Friday, August 15, 2008
layerings
welcome to our blog ... our public writing space ... where we can reflect, think, discuss, argue, develop our individual & collective thoughts about technologies, particularly those involved in writing and literacy. we'll be immersed in philosophical, theoretical, practical, & empirical considerations of literacy technologies over the course of the next several months, and our emerging (& burgeoning) understandings will surely layer onto earlier readings & discussions & our lived experiences. this blog can be center of those layerings ... some of the work here will be required, some of it will be spur of the moment, some of it will be self-sponsored. hopefully a lot of it will be multimodal (surely an overused word but one which suggests the multiplicity of communicative possibilities available here - especially when thinking about writing technologies in our digital age, this range of modes should serve to shore up, reveal, and complicate our arguments). i'm looking forward to learning from you all as summer dwindles into fall and winter ... pt
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
While reading the articles for this first week, I found myself trying to create schemas for understanding these concepts which were almost entirely new to me. Kline (1985) seemed to provide a way in as I began to notice recurring reference to what appeared to be a continuum between manufacture and use.
Kline (1985) composed in response to what Schiappa (2004) might call a state of "definitional rupture", in that the very act of defining had become difficult. Kline countered this difficulty by taking the term "technology" and breaking it down into four usages, in sum: hardware, "sociotechnical system of manufacture" (p. 210), knowledge informing tasks, and the "sociotechnical system of use" (p. 211). By establishing these four uses of the term "technology," Kline seemed to suggest a continuum of manufacture <--> use, which several of the other authors then took as a discussion point.
For example, Berg and Lie (1995) argued that studies of women and technology have traditionally emphasized inequitable access (p. 335). They resisted the idea that functions are “baked in” (p. 337) to technology, and instead they pushed their analysis toward the direction of use. Berg and Lie suggested that feminist technology studies ought to focus on how women actually employ technologies. They then posited that while “artifacts are reservoirs of information on socio-cultural patterns,” these artifacts also provide potential for socio-cultural change (p. 347). However, in a move away from Kline’s continuum, they located the new site for change within the design process itself (p. 338-9).
Winner (1993) took social constructivism to task. One of his criticisms of social constructivism was the valuation of origins over consequences (p. 237). In this criticism, he too seemed to obliquely connect the continuum Kline’s definition suggests.
Winner (1986) suggested that artifacts may have politics. His initial assessment found a place for a human agent, in that technology may “provide a convenient means of establishing power and authority” (p. 10). This first assessment dealt with both use and manufacture, in that the human agent may pre-determine a political aim when constructing a technology and/or when employing the technology. Winner went further to argue that some technologies may sometimes contain “intractable” attributes which connect them to “institutionalized patterns of power and authority” (p. 10). Here, we also seem to be looking at potential on both ends of the Kline continuum, although the use of the word “intractable” suggests a closer affinity to the manufacture end.
Foucault (1978) located power in both the manufacture and the use elements of technology. His insightful analysis of the Panopticon system suggested a mutually reinforcing mechanism. The technology of power generates and sustains itself: “The efficiency of power, its constraining force have, in a sense, passed over to the other side—to the side of its surface of application” (p. 593). Foucault correlated power itself with the manufacturing aspect of technology when he suggested power’s ability to create new mechanisms.
While several other continuums also permeate the literature (such as determinism <--> social constructivist), the manufacture <--> use continuum provided a starting point for my entry into this literature.
~Beth Tomlinson
I thought you might like to see some images of the panopticon. It looks like it has been constructed after all. The first link is indeed a modern prison. The second image omes from an online journal interested in rhetoric (kairos) tha compares the panopticon to modern-day homeland security. The third link is a blog about police surveillance machinery in Harlem. The final link is taken from someone's second life design. Even our avatars are being watched.
http://vulkan.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/panopticon.jpg
http://kairosamerica.org/php_uploads/wordpress/image/panopticon.jpg
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://boles.com/called/06/panopticon3.jpg&imgrefurl=http://urbansemiotic.com/2006/11/27/the-nypd-panopticon-imprisons-harlem/&h=457&w=300&sz=47&hl=en&start=10&um=1&usg=__r5ZvtlXJ2lp97HVE_mR14CIl-gY=&tbnid=hc9Xf05xS1nWmM:&tbnh=128&tbnw=84&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPANOPTICON%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7HPIB%26sa%3DN
http://www.secondlife.intellagirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/skyview.jpg
Well, okay. Confession time; I speak this to my shame: I don't blog. Or at least, I have not blogged in a long while--it's been since 2006 in a Discourse Theory course. I do confess to advanced writing technologies anxiety. While I am an avid consumer of electronic texts, I do not like to produce text online, no do I like to produce multimodal texts. There! I've said it! And in this program!
But, alas, it is indeed an anxiety that I will overcome--making way fro new and latent anxieties buried beneath my consciousness. But, as a woman of my generation, I do feel the reality of a generational, if not gendered, digital divide--one that I hope to flush and flesh out more fully as the summer dissipates into fall, winter, and beyond.
But I want to back up--as I frequently must do--to understand or restate the not-so obvious. I want to talk about the term "writing technology." Perhaps this wll become more clear after I view Pam's class intro--which I could not view, btw, via Vista (another techo-frustration.)I want to parse "writing technology." Please bear with me: writing, I think I understand, at least in a most cursory and primitive fashion (because, yes, I have perused many of the books and readings from Ray's class on writing theory [please offer that again next semester, as I'm convinced my education will be forever inchoate without the course {and what the good doctor Craig brings to it}]. Let's say for now that writing is some kind of marks on some kind of surface and that it roughly represents--or at least imtimates, albeit miserably deficiently--something other than itself.
But let me add to the above that writing, as a noun, can refer to the artifact produced (a technology) or as a gerund, e.g., "Writing makes me dizzy." So "writing" can be the visible marks or the act of producing them--in which case it would be a techne--a skill or craft. So is writing technologies redundant?
If not, does it more narrowly refer to the technologies we use to produce writing, i.e., the tools? Or the technologically produced artifacts, i.e., the "texts." ("She makes herself dizzy," you are thinking. "and us, too..."
As you can see, I'm feeling very chicken/eggish here. Kline defines/classifies technology as: (1) hardware or artifacts (again, I ask, the tools or the produced artifacts); (2)sociotechnical systems of use; (3) techniques, methods, know-how; and (4) sociotechnical sytems of manufacture.
So what I am wondering here is what is up for grabs when we consider a writing technology? If I am reading blogs on my Kindle, which I do daily, is my reading. my consumption of text a use? Or do I use only when I produce, as reading and writing are necessarily concomitant and reciprocal acts? I AM geting to Bejiker here....
