Posthuman Confluencies

  • Catherine Adams
  • Terrie Lynn Thompson
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

In our final chapter, we consider five posthuman or digital confluencies that have come to matter in today’s professional work and learning practices, paying particular attention to the work of researchers: developing a posthumanist ethic; anticipating changes to our thinking, being, and doing; reckoning with the deskilling and upskilling of work practices; dealing with digital data; and questioning digital politics. We suggest that our heuristics can play a key role in addressing some of these new professional responsibilities, some of which may have far-reaching ethical, political, social, and policy implications.

Keywords

Digital confluencies digital data posthumanist ethics 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adams, C. (2014). What’s in a name? The experience of the other in online classrooms. Phenomenology & Practice, 7(2), 51–67. https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/pandpr/article/view/22144/16463 Google Scholar
  2. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831. doi: 10.1086/345321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bogost, I. (2012). Alien phenomenology, or what it’s like to be a thing. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Denzin, N.K. (2013). The death of data?. Cultural Studies – Critical Methodologies, 13(4), 353–356. DOI:  10.1177/1532708613487882 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edwards, R. (2012). (Im)mobilities and (dis)locating practices in cyber-education. In R. Brooks, A. Fuller, J. Waters (Eds.), Changing spaces of education: New perspectives on the nature of learning (pp. 205–218). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays in livelihood, dwelling, and skill. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Introna, L. (2007). Maintaining the reversibility of foldings: Making the ethics (politics) of information technology visible. Ethics and Information Technology, 9(1), 11–25. doi:  10.1007/s10676-006-9133-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Introna, L. D. (2016). Ethico-onto-epistemology: some reflections on performative epistemic practices. Paper presented at 4s/EASST Conference Barcelona 2016.Google Scholar
  9. Kitchin, R. (2014, June 6). Rob Kitchin: “Big data should complement small data, not replace them.” [Weg log message]. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/06/27/series-philosophy-of-data-science-rob-kitchin/
  10. Knox, J., & Bayne, S. (2013). Multimodal profusion in the literacies of the Massive Open Online Course. Research in Learning Technology, 21. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21.21422.
  11. Latour, B. (1996). Aramis or the love of technology (trans: Porter, C.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. McLuhan, M., & McLuhan, E. (1988). Laws of media: The new science. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  14. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (trans: Smith, C.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Mol, A. (2010). Actor-network theory: Sensitive terms and enduring tensions. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie and Sozialpsychologie, 50(1), 253–269. http://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.330874 Google Scholar
  16. Ong, W.J. (2005). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Paulus, T., Lester, J., Dempster, P. (2014). Digital tools for qualitative research. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Prinsloo, P., Archer, E., Barnes, G., Chetty, Y., van Zyl, D. (2015). Big(ger) data as better data in open distance learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1), 284–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Roden, D. (2015). Posthuman life: Philosophy at the edge of the human. Abingdon, OX: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Savage, M. (2015). Sociology and the digital challenge. In P. Halfpenny, & R. Proctor (Eds.), Innovations in digital research methods (pp. 297–310). London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Stiegler, B. (1998). Technics and time, 1: The fault of Epimetheus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Thiele, K. (2014). Ethos of diffraction: New paradigms for a (post)humanist ethics. Parallax, 20(3), 202–216. doi:  10.1080/13534645.2014.927627. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thompson, T.L. (2015b). Digital doings: Curating work-learning practices and ecologies. Learning, Media & Technology. doi:  10.1080/17439884.2015.1064957
  24. Vlieghe, J. (2014). Education in an age of digital technologies Flusser, Stiegler, and Agamben on the idea of the posthistorical. Philosophy and Technology, 27(4), 519–537. doi:  10.1007/s13347-013-0131-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catherine Adams
    • 1
  • Terrie Lynn Thompson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Secondary EducationUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.The School of Social SciencesUniversity of StirlingStirlingUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations