Syllabus
Qualitative Approaches in STS: Cyborgs and Technobodies

Fall 2019, Tuesdays 9.40-12.30
DIS525A, Design, Technology and Society Program, Özyeğin University
Room: AB3 2. Kat 478F

Dr. rer. soc. Melike Şahinol
Office Hours: By appointment
Office: Orient-Institut Istanbul

“Cyborg Madonna”
with thanks to seriykotik1970 for this image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/seriykotik
https://www.flickr.com/photos/seriykotik/albums/72157625756142997
CC-BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

Overview
This course explores a range of theories and studies of ‘Cyborgs and Technobodies’ with a focus on analytical approaches and methodologies in STS. The students are asked not only to participate as readers and (leading) discussants, but also will learn to live STS actively – applying qualitative methods such as a fieldwork excursion or infrastructure walk. Students survey a range of STS approaches, identify productive questions within the theoretical framework of ‘Cyborgs and Technobodies’; and explore how to pursue them through research design. Important is, that students gain an understanding of the interaction between science, technology, and society – and are able to analyze specific questions within STS.

The course is divided into three modules. The first section will give an overview of theories and studies on how and what shapes Technology, theories and studies on Cyborg Anthropology, Disability, and Human Enhancement. The set of readings is chosen to illustrate central topics concerning relationships between body/identity, technology and societal issues. In the second section, students will learn the main components of Grounded Theory, Laboratory Studies, methodological implementation, with an introduction to computer-assisted analysis. In the third module of the seminar we will do some fieldwork, go in a makerlab and students will get the opportunity to interview the founder of ROBOTEL and some volunteers, who create free 3D-printed hands and arms for those in need of an upper limb assistive device. We will also be involved in the making of a 3D printed prosthesis for a child. Within the fieldwork, students will get a chance to reflect upon possible socio-technical transformation processes and possible futures of the human body. Additionally, students will also reflect on responsible contribution to innovation in socio-technical change in society.

Assignments
Grading for the course will be done through a portfolio consisting of:

Response to Readings: Each week students will be asked to write 250 words response to the required readings, concluding with questions or topics for discussion (to be handed in 2 days before class). These will be discussed in the seminar and distributed to other members of the class via LSM (20% of mark).

Paper Presentation & Leading Discussion: 20-minute paper presentation and leading discussion (20% of mark). One 20-minute final presentation, based on the final project.
The first weeks of the course will be conducted as a reading seminar – with student-led discussion of readings. Each week two students will be asked to lead the discussion. Active participation in discussions based on reading, related studies and/or experiences is expected.

Infrastructure Walk & Essay: Make a walk in Istanbul or nearby the campus, take notes, pictures, sketches, etc., of the infrastructures and maintenance work that you observe along the way. Write up a description of what you find, and how this may relate to our main topic ‘Cyborgs and Technobodies’, citing at least 3 essays from the class to help you analyze (with a QDA program) what you see (up to 5 pages, collected material, field notes and code list have to be attached) (20% of mark).

Final (individual or group) Project Presentation and Paper (max. 20 pages): The projects will be presented at a mandatory student conference at the end of the semester on 16^th May. Research paper / group project papers to be handed in at the end of the semester (40% of mark).
Project: Each student has to do a research project related to our main topic ‘Cyborgs and Technobodies’. Each student has to interview at least one scientist, engineer or designer dealing with artifacts or issues connected/merged to/with the body, e.g. self-tracking devices, prosthesis, neuro prosthesis etc.). The task will include the transcription of your interview(s) and the analysis of your data with a QDA program. Finally write up your research paper (including introduction, theoretical framework, methods, discussion. Do not forget: Interview and code list have to be attached.) and refer to the readings!

The papers will be presented at the end of the semester.

Texts
Basic readings
Daston, Lorraine. “Science Studies and the History of Science.” Critical Inquiry 35, no. 4 (2009): 798–813.

Dear, Peter, and Sheila Jasanoff. “Dismantling Boundaries in Science and Technology Studies.” Isis 101, no. 4 (2010): 759–74.

Hayles, N. Katherine. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Chapter 1 + 11.

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage publications.

Ott, K., Serlin, D., & Mihm, S. (Eds.). (2002). Artificial parts, practical lives: modern histories of prosthetics. NYU Press. Chapter 1.

Suggested
Adam, A. (2006). Artificial knowing: Gender and the thinking machine. Routledge.

Boellstorff, T. (2015). Coming of age in Second Life: An anthropologist explores the virtually human. Princeton University Press.

Downey, G., & Dumit, J. (Eds.). (1997). Cyborgs & citadels: Anthropological interventions in emerging sciences and technologies (1st ed. ed.). Santa Fe, N.M.; [Seattle, WA]: School of American Research Press; Distributed by the University of Washington Press.

Gubrium, J. F., Holstein, J. A., Marvasti, A. B., & McKinney, K. D. (Eds.). (2012). The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft. Sage.

Hanafi, Z. (2000). The Monster in the Machine: Magic, Medicine, and the Marvelous in the Time of the Scientific Revolution. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press Books.

Kember, S. (2003). Cyberfeminism and artificial life. Routledge.

Maurer, H. A., Kappe, F., & Zaka, B. (2006). Plagiarism-a survey. J. UCS, 12(8), 1050-1084.

Penley, C., Ross, A., & Haraway, D. (1990). Cyborgs at large: interview with Donna Haraway. Social Text, (25/26), 8-23.

Pullin, G. (2009). Design meets disability. MIT press.

Şahinol, M., Aydınoğlu, A., & Kaygan, H. (2018). STS (in) Turkey as Extitution. EASST Review, 37(1). URL: https://easst.net/article/sts-in-turkey-as-extitution/.

Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge University Press.

Turkle, S. (2005). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. Mit Press.

Course rules and guidelines
In class

Code of Honor
In class

Course Schedule
14 February – Course introduction
In this week you will get an overview of the course and we’ll discuss expectations (both mine and yours) not only for the readings you’ll have to prepare but for the fieldwork you’ll should do, also what you hope to learn. Students are asked to come prepared to speak briefly about their research interests and hopes for the course. We will clarify how theory and methods from Science and Technology Studies regards to ‘Cyborgs and Technobodies’ will inform our discussions.

Module 1 – Cyborgs & Technobodies @ Technology & Society
21 February – Technology & Society
Bijker, W. Hughes, T. P. and T. J. Pinch, eds., The Social Construction of Technological Systems (Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1987), pp. 17–50.

Latour, B. (1990). Technology is society made durable. The Sociological Review, 38, 103-131.

Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics?. Daedalus, 121-136.

Winner, L. The Cult of Innovation: Its Colorful Myths and Rituals, June 12, 2017

28 February – Cyborg Theories
Haraway, D. (2006). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late 20th century. In The international handbook of virtual learning environments (pp. 117-158). Springer, Dordrecht. URL: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/theory/Haraway-CyborgManifesto.html

Popper, Ben. “Cyborg America,” The Verge, 10/8/2012, URL: http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/8/3ckers-grinders-body-hackers177438/cyborg-america-bioha

Clark, Adam. “How Close Are We to Building a Full-Fledged Cyborg?,” 10/21/13, URL: http://gizmodo.com/how-close-are-we-to-building-a-full-fledged-cyborg-1443146375

Browse
http://cyborganthropology.com/

Suggested
Kline, N. S., & Clynes, M. (1961). Drugs, Space and Cybernetics: Evolution to Cyborgs. New York: Columbia University Press.

Clynes, M. E. & Kline, N. S. (1960). Cyborgs and space. Astronautics, 14, 74-75

7 March – Cyborgs & Crips @ Human Enhancement
Rehmann-Sutter, C., Eilers, M. & Grüber, K. (2014). Refocusing the Enhancement Debate. In The human enhancement debate and disability: new bodies for a better life (pp. 1-20) Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Bosteels, S., & Blume, S. (2014). The making and unmaking of deaf children. In The Human Enhancement Debate and Disability (pp. 81-100). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Cantor, Sara. “Falling Without Getting Hurt: Adventures in Disability,” December 10, 2013, URL: http://the-toast.net/2013/12/10/adventures-in-disability/.

Kafer, A. (2013). The Cyborg and the Crip: Critical Encounters. In Feminist, Queer, Crip (pp. 103-128). Indiana University Press.

In class
“Examined Life: Judith Butler and Sunaura Taylor,” Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0HZaPkF6qE

Suggested
Mitchell, W. J. Thomas (2001), Seeing Disability. In Public Culture, Volume 13, Number 3, Fall 2001. Duke University Press. 391-397.

Morrison, M. (2015), STS and Enhancement Technologies: A Programme for Future Research. In Science & Technology Studies 2015, Vol. 28(2) 3-28.

Ott, K., Serlin, D., & Mihm, S. (Eds.). (2002). Artificial parts, practical lives: modern histories of prosthetics. NYU Press.

Ott, K. “EveryBody: an Artifact History of Disability in America,” project director and lead curator, online exhibition, launched June 2013. http://www.everybody.si.edu

Rosenberger, R. / Verbeek, P. (2015). ‘A Field Guide to Postphenomenology’. In: R. Rosenberger and P.P. Verbeek (eds.), Postphenomenological Investigations: Essays on Human-Technology Relations. London: Lexington Books, pp. 9-41.

14 March – Disability & Design @ Time & Space
Williamson, B. (2012). Electric moms and quad drivers: People with disabilities buying, making, and using technology in postwar America. American Studies, 52(1), 5-29.

