Transcript A Matter of Design. Making Society through Science and

V STS ITALIA CONFERENCE
A Matter of Design.
Making Society through Science and Technology
Il 5° Convegno di STS Italia (Società Italiana di Studi sulla Scienza e la Tecnologia),
organizzato in collaborazione con il Dottorato in Design del Politecnico di Milano, si svolgerà
a Milano dal 12 al 14 Giugno 2014.
La conferenza costituirà un’occasione per la presentazione di lavori empirici e teorici
appartenenti a differenti discipline e campi di studio (sociologia, antropologia, design, storia,
diritto, filosofia, psicologia, semiotica, economia, etc.), riguardanti diversi aspetti dei processi
d’innovazione, della tecnologia, della scienza e del design.
Il comune denominatore che caratterizza questo quinto convegno ruota attorno all’idea di
design. Da un lato, la progettazione è un processo da cui scaturiscono non solo gli artefatti,
ma anche le reti sociali che quegli artefatti portano con sé, che essi rendono possibili e da cui
sono resi possibili. Dall’altro lato, lo stesso processo di progettazione non è mai spiegabile
come il risultato di decisioni autonome e razionali di individui isolati, siano essi designer,
produttori, utenti, ma è sempre un processo collettivo in cui umani e non umani esercitano la
propria influenza. Dall’incontro della tradizione degli studi sulla scienza e la tecnologia con la
più recente riflessione sul design possono scaturire nuovi scenari e nuove prospettive per
l’una e per l’altra comunità di ricerca. Come mostrano le numerose sessioni tematiche che
costituiscono la conferenza, ciò può riguardare, per esempio, lo studio degli strumenti di
comunicazione, i luoghi di lavoro, la robotica, i processi di innovazione, le fibre intelligenti, i
presidi medici e perfino il corpo umano.
Hanno confermato la loro partecipazione come keynote speaker:
Kjetil Fallan (University of Oslo)
Sheila Jasanoff (Harvard University)
Elizabeth Shove (Lancaster University)
Charis Thompson (London School of Economics)
In collaborazione con:
CALL FOR ABSTRACTS
La conferenza si articola in 24 sessioni tematiche (tracks) sotto elencate, raccolte in 6
distinte macro-aree e ogni track è dedicata ad un differente tema specifico. Chi desidera fare
un intervento deve presentare un abstract della lunghezza massima di 500 parole, laddove
non diversamente indicato nelle singole track. L’abstract deve essere completo di nome,
affiliazione e indirizzo e-mail dell’autore e scritto nella lingua della sessione tematica a
cui si intende partecipare. Nel caso di sessioni bilingui (italiano e inglese) l’abstract va redatto
nella lingua in cui si intende fare la propria presentazione.
Gli abstract vanno inviati entro il 15 febbraio 2014 attraverso la pagina di submission
sul sito del convegno, scegliendo la track dal menu e inserendo i dati nei rispettivi campi del
modulo. Gli/le autori/trici riceveranno comunicazione di accettazione o rifiuto dell’abstract
entro il 15 marzo 2014.
Per effettuare la submission è necessario che gli autori abbiano il proprio account, o che
altrimenti lo attivino.
Sessione aperta: il convegno prevede anche una sessione aperta a quei contributi che, pur
rientrando nel tema generale dell’incontro, non sono strettamente pertinenti a nessuna delle
sessioni tematiche di seguito elencate. I chair della sessione aperta verranno indicati dal
Comitato Scientifico al momento della chiusura del programma.
Doctoral consortium: il convegno organizza una poster session riservata agli studenti di
dottorato. Le istruzioni per la partecipazione al doctoral consortium sono incluse nel
sottostante elenco delle sessioni tematiche. Comunque, gli studenti di dottorato che
desiderino presentare il loro contributo all’interno di una delle 24 sessioni tematiche possono
inviarlo seguendo la normale procedura.
Pubblicazione degli atti: coloro che desiderano che il proprio contributo sia incluso negli
atti del convegno dovranno consegnare la versione definitiva del paper (salvo eventuali
modifiche richieste dai curatori) entro il 10 maggio 2014. Chi partecipa al doctoral consortium
e desidera che il proprio contributo sia incluso negli atti dovrà presentarlo, entro la medesima
scadenza, anche in forma di paper.
Aggiornamenti e informazioni più dettagliate su:
www.stsitalia.org/conferences/ocs/ and www.stsitalia.org | Twitter: @stsitalia
Contact: [email protected]
QUOTE DI REGISTRAZIONE (€)
Date
Entro il 30 Aprile
2014
Dal 1 Maggio 2014
(solo per chi
intende
partecipare senza
presentare un
contributo)
Partecipanti
Iscrizione a STS
Italia
Iscrizione al
convegno
Quota
complessiva
Docenti
(strutturati/e) e
professionisti/e
50
100
150
Studenti, post-doc
e docenti nonstrutturati/e
25
50
75
Docenti
(strutturati/e) e
professionisti/e
50
200
250
Studenti, post-doc
e docenti nonstrutturati/e
25
100
125
L’iscrizione a STS Italia è obbligatoria per chi non è già iscritto/a in regola con la quota per
il 2014. Essa dà diritto all’iscrizione alla mailing list, alla partecipazione alle attività, a
concorrere per le borse di studio occasionalmente messe a bando dall’associazione.
L’iscrizione al convegno dà diritto all’accesso a tutte le sessioni, al kit dei convegnisti, al
certificato di partecipazione, ai pranzi del 12 e 13 giugno, ai coffee break e all’uso del servizio
wi-fi del Politecnico di Milano.
Borse di studio. STS Italia mette a disposizione dei propri soci e delle proprie socie 10 borse
destinate a studenti e studentesse di dottorato e docenti e ricercatori/ricercatrici nonstrutturat@. Le borse copriranno i costi di iscrizione al convegno, di alloggio per due notti e
della cena sociale. Maggiori indicazioni saranno rese disponibili dopo il 15 febbraio.
DATE IMPORTANTI
15 Febbraio 2014: Scadenza del call for abstracts
15 Marzo 2014: Comunicazione di accettazione/rifiuto degli abstracts agli autori
30 Aprile 2014: Termine delle registrazioni per essere inclusi nel programma
10 Maggio 2014: Scadenza per la consegna dei paper per gli atti del convegno
15 Maggio 2014: Pubblicazione sul sito web del programma del convegno
SESSIONI TEMATICHE
Design e STS
Track 1. “Semiotica materiale”? Una esplorazione delle relazioni tra ANT e semiotica a partire da
artefatti e design
Track 2. Reassembling National Design Histories
Track 3. Design and the founding critic of social innovation
Track 4. Storia del design e storia dell’innovazione. Convergenze fra passato e contemporaneità
Media digitali e società della conoscenza
Track 5. Rethinking sociological gaze and citizenship through data. Epistemological and Political
Implications of the Rise of “Big Data”
Track 6. Emerging ICT and Citizens’ Values: Anticipating and Responding to Challenges
Track 7. Quanto conta la materialità nei mondi digitali: artefatti, media e discorsi
Track 8. Digital literacy e disuguaglianze sociali
Processi di design e creatività
Track 9. Design for Creativity – Investigating the mutual relations of “creative” and “ordinary
technical” practices in the design of creative tools
Track 10. Dentro e fuori lo studio: sbrogliare traduzioni tra confini
Track 11. Estetiche dell'innovazione
Track 12. The Return of “Production”. The emerging fabrication models as generators of new sociotechnical paradigms
Responsabilità, politiche e spazi dell’innovazione
Track 13. I Parchi Scientifici e Tecnologici: Verso un’ecologia dell’innovazione
Track 14. Responsibility in research and innovation. Deliberate designs and de facto configurations
Track 15. Gli spazi plurali del design
Track 16. Design practices for safe food
Salute, corpo e sostenibilità
Track 17. La progettazione di tecnologie di medicalizzazione e soccorso a distanza: studiare le pratiche
di equipe in un contesto virtuale
Track 18. Il design del prodotto etico e sostenibile: strumenti e pratiche dell’economia “altra”
Track 19. The body of imaginary. Design, technology and participation
Track 20. Disegnare e ri-disegnare la gestione della salute fuori dalle istituzioni sanitarie: pratiche di
cura, spazi e tecnologie “in the wild”
Utenti, luoghi di lavoro e infrastrutture
Track 21. Design partecipato in contesti "non-standard", con utenti "stra-ordinari"
Track 22. Progettare lavoro, tecnologia, organizzazioni e vice versa
Track 23. Manutenzione e riparazione: Infrastrutture e progettazione-in-uso
Track 24. Space, Conflict & Technologies
Sessione Aperta
Doctoral Consortium
Track 1
Convenors: Dario Mangano (Università di Palermo, [email protected]); Alvise Mattozzi
(Free University of Bozen, [email protected]); Tatsuma Padoan (SOAS, University of
London, [email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions: ITA | ENG
“Material semiotics”? Exploring ANT-semiotics relations
through artifacts and design
John Law has stated that “[i]t is better to talk of ‘material semiotics’ rather than ‘actor-network
theory’”. Such proposal seems to be the crowning achievement of a long lasting relation between
semiotics and ANT. Indeed, it recognizes to the discipline that studies systems and processes of
signification a leading role in the study of the collective configurations which enact the social. And yet,
there are still few misunderstandings, gaps and differences among the various ways in which semiotics
is
practiced
and
the
various
ways
in
which
ANT
addresses
semiotics.
For instance, within the field of the STS of design and architecture, Albena Yaneva invites scholars to
use “methods” similar to those “pursued by a semiotician […]”, but at the same time scorns approaches
to architecture which consider it a static frame of symbolic meanings (Latour e Yaneva, 2008), or that
attempt to “decipher the signs inscribed in the structure [of a building] and its hidden meanings and
practices” (Yaneva 2012). These are nevertheless ways in which semiotic researches have been
historically carried out and to which semiotics is still associated.
The difficulty to understand what are we talking about when we talk about semiotics within STS has
emerged since Bruno Latour has announced the “semiotic turn”, which has been not by chance
contested by those who opposed to Latour’s references other semiotic traditions. ANT’s semiotics is
indeed related to a specific semiotic framework – that of Algirdas J. Greimas – through which ANT
does not aim to develop a semiotics of signs, but a semiotics of relations (Law 2002) and of
configurations, and to these Yaneva was referring.
On the other side of this dialogue, semiotics researches, and especially those addressing objects and
design – particularly developed in Italy –, have been relevantly influenced by the use Latour has done
of semiotics as a descriptive methodology to account for the mediation of objects. An ANT-informedsemiotics is then emerging, and it could provide renewed descriptive tools for ANT.
In our track we want to investigate these mutual relations and explore the reciprocal re-articulations of
ANT and semiotics. We indeed want to give visibility to the methodological, theoretical and even
epistemological issues constituting a dialogue that we deem can be much wider and much more
productive than what has been up to now. We want to carry out this investigation through the
description and analysis of empirical cases mainly related, but not limited, to artifacts and design.
“Semiotica materiale”? Una esplorazione delle relazioni tra
ANT e semiotica a partire da artefatti e design
John Law ha affermato che “è meglio parlare di ‘semiotica materiale’ piuttosto che di ‘actor-network
theory’”. Questa proposta potrebbe sembrare il definitivo coronamento della lunga relazione tra
semiotica e ANT, riconoscendo alla disciplina che studia i sistemi e i processi di significazione un ruolo
di primo piano per lo studio delle configurazioni collettive che definiscono il sociale. Permangono però
alcuni malintesi, incomprensioni e distanze tra i vari modi di fare semiotica e i vari modi in cui si fa
riferimento alla semiotica all’interno dell’ANT.
Ad esempio, nell’ambito dello studio del design e dell’architettura, una studiosa come Albena Yaneva
invita a usare “metodi” simili a quelli “perseguiti da un semiologo […]”, ma al contempo prende le
distanze da approcci che tendono a pensare gli edifici come “immagin[i] static[he] di significati
simbolici” (Latour e Yaneva, 2008), o che tentano di “decifrare i segni iscritti nella struttura [di un
edificio] e i significati e le pratiche nascoste in quest’ultima” (Yaneva 2012). Tali approcci sono però
modalità attraverso cui la ricerca semiotica si è anche storicamente sviluppata e ai quali spesso la
semiotica è stata spesso associata.
La difficoltà a comprendere di cosa si parli esattamente quando si parla di semiotica all’interno degli
STS è emersa fin da quando Bruno Latour ha annunciato la “svolta semiotica”, non a caso contestata
da chi opponeva ai riferimenti di Latour altre tradizioni semiotiche. La semiotica dell’ANT, è connessa
ad uno specifico approccio semiotico – quello di Algirdas J. Greimas – attraverso il quale intende
sviluppare non una semiotica dei segni ma, piuttosto, una semiotica delle relazioni (Law 2002) e delle
configurazioni, a cui Yaneva faceva riferimento.
All’altro capo di questo dialogo, le ricerche semiotiche, specialmente quelle che si occupano di oggetti e
design – particolarmente fiorenti in Italia – sono state molto influenzate dall’uso che Latour ha fatto
della semiotica come metodologia descrittiva per rendere conto della mediazione degli oggetti. Sta
dunque emergendo una semiotica “informata” – nel doppio senso di messa al corrente e di messa in
forma – dall’ANT, che potrebbe fornire rinnovati strumenti descrittivi all’ANT stessa.
Nella nostra track vogliamo investigare queste mutue relazioni ed esplorare le reciproche
riarticolazioni di ANT e semiotica, rendendo espliciti gli snodi metodologici, teorici e financo
epistemologici di un dialogo che crediamo possa essere ben più esteso e proficuo di come è stato
finora. Desideriamo procedere in questa esplorazione attraverso casi empirici che facciano riferimento
principalmente, ma non esclusivamente, ad artefatti e design, alla loro descrizione e analisi. Casi
concreti a partire dai quali il dialogo possa svilupparsi.
Dario Mangano, semiologist, is a researcher in Philosophy and Theories of Languages at the
Università di Palermo. His research is focused on objects and design. On these issues has
published, among other things, Semiotica e design (Carocci, 2009).
Alvise Mattozzi, semiologist, is fellow researcher in Sociology of cultural and communicative
processes at the Faculty of Design and Art of the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano. His
researches lie at the crossroad of STS and Design Studies and are focused on how to describe
the mediation of artifacts.
Tatsuma Padoan, anthropologist, is a post-doc at the School of Oriental and African Studies
of the University of London, studies religious rituals and design practices using a semiotic as
descriptive methodology.
Track 2
Convenors: Javier Gimeno Martínez (Department of Arts and Culture, VU University
Amsterdam, [email protected]); Joana Ozorio de Almeida Meroz (Design Cultures,
Department of Arts and Culture, Faculty of Arts, VU University Amsterdam,
[email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions: ENG
Reassembling National Design Histories
"One of the dominant modes of categorizing and studying design has been in terms of the nation-state.
This emphasis has caused some design historians to question whether the nation-state provides the
most suitable framework for the historical study of design, particularly given the challenges posed by
globalization. One of the main shortcomings encountered in national design histories is the
assumption of a fixed national context. Here, well-known social, economic, political and cultural
backgrounds are often taken as stable frames according to which the meanings of design can be
derived. This approach is inadequate in two counts: first, it reproduces dominant social logics, leaving
little space for revision and contestation; second, it is empirically weak, since it assumes rather than
investigates the actual networks in which design participates. Despite such difficulties, design
historians have recently started questioning whether it might not be too early to overthrow the
national framework given its indisputable historical relevance to the development of design. Yet,
alternative, more appropriate theoretical-methodological frameworks with which to examine the
relationship between design and the nation is still in need of development.
STS can contribute to providing new perspectives to the study of national design histories. A
fundamental insight of STS is that there is no such thing as an independent social context in which
technology occurs, but rather that the two are mutually constitutive. When this insight is extrapolated
and brought to bear upon national design histories, the nation-state as a fixed and stable entity
disappears from view. Left in its place are multiple constellations of social and material networks that
both enable and are enabled by designed artefacts. This emergent view of context implies a drastic
reconfiguration of the nation-state and consequently also of national design histories. It opens up
possibilities for national design histories that not only extend well beyond national borders, but that
also takes account of previously excluded objects, subjects, voices and perspectives.
This track welcomes theoretical and empirical studies from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds that
confront the fields of STS and national design history and explore the new possibilities that this may
bring.
"
Javier Gimeno Martínez is assistant professor and programme coordinator MA Design
Cultures, VU University Amsterdam is an expert in theories of national identity and design
Joana Ozorio de Almeida Meroz, PhD candidate Design Cultures, VU University Amsterdam,
is writing a dissertation on the history of the idea ‘Dutch Design’ from a materialistconstructivist approach.
Track 3
Convenors: Philippe Gauthier (School of industrial design, University of Montreal,
[email protected]);
Alain
Findeli
(University
of
Nîmes,
[email protected]);
Johanne
Brochu
(Laval
University,
[email protected]); Christophe
Abrassart (University of Montreal,
[email protected]);
Sébastien
Proulx
(Université de Montréal,
[email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions: ENG
Design and the founding critic of social innovation
The recent cross-breeding between design and social innovation sparks some interesting debates about
the adequacy and real benefit of design for the search of answers to our political and social problems.
What is so social about design in the first place ? Even if we do understand design as a set of practises
that impact on the artificial environment we lean on in our everyday activities, hense on our material
culture, can we really link that social dimension to the characteristic intention of designers ? On the
other hand, if many recent experiences acknowledge the potential of design to support innovations
stemming from local communities, does it really bear the essential critical ressources on which
communities initiative hinges ?
Answering those two questions seems now necessary to correctly advocate for the role of design in
building new capabilities with respect to communities emancipation and human flourishing.
With this track proposal we ought to laid down a setting that can help explore how social issues take
place in the designer’s critical engagement. The expected communications are to be structured around
the presentation of social design case studies, reflecting on the social issues the outlined projects raise,
the state of affairs they challenge, and the critical resources, moral, social or political, they lean on to
stake their worthiness. In that way, we wish to offer an opportunity for participants to hold a critic of
the critics, considering that, in the design field, moments where projects are criticized, may it be in the
studio, in the schools workshops or in front of clients, represent one of the most common situation to
see design being theorized.
Philippe Gauthier: Professor, School of industrial design, University of Montreal
Alain Findeli: D. æsthetic, University of Nîmes.
Johanne Brochu: Professor, School of planning, Laval University
Christophe Abrassart: Professor, School of industrial design, University of Montreal
Sébastien Proulx: Ph. D. candidate, Faculty of environmental design, University of Montreal
Track 4
Convenors: Alberto Bassi (Università Iuav di Venezia, [email protected]) Vanni Pasca (ISIA,
[email protected]);
Raimonda
Riccini
(Università
Iuav
di
Venezia,
[email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions: ITA | ENG
Storia del design e storia dell’innovazione. Convergenze fra
passato e contemporaneità
Il design - come pratica progettuale e come disciplina - può certamente essere definito come
un ambito costitutivamente “socio-tecnico”. La sua natura molteplice, nella quale convergono
tanto fattori tecnico-produttivi quanto fattori di carattere estetico, simbolico, culturale ecc.,
colloca il design al centro di un vero e proprio sistema di relazioni, saperi, discipline e
tecniche, in uno spazio intermedio fra il sistema tecnico-economico-industriale e il sistema
socio-culturale e simbolico.
Questa definizione di design – che risale agli anni Sessanta - marca una netta distinzione
dall’approccio artistico-autoriale – e presenta numerose analogie con quanto avrebbero
teorizzato a partire dagli anni Ottanta gli studi sulle tecnologie, in particolare quelli strutturati
attorno al cosiddetto approccio socio-tecnico.
Si evidenzia così una possibile convergenza fra la teoria del design e gli approcci costruttivisti
(SCOT). Uno degli elementi di questa analogia è l’importanza assegnata alla ricostruzione
storica, che talvolta assume una funzione cruciale anche nell’elaborazione di modelli
interpretativi validi per capire il presente: “i processi di cambiamento dipendono dalla storia
del processo nel tempo e la loro spiegazione deve includere la ricostruzione degli eventi nel
tempo, compresi gli small historical events, restituiti alla tradizione di ricerca della storia”. In
altre parole, il cambiamento innovativo, come tutti i processi “irreversibili”, può essere
spiegato efficacemente a partire dalla storia e nello stesso tempo contribuire a una sua
rilettura. Dunque, per la storia del design si apre un’importante prospettiva di ricerca, che
riguarda lo sviluppo del design come componente costitutiva dei processi di innovazione. E’
necessario perciò sviluppare metodologie d’indagine proprie, che partano dalle caratteristiche
intrinseche del design.
Ci si chiede:
• è possibile costruire un discorso storico sul design dal punto di vista dell’innovazione
socio-tecnica che non sia mera trasposizione di una storia dell’innovazione?
• in che modo si può caratterizzare come storia del design?
•
•
•
ha senso parlare di un approccio sistemico nella ricostruzione delle vicende storiche del
design?
analizzare l’impatto delle nuove tecnologie che oggi investono il terreno progettuale,
può aiutare a rileggere la storia del design superando le ricostruzioni consolidate ma
spesso viziate da stereotipi?
in che modo i sistemi "locali" si inseriscono e dialogano con il contesto e le condizioni
della globalizzazione, anche nella nuova prospettiva aperta dalla world history of
design?
Design history and innovation history: convergences
between past and present
The design – as project activity and as discipline – can be defined constitutively a sociotechnical scope. Its multifaceted nature, which embraces both technical and production
factors, both aesthetic, symbolic, cultural factors, places the design in the middle of a real
system of relationships, knowledge, disciplines and techniques, in an intermediate space
between the technical-economic-industrial system and the socio-cultural and symbolic.
This definition of design - which dates back to the Sixties – differs from artistic and authorial
approach and has many similarities with what would have theorized since the Eighties many
studies on technologies, particularly those about the so-called socio-technical approach.
There is thus a possible convergence between design theory and constructivist approaches
(SCOT). One of the elements of this analogy is the importance assigned to the historical
reconstruction, which sometimes takes on a crucial role also in the development of
interpretative models available to understand the present: “the processes of change depend on
the history of the process in time and their explanation must include the reconstruction of the
events in time, even small historical events, restored to the tradition of historical research”. In
other words, innovative change, like all “irreversible” processes, can be effectively explained
by starting with history, and by retracing a sequence of temporal events.
Thus begins an important research perspective to the history of design, therefore, in particular
the design development as a constitutive component of the innovation processes. It’s
therefore necessary to develop methods of investigation, they leave the intrinsic
characteristics of the design.
One wonders:
• can we construct a historical discourse on design from the perspective of sociotechnical innovation that isn’t a mere transposition of a history of innovation?
• how can this discourse be characterized as history of design?
• can we speak of a systemic approach to the reconstruction of the historical events of
design?
•
•
can we re-read the history of design analyzing the impact of new technologies on
project and exceeding the established reconstructions but often biased by stereotypes?
how "local" systems fit and interact with the context and the conditions of
globalization, even in the new perspective opened up by the world history of design?
Track 5
Convenors: Davide Bennato (Department of Humanistic Sciences, University of Catania
(IT), [email protected]); Federico Neresini (Department FISSPA - University of Padua,
[email protected]); Annalisa Pelizza (Science, Technology and Policy Analysis dpt.,
University of Twente, [email protected]); Francesca Musiani (Centre for the Sociology of
Innovation, MINES ParisTech/CNRS, [email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions: ENG
Rethinking sociological gaze and citizenship through data.
Epistemological and Political Implications of the Rise of
“Big Data”
In recent years, human pursuits to quantify the world have added a new technology to their centuriesold repertoire. “Big Data” (BD) refers to the increase in the scale and complexity of datasets, which
requires new methods and technologies to process data towards meaningful applications, and fosters
the ability to translate into processable data elements that have poorly been quantified before,
associated with new capabilities for machine learning.
While, for commentators embracing its hype, BD marks the Information Society’s full deployment of
its promises, this track undertakes a scientifically-grounded reflection on this development, especially
its consequences for policy-making and for the practice of research itself. From an STS perspective, the
idea that from vast datasets we can derive applications whose existence we could not formerly conceive
prompts key epistemological questions. For example, the possibility to harness “actual” data instead of
statistically-defined portions of reality might give rise to neo-positivist claims for objectivity. As a
counter-part, analyses using BD are prepared to tolerate higher levels of inaccuracy. Whether we
should expect an over-reliance on the scientific consistency of big datasets - and in parallel, a neglect
of their inaccuracy - is open to debate.
Work presented in this track may address questions such as: now that we have access to a huge
amount of data and the availability of an increasing number of informatics and statistical tools, how
does it change the way to do social research and elaborate social theory? Is the logic of analysing social
processes changing? What does it actually mean to “predict” a social behaviour?
BD also have political consequences: they are changing the way governments work. If analysing
massive quantities of information allows to look for patterns that might predict future behaviours, how
does this influence not only researchers, but political actors, as well?
Policy-making needs to identify stakeholders and targets. How is the “BD way” of producing
knowledge about social actors challenging institutions and identities? How is the contract between the
governed and the governing redesigned by BD use?
This track calls for theoretical and empirical work addressing, on the one hand, the epistemological
and methodological issues prompted by the foray of BD into the social sciences (STS in particular),
and, on the other hand, their consequences for policy-making - from health care to labour, from
environmental protection to urban planning - of using vast process-produced datasets instead of
survey-produced samples.
Davide Bennato, PhD, assistant professor of Sociology of digital media at University of
Catania (Department Of Humanistic Sciences). His research interest are focused on
technological cultures, digital media consumption and digital media socialization. He is
author of Sociologia dei Media Digitali (Sociology of Digital Media [2011]) and co-author of
Dizionario di informatica, dell’ICT e dei media digitali (2012). He writes about the social
impact of the internet in his blog Tecnoetica (http://www.tecnoetica.it/).
Federico Neresini teaches Science, Technology and Society and Sociology of Innovation at the
University of Padua (Italy).His research has been focused on biotechnology and
nanotechnology; recently he also addressed to the relationship between big-data and scientific
research activities, as well as the implications of big-data for the social sciences.
Annalisa Pelizza, Marie Curie Researcher, Twente University, NL. She received her Ph.D. in
Information Society from University of Milan-Bicocca. She worked as project manager and
ethnographer for governments, developing large-scale data infrastructures. Her current
interests investigate how digitization of information flows in public administration is
challenging existing institutional hierarchies.
Francesca Musiani, PhD, socio-economics of innovation. Post-doctoral researcher at MINES
ParisTech/CNRS, France. Recently, she was the 2012-13 Yahoo! Fellow in Residence at
Georgetown University and affiliate of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at
Harvard University. Her research explores Internet governance in an interdisciplinary
perspective.
Track 6
Convenors:
Philip
Boucher
[email protected]).
(Joint
Research
Centre,
European
Commission,
Language(s) of submissions: ENG
Emerging ICT and Citizens’ Values: Anticipating and
Responding to Challenges
In this session, we consider the relationship between citizens’ values and emerging information and
communication technologies (ICT). In particular, we consider how we can anticipate problems and
proactively design social, technical and regulatory responses to them. Technologies such as wearable
sensors, internet of things, social media, bio-banking and autonomous systems present several
moments of design. The values that are intentionally and unintentionally ‘designed in’ to technologies
achieve greater longevity and reach. As our lives are increasingly mediated by digital artefacts – to the
extent that we live in a digital society and experience a digital culture – certain values, such as
openness, can be amplified at the expense of others, such as privacy. Those technologies that achieve
massive proliferation and normalisation profoundly affect the experience of contemporary life, for
example by exaggerating our capacity to measure and remember events and adjusting the norms of
our relationships with others over time and space. This capacity to transform the way we live, often in
unpredictable ways, has been met with both delight and caution.
We will explore the significant challenges in anticipating and proactively responding to the future
effects of ICT development on different groups. How can we identify which benefits are at stake and
anticipate which rights are at risk before development has occurred, and how can we use this
knowledge to protect citizens’ values without foregoing the benefits of technical development? In
exploring the possibilities, we particularly welcome submissions on the following topics:
Designing social, technical and regulatory methodologies for the exploration of the relationship
between ICT and citizens’ values, and for the identification of potential consequences of future
developments.
Evaluating existing social, technical and regulatory responses to issues raised by emerging ICT (e.g.
sousveillance, privacy-by-design and citizens’ juries).
Designing social, technical and regulatory responses to specific issues such as cyber-bullying, dual-use,
surveillance, digital memory and the right to be forgotten.
Philip Boucher Philip’s research focusses on the relationship between controversial emerging
technologies and society. He works at the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission
in a group that develops and deploys methodologies to anticipate, explore and respond to the
societal and ethics implications of ICT and digital society.
Track 7
Convenors: Gabriele Balbi (University of Lugano, [email protected]); Paolo Magaudda
(University of Padova, [email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions: ITA | ENG
How materiality matters in digital worlds: Artefacts, media,
and discourses
One of the key ideas that embedded in the spread of digital media has been the "dematerialization" of
practices and media, apparently caused by digital streams of data (coded in sequences of 0 and 1)
travelling from one medium to another. However, investigations on the uses of new digital media have
shown a different view. Not only media practices are still literally crowded of material objects, but also
the role of artefacts, technologies and media seems to take on a new centrality. Furthermore, we also
assisted to a renewed role of corporality in the use of the media, a proliferation of new interfaces, an
increasing focus on aesthetics and tactility of these new media and a flourishing presence of digital
devices in everyday life.
There is no doubt, however, that the presence of objects and materiality in the digital lives has
profoundly transformed, and it has challenged old practices and paradigms of use and consumption of
the media. For example, with digital media, old communication technologies are changed assuming
now a different nature. The digitization of photography, cinema, radio, television and
telecommunications has generated a socio-cultural and aesthetic change of these means. On the other
hand, the ease of transferring data streams, the increasing relevance of the apps, and the ease of
transmigration between different media apparently highlighted the role of the “message over the
medium” itself in the digital world.
All this can be described as an on-going process of "re-materialization" of digital culture, an entire
recombination and reconfiguration of the relationship between materiality, practices and cultural
meanings in contemporary digital life.
Based on these reflections, the track invites contributions that address the relationship between
materiality and digital worlds from different theoretical and empirical points of view. Examples of
thematic topics may include:
• The role of material objects in digital practices
• The design and aesthetics of both new digital media and digitized old media
• The situated uses of new media and digital technologies
• The historical evolution of shapes of media technologies
• The transformation of cultural media: books, music, photography, moving pictures,
broadcasting
• The role of materiality in the change of digital practices
•
•
Discourses and rhetorics on dematerialization of digital media
The relationship between the use of the body and new media
Quanto conta la materialità nei mondi digitali: artefatti,
media e discorsi
Una delle principali idee che hanno accompagnato la diffusione dei media digitali è stata quella della
“dematerializzazione” delle pratiche e dei supporti, apparentemente causata dai flussi di dati codificati
(in sequenze di 0 e 1) in grado di viaggiare da un mezzo all’altro. Eppure, le indagini sull’uso dei nuovi
media digitali mostrano un panorama differente. Non solo, spesso, le pratiche mediali sono ancora
ingombre di oggetti materiali, ma inoltre il ruolo di artefatti, tecnologie e supporti sembra assumere
una nuova centralità, attraverso un rinnovato ruolo della corporalità nell’uso dei media, un proliferare
di nuove interfacce di gestione dei dati, un’importanza sempre più marcata dell’estetica e della tattilità
di questi nuovi media, e una moltiplicazione di dispositivi digitali nella vita quotidiana.
È indubbio, tuttavia, che la presenza degli oggetti e della materialità nei mondi digitali si sia
profondamente trasformata, mettendo in crisi vecchie pratiche e paradigmi di uso e consumo dei
media. Ad esempio, grazie ai media digitali, vecchie tecnologie di comunicazione si trasformano ed
assumono una natura, anche materiale, differente. La digitalizzazione della fotografia, del cinema,
della radio, della televisione e delle telecomunicazioni ha anche provocato un cambiamento socioculturale ed estetico di questi mezzi. D’altro canto, la facilità di trasferire flussi di dati, la rilevanza
delle cosiddette app, la facilità di trasmigrazione tra diversi media ha fatto emergere più il ruolo del
messaggio che del medium in sé nel mondo digitale.
Tutto questo può essere descritto come il dipanarsi di un processo di «rimaterializzazione» della
cultura digitale, ovvero una generale ricombinazione e riconfigurazione del rapporto tra materialità,
pratiche e significati culturali nella vita digitale contemporanea.
A partire da questo insieme di riflessioni, la track accoglie contributi sia empirici che teorici che
affrontino da differenti punti di vista il rapporto tra materialità e mondi digitali. Alcuni esempi di
tematiche degli interventi sono i seguenti:
• Il ruolo degli oggetti materiali nelle pratiche digitali
• Il design e l’estetica dei media digitali e dei vecchi media digitalizzati
• L’uso situato dei new media e delle tecnologie digitali
• L’evoluzione storica delle forme delle tecnologie mediali
• La trasformazione dei supporti culturali: libri, musica, immagini fisse e in movimento,
broadcasting
• Il ruolo della materialità nel cambiamento delle pratiche digitali
• Discorsi e retoriche sull’immaterialità dei media digitali
• L’evoluzione del rapporto tra uso del corpo e new media
Gabriele Balbi is assistant professor of media studies at the University of Lugano –
Switzerland. He is author of La radio prima della radio (2010), Le origini del telefono in Italia
(2011) and is working - with P. Magaudda - on a book about the socio-cultural history of
digital media (2014).
Paolo Magaudda is post-doc Fellow Research in Sociology at the University of Padova and STS
Italia’s Secretary (2013-15). Among his publications is Oggetti da ascoltare (2012) and
Innovazione pop (2012). He is working with G. Galbi on a book about the socio-cultural
history of digital media (2014).
Track 8
Convenors: Renato Stella (Università degli studi di Padova, [email protected]); Fausto
Colombo (Università Cattolica di Milano, [email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions: ITA
Digital literacy e disuguaglianze sociali
Con literacy s'intende la capacità di accedere, analizzare, valutare e produrre messaggi in tutti i formati
della comunicazione mediale; competenza che, riferita ai molteplici usi e attività possibili in ambito
digitale, rappresenta una condizione necessaria per vivere e partecipare in quella che è stata definita la
società della conoscenza. La mediazione che internet attua in tutte le dimensioni della vita sociale,
politica, economica e culturale di ciascun individuo è divenuta sempre più pervasiva, determinando un
riposizionamento del ruolo dell'utente, sempre più attivo nei processi di mediazione.
Vi sono condizioni sociali che creano disuguaglianze nel raggiungimento di tali competenze? La digital
literacy in che situazioni amplifica, o riduce, le disuguaglianze stesse?
La sessione proposta vuole rispondere a queste domande intendendo la digital literacy non come mero
possesso di abilità tecniche, quanto, piuttosto, come risultato della combinazione tra queste e un più
ampio contesto socio-culturale.
Il concetto di literacy dovrà quindi essere declinato seguendo traiettorie multiformi in grado di fare
emergere le prospettive culturalmente e socialmente utili a definire la valenza dell’aspetto in questione
nella società contemporanea. Saranno accettati contributi teorici, metodologici ed empirici che
andranno a occuparsi di digital literacy intersecandosi con i seguenti temi:
• bambini e adolescenti
• senior e anziani
• differenze di genere
• partecipazione politica
• device mobili
• media education
• digital divide
Fausto Colombo è Professore Ordinario di Sociologia dei processi culturali e comunicativi
presso la Facoltà di Scienze Politiche dell’Università Cattolica di Milano. Coordina la Sezione
Processi e Istituzioni Culturali dell'Associazione Italiana di Sociologia (AIS). E' direttore del
Dipartimento di Scienze della Comunicazione e dello Spettacolo e dirige il Master in
Marketing digitale e pubblicità interattiva.
Renato Stella è Professore Ordinario di Sociologia dei processi culturali e comunicativi presso
il dipartimento di Filosofia, Sociologia, Pedagogia e Psicologia Applicata (FISPPA)
dell'Università di Padova dove coordina la sezione di Sociologia. Presso l’istituto IUSVE di
Venezia insegna “Antropologia dei media”. E’ vicepresidente del corso di laurea in “Scienze
della comunicazione”.
Track 9
Convenors: Claudia Mareis (Academy for Art and Design, Basel, [email protected]);
Johannes Bruder (Academy for Art and Design, Base, [email protected]); Carolin
Wagner (Academy for Art and Design,Basel, [email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions: ENG
Design for Creativity – Investigating the mutual relations of
›creative‹ and ›ordinary technical‹ practices in the design of
creative tools
At a recently held openFramworks developer conference, Kenichi Yoneda aka Kynd presented an
algorithm that simulates painting with a paintbrush and watercolours. He identified the technological
implementation of the painter’s creative intuition as the most challenging aspect. While programming
the behavior of watercolours would primarily represent a problem of thorough coding, he admits that
the
intuitive
movements
of
a
painter
are
barely
translatable
into
code.
Such transformations, Yoneda argues, require an artistic exploration of the frontiers between humans
and computers. In his case, both an investigating of the painters’ movements as well as the viewing
practices of the beholder were necessary in order to replace the artist and simulate her work. As
Yoneda himself states, the creative intuition he implemented technologically has been a very corporeal
one.
Conceptualising creative intuition in such corporeal, analogue terms, however, unnecessarily narrows
creativity down to a very untechnical practice. In contrast, recent studies of the history of the creativity
concept suggest a different understanding of creativity, which has been transformed from the exclusive
capacity of the artist into a ubiquitous affordance in present day capitalism. (Boltanski, Chiapello
1999; Reckwitz 2012) It originates in psychological discourses of the mid-20th century and is closely
linked to strict and rule-based procedures that enable the entrepreneurial individual to make use of
her creative capacities.
Not least against the backdrop of shifts in the meaning of creativity in present day capitalism, the strict
differentiation of ›ordinary technical‹ and ›creative‹ practices needs to be thoroughly scrutinized.
Especially in the design of tools for creativity – whether software packages for designers, synthesizers
for music production, etc. – or media art, creative and technical practice coalesce. Like in the case of
Yoneda, creative intuition needs to be technically implemented or technical solutions configure the
creative practice of users.
We invite contributions that scrutinize the distinction of ›creative, intuitive‹ and ›ordinary technical‹
practices with regard to the design of tools for creativity and media art. If programmers speak of
›beautiful code‹ and mathematicians point to playful processes of simulation practice, does this point
to a technical core of creativity? Conversely, is ›aesthetic design‹ within the strict bounds of design
history and software environments rather a routine practice than a creative accomplishment.
References:
Luc Boltanski, Eve Chiapello, Le Nouvel Ésprit du Capitalisme, Paris 1999.
Andreas Reckwitz, Die Erfindung der Kreativität. Zum Prozess gesellschaftlicher Ästhetisierung,
Frankfurt 2012.
Claudia Mareis is a designer and cultural scientist. She is Professor for Design Theory and
Design Research and Director of the Institute for Research in Art and Design at the Academy
for Art and Design Basel, Switzerland.
Johannes Bruder is sociologist and research associate of the Institute for Research in Art and
Design at the Academy for Art and Design Basel.
Carolin Wagner is sociologist and junior researcher within the Institute for Research in Art
and Design at the Academy for Art and Design Basel.
Track 10
Convenors:
Laura
Lucia
Parolin
(Università
[email protected]);
Alvise
Mattozzi
(Free
[email protected]).
di
Milano
University
of
Bicocca,
Bozen,
Language(s) of submissions: ITA | ENG
In and out the studio: disentangling translations among
boundaries
Over the past few years, STS have started to consider design practices, choosing as main unit of
analysis the studio: architectural, product design, engineering studios.
Only rarely the relations between the studio and what is outside of it have been explored: among these
relations we can think of the various translations undergone by a what has been designed from concept
to prototype, to good, to artifact in use, to waste; or the relations with external suppliers or with the
building sites for architectural studies, etc.
This track intends to explore practices and processes through which a new artifact emerge, get
stabilized and acquires a autonomy and a somewhat individual identity in and out of the designers’
studio.
More in particular this track want to address these topics:
• How to describe the articulation of a new artifacts in and out the studio?
• How does an artifact gets stabilized? How it gets destabilized and re-stabilized during its life?
• What kind of translations an artifacts undergoes between design and implementationproduction?
• How is a design translated into instructions for its implementation-production as an artifact?
• How are these instructions used in order to materially translate an artifact?
• What kind of translations occur on the place of production? What kind of translation occur on
the place of use? What kind of translation occur on the place of disposal?
• In what way production influences the design process?
Theoretical and empirical contributions which intend to explore the various translations a new artifact
undergoes in and out the design studio and that try to question the borders of designing are welcome.
Dentro e fuori lo studio: sbrogliare traduzioni tra confini
Negli ultimi anni gli STS hanno iniziato ad occuparsi dalla progettazione degli artefatti scegliendo
come ambito privilegiato di osservazione gli studi di architettura, dei designer, degli ingegneri.
Solo raramente, tuttavia, si sono esplorate le connessioni tra i luoghi deputati alla progettazione con il
mondo esterno. Tra queste relazioni possiamo pensare alle varie traduzioni del progetto in prodotto,
merce, oggetto in uso, rifiuto, oppure le varie relazioni con i subfornitori, o con i cantieri di
realizzazione di opere architettoniche, solo per citare alcuni esempi.
Questa track intende esplorare i processi e le pratiche attraverso cui un nuovo artefatto emerge,
diviene riconoscibile come entità autonoma e distinta dentro e fuori gli studio dei progettisti. In
particolare:
• Come descrivere l'articolazione di un nuovo oggetto?
• Come avviene la stabilizzazione di un artefatto? Come viene de-stabilizzato e ristabilizzato nel
corso della sua vita?
• Come si traduce un nuovo oggetto tra progettazione e realizzazione/produzione?
• Come è tradotto il progetto in indicazioni per la realizzazione/produzione di un artefatto?
• Come sono utilizzate le indicazioni per la traduzione materiale dell'artefatto?
• Che traduzioni avvengono nei luoghi della realizzazione/produzione? Che traduzioni
avvengono nei lughi dell’uso? Che traduzioni avvengono nei luoghi dello smantellamento?
• In che modo l'ambito della produzione influenza le pratiche di progettazione?
Sono benvenuti contributi teorici ed empirici che intendono esplorare le differenti traduzioni di un
nuovo artefatto dentro e fuori gli studi della progettazione e mettere in questione i confini della stessi
della progettazione.
Laura Lucia Parolin: organizational sociologist, she teaches at the Università di Milano
Bicocca and at the Università di Trento. At present her research is focused on the design
practices and on the relations among designer, manufacturers and suppliers.
Alvise Mattozzi: semiologist, is fellow researcher in Sociology of cultural and communicative
processes at the Faculty of Design and Art of the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano. His
researches lie at the crossroad of STS and Design Studies and are focused on how to describe
the mediation of artifacts.
Track 11
Convenors: Eleonora Lupo (Politecnico di Milano, [email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions: ITA | ENG
Aesthetics of Innovation
The track aims to investigate the design driven innovation processes and practices framing the debate
of the studies on science and technology in an “aesthetic” dimension, understood as an approach of
interdisciplinary investigation of the relationships between design, innovation, technology and society,
which focuses, even methodologically, soft aspects, therefore intangible, relational and cultural of their
interdependencies.
The aesthetic dimension of innovation refers not only, as commonly understood, to a perspective of
innovation of products and services linked to the experience of artistic “beauty” artistic at a sensoryperceptual level, but to an experimental and organized attitude towards form and research process
that considers the aesthetic action (or the “aesthetics in action”), in all its forms, a possible agency for
innovation, because action of knowledge and of possible social and cultural transformation, and
therefore matter of design.
The themes, for example, can range, on the epistemological and methodological- theoretical level from
the concept of humanities driven innovation (intra- and trans-disciplinary innovation driven by
sociology, anthropology, history, law, philosophy, psychology, semiotics, economics... ) to the
conception of new immaterial “forms” of artifacts ( forms-process, forms-function, forms-meaning ),
and on the more prassiological or design-applicative level, from the flow of communication,
collaboration and knowledge sharing (eg. organizational aesthetics), to the dynamics of governance
and market of the innovation value, to the cognitive and cultural relations between man and
technology (eg. aesthetics of the interaction), the building through social, cultural and technological
networks, of new scenarios of production and consumption, the cultural, sensory and semantics
dimension of new artifacts and services (humanistic design), the dynamics and practices of
“activation”, appropriation and social construction of place and identity, the relationship of
interpretation,
participation
and
co-creation
between
goods
and
users,
etc..
The track, regardless of the specific topics proposed, is structured around three pillars of possible
aesthetic innovation, often co- operating and competing, but distinguished on the basis of the main
driver of innovation. Through the proposed contributions we would like to investigate, individually or
systemically, the concepts of :
• technological aesthetics: guided by the development new technologies, mainly support the
adoption of new “form – function” (in the context of products, services, processes and
organizations ) ;
• symbolic aesthetics: guided by the development and socialization of new languages , mainly
involving the emergence and spread of new forms-meaning (in the context of products,
•
services, processes and organizations);
relational aesthetics driven by new behaviors, enabling maynly new forms-process (as part of
the products, services, processes and organizations).
References
BOURRIAUD,
N.
2010
[1998].
Estetica
relazionale.
Milano,
Postmedia
Books
COLOMBI, C., LUPO, E., Bridging innovation between design and Humanities. New cognitive and
realtional processes, in Diversity: design/humanities. Proceedings of fouth International Forum for
Design as a Process, EdUEMG (Universidade do Estado de Minas Gerais) 2014 (in print).
DE MONTHOUX, P.G. 2004. The art firm: aesthetic management and metaphysical marketing.
Stanford, Stanford University Press
LUPO, E., Design, arts and “aesthetics of innovation”, Strategic Design Research Journal, 4(2): 40-53
July-September 2011 (http://revistas.unisinos.br/index.php/sdrj/article/view/4470)
STRATI, A. 1999. Organization and Aesthetics. London, Sage.
Estetiche dell'innovazione
La track vuole indagare i processi e le pratiche di progettazione e innovazione design driven
inquadrando il dibattito degli studi sulla scienza e sulla tecnologia in una dimensione “estetica”, intesa
come un approccio di indagine interdisciplinare dei rapporti tra progetto dell’innovazione, società e
tecnologia, che si concentri, anche metodologicamente, sugli aspetti soft, quindi intangibili, relazionali
e culturali di tali interdipendenze.
La dimensione estetica dell’innovazione non si riferisce esclusivamente, come più comunemente
inteso, a una prospettiva di innovazione di prodotti e servizi legata all’esperienza del “bello” artistico a
livello percettivo-sensoriale, ma ad una attitudine sperimentale e organizzata di forma e processo di
ricerca che considera l’azione estetica (o l’”estetica in azione”), in tutte le sue forme, una possibile
agency for innovation, in quanto azione di conoscenza e possibile trasformazione sociale e culturale, e
quindi matter of design.
I temi ad esempio possono spaziare, sul piano epistemologico e metodologico-teorico, dal concetto di
humanities driven innovation (innovazione intra- e trans-disciplinare guidata da sociologia,
antropologia, storia, diritto, filosofia, psicologia, semiotica, economia…) alla concezione di nuove
“forme” immateriali di artefatti (forme-processo, forme-funzione, forme-significato); e sul piano più
prassiologico o progettuale-applicativo, dai flussi di comunicazione, collaborazione e condivisione di
conoscenza (ad es. estetica organizzativa), alle dinamiche di governance e mercato del valore
dell’innovazione, alle relazioni cognitive e culturali tra l’uomo e le tecnologie (ad es. estetica
dell’interazione), alla costruzione tramite reti sociali, culturali e tecnologiche, di nuovi scenari di
produzione e consumo, alla dimensione culturale, semantica e sensoriale di nuovi artefatti e servizi
(humanistic design), alle dinamiche e pratiche di “attivazione”, appropriazione costruzione sociale dei
luoghi e dell’identità, alle relazioni di interpretazione, partecipazione e co-creazione tra beni e utenti,
etc.
La track, indipendentemente dagli specifici temi proposti, si struttura su tre filoni di possibili estetiche
dell’innovazione, spesso co-operanti e concorrenti, ma distinti sulla base del driver principale di
innovazione. Attraverso i contributi proposti si vorrebbero indagare, singolarmente o sistemicamente,
i concetti di:
•
•
•
estetiche tecnologiche: guidate dallo sviluppo nuove tecnologie, supportano principalmente
l’adozione, di nuove “forme-funzione” (nell’ambito di prodotti, servizi, processi e
organizzazioni);
estetiche simboliche: guidate dallo sviluppo e socializzazione di nuovi linguaggi, comportano
principalmente l’affermarsi e diffondersi di nuove forme-significato (nell’ambito di prodotti,
servizi, processi e organizzazioni);
estetiche relazionali: guidate da nuovi comportamenti, abilitano principalmente nuove formeprocesso (nell’ambito di prodotti, servizi, processi e organizzazioni).
Bibliografia
BOURRIAUD,
N.
2010
[1998].
Estetica
relazionale.
Milano,
Postmedia
Books
COLOMBI, C., LUPO, E., Bridging innovation between design and Humanities. New cognitive and
realtional processes, in Diversity: design/humanities. Proceedings of fouth International Forum for
Design as a Process, EdUEMG (Universidade do Estado de Minas Gerais) 2014 (in print).
DE MONTHOUX, P.G. 2004. The art firm: aesthetic management and metaphysical marketing.
Stanford, Stanford University Press
LUPO, E., Design, arts and “aesthetics of innovation”, Strategic Design Research Journal, 4(2): 40-53
July-September 2011 (http://revistas.unisinos.br/index.php/sdrj/article/view/4470)
STRATI, A. 1999. Organization and Aesthetics. London, Sage
Eleonora Lupo, Designer, PhD in Industrial design and Multimedia communication, is since
2008 Assistant professor in Design at the Design Departmnet of Politecnico di Milano. Her
research interests focus mainly on Humanities Driven Innovation, Product and process design
cultures and Design for Cultural Heritage. http://designview.wordpress.com/
Track 12
Convenors: Massimo Bianchini (Politecnico di Milano, [email protected]);
Renaud Gaultier (EMLyon Business Schoo, [email protected]); Peter Gall Krogh (,
[email protected] ); Stefano Maffei (Politecnico di Milano, [email protected]); Fabien
Mieyeville (Ecole Centrale Lyon, Institute of Nanotechnology of Lyon, [email protected]); Jean-Patrick Péché (IDEA Program, [email protected]); Philippe Silberzahn
(EMLyon Business School, [email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions:
The Return of “Production”. The emerging fabrication
models as generators of new socio-technical paradigms
The track aims to foster a scientific debate focused on the socio-technical paradigm shift taking place
in the processes of materialization and production of goods and services. Beyond the digital
manufacturing platforms and the easy access to physical prototyping, a system of collaborative
makerspaces and fablabs is emerging where people are finding new ways to create and share
knowledge. Thus, activities in makerspaces/fablabs range from technological empowerment to peerto-peer project-based technical training to local problem-solving to small-scale high-tech business
incubation to grass-roots research. New practices of innovation are growing as well as new artefacts
and services are developed using a true social community interaction.
The connection of some phenomena of technological change, social, cognitive and economic drives a
proliferation of new experiences in production, especially in the western economies (but not only)
generating a new scenario of systemic transformation.
Some of these emerging phenomena are related to:
• The democratization and miniaturization of ICT and manufacturing technologies;
• The growth of the global population of creative people and designers and a consequent release
of the cognitive stock generated by them;
• The processes of insourcing of the manufacturing industry; the development of new forms of
productive activism and indie capitalism;
• The transformation of the logic of mass production and consumption in the long tail markets
and the consequent emergence of a range of tailor-made products and on-demand;
• The shift of paradigms in education models induced by learning by doing, doing it yourself and
doing it with other approaches.
• The evolution of relational models and community practices and tools for learning and
socialization linked to production (from tinkering to open source-innovation).
This scenario enables a two-fold change: the competence of the actors on the processes of designmaking and in the development and use of technologies needed to materialize goods and services.
This requires a rethinking of the skills involved in the processes of creation and in the spaces of
production, including the relationship between people and tools and relationships with the power and
the existing authorities. The thematic area described above is an emerging field of studies both from
the academic point of view (there is still no an integrated and well-established theoretical vision that
can interpret these phenomena in their complexity) and from the experimental and action-research
activities made by practitioners.
Massimo Bianchini is Research Associate at the Department of Economics, Management and
Industrial Engineering of Politecnico di Milano. He works with Product Service System
Design and is interested in exploring the relationship between design and the new production
paradigms: advanced and distributed fabrication, and micro and self-production.
Renaud Gaultier is a plastic artist, a creative practitioner and Director of I.D.E.A. Program
(Innovation, Design, Entrepreneurship and Arts). He has developed bachelor or master
programs about arts, creativity and innovation in several universities.
Peter Gall Krogh is Design Professor at Aarhus School of Architecture. His field of research is
the design of interactive instruments and environments. His research looks at how these
interactive products can be designed to communicate and highlight their added value and
applications in an inspiring and aesthetically interesting way.
Stefano Maffei is Associate Professor in Design at the Department of Design, Politecnico di
Milano and Director of the Master in Service Design and Design Ph.D. Author of several
international publications and designs both as practitioner and researcher, he deals with
design both as cultural research and experimental projects.
Fabien Mieyeville is Associate Professor at Ecole Centrale de Lyon/Institute of
Nanotechnology Lyon. He is the director of IDEA Fablab and IDEA Program Research Unit.
His primary research interests include wireless embedded systems, design methodologies and
living labs. His reasearch extends to innovation driven by design thinking and effectuation.
Jean-Patrick Péché is in charge of the Design Thinking at IDEA Program. He has 40 years of
experience in industrial design, product or service in areas as diverse as medical, nautical,
telecommunications, food… He is founder of innovative companies and is interested in
multidisciplinary innovation in professional or academic contexts.
Philippe Silberzahn is associate professor at EMLYON Business School and research fellow at
Ecole Polytechnique (Paris). His research interests lie at the intersection of strategy and
entrepreneurship. He studies how businesses deal with radical uncertainty.
Track 13
Convenors: Michela Cozza (Università di Trento, [email protected]); Luca Guzzetti
(Università di Genova, [email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions: ITA | ENG
The Science and Technology Park: Steps to an Ecology of
Innovation
Since the 1930s, when the very first one was created on Boston’s Route 128, near the MIT, Science and
Technology Parks (STPs) have been developing all over the world to favour technological innovation,
in a context where high-technology-led development has been seen as the best vehicle for economic
growth at both national and regional level. Whether planned or spontaneously grown, STPs normally
comprise one or more research universities, public research laboratories and high-tech companies;
some are thematic, others are cross-thematic, but all of them are necessarily inter-disciplinary. The
aim of STPs is to develop in a single physical place the action of what has been described as the Triple
Helix: the symbiotic and synergic interaction of public research, industry and (central and/or local)
government. In other words, the STPs should enact a boundary work promoting a new dialogue
between research, innovation, social environment and politics, to create an information infrastructure
where a culture of innovation may flourish.
At present the main question is whether this model based on the physical proximity of the different
actors is still valuable in the XXI century, when the development of the new media and the multiplicity
of all types of means of communication seem to have erased any sense of time and place. But, if the
answer to this question is “Yes”, what the new STPs should look like? What kind of social, scientific
and technological environment is best fit to favour that culture of innovation needed for the creation of
university spin-offs and high-tech start-ups? What should be the role of the local communities? Which
is the best equilibrium between standardisation and flexibility if the STPs want to become efficient
hubs of innovation?
There is no single definition of a STP and, since the STP is a complex institutional setting, we think
that its study needs an ecological approach, accounting for the multiple relations enacted by the
diverse actors and stakeholders: scientists, engineers, policy-makers, technologists, politicians,
entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, citizens… The new role of science and technology parks stems from
the awareness that innovation processes are not strictly spontaneous, but that at the same time
development
policies
cannot
be
only
guided
by
a
top-down
approach.
We thus expect contributions to this Track from STS scholars, sociologists, political scientists and
economists, but also from architects, urban planners and geographers.
I Parchi scientifici e tecnologici: Verso un’ecologia
dell’innovazione
A partire dagli anni Trenta del secolo scorso, quando il primo è nato sulla Route 128 di Boston (nelle
vicinanze del MIT), i Parchi scientifici e tecnologici (PST) si sono sviluppati in tutto il mondo per
favorire l’innovazione tecnologica – laddove la crescita economica è vista come principalmente
trainata dall’innovazione e dalle alte tecnologie, a livello nazionale e locale. Sia nel caso siano
pianificati sia che nascano spontaneamente, i PST in genere comprendono una o più università,
laboratori pubblici di ricerca e aziende high-tech; alcuni sono tematici, altri includono tematiche di
ricerca e sviluppo diverse, ma tutti sono necessariamente inter-disciplinari. Il loro scopo principale è
sviluppare in un unico luogo l’azione della cosiddetta Tripla elica: l’interazione simbiotica e sinergica
della ricerca pubblica, dell’industria e delle amministrazioni pubbliche (locali e/o nazionali). In altre
parole, i PST dovrebbero svolgere un “lavoro di confine” promuovendo un serrato dialogo tra ricerca,
innovazione, società e politica, al fine di creare una infrastruttura informativa nella quale una cultura
dell’innovazione possa svilupparsi al meglio.
Attualmente, la questione principale è se questo modello basato sulla prossimità fisica dei diversi
attori sia ancora valido in un’epoca in cui lo sviluppo di nuovi media e la diffusione di mezzi di
comunicazione sembra aver annullato qualsiasi senso del tempo e dello spazio. Ma, se così fosse, come
dovrebbero essere i nuovi Parchi del XXI secolo? Quale ambiente fisico, sociale, scientifico, tecnologico
e culturale è più adatto per favorire quella cultura dell’innovazione necessaria per la nascita di spin-off
universitari e di start-up ad alta tecnologia? Quale dovrebbe essere il ruolo delle comunità locali e del
territorio? Qual è il miglior equilibrio tra standardizzazione e flessibilità se i Parchi vogliono diventare
efficaci centri propulsivi dell’innovazione tecnologica?
Non esiste una definizione univoca di Parco scientifico e tecnologico e, dato che i Parchi sono
istituzioni complesse, riteniamo che il loro studio necessiti di un approccio ecologico, che riesca a dare
conto delle molteplici relazioni intrattenute dai diversi attori e stakeholder: scienziati, ingegneri,
amministratori, politici, imprenditori, finanziatori, cittadini ecc. Il nuovo ruolo assunto dai Parchi
deriva dalla consapevolezza che i processi di innovazione non sono necessariamente spontanei, ma allo
stesso tempo che le politiche di sviluppo non possono essere esclusivamente top-down.
Attendiamo contributi a questa sessione da parte di studiosi di STS, sociologi, politologi ed economisti,
ma anche da parte di architetti, urbanisti e geografi.
Michela Cozza, sociologist, is research fellow at the Department of Information Engineering
and Computer Science, and she teaches Sociology of Innovation at the Department of
Sociology and Social Research of the University of Trento. Her main research interests
concern the processes of organizational change and sociotechnical innovation.
Luca Guzzetti teaches Sociology of Communication at the University of Genoa. His research
activities are mostly in the fields of science and technology policy and of the sociology of
science.
Track 14
Convenors: Guido Gorgoni (University of Padua, [email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions: ENG
Responsibility in research and innovation. Deliberate
designs and de facto configurations
The call for responsibility in research and innovation ranks high in policy agendas, as well as in
academic and public debates. Previously distinct programmes and activities, like technology
assessment, ELSI studies, public engagement, anticipatory governance are progressively converging
into comprehensive approaches for Responsible Innovation (RI), while the notion of Responsible
Research and Innovation (RRI) has recently emerged and is gaining momentum in EU policy-making.
However, the understanding of responsible scientific research and innovation is confronted to the
fractured understanding of the concept of responsibility and to the diverse nature and characteristics
of the existing governance arrangements. Theoretically, the notion of responsibility is framed by
different disciplines (e.g. sociology, economics, law, philosophy), whose specific research traditions
have developed distinct and sometimes incompatible understandings of this notion even within the
same discipline. Empirically, the most recent scholarship has highlighted that specific forms of
responsibility are the emergent result of distributed and heterogeneous networks of actors, artefacts
and sites. This conceptual and empirical diversity challenges the attempts to deliberately design
responsible frameworks for innovation, as well as the efforts to coordinate the de facto emergence of
specific definitions of responsibilities, their distribution, and justification.
The proposed track intends to gather different scholarly approaches to examine this conceptual and
empirical diversity, as well as the interactions, complementarities, and divergences between the
normative frameworks and the de facto configurations that responsible governance assumes.
Emerging sciences and technologies, like nanoscience and nanotechnologies, synthetic biology,
geoengineering, neurosciences and technologies, are here considered the privileged object of this
examination, both for the relevance that responsible governance has for highly transformative
technologies and for the increasing institutionalisation of responsibility in the relevant policy, funding
and research programmes.
To explore this complex issue, the convenors of this thematic track invite contributions on a wide
range of topics and approaches. Theoretical and empirical papers, case studies, and comparative
researches are welcome. Topics of interested to this track include, but are not limited to:
• theoretical frameworks of responsibility
• responsibility, innovation and public policies;
• responsibility in R&D practices;
• responsibility and soft regulatory instruments;
•
•
responsibility and firms;
responsibility and public engagement.
Guido Gorgoni is Assistant Professor in Legal Theory, Department of Political Science, Law,
and International Studies, University of Padua. He studies the transformations of
responsibility and legal regulation. He participates to the FP7 project Res-AgorA (Responsible
Research and Innovation in a Distributed Anticipatory Governance Frame. A Constructive
Socio-normative Approach).
Track 15
Convenors: Filippo Barbera (University of Turin, [email protected]); Dario Minervini
(Università Federico II Napoli, [email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions: ITA | ENG
The plural spaces of design
The session will address the issue of the connection between physical and relational spaces in which
the design of innovation is developed and translated in practice. The assumption inspiring the session
is that innovation is co-produced by plural and heterogeneous configurations that include different
logics of action and interests. This assumption will be explored analyzing both governance processes
and regulation systems, and the design practices and expert knowledge “in action”. These
configurations take place in mobile, plural, physical and/or virtual places (Larsen, Urry, Axhausen
2006; Castells, Cardoso 2005) performing territorialisation and deterritorialisation processes
(Deleuze, Guattari 2002) and connecting places of planning with those of institutions and markets.
This ecological perspective paves the way to: a) different theoretical explanations with which to
identify and conceptualize design places; b) different methodological strategies aiming at the empirical
reconstruction and interpretation of the relational and physical contexts of innovation.
Contributions are welcome that reshape the classical sociological dichotomies, combining standard
and
non-standard
approaches,
as
well
as,
micro
and
macro
perspectives.
Possible fields of investigation related with the main issue of the session are:
a) laboratories of design;
b) fields of design expertise;
c) governance, districts and economies of design.
This session will, hopefully, develop an interdisciplinary debate, hosting scholars coming from
sociological and non sociological disciplines. Contributions are welcome that address the issues of the
session both theoretically/methodologically as well as empirically.
References:
Castells, M., Cardoso, G. (eds.) 2005: The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy. Washington,
DC: Johns Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations;
Deleuze, G., Felix Guattari, F. 2002: A Thousand Plateaus. London, The Athlone Press Ltd.
Larsen, J., Urry, J. and Axhausen, K. 2006: Mobilities, networks, geographies. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Gli spazi plurali del design
La sessione intende approfondire il tema delle connessioni fra i luoghi fisici e relazionali nei quali il
disegno dell’innovazione viene sviluppato e tradotto in pratica. In particolare si intende rilanciare
un’ipotesi generale secondo cui sia che si analizzino i modelli di governance e di regolazione, sia che si
studino le pratiche di progettazione e il sapere esperto “in azione”, l’innovazione appare co-prodotta da
configurazioni plurali ed eterogenee all’interno delle quali è possibile rilevare logiche d’azione e
interessi differenti. Queste configurazioni hanno luogo in spazi mobili, plurali, fisici e/o virtuali
(Larsen, Urry, Axhausen 2006; Castells, Cardoso 2005) performando processi di territorializzazione e
deterritorializzazione (Deleuze, Guattari 2002) che connettono i luoghi della progettazione con quelli
delle istituzioni, del mercato.
All’interno di questa prospettiva ecologica, dunque, sono possibili differenti interpretazioni teoriche
con cui identificare e concettualizzare gli spazi del design, così come diverse possono essere le strategie
metodologiche che consentono di rilevare empiricamente ed interpretare i contesti relazionali e fisici
dell’innovazione. Pertanto sono benvenuti i contributi che propongano nuove formulazioni rispetto
alle tradizionali dicotomie sociologiche attraverso la combinazione di approcci standard e nonstandard, prospettive micro e macro.
A titolo esemplificativo si indicano alcune delle possibili declinazioni del tema generale:
a) i laboratori del design;
b) gli “spazi” di competenza e i campi di expertise del design;
c) la governance, i distretti e le economie del design.
La sessione è dedicata agli studiosi, provenienti anche da campi disciplinari diversi da quello
sociologico e, data l’articolazione sopra illustrata, il tema principale potrà essere approcciato sia in
termini teorici e/o metodologici che attraverso resoconti di ricerca empirica.
Bibliografia:
Castells, M., Cardoso, G. (eds.) 2005: The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy. Washington,
DC: Johns Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations;
Deleuze, G., Felix Guattari, F. 2002: A Thousand Plateaus. London, The Athlone Press Ltd.
Larsen, J., Urry, J. and Axhausen, K. 2006: Mobilities, networks, geographies. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Filippo Barbera is Associate Professor at the Department of Culture, Politics and Society of
the University of Turin and affiliate at the Collegio Carlo Alberto of Moncalieri.
Dario Minervini is Ph.D. in Sociology and Social Research and Adjunct Professor of PostIndustrial Sociology at the Department of Social Sciences of the University of Naples
“Federico II”.
Track 16
Convenors: Klaus Hadwiger (University of Hohenheim, [email protected]); Giuseppe Pellegrini (Observa Science in Society – Italy,
[email protected]);
Gene
Rowe
(Independent
research
consultant,
[email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions: ENG
Design practices for safe food
Food safety and consumer trust have become a central issue in the food chain. During the last ten
years, food safety crises such as the dioxin crisis and the recent milk powder scandal led consumers to
rethink their attitudes to and behavior towards food consumption. Due to the increasing health and
safety awareness, public authorities and companies have developed quality and safety guarantee
systems Further, the crises induced a sharp and immediate drop in the demand for meat products,
followed by a slow and often incomplete recovery.
These challenges require complex answers with the contribution of different disciplines. In this sense
it requires the ability to turn a design process across the full range of domains of food and health. This
process design is therefore by its very nature interdisciplinary. In the context of issues related to safe
food, we are looking for design practices that devise course of action aimed at changing existing
situations into preferred ones (Simon, 1982). Particularly, design practices aimed at examining how to
better link research and innovation in the area of food and health with the broad societal needs and
values. In this session we address the question of exploring new approaches to study safe food. We
welcome papers examining such questions as:
• do the existing theories sufficiently address the requests of different groups of stakeholders for
safe food?
• Do we need bottom-up development of concepts (processes and structure) of societal
engagement in food and health research?
• Do other theoretical fields (design research, design science, sustainability theories,
demography design, health research) propose frameworks and/or concepts which offer
relevant alternative explanations for the development of safe food?
• To what extent current processes and structures in the area of food and health in both private
and public research sectors and the role of ‘Public Engagement in Research’ takes in these
sectors are producing relevant results?
This call for manuscripts invites empirical research, theoretical papers and critical essays on the
design practices for safe food. We seek original works that show how the role of innovations in foods
and new basic research technologies could play in counter-acting the alarming rise of food-related
health problems with a particular attention to the engagement of different stakeholders.
Klaus Hadwiger is senior researcher and European projects coordinator at the Life Science
Center of the University of Hohenheim in Stuttgart, Germany. He currently is coordinating
the EU FP7 Science-in-Society project INPROFOOD and is active in several European
initiatives in the food sector. Klaus Hadwiger has a background in Sociology and Political
Science and is specialized in empirical methods. He has a proven track record of more than 7
years of work in European research and innovation projects including the management of
stakeholder involvement in European actions.
Giuseppe Pellegrini teaches methodology of social research at the University of Padova, Italy.
His current research focuses on public participation with specific regard to technoscientific
issues. He is the coordinator of the research area “Science and Citizens” at Observa - Science
in Society. Recent publication: Finardi C., Pellegrini G., Rowe G. (2012) Food safety issues:
From Enlightened Elitism towards Deliberative Democracy? An overview of EFSA’s ‘‘Public
Consultation’’ instrument, Food Policy, 427-438.
Gene Rowe is an independent research consultant (formerly Head of Consumer Science at the
Institute of Food Research, UK). He has wide-ranging interests in individual/group judgment
and forecasting, though much of his recent work has involved evaluating public and
stakeholder engagement processes used to aid policy development.
Track 17
Convenors: Roberto Cibin (Trento RISE, [email protected]); Vincenzo D'Andrea
(University of Trento, [email protected]); Giolo Fele (University of Trento,
[email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions: ITA | ENG
The design of technologies for remote medicalization and
emergency response: studying the practices of teams in a
virtual context
Nowadays ICTs are increasingly pervasive in medical and first aid workplaces: tools for remote clinical
consultation, digitalization and collection of information, remote support to emergency response play
today a leading role in the work practices of physicians, nurses and rescue workers.
The design of similar socio-technical collectives needs to consider, first, the interaction between
human and non-human actors (Latour 1987) that are characterized by heterogeneous (and sometimes
conflicting) expertise, professionalism, work culture and interests. Second, it must be considered that
this equipe’s collaboration practices do not occur in the same physical space: the interactions are
mediated using technologies that enable processes of representation and delegation of script of actions
between different actors.
The thematic session aims to deepen the study of practices and processes related to the design and the
introduction of technologies for managing the needs of remote diagnosis, remote medicalization,
and/or to give quick response to situations of crisis and emergency. In particular, this session calls for
original theoretical and empirical contributions highlighting the following themes:
• the design of telemedicine and remote emergency response technologies;
• the use of images and videos in the management of emergency situations;
• the role of new media in the management of emergency;
• the role of technology in the communication practices of a remote team;
• the role of telemedicine technologies in the organization of the workplace;
• the role of telemedicine technologies in the organization of health policies;
• the involvement of “laypeople” in the process of remote medicalization;
• processes of delegation of medical practices through the use of technologies;
• the interaction between new ICT technologies and old technologies in use.
La progettazione di tecnologie di medicalizzazione e
soccorso a distanza: studiare le pratiche di equipe in un
contesto virtuale
Le tecnologie legate all’universo dell’ICT sono oggi sempre più pervasive nei contesti lavorativi
appartenenti al campo della medicina e del primo intervento: strumenti di diagnostica a distanza, di
digitalizzazione e raccolta di informazioni, di supporto in remoto ai primi soccorsi iniziano oggi a
rivestire un ruolo da protagonista nelle pratiche lavorative di medici, infermieri, soccorritori.
La progettazione di simili collettivi socio-tecnici deve in primo luogo tenere in considerazione
l’interazione tra attori “umani e non umani” (Latour 1987) portatori di competenze, professionalità,
culture lavorative, interessi molto eterogenei e talvolta anche in conflitto tra loro. In secondo luogo, va
considerato che le pratiche di collaborazione di questa equipe non avvengono nel medesimo spazio
fisico: le interazioni vengono mediate attraverso l’uso di tecnologie che attivano processi di
rappresentanza e di delega di script di azioni tra attori diversi.
La sessione tematica si propone quindi di approfondire lo studio delle pratiche e dei processi in cui si
assiste alla progettazione e/o all’introduzione di tecnologie per la gestione di esigenze di diagnosi in
remoto, medicalizzazione a distanza, o per dare rapida risposta a situazioni di crisi ed emergenza. In
particolare si accetteranno contributi teorici ed empirici riguardanti:
• Processi di progettazione di tecnologie di telemedicina e di telesoccorso
• L’utilizzo di immagini e video nella gestione di situazioni di emergenza
• Il ruolo dei nuovi media nella gestione delle situazione di emergenza
• Il ruolo delle tecnologie nelle pratiche comunicative delle equipe a distanza
• Il ruolo delle tecnologie di telemedicina nell’organizzazione dei contesti lavorativi
• Il ruolo delle tecnologie di telemedicina nell’organizzazione delle politiche sanitarie
• Il coinvolgimento di “profani” nei processi di medicalizzazione a distanza
• Processi di delega di pratiche mediche attraverso l’uso di tecnologie
• L’interazione tra nuove tecnologie ICT e vecchie tecnologie in uso.
Roberto Cibin collaborates with Trento RISE and the University of Trento (Italy). His research
interests include the themes of co-construction of knowledge in hybrid forums and open
government data. He has a PhD in social science from the University of Padova.
Vincenzo D'Andrea is an associate professor at the University of Trento, Italy. His current
research interests focus mainly on the theme of participation in sociotechnical systems.
D’Andrea has a PhD in information technology from the University of Parma and teaches
courses on Information Systems.
Giolo Fele teaches graduate courses in communication and qualitative methods at the
University of Trento (Italy). His research interests include interaction in work settings using
naturalistic research methodologies. He is currently working on communication in emergency
situations and call & dispatch centres in which medical & police emergencies are managed.
Track 18
Convenors: Greta Falavigna (CNR Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche CERIS Istituto di
Ricerca sull'Impresa e lo Sviluppo, [email protected]); Valentina Moiso (CNR Consiglio
Nazionale delle Ricerche CERIS Istituto di Ricerca sull'Impresa e lo Sviluppo,
[email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions: ITA | ENG
The design of the ethical and sustainable product: devices
and practices of the economy “other”
The relevance of ethics and sustainability in the production industry is increasing over time but, at the
same time, these issues are confusedly perceived by consumers because they recall many issues such as
workers' rights, right price paid to suppliers, traceability of the supply chain, environmental impact,
effects on health, living conditions of animals, local productive traditions recovery, from farm to fork
products.
The attribute of "ethical"/"sustainable" refers to a product defined as "fair", "responsible", "natural",
"eco-friendly". From the one hand, these “words” represent standards established by production
protocols, official certification or Participatory Guarantee Systems, codes of conduct; from the other
hand, the producers themselves label the products in absence of formal evidence. Moreover, the
legitimacy can be acquired by sales channels, such as fair trade groups, Markets of the earth, or on-line
specialized
platforms.
By analyzing the production process, the name of “ethical/sustainable” can lead to a redefinition of the
firm’s mission and of its core business, so companies aim at maximizing their traditional profit and
creating social and environmental values. The compensatory approach based on the issue of social and
environmental responsibility is softer: a firm certifies in the sustainability report the actions taken to
repair the damage caused by its main activity.
This variety of situations is due to the lack of legislation defining the criteria to be respected. The same
considerations can be applied to the ethical finance.
The design of the ethical and/or sustainable economy is therefore the result of a planning of actors
connected in network: the result depend on the type of stakeholders - operators and professionals
along the chain of production and distribution, consumers, certification bodies – on the influence
exercised by them and on the devices activated in.
This session encourages theoretical and/or empirical contributions, considering also the comparative
perspective with qualitative / quantitative techniques that analyze these processes from many points of
view. Proposals will be appreciated such as:
• Historical reconstruction of the genesis of a certificate, an ethical code, a protocol, etc. and the
reconfiguration of practices in the fields of interest following its application.
•
•
Analysis of how the concepts of ethical and/or sustainable are materially declined in the
practices of the productive and financial world.
Analysis of the tools and processes with which the attribute of ethical and sustainable is
communicated to consumers, with particular attention to the labeling of the product.
Il design del prodotto etico e sostenibile: strumenti e
pratiche dell’economia “altra “
I concetti di eticità e sostenibilità stanno assumendo importanza crescente nel mondo produttivo ma
contemporaneamente vengono percepiti dai consumatori con una certa confusione: richiamano infatti
molteplici temi quali i diritti dei lavoratori, il giusto prezzo riconosciuto ai fornitori, la tracciabilità
delle filiere, l’impatto ambientale, gli effetti sulla salute, le condizioni di vita degli animali, il recupero
delle tradizioni produttive locali, il km zero.
L’attributo di “etico”/“sostenibile” rimanda a un prodotto definibile anche “equo”, “solidale”,
“responsabile”, “naturale”, “ecologico”, che talvolta risponde a standard formalmente stabiliti da
protocolli di produzione, certificazioni normate o a carattere partecipativo, codici di condotta; in altri
casi viene etichettato come tale dagli stessi produttori in assenza di attestazioni ufficiali. Inoltre, può
acquisire legittimazione dai circuiti di vendita, come i Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale, i Mercati della
terra, o piattaforme on-line specializzate.
Analizzando il processo produttivo, l’appellativo di eticità/sostenibilità può comportare una
ricollocazione della mission e del core business dell’azienda, per cui le imprese possono affiancare alla
tradizionale massimizzazione del profitto la creazione di valore sociale e ambientale. Approccio più
soft è quello compensativo alla base del concetto di responsabilità sociale e ambientale e della
redazione dei relativi bilanci, per cui un’azienda certifica le azioni effettuate per riparare i danni
causati dalla propria attività principale.
Questa varietà di situazioni è riconducibile alla mancanza di una normativa che definisca rigidamente
e univocamente i criteri da rispettare. Discorso analogo vale per la finanza etica.
Il design dell’economia etica e/o sostenibile è dunque frutto di una progettazione effettuata da soggetti
in rete, il cui risultato differisce a seconda del tipo di soggetti coinvolti – gli operatori e le figure
professionali lungo la filiera di produzione e distribuzione, i consumatori, gli enti di certificazione e
controllo – dell’influenza da loro esercitata e degli strumenti in essa attivati.
La sessione sollecita la presentazione di contributi a carattere teorico e/o empirico, svolti anche in
ottica comparativa con tecniche qualitative/quantitative, che analizzino tali processi sotto molteplici
punti di osservazione. Saranno apprezzate proposte quali:
• ricostruzione storica della genesi di una certificazione, di un codice etico, di un protocollo,etc. e
della riconfigurazione delle pratiche nei campi di interesse in seguito alla sua applicazione;
• analisi di come i concetti di eticità e sostenibilità vengono materialmente declinati nelle
pratiche del mondo produttivo e finanziario;
• analisi degli strumenti e dei processi con cui l’attributo di etico e sostenibile viene comunicato
ai consumatori, con particolare attenzione al labeling del prodotto.
Greta Falavigna, Ph.D in Economics and Technology Management, researcher of CNR-Ceris
expert in complex models applied to firms’ finance; efficiency and productivity for the
economic analysis in different fields.
Valentina Moiso, Ph.D. in Social Comparative Research, research fellow of CNR-Ceris, expert
in sociology of finance and sustainability analysis in the agro-alimentary field.
Track 19
Convenors: Marina Maestrutti (Université Paris 1, [email protected]);
Guido Nicolosi (Dipartimento Scienze Politiche e Sociali - Unict, [email protected]); Mauro
Turrini (Université Paris 1, [email protected]); Thomas Vangeebergen (FNRS-Liège
University CSI, Mines ParisTech, [email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions: ITA | ENG
The body of imaginary. Design, technology and participation
This track aims to gather all communications concerned with design and innovation
understood, broadly, as the relationship between imaginaries and reality. We address to those
technological processes committed to blur the borders among nature, culture and society
(entities which are not detached nor autonomous from each other), as well as those between
the existing world and the world(s) to come – world(s) represented, or even dreamt, through
the imaginary, the utopia, the political thought. In this perspective, to design is not meant as
an activity that reflects what reality is, but rather an active process of co-construction and coproduction that involves multiple dimensions – technological, social, cultural and so forth. In
particular, we assume that at the very centre of these processes – where design is not limited
to conceive only objects or bio-objects, but also future scenarios – there is the body its
functions, its representations and its symbolical value.
Particularly, we welcome all proposals presenting empirical and theoretical works on the
issues of corporeity, incorporation, identity and gender within the domain of new and
advanced technologies (robotics, biotechnology, nanotechnology etc.)
1. The body projected in facts and figures, how data participates to design by bounding
bodies to devices (“quantified self”)
2. Reflection on: imagery, the future, alternative or subversive models (e.g. critical design
3. Democratic participation and new technologies (e.g. open source
4. Artistic and technological images production.
The present track is open to a large array of disciplinary backgrounds related to STS
approaches (social sciences, history, economics, philosophy, history, health studies,
engineering, or design, to name a few), related to both empirical and theoretical work, using
various methods and theoretical frames. Presentations can be delivered in Italian, English as
well as French. Participants will be invited to send a short written text, even in a draft form,
which will circulate some weeks before the congress.
Dar corpo all'immaginario. Design, progettazione
tecnologica e partecipazione
L’obiettivo che si prefigge questa track è quello di tentare di raccogliere le presentazioni
inerenti al rapporto tra design e innovazione, inteso in senso ampio come un rapporto tra gli
immaginari e la realtà. Intendiamo rivolgerci in particolare a quei processi tecnologici che
mettono in discussione i confini tra natura, cultura e società nonché quelli tra i mondi
esistenti e quelli a venire - mondi rappresentati, o addirittura sognati, attraverso gli
immaginari,, le utopie e il pensiero politico. In tale prospettiva il design non va considerato
come un’attività che riflette lo stato presente delle cose, ma piuttosto come un processo attivo
di co-costruzione e co-produzione che implica multiple dimensioni tecnologiche, sociali,
culturali e così via. L’assunto da cui prendiamo le mosse è che al centro di questi processi, che
non si limitano a concepire nuovi oggetti o bio-oggetti, ma che inventano piuttosto scenari
futuri, il corpo, le sue funzioni biologiche, le sue rappresentazioni e i suoi significati simbolici
assumano un ruolo cruciale. Siamo pertanto interessati a invitare presentazioni che
riguardino la corporeità, l’incorporazione, l’identità e il genere in ambiti tecnologicamente
innovativi o avanzati (robotica, biotecnologie, nanotecnologia …) e in particolare ai seguenti
temi.
1. Il corpo proiettato in valori e cifre e ai sistemi in cui i dati partecipano al design
creando legami tra il corpo e dispositivi tecnologici (quantificazione del sé).
2. La riflessione sull’immaginario, il futuro, modelli alternativi o sovversivi (come, ad
esempio, il critical design)
3. La partecipazione democratica e le nuove tecnologie.
4. La produzione artistica e tecnologica delle immagini.
La presente track è aperta a ricerche afferenti a un ampio ventaglio di approcci disciplinari
relativi agli STS (scienze sociali, storia, economia, filosofia, scienze ingegneristiche o del
design, solo per nominare i principali) e relative a lavori sia teorici che empirici che facciano
uso a differenti quadri teorici e metodologici. Le comunicazioni potranno essere in italiano,
inglese e anche in francese. Infine,le/i partecipanti saranno invitate/i a far circolare un testo
scritto, nella forma di una bozza di lavoro, prima della conferenza.
Marina Maestrutti, maître de conférence of the Paris 1 University, resercher of CETCOPRA
(Centre d’Étude des Techniques, des Connaissances et des Pratiques), and co-founder of
research group “Corps, Techniques et Société” of the Association Française de Sociologie,
works on imaginary of contemporary technologies and technological innovation processes in
the field of medicine and health.
Guido Nicolosi, permanent lecturer in Sociology of culture and communication at the
Department of Political and Social Sciences of the University of Catania and associated
member of CETCOPTRA (Centre d’Étude des Techniques, des Connaissances et des
Pratiques) at the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne. He teaches sociology of new media
and his research domain concerns the relation between body and new technologies (new
media, robotics, life sciences).
Mauro Turrini is Marie Curie post-doc fellow at CETCOPRA (Centre d’Etude des Techniques,
des Connaissances et des Pratiques) of Paris 1 University, with a project on biopolitics and
biosociality of direct-to-consumers on-line genetic tests. His interests of research span
ethnography, genetics and medicine and bioeconomy.
Thomas Vangeebergen, FNRS Research fellow at Liege University (LASC) and PhD candidate
at Mines-ParisTech (CSI), works on issues around sensory anthropology and STS. He
prepares his PhD on sensory analysis, among expert taste panels.
Track 20
Convenors: Claudio Coletta (Università di Trento, [email protected]); Francesco
Miele (Fondazione Bruno Kessler, [email protected]); Enrico Maria Piras (Fondazione Bruno
Kessler, [email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions: ITA | ENG
Designing and re-designing health management outside
institutional boundaries: enacting care practices, spaces and
technologies in the wild
Healthcare systems are invested by significant changes, reshaping the role of healthcare professionals,
patients, and citizens.. Originally built around the cure and treatment of episodic cases, healthcare
sector is being reshaped by the need to deal with populations which are increasingly older and affected
by chronic conditions.
Health management is now redistributed in dispersed networks that cross the boundaries of health
institution and extend to the private spaces of the home (Langstrup 2013) and the work environment,
while miniaturized health technologies are carried around as portable devices or even implanted in the
flesh (Bjørn and Markussen 2013). Within these networks the traditional health professional’s
predominance is giving way to polycentric forms of technology-mediated agencies and practices that
have led to speak of new form of patienthood, as the ‘so-called’ Patient 2.0 (Danholt et. al 2013).
This shift from within institutional boundaries to the outside calls for a renewed attention to the
mundane arrangements needed to perform new forms of patienthood and the situated actions of
people engaging with health conditions. These actions are often deemed of little importance and
invisible in the twofold meaning of being enacted in private spaces and excluded from rationalized
models of work. Yet, they significantly contribute to transform the practical dimension of care
(Oudshoorn 2012). This track aims at exploring these issues attracting scholars to discuss the
processes of design, use and re-configuration brought about by managing illness outside health
institutions.
We welcome both theoretically and empirically sound contributions on design, appropriation and redesign of (non-exhaustive list):
• patient-oriented health technologies;
• healthcare infrastructures that connect home/work and health institutions;
• home or work environment around health conditions;
• services and organizational practices to support health management outside hospitals.
We invite contributors to submit extended abstracts (1000 to 1500 words) in English or Italian.
References
Bjørn, P., Markussen, R. (2013) Cyborg Heart: The affective apparatus of bodily production of ICD
Patients, Science & Technology Studies, 26 (2), 14-28.
Danholt, P., Piras, E.M, Storni, C. and Zanutto, A. (2013) The shaping of Patient 2.0 (editorial
introduction), Science & Technology Studies, 26 (2), 3-13.
Langstrup, H. (2013) Chronic care infrastructures and the home, Sociology of Health and Illness,
(35)7, 1008–1022.
Oudshoorn, N. (2012). How places matter: Telecare technologies and the changing spatial dimensions
of healthcare. Social Studies of Science, 42(1), 121–142.
Disegnare e ri-disegnare la gestione della salute fuori dalle
istituzioni sanitarie: pratiche di cura, spazi e tecnologie “in
the wild”
Negli ultimi decenni significativi cambiamenti interessano i sistemi sanitari dei paesi occidentali,
ridefinendo i ruoli di professionisti della salute, pazienti e cittadini. Originariamente concepito per
intervenire sui singoli episodi di malattia, il settore sanitario deve fronteggiare i cambiamenti
demografici, adattando l’offerta di servizi ad una popolazione sempre più anziana e afflitta da malattie
croniche.
La gestione dei pazienti avviene all’interno di reti che attraversano istituzioni, spazi domestici
(Langstrup 2013) e ambienti di lavoro, includendo tecnologie per la salute sempre più miniaturizzate,
talvolta impiantate nel corpo del paziente (Bjørn e Markussen 2013). In tali reti la tradizionale
predominanza dei professionisti della salute lascia il posto a pratiche policentriche e a nuove forme di
agency tecnologicamente mediate, portando alcuni autori al concetto di “Paziente 2.0” (Danholt et. al
2013).
Lo spostamento di parti significative del processo di cura all’esterno delle istituzioni sanitarie richiede
una attenzione alle pratiche mondane e gli accorgimenti necessari per (re)interpretare il ruolo di
paziente. Queste azioni, spesso considerate di secondaria importanza, sono invisibili sia perché
confinate in spazi privati sia in quanto escluse dai modelli razionalizzati del lavoro di cura. Nonostante
ciò esse contribuiscono alla ridefinizione della pratica quotidiana della cura (Oudshoorn 2012). Questa
track mira ad esplorare tali problematiche e, quindi, a raccogliere contributi che discutano i processi di
design, uso e riconfigurazione legati alla gestione della malattia fuori dai confini istituzionali.
Invitiamo contributi sia teorici che empirici sul design, l'appropriazione e il re-design di (lista
indicativa):
tecnologie mediche centrate sul paziente
• infrastrutture sanitarie che connettano casa, lavoro e istituzioni sanitarie;
• spazi domestici e lavorativi in relazione alle condizioni di salute;
• servizi e pratiche organizzative per supportare la gestione della salute fuori dagli ospedali.
Invitiamo gli autori a sottomettere un abstract esteso (da 1000 a 1500 parole) in Inglese o Italiano.
Bibliografia
Bjørn, P., Markussen, R. (2013) Cyborg Heart: The affective apparatus of bodily production of ICD
Patients, Science & Technology Studies, 26 (2), 14-28.
Danholt, P., Piras, E.M, Storni, C. and Zanutto, A. (2013) The shaping of Patient 2.0 (editorial
introduction), Science & Technology Studies, 26 (2), 3-13.
Langstrup, H. (2013) Chronic care infrastructures and the home, Sociology of Health and Illness,
(35)7, 1008–1022.
Oudshoorn, N. (2012). How places matter: Telecare technologies and the changing spatial dimensions
of healthcare. Social Studies of Science, 42(1), 121–142.
Claudio Coletta, Ph.D, is a research fellow at the University of Trento – Dept. of Sociology and
Social Research. His research experience is in the fields of Organization Studies, Science &
Technology Studies, Media Studies and Urban Studies. His interests concern social
phenomena at the intersection of technology, narratives and organizing practices.
Francesco Miele, PhD, is Junior Researcher at Fondazione Bruno Kessler (e-Health unit). He
collaborates too with Research Unit on Communication, Organizational Learning and
Aesthetics of the University of Trento. His research interests include the management of
complex therapies and occupational health of precarious workers.
Enrico Maria Piras, Ph.D, is a tenured researcher at Fondazione Bruno Kessler (e-Health unit)
and adjunct professor at University of Verona where he teaches Methodology of
Organizational Research and Sociology of Organizational Processes. His current research
interests are personal health information management and computer supported cooperative
work in healthcare.
Track 21
Convenors: Michela Cozza (Università di Trento, [email protected]); Vincenzo
D'Andrea (University of Trento, [email protected]); Antonella De Angeli (University
of Trento, [email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions: ITA | ENG
Participatory design in “non-standard” contexts, with
“extra-ordinary” users
In recent years, consensus on the relevance of the user's role in technological innovation processes has
significantly increased. The participation of the final user is considered a way to increase the usability
and effectiveness of products and services, especially in the IT (Information Technology) sector.
If participation and interaction with the user have become common design practices, in particular for
participatory design, it is relevant to ask “For whom are certain devices designed?” and “What led to
choose a particular group of users as a target?”
With this track, we would like to focus on situatedeness and heterogeneity of users, in order to
understand how these characterizations affect the “designing”. More precisely, we expect
contributions to this track to analyse how “non-standard” contexts and users can contribute to shape
both the processes and practices of participatory design.
For instance, the Scandinavian perspective represents a standard approach to participatory processes,
but it is certainly influenced by that cultural and socio-political context. However, in other
geographical, cultural and political contexts, what does participatory design - and more generally
“designing” - mean ? How do the lifestyles and the specific socio-cultural, economic and political
dynamics that characterize a given context affect the design process? Moreover, it is not obvious that
the same methods and tools of participatory design, used in different socio-cultural contexts, have
similar results. These dynamics should then be analysed and situated in relation to the involved actors.
More specifically, in this track we invite papers discussing how designers, ergonomists and experts are
(or are not) able and interested in taking into account the heterogeneity of users, and the specific
needs of “extra-ordinary” users. What does it mean to “participate” when the characteristics of the end
users exceed the norm that usually corresponds to a young, male, able-bodied, skilful user? For this
reason, it still seems largely underestimated the contribution that could result from design practices
with and for people with skills that are not considered “standard”.
Starting from these observations, we welcome papers (empirically, theoretically, and/or
methodologically oriented) that explore in detail the participatory design processes and practices in
“non-standard” contexts and/or with “extra-ordinary” users.
Design partecipato in contesti "non-standard", con utenti
"stra-ordinari"
Negli ultimi anni, il consenso circa l'importanza del ruolo dell'utente nei processi di innovazione
tecnologica è notevolmente aumentato. La partecipazione dell'utente finale è considerata un modo per
aumentare l'usabilità e l'efficacia di prodotti e servizi, specie nel settore IT (Information Technology).
Se la partecipazione e l'interazione con l'utente sono diventate pratiche di design diffuse, in particolare
nel caso del design partecipato, è importante chiedersi: "Per chi sono progettati taluni dispositivi?" e
"Cosa induce a scegliere un particolare gruppo di utenti come target?".
Con questa sessione tematica, vorremmo focalizzare l'attenzione sul carattere situato ed eterogeneo
degli utenti, al fine di comprendere come queste caratterizzazioni influiscono sul “processo di design”.
Più precisamente, in questa sessione attendiamo contributi che analizzino come contesti e utenti "nonstandard" possono contribuire a modellare sia i processi che le pratiche di design partecipato.
Per esempio, il modello scandinavo rappresenta un approccio standard ai processi partecipati, ma è
certamente influenzato da quel contesto culturale e socio-politico. Tuttavia, in altri contesti geografici,
culturali e politici, cosa significa fare design partecipato - e più in generale "fare design"? In che modo
gli stili di vita e le specifiche dinamiche socio-culturali, economiche e politiche che caratterizzano un
dato contesto influiscono sui processi di design? Inoltre, non è scontato che gli stessi metodi e
strumenti di design partecipato, usati in diversi contesti socio-culturali, abbiano gli stessi risultati.
Pertanto, tali dinamiche dovrebbero essere analizzate e situate tenendo conto degli attori coinvolti. Più
precisamente, in questa sessione tematica, invitiamo a presentare contributi che discutano come
designers, ergonomi ed esperti sono (o meno) capaci e interessati a considerare l'eterogeneità degli
utenti, e i bisogni specifici di utenti "stra-ordinari". Cosa significa "partecipare" quando le
caratteristiche dell'utente finale eccedono la norma solitamente rappresentata da un utente giovane,
uomo, normodotato e competente? Per questo motivo, sembra ancora ampiamente sottovalutato il
contributo che potrebbe derivare da pratiche di design con e per persone con abilità considerate non
"standard".
Con queste premesse, invitiamo a proporre contributi (empirici, teorici e/o metodologici) che
esplorino in dettaglio i processi e le pratiche di design partecipato in contesti "non-standard" e/o con
utenti "stra-ordinari".
Michela Cozza, sociologist, is research fellow at the Department of Information Engineering
and Computer Science, and she teaches Sociology of Innovation at the Department of
Sociology and Social Research of the University of Trento. Her main research interests
concern the processes of organizational change and sociotechnical innovation.
Vincenzo D'Andrea is an associate professor at the University of Trento, Italy. His current
research interests focus mainly on the theme of participation in sociotechnical systems.
D’Andrea has a PhD in information technology from the University of Parma and teaches
courses on Information Systems.
Antonella De Angeli is an associate professor at the University of Trento, Italy from 2008.
Her research is focused on the cognitive, social and cultural consequences of Information and
Communication Technology, with special attention to the use of such knowledge for design of
new strategies of interaction.
Track 22
Convenors: Attila Bruni (University of Trento, [email protected]); Manuela Perrotta
(Queen Mary University of London, [email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions: ITA | ENG
Designing work, technology, organizations and vice versa
Working and organizing seem to be embedded in increasingly complex and situated technologies and
practices. If the spreading of information and communication technologies has changed workplaces
(and even the very meaning of 'workplace' as an area marked by the physical presence of different
human actors), working in technologically dense organizations mobilizes the joint action of humans,
technologies and knowledges. Complex sociomaterial practices support collective work, blurring the
distinction
between
technology,
work
and
organizational
processes.
The aim of this track is thus to discuss the relations among technologies, work and organisations from
multiple theoretical perspectives and to engage with questions about the sociomaterial foundations of
working and organising. The track focuses on the close study of practices and processes that
inextricably link work and organisation to the use of artefacts and technological systems (and vice
versa), and welcomes papers (empirically, theoretically, and/or methodologically oriented) that
explore in detail the techno-organizational articulations and disarticulations of daily work.
Possible (but not limited) topics are:
• the interweaving between technological and organizational practices;
• the doing of objects and technologies in everyday organizational life;
• the reconstruction of organizational processes through technological practices;
• the relation between learning, innovations and technologies in organizational settings;
• the ambiguities and disarticulations prompted by technological systems supporting working
practices;
• the body, its technological relations and prosthesis;
• methodological aspects of studying technology, work and organizations.
Progettare lavoro, tecnologia, organizzazioni e viceversa.
Nel mondo contemporaneo, lavoro e organizzazione sembrano caratterizzarsi tanto per la loro dematerializzazione e frammentazione, quanto per il loro prendere corpo in oggetti tecnici e saperi
tecnologici sempre più complessi e situati in specifici contesti d’uso. Se, infatti, la diffusione delle
tecnologie dell’informazione e della comunicazione ha ridisegnato i luoghi di lavoro (nonché il
significato stesso di ‘luogo di lavoro’ come spazio fisico segnato dalla compresenza di diversi attori
umani), il lavorare in setting organizzativi tecnologicamente densi mobilita l’azione congiunta di
soggetti umani e oggetti tecnologici, chiamandoli a lavorare ‘insieme’ e ad ‘andare d’accordo’. Diverse
pratiche sociomateriali accompagnano il lavoro collettivo, assottigliando la distinzione tra processi
tecnologici, organizzativi e di lavoro.
La sessione tematica si propone quindi di discutere i fondamenti sociomateriali del lavoro e
dell’organizzazione, approfondendo lo studio delle pratiche e dei processi che legano
indissolubilmente il lavorare e l’organizzare all’uso di artefatti e sistemi tecnologici (e viceversa). Sono
benvenuti contributi (di natura empirica, teorica e/o metodologica) che esplorino in dettaglio le
articolazioni e le disarticolazioni tecno-organizzative del lavoro quotidiano ed in particolare:
• l’intreccio tra pratiche tecnologiche e organizzative;
• il fare e il partecipare di oggetti e tecnologie alla vita organizzativa e al lavoro quotidiano;
• la dimensione sociomateriale dei processi organizzativi;
• la relazione tra innovazione, apprendimento e artefatti tecnologici negli ambienti organizzativi;
• le ambiguità e le disarticolazioni introdotte dai sistemi tecnologici a supporto delle pratiche
lavorative;
• il corpo e le sue relazioni con tecnologie e artefatti organizzativi;
• aspetti metodologici legati allo studio congiunto di tecnologia, lavoro e organizzazione.
Attila Bruni is senior lecturer at the Department of Sociology and Social Research of the
University of Trento, where he teaches Sociology of Technological Phenomena and Sociology
of Organizations. He is a passionate ethnographer and his main research interests concern
intersections between working, organizing and technological phenomena.
Manuela Perrotta is lecturer at the School of Business and Management of the Queen Mary
University of London, where she teaches Technologies in the Workplace and Organizational
Behavior. Her main research interests concern the relation among learning, work and
innovation in organizations.
Track 23
Convenors: Alessandro Mongili (University of Padua, Italy, [email protected]);
Giuseppina Pellegrino (University of Calabria, [email protected]); Giacomo Poderi
(University of Trento, Italy, [email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions: ITA | ENG
To maintain, to repair: Infrastructures and design-in-use
Infrastructures exist in the background of other activities and support them. They are usually taken for
granted and become evident only after breakdown or malfunctionings. However, in contemporary
society and especially with reference to Information and Communication Technologies, information
infrastructures became central to academics and practitioners' interests, as they are expected to
support a more and more complex as well as fast-changing world. To understand how information
infrastructures adapt to sustain such a world is crucial
In this framework, a major mode of change and evolution of information infrastructures is represented
by practices of maintenance and repair performed by both designers and users.
When being designed, information infrastructures need to embed in themselves procedures and
routines
of
maintenance
and
repair
in
order
to
work
out
well.
While being used, even more than during the design process, information infrastructures are
transformed and drifted through modes of maintenance and repair enacted by proactive and expert
users, as well as by 'naive' ones.
The English verb 'to maintain' means both 'to keep in good conditions', 'to take care of', and 'to assert'.
This double meaning evokes a link between the ontology and existence (resilience) of infrastructures
and the resources which keep them updated, consistent and 'stable' over time.
Therefore, this track welcomes contributions on the topic of information infrastructures from the point
of view of their maintenance and repair over the design and usage process.
Amongst possible topics to submit to this track, consider the following ones:
• How are maintenance and repair performed in design and use of infrastructures? Are these
practices different or similar from design to use? Is it possible to envisage a 'design-in-use'
process through maintenance and repair as bridging practices?
• Prescribed and inscribed procedures of maintenance and repair in the design of information
infrastructures;
• Emerging and creative modes of maintenance and repair enacted by different users (e.g. workaround, bypassing, and so on);
• Ethnographies of information infrastructures at different stages of evolution, with particular
reference to repair practices;
• Theoretical reflections on the importance of maintenance and repair in the ecology of
•
information infrastructures;
Theoretical reflections on how the focus on maintenance and repair of information
infrastructures reconfigures roles and processes that are typical of traditional design and use.
Manutenzione e riparazione: Infrastrutture e progettazionein-uso
Le infrastrutture esistono sullo sfondo di altre attività e le supportano. Esse sono solitamente date per
scontate e diventano visibili solo quando collassano o funzionano male. Tuttavia, nella società
contemporanea e soprattutto nel caso delle tecnologie dell'Informazione e della comunicazione, le
infrastrutture dell'informazione sono diventate centrali negli interessi di accademici e professionisti, in
quanto vengono chiamate a sostenere un mondo sempre più complesso ed in rapida trasformazione.
Comprendere meglio come le infrastrutture dell'informazione si adattino per sostenere questo mondo
complesso ed in evoluzione è diventato un obiettivo cruciale.
In questo quadro, le pratiche di manutenzione e riparazione sviluppate dai progettisti e dagli
utilizzatori rappresentano un passaggio fondamentale nei cambiamenti e nell'evoluzione delle
infrastrutture
dell'informazione.
Una volta progettate, le infrastrutture dell'informazione devono incorporare procedure e routine di
manutenzione e riparazione per poter funzionare in modo corretto. Nel corso del loro uso, in modo
forse più rilevante che nei momenti di progettazione, esse sono trasformate e orientate da modalità di
riparazione e di manutenzione sviluppate da utilizzatori esperti e "proattivi", ma anche "naïf".
Il verbo inglese "to maintain" (mantenere, ma anche fare la manutenzione, in italiano) significa sia
"mantenere in buone condizioni", "prendersi cura" sia "sostenere qualcosa, asserire". Questo duplice
significato richiama un legame fra l'ontologia e l'esistenza ("resilience") delle infrastrutture e le risorse
che le tengono aggiornate, coerenti e "stabili" nel tempo.
Per questo la nostra sessione è aperta a contributi sul tema delle infrastrutture dell'informazione dal
punto di vista della loro manutenzione e riparazione rispetto ai processi di progettazione e uso.
Fra i temi possibili da proporre per la sessione, considerate i seguenti:
• Nella progettazione e nell'uso delle infrastrutture, come si attuano manutenzione e
riparazione? Si tratta di pratiche assimilabili sia nella progettazione che nell'utilizzazione, o vi
sono differenze?
• Esiste la possibilità di prospettare un processo di "progettazione-uso", considerando
manutenzione e riparazione come pratiche di collegamento fra la progettazione e l'uso?
• Procedure di manutenzione e di riparazione prescritte e in-scritte all'interno della
progettazione delle infrastrutture dell'informazione;
• Modi creativi emergenti di manutenzione e riparazione esercitati da diversi utilizzatori (ad
esempio work-around, bypassing, ecc.);
• Etnografia delle infrastrutture dell'informazione in diverse fasi di sviluppo, con riferimento
particolare alle pratiche di riparazione;
• Riflessioni teoriche sull'importanza della manutenzione e della riparazione nell'ecologia delle
infrastrutture dell'informazione;
• Riflessioni teoriche su come il focus sulla manutenzione e la riparazione delle infrastrutture
dell'informazione riconfiguri i ruoli ed i processi tipici del design ed uso tradizionali.
Alessandro Mongili is a researcher at the FiSPPA Department, University of Padua. He is a
sociologist of science and technology interested in infrastructuring, design and originators’
activities in computing, and also in topics related to minority languages standardization,
discretization and computing.
Giuseppina Pellegrino is a researcher at the Department of Political and Social Sciences,
University of Calabria. Her research concerns mainly sociology of technology in organizations,
design of innovative infrastructures (ubiquitous computing) and intersections between
mobility studies and STS. Amongst her other interests, the crossroads of gender,
communication, and politics.
Giacomo
Poderi is a post-doc researcher at the Department of Information
Engineering and Computer Science, University of Trento. He is an ethnographer
interested in the topics of continuous design and users participation.
Track 24
Convenors: Simone Tosoni (Università Cattolica di Milano, [email protected]);
Matteo
Tarantino
(Università
Cattolica
del
Sacro
Cuore
di
Milano,
[email protected]);
Christine
Leuenberger
(Cornell
University,
[email protected]).
Language(s) of submissions: ENG
Space, Conflict & Technologies
Human geographers have long stressed the dynamic nature of space. More than a mere container of
processes, space is always co-produced by those processes. It is a “relational” space “folded” into social
relations (Harvey, 1969, 2010). Space possesses a heterogeneous nature, at the same time symbolic
(“spatial representations”), pragmatic (“spatial practices”) and physical (“spatial materiality”)
(Lefebvre, 1991, Murdoch, 1998, Whatmore, 2002). What’s more, the social production of space is
always an open process, only temporarily stabilizable.
Sociotechnical objects such as spatial technologies (e.g. maps and GPS) or material arrangements (e.g.
urban layouts) play a central role in stabilizing and transforming spatial relations. Social actors
mobilize those sociotechnical objects within socio-spatial controversies - that is, conflicts about the
legitimate use, representation or materiality of a space. Within those conflicts, competing actors may
(and do) attempt to circulate spatial representations, regulate social practices or to modify the
physicality of space through sociotechnical objects. This is most evident in urban contexts, where the
broad range of users and institutions involved in its continuous production entail a high potential
friction. Yet this is also true at other scales, from households to nation-states.
In this track we are interested in theoretical, empirical and methodological works about the
mobilization of sociotechnical objects in socio-spatial controversies, at all scales. Possible topics
include:
a) Sur- and sous-veillance technologies (Ganascia, 2010), including sensors and data banks (Mann,
Nolan and Wellman, 2002).
b) Communication technologies in policing, managing and/or intervening.
c) The use of architecture and infrastructures to regulate sociospatial dynamics.
d) Space, technologies and inequalities.
e) The production and representation of space and spatial hierarchies through maps, GIS and mapping
software.
All submissions and presentations need to be in English.
REFERENCES
Jean-Gabriel Ganascia, 2010. "The generalized sousveillance society," Social Science Information, 49,
3:489-507.
David Harvey, 1969. Explanation in geography. New York: Edward Arnold.
David Harvey, 2010. Social justice and the city. University of Georgia Press.
Henri Lefebvre, 1991. The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell
Steve Mann, Jason Nolan & Barry Wellman, 2002. "Sousveillance: Inventing and using wearable
computing devices for data collection in surveillance environments," Surveillance & Society, 1, 3:331355.
Simone Tosoni is an assistant professor that Catholic University of the Sacred Heart of Milan.
His research interests focus on media and sociospatial production. He recently co-edited with
S. Tosoni and C. Giaccardi “Media and the City: Urbanism, Technologies and
Communication” for Cambridge Scholar Publishing.
Matteo Tarantino is a researcher at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart. His most
recent research deals with the use of ICTs in sociospatial controversies. He recently co-edited
with S. Tosoni and C. Giaccardi “Media and the City: Urbanism, Technologies and
Communication” for Cambridge Scholar Publishing.
Christine Leuenberger is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Science & Technology
Studies at Cornell University. She investigated the social impact of the West Bank Barrier and
is a current recipient of a National Science Foundation Scholar’s award to investigate mapping
practices in Israel and Palestine.
Doctoral Consortium
Convenors: Luca Guerrini (Politecnico di Milano, [email protected]); Laura Lucia
Parolin (Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, [email protected]); Lucia
Rampino (Politecnico di Milano, [email protected]); Ilaria Mariani (Politecnico di
Milano, [email protected]) .
Language(s) of submissions: ITA | ENG
La partecipazione al doctoral consortium è riservata agli studenti e alle studentesse di
dottorato di ricerca, ed è finalizzato a promuovere occasioni di contatto, scambio e dialogo
nell’ambito della ricerca.
Dottorandi e dottorande sono invitati/e a presentare le proprie attività di ricerca in una poster
session che si manterrà sotto forma di esposizione per l’intera durata del convegno, dal 12 al
14 Giugno 2014. Sono ammessi tutti i temi pertinenti alle varie sessioni tematiche in cui è
articolato il convegno, come descritte nel call for abstracts. Si prevede inoltre un momento
dedicato, in cui i partecipanti al convegno potranno incontrare autori e autrici dei poster. Gli
autori e le autrici dei poster che saranno accettati potranno partecipare con un paper agli atti
della conferenza (le modalità verranno comunicate in seguito).
Dettagli
Le proposte devono essere presentate sotto forma di poster e possono rispondere a una delle
tematiche presentate nelle diverse tracks.
Si richiede di inviare entro il 15 febbraio 2014 attraverso la pagina di submission del
convegno due file Pdf:
● Poster in formato A0 verticale, seguendo il template fornito (download template e guida) e le
specifiche fornite di seguito.
● File di testo contenente una selezione di riferimenti bibliografici significativi (massimo 20,
redatti secondo l’Harvard Referencing System).
I contenuti richiesti possono essere restituiti sotto forma di testi brevi, rappresentazioni
schematiche/infografiche/immagini fotografiche, elementi pop-up, collages e altre tecniche
comunicative, e sono:
• Titolo e sottotitolo proposta
• Track di riferimento
• Abstract (150-200 parole)
• Obiettivi della ricerca
• Metodologia e strumenti
• Processo di ricerca
• Risultati attesi/ottenuti
• Fotografia B/W dell’autore
I criteri di valutazione sono:
• Rilevanza scientifica dei contenuti
• Efficacia comunicativa dell’elaborato
• Rispetto delle indicazioni
• File di testo con i riferimenti bibliografici
DOCTORAL CONSORTIUM
The Doctoral Consortium session is dedicated to PhD students and aimed at promoting an
occasion for coming into contact with other researchers as well as for exchanging experiences
and discussing issues of the research field.
PhD students are invited to present their research in the various disciplines involved in the
conference in a poster session that, in the form of an exhibition, will last for the entire
duration of the conference. It is also scheduled a time exclusively dedicated to the Poster
Session, wherein PhD students will describe their posters and the contents of the research
they present. The authors of accepted posters may submit a paper to be published in the
conference proceedings (modality will be announced).
Details
Proposals must be submitted in the form of posters and have to respond to one of the
thematic sessions listed in the conference’s Call for Abstracts.
Proposals should be uploaded through the conference website by February 15, 2014. The
delivery of two PDF files is required:
● A vertical A0 Poster, following the provided template (download template and guide) and the
specifications given below.
● A text file containing a selection of significant References (up to 20 according to the Harvard
Referencing System).
The requested contents can be presented as short texts, schematic
representations/infographics/photographic images, pop-up elements, collages and other
communication techniques; and they are:
• Proposal title and subtitle
• Research Track
• Abstract (150-200 words)
• Research objectives
• Methodology and tools
• Research process
• Expected/obtained results
• B/W picture of the author
Evaluation criteria are:
• Scientific relevance of the contents
• Effectiveness of communication tools
• Compliance with directions/specifications
• Text file with References
Luca Guerrini, Associate Professor, Design Department, Politecnico di Milano
Laura Parolin, Lecturer, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca
Lucia Rampino, Researcher, Design Department, Politecnico di Milano
Ilaria Mariani, PhD Student, Design Department, Politecnico di Milano