Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Burns, Ryan Patrick (2015)
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Subjects: QA76
In this thesis I examine emergent technological practices relating to tablet computers in scientific research laboratories. I ask four main questions: To what extent can tablets be considered scientific instruments? How do tablets help to construct technoscientific imaginaries? What role do tablets play in the construction of technoscientific subjectivities? Can tablets, positioned as popular everyday computing devices, be considered in terms of expertise in the context of laboratory science?\ud To answer these questions, research is presented that examines the situated practices of scientists using tablet computers. I use textual analysis to examine the marketing discourses relating to laboratory-specific tablet apps and how their material structure defines scientific community and communication. Ethnographic research into the way that tablets are being introduced as part of a new teaching laboratory in a large UK university is presented, focusing on how institutional power affects the definition of the tablet. A second ethnographic research case study addresses how two chemists define their own scientific subjectivity by constructing the tablet as a futuristic technology. In a third large ethnographic research case, I consider the way that tablets can be used in practices of inclusion and exclusion from sites of scientific knowledge.\ud I draw on literature from media and cultural studies and science and technology studies, arguing that the two fields intersect in ways that can be productive for research in both. This serves as a contribution to knowledge, demonstrating how research into identity, politics and technologies can benefit from a focus on materiality drawn from the two disciplines.\ud I contribute to knowledge in both fields by developing two key concepts, ‘affordance ambiguity’ and ‘tablet imaginary’. These concepts can be applied in the analysis of uses of technology to better understand, firstly, how technologies are made meaningful for users and, secondly, how this individual meaning-making affects broader cultural trends and understandings of technologies.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Adorno, T. & Horkheimer, M. (1999) “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception”. In: During, S. ed. The Cultural Studies Reader. Second Editio. London: Routledge, pp.31-41.
    • Alsabawy, A.Y., Cater-Steel, A. & Soar, J. (2013) IT infrastructure services as a requirement for e-learning system success. Computers & Education, Vol. 69, pp.431-451.
    • Atkinson, P. (2008) A Bitter Pill to Swallow: The Rise and Fall of the Tablet Computer. Design Issues, Vol. 24 (4), pp.3-25.
    • Barad, K. (2003) Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, Vol. 28 (3), pp.801-831.
    • Blanchette, J.-F. (2012) Burdens of Proof: Cryptographic culture and evidence law in the age of electronic documents. London: MIT Press.
    • Blatt, E. (2014) Establishing 'fields of care': teaching settings as active participants in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, Vol. 9 (1), pp.123-131.
    • Bloomfield, B.P., Latham, Y. & Vurdubakis, T. (2010) Bodies,Technologies and Action Possibilities: When is an Affordance? Sociology, Vol. 44 (3), pp.415-433.
    • Bruni, A., Pinch, T. & Schubert, C. (2013) Technologically Dense Environments: What For? What Next? Tecnoscienza, Vol. 4 (2), pp.51-72.
    • Brunton, F. & Coleman, G. (2014) “Closer to the Metal”. In: Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P.J. & Foot, K.A. eds. Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. London: MIT Press, pp.77-98.
    • Chun, W.H.K. (2008) On “Sourcery,” or Code as Fetish. Configurations, Vol. 16 (3), pp.299- 324.
    • Cockburn, C. (1992) The circuit of technology: Gender, identity and power. In: Silverstone, R. & Hirsch, E. eds. Consuming Technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces. London: Routledge, pp.32-47.
    • Coleman, M.C. (1998) 'Eyes Big as Bowls with Fear and Wonder': Children's Responses to the Irish National Schools, 1850-1922. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Section C: Archaeology, Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics, Literature, Vol. 98C (5), pp.177-202.
    • Collins, H. & Evans, R. (2014) Actor and Analyst: A response to Coopmans and Button. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 44 (5), pp.786-792.
    • Collins, H. & Pinch, T. (2014) The Golem at Large: What you should know about technology. Cambridge: Canto Classics.
    • Collins, H.M. & Evans, R. (2002) The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 32 (2), pp.235-296.
    • Collins, H.M. & Evans, R. (2009) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.
    • Coopmans, C. & Button, G. (2014) Eyeballing Expertise. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 44 (5), pp.758-785.
    • Coté, M. & Pybus, J. (2007) Learning to Immaterial Labour 2.0. ephemera, Vol. 7 (1), pp.88- 106.
    • Cramer, F. & Fuller, M. (2008) “Interface”. In: Fuller, M. ed. Software Studies: A lexicon. London MIT Press, pp.149-153.
    • Davies, P. (2005) Writing Slates and Schooling. Australasian Historical Archaeology, Vol. 23 pp. 63-69.
    • Disco, C. (2005) “Back to the Drawing Board: Inventing a Sociology of Technology”. In: Harbers, H. ed. Inside the Politics of Technology: Agency and Normativity in the Co-Production of Technology and Society. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp.29-60.
    • Dourish, P. & Bell, G. (2011) Divining a Digital Future: Mess and mythology in ubiquitous computing. Cambridge; London: MIT Press.
    • Gillespie, T. (2014) “The Relevance of Algorithms”. In: Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P.J. & Foot, K.A. eds. Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp.167-194.
    • Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P.J. & Foot, K.A. (2014) Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    • Goggin, J. (2011) Playbour, Farming and Leisure. ephemera, Vol. 11 (4), pp.357-368.
    • Hoggan, E., Brewster, S.A. & Johnston, J., (2008) Investigating the Effectiveness of Tactile Feedback for Mobile Touchscreens. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, Italy: ACM, pp.1573-1582.
    • Hughes, T.P. (1987) “The Evolution of Large Technological Systems”. In: Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P. & Pinch, T.J. eds. The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge:MIT Press, pp.51-82.
    • Hutchby, I. (2001) Technologies, Texts and Affordances. Sociology, Vol. 35 (2,)pp. 441-456.
    • Jarrett, K. (2003) Labour of Love: An archaeology of affect as power in e-commerce. Journal of Sociology, Vol. 39 (4), pp.335-351.
    • Jasanoff, S. (2003) Breaking the Waves in Science Studies: Comment on H.M. Collins and Robert Evans, 'The Third Wave of Science Studies'. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 33 (3), pp.389-400.
    • Lang, G.I. & Botstein, D. (2011) A Test of the Coordinated Expression Hypothesis for the Origin and Maintenance of the GAL Cluster in Yeast. PLoS ONE, Vol. 6 (9).
    • Langlois, G. & Elmer, G. (2013) The Research Politics of Social Media Platforms. Culture Machine, Vol. 14 [online] Available from: http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/article/view/505/531 Marcus, G.E. (1995) “Introduction”. In: Marcus, G.E. ed. Technoscientific Imaginaries: Conversations, profiles and memoirs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    • Martínez, P.L.M. (2005) “History of School Desk Development in Terms of Hygiene and Pedagogy in Spain (1838-1936)”. In: Lawn, M. & Grosvenor, I. eds. Materialities of Schooling: Design, technology, objects, routines. Oxford: Symposium Books, pp.71-96.
    • Morris, N.P., Ramsay, L. & Chauhan, V. (2012) Can a tablet device alter undergraduate science students' study behavior and use of technology? Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 2 (36), pp.97-107.
    • Sears, A., Revis, D., Swatski, J., Crittenden, R. & Shneiderman, B. (1993) Investigating Touchscreen Typing: The effect of keyboard size on typing speed. Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 12 (1), pp.17-22.
    • Van Helden, A. (1983) “The birth of the modern scientific instrument, 1550-1700”. In: Burke, J.G. ed. The Uses of Science in the Age of Newton. London: University of California Press, pp.49-84.
    • Von Hippel, E. (1976) The Dominant Role of Users in the Scientific Instrument Innovation Process. Research Policy, Vol. 5, pp.212-239.
    • Warren, T. (1810) Cheap Method of Teaching to Write, by Copies Engraved on Slates. The Belfast Monthly Magazine, Vol. 4 (21), pp.299-300.
    • Weiser, M. (1991) The Computer for the 21st Century. Scientific American, Vol. 265 (3), pp.94-104.
    • Woolgar, S. (2002) “Introduction: Five Rules of Virtuality”. In: Woolgar, S. ed. Virtual Society? Technology, Cyberbole, Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.1-22.
    • Wylie, C.D. (2012) Teaching manuals and the blackboard : accessing historical classroom practices classroom practices. History of Education : Journal of the History of Education Society, Vol. 42 (1), pp.257-272.
    • Wynne, B. (1988) Unruly Technology: Practical Rules, Impractical Discourses and Public Understanding. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 18 (1), pp.147-167.
    • Wynne, B. (2003) Seasick on the Third Wave? Subverting the Hegemony of Propositionalism: Response to Collins & Evans (2002). Social Studies of Science, Vol. 33 (3), pp.401-417.
    • Yates, S., Kirby, J., Lockley, E. & Potts, S. (2015) “Affordances, Effectivities and Efficacies: Theorising Digital Engagements”. MeCCSA, Northumbria University, UK, January 2015.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article