THEORISING	WEB	3.0 ICTs	in	a	Changing	Society Special	Issue	Editorial	by	the	Guest	Editors (peer	reviewed	by	the	Journal	Editors) Keywords:	information	systems;	web	2.0;	web	3.0;	poststructuralism Abstract: Purpose In	this	Editorial	introduction	the	broad	phases	of	web	development	–	the	read-only Web	1.0,	the	read-write	Web	2.0,	and	the	collaborative	and	Internet	of	Things	Web 3.0	–	are	examined	for	the	theoretical	lenses	through	which	they	have	been understood	and	critiqued. Design/Methodology/Approach This	is	a	conceptual	piece,	in	the	tradition	of	drawing	on	theorising	from	outside the	Information	Systems	field,	to	shed	light	on	developments	in	ICTs. Findings Along	with	a	summary	of	approaches	to	Webs	1.0	and	2.0,	the	Editors	contend	that a	more	complex	and	post-structuralist	theoretical	approach	to	the	notion	of,	and the	phenomenon	of	Web	3.0,	offers	a	more	interesting	and	appropriate	theoretical grounding	for	understanding	its	particularities. Value The	discussion	presages	five	further	papers	engaged	with	ICTs	in	a	changing society,	each	of	which	similarly	addresses	novel	theoretical	understandings. 1.	Introduction It	is	crucial	to	understand	how	ICT	innovation	is	associated	with	change	in society. The	complex	interrelationships	between	societal	changes	and	the	ICTs in	use	by	both	different	societies	and	different	sectors	of	societies	encompass both	technologically	deterministic	shifts	grounded	in	fundamental telecommunications	infrastructure	(e.g.	mobile	internet	in	developing	countries) and	intensely	social	emergence	trends	such	as	the	ever-shifting	patterns	of	social media	usage.	Are	ICTs	reflecting,	driving,	or	simply	material-virtual manifestations	of	the	accelerated	change	in	contemporary	society? A	focus	on	change,	on	the	one	hand,	and	on	theorising	and	understanding change,	on	the	other,	is	sometimes	lacking	in	the	Information	Systems	field	in general. Information	Technology	and	People	is	perhaps	one	of	the	few	journals that	tries	to	engage	with	them. Focussed,	as	many	of	us	are,	on	the	more	day-today	issues	of	how	ICTs	are	used	and	engaged	with	in	the	world	around	us, stepping	back	to	look	at	the	broader	sweep	of	recent	history	is	something	of	a luxury. To	use	an	old	adage,	it	is	sometimes	difficult	to	see	the	wood	for	the trees,	especially	when	the	treeline	is	gradually	shifting	further	up	the	mountain, and	the	mix	of	species	is	rebalancing. The	editors	are	therefore	especially	pleased	to	present	a	Special	Issue	focussing on	six	different	aspects	of	ICTs	in	a	Changing	Society. We	begin,	here,	with	a focus	on	one	such	change	in	ICTs	and	Society	–	the	developments	in	the	world wide	web	and	follow	with	five	high	quality	papers	addressing	other	examples	of the	role	of	ICTs	in	societal	change. 2.	Webs	1,	2	and	3.0 We	wish	to	argue,	in	this	editorial,	that	the	most	recent	change	to	the	world	wide web	has	expanded	it	beyond	the	(mobile)computer	screen	to	which	it	has	–	in Web	1.0	and	2.0	–	been	largely	confined,	in	such	a	fundamental	manner	that	how we	understand	it	must	also	change. The	implication	is	that	other	examples	of ICTs	in	societal	change	might	also	require	new	approaches. When	considering	ICTs	in	a	changing	society,	we	must	of	course	also	ask	–	from what	point	of	view? Although	many	others	have	written	in	the	past	about	the broadly	positivist	bias	of	IS	literature	(Orlikowski	&	Baroudi	1991;	Lyytinen	et	al 2007;	Becker	et	al	2007;	Paul	2007;	Gallivan	&	Benbunan-Fich	2008;	Galliers 2008;	Paul	2008;	Liu	&	Myers	2011),	our	task	in	this	editorial	is	to	suggest, perhaps,	that	the	moment	for	a	more	interpretivist	leaning	–	if	it	had	not	before	– has	certainly	now	arrived,	in	particular	with	the	advent	of	the	Internet	of	Things, or	what	some	are	calling	Web	3.0. Web	3.0	–	a	web	no	longer	confined	to	browsers,	or	even	to	screens	is	a	web	in a	world	of	multi-device,	multi-channel	and	multi-directional	throughput	of information,	involving	sensors	and	many	other	devices	we	never	see. The change	this	represents	is	immense. Web	3.0	is	a	web	in	which	ICTs	are	all	the more	clearly	revolving	around	us,	our	information,	our	needs,	and	in	real	time:	a web	that	some	are	beginning	to	call,	'the	Stream'	(Spivack	2013). We	wish	to consider	this	latest	trend,	Web	3.0,	and	to	put	forward	a	suggestion	for	what	it might	mean,	and	what	points	of	view	we	might	need	to	understand	it. To	do	so, we	will	need	first	to	consider	what	others	are	already	saying	about	it,	but	then also	to	consider	how	Webs	1.0	and	2.0	were	theorised. We	argue	that	two 'turns'	in	theorising,	that	have	taken	place	in	the	social	sciences,	are	needed	for	a correct	theorising	of	Web	3.0	–	the	poststructuralist	turn,	by	which	we	might come	to	understand	information	systems	as	decentred,	and	more	distributed than	heretofore,	and	the	complexity	turn,	by	which	we	might	come	to understand	such	systems	as	open	systems,	with	emergent	properties	that	are	not predictable	from	initial	conditions. 2.1	Approaches	to	Web	3.0 Definitions	of	Web	3.0	in	the	literature	fall	into	reasonably	clear	categories:	(i) those	focussed	on	the	technologies,	by	and	large	unquestioning	with	regard	to the	social	or	theoretical	aspects;	(ii)	those	focussed	(either	positively	or negatively)	on	the	social	meaning	of	this	development;	and	(iii)	those	who question	the	entire	notion	of	such	theorising. In	the	first	category,	perhaps	Jim Hendler's	voice	is	paradigmatic,	writing	about	the	wealth	of	data	flooding	the internet	sphere	–	often	described	as	Big	Data	–	with	a	definition	of	Web	3.0	as "Semantic	Web	technologies	integrated	into,	or	powering,	large-scale	Web applications"	(Hendler	2009). This	is	very	different	from	the	Internet	of	Things definition	we	believe	to	be	a	more	accurate	depiction	of	Web	3.0. Many	others echo	this	broadly	technological	focus	in	their	understanding	of	the	phenomenon; (e.g.	Lassila	and	Hendler	2007;	Cronk	2007;	Tsai	et	al	2009;	Weiss	2010;	Pattal and	Zeng	2009). As	with	Web	2.0,	beyond	perhaps	some	use	of	social	network theory,	most	papers	addressing	the	phenomenon	use	little	if	any	truly	theoretical lens	to	approach	it	(Chong	2011). By	contrast,	in	the	(smaller)	second	category,	Fuchs	et	al	(2010),	focussing	on	the social	political	ramifications,	dub	Web	3.0	as	a	web	of	co-operation	–	arguably not	that	different	from	the	depiction	of	Web	2.0	as	the	read-write	web. Harris (2008),	Tasner	(2010),	and	Watson	(2009)	have	all	written	about	Web	3.0	in	this vein. For	many	of	these	and	other	authors,	Web	2.0	was	widely	seen	as	a "cultural	construct	profoundly	influenced	by	business	rhetoric"	(Barasi	&	Treré 2012;	Everitt	and	Mills,	2009;	Fisher,	2010;	Fuchs,	2010;	Sandoval	and	Fuchs, 2010;	Zeldman	2006),	and	Web	3.0	will	be	much	the	same. In	the	(even	smaller)	third	category,	Barasi	and	Treré	seem	to	concur	with	this definition	of	"a	new	online	environment,	which	will	integrate	users'	generated data	to	create	new	meaning.	