IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN

GLOBAL BUSINESS INFORMATICS

BACHELOR PROJECT

AIMEPerceptions and Experiences

Examinees:

Thomas NYRUP (tfny) &

Joachim THOMSEN (joac)

Supervisor:

Christopher GAD

August 28, 2015

Table of Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.1 Motivation and Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 Case Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3 Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.1 Philosophy of Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.2 Theoretical Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114.1 Ethnography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114.2 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134.3 Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155.1 The AIME Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165.2 Perceptions & Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5.2.1 What is a contribution? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185.2.2 Platform / Book / Workshop constellation . . . . . . . . . 25

6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306.1 Affordances and Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316.2 Technological Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

8 Critical Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Appendix

1

1 Introduction

‘An Inquiry into Modes of Existence’ (AIME) is an ambitious project initiated byworld-famous French philosopher, anthropologist and sociologist Bruno Latour1.It is a project of anthropology and philosophy into what Latour has called ‘TheModerns’ and ‘Modernization’, continuing from his previous work in ‘We havenever been Modern’ (Latour, 1993). The AIME project aims at re-thinking, or re-setting modernity by investigating and defining the values of modernity. Modes ofexistence is the notion which AIME uses to describe and categorize the differentvalues, and these modes are then subjected to trials in their crossings, in order toredefine and renegotiate them, and:

“The result is a set of shareable definitions of what modernization hasbeen in practice. This is important just at the moment when Europehas lost its privileged status and needs to be able to present itself in anew ways to the other cultures and civilizations which are making upthe world of globalization with very different views on what it is tomodernize themselves.” (European Research Council, 2015)

The project consists of a 500 page book, published in 2012. Alongside the pub-lished book, a digital platform has been developed, which holds references andsupporting material for the book, while it also serves as a platform for online col-laboration, and collecting of contributions to document the modes. Contributionsis an integral part of the AIME project, where readers sign up on a website (mod-esofexistence.org), and write contributions, thus making it a collaboratively per-formed inquiry. The project has been granted funds from the European ResearchCouncil (ERC).

We visited the AIME office at Sciences Po Medialab over a 5-week period, fromMarch 2nd to April 7th 2015, during which we conducted interviews with severalexternal and internal actors, and investigated the internal workings of the team interms of their use of the digital platform while working closely with the projectmanager, researchers, designers and developers.

1The research has received funding from the European Research Council under the EuropeanUnion’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC Grant ‘IDEAS’ 2010 n◦269567

2

1.1 Motivation and Research Question

This bachelor project is an investigation into the digital platform, with a focus onthe online collaboration tool of contributions, and the perspectives of participat-ing actors upon the platform, mainly with a focus on contributors’ point of view.We recognize that the platform holds several spaces, such as ‘Crossings’, but wehave chosen to focus on the ‘Book’ part of the digital platform, as it is wherecontributions are submitted and presented.

The motivation to enter into an investigation of the AIME project comes from ajoint personal interest into the field of STS, and the prior work of Bruno Latour.As students from a line of study focusing on global collaborative projects centeredaround technology, we found great interest in the ambition of AIME to create aplatform for a grand collective inquiry, engaging with diverse actors of differentbackgrounds. When we were kindly given the opportunity to visit the AIMEteam, we learned how there have been challenges in achieving the desired resultsthrough the platform, and that external qualitative research into the perspectivesof participants had never been acquired. It became our motivation to shed a lighton this aspect of the AIME inquiry.

Our research, and this report, is based on the following research question and subquestions:

How has the digital AIME platform been experienced and perceived by externalactors, engaging with the platform?

• How has external stakeholders in terms of appeal, access and use perceivedand experienced the project?

• How has actors who engaged with the platform been influenced by its de-sign, and how has the platform been influenced by the actors?

• How was the notion of contributions interpreted by participating actors?

It is important for us to note, that our experience of working within the inter-nal environment surrounding the AIME project has been incredibly positive. Wehave been openly provided with access to vast amounts of material, and we havefelt welcomed by the AIME team, and free to conduct our research without any

3

constraints or expectations towards the outcome. Our project is however focusedupon a critical investigation into conflicting perceptions. This report will there-fore largely contain critique points and discuss areas of difficulty, which mightgive the impression of a troubled environment surrounding the project. This is notrepresentative towards our experience of how the experiment has been conductedas a whole, and we therefor ask our readers to keep this in mind throughout thisreport.

2 Case Description

The AIME project As briefly explained in our introduction, the AIME projectconsists of a book by Latour, an online digital platform, as well as a series ofworkshops conducted around the world. Our focus has been centered on the digi-tal platform and it is this purpose-built platform combined with the book and theworkshops, which make up the inquiry into comparative anthropology aiming todefine certain modes of existence of modernity. Throughout the duration of theproject, more than 160 contributions have been submitted to the digital platform.Approximately 90 of them have been published, from around 60 different contrib-utors, in both French and English. Bruno Latour is the officially labeled primaryinvestigator of the project, and he has selected a group of people to help him invarious roles such as: (1) Administrative personnel, (2) Designers, (3) Develop-ers, (4) Mediators, and finally (5) the dynamic network of both drawn upon, andvoluntarily participating contributors. For ease of reading we will briefly list thecentral actors to our investigation, and their roles:

• Bruno Latour (Primary Investigator)

• Jason (Project Manager)

• Richard (Mediator)

• Walter (Mediator)

• John (Contributor)

• William (Contributor)

4

• Joshua (Contributor)

• Daniel (Reader)

(All names, apart from Bruno Latour, have been assigned aliases to somewhatensure their anonymity)

The ERC funding was successfully granted in 2010, the project was launched in2011, and has then evolved from then until the final events in July 2014, con-cluding with a two-day colloquium (AIME Website, nd, ‘The Phases’). The teamis preparing an exhibition, called ‘Reset Modernity!’, with artists and selectedparticipants to the AIME project, which will be held at ZKM in Karlsruhe inJune 2016. This exhibition will be the final event of the AIME project. Wealso participated in a final workshop which was held in June 2015, called ‘OpenAIME’, to “[...] communicate about the results and test the conceptual frameworkof the digital platform against other possible usages and enquiries”, where wepresented the findings of our research (AIME Website, Open AIME Workshop,12/06/2015)

Latour & AIME To provide some context for the reader, we will here pro-vide an overview of Latour’s work leading up to the AIME project, in order tounderstand the motivation behind the AIME project itself. Bruno Latour is ananthropologist who has a prominent history within philosophy and sociology ofscience. He is widely known in the academic world for his work within the fieldof science and technology studies (STS) where he is one of the originators ofactor-network theory (ANT), an approach that challenged the notion of certaintyin the tradition of modernist science by introducing the principle of irreduction atthe core of encountering networks of actors (both human and non-human) throughtheir associations (Latour, 2013; Gad and Bruun Jensen, 2010).

ANT has been met with dismay by many scientists due to Latour’s critique ofcertainty. But in his own account, it has been misinterpreted as containing a ques-tioning of the reliability of knowledge within the scientific fields (Latour, 2013).In the light of the current global climate challenges and the aforementioned mis-interpretations of Latour by modern scientists, along with Latour’s philosophical

5

showdown with Modernity in ‘We Have Never Been Modern’ (Latour, 1993), theAIME project is an attempt to empirically propose a different pluralistic accountof ontologies (modes of existence) on behalf of the modernists, as well as theircontrasting values as they intersect. The purpose of this endeavour is to facilitatea diplomatic renegotiation of these values and the institutions in which they areembedded, thus enabling a shift from modernizing towards ecologizing (Latour,2013). The performativity of the AIME project is a striking shift from ANT andscience studies by Latour, in this endeavour of empirical anthropology and phi-losophy in order to dispose with the normative logic that characterizes Modernity(Latour, 2013). No less is the means by which Latour is engaging with realizinghis efforts, namely through the use of a digital platform.

The work on the digital platform is closely related to the field of digital humani-ties, for more information regarding this area of research we refer to the following:Latour (2013); Burdick et al. (2012); Ricci and de Mourat (2015)

3 Theories

3.1 Philosophy of Science

We are students from a line of study encompassing several very diverse fields ofknowledge. Our investigation of the AIME project, as an inquiry into a pluralityof perspectives, which describe and deal with the (failed) ontologies of modernity,requires us to establish common ground with our readers on our positioning.

Our positioning We have engaged with our field of study using an ethnographicapproach, while relying on grounded theory to supply us with sufficient insightswithin our area of research to tailor a theoretical and methodological framework tosuit the situation. This approach also underlines the importance for us to examinethe field as closely as possible, which is why we chose to spend more than fiveweeks in close collaboration with, and within the everyday work setting of theactors we were investigating. The choice of subject, and our experience during

6

our fieldwork, has invoked a positioning within the field of STS to supply us withtools for uncovering the range of actors and actions surrounding AIME, as wellas to qualify the perspectives underlying these actions. In this, we have chosen torely on ANT as a foundation for understanding the network surrounding AIME.Then we draw on concepts from within social studies of technology (SST) whenthe network metaphor falls short, in order to describe individual perspectives andexperiences of the actors under investigation.

3.2 Theoretical Frameworks

On the following pages we will present our theoretical framework by briefly ex-plaining the key characteristics of each theory, and derive key concepts for thisreport. We will then argue for the value of our chosen theoretical concepts, andhow they enable us to inform our analysis of the digital platform, as well as theperspectives and experiences of actors as they engage with it.

Actor-Network Theory (ANT) In actor-network theory we find a plethora ofconcepts dealing with socio-technical objects and social theory. We have chosento use just a selection of these concepts: Human and nonhuman actors, Inscriptionand Interpretive Flexibility.

By applying actor-network theory as an approach to perform our research, wededicate ourselves to something which is not really a theory nor a methodology.Rather it’s a semiotic approach, ontologically based on the idea that human andnon-human actors co-shape each other though their intertwined relations, thusforming an endless network of associations (Law, 1999). This is why attentionwithin ANT is focused on empirically investigating and following these relations,in order to learn what, how and why - actors do what they do (Latour, 1999). Thesemiotic articulation of the nodes connecting the relations - as actors, should beunderstood as the human and non-human entities which take active part in theconsequences of the network narrative. They can be people, institutions, artefacts,rules or any other thing or being, and they are actants in terms of their relation withother actors who either influence and/or are influenced by their associations (Blok

7

and Jensen, 2011). ANT has dispersed into multiple different academic practices,and translated itself into a range of conceptualizations to explain the phenomenaencountered by researchers as they portray the networks performed (Law, 1999).For our purpose we rely on ANT as our ontological point of departure, coupledwith other theoretical concepts within the range of STS, to explain how certainexperiences and perceptions have influenced how the digital platform has beenused and interpreted. Below we will elaborate on the concepts of inscription andinterpretive flexibility.

InscriptionThe notion of inscription, as described by Akrich (1992), refers to that when atechnical object or artifact is being designed, the designers and engineers envis-age the type(s) of user(s) who will use the technology, and then define case storiesabout them in an attempt to predict how the outcome or reception of the tech-nology will be. With these imaginations and ideas about the user(s) in mind, thedesigners and engineers are “[...] ‘inscribing’ this vision of (or prediction about)the world in the technical content of the new object” (Akrich, 1992, p. 208).

Interpretive FlexibilityThe term ‘interpretive flexibility’ comes from social construction of technology(SCOT), and tells us that everything can be interpreted differently, and also be ne-gotiated and disputed. This relates to both physical objects and ‘softer’ technolo-gies, such as software and applications. As a social construct, a certain technologyhas been thought out by its designers and originators, who have their interpreta-tion. But the artefact will be interpreted differently by each user, and each willhave his or her own idea of purpose, functionality and uses. Technologies canalso intentionally be designed to allow for flexibility in interpretations, and also tocollect different interpretations and suggestions from its users, i.e. crowdsourcing,as has been prominent in the last decade of user oriented approaches.

The actor-network approach and the concepts of inscription and interpretive flex-ibility will serve as our language for describing our encounters throughout ouranalysis and discussion.

8

Affordances and Configuration The ‘Theory of Affordances’ has been adoptedfrom Gibson (1986) onto social theory and technological artifacts (Pfaffenberger,1992; Akrich and Latour, 1992; Boyle and Cook, 2004), in order to describe tech-nological affordances as “[...] a perceived property of an artifact that suggests howit should be used” (Pfaffenberger, 1992, p. 503). Akrich and Latour (1992) elab-orate on the concept by arguing that affordances of a device will allow or forbidcertain actions and that affordance “[...] is the morality of a setting both negative(what it prescribes) and positive (what it permits)” (Akrich and Latour, 1992, p.261). Affordances can be used to describe what a particular technology wants orexpects a user to do, or rather, what the designer(s) and developer(s) want the userto do with it and how to use it, as well as the unintended actions the technologypermits the user to make.

We will relate the Akrich and Latour’s definition of affordances to Steve Woolgar’s“Configuring the user: the case of usability trials” (1990). Woolgar presents theidea that in the emergence of technologies, a social construction of the user willoccur “[...] which attempt to define and delimit the user’s possible actions [andthat] by setting parameters for the user’s actions, the evolving machine effectivelyattempts to configure the user” (Woolgar, 1990, p. 61). The configuration of theuser is partially found in representation of what the machine is in relation to itscontext, while the sense of the context also comes from what the machine is in itscontext, providing a dualistic feedback cycle in both senses. In the developmentof a new technology, all actors involved in the development aid to the definitionof the user and its actions, and this process of social construction of the user canbe seen as parameters which are together defining, enabling and constraining theuser. Using both approaches provides us with a relational view of the intended useand user, and the influences the platform has on the user and the users’ influenceson the platform.

Technological Frames Technological Frames is a concept from within socialstudies of technology (SST) which provides an analytical framework to define theassumptions, expectations and knowledge which people develop as their interpre-tative perception of a technology, and which influence how they act towards it.

9

The concept is grounded in the premise of cognitive research, “[...] that peopleact on the basis of their interpretations of the world” (Orlikowski and Gash, 1994,p. 176). It is translated by Orlikowski and Gash into organizational theory as away to uncover interpretations for the purpose of understanding how technologicaluse, change and development are influenced by these interpretations.

The central argument is that in order to “[...] interact with technology, people haveto make sense of it; and in this sense-making process, they develop particularassumptions, expectations, and knowledge of the technology, which then serveto shape subsequent actions toward it.” (Orlikowski and Gash, 1994, p. 175).The analytical framework thus consists of three categorizations of technologicalframes:

• Nature of technology: How one actor perceives of the functionality of aspecific technology. (Assumptions)

• Technology strategy: How one actor perceives of the organization’s objec-tive of the use of a specific technology. (Expectations)

• Technology in use: How one actor perceives of the technology’s conditionsand consequences in use. (Knowledge)

(Orlikowski and Gash, 1994)

Uncovering these frames of interpretation of technologies enables us to analyzethe difference in technological frames between different organizational membersin order to pinpoint areas of incongruence between perspectives. These areas arewhere we can expect to find problematic areas, or areas of difficulty in accom-plishing cooperative work successfully, and thus where there is a need of attentionin system design, implementation and use (Orlikowski and Gash, 1994).

We incorporate technological frames into our theoretical framework for the pur-pose of defining, analyzing and describing the differences in interpretations to-wards the digital platform. By directing our attention towards these differences oftechnological frames, or areas of incongruence, we are enabled to discuss them,and hereby represent the various and diverse perceptions of implicated actors inorder to discuss possible explanations for conflicting use.

10

4 Method

Below we will present our chosen methodological framework to guide our in-vestigation and the analysis of our data. This will include descriptions of ourexperience in using this approach and the reflections we have made during thisprocess. We will also explain the chosen methods for analyzing our data sources,and how we turned them into analytical objects. Finally, we will provide a briefoverview of the empirical data collected.

4.1 Ethnography

One of the aims in our investigation is to uncover experiences and perceptionsof actors as they relate to the digital platform. To facilitate the collection of thistype of data, we have been inspired by ethnography as an approach which pro-duces an in-depth understanding of processes as they unfold in their local context(Forsythe, 1999). The main principle for engaging in ethnographic fieldwork isthe requirement of becoming immersed in the natural setting2 of the actors underinvestigation (Blomberg et al., 1993). We were given the opportunity to travel toParis and become situated in the same building that houses the AIME team, andin the same office as the project manager and designers associated with the digitalplatform. This allowed us to become involved with everyday activities of the in-ternal actors of the AIME team, enabling us to develop an understanding of theiractivities in their local context. We accept that we can never truly understand theperspective of our informants, but methods of the ethnographic approach allowsus to approximate (Blomberg et al., 1993).

Ethnography is an approach with varying definitions of rigidity concerning themethodological frames for conducting fieldwork (see Hammersley (2006)). Inour investigation, we have applied an intuitive approach based on past experience,and guided by the principles outlined above. Within this approach, we have madeuse of the following specific methods for producing our empirical dataset:

2We use the term natural setting as described by Blomberg et al. (1993), as opposed to obser-vations of clinical trials.

11

Interviews A central aspect of ethnography is to interview informants in a way,which allows the perspectives of the informants to shape the content of the in-vestigation. Considerations to be made with ethnographic interviews include thechoice of informants, location of interview, level of interference, sensitivity to-wards the respondent’s subjective concerns for answering, and the acceptance ofthe role of the interviewer as ‘unknowing’ (Blomberg et al. (1993). We designedinterview guides with the aim of conducting semi-structured interviews. How-ever, our shortcomings within knowledge of philosophical fields, in comparisonto that of our informants, dictated a level of structuredness, in order for us to beable to engage in an informed and fluent conversation with our interviewees. In-formants were chosen mainly on the basis of uncovering different roles withinthe project. We wanted to understand perspectives from both the internal projectteam, contributors, mediators and readers.

For internal informants, as well as those with relatively easy access to visit theoffice in Paris, the interviews were conducted locally on site. However, most ofour informants reside outside Paris and in other countries, so a technologicallymediated solution had to be applied for conducting these interviews. For thesegeographically dispersed informants, we used Google Hangouts, which enableslive video communication and recording via the internet. This led to significantdifficulties of communication in some instances, with connection or sound issuesdisturbing the interview situation. In one instance we had to apply a very struc-tured approach, as the audio transmission was so bad that questions and answerswere posed one-way and often repeated. All interviews, except two, were videorecorded. For locally set interviews, we used a video camera with tripod and wire-less microphone. The video recording was done for the purpose of sharing it witha ph.d student working with the AIME platform. All informants were made awareof, and in agreement with this sharing of data.

Observations What people say is not necessarily in accordance with how theyact in practice. This is why interviews coupled with observations is important inthe ethnographic field study to account for discrepancies in the empirical dataset(Blomberg et al., 1993). As an observer in the field, one can take on a role rang-

12

ing from minimal obtrusive behaviour (‘fly on the wall’), to participant observer,where full participation in everyday organizational life is the aim (Blomberg et al.,1993).

Our role as observers in our fieldwork can be categorized somewhere in between,as observer participants. We were closely situated on a daily basis with the peo-ple currently working on the platform, and we often engaged in both formal andinformal conversation in the work setting as well as leisure activities outside thework practice. We performed a small set of tasks on behalf of the AIME team asa symbolic contribution to provide additional value for accommodating our visit.Indeed the relationship between us and the internal part of the AIME team quicklybecame very informal, friendly and reliable in terms of trust.

4.2 Data Analysis

We made a data collection table, creating an overview of all the data collected.Then we numbered the various data objects using abbreviations for the differentkinds of data, e.g. interviews, pictures, documents, emails etc. We chose earlyon to transcribe the interviews to allow for coding (described below). All of ourinterviews were given identification, e.g. ‘Name - Interview - Role - DD/MM-YYYY’, which corresponds to a point in our data collection table in the appendix.Same goes for other types of data, such as pictures etc., which are all identi-fied by its type and the situation from which it came. In analyzing our data, wehave used color-coding to identify various opinions and tendencies which relate toour research focus. Using this approach, we initially identified certain categories,which we felt would represent our research focus in relation to our interview mate-rial, and began reading through our material whilst highlighting the passages withcorresponding colors. The list of 10 categories and colors used in color-codingcan be found in the legend in the appendix, page 20. One thing is to have thedata collected and organized, another is to analyze it and argue why a particulartype of analysis is done. For this project, we have chosen to base our analysis ingrounded theory in order to derive any concepts from our data. In grounded theory,it is practice to approach collected data multiple times, reiterating and returning to

13

the data again and again. Clarke (2003) proposes a regenerated grounded theory,which draws on some of Glaser and Strauss’s traditional approaches, but givingthe approach a post-modern relevance.

Mapping For us to make sense of the complex relations between actors com-prising the network of our study, we have made use of situational analysis andmapping in order to open up our data, and to capture and enable discussion onthe associations and affiliations within the AIME project. We mainly drew ‘situ-ational maps’ (Clarke, 2003), listing all the human and non-human actors expe-rienced and framed by us in our situated fieldwork as well as by our informantswithin our ethnographic interviews and observations. We did this by asking our-selves questions of “[w]ho and what are in this situation? Who and what mattersin this situation? What elements ‘make a difference’ in this situation?” (Clarke,2003, p. 561). After listing all potentially relevant actors, we started to questionthe relations between them by thinking about each entity in turn, and how it re-lates to other entities within the map. During this process we derived intermediatearticulations of the relations as we perceived them, to serve as reference points forour analysis (Clarke, 2003).

4.3 Data Sources

During our stay in Paris we have conducted in total 12 interviews with a selec-tion of informants such as mediators, developers and readers and contributors. Inaddition, we have been granted access to a number of email correspondences be-tween internally placed members of the team and some of the contributors. Thecontent of these emails range from general questions and answers about the phys-ical workshops and user inputs about design. But most importantly, they containquestions and answers about specific contributions between mediators and con-tributors as well as internal negotiations and information about contributions aswell.

Included in the appendix is the text from select emails in which we have foundquotes valuable to our analysis. The emails have further been used to get an insight

14

into the dealings with a certain contributor, before conducting our interview, andfrom those insights we developed specific questions for that same contributor topose during the interview.

In addition to email correspondences, interviews and pictures, we have also usedthe preliminary report (Latour, 2013) for descriptions and considerations aboutthe philosophical positionings and findings in Latour’s work. We have also beengranted eyes-only access to select parts of the original ERC application, and forconfidentiality reasons, we will not disclose any sections of the application norquote directly from the text, but it has served as an important insight for us in ourimmersion into the field.

Lastly, the digital platform is the central part of our empirical data in our anal-ysis of affordances and configurations, as they are expressed in the experiencesand perceptions of our informants. We have included a number of screenshotsof the platform in the appendix for illustration and a better understanding whenreferences are made.

5 Analysis

On the following pages we will present our findings during our investigation inParis. The first part of our analysis will describe the different elements of theAIME platform, how they can be accessed, what they provide in terms of con-tent, and their functionalities. In the second part of the analysis, we will highlightdifferent perceptions and experiences uttered by our informants towards contribu-tions and the contribution interface. Second, we will provide insights from ourempirical data towards the purpose and value of dealing with the digital platform,both in its own right, as well as in relation to the other key elements of the AIMEinquiry, namely the book and the workshops.

15

5.1 The AIME Platform

The platform, located online at www.modesofexistence.org, contains three mainspaces; the book, the crossings and the contribution interface. Within and acrossthese three spaces are various functionalities, such as a login interface (Appendix,A-06), a help section and tutorials. To access these platforms, it is necessary tocreate a profile. This gives access to all parts of the website, and it is a require-ment in order to access any part of the text, and prohibits links to text as it isrestricted. The 5-step account creation procedure requires you to enter last name,first name, email address, password and accepting terms and conditions on thefirst two pages. Third page requires you to enter your title, either academic, otheror student along with the institution you are affiliated with, and the disciplinesyou are involved with. On page four, you can choose to upload a photo and alsowrite a short text about your interest in the project (see Appendix A-07 to A-10).Last step is to confirm and activate your account with an activation link sent to theregistered email address. Once logged in, you are presented with a page with fourcolumns; Text, Vocabulary, Documentation and Contributions, symbolized by us-ing the first letters of the words, namely T for Text, V for Vocabulary etc. We willrefer to these sections using the abbreviations used internally, i.e. TEXT, VOC(vocabulary), DOC (documentation). Contributions are identified differently bythe letter C.

The Book, The Crossings and the Contribution interface Below we willpresent the three main interfaces of the platform; the Book, the Crossings andthe contribution interface.

The book platform gives the reader the possibility to read the entire book in anonline virtual interactive version. The book is made up firstly by the table ofcontents, matching the contents of the physical book. Here you can search forpassages or sentences, read through the text and click on the various sectionswhich take you to that part of the text for reading. You can choose to Previewfor a snippet of text, or open the book further. Once presented with the actualtext, you can use interactive tools built in, which links to the other parts of the

16

platform, i.e. VOC or DOC. Any part of the text which is highlighted in greensymbolizes a section in DOC, meaning there is an elaboration or reference in thedocumentation. The same goes for bits of text written in bold letters, symbolizingan entry in VOC. You may yourself highlight a paragraph or sentence in the text,and add it to your personal ‘notebook’, which is another feature of the online book,allowing you to save snippets and important notes for keeping. All notebookedsections can be found at any time by clicking on the suitcase-symbol, located inthe top-right of the page.

With the crossings part of the platform, you can interactively immerse your-self into the intersections between each of the 15 modes along with the com-plete vocabulary (VOC), documentation (DOC) and all published contributions.The crossings platform was added in April 2014 (AIME Website, “A new entrythrough crossings”, n.d.). It will not be elaborated further in this report, as wehave chosen to focus contributions.

The interface is accessed first and foremost through the TEXT of the virtual book.Creating a contribution entails selecting a word or section of the ‘TEXT’ andhighlighting it, causing the platform to automatically show a small blue box inline, with a star and a speech bubble inside. To start the creation of a contribution,you click the speech bubble, and the platform immediately shows the C columnwith two text fields to be filled out (see Appendix, A-02). These two text fields,Title and Abstract, are the first steps to creating a contribution, where the abstractis the body of the contribution you wish to write. To add documentation to yourcontribution, click Add Document. The platform then shows three text fields tobe filled in: Why the documentation is relevant, a web link (if applicable), andbibliographic references. The web link allows the contributor to add a link to atext, an image or a video posted online. The platform will embed the video orimage into the final viewing of the contribution, and will use any text on Scribd,image on Flickr etc., or a video uploaded to Vimeo, YouTube or Dailymotion.Any bibliographic references needed to support a contribution is written in thelast field. If more than one document is needed, click Add Document again. Ifyou wish to finalize or save for later, click Save Contribution, otherwise DeleteDocument to delete the documentation just entered or at any other time. Before it

17

is submitted for review, a contribution can be edited by going to your Notebook,where you will find all your bookmarks and contributions laid out according tothe T(ext), V(ocabulary), D(ocumentation) and C(ontributions) also used in otherparts of the platform. To edit a contribution, simply click Open and then Edit.When the contribution is ready for submission, you click Submit in the bottom ofthe editing page.

After clicking Submit, the contribution is handed from the contributor to the me-diators. The mediators are notified by the platform, which automatically sendsan email to an email distribution list, which forwards the contribution (see emailexample in Appendix, D-01). The email is then handled by the main mediator,who assigns the contribution to the mediator in charge of that particular mode.If the contribution involves more than one mode, the contribution is sent to bothmediators, and they will collaboratively review it. As a mediator, you have thepermission on the platform, using your account, to contact the contributor forelaborations, edit the contribution, and finally the action to publish the contribu-tion on the platform (Appendix, P-04). These roles are distributed and maintainedby the project manager, Jason.

5.2 Perceptions & Experiences

On the coming pages we will shift our focus to describe the different percep-tions and experience gathered through interviews with our informants, about whatmakes up a contribution, as well as their perspectives on the constellation betweenthe platform, the book and the workshops.

5.2.1 What is a contribution?

A central aspect of the entire AIME project’s endeavor of conducting empiri-cal anthropology is the intention to facilitate a co-inquiry, by allowing externalcontributors to participate by collecting contributions to support the preliminaryreport. In Latour’s perspective, this co-inquiry is supposed to:

18

“[...] extend the work begun here with new documents, new sources,new testimonies, and, most important, that you will modify the ques-tions by correcting or modulating the project in relation to the resultsobtained.” (Latour, 2013, p. xx)

We encountered differing perspectives and experiences from our informants to-wards what makes up a contribution, and not least what makes up a good and/orvalid contribution in order to serve the purpose of the AIME project. To facili-tate discussion, we have selected some of these interpretations with the purposeof exemplifying their diversity. First, we will explain how our informants havedisplayed a sense of confusion or lack of clarity in defining the concept of a con-tribution. Second, we will show how these differing perspectives towards contri-butions have come to shape a conflicting situation between the notion of ‘good’and ‘bad’ contributions.

Confusing, unclear, or open for interpretation? One of the most pressing is-sues in the AIME project has been the continuous need to explain and clarify howto contribute using the digital platform. The guidelines on how to contribute wasimportant in order to facilitate contributions, which served the purpose of extend-ing the inquiry in a way that could confirm or refute the hypothesis proposed in thepreliminary report, and not least to do this through an empirical document-basedargument (Latour, 2013 & Appendix, I-08). In this methodological approach, La-tour viewed the digital platform as an instrument for conducting science within aspecified protocol, or as an apparatus allowing fellow researchers to propose doc-umented arguments that either support or counter the different modes and theircrossings.

Some of our informants were completely aligned with Latour in their interpreta-tion on how to contribute:

“I think contributions that evidence... claims made in the book abouthow modes operate. [...] what do we know about this mode, what’sthe worldly effect of this mode in its crossings? I think contributionsthat function in, or kind of provide a lens onto parts of the world thatwe may not otherwise think about in that way.” (Appendix, I-06, p.112)

19

However, most of our informants were less clear in their attempt to define whatmakes up a contribution, and most notably, in their perception towards the preciserequirements for a contribution to be considered valid. When interviewed, Johnleaned towards the impression that: “[...] there were very few prescribed rules asto what you were supposed to be doing. But there were definite moments wherepeople said no.” (Appendix, I-03, p. 48). Another aspect of uncertainty was ar-ticulated by Joshua who was in alignment with the overall purpose of producingcontributions, but where the question of the source for documentation was un-clear: “I didn’t know if my contribution should be something original [...] [o]r ifmy contribution should just be saying like, hey look at this thing over here [...]”(Appendix, I-06, p. 109). In the end, Joshua opted for both approaches, and bothwere accepted by the mediators. The two examples above outline our general ex-perience of how the requirements in the contribution process were perceived bymost informants, in that they saw the process as relatively open for interpretation,and allowing flexibility towards what could potentially be considered fruitful andvalid contributions, but with a restrictive judgement towards validity within theindividual mediation processes.

In interviewing the two mediators of our investigation, this approach of decidingupon validity was echoed when we asked Richard what makes up a good contri-bution: “Well it doesn’t say something too stupid, or too obvious... We accepteda lot.” (Appendix, I-04, p. 64). The other mediator, Walter, who was, as opposedto Richard, very content with the organizational structure of the project and themediation process, expressed the same challenge of defining validity:

“[...] the trickiest part was trying to define and to give diverse enoughillustrations of what a contribution can be, and that required a lot ofdiscussion within the team, and sometimes it [was up to] the media-tors to try to figure it out.” (Appendix, I-07, p. 129)

This frames our overall understanding of the contribution process as something,which is defined by its flexibility towards what can be considered valuable inputsto the inquiry. This is coupled with a strict adherence to the fundamental purposeof the project itself. This situation was not something that every aspiring contrib-utor would feel aligned with, and this brought with it discussions and resistance

20

towards the performative approach of a contribution. It became manifested in thestrict distinction between a contribution and a comment, which we will explore inthe next section.

Documentation, not opinion! To make it more clear for contributors what makesup a contribution, which provides value to the AIME project, Latour and his teamhave defined a distinction between contributions and comments. A contributionis something which: “[...] should attempt to build upon something new and be inthe form of an annotated document that develops an argument or line of thought.[And which] subjects the Inquiry to the trials for which it was designed.” (AIMEWebsite, FAQ, n.d.), where a comment is categorized as pure opinion: “[...] what-ever this guy says, I am knowledgeable enough to have an opinion - which isexactly the sort of thing I don’t want.” (Appendix, I-08, p. 140). This distinctionwas recognized by all of our informants as a central part of the communicationseffort surrounding contributions. As explained by John: “The main thing was thatcontributions are not comments, that was repeated several times” (Appendix, I-03, p. 49). However, even though everyone we spoke with had paid notice to thedistinction between contributions and comments, we experienced very differentreactions and perceptions towards this. Some, like Joshua, adhered to and tailoredtheir contributions in alignment with the categorization of a contribution. Otherswere in resistance towards the value proposedly derived from such a requirementfor quality and validity. In this camp of resistors, we saw different reactions: Forexample, Daniel expressed that: “The separation was clear, [...] so in a sensethat’s the kind of category... it’s a trash [...] so do you want to be part of the trash?No.” (Appendix, I-09, p. 161). Daniel ended up never contributing to the plat-form, despite his early involvement in a preliminary workshop, which took placein Weimar before the publication of the book, where he was initially optimisticabout the prospect of contributing:

“I was hopeful, and eventually that didn’t happen, as you know, but Ihad this idea of being.. eh.. I didn’t know what to expect, but I wasquite ehm.. positive about the idea of being a co-inquirer. So, yeah, Ihad this notion in mind too. I was ready to accept this idea, and thisproposition.” (Appendix, I-09, p. 151)

21

But when the digital platform was eventually up and running, and he finally en-gaged with it, he became more reluctant due to the constraints imposed by thecontribution requirements:

“I can provide something, but I was asked to do something very veryprecise. And I was not too sure it was something I wanted to do, orwas able to do. So it was more the demand again, than the design,that was a problem.” (Appendix, I-09, p. 153)

William approached it differently, and articulated that the distinction was “[...]too manecheist, too dualist. There are the good contributions and the bad com-ments.” (Appendix, I-05, p. 84). In this way, he fundamentally disagreed withthe categorization of valuable contributions in contrast to how the project, fromhis perspective, was supposed to be an advocate for ontological pluralism, afford-ing multiple interpretations towards valuable knowledge creation. His approachin dealing with this became to actively seek confrontation, by arguing his point ofview through both his contributions, as well as other media channels like Twitter,his blog, and the AIME blog.

The situation above highlights an interesting aspect of how the community ofactors engaging with the platform somehow became categorized in the durationof the mediation process, where validity divides people into the approved and theunapproved contributors.

Something which divides During our interviews, we got the impression thatthere were distinctly different opinions towards the contribution process from ac-tors with published contributions, rejected contributions, and the internal teammembers. For the most part, the contributors who had contributions validatedand published on the platform experienced a fairly painless and constructive in-teraction during the mediation process, apart from a few instances of varying pro-cessing time, varying degree of mediator interaction, as well as a few instancesof contributions getting lost with no feedback provided (Appendix, I-06, I-03 &I-05).

22

Despite these stumbling blocks, we saw how one of the consistently successfulcontributors of our investigation, Joshua, was very loyal to the conceptual frame-work of the AIME project in his description of what makes up a good contribu-tion:

“I guess a good contribution is one that makes us see an empiricalsituation in a different way, enriching our understanding and abilityto engage with that experience, and enriching our conception of themodes and their crossings.” (Appendix, I-06, p. 112)

This adherence to the desired approach of providing documentation, and relat-ing it to the ‘modes’ outlined by Latour, was very meaningful and fruitful forJoshua. This is contrary to others, where it became critique points towards thefundamental aspects of the inquiry. One example is for William who, when hewas not permitted to present his contributions in a format he saw fit, derived crit-ical arguments against the conceptual set-up of the AIME inquiry, both towardsthe dualistic requirements as explained in the previous section, but also in termsof his interpretation of the internal organizational set-up. In his perspective, theproject was subjected to a certain ‘party line’ where “[...] you contributors, you’llbe assimilated, and you critiques, will be eliminated.” (Appendix, I-05, p. 94).This interpretation was somewhat supported by other informants, though in a lessconfrontational manner, in their perspectives towards the array of representationamong contributors, where they saw indications of certain co-inquirers being ac-tively incented to partake (Appendix, I-03 & I-09). William’s approach throughother media channels, along with other attempting contributors (whom we did notinterview), attracted a lot of attention within the AIME team. For instance, La-tour himself engaged in a personal correspondence with William in an attempt toaccommodate his critique, and convince him to refrain from contributing to theplatform in ways not aligned with the requirements posed in the hypothesis of theproject (Appendix, D-02). We also saw internal communication which preparedand alerted mediators about the intentions of certain ‘troublesome’ co-inquirersand their contributions (Appendix, D-03). What we found interesting in relationto this division of roles within the inquiry environment, is that certain categoriesbecame apparent in the language used to describe other actors’ behavior.

23

One example surfaced when we asked Richard, a mediator, to explain what makesa valid contribution:

“[W]e excluded mostly the [...] the trolls, you know, people whowould just send something just for the sake of contributing [to] theproject, and hope of derailing it.” (Appendix, I-04, p. 64)

The categorization of certain actors as ‘trolls’ was an articulation we experiencedseveral times within the internal team during our fieldwork (Appendix, D-04). Inthe same manner, we experienced how e.g. William used the term ‘elitist’ to de-scribe the internal organization of the project team (Appendix, I-05). In general,we heard from ‘insiders’ to the project who highlighted how some contributorswere either troublesome, counter-productive or incomprehensive of the rules orthe purpose of the project. Similarly, we learned how ‘outsiders’ often articulatedhow rules or guidelines embedded in the platform, as well as the whole conceptualframework related to mediation and validation of contributions, were perceived aseither intended or unintended constraints for them in their efforts towards becom-ing contributors. For instance, Daniel who was never persuaded to contribute,presented an interesting reflection about this constraining perspective in relationto the inherently empirical aspect of the inquiry as a whole:

“[...] it’s empirical philosophy, so we can bring in something new, butthe rules are such that we can not raise all the points we will want toraise. [...] The rules themselves should be an empirical aspect thatcan be discussed.” (Appendix, I-09, p. 161)

The section above highlights how categorization of contributors and contributions,and the aspect that mediation occurred in accordance with a communicated set ofguidelines for validity, became a constraint for some people.

24

5.2.2 Platform / Book / Workshop constellation

In this section, we will describe experiences from our interviewees concerningtheir use of the digital platform, and how they perceived its purpose and value,both in itself, but also in relation to the two other central elements of the AIMEproject, the physical workshops and the book.

