Genanvendt: Et kritisk tilbageblik på digitale metoders konsekvenser for kontroverskortlægningen
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22439/dansoc.v29i1.5722Nøgleord:
digitale metoder, ANT, STS, kontroverskortlægning.Resumé
Digitale metoders centrale postulat er, at vi kan genanvende nettets medier til at sige noget om samfundet i øvrigt. Det gælder ikke mindst indenfor kontroverskortlægningen,hvor digitale medier er blevet væsentlige skuepladser for diskussioner om ny viden og teknologi. Begrebet genanvendelse synes at indebære, at en eksisterende metodisk og analytisk tradition finder nye måder at bruge nogle redskaber på. Vi kan således have en tendens til at spørge, hvordan kontroverskortlægningen har fundet nye anvendelser for værktøjer til eksempelvis mønstergenkendelse eller automatiseret tekstanalyse. I denne artikel argumenterer jeg for, at vi bør stille spørgsmålet om genanvendelse anderledes. Efter 15 år i tæt parløb med nettets indfødte medier og metoder kan vi konstatere, at det også er kontroverskortlægningen selv, der har forandret sig; at det i nogen grad også er den metodiske og analytiske tradition, der er blevet genanvendt til nye formål og i sine nye redskabers billede. ENGELSK ABSTRACT: Anders Kristian Munk: Repurposed: a critical review of digital methods and their consequences for the cartography of controversies The central claim of digital methods is that we can repurpose online media to make claims about society more generally. This is not least the case in controversy mapping where digital media have become significant arenas for discussions about new knowledge and technology. The concept of repurposing seems to suggest that an existing methodological and analytical tradition is finding new ways of using a set of tools. We can thus have a tendency to ask how controversy mapping has found new applications for tools designed to do for example pattern recognition or automated text analysis. In this paper I argue that we should be approaching the question of repurposing from a different angle. After 15 years of close engagements with the native media and methods of the web it is evident that the practice of controversy mapping has also in itself changed; that it is also, to some extent, the methodological and analytical tradition that has been repurposed under the influence of its new tools. Keywords: Digital methods, ANT, STS, controversy mappingReferencer
Barry, A. (2013). Material politics: Disputes along the pipeline. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118529065
Birkbak, A. (2012). »Crystallizations in the blizzard: contrasting informal emergency collaboration in Facebook groups.« In Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on HumanComputer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design(pp. 428-437). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2399016.2399082
Birkbak, A., & Munk, A.K. (2017). Digitale metoder. Hans Reitzel.
Blok, A., & Jensen, T.E. (2009). Bruno Latour – hybride tanker i en hybrid verden. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Borra, E., Weltevrede, E., Ciuccarelli, P., Kaltenbrunner, A., Laniado, D., Magni, G., ... & Venturini, T. (2014). »Contropedia-the analysis and visualization of controversies in Wikipedia articles«. In OpenSym (pp. 34-1). https://doi.org/10.1145/2641580.2641622
Callon, M., Courtial, J.P., & Laville, F. (1991). »Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemistry«. Scientometrics, 22(1), 155-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019280
Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world. An essay on technological democracy. MIT Press.
Callon, M., Rip, A., & Law, J. (1986). Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-07408-2
Callon, M. (1999). »The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge«. Science, Technology and Society, 4(1), 81-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/097172189900400106
Callon, M. (1986). »The sociology of an actor-network: The case of the electric vehicle«. In Mapping the dynamics of science and technology (pp. 19-34). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-07408-2_2
Callon, M. (1984). »Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay«. The Sociological Review, 32(S1), 196-233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x
Epstein, S. (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge (Vol. 7). Univ of California Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1963). »A conception of and experiments with ’trust’ as a condition of concerted stable actions«. The production of reality: Essays and readings on social interaction, 381-392.
Latour, B., Jensen, P., Venturini, T., Grauwin, S., & Boullier, D. (2012). »The whole is always smaller than its parts«–a digital test of Gabriel Tardes’ monads. The British journal of sociology, 63(4), 590-615. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2012.01428.x
Latour, B., & Callon, M. (1981). »Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so«. Advances in social theory and methodology, 277-303.
Latour, B. (1990). »Technology is society made durable«. The Sociological Review, 38(1_suppl), 103-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03350.x
Latour, B. (1993). The pasteurization of France. Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1999). »On recalling ANT«. The Sociological Review, 47(S1), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1999.tb03480.x
Latour, B. (2004). »On using ANT for studying information systems: a (somewhat) Socratic dialogue.« The social study of information and communication technology: Innovation, actors, and contexts, 62-76.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford university press.
Law, J, (2002) Aircraft stories: Decentering the object in technoscience. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822383543
Law, J. (2008). »On sociology and STS. The sociological review, 56(4), 623-649. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2008.00808.x
Law, J. (2009). »Actor network theory and material semiotics«. The new Blackwell companion to social theory, 141-158. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444304992.ch7
Lomborg, S., & Bechmann, A. (2014). »Using APIs for data collection on social media«. The Information Society, 30(4), 256-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2014.915276
Madsen, A.K. (2012). »Web-visions as controversy-lenses«. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 37(1), 51-68. https://doi.org/10.1179/0308018812Z.0000000004
Marres, N., & Gerlitz, C. (2016). Interface methods: renegotiating relations between digital social research, STS and sociology
Marres, N. (2005). »Issues spark a public into being: A key but often forgotten point of the Lippmann-Dewey debate.« Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy, 208-217.
Marres, N. (2015). »Why map issues? On controversy analysis as a digital method«. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40(5), 655-686. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915574602
Marres, N. (2017). Digital Sociology: The Reinvention of Social Research. Maden: Polity Press.
Munk, A.K. (2014). »Mapping Wind Energy Controversies: Introduction to methods and datasets«, Social Science Research Network.
Miller, D. (2016). Social media in an English village (p. 220). UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781910634431
Miller, D., & Slater, D. (2001). The Internet: an ethnographic approach.
Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., & Winograd, T. (1999). The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Stanford InfoLab.
Star, S.L. (1990). »Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions: on being allergic to onions«. The Sociological Review, 38(S1), 26-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03347.x
Trevor Pinch (2015). »Scientific Controversies«, In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), edited by James D. Wright,, Elsevier, Oxford, 281-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.85043-6
Pickering, A., & Cushing, J.T. (1986). »Constructing quarks: A sociological history of particle physics«. American Journal of Physics, 54. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.14594
Rogers, R. (2009). The end of the virtual: Digital methods (Vol. 339). Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.5117/9789056295936
Rogers, R. (2013). Digital Methods. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
Rogers, Richard. (2017). »Foundations of Digital Methods: Query Design.« In: The Datafied Society: Studying Culture through Data, Publisher: Amsterdam University Press, Editors: Mirko Schaefer and Karin van Es, pp.75-94
Seeley, J.R. (1949). »The Net of Reciprocal Influence. A Problem in Treating Sociometric Data«. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 234. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084096
Teil, G., & Latour, B. (1995). »The Hume machine: Can association networks do more than formal rules«. Stanford Humanities Review, 4(2), 47-65.
Venturini, T., Munk, A.K., & Jacomy, M. (2017). »Actor-Network VS Network Analysis VS Digital Networks Are We Talking About the Same Networks?«. Forthcoming in J. Vertesi & D. Ribes (eds) The Digital STS Handbook.
Venturini, T. (2010). »Diving in magma: How to explore controversies with actor-network theory.« Public understanding of science, 19(3), 258-273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509102694
Venturini, T. (2012). »Building on faults: how to represent controversies with digital methods.« Public Understanding of Science, 21(7), 796-812. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510387558
Weltevrede, E. (2016). »Repurposing digital methods.« PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Whatmore, S.J. (2009). »Mapping knowledge controversies: science, democracy and the redistribution of expertise.« Progress in Human Geography, 33(5), 587-598. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132509339841
