二十年后的“差距”理论化:教育技术研究中的全球发展、设计和投机伦理

Jade Vu Henry
{"title":"二十年后的“差距”理论化:教育技术研究中的全球发展、设计和投机伦理","authors":"Jade Vu Henry","doi":"10.1007/s42438-023-00429-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Drawing from Feminist Science and Technology Studies, this paper explores how we might revisit and recuperate past academic research projects, theories, and relationships to design futures that matter for social good. As context, I begin by outlining a decade of research in Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICTD), which linked the United Nations Millennium Development Goals to innovations in telecommunications and computing. I then introduce the ‘theory of design-reality gaps’ that was proposed by Heeks to study ’wicked problems’ in this domain (2002). I revisit two strands of research that I carried out in relation to the ‘design-reality gap’. The first involved an ethnographic study of a participatory mobile phone based learning intervention for Kenyan health workers. I argued that instead of a singular ‘gap’ explained by geographic, sociocultural, or economic ‘divides’, there was a messy entanglement, constituted by sociomaterial practices that enacted a multiplicity (Mol in The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice, Duke University Press, 2002) of desired futures. In the second strand, I attempted to care for the practices that were abandoned by the learning intervention when one kind of justice was prioritized over others. This explored how the research could be more ‘speculative’ and how this ‘speculative commitment’ could generate new ethical questions and logics for living with technology (Puig de la Bellacasa in Social Studies of Science, 41(1), 85–106, 2011 and Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds, University of Minnesota Press, 2017). I argue that approaching the design-reality ‘gap’ as a multiplicity instead of a void can support Tuck’s call for educational interventions that turn away from damage oriented theories of change to ones based on desire – approaching difference not as a lack, but as an ever-growing assemblage (2009). Tinkering with the original Heeks model, I conclude that in the postdigital era, the design-reality gap is now better-understood as a fluid space of multiplicities, and what is arguably most pressing is to study the differences in competing objectives and values, rather than disparities in information and technology.","PeriodicalId":489236,"journal":{"name":"Postdigital Science and Education","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Theorizing ‘The Gap’ Twenty Years Later: Global Development, Design, and Speculative Ethics in Edtech Research\",\"authors\":\"Jade Vu Henry\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s42438-023-00429-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Drawing from Feminist Science and Technology Studies, this paper explores how we might revisit and recuperate past academic research projects, theories, and relationships to design futures that matter for social good. As context, I begin by outlining a decade of research in Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICTD), which linked the United Nations Millennium Development Goals to innovations in telecommunications and computing. I then introduce the ‘theory of design-reality gaps’ that was proposed by Heeks to study ’wicked problems’ in this domain (2002). I revisit two strands of research that I carried out in relation to the ‘design-reality gap’. The first involved an ethnographic study of a participatory mobile phone based learning intervention for Kenyan health workers. I argued that instead of a singular ‘gap’ explained by geographic, sociocultural, or economic ‘divides’, there was a messy entanglement, constituted by sociomaterial practices that enacted a multiplicity (Mol in The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice, Duke University Press, 2002) of desired futures. In the second strand, I attempted to care for the practices that were abandoned by the learning intervention when one kind of justice was prioritized over others. This explored how the research could be more ‘speculative’ and how this ‘speculative commitment’ could generate new ethical questions and logics for living with technology (Puig de la Bellacasa in Social Studies of Science, 41(1), 85–106, 2011 and Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds, University of Minnesota Press, 2017). I argue that approaching the design-reality ‘gap’ as a multiplicity instead of a void can support Tuck’s call for educational interventions