Use, Purpose and value of platform Our investigation has shown that theAIME platform serves several purposes, one of them being the collection of doc-uments anchored to specific elements within the preliminary report. This contentwas found very valuable, as John explained how, for him, the platform became anenhancement to the traditional book format as “[t]here’s far more material on thewebsite than you would ever find just by reading through the book.” (Appendix,I-03, p. 43). Richard elaborated on this by addressing the sheer volume of mate-rial made available for scholars and anyone else interested: “[...] I like the idea ofsort of an extended book [...] I didn’t read them all, but more than 1600 pages ofsort of footnotes. [...] I like that we can have access to that.” (Appendix, I-04, p.59). He however went on to question whether this potential value of the platformwas realized in how people engaged with the platform:

“[I] think apart from the.. the few aficionados of Latour, I don’t thinkthat people made use of all the extended material. [...] You know,how many people actually did all the pages? I mean, were they allvisited? (Appendix, I-04, p. 61)

When we asked our interviewees how they had used the platform, apart fromcontributing, in most cases we got the impression that it was mainly used as asupportive tool for reading the book, as exemplified by John: “[I] only sort ofworked through and actually really used the website while reading the book [...]”(Appendix, I-03, p. 47).

However, when we asked about their perception on the value and purpose of thedigital platform, we learned that the constellation of the platform, the book and theworkshops in their interplay was important for most interviewees, and somehow

25

broadened the capabilities of the project to a higher level, than would have beenpossible through a traditional publication of the book:

“If the website wasn’t there, if these meetings hadn’t been held, Iwould just be a guy getting this book, reading it, incorporating it, andgoing about my daily life, and Latour would have no idea how thiskind of happened.” (Appendix, I-06, p. 111)

When we inquired further into the individual parts of the constellation, we learnedthat all of the interviewees who participated in a workshop, found this aspect ofthe project the most fruitful and valuable experience of their participation in theproject. Many of them also highlighted the role of the digital platform in facil-itating the workshops by creating an opportunity for participation in the projectacross physical boundaries:

“I guess [it’s] the glue holding the other two parts together... Therewould have been no way to really organize the face-to-face work-shops alongside the book without the website [...] I would never havebecome engaged with this project if it wasn’t for the website.” (Ap-pendix, I-03, p. 43)

John also highlighted his admiration for the physical workshops, in comparison tothe unfulfilled potential of the digital platform, in terms of facilitating face-to-faceinteraction:

“[...] it’s possible for digital platforms to be a substitute for face-to-face interaction, but I think the project worked best when it was me-diating, you know, actual face-to-face communication.” (Appendix,I-03, p. 50)

This interpretation of a missing aspect within the digital platform, to supply in-tercommunication among participants, was articulated by several of our intervie-wees.

The value of physical interaction When our interviewees compared the val-ues they gathered from working with contributions through the digital platformto what, in their interpretation, was facilitated through the workshops, many ofthem highlighted the importance of intercommunication through physical assem-blies.

26

Daniel emphasized the difference in dynamics when you engage in face-to-facecommunication, compared to the dynamics of the contribution cycle inscribe inthe platform: “I’m not sure it did translate on the platform, it’s another kind ofdynamic compared to what can happen with the online contributions [...]” (Ap-pendix, I-09, p. 162). This dynamic was also expressed by John when he ex-plained how “[...] you sort of just click a button and then it goes off into theether somewhere, and then at a later date it actually becomes concrete when youmeet people who have read it, and you’re able to talk about it, and it becomes realsomehow.” (Appendix, I-03, p. 48). We also saw how exchanges via the digitalplatform could sometimes get lost, and where the physical assembly provided op-portunity to create awareness and action towards correcting such mistakes: “[...]a contribution I had made, had just gone completely ignored. And if I hadn’thad a chance to meet with the team, I never would have known that that was thecase.” (Appendix, I-06, p. 108). Perceptions towards the physical assemblies, asan arena for direct intercommunication to sort out differences and contributions,was also highlighted by William, who articulated how not being part of this in-terrelational aspect of the project could create unawareness about how the projectevolved: “[...] if you’re not at the physical assemblies [...] and if you’re not onthe team, lots of the internal discussion is just invisible.” (Appendix, I-05, p.93).

The perspectives highlighted above illustrate a difference between what our infor-mants perceive as differences, in what the workshops and the digital platform canprovide, and especially the added value provided by intercommunication throughphysical assemblies. We also encountered experiences from our informants abouthow the platform is constraining the facilitation of intercommunication. This willbe further explored in the next section.

No digital arena for discussion As it appeared to us, one of the main con-cerns regarding the experience of engaging with the digital platform was that“[...] there’s no place for discussion, at the digital level [...]” (Appendix, I-05,p. 76). For many of our informants, this need for discussion was accommodatedthrough the workshops. However, the workshops were only for select partici-

27

pants, and even though conceptual critique and differing opinions were raisedand discussed during the workshops, people who didn’t participate in the work-shops, or people who wanted to question the fundamental conceptualization of theproject, expressed a desire for two-way communication through the digital plat-form. William saw this as a constraint which created a situation, where critiqueor objections were divided into what can be labelled as insider- and outsider cri-tique: “[...] the digital set-up actively inhibits critique [...] internal criticism isradically inherited, and external criticism is just filtered out.” (Appendix, I-05, p.92).

The perspectives outlined above point towards the level of representation withinthe AIME project, and the role which the digital platform plays in opening theproject for certain participants. In the next section we will expand on the notionof openness, mainly by applying some valuable insights from our interview withDaniel, who expressed his concerns about the architectural set-up of the digitalplatform, in relation to how it allows for participation.

An open platform? We asked all our interviewees about their view on the levelof openness in the project. We received answers in both ends of the scale ofopen versus closed, and apart from Joshua who said that “[...] it’s incrediblyopen [...] I can’t think of anything else that, that equals it in terms of academicglobal document.” (Appendix, I-06, p. 111), most of them agreed that the AIMEproject could not be defined as open. This is due to reasons exemplified here byRichard: “It’s not an open platform, however you define it, [...] it’s not distributed[...] the contributions are edited, and also the whole architecture of the website.”(Appendix, I-04, p. 64).

Daniel, who never contributed to the AIME platform despite his deep interest inthe subject of the inquiry, as well as in Latour as a theorist, adhered to Richard’sopinion of a closed architecture behind the digital platform. This was partly alsowhat kept him from becoming a contributor, as the structural set-up was in conflictwith his personal adherence to the open web movement:

“[...] it’s a platform on the web. But it’s a closed platform. [...] Be-lieve in the open web means that [...] if I can identify or address more

28

and more bits of content information, it’s for the best.” (Appendix,I-09, p. 153)

In his view the project is not open enough, both in terms of the structural set-up of the project itself, but not least in terms of the architecture of the digitalplatform. Daniel was concerned about the trade-offs performed by Latour by asomewhat open invitation to participate, but then imposing very rigid restrictionsinscribed in the platform: “[...] if you open, you open everything and you sensethe project... If the project’s a mix of tech and content, then you open everything,I think.” (Appendix, I-09, p. 155). Some of his concerns were directed towardshow the internet community was excluded from the platform, i.e. “[...] whatyou could only link to, was the platform. It’s not helpful. You cannot makehyperlink, you cannot have pointers to very specific elements.” (Appendix, I-09,p. 155). Furthermore, he requested an empirical approach to the way aspects ofthe platform, which could be relevant for developers, should be made available.Specifically, in terms of providing access to API’s, so external actors from thedeveloper world could contribute to the evolution of the project and gain access tothe content and structure:

“[...] if you come up with better ideas, that might improve the project.And if it’s empirical, I mean, it’s also empirical in terms of API, ac-cess and that kind of stuff so, there we go with different understand-ings of the web.” (Appendix, I-09, p. 154)

We understood from the AIME team, that one of the reasons behind limitationsof the platform in terms of allowing for links to specific elements, and openingup for API access etc., was related to publication requirements. There had to be aregistration and hence a log-in functionality on the platform. Daniel’s perspectiveon this was that:

“[...] the platform was a way to enhance the book, but in a sensethe book and the legal framework that goes with the book [...] had astrong impact on how to deal with the platform. So that was good forthe book, but was it good for the platform?” (Appendix, I-09, p. 156)

For him, the biggest concern with the project was that “[...] it can disappearwithout having been disseminated on the web. And that for me is a big problem.”

29

(Appendix, I-09, p. 156). So despite his alignment with the philosophical andtheoretical endeavor of the AIME project, and despite that he wanted to contribute,and was desired as a contributor by the AIME team, he never became a contributordue to the discrepancy between the closed and rigidly controlled architecture ofthe AIME platform and Daniel’s academic interest in “[...] trying to understandfrom an architectural point of view how we can have a web that is ontologicallypluralistic.” (Appendix, I-09, p. 161).

This concludes our analysis, in which we have presented the AIME platform andthe different elements that make up its functionalities and content. Then we haveoutlined a selected range of perspectives towards the interpretative notion of a con-tribution, and how the distinction between contributions and comments has beenperceived and contested. Finally, we have presented various experiences concern-ing the constellation, consisting of the platform, the book, and the workshops.Here we have seen how different actors have perceived of the purpose and valueof these elements, and how they have been made available for participation.

6 Discussion

On the coming pages we will relate the findings in our analysis with our theoret-ical framework. In the first half of our discussion, we will start by arguing howcertain affordances influence the way participants engage with the platform, andwe will then discuss how users are configured through inscriptions in the inquiryenvironment. In the second part of our discussion, we will reflect on the differentperceptions and experiences we have encountered during our fieldwork. Relat-ing our findings to the concept of technological frames, we will discuss wherewe have encountered conflicting perceptions, which all partake in shaping an en-vironment where certain areas might benefit from increased attention concerningthe development and management of the digital AIME platform.

30

6.1 Affordances and Configuration

The digital platform plays a very important role in the AIME project and by plac-ing the platform online, the team has offered it ‘openly’, which has afforded aglobal engagement from very diverse actors from various backgrounds.

‘Openness’ IIndividual interpretations on the question of ‘openness’ and thedegree of openness on the platform varied. All informants but two agreed that, ina technical sense, the platform is open, given that it is online and it only requires aninternet connection to use the platform. Daniel dug deeper, and expressed a desirefor an option to connect via an API directly to the platform, and then to be able toextract sections of the vast amount of material (though of course still crediting theAIME project). A technical access via API into the SQL database, which containsall the entries (text, vocabulary, contributions etc.) could add support for backdooraccess, but would require time spent by developers on adding such support, andtaking time away from stabilizing the website. It might also be an issue from alegal perspective, which we will discuss later.

Another issue with ‘openness’ which Daniel articulated, was a problem with link-ing to content on the platform. As all content of the TEXT, VOC, DOC andCrossings was only accessible after login, he considered the platform to be lim-ited. The platform also does not afford direct links to specific sections of TEXT,and if one wanted to share a section or certain quote, one would need to copy itout of the platform instead of creating a shareable link, and that, to Daniel, was abig obstacle for the platform if the aim was to create an open platform.

Documentation We have seen that the use of the contribution interface, de-scribed in section 5.1 above, and specifically the functionality to document, hasbeen open to interpretations on how and what to document. The platform alsoaffords contributions, which are not aligned with what was anticipated and de-sired by Latour, such as opinions and comments. And though guidelines wereset, we saw that they were not followed identically by all contributors. Wheresome contributions were denied on account of incomplete documentation, others

31

were published with very little documentation. We also saw form-based inscrip-tions into the contribution interface, as to what the contribution should contain, inorder to be accepted through the web interface. These inscriptions are the scholas-tic format of a desired contribution, through ‘Title’, ‘Abstract’, ‘Document’ and‘Reference’ features. What to write in these assigned fields has been up to thecontributor, which constitutes no actual barrier, as the web interface will acceptany contribution, as long as the required fields are filled and at least one documentexists.

An augmented book The book on the platform has been labelled ‘augmented’,meaning that the online book is bigger than a traditional publication. This aug-mented book is immersive, and you can delve into it and the supporting materialusing the columns presented on the platform, which is not available in hard-copy.The vast amount of data, comprised of approximately 1600 pages of field docu-ments, offers a unique reading experience where one can support the reading withnotes and vocabulary. However, the way the platform is configured, with its twoentries (the book and the crossings), limits the use of the supporting material. Theentirety of the data is available on the first entry, but the presentation of materialon the second entry, the crossings platform, is better suited to be explored, whichwas what Latour actually intended. The entire platform is thus affording this aug-mented reading experience, but this has not performed the way it was intended,and to some degree leaving the vast catalogue of material relatively unused.

The idea of affordances is, that it can play both a negative and positive setting onthe object in question. The online digital platform permits use of its contributioninterface, where constraints are not explicit. It is the contribution guidelines andmediation process, which constrain the use of the interface, by prescribing andenforcing what constitutes a contribution.

6.2 Technological Frames

To frame the perspectives of the actors in our investigation, we will highlight theassumptions concerning the functionality of the digital platform. We will also

32

look into the expectations towards the objective of use. We will then look intoperceptions about their knowledge of the conditions and consequences of engag-ing with the AIME platform. Finally, we will summarize our insights in order tohighlight areas of incongruence between actors’ perspectives.

Assumptions about the functionality of the AIME platform In our analysiswe have uncovered numerous articulations concerning our interviewees’ percep-tions towards the functionality of the platform. We have discovered conflictingassumptions on the methodological setup of handling contributions, guidelinesand validation requirements, and process and organizationally oriented percep-tions about the how mediation was handled.

Guidelines and validity concerning contributionsWhen our informants articulated their assumptions towards the functionality in-scribed in the contribution interface, we saw how our actors’ interpretation shapedhow they related to the guidelines, and not least to the experience of being vali-dated or rejected when trying to contribute. People who, like Joshua, placed em-phasis on contributions extending the original hypothesis were aligned with La-tour in his vision of contributions as documentation to the original text. They de-scribed the contribution interface and the accompanying guidelines as very looselydefined, thus leaving room for interpretation towards how and what could be pre-sented in contributions, as long as it was aligned with the aim of extending anddocumenting the inquiry. This was in clear contrast to people like William andDaniel, who did not conform to the intentions presented by Latour about the po-tential and functionality provided through contributions. By emphasizing the as-pects within the preliminary report concerning empiricism and pluralism, and thearticulation of contributors as co-inquirers, thus pointing towards a larger egali-tarian community based project, they questioned the trade-offs of inscribing themethodological choices into the contribution interface and the guidelines. Forthem, the guidelines were interpreted as very strict and in lack of interpretive flex-ibility towards what a valuable contribution can be. For William, this resulted inskepticism towards the criteria for validity of his contributions when they wererejected, even though the mediators saw the definition of criteria as dynamically,

33

individually, and loosely defined. In William’s case he could still use the contri-bution platform, while circumventing the regulations by posting the contributionon a personal blog. He called it self-defense, and a way to make sure that the workhe has done on a contribution is published, no matter what. These conflicting per-ceptions reveal how the assumptions towards the functionality of the contributioninterface has had an influence on how our actors engaged with, and also how theyexperienced their engagement with the platform.

Time, transparency and interaction in the mediation processIn extension to the perceptions presented above, we encountered conflicting as-sumptions concerning the processing time of contributions, once they had beensubmitted. For some actors, the varying duration in handling time was assumednecessary due to a high workload in the volume of contributions being mediated,whereas from others it was perceived as a lack of responsiveness or insufficientinvestment in the mediation process itself. In our analysis, we saw a correlationbetween actors, e.g. William, who sought a higher level of mediator interaction,and an equivalent desire for transparency inscribed in the mediation process. ForWilliam, and somewhat for John and Daniel, this resulted in the mediation processbeing seen as something inherently and performatively selective. Their assump-tions were evident in that they noticed a lack of, and a desire for, an interactionfacilitator embedded in the platform, which would afford a community of co-inquirers to engage with the experiment through transparent discussion.

This perception seems in alignment with their aforementioned assumptions of acommunity-based inquiry, allowing for debatable rules and interpretive flexibilityof a pluralistic and empiricist approach. However, this was not what Latour hadenvisioned for the function of contributions. And even though most actors, if notall, understood his vision, these conflicting assumptions towards the functionalityof the contribution cycle continuously impacted the project, as guidelines wererepeatedly communicated, and individual negotiation became necessary, as in thecase with William, who was actively encouraged to refrain from challenging theprotocol of the experiment.

34

Expectations towards the objective of the AIME platform In this section wewill shift focus to the expectations we have encountered towards the purpose orobjective of the AIME platform with a discussion on the aspect of interactionand the notions of openness and participation. Then we will look into purposerelated perspectives towards the empirical aspect of the project, and how it hasbeen inscribed in the platform.

Co-inquiry and the level of opennessWe have seen how several of our interviewees assumed functionality to support in-teraction amongst the co-inquirers. This assumption is linked to the expectation ofa somewhat democratic discussion facilitated through the digital platform, in or-der to engage with grand global problems related to modernity. In this perspective,the expectations were to be able to participate in a developmental process, whereideas presented in Latour’s preliminary report could be questioned, collectivelydiscussed and reformulated. Perceptions uncovered in this regard were gradu-ally different in how radically they positioned themselves and their expectations,where William was the most reactionary and opposing to the actual manifestationof the platform, in contrast to what he expected.

But we saw similar articulations among the more enthusiastic actors, such asDaniel, John and Joshua, who expressed their expectations of a grand project en-compassing a broader representation in participants. For Joshua, it seemed thathis experience, in alignment with his assumptions towards becoming a contrib-utor, influenced how well realized he considered his expectations towards open-ness. For Daniel, the incongruence between his expectations or assumptions andthe demands inscribed in the platform, lead to a disappointment which made himunable to ever commit to becoming a contributor. We saw the same tendency onthe question of openness inscribed in the digital platform, where Joshua was veryimpressed by what he perceived as an unequaled global digital apparatus. Thisis opposed to Daniel’s contemplation of a lack of openness, in terms of what heexpected in the architecture of the platform, and its affordance to allow for dissem-ination and improvement by a more technically oriented community of developersand designers through e.g. APIs and direct links.

These perspectives all center around expectations towards the platform as a fa-

35

cilitator of participation among a community of researchers, where we detecteda clear sense of identity among our actors. They perceived of themselves as co-inquirers in this global community, despite their reservations towards how well theplatform afforded this. What is interesting is that we detected a clear distinctionbetween the expectations of external contributors and those of Latour himself. Heexpressed in several instances how he expected the platform to perform as an in-strument, allowing people to supply documentation to his preliminary report, andhereby validating or refuting the hypothesis presented by him. This is also why,by and large, he considered the experiment a failure, as participants, in his per-spective, didn’t understand or didn’t want to understand and adhere to the protocolhe proposed for the experiment. William seemed to have sensed this expectation,and as he was opposed to this way of conducting the experiment, he used nega-tively loaded arguments about e.g. ‘party line’, ‘assimilation’ and ‘elimination’,to account for the way the negotiation was conducted by Latour and his team. Inthe same approach, he articulated how he refused to become merely a researchassistant to Latour under the false promise of being a co-inquirer. As such, wesaw an area of incongruence concerning the expectations towards the level of par-ticipation, influence and transparency inscribed in the platform.

A platform for conducting empirical researchA major aspect of the project as a whole, is the methodological approach of con-ducting empirical anthropology. As previously mentioned, Latour’s expectationof how this should be inscribed in the platform, was by making contributions servethe purpose of documenting the TEXT column with empirical evidence to supportor challenge his hypothesis. However, we saw different expectations towards thisway of conducting empirical anthropology. Daniel questioned the trade off in theinscription of rules into the platform, which resulted in a somewhat closed userinterface (UI). In his view, this is constraining in terms of allowing co-inquirersto bring forward empirical material as they see fit, and hereby affording new andsurprising perspectives to inform and evolve the experiment. Daniel and Williamexpressed in different ways, that they found it hard to imagine how you can con-duct an empirical experiment, if you only want people to contribute the way youask them to do, and more so with a set of predefined and indisputable modes, in

36

which to label your empirical findings. Secondly, the constraining UI inhibits ex-ternal technically minded actors to interact with and suggest improvements to thedigital platform itself. This was problematic to Daniel, as he expected the digitalplatform itself to be an empirical aspect of the project, and open for interpreta-tion.

