Difference between revisions of "Krummheuer2015a"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 3: Line 3:
 
|Author(s)=Antonia Krummheuer
 
|Author(s)=Antonia Krummheuer
 
|Title=Technical agency in practice: the enactment of artefacts as conversation partners, actants and opponents
 
|Title=Technical agency in practice: the enactment of artefacts as conversation partners, actants and opponents
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Actor-network theory; ethnomethodology; humans; nonhumans; technical agency
+
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Actor-network theory; ethnomethodology; humans; nonhumans; technical agency; AI reference list
 
|Key=Krummheuer2015a
 
|Key=Krummheuer2015a
 
|Year=2015
 
|Year=2015

Revision as of 00:51, 24 February 2021

Krummheuer2015a
BibType ARTICLE
Key Krummheuer2015a
Author(s) Antonia Krummheuer
Title Technical agency in practice: the enactment of artefacts as conversation partners, actants and opponents
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Actor-network theory, ethnomethodology, humans, nonhumans, technical agency, AI reference list
Publisher
Year 2015
Language
City
Month
Journal PsychNology Journal
Volume 13
Number 2-3
Pages 179-202
URL Link
DOI
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

The paper combines the discussion of technical agency and hybrid networks of Actor-Network Theory (ANT) with an ethnomethodological/conversation analytical (EMCA) perspective on situated practices in which participants ascribe agency to technical artefacts. While ANT works with (ethnographic) description of hybrid networks in which human and non-human actants are granted agency without differentiating different kinds of agency, EMCA focuses on the member's perspectives and the situated construction of technical agency that is made relevant within an ongoing interaction. Based on an EMCA analysis of three video recordings of situations in which technical agency is made relevant by the human participants, the paper demonstrates different ways in which agency is granted to technical artefacts. Human participants can treat a technology as communication partner, as an active part (and actant) of an activity or as an opponent of action. The paper argues that technical agency is neither an inherent affordance of an artefact nor something that remains the same during a course of action. The affordances of technical artefacts are enacted within situated and ongoing practices in socio-material settings in which the human participants orient towards the artefact in different ways; thereby, the construction of technical agency can shift from moment to moment.

Notes