But first, I regress....Panopticism is an example of sociopolitical/technical domination utilizing a materiality far different from that of a witing technology--except as it is presented to us as a simulacrum--a model without a "real" corresponding counterpart. But as the world is transcribed on paper or on the screen--arguably another form of simulacrum--the simulation is material and constricting in another way. The web of "Text," that which transcribes to a (maybe) material space, what it is possible to know or imagine. In this sense, writing is a medium that divides us from our natural, amterial world. So is that entire web of Text "Writing" with a capital T?
I belabor the point because David Abram, a Ph.D. in philosophy and a sleight-of-hand magician, posits in his book *Spell of the Sensuous* that writing is the broken link bewteen humans and the natural world. In that sense, he is talking about the sytem of use in an intriguing, if misdirected way. So I am wondering if writng-in-use is a suitable technology to study. Or is that merely studying writing? You see the conundrum--or maybe I create it.
Now I will make a non sequitar leap to politicking. Politicking and gendering of technology--especially as it pertains to Bejiker, or draws on him at least. (I love his name. Can't you hear your adolescent peddling his stunt bike while proclaiming, "I'm a beeiker and I'm beeug"?) Bejiker makes the point when he explicates the idea of interpretive felxibility, that to daredevils, the Ordinary is a Mach bike, while to the less deft (he mentions women and old men.....)the Ordinary was an Unsafe bicycle. In other words, the users determined what the Ordinary "was." In this way, the Ordinary's development and design dictated who could be mobile via an Ordinary. Of course, price and other access issues entered into the schema. I have been wondering lately how this might pertain to writing technolgies.
The obvious answers are the accessiblitiy of computers, typewruters, keyboard, pens, at one time quills and ink, I suppose--and also who had access to the instruction in use of the writing tools' artifacts: the producers and consumers of text. As I thought about the typewriter's keys being struck (I learned to type on an old manual Remington, whose keys (and my fingers) were always tangled. Striking the keys made the letters strike the inked ribbon which was superimposed over the paper. So, in the technology (the machine), we had the inscribing device imrpinting upon the inscribed-upon device (the paper) via the medium of the ink. Now it's not so messy with a keyboard. We have no ink and the keys are much easier to depress. I don't think anything strikes anything, so it's all much less violent (but I may be simply uninformed or dimwitted). But, if we regress once again, and think about writing with a pen, or stylus, opr a lead pencil, we need two, or posibly three instruments to produce text. We need the writing instrument, the paper or surface to be inscribed, and we need a surface`fitted to both stabilize and support the hand and to withstand the pressure of the inscribing process. Hence, we have, in a classroom, a desk.
I want to talk about the desk as a writing technology that grants or denies access. Specifically, I want to talk about a desk with an attached chair and a small, semi-circular(ish) surface cut out to enable the insertion of a body between the desk and the chair. Let us suppose, say, a woman. Let us take it further and ask, for argument what kind of woman will fit into the desk. A slender woman, to be sure. A plump woman, perhaps. A very pregnant woman--no. I have been thinking for some time, about the conspicuous absence of preganant women from the university. Women who are in their prime reporductive years, yet so few are pregnant. Now most college women use birth control. few are abstinent. Some,I'm sure terminate pregnancies. But some, do become pregnant and carry to term. Where are they? And where are those who become pregnant but never enter the doors of a college? The assumption, in designing the desks, was that naturally MOTHERS, in whatever stage, would not be there. Was this a hostile, calucated attempt to keep MOTHERS out of the academy? I doubt it. But the assumption is there. Mothers should be home with their children. Mothers should not be in school. Take Kip's line from Napolean Dynamite: "Your mom goes to college." Which is a dig, of course, a current, politically incorrect "your mom" joke.
Whatever we may think about Sarah Palin, we KNOW she must be a deficient mother who should be ashamed (or should we be very afraid?) that she is an uppity woman partcipating in civic life.
Is this 500 words?
BP
While Bijker’s (1995) entire theory is fascinating and meticulously depicted, I’m going to pick out one methodology element to discuss which seemed especially intriguing to me: his approach to sampling.
Bijker describes a two-part approach to sampling involving collecting a snowball sample and then what he calls refers to as “following the actors” (p. 46). He explains that within an interviewing methodology, the snowball sample is gathered via first identifying relevant parties through reading the literature. One next interviews these initial parties, then finally, one asks for additional names for interviewing purposes. He states that this approach initially yields a high number of responses, but eventually reaches a saturation point, in that no new names are being generated. He applies the same concept to historical research by “noting all social groups mentioned in relation to that artifact in historical documents” (p. 46) and continuing until reaching saturation.
In Written Communication’s special July issue on methods, Charles Bazerman (2008) describes a similar process regarding historical research. However, likely due to his focus in the article on teaching about methods, he provides some additional insights, which I found very useful. After delineating the snowball approach, similarly to Bijker, Bazerman explains, “If, however, you are trying to gain an overview of the trajectory, form, or typicality of the documents in an archive, you need a more systematic way
of constituting a corpus and selecting from it—because you are looking to
confirm generalizations about language practices themselves” (p. 308). He then goes on to suggest means of selecting material for the corpus by connecting the corpus formulation back to the research question.
Returning to Bijker, while I suspect that his research questions did indeed drive the development of his corpus, this is one area where I would have appreciated additional clarification at some points. As the case studies currently stand, they are richly descriptive on both technical and historical levels, but for me as a reader at least, they do not reach the point of being replicable because the selection criteria for his corpora remain a bit opaque at times. (To be fair, he does do some additional explaining of this on p. 188-190.) On the other hand, as I think about this issue more, perhaps it is simply a misunderstanding on my part. If his corpora consist of the social groups and/or the entire “socio-technical ensemble” (p. 12), not (or not just) the historical documents, this indeed is carefully explained throughout the book. Nonetheless, I think what I’m asking for here is more detail about the choices regarding the historical documents.
I did find his explanation of why he chose this particular snowball and follow-the-actors approach enlightening. He states that these two methods operate “as heuristics—a negative heuristic to avoid a facile projection of the analyst’s own categories, which might lead to retrospective distortion and Whiggish accounts; and a positive heuristic to help identify relevant social group that do not figure in the standard histories of the specific technology” (p. 49). While in part my intrigue relates to a current interest in heuristics, I also appreciated his insight as a means of resisting the tendency to impose one’s own categories even when they do not accurately portray the data. As I consider his rationale here, I’m trying to figure out how this plays into my own research. JC and I have been working on coding some data and I find myself continually struggling with the urge to impose my own categories. It is so important though to let the data speak for itself. I’m also struggling here with decisions about theory-building versus verification (Glaser & Strauss), but that’s another story for another time… In any case, Bijker certainly provides a lot of food for thought in terms of both methodology and his theory of technology.
~Beth
I want to comment on my own post….mostly because I was beginning to make a point about desks and interpretive flexibility and also about closure and stability when I went off on a rant about the exclusion of pregnant women from academia. I woke up this morning around four a.m. and realized that I never made the points I was after. Then I realized that the reason I never made the points was due to a technology problem specific to weblog—hence why I dislike using it: if one is composing online (which I thought was the only option until Beth told me that indeed I could cut and paste from a word document), it is not possible to see the entirety of text that one has composed in the small viewer. Seeing what I’ve said is important to me as a writer, especially as I write less formally. I need to review the ground I’ve covered in order to stay on track and get to where I want to go. Of course, now that I realize I can compose in Word and paste my response in the window, I am beyond that problem. Still, these kinds of problems are design issues that should be taken into account at the design stage. For some folks, this issue is not so much of a problem, but for those who have difficulty reading online (especially a challenge when the text is single spaced) composing in a window is problematic.
In any case, some points I wanted to make. The desk, which functions as a stable surface upon which to write (among other things) might be called a desk by most students. But to those who do not fit nicely behind it, the desk could be a trap or a wedge or even a locked door. But at some point in design—and I am aware that many versions of desks have been produced, and that writing surfaces in the college setting are still evolving—what we have come to know as a desk achieved design closure and stability. That stability is such that it resists reinterpretation and has framed who we think of as college students. When I visited KSU last year, we still had desks on the second floor. I am sure we still have some on the first and across campus, although as students are beginning to use computers to write, as opposed to a standard notebook, the desks are becoming tables, and the chairs are becoming wheeled. Both of these changes are more accommodating to students of various sizes—not just the pregnant, but to students of various weights and heights. This is a good thing. I remember taking the GRE, and the challenges I had because of my close vision. The computer screens were anchored, and the users were not allowed to move their chairs beyond a certain point behind us (to avoid cheating….). Because of these constraints, I have a very hard time bringing and keeping the text in focus. This slowed me down considerably—as did my typing speed, or rather lack of speed. So suddenly I have become poignantly aware of how technology issues encourage/support “success” and at the same time discourage the same for some people.
To tie the desk in to Bejiker, I guess I am wondering, in terms of relevant social groups, exactly who comprises the social group of consumers? It would seem that the consumers are the purchasers, i.e., the institutions, but that the users from another relevant social groups. And in the case of desks, it is not the users who dictate stability, but rather use dictates ability—or other technologies, e.g., computers, etc. So, I am wondering exactly what components would comprise the technological frame for something like the desk that has never been completely stabilized—or has it stabilized only to be disrupted? Of course, I'm sure that in the design of individual desk models, closure had to be reached in order for the desks to have been mass produced; I am wondering about the "evolution" of the desk through varying models that seem to change according to dictates in use, and not so much in users.(Some of us--ok, one of us--remembers desks once having a place at the top left side for a jar of ink.....So perhaps the desk did not stabilize as much as develop conceptual “hardness or obduracy” (Bejiker, p. 201).
I also tend to compose in Word and then copy and past into bloggger, not so much about seeing their entire document, but because my spelling is terrible, and because it takes forever for me to complete my thoughts and follow my own train of thought -- let alone have someone else follow it. For the first time this semester I have started to take my notes on my computer as opposed to by hand, and I am in love with taking notes digitally. I am not sure why I randomly made the switch. I even went out before school started, bought notebooks, labeled them for each class and got matching folders, and now I don't even use them. I am wondering if it is because I am adapting more to the screen, and the idea that the screen is more dominate than paper now.
Bijker to come in the am.
Bijker’s text provides a detailed analysis of the influence of society on technology inventions. What was interesting, aside from learning the history of the bicycle (which I really did enjoy and managed to bring into my 11011 class), was the various level of influence from society: the interaction of inventors with inventors, inventors with companies, inventors with patents, inventors with consumers, companies with consumers, and so forth. The inventors had to balance their interactions as to please each social group to encourage the success of their products. Even though one person may have “developed” a technology phenomenon, it was dependent upon the social interactions. Leading into Bijker’s ‘technological frame’ concept: “ a technological frame comprises all elements that influence the interactions within relevant social groups and lead to the attribution of meanings to technical artifacts – and thus constitution technology” (123). Does a technological frame only work in a specific time frame during which the interactions take place, or can a technological frame exist after the technology has been done away with, or developed to the next level? How long are the social groups studied? Is it only until the technology is stable or until something new appears? Bijker kept revising the technological frame with regard to the invention of plastic and then the fluorescent light bulb. As Bijker said, “Technological frames, specify, I have said, the way in which members of a relevant social group interact, and the way in which they think and act” (264). So, does that mean that technological frames can only exist in the moment where the social groups are interacting?
Another interesting point Bijker brings up toward the end was in regard to the word (or maybe concept would be a better term) power. The extent that Bijker went to define power: “‘power’ sometimes is a quality, a relation, a domain, an outcome or an agent” (261), made power seem like a very empty word that doesn’t necessarily relate to anything in particular, yet at the same time the word seems to fulfill so much. The concept of power related to many of Bijker’s points. Bicycles were owned by those in power/higher social class (same with the first sewing machines), the first forms of plastic were sold to companies that held the power in the market, and there seemed to be a power struggle with general electric and the other electric companies with the evolution of the fluorescent lights.
One question that I did have (among others), was when Bijker uses the term artifact, how is he defining it? I feel as though I have read many different interpretations of the term artifact, and was curious how he was referring to it. Can an artifact be a concept/abstract, or is it a concrete ‘item’? Does anyone know of an article off the top of their head that traces the different interpretations of the term ‘artifact,’ or am I dreaming that there is more than one interpretation of the term and that this article exists? It is very possible I am still dreaming.
I’d like to write a little about Bijker’s conception of power. But before I get to this, I’d like to take a minute to codify some of Bijker’s terms. Sometimes, it’s difficult for me to familiarize myself with Bijker’s terminology because it’s brand new to me. As a result, I’ve found myself comparing and overlapping his terms with terms from other fields. Maybe this is generative, and maybe it’s not, but before I move on I want to make sure that the way I’m reading his terms is consistent with your interpretation. As I understand things, relevant social groups are different sets of actors who bring to bear some meaning on an artifact. So are relevant social groups sort of like literacy communities, discourse communities, or activity systems? Next, closure is the process whereby various meanings become relatively fixed. So closure is basically the reaching of general consensus, the point at which various interpretations give way to one more or less rigid interpretation, right? And technological frames enable and constrain how members of a relevant social group are supposed to think, act, value, and problem-solve. So are technological frames like literacies? Answering these questions would be helpful to me, but lets move on to Bijker’s understanding of power.
Bijker, following Giddens (1979), defines power as the capacity to use (“harness”) someone else’s agency for one’s own ends. He is careful to point out that power involves both structures and actions. The structural side of power is semiotic. Thus, when semiotic meanings become fixed through closure, this fixity is power. Meanwhile, the action-based side of power amounts to what Bijker calls micropolitics of power. Essentially, the micropolitics of power are those continuous interactions that take place within technological frames which enable and constrain behavior. The two sides of the power model act reciprocally, so that micropolitics within certain technological frames result in specific semiotic structures, and semiotic structures in turn influence micropolitics.
I think Bijker’s model of power is pretty comprehensive. And I particularly like how it helps to show how structural power involves fixing semiotic meanings. I immediately thought about how meanings are not just fixed around artifacts but around all sorts of political matters. In fact, as I read Bijker’s accounts of fixing meanings, I immediately thought of political leaders working to fix certain meanings in order to “manufacture” public consensus. For instance, the Bush administration as a relevant social group can fix meanings about “terrorists” and “weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” and the power that they have accumulated as an executive body allows them to disseminate their meanings so that they become the dominant meanings for other social groups. It also allows for new technological frames to be formed (e.g. department of homeland security, operation Iraqi freedom). I just think it’s cool that creating semiotic closure is a power-enhancing mechanism, not only when it comes to artifacts, but when it comes to any social phenomenon.
This got me thinking a little bit about possible emancipatory applications for STS studies. Bijker is clear that since a technology’s very core-- that which constitutes its working--is socially constructed, it is possible to intervene in the decision-making processes that give technologies their meanings. However, once meanings have become fixed and the technologies have become obdurate, there is very little that one can do to intervene or to “remake” a given technology. So, if you’re going to do something “emancipationist” it would be wise to try it during the engineering process. This raises a couple of questions for me: First, how do scholars get access to the development stages of facts/artifacts, so that they can influence their meanings? Second, and more importantly, even if you were able to get access at a point in development when there was a high degree of technological development, would your the “technological frame” endorsed by Bijker effectively prevent you from questioning, criticizing, or problematizing an unjust technology? After all, Bijker’s technique requires that you delay any and all value judgments so that symmetry can be preserved. If your technological frame constrains you from judging/suggesting/(dis)favoring the meaning of a given technology, then it constrains you from judging if a given technology is right or wrong; it constrains you from intervening in prosocial ways. Or am I missing something?
I’d like to write a little about Bijker’s conception of power. But before I get to this, I’d like to take a minute to codify some of Bijker’s terms. Sometimes, it’s difficult for me to familiarize myself with Bijker’s terminology because it’s brand new to me. As a result, I’ve found myself comparing and overlapping his terms with terms from other fields. Maybe this is generative, and maybe it’s not, but before I move on I want to make sure that the way I’m reading his terms is consistent with your interpretation. As I understand things, relevant social groups are different sets of actors who bring to bear some meaning on an artifact. So are relevant social groups sort of like literacy communities, discourse communities, or activity systems? Next, closure is the process whereby various meanings become relatively fixed. So closure is basically the reaching of general consensus, the point at which various interpretations give way to one more or less rigid interpretation, right? And technological frames enable and constrain how members of a relevant social group are supposed to think, act, value, and problem-solve. So are technological frames like literacies? Answering these questions would be helpful to me, but lets move on to Bijker’s understanding of power.
Bijker, following Giddens (1979), defines power as the capacity to use (“harness”) someone else’s agency for one’s own ends. He is careful to point out that power involves both structures and actions. The structural side of power is semiotic. Thus, when semiotic meanings become fixed through closure, this fixity is power. Meanwhile, the action-based side of power amounts to what Bijker calls micropolitics of power. Essentially, the micropolitics of power are those continuous interactions that take place within technological frames which enable and constrain behavior. The two sides of the power model act reciprocally, so that micropolitics within certain technological frames result in specific semiotic structures, and semiotic structures in turn influence micropolitics.
I think Bijker’s model of power is pretty comprehensive. And I particularly like how it helps to show how structural power involves fixing semiotic meanings. I immediately thought about how meanings are not just fixed around artifacts but around all sorts of political matters. In fact, as I read Bijker’s accounts of fixing meanings, I immediately thought of political leaders working to fix certain meanings in order to “manufacture” public consensus. For instance, the Bush administration as a relevant social group can fix meanings about “terrorists” and “weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” and the power that they have accumulated as an executive body allows them to disseminate their meanings so that they become the dominant meanings for other social groups. It also allows for new technological frames to be formed (e.g. department of homeland security, operation Iraqi freedom). I just think it’s cool that creating semiotic closure is a power-enhancing mechanism, not only when it comes to artifacts, but when it comes to any social phenomenon.
This got me thinking a little bit about possible emancipatory applications for STS studies. Bijker is clear that since a technology’s very core-- that which constitutes its working--is socially constructed, it is possible to intervene in the decision-making processes that give technologies their meanings. However, once meanings have become fixed and the technologies have become obdurate, there is very little that one can do to intervene or to “remake” a given technology. So, if you’re going to do something “emancipationist” it would be wise to try it during the engineering process. This raises a couple of questions for me: First, how do scholars get access to the development stages of facts/artifacts, so that they can influence their meanings? Second, and more importantly, even if you were able to get access at a point in development when there was a high degree of technological development, would your the “technological frame” endorsed by Bijker effectively prevent you from questioning, criticizing, or problematizing an unjust technology? After all, Bijker’s technique requires that you delay any and all value judgments so that symmetry can be preserved. If your technological frame constrains you from judging/suggesting/(dis)favoring the meaning of a given technology, then it constrains you from judging if a given technology is right or wrong; it constrains you from intervening in prosocial ways. Or am I missing something?
I’d like to pick up John’s mention of Bijker’s concept of symmetry, the second component of his theory of technological development, because I also had some confusion about the term as I was reading. I’d like to use this response to jump back into the text to point to a couple places where he uses the term and possibly answer some of the cool questions John proposes about power, especially this one: “After all, Bijker’s technique requires that you delay any and all value judgments so that symmetry can be preserved. If your technological frame constrains you from judging/suggesting/(dis)favoring the meaning of a given technology, then it constrains you from judging if a given technology is right or wrong; it constrains you from intervening in prosocial ways. Or am I missing something?”
