPANET electronic mail, and its evolution by the 1980s into Internet electronic mail, is by far the best documented facet of email’s history. It is clearly told by historian Janet Abbate in her book, Inventing the Internet, for a general audience in Katie Hafner’s readable Where Wizards Stay Up Late and in detail in Craig Partridge’s paper “The Technical Development of Internet Email.”

Developments at Xerox PARC are also well documented. The 1979 Laurel manual is included in this file of documentation for the Alto system. The story of PARC, and the commercialization of its technology in the Star, is told in Michael A. Hiltzik’s book Dealers of Lightning.

Less has been written on pre-ARPANET electronic mail or on more recent developments. I summarized the development of electronic mail as a commercial product in my chapter “Protocols for Profit: Web and E-mail Technologies as Product and Infrastructure” in the 2008 book The Internet and American Business.

Acknowledgements: Thanks to the dozens of people who sent me hundreds of messages after learning that I was working on a response for the Post. Many helped to read and shape earlier drafts. In no particular order: Evan Koblentz, Catherine Lathwell, Peter Meyer, Dave Walden, Debbie Deutsch, Marie Hicks, James Sumner, Ken Pogran, Tom Van Vleck, Dag Spicer, Mark Weber, JoAnne Yates, Murray Turoff, Al Kossow, Ramesh Subramanian, David Alan Grier, Paul McJones, Nathan Ensmenger, David Hemmendinger, Jeffrey Yost, David Moran, Peggy Kidwell, Debbie Douglas, Alex Bochannek, Bill McMillan, Len Shustek, Petri Paju, Elizabeth Finler, Dave Crocker, Ray Tomlinson, Pierre Mounier Kuhn, James P.G. Sterbenz, Ben Barker, Jim Cortada, and Craig Partridge.

---

Part 2: August 2012 update covering Ayyadurai’s new website and the Boston Magaine article.

How Has the Story Progressed Since March 2012?

Ayyadurai continues to present his claims vigorously, and has succeeded in winning some continuing media attention for his claims to have invented email.

• Boston Magazine published a long article on the case, “Return to Sender,” in its June issue. This is discussed below.
• At the same time, Ayyadurai posted a major expansion and overhaul of his website at www.inventorofemail.com.
• The Columbia Journalism Review published a brief report on the Washington Post’s handling of the case in its “Darts and Laurels” column, under the heading “Google it, man!.”
• Ayyadura’s Center for Integrative Systems issued two press releases in June. The first one celebrated his receipt of a “TiE Star” award from the local chapter of an association for entrepreneurs of Indian descent.  The other press release trumpeted the endorsement of Noam Chomsky and was picked up in various computer industry blogs and online forums. For example, a spirited discussion ensued at Slashdot.
• On August 30, 2012 a third press release proclaimed August 30, 2012 the 30^th Anniversary of Email, which is odd as in all other contexts he insists on 1978 as the date of origin.The claim was largely ignored this time around, but did win Ayyadurai favorable coverage from another web site owned by a major media organization, at the AllThingsD site run by the Wall Street Journal’s personal technology experts.
• A second WGBH host, Emily Rooney, endorsed Ayyadurai’s claim. Listen to this June 17th show on “Conquering Digital Clutter” (specifically 23:00 to 24:40).
• Ayyadurai and a group of other authors presented a paper called “On the Origin of Email and Why the United States Postal Service (USPS) May Now Embrace It” at a trade conference called PostalVision 2020. This is mostly composed of material from his website related to his claim to have invented email.
• I attempted to draw some lessons on the relationship of history and journalism in the technology field in my column “Seven Lessons from Bad History” in Communications of the ACM, August 2012.

Before looking at some of Ayyadurai’s new evidence and arguments, it’s worth taking a moment to consider a few things that the material on the site and in the paper still does not do.

1. It does not present any document containing the word “email” dated before 1981, two years after its first documented use in newspapers.
2. It does not include any evidence that Ayyadurai’s system was known to the producers of subsequent electronic mail systems or that it exerted any influence on later work.
3. It does not acknowledge that the term “electronic mail” was widely applied to operational systems during the 1970s.
4. It does not make a convincing case that “email” should be understood as something with an entirely different definition from “electronic mail,” rather than a simple contraction that leaves the meaning unchanged.

I thus see no reason to modify any of the major conclusions or arguments presented in my earlier analysis.

How Accurate is the Boston Magazine Article “Return to Sender”?

A lengthy article by Janelle Nanos entitled “Return to Sender” was published in the June issue of Boston Magazine. She spoke to and emailed with me when researching it. Overall the article is clearly written and I learned quite a bit from reading it. For example, it reveals that MIT had rejected Ayyadurai’s use of the term “MIT Email Lab” and no longer employs Ayyadurai. The characterization of my involvement is basically correct though she did get my job title wrong (I’m actually an Associate Professor). More broadly, someone who critically and thoughtfully reads the entire article will probably reach an accurate conclusion about the merit of Ayyadurai’s claims.

My reservations hinge on its tone and presentation, which are liable to mislead the casual reader. Nanos clearly wanted to achieve some narrative zip, but categorizing all of those who objected to Ayyadurai’s claims as enraged “geeks” takes flippancy a little too far. Had she not defined SIGCIS as a “sort of Internet cabal within the Society for the History of Technology” I would never have guessed that “cabal” was the collective noun for historians.

Its structure is also a little odd. Presumably in order to boost narrative drama the story takes Ayyadurai’s own perspective for the entire first page, and only later quotes various experts to establish an overwhelming consensus against his claim to have invented email. However Nanos sticks during this final section with the default journalistic mode of “report the controversy” and does not draw any conclusions of her own. In contrast, the article’s subhead calls him the ”Inventor of email” and the third paragraph tells us that “his greatest accomplishment had come when he was just 14… Shiva had invented email, an accomplishment that would, in time, change the course of human communication.”  That statement is in the authorial voice, with no quotes or other distancing. A writer with more finesse might have found a way to temporarily misdirect readers without bluntly misinforming them.

What are Ayyadurai’s Latest Claims?

The new website posted at www.inventorofemail.com around June 1^st 2012 has professional production values. Most content is new, though some scanned documents and the original infographic made it through from the previous version. There’s a video introduction, statements from Ayyadurai, Chomsky, and the director of the lab where he was employed 30 years ago, a selection of new scans of the program code, and a section purporting to refute 12 numbered “False Claims About Email.”

Ayyadurai’s faith in himself as the one and only creator of email shows no signs of being shaken by argument or evidence. The new site insists that “Email has a singular inventor. That inventor of email is V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai.” His is the “singular and rightful position as the inventor of email.”

The code snippets do give some insight into the workings of Ayyadurai’selectronic mail system. During my last visit to Smithsonian in June 2012, Ayyadurai’s materials were still not available for viewing, so these conclusions are of necessity preliminary. It seems from the online extracts that the system was based around a shared database so that most actions – adding a user, sending a message, receiving a message, etc. consisted of inserting or removing records from database tables. According to Ayyadurai’s former supervisor, Leslie P. Michelson, these records were replicated across several different computers running the database software. This approach is most suited for a small local network and would be very hard to scale up for a nationwide or international email network.  It greatly simplifies system design by eliminating the need to create new communication protocols for message transmission. The system was apparently controlled by two letter command codes, with a menu option to display a list of available commands and select them numerically.

It remains possible that Ayyadurai’s electronic mail system was the first  to offer some particular combination of features not previously available. Uncertainty on this point is caused largely by a lack of reliable historical data on the many other internal and proprietary email systems in operation by 1980. But even if his electronic mail system is eventually shown to have been the first to offer a useful piece of functionality that would not make this “the first electronic mail system” or Ayyadurai the “inventor of email.” It might, for certain purposes, make it a better electronic mail system. I suppose www.creatorofaquiteearlyemailsystemwithmanyusefulfeaturesatanimpressivelyyoungage.com would not have the same bold appeal, but it could well be a legitimate claim.

A “History of Email” tab takes now includes a lengthy “History of Attacks Against the Inventor of Email,”  fulminating against Tom Van Vleck, MIT, TechDirt, Gizmodo, an unnamed “SIGCIS ‘Historian’”, an unnamed blogger, the Washington Post Ombudsman, various Wikipedia contributors, Boston Innovation, Boing Boing, the Internet Society, The Verge, David Crocker, various sponsors and conference organizers, the chairman of the MIT Biological Engineering Department, Dave Walden, the Internet Hall of Fame, David Thorburn, William Uricchio of MIT’s comparative media studies program, and BBN. Appendices chronicle in minute detail edits made to Ayyadurai-related pages on Wikipedia, alleged “revisionism” perpetrated by Tom Van Vleck, and whatever is meant by the baffling “APPENDIX D – Attempts to Confuse ‘EMAIL’ is not ‘email.’”

Ayyadurai’s carefully curated mass of evidence that his claims have been rejected by experts and former colleagues is, apparently, intended to reveal a massive and well organized conspiracy to suppress the truth. According to its conclusion, “BBN has much to gain by continuing to misuse the term ‘email.’ Using false claims, industry insiders such as BBN and others believe that they can revise and alter history to ensure the facts of Dr. Ayyadurai’s invention of email is discredited, so the public is confused into thinking that email existed prior to 1978.”

Elsewhere on the site he writes that “BBN has put a great deal of effort to [sic.] their own branding as innovators by presenting a public face that they are the ‘inventors of email.’… Clearly such a branding effort is to support BBN’s sales efforts.” Ayyadurai argues that all objections to his claims are motivated by a conspiracy to “perpetuate a false history of email by discrediting Ayyadurai’s invention.” The guilty parties are “industry insiders, supported by SIGCIS ‘historians’, Ray Tomlinson, BBN supporters and ex-BBN employees.”

As a putative cog in this vast conspiracy I am categorized as “part of the industry insider clique” in “deliberate and reckless ignorance of the facts” and a “‘historian,’ a part of industry insiders such as BBN, RAND, and DARPA” who “rabidly attacks Dr. Ayyadurai while promoting false claims.”

How Well Do These New Claims Hold Up?

Engaging in prolonged debate with a conspiracy theorist is rarely productive. So rather than attempt dozens of counter rebuttals to the mountain of new material I will instead offer two broad observations.

First, the site presents a few selective web-sourced quotes as “myths” and attempts to discredit their authors but doesn’t really engage with the massive body of evidence and historical writing about electronic mail prior to 1980. Ayyadurai cherry picks quotes from the authors of early electronic mail systems about their limitations and highlights minor disagreements among participants as if this could somehow obscure the existence of electronic mail in the 1970s. In particular there are no references to books such as Where Wizards Stay Up Late, Inventing the Internet, Transforming Computer Technology, Dealers of Lightning, or The Dream Machine. All these books discuss electronic mail in the 1970s.

Second, the attempted refutations do not seem particularly convincing to me. For example, “False Claim #4” is that “RFCs demonstrate ‘email’ existed prior to 1978.” Whereas, according to Ayyadurai, an RFC, or Request for Comment, is not “a computer program or code or a system,” and so is presumably unfit to be historical evidence. This ignores compelling evidence that the protocols described in the RFCs were indeed implemented and accessed via powerful client software, composing what users at the time called electronic mail systems.

Ayyadurai can’t quite decide whether he is overthrowing historical consensus or defending it from sinister “revisionists.” On his main page his proclaimed aim is to challenge accepted history:  “Standard histories of the Internet… are full of claims that certain individuals (and teams) in the ARPAnet environment and other large companies in the 1970s and 1980s ‘invented email.’” Elsewhere he writes as if his position was widely accepted, claiming that “Email was clearly defined in 1978” through his own work, formalized by his 1982 copyright filing. He decries a “revisionist definition by industry insiders” intended to overthrow this generally accepted definition of email as “the electronic interoffice, inter-organizational mail system.”

As this insistence on his right to control the definition of “email” suggests, Ayyadurai’s case now rests on a highly idiosyncratic definition of the word intended to exclude all electronic mail systems created before his.

Is Email the Same Thing as Electronic Mail?

As my previous discussion made clear, the phrase “electronic mail” was widely used during the 1970s to describe a variety of systems. I am not aware of any concerted effort to challenge the appropriateness of this usage prior to Ayyadurai’s recent publicity drive. No responsible historian would advance a definition of “electronic mail” that went against established historical usage. To do so would be to say to the pioneers of the 1970s, “Look, we know that you called what you were doing electronic mail, the users of your systems called them electronic mail, the press called them electronic mail… but it turns out you were all wrong. None of those things were really electronic mail. It hadn’t been invented yet.” Instead, a historian would craft a working definition of electronic mail that was compatible with its actual usage.

