Posted on November 20, 2007 by rian39
‘The Team Around the Children: Codes, rules and imaginary epistemic objects in interagency working for integrated childrens’ services. – Steve Brown, Leicester University
Notes written by students of Theo Vurdubakis -Department of Organisation, Work and Technology, Lancaster University:
Steve’s presentation focused on the frameworks and technologies used in the protection of children who are seen to be at risk. The aim was to examine and question how technologies such as the CAF (Common Assessment Framework) form were used to co-ordinate all of the services involved in the detection and ultimate protection of children at risk. It examined methods of assessment that were carried out by a multitude of services, under the technology of the CAF form, making the child an object of intervention and risk assessment by a plethora of agencies.
In response to the death of Victoria Climbie, a project was initiated named ‘Every child matters’ (ECM) . The findings of a report published by ECM identified a lack of co-ordination between all of the services involved in assessing and determining which or whether children were at risk. One of the outcomes was the development of the CAF form, which was to provide through ‘master codings’ a way of overcoming the problems of co-ordination. The aim was to provide different professions and services involved in the assessment process, a way of working on different bits of the child at different moments and to bring these processes together. The CAF form is a way to ‘cut up and then reassemble the child’.
Filed under: workshop 2 | Tagged: abstraction, care, children, code | Leave a comment »
Posted on November 20, 2007 by safeliving
Lucas Introna – LUMS, Lancaster University
Value-sensitive design seeks to shape code to conform to values. But looking at search engines or facial recognition that are hard to understand, who can do what? The paper focuses on how agency works here.
The inter-actional human-centred account is often invoked. The original agency is assumed to be human. The determination of original agency becomes an ethical-social requirement. On this account, it becomes really hard to account for agency (e.g. Foucault’s work shows this). Also Latour’s work helps shows that materials are very active in practice. Barad’s notion of intra-action makes phenomena ‘primitive’ and relata are not pre-given. Where does all this lead us in terms of responsibility? Responsibility is sedimented around particular practices that we play a role in shaping. Finally Heidegger’s account of being-in-the-world provides an account of how things become present-to-hand. The constitutive relation is ontological – it performs all participants, human and nonhuman, at once. The intra-action that constitutes is prior to any scripting of our behaviour.
Figuring intra-actional sociolmaterial agency in the context of plagiarism detection systems such as TurnItIn.com is illustrative. This a vast technology, receiving 50,000 essays/day. Students were asked about how their work came to be detected by the system. They spoke of having many electronic sources open on the screen. They would cut and paste relevant fragments into a document that becomes the skeleton of the document. They then write over the fragments in a way that becomes their own. Sometimes that involves changing little, for others a lot. Sometimes they just connected the fragments with writing. The students think they are writing their essays, using re-use. This is highly valorised in object-oriented programming. They use the discourse of reuse, and this reconfigures the social-mterial practice of writing.
The TurnItin system understands plagiarism in terms of thresholds of copying – the ‘traffic light’ system. TurnItIn incorporates all the essays into its databases. The students are then sometimes asked to sign off their essays for submission to TurnItOn. The effect is to constitute students as intellectual producers. Their essays can then be sold on ebay, especially if they can show that it has not been submitted to TurnItIn. Internet ghost-writing services offer guarantees that their products will not be detected by TurnItIn.
An ethical debate against the Turnitin software can be read here at DontTurnItIn
Filed under: workshop 2 | Tagged: abstraction, code, plagiarism, socio-material agency | Leave a comment »