Bijker first defines symmetry as part of his theory in Table 1.1 in this way: “The conceptual framework should take the ‘working’ of an artifact as explanandum, rather than as explanans; the useful functioning of a machine is the result of sociotechnical development, not its cause” (13). Ok, in non-Latin terms (wow! that language requirement did come in handy!), let’s parse this out. Explanandum means “for explaining” and explanans is “explaining.” Ok, who cares about latin grammar? Well, here Bijker seems to be saying that is the “working” of an artifact is dependant on its relevant social group, where the judgments for “working” or “non-working” derive their meaning. If “working” is taken as the result of the stabilized / closed artifact and all other conceptions of the artifact are explained as “non-working,” then the designation “working” is seen as internal to the machine itself rather than developed through social construction. This is why he uses the “explaining” designation—there is a direct, linear cause from the technology itself to the “working” form of it. Instead of understanding the “working” of an artifact as explanans (explaining itself), we should take it as explanandum (the explanations of various social groups). In this way, Bijker argues that we must, in a comprehensive understanding of the development of technology, include all those artifacts considered “non-working” after the “working” artifact has stabilized and gained closure.
This becomes a bit more clear as he speaks of the symmetrical treatment of the Ordinary (75). He deconstructs the Ordinary into two artifacts through the construction of it from two relevant social groups: the Macho Bicycle (a la the young, athletic, wealthy men) and the Unsafe Bicycle (through the eyes of older or unathletic men and women). The point she stresses is that since each group sees the same artifact as “working” or “nonworking,” respectively, there should be no privileging of either from an analyst’s perspective. The Unsafe Bicycle was eventually wins semiotic closure of this artifact and the Safety Bicycle is produced to solve the problems perceived in the Unsafe Bicycle. Despite this genealogy, Bijker argues that when looking into the social construction of artifacts we must include all artifacts regardless of their current designation as “working” or “non-working.” We must assume a symmetry to those designated “working” and “non-working” to trace how other relevant social groups through the history of the artifact see it and ultimately how power, through these interactions between social groups, plays out.
So, my understanding is that the symmetry Bijker advocates is a method for researching artifacts so that we may see how power plays out. In this way, I think she is saying that we should “delay any and all value judgments so that symmetry can be preserved,” as John says, but only as a method for looking into past social constructions. Her concept of micropolitics may be a productive place for considering social change. Here, relevant social groups may assume agency and battle or dialogue for semiotic closure with other social groups. Just when it seemed like I had a complete answer to the question, I think John’s point about the technological frame does proscribe what a group may be able to do in terms of prosocial agency (enabling and constraining the group, in Bijker’s words). However, Bijker does allow some creativity to develop by being part of more than one social group, in the case of Baekeland. Her concept of inclusion, the degree of participation in a particular social group, allows her to show Baekeland’s creativity by being in a number of different relevant social groups. Does this have implications for social justice / prosocial agency?
Before I registered for this class I was looking for a promising and extremely beneficial class that can be both full of valuable information and has something distinctive when shown in my transcript. Well, I chose this class among others for its usefulness and expectations from such class also I have no room in my schedule for other days except Monday. I realized from the title of this class “Writing Technology” that it has two main parts that always interest me “Writing” & “Technology”. I hope I will meet my interests and expectations at the end of the semester.
The Readings:
It was kind of new and strange feelings when I first looked at the title of the text book. That is, I thought I am going to read something relatively recent since the course is about technology and at the same time has to do something with writing “the other part of the course title”. Anyway, to tell you the truth I did no read the whole text, yet I looked at other materials from the internet that gave me a general idea about the text book as a whole.
After getting the whole picture of the text my vision has changed. I liked the way the author follows during conducting his theory by using three basic representations of technology; Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs. Then he gave very detailed information about the historical development of each one, also how they integrate with society. As I stated earlier it’s wonderful how the author built up his theory relying on very basic technological representations.
I am so eager to listen to everyone’s point of view as well as discuss those points which were raised by the author. It might be possible that my post not as good as it should be; yet I can say it is on the first one I hope I can do something better in the rest of the semester:)
Useful power point presentation about the text book:
http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~dalbello/KnowledgeStructures/s2004/bijker
Nikki wrote:
"Does a technological frame only work in a specific time frame during which the interactions take place, or can a technological frame exist after the technology has been done away with, or developed to the next level? How long are the social groups studied? Is it only until the technology is stable or until something new appears?"
I also had some issues with Bijker's rather rigid definition of "technological frames". While Bijker states that "an artifact has a fluid and everchanging character...each problem and each solution, as soon as they are perceived by a relevant social group, changes the artifact's meaning, whether the solution is implemented or not." (p. 52) If artifacts, given meaning and use through their "technological frames" constructed by "relevant social groups", are "fluid and everchanging", how can there ever be closure. Perhaps I am mistaken, but the dynamic nature of artifacts--as well as the dynamic nature of socials groups and the "technological frames" such groups produce--negates any notion of stasis or closure I can think of. There is no final artifact.
Each individual artifact--even if it is the same exact technological entity being used by multiple groups for various reasons (the use of the Ordinary as an "unsafe" or "macho" artifact for differing groups comes immediately to mind)--has the potential to be altered, either by the group that defined said artifact, or by an outside group appropriating the artifact for their own use. In fact, I would argue that no technology is ever stable in the sense of finality, but rather only stable in a sense of practicality and pragmatism.
At any time, an outside social construction can radically alter the "technological frame" of an artifact, or the "relevant social group" itself. Is this sort of alteration necessary and final? Of course not. A viable example of this sort of constant changing is the internet. As the scope and content of the internet constantly expands, as the scope and diversity of the user base constantly expands, the technology--the "artifact"--also constantly expands. Or contracts, given the nature of the change. Sure, we might be able to predict with some certainty the rate and nature of these expansions and contractions, but never a final outcome, never a "closure lead[ing] to a decrease of interpretive flexibility--to one artifact becoming dominant and others ceasing to exist. As part of the same movement, the dominant artifact will develop an increasing degree of stabilization within one (and possibly more) relevant social groups." (p. 87) Dominance is fleeting. Ask the Betamax.
Elliot
So, all weekend I debated the relevance/validity of posting the following website here...and finally decided that as part of our studies in technology, "relevant social groups", and "technological frames" the following site does fit.
attrition.org
For the past 9+ years, this non-profit site has served as a resource for this interested in internet security and other internet based errata. They define themselves as "Attrition.org (http://attrition.org) is a computer security Web site dedicated to the collection, dissemination and distribution of information about the industry for anyone interested in the subject. They maintain one of the largest catalogs of security advisories, text files, and humorous image galleries. They are also known for the largest mirror of Web site defacements and their crusade to expose industry frauds and inform the public about incorrect information in computer security articles."
