Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: sociotechnical
- Creators: Wetmore, Jameson
- Creators: Michael, Katina
Description
This dissertation explores the megamachine, a prominent metaphor in American humanist and philosopher of technology, Lewis Mumford's Myth of the Machine series. The term refers critically to dynamic, regimented human capacities that drive scientific and technical innovation in society. Mumford's view of the nature of collectives focuses on qualities and patterns that emerge from the behavior of groups, societies, systems, and ecologies. It is my aim to reenergize key concepts about collective capacities drawn from Lewis Mumford's critique of historical and modern sociotechnical arrangements. I investigate the possibility of accessing those capacities through improved design for Technology Assessment (TA), formal practices that engage experts and lay citizens in the evaluation of complex scientific and technical issues.
I analyze the components of Mumford's megamachine and align key concerns in two pivotal works that characterize the impact of collective capacities on society: Bruno Latour's Pasteurization of France (1988) and Elias Canetti's Crowds and Power (1962). As I create a model of collective capacities in the sociotechnical according to the parameters of Mumford's megamachine, I rehabilitate two established ideas about the behavior of crowds and about the undue influence of technological systems on human behavior. I depart from Mumford's tactics and those of Canetti and Latour and propose a novel focus for STS on "sociotechnical crowds" as a meaningful unit of social measure. I make clear that Mumford's critique of the sociotechnical status quo still informs the conditions for innovation today.
Using mixed mode qualitative methods in two types of empirical field studies, I then investigate how a focus on the characteristics and components of collective human capacities in sociotechnical systems can affect the design and performance of TA. I propose a new model of TA, Emergent Technology Assessment (ETA), which includes greater public participation and recognizes the interrelationship among experience, affect and the material in mediating the innovation process. The resulting model -- the "soft" megamachine --introduces new strategies to build capacity for responsible innovation in society.
I analyze the components of Mumford's megamachine and align key concerns in two pivotal works that characterize the impact of collective capacities on society: Bruno Latour's Pasteurization of France (1988) and Elias Canetti's Crowds and Power (1962). As I create a model of collective capacities in the sociotechnical according to the parameters of Mumford's megamachine, I rehabilitate two established ideas about the behavior of crowds and about the undue influence of technological systems on human behavior. I depart from Mumford's tactics and those of Canetti and Latour and propose a novel focus for STS on "sociotechnical crowds" as a meaningful unit of social measure. I make clear that Mumford's critique of the sociotechnical status quo still informs the conditions for innovation today.
Using mixed mode qualitative methods in two types of empirical field studies, I then investigate how a focus on the characteristics and components of collective human capacities in sociotechnical systems can affect the design and performance of TA. I propose a new model of TA, Emergent Technology Assessment (ETA), which includes greater public participation and recognizes the interrelationship among experience, affect and the material in mediating the innovation process. The resulting model -- the "soft" megamachine --introduces new strategies to build capacity for responsible innovation in society.
ContributorsGano, Gretchen (Author) / Guston, David (Thesis advisor) / Miller, Clark (Thesis advisor) / Selin, Cynthia (Committee member) / Wetmore, Jameson (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
The quality and quantity of talented members of the US STEM workforce has
been a subject of great interest to policy and decision makers for the past 40 years.
Recent research indicates that while there exist specific shortages in specific disciplines
and areas of expertise in the private sector and the federal government, there is no
noticeable shortage in any STEM academic discipline, but rather a surplus of PhDs
vying for increasingly scarce tenure track positions. Despite the seeming availability
of industry and private sector jobs, recent PhDs still struggle to find employment in
those areas. I argue that the decades old narrative suggesting a shortage of STEM
PhDs in the US poses a threat to the value of the natural science PhD, and that
this narrative contributes significantly to why so many PhDs struggle to find career
employment in their fields. This study aims to address the following question: what is
the value of a STEM PhD outside academia? I begin with a critical review of existing
literature, and then analyze programmatic documents for STEM PhD programs at
ASU, interviews with industry employers, and an examination the public face of value
for these degrees. I then uncover the nature of the value alignment, value disconnect,
and value erosion in the ecosystem which produces and then employs STEM PhDs,
concluding with specific areas which merit special consideration in an effort to increase
the value of these degrees for all stakeholders involved.
been a subject of great interest to policy and decision makers for the past 40 years.
Recent research indicates that while there exist specific shortages in specific disciplines
and areas of expertise in the private sector and the federal government, there is no
noticeable shortage in any STEM academic discipline, but rather a surplus of PhDs
vying for increasingly scarce tenure track positions. Despite the seeming availability
of industry and private sector jobs, recent PhDs still struggle to find employment in
those areas. I argue that the decades old narrative suggesting a shortage of STEM
PhDs in the US poses a threat to the value of the natural science PhD, and that
this narrative contributes significantly to why so many PhDs struggle to find career
employment in their fields. This study aims to address the following question: what is
the value of a STEM PhD outside academia? I begin with a critical review of existing
literature, and then analyze programmatic documents for STEM PhD programs at
ASU, interviews with industry employers, and an examination the public face of value
for these degrees. I then uncover the nature of the value alignment, value disconnect,
and value erosion in the ecosystem which produces and then employs STEM PhDs,
concluding with specific areas which merit special consideration in an effort to increase
the value of these degrees for all stakeholders involved.
ContributorsGarbee, Elizabeth (Author) / Maynard, Andrew D. (Thesis advisor) / Wetmore, Jameson (Committee member) / Anderson, Derrick (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
Despite increased attention and funding from companies and governments worldwide over the past several years, cybersecurity incidents (such as data breaches or exploited vulnerabilities) remain frequent, widespread, and severe. Policymakers in the United States have generally addressed these problems discretely, treating them as individual events rather than identifying commonalities between them and forming a more effective broad-scale solution. In other words: the standard approaches to cybersecurity issues at the U.S. federal level do not provide sufficient insight into fundamental system behavior to meaningfully solve these problems. To that end, this dissertation develops a sociotechnical analogy of a classical mechanics technique, a framework named the Socio-Technical Lagrangian (STL). First, existing socio/technical/political cybersecurity systems in the United States are analyzed, and a new taxonomy is created which can be used to identify impacts of cybersecurity events at different scales. This taxonomy was created by analyzing a vetted corpus of key cybersecurity incidents, each of which was noted for its importance by multiple respected sources, with federal-level policy implications in the U.S..
The new taxonomy is leveraged to create STL, an abstraction-level framework. The original Lagrangian process, from the physical sciences, generates a new coordinate system that is customized for a specific complex mechanical system. This method replaces a conventional reference frame –one that is ill-suited for the desired analysis –with one that provides clearer insights into fundamental system behaviors. Similarly, STL replaces conventional cybersecurity analysis with a more salient lens, providing insight into the incentive structures within cybersecurity systems, revealing often hidden conflicts and their effects. The result is not a single solution, but a new framework that allows several questions to be asked and answered more effectively.
Synthesizing the findings from the taxonomy and STL framework, the third contribution involves formulating reasonable and effective recommendations for enhancing the cybersecurity system's state for multiple stakeholder groups. Leveraging the contextually appropriate taxonomy and unique STL framework, these suggestions address the reform of U.S. federal cybersecurity policy, drawing insights from various governmental sources, case law, and discussions with policy experts, culminating in analysis and recommendations around the 2023 White House Cybersecurity Strategy.
ContributorsWinterton, Jamie (Author) / Maynard, Andrew (Thesis advisor) / Bowman, Diana (Committee member) / Michael, Katina (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023