Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


EGOS 2015 Juliane Jarke

No description

Juliane Jarke

on 10 January 2017

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of EGOS 2015 Juliane Jarke

Considering the practising of sociomaterial research and its enactments
Juliane Jarke, PhD
Institute for Information Management Bremen
University of Bremen

4S/EASST 2016, Barcelona
image source: http://www.lomography.com/magazine/158573-time-a-photo-collage-series-by-john-clang
Letting the actors do the cutting
An ontology of becoming
The performative conditions of sociomaterial research
Enacting realities through methods
Methods produce researchers
Initiative of the European Commission
Targeting eGovernment-, eInclusion- and eHealth-practitioners
Aim: Sharing of ‘good practices’ across Europe
>140,000 registered users
>1,500 good practice cases

ePractice (2007-2010)

Method & Approach

Praxiography (Mol 2003)
73 interviews with 58 interviewees
23 events
Participant observation and action research

Public profile example

ePractice start page

Overview research & case study
Contributing to the Information Society
Web 2.0 Visionaries
‘Making’ Europe
A ‘paradigm shift’ in sharing practices within Europe
They took [...] a risk when they started because at that time Web 2.0 was just a trend. It was not a reality as it is now and everybody uses it. So it was a risk that they took, it could have been a failure because it could have happened that with time people just use Web 2.0 in things like Facebook to exchange photos of his nephew or just to be in contact with friends. I mean, a topic like eGovernment that is—I wouldn’t say that is a sexy topic—it’s not because it’s not interesting but because it’s very specialised and very technical. So putting Web 2.0 technology on the service of this topic, I think it was really, really risky. And it turned out to be a success because now—first Web 2.0 is a reality that everyone uses, and second ePractice became a leader and an example for many, many, many other portals run by many other organisations of what a good practice exchange portal using Web 2.0 technology should be.

Luis, ePractice project officer (01/08-12/09),
European Commission
[…] it is easy to underestimate it when you see it today what it takes. I mean nobody has done that before. Nobody has created something meaningful for public sector use across borders run by the public sector. I mean it is easy enough to have a NGO start something that is lucky enough to catch the wind. But when you are in the public sector to get the kind of enthusiasm that you need for a project like this to take off is nearly impossible.

Knut, ePractice project officer (04/2007-12/2007)
European Commission
March 2009

We were not very original in the approach. This is the way the Internet is going. Private sector initiatives have been doing it for a while, and governmental organisations are taking this idea now as well. So we are trying to follow that trend and explore something along the way.

August 2007

November 2008
Knut, ePractice project officer (04/2007-12/2007)
European Commission
What we are trying to do here is creating a larger space for them [eGovernment practitioners] to operate, where they feel more at home in the European and cross border context.
August 2007

Green et al. (2005): ‘the imperative to connect’. They argue that ‘new technologies will also be used in political place-making projects’ (p.806).

Barry (2001): within Europe technology connects across established (country) boundaries, the network that unfolds cuts across borders and can be identified as something European; a European network while containing only a limited number of elements it is much more entangled and situated than European countries themselves
never a group, only group formation
; accordingly ‘groups are constantly being performed’ (p. 63). In order to research group formation Latour suggests to follow the actors themselves, to try and
catch up with their often wild innovations
in order to learn from them what the collective existence has become in their hands, which methods they elaborated to make it fit together, which accounts could best define the new associations that they have been forced to establish (Latour, 2007, p.11-12).

deploy the ‘
actors’ own world-making abilities
’ and acknowledge that ‘framing things into some context is what actors constantly do’ (Latour 2007, p.161).
It is this very framing activity, this very activity of contextualizing that should be brought into the foreground. [...] To settle scale in advance would be sticking to one measure and one absolute frame of reference only when it is measuring that we are after; when it is
travelling from one frame to the next that we want to achieve
(Latour, 2007, p.186).
As soon as we
let the actors clean up
, so to speak, their own mess, some order can be retrieved which is quite different from the inquirers’ own attempts at limiting controversies in advance (Latour, 2007, p.161).

Capturing the performance and enactment of ePractice in terms of different modes of ordering and giving these different modes a voice, allows different actors to make their “own world-making abilities” visible;
allows actors to articulate how “particular entanglements matter to the production of subjects and objects’
(Barad 2007, p.232).
‘Knowledge should not be understood as a mirror image of objects that lie waiting to be referred to.
Methods are not a way of opening a window on the world
, but a way of interfering with it. They act, they mediate between an object and its representations. […] The question to now ask is how they mediate and interfere’ (Mol 2003, p.155).

'[w]e are not dealing with different and possibly flawed perspectives on the same object. Rather we are dealing with
different objects produced in different method assemblages
' (Law, 2004, p.55, emphasis in original).
Overall any account on methodology is not only about legitimation and scientific practices but a disciplined way of cutting (the network) and ‘seeing’ the world (in the sense Ludwik Fleck used the term).
Full transcript