Knowledge about conditions and consequences of the AIME platform Wewill now discuss the knowledge our informants have expressed concerning theconditions they encountered in using the AIME platform, and not least how theyperceive these conditions might entail certain consequences. We will discuss thedistinction between contributions and comments, how contributions have beenfiltered, and lastly the conditions and consequences concerning openness, accessand participation of the platform, and how it relates to the workshops.

Contribution formatThe most debated aspect among our interviewees was the official distinction be-tween contribution and comment. As discussed earlier, Latour wanted people tocontribute in adherence with the premise prescribed in the preliminary report, doc-umenting the modes and their crossing(s). We had the same impression as Daniel,who noted that Latour perceived the consequence of inscribing conditions andguidelines into the contribution cycle, as a way to keep the experiment movingforward, instead of spending time and effort discussing underlying aspects of theproject. Furthermore, Latour explained how he wanted to distance the platformfrom opinion-based arguments, in comparison to the way he perceived the func-tions of blogs and social media platforms. But as the project was distanced fromthe blogosphere, and as guidelines for promoting ‘good’ contributions were con-tinuously communicated, many participants became categorized in their effortsof contributing. We learned how these distinctions between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’were, by some informants, perceived as being too dualist, too constraining, andas a way of labelling some contributions as bad, trash or insufficient. For them,the consequences of constraining the contribution cycle was that it inhibited par-ticipation, and inherently limited the range of potentially fruitful insights to theexperiment. The formatting of contributions, and the clashes of perception it en-

37

tailed was however something which did receive a lot of attention from the AIMEteam. Both in how it was communicated, but not least in how to engage withfiltering contributions to the platform through the mediation process.

Filtering contributions and contributors in the mediation processThe mediation process, which is initiated once a contribution is submitted throughthe platform, plays a significant role in the network surrounding the AIME plat-form. We experienced how actors had differing perspectives towards how con-ditions have been inscribed into the mediation process, and how they have influ-enced the project. We learned how there is a filtering process taking place, whichin most cases was fairly straight forward, either by simply publishing validatedcontributions with little or no negotiation, or through brief exchanges betweenthe mediators and the contributors, ironing out minor details such as spelling orsuggestions for improvement, in order to finalize contributions before publishingthem. The mediators were at ease with this part of the process, and Richard evenconsidered the conditions to be overly inclusive by filtering contributions on thebasis of not being ‘too stupid’. This is however in contrast to more conflictedcases, where we saw William’s critical perspective upon the internal organizationof the AIME team as restrictive performers, elitist, and the mediation process asan act of assimilation or elimination. In his perspective, the mediation process wasactively filtering out criticism. The mediators we interviewed were conversely ofthe impression that they were not subjected to rules, guidelines or any specific pro-tocol for handling the mediation process, and that they even had to dynamicallydefine the requirements for validation during the project. We learned that Danielperceived people close to Latour, or otherwise affiliated with the AIME team, tobe more inclined to contribute, and would likely be carried through the mediationprocess, as we saw supporting indications of in email correspondences.

What we found most interesting though, was how certain articulations among theoutsiders to the project, and the members of the AIME team, became standardways of describing and perceiving of each other. William continuously used theexpression ‘party line’ to describe how Latour, as the leader of the inquiry wassupposedly in control of how content was generated through the experiment. Wealso heard repeated distinctions between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ to the project.

38

From the ‘insider’ perspective, the notion of ‘trolls’ was often used to catego-rize contributors like William, who were in one way or another troublesome fromtheir perspective of processing contributions. We even saw examples of how thesecategories were passed on internally on the AIME team through e-mail correspon-dences, e.g. to alert mediators before engaging with potentially troublesome con-tributors. We find that this aspect of categorization is important, as we sensed howcontributors labeled as ‘troublesome’ seemed to receive a lot of attention amonginternal team members, especially in terms of how to deal with them. These per-ceived conditions and their consequences partake in the shaping of the level ofopenness and participation surrounding the AIME platform. In the final part ofour discussion, we will center our focus on these aspects by exploring how thearchitecture of the platform and the workshops have been perceived, in terms oftheir conditions and consequences for the project.

Openness, access and participationIn our analysis, we mentioned how it was mainly Daniel who had the knowl-edge to comment on the more technical aspects of the digital platform. We foundhis perspective very interesting in how his fairly deep insight into architecturalconditions inscribed into the digital platform played a significant role in his un-derstanding of their consequences. Daniel saw the platform as very limited bya closed architecture, a user interface without the possibility for sharing links tothe surrounding web, and no access to APIs. However, Joshua saw the platformas incredibly open by being available online, and allowing for participation on aglobal scale. Daniel commented on the legal requirement from the publisher torestrict online access, by incorporating a registration feature, and having peoplecreate a profile to enter the platform. This condition had a great deal of influenceon how the platform could be distributed online, and thus while it was likely anecessary condition for the publication as a whole, it might not have been the bestsolution for the digital platform in its own terms. For Daniel, his perception to-wards the trade-offs in the structure of the digital platform had a significant impacton his engagement with the project, as he ended up never feeling able to commitdue to the technical conditions inscribed in the platform, and thus never became acontributor.

39

For all the actors of this investigation, the workshops have been amongst theirmost cherished experience during their participation. Some of the conditionslinked to the workshops, which was emphasized by our informants, were the face-to-face interaction of participants as well as having a forum for discussion. Con-sequently, as John articulated, this was when his click-with-a-button submissionthrough the digital platform became ‘real’. The shift from individual thoughtstranslated into words submitted via the platform, to having a collective experiencewith actors from different backgrounds, while all working within same frame ofreference, was something which brought life to the contributions and their con-nection to the inquiry. In the same manner, we also sensed how the dynamicafforded by the workshops helped shape awareness towards the different sense-making frames among participants, and not least that differences and questionsconcerning the fundamentals of the project could be resolved within this environ-ment.

However, there were conflicting perceptions to the conditions and consequencesoutlined above, when the workshops were related to the digital platform. Thefirst and foremost constraining condition, which some of our actors expressed to-wards the workshop/platform constellation, was that workshops were limited inthe number of participants, and that access to participate was based on a selec-tive invitation process, and not all actors had the opportunity to participate in theworkshops. This highlights the difference between what was afforded through theplatform in contrast to the workshops, namely that there could be discussions dur-ing the workshops shaping the evolution of the project, which were completely in-visible to ‘outsiders’. Since the collective element afforded by the workshops wasnot inscribed in the platform (apart from communicative efforts supplied by theAIME team), there was a perceived consequence of unequal awareness betweenthose who did, and those who did not participate in the workshops. As Danielnoted, the dynamic which was present during the workshops, and which broughtsomething new and fruitful in comparison to traditional academic publishing, wasnot successfully translated and inscribed into the digital platform.

40

Areas of incongruence In the sections above, we have seen how the AIMEteam spent a lot of energy explaining the protocol through guidelines. And howdiffering assumptions towards the functionalities of the platform and the notionof contributions, coupled with the invisibility and lack of interaction performed inthe mediation process, resulted in incongruent frames towards how the platformshould be used to supply contributions. We also learned how incongruent framesconcerning the expectations towards the level of openness, the empirical aspectand how they relate to the overall purpose of the platform, created conflictualsituations where some actors became distanced from the inquiry, either by notparticipating, or by engaging in counter-arguments towards the foundations of theproject.

Finally, we learned how the conditions inscribed into the distinction between thedesired format of contributions, the process of filtering contributions, and the waythe platform and the workshops afforded access and participation, influenced howdifferent incongruent frames developed into conflicting perceptions towards theconsequences of the way the inquiry was performed. Moreover, we learned howthese conflicting perceptions influenced how actors in the inquiry environmentperceived of each other as trolls and elitists, or troublesome users and constrainingrequirements.

Throughout this discussion we have highlighted a series of technological frameswhich clash, and thus create areas of incongruence in the perception towards howthe digital platform was assumed, expected and experienced to perform in engage-ment. This highlights the need for aligning interpretations towards such a project,where a wide range of external actors are given fairly open access to participatethrough a digital platform. Moreover, it highlights potential challenges in achiev-ing congruence within such a grand project, where participants are distributedacross the globe and across very different backgrounds. It became apparent thatface-to-face interaction, through physical assemblies, can be a very effective wayof aligning technological frames, by how it can help create an environment whichshape mutual awareness and understanding, as well as transparency and influencewithin the process for those who participate.

41

7 Conclusion

During our investigation into the AIME project we have learned how externalactors have had very different perceptions in their experience in dealing with thedigital platform.

We have seen conflicting perceptions between contributors, mediators and BrunoLatour towards the appeal, use and accessibility of the project through the plat-form, which have influenced how these actors experienced their participation inthe project. We saw for instance how assumptions and expectations towards theguidelines, and the process of validating and publishing contributions were per-ceived differently across all participating actors. That the validation process wasalso invisible to external actors, and in the hands of subjective decision makers,created some conflicting areas which influenced how some contributors perceivedof the value of the project and the internal organization. Then we also learned howassumptions on behalf of some contributors, who through their self-identificationas a community of co-inquirers, anticipated a higher level of interaction throughthe platform. This was contrasted to the expectations of Latour of the platformserving a purpose as an instrument providing documentation for his hypothesis.It was clearly emphasized though, that the value of interaction in the communityof co-inquirers became apparent during the workshops, which for many was thehighlight of their experience with the project. This questioned why this dynamicwas never attempted inscribed in the digital platform, as not all participants hadthe opportunity to experience the fruitful interaction of the workshops.

