Puetz2021
| Puetz2021 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Puetz2021 |
| Author(s) | Ole Pütz |
| Title | Managing exactness and vagueness in computer science work: Programming and self-repair in meetings |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, EMCA AI |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2021 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Social Studies of Science |
| Volume | 51 |
| Number | 6 |
| Pages | 938–961 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/03063127211010972 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
The formulation of computer algorithms requires the elimination of vagueness. This elimination of vagueness requires exactness in programming, and this exactness can be traced to meeting talk, where it intersects with the indexicality of expressions. This article is concerned with sequences in which a team of computer scientists discuss the functionality of prototypes that are already implemented or possibly to be implemented. The analysis focuses on self-repair because this is a practice where participants can be seen to orient to meanings of different expressions as alternatives. By using self-repair, the computer scientists show a concern with exact descriptions when they talk about existing functionality of their prototypes but not when they talk about potential future functionality. Instead, when participants talk about potential future functionality and attend to meanings during self-repair, they use vague expressions to indicate possibilities. Furthermore, when the computer scientists talk to external stakeholders, they indicate through hedges whenever their descriptions approximate already implemented technical functionality but do not describe it exactly. The article considers whether the code of working prototypes can be said to fix meanings of expressions and how we may account for human agency and non-human resistances during development.
Notes
