Summary Consumer, Technology &
Innovation (YSS-31806)
2021-2022
, Table of Contents
Intro lecture..................................................................................................................................................2
Spaargaren, 2011......................................................................................................................................5
L2 Contributions of Gamification to Social Tipping Dynamics.......................................................................8
Otto et al., 2020......................................................................................................................................16
Brauer et al., 2016...................................................................................................................................19
Geels, 2011.............................................................................................................................................21
L3 User perspective and practices..............................................................................................................23
Gram-Hanssen, 2008...............................................................................................................................27
Groot-Marcus et al., 2006.......................................................................................................................30
L4 Interpersonal communication................................................................................................................32
McDaniel, 2019.......................................................................................................................................39
Pilgrim & Bohnet-Joschko, 2019.............................................................................................................41
L5 Sociology................................................................................................................................................43
Whitson, 2014.........................................................................................................................................47
Yngfalk, 2016...........................................................................................................................................48
L6 The Importance of Evidence-based Policy..............................................................................................49
Nash et al., 2017.....................................................................................................................................54
Tiefenbeck et al., 2019............................................................................................................................60
L7 Technology acceptance and use.............................................................................................................61
Bosch-Sijtsema & Bosch, 2014................................................................................................................64
De Graaf et al., 2018...............................................................................................................................67
L8 Information processing – Effective Brain communication......................................................................69
Caraban et al., 2019................................................................................................................................80
McKay et al., 2019...................................................................................................................................83
1
,Intro lecture
What is technology
Technology key word in our society, yet rather confused
Humans have had technologies since the stone age; also animal have been identified as tool
users; yet the word technology is rather recent
Technology = knowledge of how to make things that otherwise would not exist.
Aristotle said there are 3 forms of knowledge:
- Techne: knowledge of how to make, and art
- Phronesis: moral knowledge, knowledge how to act well
- Episteme: knowledge of the eternal
There is an hierarchy between these -> knowledge of how to act was better than knowledge
on how to make -> separation of means and ends -> ends might be valued, but the
means of getting there would not be
Fast forward -> 20th century
German concept of Technik -> not restricted to means-to-ends rationality, rather a coherent
and culturally significant category covering the arts of material production.
Engineers placed with Kultur rather than Zivilisation -> more worthy of higher social status.
Thorstein Veblen – expanded the category of Technik to industrial arts and translate dit to
technology
Yet, in the United States ‘technology became linked to a deterministic concept of material
progress’ (Schatzberg, 2018, p.138)
Technology as a driver of change could mean anything from applied science to broad
industrial arts.
Technology common word mid 20th century
Damage already done -> conceptual confusion meant that the term could be used in either
broad or narrow senses
Either embracing cultural or social components, or reduced to mere tools or to means-to-
ends rationality
Two approaches to what is technology:
- Instrumental approach: language of means and ends, and which thereby ‘portrays
technology as a narrow technical rationality, uncreative and devoid of values’
- Cultural approach: defined initially as ‘the set of practices humans use to transform the
material world, practices involved in creating and using material things’, seen as ‘creative
expression of human culture […] imbued with human values and striving in all their
contradictory complexity’
Schatzberg (2018) pleas for a rejection of the instrumentalist approach in favour of the
cultural approach to rescue technology from determinism:
‘determinisim whether expressed by enthusiasts or pessimists, is tightly linked to an
instrumental conception of technology that divorces it from culture’, and to ‘overome
this determinsim, scholars need to consciously recreate and also popularise a cultural
view of technology’
2
, One way to conceptualise technology is as material objects with intervening power.
Still caught in two perspectives:
- Technology determinism: technology determines social change
- Social constructivism of technology: society changes technology
There is not one over the other
Actor-Network Theory (ANT)
‘one way to conceptualise technology is as material objects with intervening power’.
ANT fits closely with this idea.
Main thinkers, Latour, Callon and Law, criticised traditional sociology for only focussing on
humans and not non-humans.
The social is a wide range of assemblages of human and non-human entities.
The material and social are inseparable
Non-humans and humans are equally important with both having agency.
Humans and non-humans should be analysed in a symmetrical way.
Central idea: to explore and analyse how networks between human and non-human entities
come into being, and how these assemblages can generate effects, like power, inequality
and organisations.
The social is ‘nothing other than patterned networks of heterogeneous materials’ (Law, 1992,
p. 381)
Networks come into existence when actants (the materials) form, align, and entangle with
each other.
Networks can stimulate actions
Network denotes chains of translation in making up the social.
What is translation?
In the process of translation, actants mutually negotiate to determine the agency and
importance of each individual actant.
A successful translation process leads to a stabilized network.
Yet, this stability can become challenged -> networks are always evolving as the social is fluid
and complex.
- Cooking: you need all kinds of material that need to be put together, that need to
function, etc. you need a stable network of cooking material. And you as human being…
The repair café as an example:
Narratives about broken ‘household’ products.
The different products acted as actants in stable networks when still functioning ->
intermediaries in the household network as material objects are ‘predictable and
uncontroversial as they present no surprises for other actants’ (Vries, 2016, p.90)
For example, Luke had a DVD player on which he watched Barba Papa together with his son -
> material/technology clearly part of the social
When the DVD player broke, the role of it in the network became clear, as it destabilised the
network and social activities assembled around watching DVD’s in Luke’s household.
3
Innovation (YSS-31806)
2021-2022
, Table of Contents
Intro lecture..................................................................................................................................................2
Spaargaren, 2011......................................................................................................................................5
L2 Contributions of Gamification to Social Tipping Dynamics.......................................................................8
Otto et al., 2020......................................................................................................................................16
Brauer et al., 2016...................................................................................................................................19
Geels, 2011.............................................................................................................................................21
L3 User perspective and practices..............................................................................................................23
Gram-Hanssen, 2008...............................................................................................................................27
Groot-Marcus et al., 2006.......................................................................................................................30
L4 Interpersonal communication................................................................................................................32
McDaniel, 2019.......................................................................................................................................39
Pilgrim & Bohnet-Joschko, 2019.............................................................................................................41
L5 Sociology................................................................................................................................................43
Whitson, 2014.........................................................................................................................................47
Yngfalk, 2016...........................................................................................................................................48
L6 The Importance of Evidence-based Policy..............................................................................................49
Nash et al., 2017.....................................................................................................................................54
Tiefenbeck et al., 2019............................................................................................................................60
L7 Technology acceptance and use.............................................................................................................61
Bosch-Sijtsema & Bosch, 2014................................................................................................................64
De Graaf et al., 2018...............................................................................................................................67
L8 Information processing – Effective Brain communication......................................................................69
Caraban et al., 2019................................................................................................................................80
McKay et al., 2019...................................................................................................................................83
1
,Intro lecture
What is technology
Technology key word in our society, yet rather confused
Humans have had technologies since the stone age; also animal have been identified as tool
users; yet the word technology is rather recent
Technology = knowledge of how to make things that otherwise would not exist.
Aristotle said there are 3 forms of knowledge:
- Techne: knowledge of how to make, and art
- Phronesis: moral knowledge, knowledge how to act well
- Episteme: knowledge of the eternal
There is an hierarchy between these -> knowledge of how to act was better than knowledge
on how to make -> separation of means and ends -> ends might be valued, but the
means of getting there would not be
Fast forward -> 20th century
German concept of Technik -> not restricted to means-to-ends rationality, rather a coherent
and culturally significant category covering the arts of material production.
Engineers placed with Kultur rather than Zivilisation -> more worthy of higher social status.
Thorstein Veblen – expanded the category of Technik to industrial arts and translate dit to
technology
Yet, in the United States ‘technology became linked to a deterministic concept of material
progress’ (Schatzberg, 2018, p.138)
Technology as a driver of change could mean anything from applied science to broad
industrial arts.
Technology common word mid 20th century
Damage already done -> conceptual confusion meant that the term could be used in either
broad or narrow senses
Either embracing cultural or social components, or reduced to mere tools or to means-to-
ends rationality
Two approaches to what is technology:
- Instrumental approach: language of means and ends, and which thereby ‘portrays
technology as a narrow technical rationality, uncreative and devoid of values’
- Cultural approach: defined initially as ‘the set of practices humans use to transform the
material world, practices involved in creating and using material things’, seen as ‘creative
expression of human culture […] imbued with human values and striving in all their
contradictory complexity’
Schatzberg (2018) pleas for a rejection of the instrumentalist approach in favour of the
cultural approach to rescue technology from determinism:
‘determinisim whether expressed by enthusiasts or pessimists, is tightly linked to an
instrumental conception of technology that divorces it from culture’, and to ‘overome
this determinsim, scholars need to consciously recreate and also popularise a cultural
view of technology’
2
, One way to conceptualise technology is as material objects with intervening power.
Still caught in two perspectives:
- Technology determinism: technology determines social change
- Social constructivism of technology: society changes technology
There is not one over the other
Actor-Network Theory (ANT)
‘one way to conceptualise technology is as material objects with intervening power’.
ANT fits closely with this idea.
Main thinkers, Latour, Callon and Law, criticised traditional sociology for only focussing on
humans and not non-humans.
The social is a wide range of assemblages of human and non-human entities.
The material and social are inseparable
Non-humans and humans are equally important with both having agency.
Humans and non-humans should be analysed in a symmetrical way.
Central idea: to explore and analyse how networks between human and non-human entities
come into being, and how these assemblages can generate effects, like power, inequality
and organisations.
The social is ‘nothing other than patterned networks of heterogeneous materials’ (Law, 1992,
p. 381)
Networks come into existence when actants (the materials) form, align, and entangle with
each other.
Networks can stimulate actions
Network denotes chains of translation in making up the social.
What is translation?
In the process of translation, actants mutually negotiate to determine the agency and
importance of each individual actant.
A successful translation process leads to a stabilized network.
Yet, this stability can become challenged -> networks are always evolving as the social is fluid
and complex.
- Cooking: you need all kinds of material that need to be put together, that need to
function, etc. you need a stable network of cooking material. And you as human being…
The repair café as an example:
Narratives about broken ‘household’ products.
The different products acted as actants in stable networks when still functioning ->
intermediaries in the household network as material objects are ‘predictable and
uncontroversial as they present no surprises for other actants’ (Vries, 2016, p.90)
For example, Luke had a DVD player on which he watched Barba Papa together with his son -
> material/technology clearly part of the social
When the DVD player broke, the role of it in the network became clear, as it destabilised the
network and social activities assembled around watching DVD’s in Luke’s household.
3
