An Atmosphere Ethics for Digital Transcription and Reading Spheres Communally

  • Amanda Windle


How, where and who reports back on communal activities in academia matters. The reader might expect there to be writing about the academic reading group’s discussion, (of who said what) followed by a discussion about consensus and cooperation. Instead, the debate is circumnavigated so as to discuss the events’ atmosphere ethics as related to Spheres. Atmosphere ethics is intertwined with a feminist ethics of ambiguity and situations. I give an account of participant consent and three schisms resulting in non-consent. The social, digital and technical schisms are tied to the spatial setting of where the roundtable took place at the Royal Society of the Arts (RSA), London, and then how it was captured in an audio recording and data processed at the point of digital transcription. The digital design-in is to suggest that consent is always a matter of continual re-consent.


Ambiguity Atmosphere Ethics Reading Re-consent Transcription 


  1. Ahmed, Sara. Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham: Duke University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  2. Anthony, Kathryn H. Designing for Diversity: Gender, Race, and Ethnicity in the Architectural Profession. Minneapolis: University of Illinois Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  3. Barad, Karen. “Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28, no. 3 (2003): 801–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Battersby, Christine. “Her Body/Her Boundaries.” In Feminist Theory and the Body: A Reader, edited by Janet Price and Margrit Shildrick, 341–59. Oxon: Routledge, 2008.Google Scholar
  5. Borson, Bob. 2011. “Life of an Architect.” Accessed April 7, 2017.
  6. Breeze, Maddie. Seriousness and Women’s Roller Derby: Gender, Organisation, and Ambivalence. Edinburgh: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Denzin, Patrick. Performance Ethnography: Critical Pedagogy and the Politics of Culture. London: Sage, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Friedman, Sharon M. “Women in Engineering: Influential Factors for Career Choice.” Science Technology and Human Values 2, no. 3 (1977): 14–16.
  9. Haraway, Donna. “The Biopolitics of Postmodern Bodies: Determinations of Self in Immune System Discourse.” In Feminist Theory and the Body: A Reader, edited by Janet Price and Margrit Shildrick, 203–14. New York: Routledge, [1999] 2008.Google Scholar
  10. Haraway, Donna. Staying with the Trouble. Durham: Duke University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
  11. Hine, Christine. Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Latour, Bruno. “Spheres and Networks: Two Ways to Reinterpret Globalization.” Harvard Design Magazine 30 (2009): 138–44.Google Scholar
  13. Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. Lury, Celia, and Nina Wakeford. Inventive Methods: The Happening of the Social. London: Routledge, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Milne, Elisabeth-Jane. “Saying ‘No’ to Participatory Video: Unravelling the Complexities of (Non)Participation.” Edited by C. De Lange, E. J. Milne, and N. Mitchell, 257–68. Lanham: AltaMira, 2012.Google Scholar
  16. Perloff, Marjorie. 2002. “Dada Without Duchamp / Duchamp Without Dada: Avant-garde Tradition and the Individual Talent.” Electronic Poetry Center. Accessed December 8, 2017.
  17. Pink, Sarah, László Kürti, and Ana Isabel Afonso. Working Images: Visual Representation in Ethnography. New York: Routledge, 2004.Google Scholar
  18. Roy, Deboleena. “Feminist Approaches to the Enquiry in the Natural Sciences: Practices in the Lab.” In Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis, edited by Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber, 312–29. London: Sage, 2011.Google Scholar
  19. Rughani, Pratap. The Dance of Documentary Ethics. Edited by Brian Winston, 98–109. British Film Institute, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.Google Scholar
  20. Schön, Donald A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books, 1983.Google Scholar
  21. Sloterdijk, Peter. “Spheres Theory: Talking to Myself About the Poetics of Space.” Harvard Design Magazine 30 (2009): 1–8.Google Scholar
  22. Star, Susan Leigh. “Misplaced Concretism and Concrete Situations: Feminism, Method and Information Technology.” In Boundary Objects and Beyond: Working with Leigh Star, edited by Geoffrey C. Bowker, Stefan Timmermans, Adele Clarke, and Ellen Balka, 143–71. Cambridge: MIT Press, [1994] 2016.Google Scholar
  23. Stengers, Isabelle. Power and Invention: Situating Science. Translated by P. Bains. Minneapolis: Minnesota Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  24. ———. “Introductory Notes on an Ecology of Practices.” Cultural Studies Review 11, no. 1 (2005): 183–96.Google Scholar
  25. Wakeford, Nina. “Don’t Go All the Way: Revisiting ‘Misplaced Concretism’.” In Boundary Objects and Beyond: Working with Leigh Star, edited by Geoffrey C. Bowker, Stefan Timmermans, Adele Clarke, and Ellen Balka, 69–84. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2016.Google Scholar
  26. Windle, A. “Automation and Design for Prevention: Fictional Accounts of Misanthropic Agency from the Elevator (Lift) to the Sexbot (Chatbot).” Technoetic Arts 12, no. 1 (2014): 91–106.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.London College of CommunicationUniversity of the Arts LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations