Introduction to Thinking Infrastructures

Bowker, Geoffrey C.; Elyachar, Julia; Kornberger, Martin; Mennicken, Andrea; Miller, Peter; Nucho, Joanne Randa; Pollock, Neil

doi:10.1108/s0733-558x20190000062001

Cited by 41 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nimmt man nur die einzelnen Bewertungsinstrumente in den Blick, besteht die Gefahr, sie statisch zu begreifen. Im Gegensatz dazu macht der Begriff der Infrastruktur deutlich, dass es um Relationalität und das Zusammen-K spiel verschiedener Instrumente geht (Bowker et al 2019). Wie Star und Ruhleder (2001) argumentieren, ist Infrastruktur im Kern eine Relation und niemals ein bloßes Objekt.…”

unclassified

Von Performativität zu Generativität: Bewertung und ihre Folgen im Kontext der Digitalisierung

Mennicken

Kornberger

2021

Köln Z Soziol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zusammenfassung In diesem Beitrag gehen wir zwei Fragen nach. Erstens, inwiefern kann ein Fokus auf Praktiken der Bewertung zur Klärung des Zusammenhangs zwischen Vergleich, Kategorisierung und Quantifizierung beitragen? Und zweitens, inwieweit verhilft er dazu, die Voraussetzungen und Folgen neuer digitaler Formate, wie etwa Vergleichsportale, Empfehlungssysteme oder Screening-und Scoring-Verfahren, besser zu verstehen? Im Gegensatz zur Auffassung, dass Wert im Bewusstsein des Subjekts (als Präferenz) existiert oder eine objektive Eigenschaft eines Gutes ist, argumentieren wir, dass ein Gut erst durch Bewertungspraktiken und -technologien wie Ratings, Rankings und andere evaluative Infrastrukturen als wertvoll oder als nicht wertvoll bestimmt wird. Wir entwickeln einen analytischen Rahmen für die Untersuchung interaktiver, digitalisierter Bewertungstechnologien und schlagen vor, dass sich solche Technologien besser analysieren und verstehen lassen, wenn wir den Fokus auf drei Elemente legen: erstens auf evaluative Infrastrukturen, verstanden als Bewertungsregime -und nicht als einzelne Bewertungsinstrumente, zweitens auf das Protokoll als ein evaluativen Infrastrukturen eigenes Machtinstrument, wobei Macht in diesem Fall paradoxerweise (und im Unterschied zum Disziplinarregime) zugleich verteilt und konzentriert ist, und drittens auf das generative (statt nur performative) Potenzial solcher digitalisierter Bewertungsregime, also deren Fähigkeit, neue Werte und Kategorisierungen mittels evaluativer Infrastrukturen zu produzieren.

show abstract

unclassified

Von Performativität zu Generativität: Bewertung und ihre Folgen im Kontext der Digitalisierung

Mennicken

Kornberger

2021

Köln Z Soziol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead, and following a line of thought initiated by Laurent Thévenot, Bowker et al understand investment as investment in forms; that is, investment in dedicated ways in which the world is made dividable, intelligible, knowledgeable and actionable. Put differently, investments in form not only organize thinking and thought; they equally 'direct action across multiple settings and multiple temporal scales' (Bowker et al, 2019 :1 -our emphasis; cf. Thévenot, 2009).…”

Section: Investments In Formsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction: Critical studies of digital education platforms

Decuypère

Grimaldi

Landri

2021

Critical Studies in Education

168

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All over the world, education is undergoing substantial changes in the wake of rapid technological developments. As our world is becoming ever more digitized, the educational sector is increasingly infused with digital games, apps, websites, social media, and learning environments. The Covid-19 pandemic, and associated measures of social distancing and school closures all over the world, have accelerated this digitization, triggering an urgent need for critical, up-close scrutiny of how this digitization is reshaping the worlds of education. The focus of this Special Issue is especially on digital education platforms. Over the last years, such platforms have become progressively prevalent, and both global and local technology companies have become omnipresent providers of such platforms, in private as well as in in public education (Van Dijck et al., 2018). From platforms tailored to primary and secondary schools to platforms specifically constructed for the field of higher education; from digital environments designed to manage pupils' learning to environments focused on the monitoring of their behavior; and from digital spaces bundling a variety of functionalities to interfaces with a more singular function: no matter the focus, there seems to exist a corresponding digital platform used within (and often especially made for) the educational field (Hillman et al., 2020; Robertson, 2019; Williamson, 2019). Furthermore, the worldwide growth and ubiquity of digital education platforms has greatly accelerated since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic and the associated newly emerging 'emergency pedagogies' that needed to be devised, often with help of both existing and newly developed digital education platforms (Williamson et al., 2020). In that sense, and in line with related scholarship on how education is taking-and changing-dedicated shapes, we advance the general thesis here that, under the influence of digital platforms, educational practices are gradually changing form (e.g., Decuypere & Vanden Broeck, 2020; Lewis, 2020b). Despite the steady rise and ubiquity of digital education platforms, however, educational research that adopts a critical gaze vis-à-vis such platforms is still surprisingly limited (

show abstract

“…Depending on the project, this might include technical artefacts like code or fully functioning tools that others can adopt for their own purposes. Beyond the sharing of data, open and collaborative practices at earlier stages of the research process can then result in the iterative development of 'thinking infrastructures' (Bowker et al 2019).…”

Section: (Intermediary) Outcomes Of Ois Practices Along the Entire Scmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Open Innovation in Science research field: a collaborative conceptualisation approach

Beck

Bergenholtz

Bogers

et al. 2020

Industry and Innovation

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Openness and collaboration in scientific research are attracting increasing attention from scholars and practitioners alike. However, a common understanding of these phenomena is hindered by disciplinary boundaries and disconnected research streams. We link dispersed knowledge on Open Innovation, Open Science, and related concepts such as Responsible Research and Innovation by proposing a unifying Open Innovation in Science (OIS) Research Framework. This framework captures the antecedents, contingencies, and consequences of open and collaborative practices along the entire process of generating and disseminating scientific insights and translating them into innovation. Moreover, it elucidates individual-, team-, organisation-, field-, and society-level factors shaping OIS practices. To conceptualise the framework, we employed a collaborative approach involving 47 scholars from multiple disciplines, highlighting both tensions and commonalities between existing approaches. The OIS Research Framework thus serves as a basis for future research, informs policy discussions, and provides guidance to scientists and practitioners.

show abstract

Introduction to Thinking Infrastructures

Cited by 41 publications

References 24 publications

Von Performativität zu Generativität: Bewertung und ihre Folgen im Kontext der Digitalisierung

Von Performativität zu Generativität: Bewertung und ihre Folgen im Kontext der Digitalisierung

Introduction: Critical studies of digital education platforms

The Open Innovation in Science research field: a collaborative conceptualisation approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About