We have argued how certain affordances and configurations in the platform designhave influenced how actors have approached the project, and also how the percep-tions of participating actors have influenced how the project has evolved. The in-scription of the desired format for contributions into the platform has afforded thecollection of a vast amount of documentation accessible as an augmented book,which exceeds what a traditional publication can provide. There were howeverperceptions of a lacking explorative interface to afford immersion into this mate-rial, and thus its usefulness. Daniel gave us the insight that the architecture, andthe legal requirements which influenced the structure of the platform, was con-

42

straining in terms of affording accessibility to engage with, and interact with thetechnically empirical aspect of the project. Affording this could potentially haveimproved the platform, through dissemination to the web, and communities ofdevelopers.

We have seen how the notion of contributions have been interpreted differently byvarious actors, and how this have had an effect on the way they engaged with theproject, and not least how the project have somewhat failed at fulfilling the antic-ipated outcome, as envisioned by Latour. The conditions in the distinction madeby Latour between contributions and comments, in order to distance the projectfrom the opinion-based arguments afforded by blogs and social media sites, wasperceived differently from Latour by the external actors. One perspective empha-sized the conflict between conducting an empirical experiment, and constructinga clinical environment for collecting empirical documentation, and how this lim-its the potentiality of new and surprising insights to the project. Furthermore weexperienced how the dualist distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ conducts whencontributing influenced external and internal perceptions towards each other. Thiswas emphasized with the internal articulations of unruly contributors as ‘trolls’,and the external articulation of decision makers as ‘elitists’.

The areas of incongruent perceptions uncovered in the duration of this report,entail reflections towards the role of actor perspectives and their negotiation anddeliberate inscription in platform design for future similar projects. We arguethat when a wide range of actors from multiple different backgrounds, distributedacross distances, are seeking to engage in a collaborative effort through digitaltechnological means, then it is valuable, as well as challenging, to seek alignmentof expectations toward the digital technology in question, and to shape mutualawareness and understanding among participants through transparency. In thecontext of AIME we have learned how face to face communication through theworkshops have been very effective in providing this kind of environment, wehope that future projects can translate these insights into their context and inscribethem into collaborative technological environments.

43

8 Critical Reflection

Here we will make space to reflect on some of the important aspects of our inves-tigation, which had an influence on our findings and the way we have derived theresults from our analysis.

Fieldwork We visited the research site when the project was almost over. There-fore we didn’t experience first-hand how negotiations over contributions were per-formed. We thus relied on retrospective stories, told by our informants, to shapeour understanding of the work practice. This also relates to the classic say-doproblem, meaning that actors do not always act the same way as they have ex-pressed. We tried to account for this by relying on multiple sources of empiricaldata, such as e-mail correspondences, and the platform and its contributions.

Interviews We treated all our interviewees with confidentiality, and aliases havebeen incorporated into this report. We know all interviewees, and the team knowswho is who, but by using aliases we ensure that no one is being formally madeaccountable for their statements. We did however experience how the stories wewere uncovering could influence interpersonal professional affiliations within theproject, and across the network of affiliated actors in cross cutting projects. Wepaid very close attention to this conflicting situation between use of valuable in-sights and the consequences it could entail for our stakeholders. Luckily we didn’tfind relevance in making use of any overly controversial statements. To ensure thetrust of our informants, some statements have been checked and confirmed withthe interviewee before being used in the report.

Reflecting on a micro-level of our interview experience, we had some valuableconsiderations in the preparation of our interviews. We prioritized the most im-portant questions in need of answering, to allow for the semi-structured approachto direct the interview. We were also very aware of ordering the line of ques-tions to allow for interpretation towards the notion of contribution, thus takingcare not to incidentally influence the perceptions of our informants in the durationof our interviews. As our fieldwork was conducted in France, with most of our

44

informants being natively French speakers, we were very aware of language. Thisincluded paying attention to the length of the interview, and the difference of try-ing to present oneself formally versus casually, dependent on language (we werekindly instructed in some cultural etiquettes of conversation by one of our closestcontacts at the AIME office, the phd-student). We were also aware of the iterationbetween broad and specific questions, and when informants are reflective enoughto give a ’truthful’ account of their perception.

Observations Engaging with research in the role of participant observers en-tails reflection on the implications of critically distancing ourselves from our in-formants. Our experience was that both we and the team were very aware of, andused to, scholarly adherence to epistemological conducts, thus shaping an envi-ronment of mutual understanding and complete acceptance of our role as investi-gators for the purpose of our own project. In terms of recording our observations,we did experience one of the liabilities explained by Blomberg (1993) as:

“[...] the ethnographer is often new to the activities participated in, agreat deal of energy can be expended simply figuring out what a nextappropriate action might be. Under these conditions participating atthe same time you are trying to make sense of the totality of events asthey unfold may be impossible.” (Blomberg et al., 1993, p. 131).

We documented a few of our observations visually through photographs, whilereflections were recorded as notes at the end of the day. However, the amountof impressions and the energy spent during the five weeks of averaging an eight-hour work day, combined with ‘after work’ interview preparation and transcriptiontasks, simply inhibited us from actively recording all of our reflections continu-ously. Nevertheless we often had explicit reflexive conversations during our work-day, which led us to iteratively incorporate new ideas and insights into our workingdocuments, interview guides, schedule, and documents for the write-up.

Theories We are aware that the concept of technological frames is not derivedfrom, or thought for this kind of organizational context. We chose this theoryon the basis of our experience during our fieldwork. We learned how there were

45

many different and conflicting perceptions towards the platform, and that they hada significant influence on how the work surrounding the platform was conducted.Thus, we found the insights from technological frames very relevant to our con-text, and shaped it to allow for conceptualization of our experiences. There is oneelement of the theory which we cannot tailor to our approach though, and thishas to do with the idea of defining groups of stakeholders with shared technolog-ical frames. Due to the relatively small amount of informants participating in ourinvestigation, we cannot derive general statements about e.g. contributors, medi-ators or any other groups or roles. The accounts we have produced are based onindividual perceptions, and we use the theory to describe these and their compar-ative relations.

Constraints Due to space limitations a section on purpose and value of theAIME project as a whole, has been excluded from this report. We found theinsights in this missing section extremely valuable, but as they were not directlyrelated to the digital platform, which is at the center of our research, we had toomit them from our report. We hope that the insights that we have found in theperspectives towards the AIME project in its entirety will someday come to lightin another project (which is very likely).

46

References

AIME Website (n.d.). Aime. http://modesofexistence.org/. Retrieved June29, 2015.

Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In Bijker, W. and Law, J.,editors, Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change,pages 205–224. MIT Press, London, England.

Akrich, M. and Latour, B. (1992). A summary of a convenient vocabulary for thesemiotics of human and nonhuman actors. In Bijker, W. and Law, J., editors,Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, pages259–264. MIT Press, London, England.

Beck Holm, A. (2013). Philosophy of Science: An introduction for future knowl-

edge workers. Samfundslitteratur.

Blok, A. and Jensen, T. E. (2011). Bruno Latour: Hybrid thoughts in a hybrid

world. Routledge.

Blomberg, J., Giacomi, J., Andrea, M., and Senton-Wall, P. (1993). Ethnographicfield methods and their relation to design. Participatory design: Principles and

practices, pages 123–155.

Boyle, T. and Cook, J. (2004). Understanding and using technological affor-dances: A commentary on conole and dyke. Research in Learning Technology,12(3).

Bucchi, M. (2004). Tearing bicycles and missiles apart. In Bucchi, M., editor,Science in society: an introduction to social studies of science, pages 77–92.Routledge, London and New York.

Burdick, A., Drucker, J., Lunenfeld, P., Presner, T., and Schnapp, J. (2012). Digi-

tal Humanities. MIT Press.

Clarke, A. E. (2003). Situational analysis: Grounded theory mapping after thepostmodern turn. Symbolic Interaction, 26(4):553–576.

47

European Research Council (2015). Erc funded projects - aime. http://erc.

europa.eu/projects-and-results/erc-funded-projects/aime. Re-trieved June 28, 2015.

Forsythe, D. E. (1999). “it’s just a matter of common sense”: Ethnography asinvisible work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 8(1-2):127–145.

Gad, C. and Bruun Jensen, C. (2010). On the consequences of post-ant. Science,

Technology & Human Values, 35(1):55–80.

Gibson, J. J. (1986). The theory of affordances. Hilldale, USA.

Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strate-

gies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.

Hammersley, M. (2006). Ethnography: problems and prospects. Ethnography

and education, 1(1):3–14.

Klein, H. K. and Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting andevaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly,23(1):67–93.

Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses: Sociology of a few mundaneartefacts. In Bijker, W. and Law, J., editors, Shaping technology/building so-

ciety: Studies in sociotechnical change, pages 225–259. MIT Press, London,England.

Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Harvard University Press, Cam-bridge, MA.

Latour, B. (1999). On recalling ant. In Law, J. and Hassard, J., editors, Actor

network theory and after, pages 15–25. Blackwell Publishers.

Latour, B. (2013). An inquiry into modes of existence. Harvard University Press,Cambridge, MA.

48

Law, J. (1999). After ant: complexity, naming and topology. In Law, J. andHassard, J., editors, Actor network theory and after, pages 1–14. BlackwellPublishers.

Orlikowski, W. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A prac-tice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science,11(4):404–428.

Orlikowski, W. J. and Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: making senseof information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information

Systems (TOIS), 12(2):174–207.

Parchoma, G. (2014). The contested ontology of affordances: Implications forresearching technological affordances for collaborative knowledge production.Computers in Human Behavior, 37:360–368.

Pfaffenberger, B. (1992). Social anthropology of technology. Annual review of

Anthropology, 21:491–516.

Ricci, D. and de Mourat, R. (2015). An account of digital humanities from theaime project.

Winner, L. (1986). Do artifacts have politics? In Winner, L., editor, The Whale

and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology, pages 19–40.University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: the case of usability trials. The Socio-

logical Review, 38(S1):58–99.