In	contrast	to	Web	2.0,	which	is	understood	as	being based	on	users'	participation,	Web	3.0	will	be	based	on	users'	cooperation." But they	nonetheless	criticize	the	whole	idea	of	"whether	concepts	such	as	Web	1.0, 2.0	and	3.0	can	be	viable	and	successful	theoretical	models	for	social	analysis" when	they	are,	in	fact,	"cultural	constructs"	in	themselves	(Barasi	and	Treré 2012:1285). Our	own	view	of	the	notion	of	Web	3.0	is	that	it	is	a	useful	distinction	to	make,	in the	same	vein	as	it	is	useful	to	distinguish	between	primarily	agricultural	and primarily	industrial	economies,	although	there	is	always,	now,	a	mixture	of	both, and	the	difference	is	more	social	than	technological	in	the	case	of	the	web. Such cultural	constructs,	for	all	their	historical	and	theoretical	contingency	–and regional	specificity	are,	in	the	end,	our	only	windows,	and	to	dismiss	them	is	to dismiss	all	theory. We	concur	with	Barasi	and	Treré	that	concepts	such	as	Web 2.0	and	3.0	"are	entrenched	within	an	evolutionary	and	temporary understanding	of	Web	developments"	which	"tends	to	give	a	linear	progression to	coexisting	social	and	technical	trends"	(Barasi	and	Treré	2012:1269)	and	that this	is	problematic. Nonetheless	"the	political	economy	and	the	neo-liberal discourses	of	new	Web	applications"	(Barasi	and	Treré	2012:1285)	cannot	be wished	away,	and	the	logics	of	capitalism	in	the	internet	age	are	indeed	both fast-paced	and	sweeping	large	populations	with	them	in	their	wake	(Gill	2003; Hardt	&	Negri	2000). Yes,	"concepts	of	Web	2.0	and	Web	3.0	often	carry assumptions	of	users'	practices:	Web	2.0	is	seen	as	enabling	user	participation whilst	Web	3.0	is	seen	as	triggering	users'	cooperation,"	(Barasi	and	Treré 2012:1269)	and	this	is	why,	in	this	editorial,	we	contend	that	–	for	information systems	scholars	in	particular	Web	3.0	requires	an	alternative	world-view	to characterise	it	clearly. Like	Web	2.0	in	comparison	to	Web	1.0,	it	is	less	about technological	innovation	and	systems	than	it	is	about	usage,	and	how	what	we have	is	engaged	with,	and	incorporated	into,	our	day-to-day	activities. Web	3.0,	in	our	view,	is	more	deeply	complex	than	is	thus	far	envisaged	in	the literature. Take,	for	example,	the	phenomenon	a	few	years	ago	of	#uksnow. Opinion	leader	Paul	Clarke	(Clarke	2009),	musing	one	wintry	morning	on	his blog,	envisioned	what	could	happen	with	crowd-sourced	data	as	snow unexpectedly	began	to	fall	in	the	UK.	A	few	hours	later,	keen	coder	and	opinion watcher	Ben	Marsh	(Marsh	2009)	had	created	the	code	needed	for	a	TwitterGoogleMaps	mashup	and	#uksnow	was	available	to	the	blogosphere. Aggregator sites	that	comment	upon	blogs,	and	highlight	'trending'	topics	on	Twitter,	picked up	on	the	existence	of	this	mashup,	and,	as	is	the	way	with	the	blogosphere, popularity	fed	popularity. Following	the	instructions	on	Ben	Marsh's	website,	thousands	of	people	using the	micro-blogging	site,	Twitter,	tweeted	two	simple	pieces	of	information:	the first	three	or	four	digits	of	the	UK	postcode	of	their	current	location,	and	a	rough gauge	of	the	heaviness	of	the	snow	in	their	location	as	a	mark	out	of	five,	e.g. "BL7	2/5". People	provided	this	information	to	the	#uksnow	'hashtag'	on Twitter	(e.g.	they	tweeted	"#uksnow	BL7	2/5"). These	tweets,	as	they	were made	across	the	country,	created	what	is	known	as	a	Twitter	stream. Such streams	can	be	'captured'	with	simple	search	tools,	and	either	displayed	or	used by	a	web	application	for	another	purpose. The	resulting	stream	from	the	remote gathering	of	the	#uksnow	hashtag	provided	the	data	to	place	one	of	five	different sized	snowflake	pictures	onto	a	GoogleMap	of	the	UK,	thus	creating	a	real-time snow-map	of	the	UK	at	http://www.benmarsh.co.uk/snow/. It	was	clear	that very	often	people	were	standing	outside	to	accurately	gauge	the	snow,	and	using their	mobile	internet	device	to	provide	the	required	tweet. This	is	easily deduced	from	the	prevalence	of	Twitpic	photos	whose	short	urls	accompanied the	location	and	snow	data	in	the	tweets	(e.g.	"#uksnow	BL7	2/5 http://twitpic.com/ua98w43fh"). By	the	end	of	the	first	day	Microsoft	had	created	–	albeit	briefly	–	a	clone1.	The application	lived	on	for	several	more	days,	as	the	snowfall	continued,	but	it	was in	the	first	36	hours	that	the	application	gained	a	critical	mass	of	tweets	and 'user	acceptance'.	The	Baseball	World	Series	was	taking	place	simultaneously	in the	United	States,	but	was	briefly	eclipsed	in	terms	of	Twitter	traffic	volume	by the	number	of	people	tweeting	about	(and	to)	#uksnow.	(Kreps	and	Fletcher 2010) This	#uksnow	event	is	a	good	example	what	we	are	describing	here	as	Web	3.0. To	borrow	and	expand	upon	Orlikowski's	(2006)	notion	of	the	scaffold,	the physical	infrastructure	is	readily	identified	as	the	mobile	internet,	encompassing the	internet-enabled	mobile	devices	themselves,	the	masts	which	broadcast	and receive	the	signals	within	each	cell,	and	the	server	farms	which	host	and	route the	millions	of	digital	files	involved.	This	technological	scaffold	is	coupled	with 1	See	http://twitpic.com/1boki	for	a	screengrab	of	what	had	been	posted	at http://estc.msn.com/br/intl/twitter/uk/snow.html.	Ben	Marsh	uploaded	the	image	of	this	clone helpfully	annotated	with	the	internet	cliché;	"FAIL" the	meteorological	scaffold	of	snow	clouds	moving	across	the	British	Isles,	with varying	precipitation	according	to	atmospheric	conditions	and	topographic elevation.	Added	into	this	mix	are	the	cultural	phenomena	of	social	networking, and	the	microblogging	techniques	for	using	a	minimally	truncated	(140 character)	version	of	the	(160	character)	short	messaging	service	standard,	a political	situation	in	which	salt	is	scarce,	a	media	obsessed	with	disaster	and	the age-old	continuous	British	fascination	with	the	weather.	The	resulting	'mashup' in	the	narrow	sense	as	a	web-based	application	and	in	the	wider	sense	as	a specific	event	of	diverse	circumstances	represents	a	situation	that	benefits	from the	understanding	of	Orlikowski's	(2006)	scaffolded	sociomateriality. Trying	to	understand	and	interpret	the	phenomenon,	from	either	a	technocentric	or	purely	human-centred	perspective,	would	miss	so	much	of	this confluence	of	interrelated	aspects	of	modern	life.	