How are they relevant?
Well, in my opinion they are a fine example of a "relevant social group" creating a "technological frame". Am I wrong in this assumption??
(Also, for a good laugh if you have the time, check out their "Going Postal" for some of the crazy emails they receive on a regular basis. They constantly have people that good "hacking" and get their site, and then ask the various people that run the site to hack into other peoples email accounts. This might also serve as a good example of how specific social groups are misperceived and miscategorized by other outside groups.)
Elliot
I would like to consider Bijker in context with some of the articles we read for the previous week so that I can gain a firmer grip on what we have read so far. At the end of my post, I will discuss the concept “technological frame” in more detail.
Kline (“What is technology”) discusses four usages of the term “technology”: hardware/artifacts; sociotechnical system of manufacture; knowledge, technique, know-how, or methodology; and sociotechnical system (pp. 210-211). In a similar fashion, Bijker asks the question, “What constitutes ‘an artifact,’ ‘design,’ ‘technical change,’ ‘technology,’ ‘society’? He does not end at the definition of “technology” but instead, moves from the definitions of “elementary technical artifacts to ‘sociotechnical ensembles’” (p. 12). Both authors emphasize the importance of a detailed analysis and deconstruction of terminology in order to, as Kline says, “get on with our work in STS studies” (p. 210). Through this type of analysis, Bijker is able to research a topic that is generative for STS studies as well as studies in other fields (i.e. sociology, political science, etc.).
Winner (“Do artifacts have politics?”) asks the question that Bijker answers in the final portion of his book. Winner explains how artifacts do indeed have politics: “invention, design, or arrangement of a specific technical device or system becomes a way of settling an issue in the affairs of a particular community”; cases of what can be called ‘inherently political technologies,’ man-made systems that appear to require to be strongly compatible with particular kinds of political relationships’” (p. 2). The connection between technologies and man-made systems is important in that it points to the social construction of such artifacts. Likewise, Bijker discusses two power conceptions, semiotic and micropolitics of power (p. 263). He explains the need to understand the influences of “systemic or institutional aspects of power” in relation to his research. The use of both semiotic and micropolitics create a double view of power: semiotic as structural, and micropolitics as particular.
Winner (“Social constructivism”) challenges social constructivism with the question, “How well does it help orient our understanding of the place of technology in human affairs?” (p. 234). He then argues that social constructivism is “sociology of technology that has little concern for the ways in which technologies transform personal experience and social relations” (p. 237). While I agree that cultural relativism and social constructivism can lead one down the path of ‘taking no position’, I do think it has some other qualities that make up for its often neutral position. Actually, I do think Bijker does take some pretty radical positions in his book, and does not merely lay out the ways technology and the social are connected. He argues about power, class, gender, etc: there are “no actors or social groups that have special status. All relevant social groups contribute to the social construction of technology; all relevant artifacts contribute to the construction of social relations” (p. 288). His is a holistic view of the social construction of technology, where no one actor is weighed as more influential than the next.
Berg and Lie (“Feminism and constructivism: Do artifacts have gender?”) discuss their encounters with feminism and constructivism in the field of technology studies. They explain the importance of these two concepts meeting in an attempt to “analyze technologies and gender as social constructs. According to Berg and Lie, “gender is important in the social construction of technology and…technologies are important in the social construction of gender” (p. 345). Obviously, Berg, Lie, and Bijker subscribe to some form of constructivism (gender or social) in relation to technology. While text focuses on different aspects of this connection, one must note, especially, the importance of relevant social groups in this construction. Berg and Lie do not use the term specifically, but their use of gender is employed in similar fashion to the way Bijker views relevant social groups. Berg and Lie simply focus on gender as the relevant social group, and Bijker considers a vast array of such groups.
Foucault (“Panopticonism”) discusses power with relation to the technology that enforces it. Bijker directly references Foucault: “…[in his] study of the development of discipline, this micropolitics of power results in producing obedient human bodies; in my framework the focus will be on producing technological frames” (p. 263). As Bijker states, “technological frame is a theoretical concept: it is used by the analyst to order data and to facilitate the interpretation of the interactions within a relevant social group” (p. 124). I am still trying to gain a hold onto the research methods and design employed in the field of LRSP, so I’d like to discuss this idea a bit further because I think it might be useful to understand in the long run.
Qualities/requirements for a technological frame:
-structures the interactions between actors within a relevant social group
-located between actors
-technological frame is built up once actors interact around an artifact
-If these interactions do not continue, the technological frame will cease to exist; there will be no relevant social group, and no future interaction.
-A technological frame constitutes technology: It “comprises all elements that influence the interactions within relevant social groups and lead to the attribution of meanings to technical artifacts.”
-Technological frame must be applicable to all relevant social groups, even “nontechnologists”: To do so, one must “incorporate users’ practice and perceived substitution function.”
-The stabilization of an artifact leads to the emergence of the criteria that define the artifact; these criteria are crucial to the “building up” of the technological frame.
-“The technological frame comprises the actors’ criteria for ‘working’ and ‘nonworking’
-Again, the technological frame is a theoretical concept used by an analyst to order her data and to aid in the interpretation of the “interactions within a relevant social group.”
-In situations where the analyst focuses on “instability, controversy, and change” the technological frame will be helpful in interpretation.
(This information is informed by pp. 123-125.)
Okay, now that I’ve laid this out, I’d like to put forth some questions. As a theoretical concept, how does the technological frame lend itself to generating research on writing? How can it be used to generate a theory of writing? Or, more specifically, can anyone think of any other research that includes the concept of a technological frame with relation to writing technologies specifically?
Response to Elliot: “I also had some issues with Bijker's rather rigid definition of "technological frames". While Bijker states that "an artifact has a fluid and everchanging character...each problem and each solution, as soon as they are perceived by a relevant social group, changes the artifact's meaning, whether the solution is implemented or not." (p. 52) If artifacts, given meaning and use through their "technological frames" constructed by "relevant social groups", are "fluid and everchanging", how can there ever be closure. Perhaps I am mistaken, but the dynamic nature of artifacts--as well as the dynamic nature of socials groups and the "technological frames" such groups produce--negates any notion of stasis or closure I can think of. There is no final artifact.”
This is an interesting point, because the concept of closure may insinuate that the topic will no longer exist. Obviously there are things that do work this way, things that we no longer have access to: i.e. lost languages that existed once but we have no record of and thus cannot even discuss them because we do not even know of their past existence. So, the concepts/technologies that have reached closure, as noted by Bijker, have not actually reached closure in the sense of my previous example. We can still talk about them, research them historically, etc. Therefore, they still exist, and in some way, do not have a literal closure.
Bijker argues that closure and stabilization are “two aspects of the same process” (p. 85). Does this mean that closure is not necessarily an end, but rather an aspect of the process of ending? Bijker explains that “closure, in the analysis of technology, means that the interpretative flexibility of an artifact diminishes” (p. 86). This leads to a “consensus among the different relevant social groups about the dominant meaning of an artifact” (p. 86). Therefore, once an artifact is no longer dominant (i.e. the Ordinary bicycle vs. the one of modern day), it literally ceases to exist (despite various museum specimens). The artifact is no longer manufactured, and is viewed as obsolete.
I think, rather than looking at closure as literally the end-of-an-artifact, it notes the “change/continuity” of technology (p. 88). Traces of the Ordinary bicycle remain in today’s models, and while the Ordinary is no longer manufactured and it as a design concept no longer employed, the purposes and ideas that stemmed from users of such a machine continue through to today’s designs. Does this make sense?
My last post on Bijker’s concept of symmetry got me thinking about queer theory. I’ve also been wrestling with how to write a paper on writing technologies from a queer perspective or what would be considered a “queer” writing technology. The concept of symmetry sparked some thought in this area. Bijker argues that relevant social groups see different artifacts as “working” or “non-working” based on how they see them. I began to think of transgendered individuals who decide to have sex-reassignment surgery. The term transgender has a complicated history. Earlier conceptions (70s & 80s) render “trans” (a shorthand for “transgendered individuals” via the local LGBT cultural dialect; “transies” is a variant) as “a woman trapped inside the body of a man” or vice versa. Sex-reassignment surgery is then seen as a corrective to this biological mistake (being born in the wrong body). According to the transgender relevant social group, the technology of the body is “non-working.” Interestingly, we can see the body as a technology retrospectively after we consider sex-reassignment surgery, or any surgery for that matter as a technology. The notion that the body is natural is suspect for transgendered individuals and the distance that we typically feel in the west (this feeling is manifested, of course, not by any natural means but by our own conception of a hard and fast split between technology and ourselves) between human and machine is exactly the distance these individuals (from this perspective originated in the 70s/80s, which some still adopt) feel between their identity and their body. The point I’m trying to make here is that from the relevant social group transgendered individuals (at least those adopting more essentialist notions of gender—“there is a woman deep down inside me that my body lies about”) their bodies are considered “non-working,” despite common notions of the true or given “natural” body, “working” in its “original” state. Other relevant social groups including heteronormative straight folks as well as members of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community hold that the body is “working” when genitals are able to function sexually or reproductively irrespective of their congruity or incongruity with an individual’s gender identity. These same people, straight or queer (but equally heteronormative in ideology), would render the surgery as a “non-working” artifact because of its generally limited function in the sex act and its sterility. Power plays through relevant social groups through the fact that the surgery is so expensive because it is deemed a cosmetic surgery, through the biases of some of the medical profession (their technological frame of the body), and through the requirement that individuals must see a psychologist for one year before surgery.
This issue of “working” and “non-working” technology can also be considered after sex-reassignment surgery. After surgery a transgendered individual may be termed a transsexual. The product of the surgery, either a vagina or a penis, is considered by transgendered individuals as “working” because their bodies and minds are now in concert—their identity matches their genitals. The crafting of the vagina from the nerve material in the head of the penis and the use of a nerve found in the leg (typically) for the construction of the vagina help to render the artifacts as “working” in terms of sexual stimulation (and, of course, everything else that we attach to the sex act—emotion, spirituality, pleasure, etc.). The technology has not been perfected. In other words, the artifacts produced are not exact replicas of the organs they are meant to represent; they are only approximations in terms of the “functionality” of sexual pleasure and are not able to function for the purposes of reproduction. Despite this, transgendered individuals may see these artifacts as “working” because of the now physical congruity they feel.
Wow! I have so much more to say, especially about more queer conceptions of transgendered individuals and how this may relate to writing (writing on the body??). I’ll save that for another time for sake of space on the blog and my own time (moving on to Isocrates! Woohoo!).
I apologize that I have nothing to offer on Jonathan’s interesting thoughts about transgendered individuals and queer theory relating to working and non-working technologies. My only excuse is that I am quite new to this way of thinking, and my poor literature mind is, for lack of a better word, reeling. So, here I go…
Bijker writes that technological development should be viewed as a social process and not autonomous and he continues on to explain the importance of social groups. However, he states the problems that arise in the area of social groups because of the powerless social groups and their invisibility in the account of the social process when forming technological developments. Then Bijker goes on to say that the “problem of the ‘missing groups’ does not exist if the conceptual framework I am developing is taken in the right spirit—as a collection of sensitizing concepts that aims to provide the research with a set of heuristics with which to study technological development”(49). I find this very curious because I do not see how the problem of missing groups would “not matter” or not exist. I think that if he is addressing a social process then he should also address the non-voices that are involved because they should have made some impact on the entire outcome of the technology…so why say it is acceptable to leave them out?
Of course, I could have misread the entire thing, but it does seem to me that Bijker makes the statement that it is OK to leave out particular groups so that his/anyone’s analysis continues fluidly. He does allow for the women to be a relevant social group in his bicycle analysis and I thought that was noteworthy because on the whole, they were a much more “non-voiced” group as opposed to the athletic men of the time, but he doesn’t seem to delve on the social group that couldn’t afford the bicycles and whatnot. Again, perhaps I missed something but I just see this as a very interesting way to view the “social process” of technology development—seems to me, just leave out the ones that don’t fit and continue on your merry way is a possible exaggerated way to say what Bijker is justifying. However, I do realize the problems that could occur when a person in Bijker’s position tries to “hear” or take into account every social group’s voice—that would be a lot of information and quite difficult to sift through. Bijker states that he is “proposing a combined method of ‘snowballing’ and ‘following the actors’ as heuristics”(49) so I suppose that he is attempting to make the most relevant voices heard. I realize that I just flip-flopped on my opinion of what Bijker is saying about relevant social groups and their voices in his analysis, but I suppose I can see both sides of the coin and am perhaps playing a tentative devil’s advocate.
I appreciate Lindsey’s explication of the technological frame and the questions she offered up for consideration. Lindsey asked, “As a theoretical concept, how does the technological frame lend itself to generating research on writing? How can it be used to generate a theory of writing?”
As I re-read her list of frame qualities with these questions in mind, the communication triangle came to mind. Might this writer-audience-text relationship constitute a technological frame?
