Winner quote

The things we call "technologies" are ways of building order in our world… contain possibilities for many different ways of ordering human activity.

Consciously or unconsciously, deliberately or inadvertently, societies choose structures for technologies that influence how people are going to work, communicate, travel, consume, and so forth over a very long time.

In the processes by which structuring decisions are made, different people are situated differently and possess unequal degrees of power …[and] awareness.

Winner Quote cont.

…[T] the greatest latitude of choice exists the very first time a particular instrument, system, or technique is introduced. Because choices tend to become strongly fixed in material equipment, economic investment, and social habit, the original flexibility vanishes ….

[T]he same careful attention one would give to the rules, roles, and relationships of politics must also be given to such things as the building of highways, the creation of television networks, and the tailoring of seemingly insignificant features on new machines.

The issues that divide or unite people in society are settled not only in the institutions and practices of politics proper, but also, and less obviously, in tangible arrangements of steel and concrete, wires and semiconductors, nuts and bolts.

Friedman & Nussbaum’s Framework• Their interest - bias: “systematically and unfairly discriminates

against specific individuals or groups”

• Our interest: what gets enabled, constrained; who is affected; who is part of the decision-making; whose/which values/preferences/assumptions get included?

• Types of influences:– Pre-existing: rooted in soc institutions, practices, attitudes; prior to

creation of system • society at large, individual, societal

– Technical: rooted in tech design; e.g. limits in hard/software, algorithms...

– Emergent: arises in context of use; result of • changing societal knowledge • mismatch users and designers• different expertise • different values

Theories of technology – issues debated

(Grint & Woolgar)• Definitions of technology• Relationship, boundaries between society and

technology• Malleability of definition of a specific

technology – core tech capabilities?• Neutrality/political nature of a specific

technology• Whose values, assumptions get inscribed into

tech? How?• How does tech get stabilized? (Does it? How

stable is stability?)• What are our social ends, values, and how do

they get decided?

Key concepts of SCOT model

• Relevant social groups– Identifiable soc groups that play a role in the dev of a tech

artifact. – such groups share a meaning of the artifact, which can then

be used to explain particular dev paths which artifact takes. – Detailed description of each relevant soc group > define the

functioning of the artifact w/regard to each group.• Stabilization or closure

– Stabilization or closure as process with diff artifacts achieving diff degrees of stabilization for diff groups.

• Interpretive flexibility– Pinch claims this is what makes SCOT radical.– an artifact may have radically diff meanings that are co-

extensive wit social groups • Technological frame

– ‘frame of meaning’ assoc’d with a particular tech shared x several soc groups which further guides and shapes dev of artifact. >> link between wider society and developmental path.

Representation

• Representations• Representation and our field• The work of representation – creating

systems of representation (e.g., metadata) and representations

• The work that representations do

Representation

• Representations (inscriptions)– Graphical– Textual– Indexing, metadata– “immutable, combinable mobiles”

• Representation and our field• The work of representation – creating

systems of representation (e.g., metadata) and representations

• The work that representations do

Representation

• Representations– Graphical, Textual, Indexing, metadata, “immutable,

combinable mobiles”

• Representation and our field– Working with representations (texts, images…)– Creating systems of representation (e.g., metadata)– Using representations

• The work of representation – creating systems of representation (e.g., metadata) and representations

• The work that representations do

Representation

• Representations– Graphical– Textual– Indexing, metadata

• Representation and our field– Working with representations (texts, images…)– Creating systems of representation (e.g., metadata)– Using representations

• The work of representation – creating systems of representation (e.g., metadata) and representations– Practice– Invisibility– Practical politics

• The work that representations do

Representation

• Representations– Graphical– Textual– Indexing, metadata

• Representation and our field– Working with representations (texts, images…)– Creating systems of representation (e.g., metadata)– Using representations

• The work of representation – creating systems of representation (e.g., metadata) and representations– Invisibility– Practical politics– Practice

Representation

• Representations– Graphical, Textual, Indexing, metadata

• Representation and our field– Working with representations (texts, images…)– Creating systems of representation (e.g., metadata)– Using representations

• The work of representation – creating systems of representation (e.g., metadata) and representations– Invisibility– Practical politics– Practice

• The work that representations do– “immutable, combinable mobiles”– Persistence

Infrastructure – Bowker & Star

– Embeddedness– Transparency– Reach or scope– Learned as part of membership– Links with conventions of practice– Embodiment of standards– Built on installed base– Becomes visible upon breakdown– Is fixed in modular increments, not all at once or

globally– ---------------------------------------------------------------– Ubiquity – Materiality and texture– Indeterminancy of past – multiple times, voices– Practical politics