Advertisement

Efficient Worker or Reflective Practitioner? Competing Technical Rationalities of Media Software Tools

  • Ingrid Forsler
  • Julia Velkova
Chapter
Part of the Dynamics of Virtual Work book series (DVW)

Abstract

The work of creators of digital media today is profoundly reliant on the use of specialised software. Yet, software is not merely an instrument of labour. The current hegemonies of society are incorporated in the technological design of tools, explicating what Feenberg (2009) calls technical rationality. Different production frameworks can embed distinct forms of such rationality depending on the goals of their creators. Drawing on theories of knowledge and feminist theory of technological development, Forsler and Velkova present an analysis of the production frameworks of three different manufactures of software tools for computer graphics, both industrial and user-driven. The chapter contributes with a conceptual theoretical model of how these frameworks are underpinned by different epistemological assumptions and competing visions of media practitioners.

References

  1. Andrejevic, M. (2008). Watching television without pity: The productivity of online fans. Television & New Media, 9(1), 24–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. In M. Featherstone (Ed.), Global culture: Nationalism, globalisation, and modernity: A Theory, culture & society special issue. London/Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, H.S. (2008). Art worlds (25th anniversary ed., updated and expanded). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 18, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, È. (2007). The new spirit of capitalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  6. Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Catmull, E. E. (2014). In A. Wallace (Ed.), Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the unseen forces that stand in the way of true inspiration. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  8. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (Introducing qualitative methods). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  9. Dormer, P. (1997). The culture of craft: Status and future. Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Downey, G. L. (1998). The machine in me: An anthropologist sits among computer engineers. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Feenberg, A. (2009). Critical theory of technology. In J.-K. B. Olsen, S. A. Pedersen, & V. F. Hendricks (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of technology. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Frabetti, F. (2015). Software theory: A cultural and philosophical study. London: Rowman & Littlefield International.Google Scholar
  13. Gell, A. (2010). The enchantment of technology and the technology of enchantment. In The craft reader (English ed., pp. 464–482). Oxford/New York: Berg Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
  15. Haraway, D. (1991). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In Simians, cyborgs and women. The reinvention of nature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Henderson, K. (1999). On line and on paper: Visual representations, visual culture, and computer graphics in design engineering. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Pfiffner, P. S. (2003). Inside the publishing revolution: The adobe story. Berkeley: Peachpit Press.Google Scholar
  18. Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1992), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schön, D. A. (2003 [1995]). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Repr. Aldershot: AshgateGoogle Scholar
  20. Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Sito, T. (2013). Moving innovation: A history of computer animation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Suchman, L. (1994). Working relations of technology production and use. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 2, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Suchman, L. (2002). Located accountabilities in technology production. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 14(2), Article 7. Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol14/iss2/7.Google Scholar
  24. Tai, P. (2012). The principle of animation: History and theory of a social technology. Doctoral Dissertation. University of California Irvine, Irvine.Google Scholar
  25. Thompson, N., & Pascal, J. (2012). Developing critically reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 13(2), 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorising agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society, 31(1), 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Velkova, J. (2016). Open cultural production and the online gift economy: The case of blender. First Monday, 21(10). Available at http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/6944
  28. Velkova, J. (2017). Media technologies in the making user-driven software and infrastructures for computer graphics production. Huddinge: Södertörns högskola.Google Scholar
  29. Velkova, J., & Jakobsson, P. (2017). At the intersection of commons and market: Negotiations of value in open-sourced cultural production. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 20(1), 14–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wood, A. (2015). Software, animation and the moving image: what’s in the box? Houndmills/Basingstoke/Hampshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingrid Forsler
    • 1
  • Julia Velkova
    • 1
  1. 1.Södertörn UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations