Advertisement

Learning Inquiry

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 111–114 | Cite as

Introducing learning infrastructures: invisibility, context, and governance

  • Jeremy HunsingerEmail author
Article

The call for papers for this special issue of Learning Inquiryrequested submissions that asked authors to consider learning infrastructures in the social sciences. I intended learning infrastructures as a double entendre. The first meaning was to question what are the infrastructures of learning and to develop answers to the question, “what infrastructures does learning require in our contemporary world?” The second meaning of learning infrastructures was to question how we learn about infrastructures in the social sciences. There is a tension between those meanings which highlights this tension as one of the central problems of infrastructure studies. Infrastructure studies as a field has the thesis of invisibility. The invisibility thesis is that infrastructure fades from our vision and memories and accordingly fades as a research topic as it becomes naturalized and culturalized to become part of the background operations of our everyday life; simply put, infrastructure becomes...

Keywords

Contextual Awareness Sewer Pipe Digital Humanity Infrastructure Center Symbolic Politics 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Baudrillard, J. (1983). In the shadow of the silent majorities. New York, NY: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
  2. Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baudrillard, J. (1996). The perfect crime. London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
  4. Bowker, G. C., Baker, K., Millerand, F., & Ribes, D. (2009). Toward information infrastructure studies: Ways of knowing in a networked environment. In J. Hunsinger, L. Klastrup, & M. Allen (Eds.), International handbook of internet research. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1988). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  6. Edwards, P. N. (2004). Infrastructure and modernity: force, time, and social organization in the history of sociotechnical systems. In T. J. Misa, P. Brey, & A. Feenberg (Eds.), Modernity and technology. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hunsinger, J. (2005a). Broadening possibilities by expanding the theoretical richness of the social construction of technology. Social Epistemology, 19(2–3), 255–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hunsinger, J. (2005b). Toward a transdisciplinary internet research. The Information Society, 21(4), 277–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hunsinger, J. (2009a). Knowledge and cultural production in the context of contemporary capitalism: A response to Wittkower. Fast Capitalism, 4(1).Google Scholar
  10. Hunsinger, J. (2009b). Toward nomadological cyberinfrastructures. In J. Hunsinger, L. Klastrup, & M. Allen (Eds.), International handbook of internet research. Dortrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Serres, M., & Latour, B. (1995). Conversations on science, culture, and time. Studies in literature and science. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, ISBN: 0472065483.Google Scholar
  12. Star, S. L. (2002). Infrastructure and ethnographic practice: Working on the fringes. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 14(2), 107–122.Google Scholar
  13. Star, S. L., & Lampland, M. (2009). Reckoning with standards. In M. Lampland & S. L. Star (Eds.), Standards and their stories: how quantifying, classifying, and formalizing practices shape everyday life. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1994). Steps towards an ecology of infrastructure: Complex problems in design and access for large-scale collaborative systems. In Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 253–264)Google Scholar
  15. Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American behavioral scientist, 43(3), 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Digital Discourse and CultureVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations