They’re gonna be disrupted, yeah! Because your lives are being disrupted, yeah! This is the money you need to live!
An interesting article in the FT: “When your boss is an algorithm“, in which (if you ignore the sort of anthropomorphism of “the algorithm” and its apparently supreme agency) the author, Sarah O’Connor, draws out the similarity between the claims of efficiency etc. made for ‘gig economy’ -type work platforms, such as Uber and Deliveroo, are very similar to Taylorism:
Algorithmic management” might sound like the future but it has uncanny echoes from the past. A hundred years ago, a new theory called “scientific management” swept through the factories of America. It was the brainchild of Frederick W Taylor … Taylor wanted to replace this “rule of thumb” approach with “the establishment of many rules, laws and formulae which replace the judgment of the individual workman”. To that end, he sent managers with stopwatches and notebooks on to the shop floor. They observed, timed and recorded every stage of every job, and determined the most efficient way that each one should be done. “Perhaps the most prominent single element in modern scientific management is the task idea,” Taylor wrote in his 1911 book The Principles of Scientific Management. “This task specifies not only what is to be done but how it is to be done and the exact time allowed for doing it.”
Exemplified by the following excerpt articulating the experience of a Deliveroo driver, Kyaw, which is, in turn, of course similar to the kinds of working conditions of other delivery drivers and Amazon warehouse pickers (as has been covered widely in the press)…
Kyaw whips out his phone. The app expects him to respond to new orders within 30 seconds. The screen shows a map and address for the local Carluccio’s, an Italian restaurant chain. A swipe bar says “Accept delivery”. That is the only option. The algorithm will not tell him the delivery address until he has picked up the food from Carluccio’s. Deliveroo couriers are assigned fairly small geographic areas but Kyaw says sometimes the delivery address is way outside his allocated zone. You can only decline an order by phoning the driver support line. “They say, ‘No, you have to do it, you already collected the food.’ If you want to return the food to the restaurant they mark it as a driver refusal — that’s bad.”
Saw a paper, shared (perhaps ironically) on ResearchGate, concerning Academia.edu and the ways it can be seen as a means of self-discipline around ‘impact’, self-promotion and how these may relate reward and recognition. May be of interest to some…
“Facebook for Academics”: The Convergence of Self-Branding and Social Media Logic on Academia.edu
Brooke Erin Duffy and Jefferson D. Pooley.
Given widespread labor market precarity, contemporary workers—especially those in the media and creative industries—are increasingly called upon to brand themselves. Academics, we contend, are experiencing a parallel pressure to engage in self-promotional practices, particularly as universities become progressively more market-driven. Academia.edu, a paper-sharing social network that has been informally dubbed “Facebook for academics,” has grown rapidly by adopting many of the conventions of popular social media sites. This article argues that the astonishing uptake of Academia.edu both reflects and amplifies the self-branding imperatives that many academics experience. Drawing on Academia.edu’s corporate history, design decisions, and marketing communications, we analyze two overlapping facets of Academia.edu: (1) the site’s business model and (2) its social affordances. We contend that the company, like mainstream social networks, harnesses the content and immaterial labor of users under the guise of “sharing.” In addition, the site’s fixation on analytics reinforces a culture of incessant self-monitoring—one already encouraged by university policies to measure quantifiable impact. We conclude by identifying the stakes for academic life, when entrepreneurial and self-promotional demands brush up against the university’s knowledge-making ideals.
I’ve only just caught on here, but the ESRC’s “Ways of Being in a Digital Age” scoping review, for their new theme of the same name, has been awarded to the Liverpool Institute of Cultural Capital (a collaboration between Liverpool and Liverpool John Moores) in a partnership with 17 other institutions (a core of eight in the UK apparently). They say:
The project will undertake a Delphi review of expert opinion and a systematic literature review and overall synthesis to identify gaps in current research.
The project will also run a programme of events to build and extend networks among the academic community, other stakeholders and potential funding partners.
There’s a website, so you can read more there…
Over on Savage Minds Rex Golub has written a compelling provocation about the places of ‘public anthropology’ (which I think could probably be broadened to ‘public scholarship). He points out that it’s all very well writing letters to venerable broad sheet newspapers but that doesn’t necessarily achieve much. Instead, Professors (or academics more broadly) might better spend their time editing wikipedia pages because that is the prime site of the public sourcing, and contestation, of knowledge. I think its quite a compelling argument… not least when thinking about the current trend and push for demonstrating “impact”. Isn’t it quite “impactful” to be the person who attempts to ensure that the most widely used source of knowledge on a given topic is rigorously written/edited? There’s no academic brownie points in that though… no promotions or awards/rewards are going to be given on that basis!
What do you think?
…my issue is that anthropologists are doing public anthropology in the wrong places and in the wrong way because they don’t understand how social media works today and are seduced by an out-moded model of cultural capital that makes them feels heroic, but it isn’t actually efficacious.
The new public anthropology, on the other hand, is not glamorous, will not make you famous, can be emotionally uncomfortable, involves working in new and unfamiliar genres, and can change the world. A good example of this sort of public anthropology is editing Wikipedia
Wikipedia is ground zero for knowledge in the world today. Everyone uses it to look stuff up quickly. Everyone. Some people may take it more seriously than others, but because its content can be reused on other sites, what wikipedia says spreads everywhere. For better or for worse — I’d say for better — it’s the public record of the state of human knowledge at the moment. Unlike letters to the New York Times, Wikipedia gets read. Constantly. When you contribute to Wikipedia, you are concretely and immediately altering what the world knows about your topic of expertise.
Via Deterritorial Investigations Unit.
Containers is an 8-part audio documentary about how global trade has transformed the economy and ourselves. Host and correspondent Alexis Madrigal leads you through the world of ships and sailors, technology and tugboats, warehouses and cranes. At a time when Donald Trump is threatening to toss out the global economic order, Containers provides an illuminating, deep, and weird look at how capitalism actually works now.
The website postphenomenology.org is an interesting resource, especially the bibliography compiled there (which perhaps implies an canon?), which got me returning to some thoughts I’ve had about how particular kinds of theory ‘travel’, how they co-opted and then, perhaps, disciplined. The website mentioned above is clearly, if not wholly explicitly, positioned within that interesting, apparently interdisciplinary, area of Science and Technology Studies – and one would think, then, that the reference list would take in a range of disciplinary debates, demonstrating how the ideas freighted by “post-phenomenology” have, perhaps, contributed to an interdisciplinary debate. Instead, it seem to me, the reference list demonstrates something like a kind of disciplining, whereby the journals and authors represented sit within what is de facto a particular field, potentially having not an open, interdisciplinary, debate but rather a fairly insular one. I don’t intend that observation as a slight to the compilers of what is a useful resource, I’m just interested in how the movement or spread of ideas can work – or, as Said says, how theory travels.
This cannot be uncommon, nor is it necessarily a normatively ‘bad’ thing. Recently I took part in a fascinating workshop on the generations of Southern theory – in relation to urbanism and in particular in relation to how this has historically played out through the empirical lens and academic institutions of South Africa. My colleague Clive Barnett highlighted that that set of debates has happened slightly differently (or perhaps not at all) in different but cognate disciplinary contexts. In the wake of Said and various others, Clive has, of course, written about such things – as have many others!
So, what should ‘post-phenomenological’ geographers do? Probably just carry on… One could try and forge the connections, but it of course takes effort and time etc etc. In the end, nobody ‘owns’ concepts and the theory will develop within different disciplinary contexts, albeit possibly siloed into particular journals and conferences. I suppose, it goes to show that when conversations become more than superficially interdisciplinary, taking in different points of view and contexts, it’s probably a precious moment…
An interesting event blogged by Peter-Paul Verbeek:
Workshop ‘Security and the Political Turn in the Philosophy of Technologies’, University of Twente | DesignLab, March 10 2017. How to understand the political significance of things? And how to deal with the politics of technology in a responsible way? Ever since Langdon Winner claimed in the early 1980s that “artifacts have politics”, these questions have been puzzling philosophers and ethicists of technology. Technologies are not just instruments for humans to do politics but actively shape politics themselves. In this workshop we will explore various dimensions of this political role of technologies, especially with regards to security, citizenship in a technological world, and the role of social media and ‘fake news’ in contemporary democracy.
- Babette Babich (Fordham)
- Robin James (UNCC),
- Laura Fichtner (TUD)
- Wolter Pieters (TUD)
- Melis Bas (UT)
- Jonne Hoek (UT)
- Philip Brey (UT)
- Nolen Gertz (UT)
- Michael Nagenborg (UT)
- Peter-Paul Verbeek (UT)
The workshop is sponsored by the 4TU.Ethics working group on “Risk, Safety, and Security.”
I’m really pleased to share that Prof. Mike Phillips (i-DAT, Plymouth) will be speaking next week as part of the Exeter Geography seminar series. Mike is a founder of the Institute of Digital Art and Technology and one of the founders of the undergraduate programme I studied MediaLab Arts, which is now called Digital Media Design.
Details: Thursday 16th March, 12:30: Amory 417. All welcome!