大科技与大Ag相遇:数据和权力的多样化认识

IF 2.5 3区 哲学 Q1 CULTURAL STUDIES Science As Culture Pub Date : 2022-01-02 DOI:10.1080/09505431.2021.1986692
K. Bronson, Phoebe Sengers
{"title":"大科技与大Ag相遇:数据和权力的多样化认识","authors":"K. Bronson, Phoebe Sengers","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2021.1986692","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since 2018, there has been a public backlash against Big Tech – notably against Facebook and Google which have been labeled as ‘ethical miscreants’ that abuse personal data collected from internet use for corporate profit (Solon, 2017; Zuboff, 2019). Less visible both in terms of popular outcry and critical scholarship are some of the largest and longest-standing oligopolistic corporations in North America – big agribusinesses – which increasingly center their business models on the collection and processing of data. For example, every John Deere tractor manufactured today is a piece equipment containing built-in sensors that collect and stream data about soil and crop conditions. Deere & Company has signed 13 legal agreements with seed/chemical corporations, such as Bayer/Monsanto, that allow for data transfer between tractors and other input supply (e.g. chemicals) corporations. As large agribusiness companies become data powerhouses, critical scholarship and activism has not kept up. Compared to critical scholarly attention to big data in other sectors, there is a small, although rapidly growing, cohort of critical scholars working on agricultural big data (see Wolf and Wood, 1997; Driessen and Heutinck, 2015; Carolan 2017; Eastwood et al., 2017; Klerkx et al., 2019; Bronson, 2019). Moreover, the tremendous amount of public activism against big data and algorithms in other sectors has not been applied to agribusinesses – those historically dealing in machinery, seeds and chemicals – whom we can increasingly read as data companies. In this paper, we explore the intersection of Big Tech and big agribusiness. More broadly, we illustrate how an STS lens can be leveraged to broaden and deepen understandings of Big Tech by analyzing and comparing how Big","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"111 4","pages":"15 - 28"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Big Tech Meets Big Ag: Diversifying Epistemologies of Data and Power\",\"authors\":\"K. Bronson, Phoebe Sengers\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09505431.2021.1986692\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since 2018, there has been a public backlash against Big Tech – notably against Facebook and Google which have been labeled as ‘ethical miscreants’ that abuse personal data collected from internet use for corporate profit (Solon, 2017; Zuboff, 2019). Less visible both in terms of popular outcry and critical scholarship are some of the largest and longest-standing oligopolistic corporations in North America – big agribusinesses – which increasingly center their business models on the collection and processing of data. For example, every John Deere tractor manufactured today is a piece equipment containing built-in sensors that collect and stream data about soil and crop conditions. Deere & Company has signed 13 legal agreements with seed/chemical corporations, such as Bayer/Monsanto, that allow for data transfer between tractors and other input supply (e.g. chemicals) corporations. As large agribusiness companies become data powerhouses, critical scholarship and activism has not kept up. Compared to critical scholarly attention to big data in other sectors, there is a small, although rapidly growing, cohort of critical scholars working on agricultural big data (see Wolf and Wood, 1997; Driessen and Heutinck, 2015; Carolan 2017; Eastwood et al., 2017; Klerkx et al., 2019; Bronson, 2019). Moreover, the tremendous amount of public activism against big data and algorithms in other sectors has not been applied to agribusinesses – those historically dealing in machinery, seeds and chemicals – whom we can increasingly read as data companies. In this paper, we explore the intersection of Big Tech and big agribusiness. More broadly, we illustrate how an STS lens can be leveraged to broaden and deepen understandings of Big Tech by analyzing and comparing how Big\",\"PeriodicalId\":47064,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science As Culture\",\"volume\":\"111 4\",\"pages\":\"15 - 28\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science As Culture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2021.1986692\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CULTURAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science As Culture","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2021.1986692","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