that turn away from damage oriented theories of change to ones based on desire – approaching difference not as a lack, but as an ever-growing assemblage (2009). Tinkering with the original Heeks model, I conclude that in the postdigital era, the design-reality gap is now better-understood as a fluid space of multiplicities, and what is arguably most pressing is to study the differences in competing objectives and values, rather than disparities in information and technology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":489236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Postdigital Science and Education\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Postdigital Science and Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-023-00429-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Postdigital Science and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-023-00429-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:本文借鉴女性主义科学与技术研究,探讨了我们如何重新审视和恢复过去的学术研究项目、理论和关系,以设计对社会有益的未来。作为背景,我首先概述信息和通信技术促进发展(ICTD)的十年研究,将联合国千年发展目标与电信和计算创新联系起来。然后,我介绍了Heeks提出的“设计-现实差距理论”,该理论用于研究该领域的“邪恶问题”(2002)。我回顾了我在“设计-现实差距”方面进行的两项研究。第一项研究涉及一项针对肯尼亚卫生工作者的参与式基于手机的学习干预的人种学研究。我认为,不是由地理、社会文化或经济“鸿沟”解释的单一“鸿沟”,而是由社会物质实践构成的混乱纠缠,这些实践制定了多重性(摩尔在身体多重:医学实践中的本体论,杜克大学出版社,2002年)期望的未来。在第二部分中,我试图关注学习干预所放弃的实践,当一种正义优先于其他正义时。这篇文章探讨了研究如何变得更具“思辨性”,以及这种“思辨承诺”如何产生新的伦理问题和与技术共存的逻辑(《科学社会研究》,41(1),85-106,2011年);《关怀的问题:超越人类世界的思辨伦理》,明尼苏达大学出版社,2017年)。我认为,将设计-现实的“差距”作为一种多样性而不是一种空白来处理,可以支持塔克对教育干预的呼吁,即从以损害为导向的变化理论转向以欲望为基础的理论——将差异视为一种不断增长的组合,而不是一种缺失(2009)。通过对Heeks模型的修改,我得出结论,在后数字时代,设计与现实之间的差距现在被更好地理解为一个多样性的流动空间,可以说最紧迫的是研究竞争目标和价值观的差异,而不是信息和技术的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Theorizing ‘The Gap’ Twenty Years Later: Global Development, Design, and Speculative Ethics in Edtech Research
Abstract Drawing from Feminist Science and Technology Studies, this paper explores how we might revisit and recuperate past academic research projects, theories, and relationships to design futures that matter for social good. As context, I begin by outlining a decade of research in Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICTD), which linked the United Nations Millennium Development Goals to innovations in telecommunications and computing. I then introduce the ‘theory of design-reality gaps’ that was proposed by Heeks to study ’wicked problems’ in this domain (2002). I revisit two strands of research that I carried out in relation to the ‘design-reality gap’. The first involved an ethnographic study of a participatory mobile phone based learning intervention for Kenyan health workers. I argued that instead of a singular ‘gap’ explained by geographic, sociocultural, or economic ‘divides’, there was a messy entanglement, constituted by sociomaterial practices that enacted a multiplicity (Mol in The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice, Duke University Press, 2002) of desired futures. In the second strand, I attempted to care for the practices that were abandoned by the learning intervention when one kind of justice was prioritized over others. This explored how the research could be more ‘speculative’ and how this ‘speculative commitment’ could generate new ethical questions and logics for living with technology (Puig de la Bellacasa in Social Studies of Science, 41(1), 85–106, 2011 and Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds, University of Minnesota Press, 2017). I argue that approaching the design-reality ‘gap’ as a multiplicity instead of a void can support Tuck’s call for educational interventions that turn away from damage oriented theories of change to ones based on desire – approaching difference not as a lack, but as an ever-growing assemblage (2009). Tinkering with the original Heeks model, I conclude that in the postdigital era, the design-reality gap is now better-understood as a fluid space of multiplicities, and what is arguably most pressing is to study the differences in competing objectives and values, rather than disparities in information and technology.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
19.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Review of Dave Cormier (2024). Learning in a Time of Abundance: The Community Is the Curriculum How AI Works: Reconfiguring Lifelong Learning Review of Tiziana Terranova (2022). After the Internet: Digital Networks between Capital and the Common Flatulence, Wonder, and Artificial Intelligence: Montaigne and Emerging Technologies An Alternative Approach to Science and Technology Parks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1