Hash out theory around power balances

[jgmac1106]

I am happy to go your route in terms of a guiding theory for the two case studies. It sounds interesting. I would love to find connections between your theories, my literacy theories of training, and then connecting back to political theory.

Might be beyond scope of this project but I am really excited.

[jgmac1106]

Actually I think we should frame this piece using your theories. I will then follow this up with what the pedagogical implications are.

[jackjamieson2]

Cool, I'll write up a theoretical section on Monday. I'll aim for 1000 words so the literacy theories of training can make up the other half.

Roughly I'll cover:

• Humans and nonhumans co-constitute one another. -> technologies that shape our students' learning environments have significant impact on students themselves
• Power imbalance between users and platforms. (e.g. Most platforms are what Ursula Franklin called 'prescriptive' rather than 'holistic' technologies, at least when compared to building one's own website). (I wrote a bit about this at http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/6792/5522#p2)

By the way, what's the venue for this paper?

[jgmac1106]

This is going to be awesome. I honestly can't remember where the publication is going, I will find out. I think these theories are going to mesh so well together...

…

On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM Jack Jamieson ***@***.***> wrote: Cool, I'll write up a theoretical section on Monday. I'll aim for 1000 words so the literacy theories of training can make up the other half. Roughly I'll cover: - Humans and nonhumans co-constitute one another. -> technologies that shape our students' learning environments have significant impact on students themselves - Power imbalance between users and platforms. (e.g. Most platforms are what Ursula Franklin called 'prescriptive' rather than 'holistic' technologies, at least when compared to building one's own website). (I wrote a bit about this at http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/6792/5522#p2) By the way, what's the venue for this paper? — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKC-plwcnPbNXjm54Z6zhj3iqJgX_7CLks5unITzgaJpZM4XydBH> .

[jackjamieson2]

Just updated with a bit of progress. Some writer's block today but I think this is a good start.

I ended up focusing on the power issues first (which define the problem) and I think the human-nonhuman relationships should come after as this section can help frame a path forward. Ratto's essay on critical making is a good touchstone for what I'm thinking here (especially re: Latour's matters of fact and matters of concern):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220175067_Critical_Making_Conceptual_and_Material_Studies_in_Technology_and_Social_Life

[jackjamieson2]

I'm really happy to see how well this is lining up!

I fleshed out the 'humans and sociotechnical systems' section (may need a different heading...)
The key point I'm trying to get at is:

• technological infrastructures shape our social order
• But we can shape them too!
• Prescriptive designs can hide opportunities for intervention
• We should strive to give our students tools that reveal their malleability, since this empowers them to influence their world

This is also making me think back to an excerpt from Dewey's great community chapter:

For most persons, the reality of the apparatus is found only in its embodiments in practical affairs, in mechanical devices and in techniques which touch life as it is lived. For them, electricity is known by means of the telephones, bells and lights they use, by the generators and magnetos in the automobiles they drive, by the trolley cars in which they ride.

This highlights that prescriptive technologies can become the face for a whole system, making it harder to see that the system itself can be changed

[jgmac1106]

That is perfect