To specify further, Lindsey’s first point was that the frame structures interaction between actors within a relevant social group. Several examples of texts as frames could apply here. For instance, within the frame / technology of a newspaper, we as readers have certain expectations about how things will appear, the ways that the text will be structured, etc. If we carry these expectations as readers, we are in fact actors within that frame. I’m thinking back to January 2007 when the Wall Street Journal decided to update some of its layout in what they claimed was an effort to make it both more aesthetic and more user-friendly. Here’s a side by side comparison from a graphic design blog: http://vwcc.blogspot.com/2007/01/wall-street-journal-redesign.html
The editorial staff very consciously and conscientiously explained to the readers why/how/when this alteration was coming, and in this way, sought to accommodate and respond to the readers’ (as a relevant social group of actors) expectation of continuity. In fact, they published an 8 page readers’ guide explaining their choices regarding modifications. See this blogsite for a commentary on this: WSJ Redesigns with Reader’s Guide » UIE Brain Sparks The social group of editors/actors also dealt with the reader/actors’ possible criteria of “working” and “non-working” in this process, as they explained how they perceived potentially greater functionality/reader-friendliness through the alterations being made to the newspaper. In other words, the editors explained why the technology was not working and sought to reframe it as such for the readership. They then posited a new “working” technology through the new layout.
I think we could continue through the other points you’ve laid out and continue to see the newspaper/text working as a technological frame. While I’m not sure that I’ve really gotten at Lindsey’s questions as to how this leads to generating research on writing, this has helped me a little in thinking about texts as technology.
~Beth
Hey guys- I wrote these posts over a week ago, but neglected to have Pam invite me. So forgive me if these replies are hopelessly out of date.
Oh, and for future weeks, we should probably break up each reading discussion into its own thread/post. That'll be easier than reading one chain of replies compiled throughout the semester.
My impressions of the text:
To begin, I think that old-timey bikes are a source of endless hilarity (as with any late 19th/early 20th technology with a real Mr. Burns-ish antiquated quality to it), so I was compelled from the first chapter. Of course those old bikes looked stupid—they were supposed to look stupid! Well, maybe stupid is the wrong word; I guess words like “impractical” and “dangerous” would best be suited for those asymmetrical death machines. They were the mechanical bulls of their day, or perhaps ATVs; I’m not sure which has crippled/wounded more people. Whatever the case, at one point in history, the very act of getting on a bike was deemed impressive, instead of just a childhood rite of passage.
I have a certain fascination with the scandalous/interesting stories behind the innocuous and ubiquitous objects (or, in the context of this class, artifacts) of today. And that’s really what this book is about; delving into the things we take for granted as a part of everyday life. It never fails that throughout history, the reaction to most new technologies/media is “Surely X will destroy is all.” The theme of my writing class is the thesis of Steven Johnson’s Everything Bad Is Good For You, which states that “popular culture has, on average, grown more complex and intellectually challenging over the past thirty years." So, we study video games, television, and movies (in that order), which are all kinds of technology; and I like to put things in perspective by first showing my students some of the ludicrous reactions to different media considered harmless today, like novels, comic books, and radio.
The biography of the bicycle—and unfortunately, not the research methods of Bijker—from the book captured my attention the most because A.) I now use a bike for practical purposes as opposed to recreational ones, which kind of follows the “evolution” of bike use as seen in Bijker, and B.) the growing concerns and subsequent bike mania of late 19th/early 20th century society were fascinatingly strange and had much to say about a people (and their respective social groups) and their reactions to a new technology. This also got me to question why more cities don’t have bike lanes on their streets, what with the aforementioned bike mania happening as most towns were booming; I’m guessing they were all paved over when car mania hit the US in the 30s. Still, I found it funny when, during the time period Bijker writes about, someone proposed that bikes should have their own roadways, like the railroads. A good amount of the recreational bike trails in this area are paved over the old railroad lines.
Some of my fixation draws back to our first week’s readings, especially the one about Robert Moses’ racially and socially motivated design of the NTC roadways. I also thought of James Howard Kunstler, who I mentioned in the first class; he does a lot of entertaining and insightful grumbling about urban sprawl and the fact that the infrastructure of America was built under the belief that we would have cheap gasoline in perpetuity. I’ll post the link when I dig it up—it’s actually on-topic!
Response to Barbara Re: Writing Technologies
Don’t feel too guilty about your lack of blogging experience; blogging is a requirement in my college writing classes, and this semester, none of my students admitted to using blogs, or even knowing what they were. Not one person! Of course, I could have thrown it back in their faces and asked if they use “notes” on FaceBook of whatever the hell they call blogging on MySpace, because it’s all the same—but I didn’t. I guess there is some kind of weird social stigma behind technical knowledge, or maybe the real reason is that most of these kids are caught up in the high school “knowing stuff is uncool” mindset. Your guess is as good as mine.
But since we’re talking about writing technologies—which I assume we’ll be doing this entire semester—I have to criticize Bijker’s work in that I think a physical book just feels wrong for the information he’s trying to convey. I praise his use of pictures, especially because authors of academic work seem so resistant to using them even when they’re necessary, but the descriptions of the various iterations of all the technology can be dull, and, at times, hard to come up with a picture of in your head. Of course, his non-biographical discussion was perfect for the book format, but the actual history of the items would feel more at home as a documentary on The Discovery Channel. Any thoughts?
Response to Beth:
In addition to your WSJ example, the Cleveland Plain Dealer is also doing (yet another) redesign. Publisher Terry Egger explains this redesign: “Today, we are sharing in another community challenge: a tough, rapidly shifting economy that is demanding changes of nearly every big industry, small business and individual household…In addition to coping with the cyclical economic realities affecting everyone, our industry is reacting to a revolution in how Americans get their news and information.” http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/06/a_message_to_northeast_ohio_fr.html
In addition to Beth’s comment about reframing the technology for the readership, with the Plain Dealer example, we can also see how the technology is reframed with the advertisers and the newspaper in mind. Egger, rather implicitly, explains how the redesign will move things around to accommodate more information in less space (To save money? To put more effort into electronic news sources?).
To refer back to Bijker, a technological frame “comprises all elements that influence the interactions within relevant social groups and lead to the attribution of meanings to technical artifacts” (p. 123). It is interesting to note the shifting (?) elements within a technological frame when an artifact changes. I’m particularly interested in the changes that occur when a print artifact is revamped into an electronic artifact. This can be seen in the change from print news to electronic news. Earlier, I asked how the technological frame might inform a theory of writing, and considering the meaning-making that occurs through writing, how this might change due to a shift in surface (i.e. print to electronic). I’m still working on these ideas, but I thought I’d put them out there to see what other people think.
Post a Comment