The	scaffolding	that	makes #uksnow	possible,	moreover,	displays	how	emergent	cultural	and	social practices	can	come	together	in	response,	not	just	to	the	weather	but	to	the possibilities	newly	inherent	in	the	technological	scaffolding	of	the	mobile internet	and	the	potential	of	microblogging. #uksnow	is	temporary	–	a	quick script	that	presents	itself	in	response	to	snow,	and	is	simply	forgotten	and discarded	once	the	snow	has	melted	and	the	performance	completed.	It	also represents	a	supremely	flexible	array	of	potential	implementations	for	both	the technologies	involved	and	the	cultural	obsessions	they	directly	cater	to. 2.2	Systems In	the	past,	prior	to	the	World	Wide	Web,	computing	systems	were	small, discrete,	short,	and	controllable.	Since	the	advent	of	ICTs,	with	Web	1.0,	Web	2.0, and	now	Web	3.0,	it	has	become	important	to	ask:	is	our	notion	of	'system' sufficiently	broad? We	contend	that	our	understanding	of	what	a	'system'	is, needs	to	grow,	in	order	best	to	conceive	what	is	unfolding. In	suggesting	this,	we acknowledge	two	things:	(i)	that	many	other	voices	are	suggesting	the	same thing	as	part	of	their	own	new	definitions	of	the	term	'system',	e.g.	Luhman's (1995)	new	social	systems	theory,	Buckley's	(1998)	theory	of	society	as	a complex	adaptive	system,	Barabasi's	(2003)	concept	of	scale-free	networks, Wallerstein's	(2004)	world	systems	analysis,	and,	of	course,	Castells'	(2000) networked	society;	and	(ii)	that	many	(if	not	all)	of	these	authors,	working	as they	are	in	a	new	branch	of	the	field	of	sociology,	may	well	be	unfamiliar	to	an	IS readership. Whilst	it	is	not	our	intention	in	this	editorial	to	provide	a	review	or introduction	to	these	authors'	work,	we	do	aim	to	introduce	to	an	IS	readership some	of	the	theoretical	underpinnings	these	authors	rest	their	own	ideas	upon: namely,	aspects	of	poststructuralist	thought,	and	of	the	complexity	turn, (Castellani	&	Hafferty	2009;	Kreps	2015),	as	they	relate	specifically	to	our tentative	new	definition	of	the	notion	of	Web	3.0. We	shall	look	at	complexity first. 2.3	Complexity Of	course,	complexity	and	information	systems	are	not	strange	bedfellows,	and this	paper	is	not	the	first	to	suggest	a	confluence. A	Special	Issue	in	Information Technology	and	People	(ITP)	on	Complexity	and	IS	was	published	in	2006. In their	introductory	paper	to	the	ITP	Special	Issue,	Jacucci,	Hanseth	and	Lyytinen argue	that	complexity	needs	to	be	taken	seriously	in	IS	research	(Jacucci	et	al 2006). Benbya	&	McKelvey's	core	paper	of	this	special	issue,	in	particular, inferred	that	information	systems	development	projects	are	complex	not	only because	they	deal	with	complex	technological	issues,	"but	also	because	of organisational	factors	beyond	a	project	team's	control	(Benbya	&	McKelvey 2006). Earlier,	Van	Aardt	(2004),	had	asserted	that	any	information	system displays	the	characteristics	of	a	complex	adaptive	system. But	Van	Aardt concentrated	on	the	emergence	of	order	as	opposed	to	causal	predetermination, and	the	irreversibility	of	a	system's	history	and	unpredictability	of	its	future, citing	the	context	of	open	source	software	as	the	best	example	of	IS	as	a	complex adaptive	system. Benbya	&	McKelvey,	went	further,	suggesting	that	all information	systems	act	as	complex	adaptive	systems	(Benbya	&	McKelvey 2006). This	was	insightful	and	innovative	work,	but	–	in	our	opinion	fell	short of	its	promise. A	note	by	Kallinikos	which	critiques	the	Benbya	&	McKelvey	paper	(Kallinikos 2006),	highlights	their	continued	embrace	of	a	"representational	view	of information	and	coding	as	mapping	of	an	exogenous	reality	that	is	reflected	on what	we	call	'user	requirements,'	considered	both	as	independent	and	the starting	point	for	coding,"	(Kallinikos	2006). This,	as	Kallinikos	contends, "bypasses	one	of	the	major,	contemporary	sources	of	instability	in	organisations, which	is	no	other	than	the	changing	organisational	conditions	(and	user requirements)	created	by	the	very	development	of	information	systems themselves. In	other	words,	the	ghost	is	not	simply	outside	but	inside	the	house as	well,"	(Kallinikos	2006). The	human	parts	of	the	information	system,	in	short, cannot	be	separated	from	the	information	technology	such	that	the	IT	project team	can	then	safely	proceed	without	them. Grounded	in	Herbert	Simon's	seminal	paper	from	1962	on	the	'Architecture	of Complexity',	cited	by	both	Benbya	&	McKelvey	and	by	Kallinikos,	and	the	notion that	complex	systems	have	a	hierarchical	structure,	these	approaches	to complexity	focus	upon	the	distinction	between	a	decomposable	system	and	a nearly	decomposable	system,	in	which	in	the	latter	"the	interactions	among	the subsystems	are	weak,	but	not	negligible."	(Simon	1962). For	Benbya	& McKelvey	(2006),	then,	it	seems	that	the	human	and	non-human	'subsystems'	of an	information	system	might	be	pried	apart	for	the	more	predictable	information technology	project	to	get	underway. Yet,	as	Agre	points	out,	"hierarchy	is	a somewhat	more	diverse	phenomenon	than	the	universal	ambitions	of	Simon's theory	require,"	(Agre	2003). Indeed	the	ambition	of	Simon	to	subsume everything	under	his	notion	of	hierarchy	manages	to	ignore	a	great	variety	of instances	where	the	modular	approach	simply	does	not	hold,	and	his	argument	is "a	product	of	its	time...:	[the]	high-water	mark	of	the	classical	hierarchical organization"	(Agre	2003). Self-organisation,	in	fact	the	favoured	notion	of	the	general	systems	theory	of the	time,	and	championed	by	such	complexity	theorists	as	Prigogine	(1984)	and Kauffman	(1995),	among	others	turns	out	to	be	a	much	better	description, certainly	of	the	reality	of	contemporary	information	systems,	than	hierarchy. As Agre	asserts,	"Precisely	because	Simon's	image	of	hierarchy	is	spatial,	it	does	not fit	well	with	the	networked	world,	which	collapses	many	types	of	distance," (Agre	2003). A	more	durational	view	is	required,	and,	as	Cilliers	(1998)	reminds us,	the	intricate	and	often	sensitive	relationships	between	components,	both within	and	between	'subsystems,'	are	often	–	for	all	that	they	may	be	considered 'weak'	–	nonetheless	the	most	important	aspects	of	complex	systems,	capable	of bringing	both	sweeping	and	fundamental	changes,	in	the	manner	of	the	famous image	from	chaos	theory	of	how	a	single	butterfly's	wing	could	set	off	a	tumble	of unpredictable	outcomes	flowing	around	the	planet	(Kauffman	1995:17). 