Reading Counting, accounting, and accountability: Helen Verran’s relational empiricism”

Just read Martha Kenney’s Count­ing, account­ing, and account­ab­il­ity: Helen Verran’s rela­tion­al empir­i­cism”.

The art­icle is cur­rently avail­able through the Social Stud­ies of Sci­ence Online­First ser­vice. Inten­tion­ally or not, it sits nicely with oth­er art­icles brought togeth­er to exam­ine .

Ken­ney, M. (2015). Count­ing, account­ing, and account­ab­il­ity: Helen Verran’s rela­tion­al empir­i­cism. Social Stud­ies of Sci­ence, 1 – 23.

Kenney’s art­icle is very much a homage to Helen Ver­ran and her won­der­ful book Sci­ence and an Afric­an Logic. She pays spe­cial atten­tion to Verran’s efforts at decom­pos­i­tion and frames these through a lens of account­ab­il­ity. Care is giv­en by Kenny to dif­fer­en­ti­ate this kind of account­ing from that of con­tem­por­ary neo-liberal bur­eau­cra­cies” that run the risk of strength­en­ing the aca­dem­ic cul­ture that priv­ileges cri­tique and rev­el­a­tion over oth­er, more subtle and cre­at­ive, approaches.” (more…)

See, for example, Mar­tin, A., Myers, N., & Viseu, A. (2015). The polit­ics of care in tech­nos­cience. Social Stud­ies of Sci­ence, 1 – 17.

Back to interaction (a reply to Barry)

I’m grate­ful to Barry Brown for his com­ments on my short Inter­ac­tions piece, After Inter­ac­tion”.

Barry, as always, you’ve forced me to think more care­fully about my mean­der­ings. Indeed, my inten­tion was to append a short reply to your com­ment, but your ques­tions have deman­ded more and, pre­dict­ably, words have got the bet­ter of me. This post, then, is my long-winded response. Thank you for giv­ing me the chance to expand on my thoughts.

First, let me respond to your cri­ti­cisms regard­ing the inter­ming­lings of humans and non­hu­mans. (more…)

Earthwide projects” at Shifting Borderlands, Aarhus 2015

I was delighted to par­ti­cip­ate in last month’s Shift­ing Bor­der­lands” work­shop at the decen­ni­al Aar­hus Con­fer­ence: Crit­ic­al Altern­at­ives . What an inspir­ing and mem­or­able event! My sin­cerest thanks to the organ­isers, Silvia, Mar­isa, Lucian, Hrönn and Carl.

The pos­i­tion papers — from a won­der­ful mix of people — are all online here. My own text was a short but ram­bling piece on some still under­developed ideas. I’ve been try­ing to think a little more crit­ic­ally about my role as a aca­dem­i­cian and a Microsoft research­er. Pre­dict­ably, in com­bin­a­tion, the roles raise all sorts of ques­tions and fric­tions for me. Increas­ingly, I’ve dir­ec­ted my efforts at think­ing about the worlds I’ve helped to enact and ask­ing wheth­er they are kinds of worlds that I would want to live in.

It’s hard to put it bet­ter than Donna Har­away:

My piece, Impact and Count­ing”, is avail­able here.

Har­away, D. (1988). Situ­ated know­ledges: The sci­ence ques­tion in fem­in­ism and the priv­ilege of par­tial per­spect­ive. Fem­in­ist stud­ies, 14(3): 579.

On Counting

Kat Jung­nick­el kindly invited me to a two day meet­ing as part of her con­tinu­ing series of Trans­mis­sions and Entan­gle­ments events. Amidst oth­ers work­ing through new meth­ods and pro­cesses, here’s what I had to say for myself on count­ing:

What is it to count and to be coun­ted?

One way I have made sense of my work over the last 10 years at Microsoft has been to see it as a way of get­ting to grips with count­ing and in some ways com­ing to terms with being coun­ted. (more…)

Presenting Data in place”

We’re present­ing a paper at CHI this year on Ten­ison Road.

Alex S. Taylor, Siân Lind­ley, Tim Regan, Dav­id Sweeney, Vasil­is Vlachokyriakos, Lil­lie Grainger, Jessa Lin­gel (2015), Data-in-Place: Think­ing through the Rela­tions Between Data and Com­munity, CHI 2015.

Here’s the abstract:

We present find­ings from a year-long engage­ment with a street and its com­munity. The work explores how the pro­duc­tion and use of data is bound up with place, both in terms of phys­ic­al and social geo­graphy. We detail three strands of the pro­ject. First, we con­sider how res­id­ents have sought to cur­ate exist­ing data about the street in the form of an archive with phys­ic­al and digit­al com­pon­ents. Second, we report endeav­ours to cap­ture data about the street’s envir­on­ment, espe­cially of vehicle traffic. Third, we draw on the pos­sib­il­it­ies afforded by tech­no­lo­gies for polling opin­ion. We reflect on how these engage­ments have: mater­i­al­ised dis­tinct­ive rela­tions between the com­munity and their data; sur­faced flows and con­tours of data, and spa­tial, tem­por­al and social bound­ar­ies; and enacted a mul­ti­pli­city of small worlds’. We con­sider how such a con­cep­tu­al­isa­tion of data-in-place is rel­ev­ant to the design of tech­no­logy.

Published Modelling Biology – working through (in-)stabilities and frictions

Just had our paper on Com­pu­ta­tion­al Bio­logy pub­lished in the online journ­al Com­pu­ta­tion­al Cul­ture.

Alex S. Taylor, Jas­min Fish­er, Byron Cook, Sam­in Ish­tiaq and Nir Piter­man (2014) Mod­el­ling Bio­logy – work­ing through (in-)stabilities and fric­tions. Com­pu­ta­tion­al Cul­ture, 1 (4).


Abstract: Com­pu­ta­tion­al bio­logy is a nas­cent field reli­ant on soft­ware cod­ing and mod­el­ling to pro­duce insights into bio­lo­gic­al phe­nom­ena. Extreme claims cast it as a field set to replace con­ven­tion­al forms of exper­i­ment­al bio­logy, see­ing soft­ware mod­el­ling as a (more con­veni­ent) proxy for bench-work in the wet-lab. In this art­icle, we deep­en and com­plic­ate the rela­tions between com­pu­ta­tion and sci­entif­ic ways of know­ing by dis­cuss­ing a com­pu­ta­tion­al bio­logy tool, BMA, that mod­els gene reg­u­lat­ory net­works. We detail the instabil­it­ies and fric­tions that sur­face when com­pu­ta­tion is incor­por­ated into sci­entif­ic prac­tice, fram­ing the ten­sions as part of knowing-in-progress — the prac­tic­al back and forth in work­ing things out. The work exem­pli­fies how soft­ware stud­ies — and care­ful atten­tion to the mater­i­al­it­ies of com­pu­ta­tion — can shed light on the emer­ging sci­ences that rely on cod­ing and com­pu­ta­tion. Fur­ther, it puts to work a stand­point that sees com­pu­ta­tion as tightly entangled with forms of sci­entif­ic know­ing and doing, rather than a whole­sale replace­ment of them.