Ayyadurai’s current  website finesses this by almost entirely avoiding reference to “electronic mail,” as if ignoring the term would make it go away. Instead he defines all other systems of the 1970s as mere “electronic messaging” systems and contrasts this “messaging” approach with his email system, arguing that he was the first to take direct inspiration from paper-based mail. Acknowleding that the Post Office was widely seen as central to electronic mail in the 1970s and that most electronic mail systems of the 1960s and 1970s included “mail” in their titles would cripple his ability to develop this line of argument.

He also places great importance on his claim to have been the first to use the word “email” and to have been the first to copyright a program of that name. This implies that email had a quite different meaning from electronic mail, and that as the creator of the word he has some kind of right to dictate a meaning for it quite different from the meaning already established for electronic mail.

But when “email” entered the language it was as a simple contraction of “electronic mail” rather than as a new word with a distinct meaning. Ayyadurai’s own use of the word follows this pattern – one of the portions of 1982 source code he has posted under the heading “Main Subroutine of Email” does indeed include “PROGRAM NAME EMAIL” but this followed by a comment block headed “ELECTRONIC MAIL SYSTEM.”His copyright form shows the alternative title “Computer Program for Electronic Mail System.” Email was a contraction of his system’s full name of “electronic mail,” imposed (as his admits) by a five character limitation on program names within his operating system.

Even if Ayyadurai does eventually produce evidence that he used the linguistic contraction “email” in 1978, and this turned out to be the earliest documented usage, what would that really signify? We acknowledge John Logie Baird as the inventor of TV as well as television, even though he called his machine the Televisor. The Wright Brothers didn’t call their flying machine a “plane” in 1903 and the Oxford English Dictionary has no reference for this contraction of Aeroplane being used until 1908. Yet we not honor the first person to shorten the word as “the inventor of the plane.” Alexander Graham Bell patented an “acoustic telegraph” in 1876 but is today remembered as the inventor of both the telephone (a name he did adopt) and the phone (a contraction the OED does not show usage for until 1880). Marconi worked for years on what he called a system of “wireless telegraphy” but is nonetheless remembered for this effort as the father of radio. It is likewise natural and appropriate for us to think of the electronic mail systems of the 1970s as email, even though they would not have been called this at the time.

In any event, Ayyadurai’s previous website identified him as creator of the first “Electronic MAIL system,” which further undermines this line of argument. Likewise, his infographic includes for 1979 the heading “Memos to Electronic Mail.” In 2010 he was hyphenating the name of his system as “E-Mail”.  His claim to be the inventor of email is also a claim to be the inventor of electronic mail.

How Compelling is Ayyadurai’s New Definition of Email?

One of the five main tabs on Ayyadurai’s new site is “Definition of email.” This presents a short version (“email is the electronic version of the interoffice, inter-organizational paper-based email system”) and two lengthy checklists. The first checklist presents 32 distinct features of the traditional mail system, all of which he claims were necessary (“if any one component was taken away…you no longer had a functioning interoffice mail system.”) The second checklist repeats these, with some additional items added, and places a check mark by each one to indicate that Ayyadurai’s system had that capability. There are 87 of these check marks. If I understand his argument correctly then this signifies that a system must possess 87 specific features to properly be called email.

Has this definition been widely accepted since 1978, as Ayyadurai claims? No it has not. Indeed, Ayyadurai’s own website did not include these definitions of email until recently. The old site (prior to June 2012) offered a quite different six point definition of “an E-Mail System.” These six points were: User-Friendly Interface; A Rich Set of Features; Network Wide; Security and Login; Enterprise Management; Database and Archival.  The definition was originally presented as the work of one Matthew J. Labrador. Labrador claims to have “met Shiva in 1981 in a computer science class” and to have been impressed by his modesty. He recently been motivated by inaccurate reports on email origins to “do my own research… to provide readers with a more comprehensive and holistic history.” Ayyudari’s resume lists Labrador as a student whose bachelor’s thesis he supervised in 1990. Labrador, whose prose style closely resembles Ayyadurai’s own, expressed awe at Ayyadurai’s accomplishments  (“in writing this History, I was amazed at the vision that Dr. V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai had even as a 13 year old, in developing that first E-Mail system”), acknowledged his graciousness in providing materials, and proceeded to show that Ayyadurai’s system met this unorthodox six point definition. (Since the page was captured in June 2010 Ayyadurai has stopped hyphenating, switching his entire site first from “E-Mail” to “EMAIL” and now to “email.”)

(Update, 2014: Ayyadurai’s 1997 book The Internet Publicity Guide includes the following definition: “Electronic Mail (e-mail) Personal messages sent between users of the Internet.” The section on “E-Mail: Electronic Mail” fills pages 13-15. So Ayyadurai himself used to treat “e-mail” as a simple contraction of electronic mail and favor a very broad definition).

The new definition is presumably the product of what Janelle Nanos described in Boston Magazine as “a quixotic quest” launched by “Shiva and his teaching assistant, Devon Sparks,” to “fight the institutional giants he says are attempting to ‘steal’ his story.” Accord to Nanos, they had “assembled a dossier of the attacks against him, and have examined every messaging program that existed prior to his own to demonstrate exactly how his system is unique.”

It is easy to challenge specific items within the 87 point definition. Some are vague, such as “Easy-To-Use User Interface.” Others seem overly specific, such as “Adding a ‘Zipnode’, new network>”. Some seem like frills rather than core email functions, such as “Print only the ‘envelopes’, To, From, Subject, Date.” Four specify different ways of sorting the address book. Ayyadurai’s system failed to include at least one of his essential ingredients: “Relational Database Engine.” Elsewhere on Ayyadurai’s site his former supervisor correctly identifies the Hewlett Packard IMAGE/1000 software used as “a non-relational, hierarchical database management system.” (See also section 4 of this technical documentation for a full description of IMAGE/1000).

Likewise, many widely used modern electronic mail systems lack some of these features, which are much easier to implement on a local network than a global one. Centralized, searchable address books are missing from modern Internet email, as are delivery confirmation, “Shutdown of the entire system” and “Startup of the entire system.” Programs like Eudora and Outlook Express do not use relational databases for message storage. More importantly, they would fall victim to the same logic Ayyadurai uses in “False Claim #10” to dismiss Xerox PARC’s Laurel as “not email, but a front-end to text messaging programs.” (He also misreads the very quotations he presents about Laurel, which include the sentence “Laurel is now replacing MSG,” to present Laurel as a front-end to the terminal-oriented MSG program rather than a replacement).  Ayyadurai argues that Laurel was merely “graphical front-end to a series of messaging programs,” or in other words an email client that relied on a server to send and receive messages, rather than a complete “system of interlocked parts.”

Yet Ayyadurai includes both Eudora and Outlook Express prominently as email milestones in his infographic history. The only relevant distinction I can see between these programs and Laurel is that they were produced after 1980 and so can be assimilated as part of his alleged legacy rather than dismissed with sophistry.

In conclusion the “definition of email” he presents is untenable for two reasons. Firstly, it flies in the face of actual historical usage of “electronic mail” and “email” from the 1970s onward. Second, it excludes not only most of the electronic mail systems of the 1970s but also many of the electronic mail systems in use today.

Was Ayyadurai’s System “Invented” in 1978 or 1980?

Ayyadurai’s recent statements highlight his new insistence on applying the date 1978 to all aspects of his “invention.” This can produce some odd results – the site features an image from the 1982 code submission below a heading “EMAIL was named in 1978 in FORTRAN IV.” As mentioned previously, his original infographic timeline identified 1978 as the year in which “the challenge” to produce the system was made, 1979 as the year in which “the attributes of a memo… are converted into an electronic system” and 1980 as the year in which “the first version of the system is designed and deployed for use.” In 1981 he submitted an entry based on the system for the Westinghouse Science Talent Search, and in 1982 he mailed his code to the copyright office and received a registration number. The copyright form he submitted identifies the code as having been written in 1981. His timeline shows 0 “EMAIL accounts” in 1978, 2 in 1979, and 50 in 1980.

We generally date an invention from the time a new technology is actually demonstrated to work. For example, Leonardo sketched a helicopter design in 1493, but the helicopter was not truly invented until working machines flew in the 1930s. This “reduction to practice” is a central element of invention in patent law. I thus give credence to the 1980 date from the original timeline for design and deployment of the first version of his system.

(Update, 2014: To clarify, Ayyadurai himself used to claim “1980: Inventing Email… the first version of the electronic system was designed and deployed for use” on his infographic.  1980 is also the date of the earliest newspaper report he has supplied to confirm its existence. The 2011 Huffingon Post article that  began to spread his infographic around the Internet reported that “The system was called EMAIL when it was implemented at UMDNJ in 1980.”  Since making his initial publicity push he has, as discussed below, changed his inforgraphic timeline to suggest the system was produced in 1978. I believe his 1980 date from the original timeline rather than his new 1978 date, particularly as my identification of a 1979 newspaper reference to “e-mail” found in the Oxford English Dictionary supplied an obvious motivation to move his claimed date of invention forward).

What About Noam Chomsky?

In perhaps the oddest twist of the whole affair, Ayyadurai has published not one but two statements attributed to Noam Chomsky in support of his claim to have invented email. The first was apparently intended for Emi Kolawole’s ill conceived “roundtable” on Ayyadurai’s claims. The second was issued as a press release some time later.

Reading the longer statement it is hard to recognize the scholarly qualities that won Chomsky his renown. It recaps some of Ayyadurai’s own talking points on the conspiracy of industry insiders and the vital importance of Ayyadurai’s copyright registration. I recall Chomsky’s usual prose style as being a little more elegant, his grammar and punctuation a little more standard, his capitalization more restrained, and his exposition a little more cogent. It’s odd that a great linguist would write sentences such as “Note Shiva, received his formal Copyright registration in 1982.” Or “What continue to be deplorable are the childish tantrums of industry insiders who now believe that by creating confusion on the case of ‘email’, they can distract attention from the facts.” Or “Note by the Copyright Act of 1976, once a work is in publication it is protected.” The English in the passage “…a false branding that BBN is the ‘inventor of email’, which the facts obliterate” is also a little strained. Finally, it’s baffling to me that Chomsky would cite the free online Merriam-Webster dictionary as a linguistic authority on the first usage of email, especially when this is contradicted by the far more comprehensive Oxford English Dictionary.

Wired Magazine was able to get a quote directly from Chomsky: “What I found out seemed to confirm his story… I read his documentation, the counterarguments, his responses, and his position seemed to me plausible.” The problem is that Ayyadurai’s claim to have invented the first email system cannot be judged purely from his own materials. If true, this would imply not only that his system was email, which is indeed indisputable, but also that none of the systems operational before 1980 were email. Responsibly evaluating the latter claim would involve in-depth research on the capabilities of those dozens of earlier systems and formulation of a reasonable definition of “email” grounded in actual historical usage. Neither the quote from Wired nor the content of Chomsky’s published statement suggests that Chomsky has done this work. He is, after all, a very busy man.

---

Part 3: Update including Ayyadurai’s book The Email Revolution, September 2013

The world of electronic mail history was fairly quiet over the last year. Journalists have seemed less inclined to endorse V A Shiva Ayyadurai’s claims, though his website did sprout a new link to a podcast with an Australian radio interviewer in which he reiterated his standard talking points. In September 2012 the publication date for Ayyadurai’s book came and went, and its status on Amazon shifted straight from “preorder” to “out of stock – limited availability.”

He appeared to be focusing his indisputable energy on the world of alternative medicine, trumpeting a set of alternative medicine courses on “VA Shiva’s Systems Health – The Medicine of the Future” sold under the auspices of Deepak Choprah’s thriving “wellbeing” empire. Ayyadurai was also proud of his involvement with Cohopra and other alternative medicine celebrities in the 2013 “Journey into Healing” event.

Recent Media Appearances

During the summer of 2013, however, Ayyadurai returned to the world of electronic mail with a new wave of media appearance in India, apparently from some kind of speaking tour including an “Evening with Dr. VA Shiva Ayyadurai, Inventor of Email” at TiE Chennai. These included

• “Chennai-born Shiva Ayyadurai Claims Credit for Developing First E-mail System,” Zeenews.com
• “Forgotten Email Patent Holder Pings Chennai,” The Times of India, July 19, 2013.
• “You’ve Got Mail,” New India Express, 2^nd Sept 2013.

The claims made in them closely mirror those given in earlier interviews. Some reports appeal explicitly to ethnic sentiment, for example the claim in “Shiva Ayyadurai of Tamil Nadu has a patent for email and is fighting to be recognized for it” that “the US will not allow an Indian, especially someone who was living in Newark, one of the poorest cities there, to get credit…”

Ayyadurai’s Book Finally Arrives

Then, in September 13, Ayyadurai’s book The Email Revolution: Unleashing the Power to Connect (Allworth, 2013) finally popped up as published via a second Amazon listing. According to a quotation on the dust jacket “Shiva is one of the great minds on our planet.” This notwithstanding, just a week later I was able to buy a new copy on Amazon for $3.25, one of 52 available from third party sellers. It seems that a wave of promotional copies was quickly discarded by its recipients.

When Ayyadurai began to bill himself as the inventor of email, some speculated that this was to promote his forthcoming book and boost demand for his consulting services. The Email Revolution is presented as a self-help guide for corporate leaders keen to use electronic mail more effectively. About a dozen short chapters tell the story of how EchoMail helped corporations handle large volumes of email with ease. Several more chapters provide “ten commandments” and “50 tips” on email. So far, so generic.

Yet The Email Revolution is perhaps the strangest book I’ve received in the mail since my graduate student days, when someone flooded my department with unrequested copies of Psychiatrists– The Men Behind Hitler: The Architects of Horror. This is because of its hybrid character – Ayyadurai’s upbeat corporate case studies are intertwined with a mass of material intended to overwhelm critics of his historical claims, or at least create sufficient doubt to maintain a “controversy.”

Thus the executive who picks up the The Email Revolution hoping to learn more about electronic mail as a business tool might be taken aback by the tone of the book’s foreword. Leslie P. Michelson, Ayyadurai’s former boss, presents him as the victim of a “cabal of insiders” with close ties to BBN, decrying a “wave of unwarranted, bigoted, and highly coordinated attacks,” and trumpeting the heroic discovery of “an important document in an old dusty microfiche in the bowels of MIT’s library system” to “demonstrate how this cabal was purposefully not revealing historical facts.” There follows a statement by Noam Chomsky furthering the conspiracy theme, and a “personal note” by Ayyadurai presenting his copyright registration form as evidence of the “first US Copyright for creating ‘email.’ After the personal note is the introduction, which includes mention of his scheme to save the post office by retraining its workers to sort electronic messages, and makes a detour into explaining his firing from CSIR in India (where he was “under threat of physical violence, as well as incarceration” for revealing its “rampant corruption”).

Ayyadurai still isn’t ready to get to the business-friendly lessons. Chapter one explains what electronic mail is. You might expect someone who just brought a book on this subject to know that already, but explaining it anyway gives Ayyadurai a chance to present his idiosyncratic new definition of “email as the full-scale electronic emulation of the interoffice, interorganizational paper-based mail system.” Chapter two takes us back to his early system and its features, reiterating his argument that no earlier system deserves to be called “email” and presenting to his audience second time the quote from Dave Crocker discovered in the bowels of MIT. He digs deeper into his complex definition, pausing occasionally to dismiss the work of electronic mail pioneers such as Tom Van Vleck. Apparently still unaware that his own system did not use a relational database management system Ayyadurai writes that “without a relational database, email would not have been possible.”

Only after all this is Ayyadurai ready to starts talking about the wonderful things he has done to help corporations automatically process their electronic mail. Ten upbeat pages follow, but by the end of the chapter Ayyadurai’s fondness for presenting himself as a underdog fighting conspiracies of the powerful has resurfaced. He blames the post-2003 eclipse of his company EchoMail on the alliance of Siebel Systems, with “corrupt” analysts at Forrester Research and other firms in a “conscious and willful attempt to confuse the market.”

It’s hard to imagine that many executives would still be reading at this point, but if they made it to the back of the book they would discover appendices A through F, each of which reproduces material from Ayyadurai’s website related to his historical claims For example, Appendix A is his “History of Email and Growth of EMAIL Accounts” infographic. Appendix G is the lengthy “Misuse of the Term ‘Email’ and False Claims About Email.” Ayyadurai ends The Email Revolution with a list of the “blood brothers and sisters” who have “stood strong against the ‘priesthood’ or academia, ‘scholars,’ and the so-called ‘computer historians’…”

Little wonder that the book seems to have made little impression on the world thus far, and that the only editorial review I did come across, a quick capsule writeup from Publishers Weekly, concluded “Cynics may find this book to be a mixture of the dubious and the obvious.”

The historical material in the The Email Revolution is almost all taken with little or no revision from Ayyadurai’s website and so requires little new analysis. In particular I did not notice any new evidence to support his recent claims to have had an operational system before 1980 or to have used the word “email” prior to 1981.

Ayyadurai’s Treatment of “Email” post-1981

Ayyadurai has recently been using a rather tortuous definition to disqualify all of the many electronic mail systems produced prior to 1980 from consideration as “email” and thus keep alive his claim to have invented it. In contrast, his timelines and infographics have acknowledged a variety of post-1982 systems as being “email” without applying a similarly restrictive definition. In assembling the book he thus faced a particular challenge in bridging the gap from his rather personal  version of 1978-1981, in which he is the world’s leading (and perhaps only) electronic mail developer, to his more conventional view of the mid-1980s in which he admits the existence and widespread use of many unrelated systems. I was curious to see how the navigated this tricky narrative transition.

In the event I was disappointed. The Email Revolution does not even try to demonstrate that his early “EMAIL” program had any influence on any email system produced or used in the world beyond the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. After describing his science fair submission in 1981 Ayyadurai jumps straight to 1993 and his efforts to build an automated tool to analyze incoming internet email.

This jump causes further logical problems for his case. The early chapters, and Appendix G, breezily dismisses Internet-style decentralized mail systems, based on open standards for the exchange of messages, as mere “electronic text messages” lacking many necessary features to qualify as email. Between the end of chapter 2 (in 1981) and the start of chapter 3 (in 1993) systems of this kind suddenly become “email” despite still lacking many elements he defines as essential elements of any email system. In 1993, he tells us, the White House was receiving 5,000 emails a day and AT&T was handling Internet emails sent when customers entered information on pages on its new websites. The SMTP based systems used to transmit Internet email were the direct descendants of the ARPANET email systems of the 1970s he previously dismissed. They did not have return receipts, centralized system-wide address books, “registered memos,” integrated relational database management systems, or the other architectural features he had, a few pages earlier, used to distinguish true “emails” from mere “text messages.” This is not a coincidence. Electronic mail systems based on a unified message database, like his early “EMAIL” system, sometimes worked well in corporate environments where hardware and software could be standardized on an internal network but never successfully challenged the Internet’s decentralized, standards-based approach as the basis for communication between organizations.

Ayyadurai’s timelines and graphics, reproduced in this book, only deepen this problem. Appendix A, his flagship infographic, includes the 1988 Macintosh Internet email client Eudora as “email.” Xerox’s PARC’s 1979 Laurel did basically the same job in a very similar way, but is dismissed as a mere “user interface, and not the system of interlocked parts to emulate the entire interoffice paper mail system,” because it depended on a server to hold undelivered mail. (As I noted in my previous analysis, the descriptions of Laurel quoted by Ayyadurai unambiguously contradict his claim that it was a front-end for PARC’s command line mail reader rather than a replacement).

Internal Inconsistences and Changing Claims

There are some other conspicuous inconsistencies. The graph on page 25 suggests that around 10,000 email messages were sent in 1978. Endnote 3 cites a Huffington Post appearance of Ayyadurai’s 2011 infographic as the source, which doesn’t help much. 10,000 is, however, rather a high figure to start at and the line barely climbs over the next year. Thus if the graph is based on an actual data set it appears to have been truncated to avoid the embarrassing suggestion that email existed before 1978. On the other hand, the infographic on page 170 claims that there were zero users of email in 1978. Where did those 10,000 messages come from? Who read them?

In 1979, according to the infographic, there were just 2 users of email. The big jump, it suggests, comes between 1982 and 1983 when the population of email users explodes from 1,000 to 100,000. No explanation is given for this hundred-fold growth.

I looked again at Ayyadurai’s website again search of something that might explain the mystery. I then noticed that the online version of the infographic has recently been modified.

Claim	Old Infographic (in book and promoted on web since 2011)	New Infographic (on web as of September 20 2013)
Number of email users in 1978	0	2
Number of email users in 1979	2	7
Text for “1978: The Challenge”	High School student, (V.A.) Shiva Ayyadurai is asked by Les Michelson if he would like to create an electronic mail system for emulating inter- and intra-office mail across multiple offices and locations of the UMNDJ campus.	(V.A.) Shiva Ayyadurai is asked by Les Michelson to create the full-scale electronic version of the interoffice paper mail system in use at UMNDJ. Shiva creates the first prototype. He calls it “email.”
Text for “1979”	Memos to Electronic Mail. The attributes of a memo, To:, From:, Cc:, Bcc:, Subject:, Body:, Attachment and its delivery process, Inbox, Outbox, Folders, Sorting, Security, etc. are converted into an electronic system.	“Email System at UMNDJ: Email provides UMDNJ users Inbox, Outbox, Folders, the Memo (To, From, Subject, Date, Cc, Bcc) Attachements, etc., and processes such as Compose, Forward, Sort, and others with easy-to-use interface.”
Text for “1980”	Inventing EMAIL. The first version of the electronic system is designed and deployed for use at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ). The system is called EMAIL.	Using Email: Email use grows at UMDNJ. More users, secretaries and doctors, across departments, offices and groups are added on to the email system.

The two infographics differ on vital points. The original infographic, produced early in Ayyadurai’s campaign to brand himself “the inventor of email,” puts the first operational version of the system in 1980. The new one, perhaps in response to evidence that both electronic mail systems and the term “e-mail” were both in use before 1980, pushes this back to 1978. I wonder how he might justify this change.

Errors per Square Inch

Ayyadurai is remarkably sloppy in discussing historical facts even when he has no plausible interest in misrepresenting them. The Email Revolution is issued by Allworth, which is apparently an obscure trade press rather than a self-publishing service. It does not, however, show much evidence of having been edited or checked by professionals. I do not remember ever seeing a commercially published book with such a remarkable density of errors, even for facts easily verified from Wikipedia. (Talking of Wikipedia, Google does reveal that shortly before its publication references to the book were added to a dozen separate pages by a single user).

As an illustration, consider the following short passage on page 43. Ayyadurai generously acknowledges that “the design and development of email relies on several earlier developments in technology.”  All six of the bullet points following that statement are wrong in one way or another, and only three of them relate to technologies actually incorporated in Ayyadurai’s system.

• The development of FORTRAN in 1954 by John Backus at IBM. [That date for FORTRAN is rather misleading. A draft specification was drawn up in 1954, but the first implementation was not ready for users until 1957].
• The development of ASCII naming standard in 1962 by Bob Bremer. [Ayyadurai mischaracterizes ASCII as a “naming standard” and gets Bob Bemer’s name wrong]
• The invention of database technology in 1969 by Charles Bachman. [IDS, developed by Charles W. Bachman, was running by 1963 at the latest so that is another wrong date].
• The creation of TCP in 1973 by Vinton Cerf, Robert Kahn. [TCP was first described in a 1974 paper, but as Ayyadurai’s system used no Internet/ARPANET technologies the bullet is misleading anyway].
• The development of Ethernet in 1973 by Bob Mercalfe. [Right date, but wrong name – it’s Bob Metcalfe (and others at PARC). Also I would be shocked if Ayyadurai was using Ethernet on a HP/1000 in 1978. Metcalfe’s firm 3Com, which spread Ethernet outside Xerox, was only founded in 1979].
• The development of TCP/IP by Danny Cohen, David Reed, and John Shoch. [Ayyadurai doesn’t even attempt to date this one, but as Kahn and Cerf won the ACM Turing Award for “pioneering work on internetworking, including the design and implement of the Internet’s basic communications protocols, TCP/IP” it’s safe to say that he has missed the two most important names.Though this is a trickier question as the list presents TCP and TCP/IP as two separate “developments”].

