jdittrich

2 It is hard to draw the line between "soft" and "hard" skills in engineering projects
3 There is no single person knowing how a telephone works, not even the people who build the infrastructure.
4…But people know how to deal with "their" touchpoints to it competently → see: Pragmatism
6 The physics-based description is seen as ideal for technological literacy. → see: Culture
9 For the physics-view some things are relevant ("underlying" ones like length, thickness, angle), others are not ("impure" or "irrelevant" ones, like history, material, grain).
14 two ideas of artifact creation:
a) Savant: Artifact is the realization of underlying principles
b) utilitarian: the artifact is defined by the market and by what is "good" for actors.
17 Design Processes seen as autonomous and leading to the "right" result. → See: Seitz, Design Thinking
30 META (describing the site)

3 Often, learning is seen as:
- an individual effort
- best separated from other activities
3 What if learning – like eating or sleep – is an inevitable, normal and social?
6 Communities of Practice are everywhere: families, Scientists, street gangs… most do not have names and no formal membership
9 Explicit learning and teaching vs. social learning and teaching
41 Understanding: Defining what to know and what not
47 Practice: Doing. Social and historical context give it meaning
47 Tacit knowledge is often not noticed
48 For practice there is no theory/practice divide. This is more of an distinction for enterprises which say: "We are theory-guided!" "We are hands on!"

10
- a) Recipe creation as part of household management
- b) recipes do record and depend on social relationships, trust and obligations
- c) recipes as family history
14 recipes in the making by crossing-out, annotating and correcting (also: 26, 113ff)
27 focused recipe-collection for current problems (e.g. someone sick and you gather recipes to relieve it). Also : escalation to professionals
32 recipe selection for own collection from other collections: copying
35 other places other experts: access to knowledge networks
36 importance of locality != local practices: recipes circulated widely
38 Recipes as gifts (also 76)

Callon, Michel. 1990. “Techno-Economic Networks and Irreversibility.” The Sociological Review 38 (1_suppl): 132–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03351.x.

Actors:

scientific→ certified knowledge
technological → develop things
people
market → react to needs

Ingold does write about design (or, rather: Culture, man-made-things) and ecology (e.g. in [1][2]). Langdon Winner’s essays in [3] might also be interesting And Actor-Network-Theory might be helpful – the classic work of Callon [4] shows a "network" of animals, environment, people, technology… It is a bit hard to read, particularly if you are not familiar with ANT yet, and [5] is a much nicer read.

But these are all rather general. On design research and criticizms of it, I know some stuff on the question of design ethnography [7], claims of true stuff ("the real user needs") [9], users as part of a computer system [11] and design thinking’s intertwinement into neoliberal ideas [12,8] – if that is something that is interesting to you. And talking about neoliberalism [12] is a great source for anything tech/design thinking/engineering related; [13] is by the mentioned Langdon Winner and also pretty great. In the context of work and care for technology (in contrast to churining out "disruptions"), there are

Rosenberger, R., & Verbeek, P. P. (2015). A field guide to postphenomenology. Postphenomenological investigations: Essays on human-technology relations, 9-41.

perspective: technology as mediating: relations between people and artifacts

"combine philosophical analysis with empirical investigation"

via technology comes mediation not alienation (contrast with Heidegger)

The human-world relation is usually a human-technology-world relation (Ihde 1990)

	META: Initial number is the page number, text following "→" refers to other works or concepts.

	13 Systems have their own system problems in addition to what they are build to do
	17 Systems tend to expand. DIY expands (more things are DIY-able) and manufacturing expands (more different things are manufactured)
	26 State-able goals ≠goals ≠ known things. see: Accountability, Garfinkel
	28 recreate the world in the image of administration → campbell’s law in: "Assessing the impact of planned social change"
	32 Being perfectly prepared for the past → Weick, sensemaking
	33 There is always an older system interfering with the current system → S.L Star, Steps Towards an Ecology of Infrastructure: Complex Problems in Design and Access for Large-scale Collaborative Systems
	38 People in the system do not what the system should be doing but do system things (Bittner?)
	40 The goals of a system is determined by what the system can do (→ Weick, Sensemaking in Organizations → Bowker, Forgetting in Organizations → Some capi

	library(dplyr)
	library(vegawidget)
	library(tidyr)

	barsizes<-seq(300,1600, by=25)
	percentages<-seq(0,1, by=0.025)

	# how wide (in px) is the text for
	marginOfErrorMultiplier <- 1.1 # 1.1 is +10%

	<!doctype html>

	<html lang="en">
	<head>
	<meta charset="utf-8">

	<title>Title</title>
	<meta name="description" content="">
	<meta name="author" content="">

	5 computers are like the Rorschach-Test
	10 Interacting with computers is seductive: Total control and no mess of social relations
	13 Computers evoke rather than determine thinking
	13 opacity of computers encourages to talk about them
	20 Kids argue about "do computers think"
	20 Kids know themselves and attribute what they know about them to things (childhood animism)
	20 usually: material OR Psychological but computers are both
	20 computers are "marginal Objects" – are they "in" or "out" e.g. of "living things"
	22 Computers for exploring power, life, death: Switch them on, off, break, crash
	23 Horrors of recursion and infinity