2.4	Poststructuralist	thought The	core	philosophical	implication	of	such	a	re-imagining	of	systems	as	is implied	by	the	insights	of	complexity	is	that	the	safe,	clear	integrity	and boundaries	of	systems,	as	we	have	conceived	them	in	the	past,	begin	to	dissolve. Expanding,	for	a	moment,	our	understanding	of	systems	beyond	the	simple computing	information	systems	usually	discussed	in	IS	literature,	one	of	the	core insights	of	structuralist	thought	in	the	20th	century	was	that	those	things	which, in	the	19th	century	and	before,	we	had	placed	at	the	centre	of	a	broad	notion	of 'systems',	were,	in	fact,	not	central,	but	determined	by	the	systems	themselves (Joseph	2012).	The	poststructuralist	thought	of	the	1960s	and	thereafter contributed	the	further	insight	that	such	structure	was	itself	all	too	often	not even	'systematic':	'open'	systems	(Bertalanffy	1950),	in	socio-historical	contexts, are	self-organising	and	self-determining	(Foucault	1997),	and	changing	so continuously	as	to	render	any	systemic	definition	redundant	as	soon	as	it	is made. The	most	basic,	traditional	definition	of	a	system,	of	course,	with	which	most information	technologists	are	familiar,	is	that	it	consists	of	an	integrated	whole with	a	boundary,	an	inside,	and	an	outside. An	information	system	might similarly	be	defined	as	an	integrated	system	of	hardware	and	software	used	by people	and	organizations	to	create,	collect	and	process	data. Yet	just	as interpretivist	researchers	will	immediately	suggest	that	an	information	system	is not	merely	'used'	by	people	and	organizations,	but	that	the	system	might	be considered	to	include,	in	complicated	interrelationships	of	change	and constraint,	those	people	and	organizations,	so	the	notion	of	systems	as integrated	wholes,	with	insides,	outsides,	and	boundaries,	is	itself	being challenged	by	these	new	complex	understandings. It	is	our	contention	that	Web	3.0	is	paradigmatic	of	both	these	practical,	complex systems,	and	of	the	philosophical	shift	required	to	understand	them. To	try	to grasp	–	as	our	first	category	of	commentators,	epitomised	by	Hendler,	above,	do	the nature	of	much	of	what	is	transpiring	in	Web	3.0,	as	a	traditional 'information	system,'	we	suggest,	is,	for	example,	like	using	soil	science	– although	useful	and	accurate	in	its	own	right	for	studying	soil	to	try	to understand	agriculture	as	a	whole. This	approach	is	to	ignore	all	the	wealth	of additional	materials	such	as	differing	kinds	and	gradations	of	seeds,	the attention	of	animals	and	birds,	the	changeability	of	the	weather,	and	the	whole range	of	different	kinds	of	machinery	put	to	work	to	manage	that	soil. This approach,	moreover,	does	not	even	begin	considering	the	whole	historical, cultural,	regional	and	transnational	complexity	of	the	human	agricultural communities	and	agri-economies	working	those	machines,	sourcing	and	planting those	seeds,	and	managing	that	soil. So,	just	as	the	soil	scientist	must	work	with the	seed	scientist,	the	irrigation	technician	with	the	farm	equipment manufacturer,	and	all	in	the	end	with	the	farmer,	who	must	in	turn	work	with	the seed	wholesaler	and	the	vagaries	of	the	market	for	his/her	product,	so	the information	technologist	must	understand	that	what	has	been	conceived	as	a 'system,'	amongst	information	technologists,	is	in	fact	something	far	more complex	and	contingent. Theoretical	tools	that	conceive	information	communication	technologies	(ICTs) not	merely	as	open,	but	as	complex	systems,	in	short,	must	be	developed,	and	not only	open	in	the	sense	of	incorporating	a	range	of	human	and	other	factors	not native	to	the	information	technology	itself,	but	open	in	the	sense	of	duration. Much	of	what	transpires	in	what	we	categorise	as	Web	3.0,	in	short,	is	emergent, in	the	sense	used	by	complexity	theorists	such	as	Kauffman	(1995),	for	whom	a complex	whole	can	"exhibit	collective	properties,	'emergent'	features	that	are lawful	in	their	own	right."	(Kaufmann	1995:	viii). 2.5	Post-systems	thought A	number	of	authors	in	the	Information	Systems	field	have	begun	to	describe ways	in	which	such	a	post-'systems'	theoretical	approach	might	be	carved	out, most	notably	Claudio	Ciborra	(2002),	but	also	Wanda	Orlikowski (2002;2006;2008)	and	others. As	the	latter	in	particular	points	out,	the	notion of	practices	can	be	very	useful	in	conceiving	the	more	durational	aspects	of	such events	(Schatzki	2001),	but	this	'practice	turn'	remains	an	under-theorised, diverse	collection	of	approaches,	and	needs	more	robust	ideas	to	move	forward. But	the	late	information	scientist	Claudio	Ciborra	placed	a	concern	for	human existence	and	for	our	working	lives	at	the	core	of	any	study	of	ICTs	and	their	use in	organisations. This	work	proves	more	fruitful	for	our	discussion. Information	systems	studies	moreover	increasingly	are	turning	to	studying	ICTs in	society	and	in	the	home,	outside	of	organisational	contexts,	as	ICTs	become ever	more	a	part	of	our	day-to-day	lives:	social	media	in	particular	epitomises the	more	social,	domestic	use	of	ICTs	outside	of	organisational	contexts, underscoring	the	importance	of	placing	people	at	the	core	of	our	understanding of	ICTs. Yet	in	order	to	do	so,	as	has	been	the	case	in	many	other	respects, Information	Systems	studies	must	continue	to	turn	to	theoretical	traditions outside	of	the	discipline	to	properly	understand	what	is	going	on. So,	in	sum,	to conceive	of	Web	3.0	as	merely	a	new	'ICT	system'	is	to	close	off	a	great	array	of different	elements	of	what	is	in	fact	going	on	within	this	phenomenon,	and thereby	not	to	understand	it	at	all. 3.	Theorising	the	History	of	the	Web It	is	our	contention,	in	this	paper,	that	Web	3.0	a	web	that	includes	much	more than	data	and	hypertext,	and	user-involvement	much	deeper	than	content provision,	requires	a	philosophical	shift	amongst	information	systems	scholars both	to	understand	and	to	make	use	of	that	epithet. To	highlight	Web	3.0	in distinction	to	Web	1.0	or	Web	2.0	we	present	a	table	(Table	1)	that	outlines	what we	claim	as	the	key	features	of	each	stage	in	terms	of	their	technical,	social	and theoretical	differentiators.	While	the	table	can	by	no	means	be	exhaustive	we have	used	key	indicative	features	that	assist	in	both	drawing	close	associations between	these	aspects	within	each	specific	'stage'	as	well	as	revealing	the difference	within	specific	features	across	'stages'.	We	use	the	term	'stage' intentionally	in	this	table	to	indicate	a	notion	of	performativity	and	its significance	rather	than	to	suggest	a	simplistic	or	direct	technical	progression.	In the	case	of	Web	3.0	particularly	the	stage	does	not	coalesce	around	a	set	of technical	features	as	its	central	defining	rationale	but	rather	as	the	scene-setting for	events. Web	1.0,	a	label	that	has	only	been	applied	retrospectively,	represents	the broadcast	model	web	of	static	HTML	pages	primarily	served	to	desktop computers,	and	which	was	primarily	understood	through	the	theoretical frameworks	of	Computer-mediated	communications,	audience	research	and socio-technical	approaches	in	which	users	were	positioned	as	consumers	of specific	content.	A	hallmark	of	Web	1.0	is	a	technical	worldview	that	facilitated an	approach	prioritising	integrated	structured	documents.	Both	the	technology and	the	design	sentiment	of	Web	1.0	echoed	this	understanding.	The	political agenda	of	research	around	Web	1.0	regularly	drew	upon	specific	technological and	political	icons	but	most	noticeably	that	of	the	Whole	Earth	'Lectronic	Link and	the	Electronic	Freedom	Foundation	respectively.	Rheingold's	"The	Virtual Community"	(1993)	became	the	celebratory	textbook	for	Web	1.0	that positioned	–	in	a	clearly	technologically	determinist	manner	its	technologies	as the	harbinger	of	digital	utopia	founded	upon	specific	democratising	ideals.	These claims	were	more	easily	made	in	a	social	environment	where	up	until	1995	there were	still	some	forms	of	restrictions	on	the	commercial	use	of	the	Web	and the	internet	more	broadly.	However,	the	work	of	Rheingold	was	not	accepted uncritically	and	the	works	of,	for	example,	McLuhan	(1964)	and	Fiske	(1982) already	laid	out	positions	that	rejected	the	notion	of	a	passive	audience consuming	broadcast	messages,	or	democratic	liberation	achieved	through specific	forms	of	media	consumption.	While	the	prevailing	notion	of	Web	1.0	was defined	through	a	print	analogy	tied	to	wired	networks	of	desktop	computers	the opportunity	and	scope	for	critique	was	equally	ultimately	limited	in	its	potential. Web	2.0	is	generally	regarded	as	the	user-generated	content	world	of	socialnetworks,	blogs	and	a	database-driven	web	(O'Reilley	2007)	–	and	has	been frequently	described	within	the	theoretical	framework	of	social	network	analysis (e.g.	Kirchoff	et	al	2008;	Hercheui	2011),	and	with	reference	to	Bourdieu's notions	of	field	and	habitus	(Song	2010;	Levina	&	Orlikowski	2009),	as	well	as being	associated	with	concepts	of	sociomateriality.	The	"habitus"	of	individuals	is the	source	of	meaning-making	and	social	action.	"As	a	'system	of	durable	and transposable	dispositions	which	[functions]	as	a	matrix	of	perceptions, appreciations,	and	actions',	it	is	a	mode	of	engagement	that	is	'acquired	through lasting	exposure	to	particular	social	conditions	and	conditionings"	(Song 2010:256).	The	relationship	of	habitus	to	that	of	"field"	is	that	as	"habitus mediates	between	an	individual	and	a	given	social	environment,	it	'operates	like a	spring	that	needs	an	external	trigger	and	thus	it	cannot	be	considered	in isolation	from	the	particular	social	worlds	or	"fields"	within	which	it	evolves' (Bourdieu	1990;	Song	2010). Web	2.0	is	presented	in	this	context	through examples	of	the	"users"	of	interactive	sites	whose	content	is	primarily	provided by	them	but	is	shaped	by	the	nature	and	theme	of	the	site.	This	framing	conforms Web	2.0	to	notions	of	a	relationship	between	field	and	habitus:	users	of	Web	2.0, in	other	words,	Song	and	Orlikowski	argue,	take	up	the	'habitus'	of	use determined	by	the	'field'	of	Web	2.0. Web	3.0	is	different.	Regarded	at	the	least	as	a	more	co-operative	version	of	the read-write	approach	of	Web	2.0,	but	–	we	argue	–	so	deeply	impacted	by	the Internet	of	Things	as	to	be	something	that	has	outgrown	the	browser-on-screen location	of	Web	1.0	and	2.0,	Web	3.0	is	phenomenon	in	which	we	are	no	longer users	but	part	of	the	applications	that	emerge	and	disappear,	producers,	subjects and	beneficiaries	of	the	Big	Data	that	characterises	it. Albeit	perhaps instantiated	in	Web	2.0	technologies,	and	in	the	Internet	of	Things,	Web	3.0	is larger	than	both,	and	qualitatively	different. We	argue	that	the	notion	of 'habitus'	in	the	context	of	Web	3.0	does	not	capture	the	subtlety	or	fluidity	of	the human-nonhuman	relationship	expressed	on	this	stage.	Moreover,	Bergson's understanding	of	the	distinction	between	habit	and	memory,	outlined	in	Matter and	Memory	(Bergson	1908)	and	how	Deleuze	developed	this	in	the	1960s	and later,	(Deleuze	1966;	1986;	1987)	whereby	habit	is	described	as	something learned	by	rote	and	instantiated	in	the	present,	can	be	read	as	breaking	down	the distinction	between	habitus	and	field	completely.	The	Deleuzian	critique	of	such notions	of	identity	formation	has	been	explored	in	relation	to	virtual environments	and	social	networking	profiles	(Kreps	2008,	2010). Bourdieu's fields	are	also	susceptible	to	a	Foucauldian	critique	in	which	it	can	be	argued	that discursive	formations,	situated	in	a	field	of	knowledge/power,	display	a microphysics	of	power	far	more	subtle	and	ubiquitous	than	the	rather	top-down understanding	of	power	displayed	in	the	notion	of	fields	(Foucault	1995).	The philosopher/sociologist	debate	between	the	ideas	of	Foucault	and	Bourdieu	is not	one	to	rehearse	in	any	depth	in	this	editorial. The	point	here,	we	contend,	is that	the	notion	of	'habit'	requires	repetition	and	enough	time	to	develop	– whether	it	is	the	'working	class'	habit	in	Bourdieu's	reading	or	the	mechanistic repetition	–	'learning	by	rote'	–	by	which	Bergson	distinguishes	habit	from memory.	In	the	bricolage-oriented,	mangled	(Pickering	1995)	world	of	the mobile	mashup,	or	of	the	twittersphere,	where	practices	are	emergent, spontaneous	and	flaneurial,	there	simply	isn't	enough	time	to	develop	a	habit: the	speed	of	development	and	emergence	here	makes	notions	of	habitus redundant. In	the	Web	3.0	context	our	analysis	problematises	even	the	notion	of	users	and developers:	the	user	becomes	or	contributes	data;	users	are	no	longer	confined to	a	Web	1.0	passivity	or	merely	the	labourers	and	tools	for	the	generation	of content	within	Web	2.0	social	networking.	The	celebrated	phenomenon	of reblogging	and	retweeting,	of	being	part	of	a	crowd	from	which	data	is	sourced, turns	'users'	into	channels	–	the	cogs	of	a	machine,	part	of	the	network	and elements	of	a	wider	'application.'	The	barriers	to	participation	(in	order	to perform)	have	become	much	lower,	enabling	more	and	more	'users'	to	'develop' complex	mashups	–	with	the	potentially	teleological	argument	that	not	many people	need	to	write	code	anymore.	Google	App	Inventor	for	example	enables even	the	most	casual	experimenter	to	produce	what	might	appear	to	be	highly complex	technical	'systems':	the	point	is	that	the	technologies	have	become largely	invisible;	it	is	the	idea,	the	spontaneity,	the	linkages,	that	have	become paramount.	We	don't	need	to	be	mechanics	to	drive	a	car,	and	creating	web applications	is	rapidly	becoming	a	similar	social	phenomenon. We	present	below,	then,	a	table	in	which	we	try	to	capture	the	main	features, hardware,	software,	and	software	development	practices	of	Webs	1.0,	2.0,	and 3.0,	alongside	the	theoretical	frameworks	through	which	the	first	two	have primarily	been	interpreted,	and	through	which	we	believe	the	third	is	best approached. Stage Main	feature Hardware Software Software development Theoretical	Frameworks Web 1.0 Website publishing static information Desktop computer, server, wired Internet Static	HTML pages published by	web author Integrated single document Standard	broadcast publishing 'democratised'	– first	big	expansion of	publishing	since printing	press [utopian	and/or restrictive	technical in	scope] CMC	/	socio-technical /	McLuhan	/	Fisk [passive	audience receiving	broadcast model] Web 2.0 Website presenting user generated content Desktop	or laptop computer, server, wired/wifi Internet Database driven website with content uploaded	by users employing HTML,	CSS, PHP, Javascript Separation	of form	and content	of document Social	network theory	[instrumental and	lacking sociological	depth] Song	–	Bourdieu's field/habitus [Bergson/Deleuze critique	of	notions	of habit/memory] Orlikowski	– sociomateriality. [Bourdieu	habitus constrained] discursive	practice Web 3.0 Application using	crowdsourced	data, Internet	of Things Desktop	or laptop computer, smartphone s,	server, wired/wifi/ Mobile Internet Mashup	of HTML,	CSS, PHP, JavaScript, APIs,	and public microblogging	IM service Distributed components and	services mashup beyond	the document model	– document that	hits	the browser	is	no longer	the centre-piece Latour	(1992,	2004) –	actor	network, seamless	web	of heterogeneous interconnections [lacking understanding	of power] BRICOLAGE	/	mangle /	complexity Bergson /Derrida/Deleuze	– material-discursive; temporal	seamless flow	and	decentred knowledge/power bricoleur	discourse	flaneur Table	1	Comparisons	of	Webs	1.0,	2.0	and	3.0	technical,	social	and	theoretical	frameworks We	hope	the	above	characterisation	of	Web	3.0,	its	development	from	what	has gone	before,	and	its	differences,	offers	readers	of	the	Special	Issue	a	framework within	which	to	better	understand	ICTs	in	a	changing	society. The	five	papers we	have	gathered	together	for	this	issue	each	–	in	their	own	way	–	addresses ICTs	and	societal	change	with	a	similarly	broad	perspective,	and	asks	us	to	think differently. 8.	The	Special	Issue We	cannot	understand	how	society	changes	today	–	or	how	best	to	theorise	it	if we	do	not	know	how	it	has	changed	or	how	it	was	theorised	yesterday.	Arthur Tatnall	looks	at	"Computer	Education	and	Societal	Change:	History	of	Early Courses	in	Computing	in	Universities	and	Schools	in	Victoria".	Looking	back	over 50	years	of	computing,	education	and	computer	education	in	Victoria,	Australia, Tatnall	uses	actor-network	theory	in	his	analysis	of	the	effects	people, organisations,	processes,	technologies,	and	a	variety	of	human	and	non-human actors	have	had	upon	computing	education. There	is	much	here	that	those engaged	in	creating	new	curricula	and	technologies	can	learn	from	–	the	benefit of	hindsight	being	all	too	rare	in	the	fast	pace	of	contemporary	change. Over	the period	covered	different	paradigms	have	been	dominant	in	both	designing	and explaining	the	development	of	the	range	of	systems	used,	as	Tatnall	makes	clear. There	is	a	need	for	further	research	in	how	what	we	have	described	as	Web	3.0 will	affect	the	development	of	educational	systems	in	both	schools	and universities.	Education,	like	big	ships,	typically	turns	very	slowly,	but	there	is	an imperative	inherent	in	the	current	shift	to	Web	3.0	that	new	approaches	will	be needed	soon	if	we	are	to	avoid	educating	people	in	the	wrong	skills. In	their	paper	"ICT	and	Environmental	Sustainability	in	a	Changing	Society:	The View	of	Ecological	World	Systems	Theory"	Lennerfors,	Fors	and	van	Rooijen	look into	the	possibilities	and	threats	ICTs	create	for	the	environment.	Although	ICTs can	help	to	decrease	our	ecological	footprint	by	lessening	the	need	for	more traditional	industrial	solutions,	they	can	also	increase	it	through,	for	example, the	need	to	extract	rare	earths,	or	the	need	for	new	and	seemingly	always	bigger server	farms.	The	problem	with	looking	into	ICTs	effect	on	the	environment, however,	is	that	much	research	tends	to	stay	at	the	level	of	a	single	or	a	few examples,	while	holistic	approaches	are	missing.	To	fill	this	gap,	Lennerfors	et	al offer	a	tour	through	ecological	world	systems	theory,	which	they	propose	as	a possible	lens	to	clarify	our	perception	of	the	changes	ICTs	cause	in	society. Another	way	to	look	at	the	environmental	issues	ICTs	create	is	offered	by Patrignani	and	Whitehouse	in	their	paper	"Slow	Tech:	Bridging	Computer	Ethics and	Business	Ethics".	They	tie	the	discussion	of	environment	even	more	strongly to	societal	change,	and	offer	two	examples	in	which	computer	ethics	in	a business	context	becomes	'slow	tech'.	What	slow	tech	means,	according	to Patrignani	and	Whitehouse,	is	similar	to	the	notion	of	'slow	food':	it	must	be good, meeting	the	needs	of	the	humans	using	and	being	targeted	by	the	systems; clean, taking	the	environment	into	account	and	not	polluting;	and	fair,	taking into	account	the	rights	of	those	who	produce	the	applications. Both	Lennerfors	et	al	and	Patrignani	and	Whitehouse	look	at	the	current	stage	of ICTs,	offering	us	another	way	to	do	things:	eschewing	growth	for	growth's	sake in	favour	of	new	and	better	ways	forward	through	the	virtual.	This	kind	of approach	promises	much	for	the	future,	and	how	Web	3.0	could	truly	realise better,	and	environmentally	sustainable	goals.	Taking	their	cue	to	look	at	things more	holistically,	rather	than	only	through	the	lenses	of	traditional	information systems	theories,	we	may	yet	get	ourselves	on	the	right	path. Lahtiranta,	Koskinen,	Knaapi-Junnila	and	Nurminen	focus	on	changes	in	society through	"Sensemaking	in	the	Personal	Health	Space".	In	their	paper	they	tackle some	of	the	issues	arising	from	patients	becoming	more	empowered	in	health care	services	that	are	having	to	respond	to	greater	and	greater	need.	This	creates conflicts	especially	coupled	with	the	need	for	more	cost	effective	services. Lahtiranta	et	al	offer	a	framework	through	which	to	clarify	the	situation	and	a case	study	on	how	to	apply	the	framework	to	practice	and	achieve	better	results such	as	self-care. Migrants	change	societies.	They	do	it	just	by	migrating	to	a	new	place,	either	by starting	a	new	community	within	a	community	or	strengthening	an	existing	one. In	the	article	"Is	The	Mobile	Phone	Old	Wine	in	a	New	Bottle?	A	Polemic	on Communication-Based	Acculturation	Research"	Aricat	looks	at	the	effect	of	the mobile	phone	on	this	dynamic:	is	its	effect	neglible,	with	old	traditions continuing	as	before,	just	with	new	tools. Or	is	it –	at	least	in	the	case	of	South Asian	ethnic	groups	migrating	to	Singapore	seeking	work	–	that	mobile	phones rather	perpetuate	separation	than	help	overcome	it.	Societal	change	has	many aspects,	of	course,	and	a	fuller	picture	of	the	situation	only	opens	from	the	article itself. Even	though	both	Lahtiranta	et	al	as	well	as	Aricat	look	at	slices	of	the	new environment,	they	both	look	at	how	the	latest	stage	empowers,	or	fails	to empower,	users,	through	new	distributed	components	and	services.	In	the	case of	Lahtiranta	et	al,	hope	seems	to	come	from	the	new	personal	health	services that	could	enable	users	form	a	more	holistic	picture	of	themselves	and	their position	in	the	world. In	Aricat's	more	pessimistic	piece	even	though	some	new possibilities	open,	they	do	not	enhance	the	position	of	the	migrants	as	could	be expected. All	five	articles	can	be	seen	through	a	lens	of	the	development	of	IS	design through	the	three	stages	(and	beyond)	of	the	development	of	ICTs,	or	Webs,	as described	above.	They	do	indeed	answer	to	the	call's	main	request	of	helping	us "understand	how	ICT	innovation	is	associated	with	change	in	society".	As	we	had far	more	potential	specific	topic	areas	in	the	call	than	there	is	space	in	a	Special Issue,	it	is	not	surprising	that	some	issues	were	not	handled	–	and	even	very important	ones	such	as	Gender	Diversity	in	ICT	or	ICT	use	in	Peace	and	War were	not	touched	on	this	time.	However,	we	are	happy	to	note,	that	within	the five	accepted	papers	most	of	the	areas	in	the	call	(on	top	of	the	two	mentioned before),	Computers	and	Work,	Ethics	of	Computing,	History	of	Computing,	ICT and	Society,	ICT	and	Sustainable	Development,	Information	Technology:	Misuse and	The	Law,	Social	Accountability	and	Computing,	Social	Implications	of Computers	in	Developing	Countries,	and	Virtuality	and	Society	are	handled	to one	degree	or	another. We	want	to	thank	all	the	authors	who	enabled	this	Special	Issue	for	their contribution,	and	hope	that	readers	will	take	with	them	a	better	understanding of	the	current	stage	of	IS,	ICT	and	Web	development	and	what	it	means	to	the people	using	them. David	Kreps	and	Kai	Kimppa References: Agre,	P.,	(2003)	Hierarchy	and	History	in	Simon's	'Architecture	of	Complexity', Journal	of	the	Learning	Sciences	12(3) http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/simon.html	(accessed	3/8/2015). Barabasi,	AL	(2003)	Linked:	The	New	Science	of	Networks	Cambridge	MA:	Perseus Publishing Barassi,	V.,	and	Treré,	E.	(2012)	Does	Web	3.0	come	after	Web	2.0? Deconstructing	theoretical	assumptions	through	practice.	New	Media	&	Society 14.8:	1269-1285. Becker,	J	&	Niehaves,	B	(2007)	Epistemological	perspectives	on	IS	research:	a framework	for	analysing	and	systematizing	epistemological	assumptions Information	Systems	Journal	17,	197-214 Benbya,	H.,	&	McKelvey	B.,	(2006)	Toward	a	complexity	theory	of	information systems	development	Information	Technology	and	People	19(1),12-34 Bergson,	H	(1908)	Matter	and	Memory	(ed	2004)	Dover	NY Bertalanffy,	L.	(1950)	Theory	of	Open	Systems	in	Physics	and	Biology	Science 111(2872)	pp23-29 Bourdieu,	P	(1990)	In	other	words. Polity	Press,	London Buckley,	W	(1998)	Society	A	Complex	Adaptive	System:	Essays	in	Social	Theory. Australia:	Gordon	and	Breach Castellani,	B	&	Hafferty	FW	(2009)	Sociology	and	Complexity	Science	Berlin: Springer Castells,	M	(2000)	The	Rise	of	the	Network	Society	Oxford	MA:	Blackwell Publishers Chong,	E.	and	Xie,	B.	(2011).	The	Use	of	Theory	in	Social	Studies	of	Web	2.0. In Proceedings of the 44th Annual Hawaii international Conference on System Sciences	Volume	03.	HICSS.	IEEE	Computer	Society,	Washington,	DC Ciborra,	C	(2002)	The	Labyrinths	of	Information:	Challenging	the	Wisdom	of Systems	Oxford	University	Press Cilliers,	P.	(1998)	Complexity	and	Postmodernism	London:	Routledge Clarke,	P.	(2009)	A	flurry	of	#uksnow. Honestly	Real.	The	blog	of	Paul	Clarke. [WWW	document]	http://honestlyreal.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/a-flurry-ofuksnow/ (accessed	4th	January	2011). Cronk,	H	(2007)	Pushing	Towards	Web	3.0	Organizing	Tools	Social	Policy	Vol	38, 1	pp27-34 Deleuze,	G.	(1966)	Le	Bergsonisme,	Paris:	Press	Universitaires	de	France. Deleuze,	G.	(1986)	Foucault,	Minneapolis:	University	of	Minnesota	Press Deleuze,	G,	Guattari,	F.	(1987)	A	thousand	plateaus	:	capitalism	and	schizophrenia, Minneapolis:	University	of	Minnesota	Press. Derrida,	J	(1978)	Writing	and	Difference,	trans.	Alan	Bass.	London:	Routledge,	pp 278-294 Everitt	D	and	Mills	S	(2009)	Cultural	anxiety	2.0.	Media,	Culture	&	Society	31: 749–768. Fisher	E	(2010)	Contemporary	technology	discourse	and	the	legitimation	of capitalism.	European	Journal	of	Social	Theory	13:	229. Fiske,	John	(1982):	Introduction	to	Communication	Studies.	London:	Routledge Foucault,	M.	(1995).	The	Archaeology	of	Knowledge.	London,	Routledge. Foucault,	M.	(1997).	The	Order	of	Things.	London,	Routledge. Fuchs	C	(2010)	Social	software	and	Web	2.0:	Their	sociological	foundations	and implications.	In:	Murugesan	S	(ed.)	Handbook	of	Research	on	Web	2.0,	3.0,	and X.0:	Technologies,	Business,	and	Social	Applications,	vol.	II.	Hershey,	PA:	IGIGlobal,	pp.764–789. Fuchs,	C.,	et	al.	(2010)	Theoretical	foundations	of	the	web:	cognition, communication,	and	co-operation.	Towards	an	understanding	of	Web	1.0,	2.0, 3.0.	Future	Internet	2.1:	41-59. Galliers,	B	(2008)	A	discipline	for	a	stage?	A	Shakespearean	reflection	on	the research	plot	and	performance	of	the	Information	Systems	field	European Journal	of	Information	Systems	17,	330-335 Gallivan,	M	&	Benbunan-Fich,	R	(2007)	Analysing	IS	Research	Productivity:	An inclusive	approach	to	global	IS	scholarship	European	Journal	of	Information Systems	16,	36-53 Gill, S. (2003). Power and Resistance in the New World Order. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. London: Harvard University Press. Harris	D	(2008)	Web	2.	0	Evolution	into	the	Intelligent	Web	3.	0:	100	Most	Asked Questions	on	Transformation,	Ubiquitous	Connectivity,	Network	Computing,	Open Technologies,	Open	Identity,	Distributed	Databases	and	Intelligent	Applications. Newstead,	Australia:	Emereo	Publishing. Hendler,	J.	(2009)	Web	3.0	Emerging	Computer	42.1	(2009):	111-113. Hercheui,	M.	(2011)	A	literature	review	of	virtual	communities:	the	relevance	of understanding	the	influence	of	institutions	on	online	collectives	Information, Communication	and	Society	14.1:1-23 Jacucci,	E.,	Hanseth,	O.,	&	Lyytinen,	K	(2006)	Taking	Complexity	Seriously	in	IS Research.	19(1),5-11 Joseph,	J.E	(2012)	Saussure	Oxford:	Oxford	University	Press. Kallinikos,	J	(2006)	Complexity	and	information	systems	development:	A	comment on	Benbya	and	McKelvey. http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kallinik/docs/BenbyaMckelvey.doc	(accessed 3/8/2015). Kaufmann,	S.	1995.	At	Home	in	the	Universe.	Oxford:	Oxford	University	Press. Kirchhoff,	L.,	Stanoevska-Slabeva,	K.,	Nicolai,	T.,	&	Fleck,	M.	(2008)	Using	social network	analysis	to	enhance	information	retrieval	systems	Applications	of	social network	analysis	(ASNA)	Zurich	7:	1-21 Kreps,	D	(2008)	'Virtuality:	Time,	Space,	Conciousness	and	a	Second	Life' Chapter	in	Exploring	Virtuality:	Social,	Global	and	Local	Dimensions	Eds:	Niki Panteli	and	Mike	Chiasson	(Palgrave) Kreps,	D	&	Fletcher,	G	(2010)	#uksnow:	webscience	weather watch.	IR11	Gothenberg,	Sweden Kreps,	D.	(2010)	My	Social	Networking	Profile:	Copy,	Resemblance	or Simulacrum.	A	Poststructuralist	Interpretation	of	Global	Information	Systems, European	Journal	of	Information	Systems	19(1):	104-115 Kreps,	D	(2015)	Bergson,	Complexity	and	Creative	Emergence	London:	Palgrave MacMillan Lassila,	O	&	Hendler,	J	(2007)	Embracing	Web	3.0	IEEE	Explore	i07	1089-7801 Latour,	B.	(1992)	Where	are	the	missing	masses?	Sociology	of	a	few	mundane artefacts,	in	W.	Bijker	and	J.	Law,	(eds.)	Shaping	Technology,	Building	Society: Studies	in	Sociotechnical	Change,	Cambridge,	MA:	MIT	Press,	pp.225–258. Latour,	B.	(2004)	Nonhumans,	in	S.	Harrison,	S,	Pile, N,	Thrift,	(eds.)	Patterned Ground:	Entanglements	of	Nature	and	Culture,	London:Reaktion	Books,	pp.224– 227. Levina,	N	&	Orlikowski,	W	(2009)	Understanding	Shifting	Power	Relations Within	and	Across	Oorganizations:	A	Critical	Genre	Analysis	Academy	of Management	Journal	Vol.	52,	No.	4,	672–703. Liu,	F	and	Myers,	M	(2011)	An	analysis	of	the	AIS	basket	of	top	journals	Journal of	Systems	and	Information	Technology	13,	1,	5-24 Luhmann,	N	(1995)	Social	Systems	Stanford,	CA.	Stanford	University	Press. Lyytinen,	K,	Baskerville,	R,	Iivari,	J,	&	Te'eni,	D	(2007)	Why	the	old	world	cannot publish?	Overcoming	challenges	in	publishing	high-impact	IS	research.	European Journal	of	Information	Systems,	16,	317-326 Marsh,	B.	(2009)	The	blog	of	Ben	Marsh	[WWW	document] http://www.benmarsh.co.uk/	(accessed	4th	January	2011) McLuhan,	M.(1964):	Understanding	Media.	New	York:	Mentor O'Reilley,	T	(2007)	What	Is	Web	2.0:	Design	Patterns	and	Business	Models	for the	Next	Generation	of	Software.	Online	at	http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/4578/	MPRA	(accessed	3/8/2015). Orlikowski,	W.	and	Baroudi	J	(1991)	Studying	information	technology	in organisations:	research	approaches	and	assumptions	Information	Systems Research	2,	1,	1-28 Orlikowski,	W	&	Yates,	J	(2002)	It's	About	Time:	Temporal	Structuring	in Organizations.	Organisation	Science	Vol	13.	No	6	pp684-700 Orlikowski,	W.	(2006)	Material	knowing:	the	scaffolding	of	human knowledgeability,	European	Journal	of	Information	Systems	15(1):	460–466 Orlikowski,	W	&	Scott,	S	(2008)	The	Entangling	of	Technology	and	Work	in Organizations	LSE	Working	Paper	Series	168 Pattal,	M,	Li,	Y,	&	Zeng,	J	(2009)	Web	3.0:	A	real	personal	Web!	More opportunities	&	more	threats	IEEE	Third	International	Conference	on	Next Generation	Mobile	Applications,	Services	and	Technologies Paul,	R	(2008)	The	only	duty	we	owe	to	history	is	to	rewrite	it:	reflections	on Bob	Galliers'	article,	'A	discipline	for	a	stage?'	European	Journal	of	Information Systems,	17(6),	444-447 Paul,	R	(2007)	Challenges	to	Information	Systems:	Time	to	change	European Journal	of	Information	Systems	16,	193-195 Pickering,	A.	(1995).	The	Mangle	of	Practice:	Time,	Agency	and	Science.	Chicago, IL:	University	of	Chicago	Press. Prigogine,	I.,	&	Stengers,	I.,	(1984)	Order	out	of	Chaos.	London:	Flamingo Rheingold,	H	(1993)	The	Virtual	Community	Homesteading	on	the	Electronic Frontier	Addison-Wesley	Reading,	MA Sandoval	M	and	Fuchs	C	(2010)	Towards	a	critical	theory	of	alternative	media. Telematics	and	Informatics	Special	Issue	27(2):	141–150. Schatzki, T,	Cetina	K,	&	Savigny,	E	(eds)	(2001)	The	Practice	Turn	in Contemporary	Theory	Routledge,	Abingdon,	Oxon	UK Simon,	H.	(1962)	The	Architecture	of	Complexity.	Proceedings	of	the	American Philosophical	Society.	Vol.	106(6) Song,	F.W.	(2010).	Theorizing	Web	2.0.	Information,	Communication	&	Society, Vol.	13,	No.	2,	pp.	249-275. Spivak,	N	(2013)	Why	Cognition-as-a-Service	is	the	next	operating	system battlefield	GigaOm	http://gigaom.com/2013/12/07/why-cognition-as-aservice-is-the-next-operating-system-battlefield/#! (accessed	3/8/15) Tasner	M	(2010)	Marketing	in	the	Moment:	The	Practical	Guide	to	Using	Web	3.0 to	Reach	your	Customers	First.	Upper	Saddle	River,	NJ:	FT	Press. Tsai,	C,	Lee,	C,	Tang,	S.	(2009)	The	web	2.0	movement:	Mashups	driven	and	web services, WSEAS	Transactions	on	Computers	8(8):	1235-1244 Van	Aardt,	A.,	(2004)	Open	source	software	development	as	complex	adaptive systems.	Proceedings	of	the	17th	Annual	Conference	of	the	National	Advisory Committee	on	Computing	Qualifications,	Christchurch,	New	Zealand,	6-9	July Wallerstein,	I	(2004)	World	Systems	Analysis	Durham	and	London:	Duke Watson	M	(2009)	Scripting	Intelligence:	Web	3.0	Information,	Gathering	and Processing	(Apress	Series:	Expert's	Voice	in	Open	Source).	New	York:	Springer Publishing. Weiss,	M,	Gangadharan,	G.	(2010)	Modeling	the	mashup	ecosystem:	Structure and	growth.	R	and	D	Management	40(1):	40-49 Zeldman,	J	(2006)	Web	3.0	A	List	Apart http://www.alistapart.com/articles/web3point0 (accessed	3/8/2015). Zimmer	M	(2008)	The	externalities	of	Search	2.0:	The	emerging	privacy	threats when	the	drive	for	the	perfect	search	engine	meets	Web	2.0.	First	Monday	13(3). Available	at:	http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2136 (accessed	3/8/2015).