V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai’s citation practices are as eccentric as his historical claims. Ayydurai quotes from this very web page at various points, occasionally even attaching a reference. Yet these somehow fail to include the page URL, page title, or my name. I wonder how Ayyadurai got those four degrees from MIT without learning how to properly cite a source when quoting it?

Postscript 1: A month after I drafted the above The Email Revolution: Unleashing the Power to Connect continues to languish in obscurity and the cost of a copy on Amazon has dropped further (37 new copies from $2.61). However Ayyadurai is experiencing a new and unexpected wave of publicity as the “toy boy” or “email male” lover of sitcom actress Fran Drescher, best known for her starting role on “The Nanny.”

Postscript 2: Returning six months later in March 2014, I notice that the price of the book has dropped to $0.14 on Amazon. Somebody appears to be doing a spot of guerilla marketing for the book. Five glowing user reviews have appeared on Amazon, most of them by users with cryptic names and no other reviews. Four of these appeared between December 20 and December 31. There are also six goodreads.com reviews, four of these are five star reviews posted between Feb 14 and Feb 18 by first-time reviewers. Ayyadurai continues to receive some rather credulous profiles in the Indian press from a “book tour” but the book otherwise seems to be languishing in obscurity.

---

Part 4: The Huffington Post Series and Allegations of Racism (August 2015)

Since my last major update two years ago Ayyadurai has continued to press his public relations campaign but has not presented any new evidence or any significant new arguments. In any event, this page already provides more than enough detailed information to convince anyone who is likely to be convinced. So rather than answering factual questions raised by Ayyadurai’s claims, these new updates are primarily to chart Ayyadurai’s changing media strategy and point interested readers towards relevant sources.

The Huffington Post Blog Series

The most dramatic development came in August and September 2014, as the Huffington Post rolled out what claimed to be an in-depth five part series on the “History of Email,” together with an infomercial-like video interview with Ayyadurai in which he was asked a number of variations on the question “How does it feel to be so fabulous” and posed with Fran Drescher and her dog. The articles were attributed to a number of authors, including public relations executive Larry Weber, and Ayyadurai’s former collaborators at UMNDJ Leslie Michelson and Robert Field. All of them stuck very closely to the argument, evidence, and talking points used in Ayyadurai’s book. Indeed significant proportions of their text were taken verbatim from it without acknowledgement. I was particularly startled by the contribution attributed to Deborah J. Nightingale, a former MIT academic staff member and member of the National Academy of Engineering. As directory of MIT’s Sociotechnical Systems Research Center she had given Ayyadurai a platform to present his claims. In the article she chided the Washington Post’s editors for not  “doing the primary research on the myths and claims made by these industry insiders, which would have revealed the significant economic interests behind the vitriol and defamation to discredit Shiva’s work.” Nightingale also decried the efforts of an “Internet cabal of SIGCIS “historians” with ties to Raytheon/BBN” to suppress the truth. (An edited version of her contribution, with the above quote changed, is now on Ayyadurai’s own website). This cavalier dismal of the work of actual experts seemed to me a rather uncollegial approach for an experienced scholar’s first venture into a new field.  I wrote to her asking for a clarification but never received a reply. Nightingale appeared convinced that her background in systems engineering trumped the training of SIGCIS members in historical research, an idea captured in her non sequiteur that “When we understand that email is a system, we can realize that there is no ‘controversy’ except the one fabricated by those insiders to confuse and convince us that email existed prior to 1978.” (Like Ayyadurai’s other supporters, Nightingale somehow picked up the habit of consistently placing words such as historian and controversy in scare quotes).

Ayyadurai tweeted repeatedly in support of the series, including September 3 missives that “Thomas Haigh needs to reveal his affiliation with Raytheon/BBN as well as SIGCIS” and that “A courageous #woman #scientist: Debbie Nightingale’s exposes corrupt HIS-storians head on!” An effort began on Wikipedia to rewrite the entries on email and Ayyadurai, taking the new articles as “reliable sources.” The effort led to a great deal of heated discussion among Wikipedia editors, and ultimately to increased scrutiny for dozens of Ayyadurai-related edits made by a succession of Wikipedia accounts used primarily, and in some cases exclusively, to add references to Ayyadurai (like this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one).

The Huffington Post articles triggered a new round of public scrutiny for Ayyadurai’s claims. The most detailed response came from blogger Mike Masnick of TechDirt, who explained the systematic blurring of copyright and patent protection at the heart of Ayyadurai’s PR campaign. As Masnick summarized the case: “Ayyadurai has waged an incredibly bizarre public relations campaign, and the more you look at it, the more bizarre it becomes. However, anyone who looks over any of the primary documentation (much of which we’ve linked to in our previous posts) can only conclude that while Ayyadurai may have independently come up with some ideas, he most certainly did not invent email. It was widely in use. The key arguments in his claim are obviously false, and prey on (1) a misunderstanding or misrepresetation of copyright law and (2) an almost fraudulent misquoting of Dave Crocker, a guy who really was heavily involved in early email effort.” Masnick was particularly startled by the apparent willingness of Nightingale to “destroy her own creditability” with an article that “repeats the same false claims (using nearly identical language) as Ayyadurai and his friends in their original posts.”

In follow-up articles Masnick went deeper, looking at the Huffington Post’s initial failure to respond and discussing the Huffington Post’s internal distinction between its blog hosting service and its attempts at actual reporting. According to Masnick,

actual reporters at the company recognize that their own credibility has been absolutely destroyed by this. It’s been pointed out that the five part series is on HuffPo’s “blogging” side — which gives a platform to PR folks with no editorial oversight.But, because HuffPo does little to separate out its “news” division from those open “blogs,” the blogs get filed with all sorts of clearly bogus crap. Much of it gets totally ignored, but some (apparently including PR “guru” Larry Weber and his business partner Shiva Ayyadurai) are willing to exploit the fact that no one recognizes the blogging platform has no editorial review, to pretend that a “reputable source” has “confirmed” the story.

Finally, on September 7, the Huffington Post removed the entire series, replacing each part with an announcement that “The post that previously appeared in this space — part of a blogger-generated series on the history of email — is no longer available. Readers and media commentators alerted us to factual and sourcing issues in the series and, after an internal review, we removed it from the site.” This coincided almost exactly with the Sunday night release of news of Ayyadurai’s wedding to former sitcom star Fran Drescher. As Masnick reported, this led to a flurry of stories written by celebrity bloggers calling Ayyarudari the “inventor of email” or claiming that he “holds the patent for inventing email.”

A rambling statement credited to Michelson, Nightingale, and Sen Song later appeared on Ayyadurai’s website, alleging that “irrational vocal minority unleashed hell on Dr. Nightingale, Dr. Ayyadurai and the Huffington Post.” This statement doubled down on the conspiracy allegations made in the retracted articles, warning of “vocal minority blitzkriegs journalists using a cabal of ‘historians’, ‘scholars’ and ‘experts’, who unleash confusion and disinformation, without revealing their conflict of interest and loyalty to Raytheon/BBN, which has billions to lose if Raytheon/BBN’s false brand as inventors of email is exposed.” It concluded with a demand that “serious investigation be conducted on those who claim to be ‘scholars’ and ‘historians’ to illuminate all of us to their conflict of interest with Raytheon/BBN, a multi-billion dollar corporation.” It did not specify by whom this investigation was to be carried out, but I would be interested to see the results as and when they become available.

Innovation Nation

Somehow, despite everything recorded above, in 2015 Ayyadurai persuaded another major media outlet to repeat his claims. I’ve come to view Ayyadurai as an inadvertent public servant. Just as a mystery shopper arrives unannounced to test the professionalism of service employees, Ayyadurai is carrying out spot checks on the baseline competence of journalists and media outlets. Journalists who repeat his claims fail that test, by advertising to the world that they don’t understand what copyright is, or by making it clear that they don’t scroll down the first screen of Google results to evaluate the credibility of the person they are interviewing. Media organizations that publish the reports show that their internal controls are broken. (Harvard economist Shane Greenstein made a similar point about the Huffington Post, noting “I will never trust this source again”).

Latest to fail: the comedian Mo Rocca who fronts a segment called the “The Henry Ford’s Innovation Nation With Mo Rocca” as part of the even more awkwardly named Saturday morning CBS programming block “THE CBS DREAM TEAM, IT’S EPIC!” The segment is reportedly “FCC educational/informational compliant, targeted to 13- to 16-year-olds and appealing to all viewers.” Rocca’s narration in the episode “Inventor of Email” calls Ayyadurai “hugely responsible” for the decline of postal mail, having “almost single handedly made that glue-licking face extinct.” There follows a short interview in which Ayyadurai calls himself “one of the best realizations of the American Dream.” The segment concludes with a montage of images from Ayyadurai’s website and an emotional conclusion praising Ayyadurai’s humanitarian efforts.

This also raises some unpleasant questions about the willingness of the Henry Ford Museum to tarnish its brand. Beneath a huge sign promoting the show the museum displays a large video screen running clips based on its content. The clip based on this segment presents “14 year old boy” the correct answer to the question “The MO you know… Who invented email?” Rocca’s narration then explains that “Shiva Ayyadurai built the email system that is largely what we use today. While some people dispute this claim, since electronic communications started with the telegraph and Morse code, you can’t argue with a government patent. In 1982, Shiva was granted the US copyright on the word ‘email.’” This clip somehow made its way into the museum and onto the screen without intervention from anyone who understands that copyright protection and patent protection are two different things.

Formaldehyde in GMOs

Ayyadurai’s latest publicity campaign has nothing to do with the history of technology. The campaign centered on a paper, “Do GMOs Accumulate Formaldehyde and Disrupt Molecular Systems Equilibria? Systems Biology May Provide Answers” by Ayydurai that was aggressively promoted as proof that GMOs posed a potential cancer risk. Its highlight was an event where he was flanked on stage by musician Neil Young and the Governor of Vermont. The journal in question, Agricultural Sciences, is one of hundreds published by Scientific Research Publishing, which specializes in author pays open access publication and is widely viewed as a predatory publisher. One of its other journals became famous after accepting a computer-generated nonsense paper.

The paper reports a computer model that predicts elevated levels of formaldehyde in GMO soybeans. However it does not report any attempt to test whether this is true  in actual soybeans. The paper has been expertly critiqued by people who know much more biology than I do, including Kevin Folta and Kavin Senapathy. According to these reports, Ayyadurai has refused to take part in a joint project to measure the formaldehyde levels found in real plants.

Allegations of Racism

Ayyadurai has been placing more emphasis recently on the idea that those who disagreed with his claims do so only because of racism. Debate of the GMO paper sparked some fascinating discussion on Twitter with Ayyadurai himself, which soon turned to the question of Ayyadurai as the inventor of email. He repeatedly fell back on the idea that those who challenge his claims must be racist. Some samples: “sorry RFC is not email, BS lies, created by old white guys at ARPANET” (July 23, 2015) “No you are a racist. The facts are obvious on who invented email” followed by “No he did invent email! Your mad because he’s a ‘darkie’” (July 25). (NB: as is his usual practice on Twitter, Ayyadurai here refers to himself in the third person).

This seems to be part of a broader messaging pivot as Ayyadurai’s publicity campaign enters its fifth year. In a blog interview headed “‘This curry stained Indian should be beaten and hanged’: Shiva Ayyadurai on inventing email and the backlash that followed” Ayyadurai complained of “frankly racist articles put up at Gizmodo and Techdirt claim that RFCs were emails” and called me “a historian in the pocket of Raytheon.” He alleged that the United States is more corrupt than India, as “here it is deep, entrenched and done in a very sophisticated manner.”

A new page on Ayyadurai’s own website, headed “Yes, a ‘Darkie’ Invented Email. Get Over It” asked “How did my invention as a fourteen year old boy working in Newark, New Jersey, so thoroughly outrage, threaten, and terrify my accusers that it needed to be erased from the history of innovation? Could it be that a dark skinned boy in New Jersey simply does not fit the narrative that only ”Whites” within that triangle can drive innovation forward?” His specific complaint was being left out of Walter Isaacson’s new blockbuster history of computing The Innovators.

Ayyadurai insisted that his publicity campaign was quite selfless: it “isn’t about my wanting glory. On the contrary, it’s about not wanting.” He offers himself as a champion for the oppressed of the world, writing “times have changed and I am a dark one, who is standing firm for the record and in the spirit of inventors, poor and dark, that came before me, that have been systematically ignored, in a world still filled with caste and colorism. The truth absolutely must be disclosed, particularly since such narratives continually and purposefully ignore key facts in order to deny innovation’s true lineage.” 

 

Thomas Haigh is a historian of information technology. He is Associate Professor of Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee and holds a Ph.D. in History & Sociology of Science from the University of Pennsylvania. From 2005 to 2014 he chaired the Special Interest Group on Computers, Information & Society (SIGCIS) for IT historians.

SIGCIS Workshop 2015: InfrastructuresnSunday, October 11, 2015 Albuquerque, New Mexicon nKeynote Speaker:Nathan Ensmenger (Indiana University)”The Materiality of the Virtual: An Environmental History of Computing”n nThe Special Interest Group for Computers, Information and Society (SIGCIS) will host our annual one-day scholarly workshop  on Sunday, October 11, 2015 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This is immediately after the end of the regular annual meeting of our parent organization, the Society for the History of Technology, details of which are available from http://www.historyoftechnology.org/features/annual_meeting/.n nQuestions about the SIGCIS 2015 workshop should be addressed to Andrew Russell (Stevens Institute of Technology), who is serving as chair of the workshop organizing committee (e-mail: arussell@stevens.edu).n nWorkshop Theme: InfrastructuresnAcross academic, artistic, and popular domains, curiosity and concern over the information and computing infrastructures that sustain economic, cultural, and social interaction has never been more salient.  In contrast to the hype generated by the gadgetry of innovation prophets and venture capitalists, an emphasis on infrastructure highlights networks of labor and focuses on the human, material, and ecological cost and scale of information and computing technologies.  nnn nWorkshop Programn n9:00 – 10:30 am: Plenary Sessionn nWorkshop and Speaker introductions by Andrew Russell (Stevens Institute of Technology) nKeynote lecture by Prof. Nathan Ensmenger (University of Indiana), The Materiality of the Virtual: An Environmental History of Computingn n n10:30 – 11:00 am: Coffee Break and Awards Ceremonyn nPresentation of CHM Prize and Mahoney Prizen n n11:00 am – 12:30 pm: Parallel Sessions In n1A. Labor, Workforce, Maintenance

Location: Room “A”

Chair and Commentator: Andrew Russell (Stevens Institute of Technology)

1. Arvid Nelsen (University of Minnesota), Concern for the ‘Disadvantaged’: Computer Training Programs for Communities of Color in the Late 1960s
2. Amy Sue Bix (Iowa State University), Technical Work and Gendered Professionalization in the 1970s and 1980s: The Association for Women in Computing
3. William Aspray (University of Texas at Austin), The History of NSF Programs to Broaden Participation in Computing
4. Lee Vinsel (Stevens Institute of Technology), ICTs, Auto Safety, and System Maintenance: The Toyota Unintended Acceleration Recalls, 2009–2011

(4×15 minute presentations followed by a 10-15 minute comment and general discussion) 

1B. Works in Progress I

Location: Room “B”

Session Leader: Gerardo Con Diaz (Yale University)

1. Eric Hintz (Smithsonian Institution), Susan Kare: Design Icon
2. Jacob Ward (University College London), Research Transplanted and Privatised: Post Office/British Telecom R&D in the Digital and Information Era
3. Christine Mitchell (New York University), Bright Side of a Dark Age: Developments in Machine Translation, 1966-1992

(Short presentations, approx 5 minutes each, to introduce precirculated papers, to be discussed in turn by workshop participants)

 

12:30 – 2:00 pm: Lunch

Buffet lunch with IEEE History Committee and related SHOT SIGs.

 

2:00 – 3:30 pm: Parallel Sessions II 

2A. The Infrastructure of Digital Archives

Location: Room “A”

Session Organizer: Giuditta Parolini (Technische Universität Berlin and Berliner Zentrum für Wissensgeschichte)Chair and Commentator: Thomas J. Misa (Charles Babbage Institute, University of Minnesota)

1. Joseph November (University of South Carolina), The Medical Record and the 50-Year Challenge to Computing
2. Giuditta Parolini (Technische Universität Berlin and Berliner Zentrum für Wissensgeschichte), From paper to bit: a digital life for the records of long-term experiments in agriculture
3. Erik Rau (Hagley Museum and Library), A Future for History (of Technology, Science, Medicine, and the Environment): Understanding the Challenges of Preserving Corporate Records in the Digital Era

(3×18 minute presentations followed by a 10-15 minute comment and general discussion) 

2B. Peripheral Play & Connectivity

Location: Room “B”

Session Organizer: Brent Strang (Stony Brook University)Chair and Commentator: David Parisi (College of Charleston)

1. Reem Hilu (Northwestern University), “The Ultimate Doll”: Microprocessor Controlled Talking Dolls and Girls’ Play Practices in the Home
2. Brent Strang (Stony Brook University), Peripheral Convergence Through User-Centered Design: A Case-Study of Logitech
3. Laine Nooney (Georgia Institute of Technology), The Infrastructure of Expertise, or What Game Engines Allow

(3×18 minute presentations followed by a 10-15 minute comment and general discussion) 

2C. Roundtable: Digital Humanities, SIGCIS, and SHOT

Location: Room “C”

Session Organizer and Chair: Kimon Keramidas (New York University)Session Participants:

• Peter Sachs Collopy (University of Southern California)
• Marie Hicks (Illinois Institute of Technology)
• Andrew Meade McGee (University of Virginia)
• Ramesh Subramanian (Quinnipiac University)

 

3:30 – 4 pm: Coffee Break

 

4 – 5:30 pm: Parallel Sessions 3 

3A. Networks and Politics

Location: Room “A”

Chair and Commentator: James Cortada (Charles Babbage Institute)

1. Andrew Schrock (University of Southern California), From Black Hats to White Hats: Constructing the “Ethical Hacker”
2. Bradley Fidler (UCLA), The Emergence of Border Router Protocols and Autonomous Systems on the Internet, c. 1968-1989
3. Gerardo Con Diaz (Yale University), IBM and Patent Reform in the United States, 1965-1968
4. Camille Paloque-Berges (Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers), Unix networks cooperation as a shadow infrastructure for an early French Internet experience (1983-1993)

(4×15 minute presentations followed by a 10 minute comment and general discussion) 

3B. Pushing the Limits

Location: Room “B”

Chair and Commentator: Thomas Haigh (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee)

1. Eileen Clancy (City University of New York), Abacus Computing in the Age of Electronics: Sekiko Yoshida and the Early U.S. Space Program
2. Nicholas Lewis (University of Minnesota), Increasing the Yield: Nuclear Testing, Weapons Strategy, and Supercomputer Selection at Los Alamos in the 1960s
3. Devin Kennedy (Harvard University), What was “Real” about “Real-Time”?: Time and Responsiveness in Early Post-War Computing

(3×18 minute presentations followed by a 10-15 minute comment and general discussion) 

3C. Works in Progress II

Location: Room “C”

Session Leader: Jason Gallo (Science & Technology Policy Institute)

1. Megan Finn (University of Washington), “I am so anxious to hear”: improvising information infrastructure
2. Rebecca Miller (Science & Technology Policy Institute), Communication of Disaster-Related Information
3. Quinn Dupont (University of Toronto), Plaintext, Encryption, Ciphertext: A History of Cryptography and its Influence on Contemporary Society

(Short presentations, approx 5 minutes each, to introduce precirculated papers, to be discussed in turn by workshop participants)

 

5:30 – 6:15 pm: Time to Recover

6:15 pm: Meet for optional dinner at nearby restaurant

nn n nn

---

 

nnCFP material is below – for reference purposes. The deadline of June 30, 2015 has passed.n nFor the SIGCIS 2015 Workshop, we invite papers that engage historical dimensions of the prosaic work of building networks, cultivating workforces, and maintaining computing and information infrastructures.  Related themes necessarily include maintenance, labor, and ordinary experiences with information and computing technologies.  Proposals for individual papers or complete sessions might include the following topics: n

• the maintenance of legacy hardware and software 
• the training and treatment of labor and workforces 
• the lived realities of computers and IT
• digital archives and their sustainability 
• cyberinfrastructures for bureaucratic and scientific collaboration
• materiality of computing, media, and information technologies
• specific infrastructural technologies such as cables, fiber-optics, switching, and wireless
• political and economic aspects of infrastructure maintenance and development
• tensions between local or national legal regimes and global information infrastructures

nAs always, SIGCIS welcomes all types of contributions related to the history of computing and information, whether or not there is an explicit connection with the annual theme.  Our membership is international and interdisciplinary, and our members examine the history of information technologies and their place within society from a variety of scholarly perspectives including the history of technology, labor history, social history, business history, the history of science, science & technologies studies, communications, media studies, gender and sexuality studies, and museum studies.n nThe deadline for submissions is June 30, 2015.n n nSuggested Formats for Submissions:nn

Proposals for entire sessions and individual presenters are both welcome. We hope to run special sessions featuring dissertations in progress and other works in progress. The workshop is a great opportunity to get helpful feedback on your projects in a relaxed and supportive environment. All proposals will be subject to a peer review process based on abstracts.

Individual contributions can fit one of a variety of formats:

1. Traditional 15 to 20-minute presentations followed by a question and answer session. In this case, a one-page abstract (maximum 400 words) will be reviewed and included in the electronic conference program. Abstracts should address the paper’s topic, argument, evidence used, and contribution to the existing literature. A full version of the paper should be sent to the session commentator at least 2 weeks prior to the meeting. We welcome proposals for entire sessions (3-4 papers that elucidate a common theme) or for individual presentations.
2. Dissertation proposals. SIGCIS usually hosts a special session on dissertations in progress so that scholars can receive critical feedback in a relaxed and supportive environment. Interested students in the early stages should submit a dissertation proposal. Those whose project is more advanced should submit a dissertation chapter together with table of contents of the whole dissertation. Accepted submissions will be pre-circulated in the electronic conference program. Participants will be encouraged to read this prior to the session. Dissertators will have five to ten minutes to introduce their material, leaving the bulk of time available for discussion.
3. Works in progress. This is your chance to receive informal and expert discussion of draft journal articles, or book chapters. Submit a one page abstract (maximum 400 words) including discussion of the current state of the work and any specific kinds of feedback you are seeking. If your proposal is accepted you will need to supply the draft for discussion by September 18 for inclusion in our electronic program. You will have five to ten minutes to introduce the material, leaving the bulk of time available for discussion.
4. Proposals in other formats are also welcome, such as round table discussions, demonstrations of software of interest to historians of computing and information, or “author meets critics” sessions. Descriptions should be 400-600 words and clearly identify format, objectives, activities, and participants.

As we attract proposals from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds it is best to be explicit: SIGCIS follows traditional practices for the submission of papers for professional historical conference. These include selection based on abstracts rather than full papers; no dissemination of full papers (with the exception of dissertation proposals and work in progress formats as noted above); and the requirement that presenters share their full paper with the session commentator at least 2 weeks prior to the meeting.

Submission Procedure

All submissions should be made online via the SIGCIS website (http://www.sigcis.org). The same person should not be included as a panelist or speaker in more than one proposal for the workshop, though it is okay to appear as a speaker/panelist in one session and a chair/discussant in another. People already scheduled to participate on the main SHOT program are welcome to submit an additional proposal to our workshop, but should make sure that there is no overlap between the two presentations. Please note that the SIGCIS Workshop Program Committee may choose to give higher priority to submissions from those not already presenting at SHOT.

Proposals for individual papers should be made at http://www.sigcis.org/workshop15a. Note that this requires a one-page curriculum vitae as well as the proposal itself in the form described above.

Proposals for complete sessions can be made at http://www.sigcis.org/workshop15b. Note that this requires one-page curriculum vitae for each presenter, compiled into a single document and included with the submission.

The SIGCIS Workshop Program Committee will provide acceptance decisions by July 15. The Program Committee includes:

– Andrew Russell (Chair), Stevens Institute of Technology, arussell@stevens.edu– Laine Nooney, New York University, laine.nooney@gmail.com– Jason Gallo, Science and Technology Policy Institute, jgallo@ida.org 

Travel Support

The top financial priority of SIGCIS is the support of travel expenses for graduate students, visiting faculty without institutional travel support, and others who would be unable to attend the meeting without travel assistance. The submission page includes a box to check if you fall into one of these categories and would like to be considered for an award. These is no separate application form, though depending on the volume of requests and available resources we may need to contact you for further information before making a decision. Any award offered is contingent on registering for and attending the workshop. Participants in work in progress or dissertations in progress sessions must also meet the deadlines set for providing the material to be discussed. Please note that SHOT does not classify workshop presentations as participation in the SHOT annual meeting and so acceptance by SIGCIS does not imply eligibility for the SHOT travel grant program.