Hendren, Sara. “All Technology is Assistive Technology: six dispositions for designers on disability,” http://alsassistivetechnology.blogspot.com/2013/11/all-technology-is-assistive-technology.html or: https://www.wired.com/2014/10/all-technology-is-assistive/

Winner, L. Is There A Right To Shape Technology?, August 27, 2017.

Unterfrauner, E., & Voigt, C. (2017). Makers’ ambitions to do socially valuable things. The Design Journal, 20 (sup1), S3317-S3325.

Alper, M. (2013). Making space in the makerspace: Building a mixed-ability maker culture. Humanities, Arts, Science, and Technology Alliance and Collaboratory.

Browse
http://www.openprosthetics.org/
http://enablingthefuture.org/
https://openbionics.com/
http://www.diyability.org/
http://www.robotel.org/

Suggested
Pullin, G. (2009). Design meets disability. MIT press.

Moore, S. A., & Karvonen, A. (2008). Sustainable architecture in context: STS and design thinking. Science & Technology Studies.

Varga, H. M. (2018). On Design and Making with STS . Diseña (12), 30-51. Doi: 10.7764/disena.12.30-51

Module 2 – Possibilities of Doing STS
21 March – Basics of qualitative research
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage publications. Chapter 1 + 2 (Introduction, Practical Considerations).

Shaw, D., Houghton, C. E., Casey, D., & Murphy, K. (2010). Ethical challenges in qualitative research: examples from practice. Nurse researcher.

Browse
https://www.wikihow.com/Do-Qualitative-Research

Suggested
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology, 13(1), 3-21.

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: Sage.

28 March – Grounded Theory 1
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage publications. Chapter 3, 4, 5 (Prelude to Analysis, Strategies for Qualitative Data Analysis, Introduction to Context, Process, and Theoretical Integration).

Browse
http://www.groundedtheoryonline.com/what-is-grounded-theory/
see also: Grounded Theory (youtube)

Suggested

Jamshed S. (2014). Qualitative research method-interviewing and observation. Journal of basic and clinical pharmacy, 5(4), 87-8.

4 April – Collecting data, doing fieldwork: Interviews & laboratory studies
https://atlasti.com/qualitative-research-methods/

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1995). Laboratory studies: The cultural approach to the study of science. Handbook of science and technology studies, 140-166.

Latour, B. (1983). Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. Science observed, 141-170.

Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. (2012). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft, 2, 347-365.

 

In class

Laboratory Life: Do your own fieldwork! Station yourselves (group work possible) in the maker lab for 20-25 minutes. Record what you observe about maker-laboratory life. Then, come back to the classroom to debrief, share, and discuss. If you have no access to the maker lab or any other lab, station yourselves in one spot on campus…

1. Observation exercise

• Appointment with Biomechatronics Lab (ÖzÜ) working on exoskeletons
  
• 15 minutes of observation with written notes
• 5 minutes to return

 

Suggested

Fine, M., & Torre, M. E. (2006). Intimate details: Participatory action research in prison. Action Research, 4(3), 253-269.

Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual review of anthropology, 24(1), 95-117.

Monahan, T., & Fisher, J. A. (2015). Strategies for obtaining access to secretive or guarded organizations. Journal of contemporary ethnography, 44(6), 709-736.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Sage.

 

Module 3 – Doing STS
11 April – fieldwork – example ROBOTEL
Visiting the makerlab Maker Çocuk https://www.makercocuk.com/
Seminar with Zeynep Karagöz (Maker Çocuk, ROBOTEL)

18 April – Grounded Theory 2
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage publications. Chapter 9 + 10 (Elaborating the Analysis + Analyzing Data for Context), 14 (Criteria for Evaluation)

 Browse
http://www.groundedtheoryonline.com/what-is-grounded-theory/

In class
Infrastructure walk.

Reminder:
Infrastructure Walk & Essay: Make a walk in Istanbul or nearby the campus, take notes, pictures, sketches, etc., of the infrastructures and maintenance work that you observe along the way. Write up a description of what you find, and how this may relate to our main topic ‘Cyborgs and Technobodies’, citing at least 3 essays from the class to help you analyze (with a QDA program) what you see (up to 5 pages, collected material, field notes and code list have to be attached) (20% of mark).

25 April – Visit a makerlab, get your work done..

2 May – data analysis with Atlas.ti
ATLAS.ti 8 User Manual

9 May – Atlas.ti practicing, group writing & maker lab
Interview, analyze….

16 May – student conference
Individual or group presentations about 10-20 minutes.
Be prepared: Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage publications. Chapter 13 (Writing theses, Monographs, and Giving Talks About Your Research)

Final discussion.

With sincerest thanks to Danya Glabau, PhD and Dr. Aimi Hamraie for the impressions regarding the compilation of the contents of this syllabus.
If you hope to use this syllabus in your own course, please attribute it to me.