自2018年以来,公众一直强烈反对大型科技公司,尤其是脸书和谷歌,它们被贴上了“道德恶棍”的标签,滥用从互联网使用中收集的个人数据为企业谋利(Solon,2017;Zuboff,2019)。在民众的强烈抗议和批评学术方面,北美一些规模最大、历史最长的寡头垄断企业——大型农业综合企业——都不太显眼,它们越来越多地将商业模式集中在数据的收集和处理上。例如,今天生产的每台约翰迪尔拖拉机都是一台包含内置传感器的单件设备,这些传感器可以收集和传输有关土壤和作物状况的数据。迪尔公司与拜耳/孟山都等种子/化工公司签署了13项法律协议,允许拖拉机和其他投入供应(如化学品)公司之间的数据传输。随着大型农业综合企业成为数据强国,批判性学术和激进主义并没有跟上。与其他部门对大数据的批判性学术关注相比,有一小部分从事农业大数据研究的批判性学者,尽管增长迅速(见Wolf和Wood,1997;Driesen和Heutink,2015;Carolan 2017;Eastwood等人,2017;Klerkx等人,2019;Bronson,2019)。此外,其他部门反对大数据和算法的大量公众行动并没有应用于农业综合企业——那些历史上经营机械、种子和化学品的企业——我们越来越多地将其解读为数据公司。在本文中,我们探讨了大型科技企业和大型农业综合企业的交叉点。更广泛地说,我们通过分析和比较大型科技公司
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
Big Tech Meets Big Ag: Diversifying Epistemologies of Data and Power
Since 2018, there has been a public backlash against Big Tech – notably against Facebook and Google which have been labeled as ‘ethical miscreants’ that abuse personal data collected from internet use for corporate profit (Solon, 2017; Zuboff, 2019). Less visible both in terms of popular outcry and critical scholarship are some of the largest and longest-standing oligopolistic corporations in North America – big agribusinesses – which increasingly center their business models on the collection and processing of data. For example, every John Deere tractor manufactured today is a piece equipment containing built-in sensors that collect and stream data about soil and crop conditions. Deere & Company has signed 13 legal agreements with seed/chemical corporations, such as Bayer/Monsanto, that allow for data transfer between tractors and other input supply (e.g. chemicals) corporations. As large agribusiness companies become data powerhouses, critical scholarship and activism has not kept up. Compared to critical scholarly attention to big data in other sectors, there is a small, although rapidly growing, cohort of critical scholars working on agricultural big data (see Wolf and Wood, 1997; Driessen and Heutinck, 2015; Carolan 2017; Eastwood et al., 2017; Klerkx et al., 2019; Bronson, 2019). Moreover, the tremendous amount of public activism against big data and algorithms in other sectors has not been applied to agribusinesses – those historically dealing in machinery, seeds and chemicals – whom we can increasingly read as data companies. In this paper, we explore the intersection of Big Tech and big agribusiness. More broadly, we illustrate how an STS lens can be leveraged to broaden and deepen understandings of Big Tech by analyzing and comparing how Big
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
Science As Culture
Science As Culture Multiple-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.80%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Our culture is a scientific one, defining what is natural and what is rational. Its values can be seen in what are sought out as facts and made as artefacts, what are designed as processes and products, and what are forged as weapons and filmed as wonders. In our daily experience, power is exercised through expertise, e.g. in science, technology and medicine. Science as Culture explores how all these shape the values which contend for influence over the wider society. Science mediates our cultural experience. It increasingly defines what it is to be a person, through genetics, medicine and information technology. Its values get embodied and naturalized in concepts, techniques, research priorities, gadgets and advertising. Many films, artworks and novels express popular concerns about these developments. In a society where icons of progress are drawn from science, technology and medicine, they are either celebrated or demonised. Often their progress is feared as ’unnatural’, while their critics are labelled ’irrational’. Public concerns are rebuffed by ostensibly value-neutral experts and positivist polemics. Yet the culture of science is open to study like any other culture. Cultural studies analyses the role of expertise throughout society. Many journals address the history, philosophy and social studies of science, its popularisation, and the public understanding of society.
期刊最新文献
Reading meatphors in DNA (and RNA): a bio-rhetorical view of genetic text metaphors Outposts of science: placing scientific infrastructures at the margins of French (post)colonial territories Staging interactivity: platform logics at the participatory museum An anticipatory regime of multiplanetary life: on SpaceX, Martian colonisation and terrestrial ruin Strategic science performance and the illusion of consensus about Fukushima’s health effects
×
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