Details of available awards are at http://www.sigcis.org/travelaward. Funding sources include donations from SIGCIS members at our annual meeting, income from the Mahoney Fund http://www.sigcis.org/mahoney and support from MIT Press for our annual book auction.

For information on previous SIGCIS workshops in 2009-2014, please visit the “Activities and Events” section of the SIGCIS website at http://www.sigcis.org.

nn 

The Mahoney Prize recognizes an outstanding article in the history of computing and information technology, broadly conceived. The Mahoney Prize commemorates the late Princeton scholar Michael S. Mahoney, whose profound contributions to the history of computing came from his many articles and book chapters. The prize consists of a $500 award and a certificate. For the 2024 prize, articles published in the preceding three years (2021, 2022 and 2023) are eligible for nomination. The Mahoney Prize is awarded by the Special Interest Group in Computers, Information, and Society (SIGCIS). We will present the prize at the SIG’s annual meeting.

Please email copies of articles being nominated to the 2025 Prize Committee by April 15, 2025. Self-nominations are welcome, as are nominations from the SIG’s membership. Please direct any questions to the 2025 committee chair, David Murphy.

 

2025 Mahoney Prize Winner:

Theodora Dryer, “Settler Computing: Water Algorithms and the Equitable Apportionment Doctrine on the Colorado River, 1950–1990” Osiris 38 (2023): 265-285.

 

2025 Mahoney Prize Committee:

David Murphy (Chair)

Senior Lecturer,

Digital, Tech, Innovation & Business

Staffordshire University

david.murphy@staffs.ac.uk

 

Janet Toland

Adjunct

School of Information Management

Victoria University of Wellington

janet.toland@vuw.ac.nz

 

Luke Stark

Assistant Professor

Faculty of Information and Media Studies

University of Western Ontario

cstark23@uwo.ca

 

 

Previous winners:

2024: Corinna Schlombs. “Built on the Hands of Women: Data, Automation, and Gender in West Germany’s Financial Industry” Technology and Culture 64, no. 1 (January 2023): 63-89.

2023: Hannah Zeavin. “‘This Is Womenspace’: USENET and the Fight for a Digital Backroom, 1983–86.” Technology and Culture 63, no. 3 (July 13, 2022): 634–64.

2022: Theodora Vardouli and David Theodore, “Walking Instead of Working: Space Allocation, Automatic Architecture, and the Abstraction of Hospital Labor,” in IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 43, no. 2 (April-June 2021): 6-17.

2021: Colette Perold, “IBM’s World Citizens: Valentim Bouças and the Politics of IT Expansion in Authoritarian Brazil,” IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 42, no. 3 (July-September 2020): 38-52.

2020: Oliver Belcher. “Sensing, Territory, Population: Computation, Embodied Sensors, and Hamlet Control in the Vietnam War,” Security Dialogue 50.5, (2019) 416-436.

2019: Nikhil Menon. “‘Fancy Calculating Machine’: Computers and planning in independent India.” Modern Asian Studies 52, no. 2 (2018): 421-457.

2018: Joanna Radin. “Digital Natives: How Medical and Indigenous Histories Matter for Big Data.” Osiris Vol. 32, No. 1 (2017): 43-64

2017: Erica Robles-Anderson and Patrik Svensson, “’One Damn Slide After Another’: PowerPoint at Every Occasion for Speech.” Computational Culture (January 15, 2016). 

2016: Andrew L. Russell and Valérie Schafer, “In the Shadow of ARPANET and Internet: Louis Pouzin and the Cyclades Network in the 1970s,” Technology and Culture 55, no. 4 (October 2014): 880-907.

2015: David Nofre, Mark Priestley, and Gerard Alberts, “When Technology Became Language: The Origins of the Linguistic Conception of Computer Programming, 1950-1960,” Technology and Culture 55 (January 2014): 40-75.

The Computer History Museum Prize is awarded to the author of an outstanding book in the history of computing broadly conceived, published during the prior three years. The prize of $1,000 is awarded by SIGCIS, the Special Interest Group for Computers, Information and Society. SIGCIS is part of the Society for the History of Technology. 

In 2012 the prize was endowed in perpetuity through a generous bequest from the estate of Paul Baran, a legendary computer innovator and entrepreneur best known for his work to develop and promote the packet switching approach on which modern networks are built. Baran was a longtime supporter of work on the history of information technology and named the prize to celebrate the contributions of the Computer History Museum to that field. 

 

2025 Computer History Museum Prize Winner:

Avery Dame Griff, The Two Revolutions: A History of the Transgender Internet (NYU Press, 2023).

 

2025 Nomination instructions

Books published in 2022, 2023, and 2024 are eligible for the 2025 prize. Books in translation are eligible for three years following the date of their publication in English. Publishers, authors, and other interested members of the computer history community are invited to nominate books. Please note that books nominated in previous years may be nominated again, provided they have been published in the timeframes specified above. 

Please fill out the Google Form and then send both digital and physical copies of the nominated title to each of the committee members, with a postmark no later than April 30, 2025. After you complete the Google Form, you will be shown a confirmation page with the committee members’ addresses. If you run into technical problems, please contact SIGCIS Co-Chair Liz Petrick, ep20@rice.edu. Please direct any other questions to the 2025 committee chair, Mar Hicks, mhicks@virginia.edu.

Google Form

https://forms.gle/L91wB6jGgVZZx6m47

 

2025 Prize Committee Members

Mar Hicks (Chair)

David Brock

Sarah T Roberts

 

 

Previous Winners

• 2009: Christophe Lécuyer, Making Silicon Valley: Innovation and the Growth of High Tech, 1930-1970 (MIT Press, 2006)
• 2010: Atsushi Akera, Calculating a Natural World: Scientists, Engineers, and Computers During the Rise of U.S. Cold War Research (MIT Press, 2007)
• 2011: Paul N. Edwards, A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming (MIT Press, 2010)
• 2012: Eden Medina, Cybernetic Revolutionaries:Technology and Politics in Allende’s Chile (MIT Press, 2011)
• 2013: Joseph A. November, Biomedical Computing: Digitizing Life in the United States (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012)
• 2014: Janet Abbate, Recoding Gender: Women’s Changing Participation in Computing (MIT Press, 2012)
• 2015: Rebecca Slayton, Arguments That Count: Physics, Computing, and Missile Defense, 1949-2012 (MIT Press, 2013)
• 2016: Dinesh C. Sharma, The Outsourcer: The Story of India’s IT Revolution (MIT Press, 2015)
• 2017: Elizabeth Petrick, Making Computers Accessible: Disability Rights and Digital Technology (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2015).
• 2018: Ben Peters, How Not to Network a Nation: The Uneasy History of the Soviet Internet (MIT Press, 2016).
• 2019: Jaroslav Švelch, Gaming the Iron Curtain How Teenagers and Amateurs in Communist Czechoslovakia Claimed the Medium of Computer Games (MIT Press, 2018).
• 2020: Gerardo Con Diaz, Software Rights: How Patent Law Transformed Software Development in America (New Haven: Yale University Press 2019).
• 2021: Morgan G. Ames, The Charisma Machine: The Life, Death, and Legacy of One Laptop per Child (MIT Press, 2019).
• 2022: Jacob Gaboury, Image Objects: An Archaeology of Computer Graphics (MIT Press, 2021).
• 2023: Kevin Driscoll, The Modem World: A Prehistory of Social Media (Yale University Press, 2022).
• 2024: Victor Petrov, Balkan Cyberia: Cold War Computing, Bulgarian Modernization, and the Information Age behind the Iron Curtain (MIT Press, 2023).

Winner: Janet Abbate, Recoding Gender: Women’s Changing Participation in Computing (MIT Press, 2012)

Prize Citation: Gender is an important but under-examined dimension of computing. Janet Abbate’s book, Recoding Gender, unveils the gendered conceptions that shaped past and current assumptions of what specific work practices, personalities, and talents are essential to the field. Early studies of gender in computing focused on particularly prominent women (such as Grace Murray Hopper), or women’s contributions to famous projects (such as ENIAC). Recoding Gender instead uses women’s day-to-day experiences to reveal the obstacles encountered and the strategies developed by women who carved out professional careers as corporate programmers, software entrepreneurs, or academic computer scientists. Based on extensive oral histories, all made available online by the author, Abbate’s book provides new material for the historical study of women in computing, offering at the same time new ground for current debates on women’s under-represented position within computing. We expect it to enjoy a wide readership and to inspire further research.

Computing the Big Picture:Situating Information Technology in Broader Historical Narratives

SIGCIS Workshop 2014November 9, 2014, Dearborn, Michigan

Keynote Speaker: Jennifer S. Light, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

---

The Special Interest Group for Computers, Information and Society (SIGCIS – http://www.sigcis.org) welcomes submissions for our annual one-day scholarly workshop to be held on Sunday, November 9 2014 in Dearborn, Michigan. This is immediately after the end of the regular annual meeting of our parent organization, the Society for the History of Technology, details of which are available from http://www.historyoftechnology.org/features/annual_meeting/. Questions about the workshop should be addressed to Andrew Russell (Stevens Institute of Technology), who is serving as chair of the workshop organizing committee. Email arussell@stevens.edu.

Workshop Theme

When the history of computing began to emerge as a scholarly field forty years ago its first practitioners and consumers were computing pioneers, who favored technical accounts focused on the first electronic computers. Since then the field has developed in many directions, attracting scholars trained in a variety of historical traditions and working on a broad range of topics, time periods, and geographical settings. Work on the history of computing is increasingly influenced by methods and questions from broader fields and, in turn, is influencing scholars in other communities. This undermines the traditional, hardware centered, master narrative of computing and challenges us to integrate computing into a variety of broader historical stories. As a result, scholars working in or near the history of computing face some big questions:

• What is the place of “the history of computing in the history of technology,” 26 years on from Michael Mahoney’s classic article on that question?
• How can traditional historical narratives in areas such as gender studies, economic history, or environmental history be challenged by taking seriously the role of information technology? Conversely, what might these narratives bring to deepen our understanding of information technology itself?
• Can historical questions and methods help to provide a coherent framework for new interdisciplinary areas such as software studies, Internet studies, and information studies?
• What does today’s history of computing literature have to offer to computer scientists and other audiences without specialist historical training?
• How can we take seriously the complexities and unique features of computing technology while still producing work that transcends technical detail to tell stories and advance arguments of scholarly interest?

We expect most submissions to focus on particular stories rather than on directly answering these weighty questions, but would appreciate it if presenters made an effort to connect their stories to broader narratives and in doing to provide a particular practical answer to one of the questions. SIGCIS has a tradition of welcoming all types of contributions related to the history of computing and information, whether or not there is an explicit connection with the annual theme.  Our membership is international and interdisciplinary, and our members examine the history of information technologies and their place within society from a variety of scholarly perspectives including the history of technology, business history, labor history, social history, the history of science, science studies, communications, gender and sexuality studies, computing, and museum studies.

nn

Workshop Program

All sessions will occur in the Henry Hotel, which is the main location of the SHOT conference and the location of the Saturday sessions.

	Salon II (“Room A”)	Salon III (“Room B”)
9:00–10:30	Opening Plenary (in Salon II) Workshop and Speaker introductions by Andrew Russell (Stevens Institute of Technology) and Jason Gallo (Science and Technology Policy Institute) Plenary lecture by Prof. Jennifer Light (MIT): “Computing and the Big Picture: A Keynote Conversation”
10:30–11:00	Coffee Break Including presentation of the Computer History Museum Prize
11:00–12:30	Information Technology and the Automated Society(Traditional Papers I) Chair and Commentator: Rebecca Slayton (Cornell University) Paul Ceruzzi (Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum), “The SHOT/AHA Series on Historical Perspectives on Technology, Culture, and Society: What Should a Booklet on Computing and Information Technologies Contain?” Arvid Nelsen (University of Minnesota), “Debates on Automation in the 20th Century: Interpreting New Sources at CBI” Andrew Gansky (University of Texas at Austin), “The Meaning of Life in the Automated Office” Ekaterina Babintseva (University of Pennsylvania), “Between Life and Mechanism: The Notion of Information in Warren McCulloch’s Theory” (4×15 minute presentations followed by a 10-15 minute comment and general discussion)	Work in Progress I Session Leader: Andrew Russell, Stevens Institute of Technology William Vogel (University of Minnesota), “Shifting Attitudes: Women in Computing, 1965-1985” Steve Anderson (University of California, Riverside), “The Digital Imaginary:  Mainframe Computers from the Corporate Basement to the Silver Screen, 1946-1968” Margarita Boenig-Liptsin (Harvard University), “Making the Citizen of the Information Age: A Comparative Study of Computer Literacy Programs for Children, 1960s-1990s” (Short presentations, approx 5 minutes each, to introduce precirculated papers, to be discussed in turn by workshop participants)
12:30–2:00	Lunch: Buffet lunch in Salon 5 & 6 with IEEE History Committee and related SHOT SIGs to discuss the question “Is there a role for history of technology in the Middle School/High School history curriculum.” This is free and open to all.or: Box lunch (included in workshop registration)
2:00–4:00	Organizations, Institutions, and Computing(Traditional Papers II) nChair: Christopher Leslie (New York University)Commentator: Cyrus Mody (Rice University)n Nicholas Lewis (University of Minnesota), “Computing Behind the Red Line: The HPC History Project at Los Alamos”  Chuck House (InnovScapes Institute), “The Cisco Heritage Project”  James R. Lehning (University of Utah), “Technological Innovation and Commercialization: the University of Utah Computer Science Department, 1965-1975”  Michael Castelle (University of Chicago), “Making Markets Durable: Transaction Processing in Finance and Commerce”  n(4×20 minute presentations followed by a 10-15 minute comment and general discussion)n	At the Interfaces: Users and Games (Traditional Papers III) Chair and Commentator: Gerard Alberts (University of Amsterdam) Kimon Keramidas (Bard Graduate Center), “The Interface Experience” Katherine McFadden (University of South Carolina), “Hand Sewn Computing: Women’s Hobbies, Needlework and Computer Electronics” Jonathan Scott Clemens (University of Minnesota), “The Most Blatant Testimony We Have to American Waste:” Moral Panic and Video Arcade Games, 1978–1983” Michael McGovern (University of Cambridge), “Re-framing Power Relations in the Historiography of Computing: Examples from Early Medical Genetics and Calculator User Groups” (4×20 minute presentations followed by a 10-15 minute comment and general discussion)
4:00–4:30	Coffee Break
4:30–6:00	Work in Progress II Session Leader: Jason Gallo Beatrice Choi (Northwestern University), “Ser Técnico: Localized Technology Transfer, Emerging Technical Actors, and the Brazilian Computer Industry” William Aspray (University of Texas at Austin), “How to Frame a Study of the History of IT Education and its Relation to Broadening Participation in the IT Workforce in the United States” Alex Campolo (New York University), “White-Collar Foragers: Ecology, Economics, and Logics of Information Visualization” (Short presentations, approx 5 minutes each, to introduce precirculated papers, to be discussed in turn by workshop participants)	Designing and Making Computers(Traditional Papers IV) Chair and Commentator: Nathan Ensmenger (University of Indiana) William McMillan (Concordia University), “Technical Trends in the History of Operating Systems” Lav Varshney (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), “Block Diagrams in Information Theory: Drawing Things Closed” Barbara Walker (University of Nevada, Reno),n”Gossip, Storytelling, and the Spread of Innovation: The von Neumann and Lebedev Computer Projects in Comparison”n Gerardo Con Diaz (Yale University), “Embodied Software: Patents and Software Development, 1946-1970” (4×15 minute presentations followed by a 10-15 minute comment and general discussion)
6:00–6:45	Time to recover
6:45	Meet in the lobby of the conference hotel to walk to an optional group dinner in a neaby restaurant.

nn

---

CFP Material is Below — For Reference Only

The submission deadline of August 15, 2014 has passed.

Suggested Formats for Submissions:

Proposals for entire sessions and individual presenters are both welcome. We hope to run special sessions featuring dissertations in progress and other works in progress. The workshop is a great opportunity to get helpful feedback on your projects in a relaxed and supportive environment. All proposals will be subject to a peer review process based on abstracts.

Individual contributions can fit one of a variety of formats:

1. Traditional 15 to 20-minute presentations followed by a question and answer session. In this case, a one-page abstract (maximum 400 words) will be reviewed and included in the electronic conference program. Abstracts should address the paper’s topic, argument, evidence used, and contribution to the existing literature. A full version of the paper should be sent to the session commentator at least 2 weeks prior to the meeting. We welcome proposals for entire sessions (3-4 papers that elucidate a common theme) or for individual presentations.
2. Dissertation proposals. SIGCIS usually hosts a special session on dissertations in progress so that scholars can receive critical feedback in a relaxed and supportive environment. Interested students in the early stages should submit a dissertation proposal. Those whose project is more advanced should submit a dissertation chapter together with table of contents of the whole dissertation. Accepted submissions will be pre-circulated in the electronic conference program. Participants will be encouraged to read this prior to the session. Dissertators will have five to ten minutes to introduce their material, leaving the bulk of time available for discussion.
3. Works in progress. This is your chance to receive informal and expert discussion of draft journal articles, or book chapters. Submit a one page abstract (maximum 400 words) including discussion of the current state of the work and any specific kinds of feedback you are seeking. If your proposal is accepted you will need to supply the draft for discussion by 1 October for inclusion in our electronic program. You will have five to ten minutes to introduce the material, leaving the bulk of time available for discussion.
4. Proposals in other formats are also welcome, such as round table discussions, “works in progress” proposals for early-stage research projects, demonstrations of software of interest to historians of computing and information, or “author meets critics” sessions. Descriptions should be a page or two and clearly identify format, objectives, activities, and participants.

As we attract proposals from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds it is best to be explicit: SIGCIS follows traditional practices for the submission of papers for professional historical conference. These include selection based on abstracts rather than full papers; no dissemination of full papers (with the exception of dissertation proposals and work in progress formats as noted above); and the requirement that presenters share their full paper with the session commentator at least 2 weeks prior to the meeting.Submission Procedure

All submissions should be made online via the SIGCIS website by August 10, 2014. The same person should not be included as a panelist or speaker in more than one proposal for the workshop, though it is OK to appear as a speaker/panelist in one session and a chair/discussant in another. People already scheduled to participate on the main SHOT program are welcome to submit an additional proposal to our workshop, but should make sure that there is no overlap between the two presentations. However SIGCIS may choose to give higher priority to submissions from those not already presenting at SHOT.

Individual submissions should be made at http://www.sigcis.org/workshop14a. Note that this requires a one page curriculum vitae as well as the proposal itself in the form described above.

Proposals for complete sessions should be made at http://www.sigcis.org/workshop14b.

They should include:

•  a description of the session that explains how individual papers contribute to an overall theme
•  the names and email addresses of each presenter
•  an abstract and title for each presentation (in the form described above)
•  a one-page c.v. for each presenter and other participant (including commentator or chair if named)

We will provide acceptance decisions by August 24.

Travel Support

The top financial priority of SIGCIS is the support of travel expenses for graduate students, visiting faculty without institutional travel support, and others who would be unable to attend the meeting without travel assistance. The submission page includes a box to check if you fall into one of these categories and would like to be considered for an award. These is no separate application form, though depending on the volume of requests and available resources we may need to contact you for further information before making a decision. Any award offered is contingent on registering for and attending the workshop. Participants in work in progress or dissertations in progress sessions must also meet the deadlines set for providing the material to be discussed. Please note that SHOT does not classify workshop presentations as participation in the SHOT annual meeting and so acceptance by SIGCIS does not imply eligibility for the SHOT travel grant program.

Details of available awards are at http://www.sigcis.org/travelaward. Funding sources include donations from SIGCIS members at our annual meeting, income from the Mahoney Fund http://www.sigcis.org/mahoney and support from MIT Press for our annual book auction.

For information on previous SIGCIS workshops in 2009-2013, please visit the “Activities and Events” section of the SIGCIS website at http://www.sigcis.org.

 

Winner: Joseph A. November, Biomedical Computing: Digitizing Life in the United States (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012)

Prize Citation

In the mid-twentieth century, digital computers began to transform biomedicine. In Biomedical Computing, Joseph November presents an original and compelling account of the processes by which diverse communities in biology and medicine came to embrace digital methods and machines. Furthermore, while historians have demonstrated the influence of physical sciences on early computing, November also demonstrates the forgotten ways in which the demands of biomedical communities shaped computing. In addition to bringing an often neglected scientific community into clear view for historians of computing, Biomedical Computing establishes an important dialogue with the history of science. While historians of technology and business have found ample reason to study computing, Biomedical Computing makes the computer–and thus the history of computing–relevant for science and medicine audiences in general. We expect it to enjoy a broad readership, and to inspire new kinds of computer history.

2013 Prize Committee Members

• Rebecca Slayton (chair): Lecturer in Public Polic, Stanford University.
• David Nofre: Research Affiliate, Centre d’Estudis d’Història de la Ciència at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
• Jonathan Coopersmith: Associate Professor Department of History, Texas A&M University.

Response to the Draft Report from the Ad Hoc Committee on Structure and Organization of SHOT

from the Executive Committee ofSHOT’s Special Interest Group on Computers, Information and Society (SIGCIS)

Our parent society, SHOT, recently issued a draft report offering ideas on the challenges it faces and changes that might strengthen it for the future. This is the response of SIGCIS, a contribution to the online discussion of the report requested by SHOT and underway on its website. The draft report discusses strategic challenges and opportunities facing SHOT and it discusses SHOT’s interest groups. What it does not do is put those two things together. We believe that the success of SIGCIS, SHOT’s Special Interest Group on Computers, Information, and Society over the past decade holds important lessons for SHOT as a whole.

SIGCIS appreciates the careful and thoughtful work done by the committee members and shares their concern with improving SHOT’s intellectual vitality and boosting attendance at its annual meetings. We also share the committee’s sense that SHOT can benefit from engagement with “neighboring disciplines.”

What SIGCIS does: SIGICS has grown to more than 300 members around the world. We raised a $25,000 endowment for our book prize, and have accumulated around $15,000 in our Mahoney Fund as a capital base. Each year we make around $2,500 in travel awards to graduate students to help them attend SHOT. SIGICS hosts a full day workshop on the Sunday of each SHOT conference with two streams of parallel programming. We organize or sponsor an average of four panel submissions for the main SHOT conference. The workshop and our lunch meetings each attract around fifty registrants each year. SIGCIS provides a listserv for discussion and announcement among its members and hosts a membership directory, syllabus repository, and set of resource guides on its website at www.sigcis.org. SIGICIS has also served as a voice for the history of computing community, as in recent controversy over the self-proclaimed “inventor of email.”

How SIGCIS benefits SHOT:

• Between the SIGIS members participating in SIGCIS-sponsored panels in the main SHOT program and in our workshop we have around 40 speakers, chairs and commentators represented. Of course some of these would come to SHOT anyway, but this density of colleagues and relevant papers also attracts a number of SIGCIS members who are not presenting, and ancillary events such as the IEEE Annals of the History of Computing board meeting. Thus we estimate that we bring at least 30 people to SHOT each year who would not otherwise attend. As the report shows meeting registrations slipping to around 200 during the recent recession that’s played an important part in keeping the meeting afloat.
• The report acknowledges that SHOT has had limited success in attracting participants with geographical and intellectual diversity. Many of the SIGCIS members attending SHOT are not Ph.D. historians of technology and hence might not otherwise participate in SHOT. As we are the only interest group for those with an interest in the history of information technology we have also been able to attract people who identify primarily with business history, labor history, economic history, museum studies, media studies, etc. We also include active members with technical backgrounds and an avocational interest in history. SHOT used to be more open to engineers and non-Ph.D. historians but has increasingly professionalized around the Ph.D. graduates of major history of science, history of technology, and STS programs.
• One important way SIGCIS has accomplished this is by sharing tacit knowledge about what a SHOT abstract is supposed to look like and how SHOT panels work. This is usually picked up from peers in the aforementioned Ph.D. programs but can otherwise be quite mysterious. Some common features of history conferences, for example the role of a commentator, are also little understood in other disciplines. Knowing how to produce a SHOT-friendly abstract does not necessarily correlate with delivering a great paper, and vice versa, so help in shaping abstracts is a crucial way to address the problems mentioned by the committee with high rates of rejection when scholars from area studies and other fields outside the SHOT mainstream attempt to submit proposals.
• SIGCIS builds on the SHOT tradition of providing a welcoming and supportive environment for new members. Discussion of the history of information technology was formerly marginal at the SHOT meeting and is now central. In related associations such as 4S, HSS, or the Business History Conference it remains marginal. Thus we attribute some of the progress to things SHOT has done differently to these other associations, including its strong interest group in the area. Because out community is now well represented at SHOT we make sure that those new to the history of technology find their visit to SHOT rewarding. SIGCIS organizes informal dinners and other activities such as hikes as well as its workshop and formal lunch meeting.  This shows that once achieved a critical mass of participants within a particular area can become self-sustaining and improve the vitality of SHOT as a whole.
• The SIGCIS workshop CFP, our Computer History Museum prize call, etc. are distributed widely and bring additional visibility to SHOT. Likewise, the SIGCIS website complements SHOT’s own website to improve the overall visibility of the society.
• The report suggests that SHOT should experiment with new kinds of program mechanisms. We support this idea, and feel that SIGCIS and other SIGS could play an important role in organizing innovative panels. However we are perplexed by the suggestion that while SHOT makes “use of SIGs, other societies seem to employ other, possibly more fluid mechanisms for developing new and emergent areas” including substantive sessions for graduate students and work in progress sessions. In fact SIGCIS always includes a precirculated work in progress session in its workshop, usually includes a dissertation in progress session, and has experiments with other formats including roundtables and closing plenary sessions. SIGCIS also has a theme for each workshop, which we ask participants to address and choose a keynote speaker to highlight. This is another areas where innovations pioneered by SIGs are strengthening SHOT as a whole.
• The report treats internationalization of SHOT as a priority. The membership of SIGCIS is comparatively well balanced over the developed world, and we have a set of regional vice chairs responsible for growing our presence in particular areas.

Thoughts on the future:

• Supporting SIG initiatives and encouraging their growth will bring new energy to SHOT. Better integrating SIGs into SHOT’s governance can address some of the issues raised in the report concerning the depth of SHOT’s volunteer pool and the narrowness
• SHOT should continue to offer its interest groups the opportunity to run full day events. The SIGCIS workshop serves as an annual meeting for the history of IT community and thus makes SHOT the centerpiece of this growing field. If SHOT does not harness this energy then another group will.
• Give people feedback on why their proposal was rejected! Not doing this makes it very hard for those outside SHOT’s core community to figure out what they would have to change to get a future submission accepted and puts them off trying again.
• Currently SHOT recoups costs from SIGCIS for Sunday expenses (coffee, projectors, etc.) but is not willing to add a charge for the workshop to the registration page. SIGCIS has to demand cash from attendees. Adding small charges for SIG events on the registration page could bring revenue for SHOT to share with the SIGs responsible and, from SHOT’s viewpoint, turn the events from expenses into profit centers.
• Competition for space at SHOT is not a zero sum game. The energy of the SIGCIS community has made IT history the largest single area at SHOT, whereas it was barely represented just a decade ago. That brings people into SHOT would not otherwise be involved with it. We know from the report that the SHOT program committee is alarmed at a lack of suitable submissions, so this growth has not crowded out other fields. Thus the opportunity exists for other SIGs current and future to make SHOT into the hub for other emerging scholarly communities.

As I mentioned recently on the listserve, this year there will be a panel on the main SHOT program discussing how SIG concerns are integrated into teaching. As part of SHOT’s new website launch, comments from this panel (and several other roundtables) are being made available in advance. I’ll be representing the SIGCIS at this teaching panel, and below I’ve posted a draft of my comments.

Please come to the panel if you are at the conference–the full title of the panel is “Integrating SHOT SIG Concerns into the Teaching of History of Technology: Rethinking Modes of Instruction in a Diverse Communities” and it takes place on Saturday, Oct. 12 from 10:30 am to 12:30 pm. It is part of the President’s Roundtable program.

---

Learning about Infrastructure, and Infrastructures for Learning: Insights on Pedagogy from the SIGCIS

Our SIG is sometimes viewed as the “computer history SIG” and while that forms an important part of what we do, I would like to start by emphasizing that it is only one part of what we do. Members of our SIG work on topics ranging from telegraphy to labor history, and from voice recognition to video games. Collectively, we are interested in much more than a narrowly-defined computing history: our mandate is to study how computers, information, and society interact, shaping the human experience in the process. As a result, one of the main teaching goals of the SIGCIS is to help students learn how to contend with technologies of infrastructure that creep into all aspects of our lives, from the broadest to the most personal level.

We aim to teach students how these technological infrastructures, and our interactions with them, not only structure our collective experiences and our daily interactions, but shape and define our humanity in the process. By now, it is generally taken for granted that we are all cyborgs. But the mechanisms by which we grow into our cyborg selves and the historical changes that underlie these constantly-shifting identities are still poorly understood–and often ignored. Showing students how to apply lessons of this history in specific, actionable ways is one of the SIGCIS’s major pedagogical aims.

My comments fall into roughly three sections: the first two deal with how the content and topical concerns of our SIG influence larger pedagogical concerns, and the last one deals with teaching tools and media:

1. One issue that has been especially important for our SIG in both research and teaching is the issue of how to revise and rewrite narratives of information technology that have tended to privilege the West, and particularly the United States. Members of our SIG have continuously pushed the boundaries of where we should look for this history—changing the political, economic, and cultural meanings of this historical subspecialty in the process, and opening up a range of teaching possibilities.

For instance, Eden Medina’s work on Chilean cybernetics raises questions about ideology, and computing as a tool for social change, in a context that is completely unfamiliar to most students but inextricably connected to Anglo-American history. This allows students to see old historical issues in a new light. Jenna Burrell’s work on internet users in Ghana requires students to ask uncomfortable questions about user agency and who gets to define appropriate technological use. And Ross Bassett’s work on computing in India shows how a major technological power has heretofore largely been written out of computing histories produced and consumed in the Anglo-American context.

One way to deploy these insights in a class, which I have used to good effect with undergraduates, is to give the class information that might seem to conflict with the narrative(s) presented by their main textbook. Then, I ask them to write their own “alternative” history based on this new information. Recently, I did an exercise with my undergraduate history of computing class in which I asked them to read two of Professor Bassett’s articles which covered computing in India from the colonial period through the Cold War. Then, I gave the students a carefully-selected bundle of documents from my archival research in the UK National Archives, which showed British and Indian officials wrangling with each other over computing—and the Indian officials taking the upper hand.

I asked the students to write a narrative of Cold War computing, based on these articles and primary sources, that offered an alternative to the U.S.-centric narrative with which they might be more familiar. Their responses astounded me with their depth of insight and complexity. I realized that even at the undergraduate level, giving students the tools and guidance to participate in the process of rewriting our necessarily flawed histories can be an extremely fruitful exercise. It mirrors our own interests, concerns, and research processes, and it helps undergraduates understand history more as a discipline and process than as a mere product to be consumed.

 

2. A second and related issue for our SIG that affects teaching and mentoring in our subdiscipline is the range of students we do—or do not—get the opportunity to teach in our classes. For instance, when I teach my history of computing classes, I am sometimes the only woman in the room, and also sometimes the only out queer person in the room. Increasing the proportion of women, openly LGBTQ people, and those who question the heteronormative labor assumptions that still haunt fields like computer science and electrical engineering is an important part of the work of many SIGCISers: Janet Abbate, Nathan Ensmenger, Helena Durnova, Jacob Gaboury, Jennifer Light, Laine Nooney, and Corinna Schlombs to name just a few. Here there is certainly crossover with members of WITH: I am reminded of Donna Drucker’s terrific recent article on how the logic of punched card machines helped create Kinsey’s scale for describing human sexuality.

My own work focuses on why the proportion of women computer operators and programmers in the UK fell as electronic computing expanded, and how this process of labor contraction hindered the technological aspirations of that waning superpower. A fundamental aim of my research is to tell a story that shows how integral women’s labor is to nationally-critical high technology fields, even when their labor might not be valued appropriately or might cease to be present. It shows how absence, and the devaluation of labor, can be felt in many important ways, becoming triggers for other historical processes. At the same time, it paints a picture of early computing that few students are familiar with—and which many find heartening. To see that computing was not always a man’s world implicitly promises that it will not always be one in the future.

Perhaps most importantly, it shows how the dictates of the nuclear family and the organization of the postindustrial state, in ways both general and specific, have led to the current labor situation in high technology and who feels welcome or comfortable in the field—or even just talking about the field. That I find myself the only woman in the room in many of my classes is a historical process that my students will benefit from understanding, and my classes address these issues head on, using the latest historical scholarship that explains the relationships between gender, sexuality, technology, and labor. I know that some of my students will take this forward with them into their careers, using the different situations they’ve learned about from the not-so-distant past to model less homogeneous workplace environments.

 

3. The final issue that I would like to discuss deals with content delivery, communication, and information sharing. The SIGCIS maintains a fully-featured website (www.sigcis.org) with a syllabus repository, member directory, list serve, and blog. In SIGCISers’ classrooms, teaching technologies also play a variety of roles.

While I still teach with traditional face-to-face, mixed lecture and discussion methods in my classes, I have increasingly sought ways to use information technology infrastructure to extend the classroom’s reach and impact. I have sought ways to make students’ work more accessible to others in the class, to students surfing the web, and to interested parties at our university and beyond who would benefit from the important work that many students do over the course of a semester in my class. It frustrated me that even assignment responses that students might share with each other on our Blackboard course site would be lost behind that impenetrable wall of course management software once the semester ended.

In an effort to create an “outward-facing” classroom online that would add to the value of the class and engage the communications networks and cultures we are studying, I have almost all but dispensed with Blackboard, which now only functions as my document repository. I have transitioned to using a WordPress blog instead, on which I ask students to periodically respond to writing prompts with short-to-medium length essays: www.mariehicks.net/blog. Sometimes these essays are straightforward and consist only of text, but the beauty of the medium is that students can also easily include links to documents, archival images, and so on. I do not post all of the students’ work—only certain essays are “approved” and therefore made public in the comments. I do this to ensure that we do not carelessly add to the misinformation that abounds on the web, and also to give students a manageable number of their peers’ responses to read and learn from. Since their writing will be public, for reasons of privacy and security I do not require students use their real names to post, though I know the identity of each poster for grading purposes.

A key part of this process is that it empowers students to use discourse as a tool, and allows them to see firsthand what we are teaching regarding the power and importance of information technologies. After reading about the effects of gender on infrastructure, (and the reverse), one of my technological history classes meticulously counted, described, and mapped the bathroom facilities on campus by gender and accessibility in order to make an argument about the formative effects infrastructure has on university culture. They showed how inadequate restroom resources for women and trans students created an othering, unwelcoming environment for these students, and they made a case for more women’s and gender neutral bathrooms. Within a few weeks of their project being posted on my blog, the university administration showed interest, asking permission to use their data and their map to help create more gender neutral facilities and help in the ongoing effort to make our campus more trans and queer friendly.

In conclusion, I would just like to point out that the emphases of the SIGCIS, and the evolving body of scholarship that allows its members to teach new and unexpected versions of information history, are far more varied than I can cover here, and we hope to welcome more scholars each year who will add new perspectives. But I do think that one unifying theme—that of infrastructure’s silent role in society—is an important commonality in the research and teaching of SIGCISers. From the hidden ScanOps workers toiling on the overnight shift at Google, to the exabytes of data collected by the NSA, to the recent push for superstar-led MOOCS, SIGCIS histories are now more relevant than ever for teaching and engaging broader publics.

Focusing in on the infrastructures that imperceptibly and sometimes unexpectedly shape our experiences in postindustrial and industrial societies can be a powerful bulwark against the fuzzy promises of simplistic technological solutionism promoted by the less historically-minded and more technologically exuberant. This brand of naïve technological determinism grips the imaginations of many of our students today, particularly the engineering majors who fill many of our classes. But, we have the tools and the histories to offer alternative explanations and alternative roadmaps through our information society: ones that can empower our graduates to act more effectively as engineers and as humanists, and to be attentive to the deeper political impacts and unintended consequences of their technical pursuits.

A selection of charming and beautiful pictures from the 2012 SIGCIS Workshop in Copenhagen are now available in a Facebook album hosted on our Facebook page. Access it directly here with no facebook login required. Don’t forget to Like us on Facebook while you are there.