# data[].attributes.body
A group working with e-health (2), apps, human environment relations, immigrations and media discourses and interaction, innovation and technology in care-work.

Problem with question 1: Communities shaped by technology – what concept of community are we dealing with?

We have to be specific in definitions and understandings of communities, and the dynamics in relation to specific technologies – what are communities?

Community and categories.

New ways of bringing people together do not necessarily create community. New constellations, collectivities. Networks.

The categories inscribed into technologies have consequences for the social life that unfolds around them. They become enacted. Real.

Objective self-dumming/objective self-fashioning.

e-health

Don’t work with communities. Developers work with ideas of communities, but users do not see themselves as part of a community.

Children’s perspectives

Is network a better concept than community?

Communities in which the members do not wish to be part of / identify with their premise for being part of the community (disease).

Communities online versus individualization off-line?

Imaginary of crisis (panic) / rationale underlying much technology-development: economy, demography.

Utopic imaginaries of techno-fixes is premised on dystopic imaginary.

Measurements of user-satisfaction... evidence of something being good.

Erik Reiners (2009) “The terrible simplifiers”:https://ideas.repec.org/p/tth/wpaper/22.html

Question 2:

Can we extract “informants” and research funding from the constellation of collaborators?

Antropologisk arbejdsskade: reducerer altid de andre til informanter.

Storhedsvanvid og underværdskompleks på samme tid.

Varying interdisciplinary constellations. The differences matter.

A theme lifted out of the technology has gathered different disciplines

# data[].attributes.body
Varied definitions and understandings of communities / collectivities / Public(s) in Dewey's sense - emerging around common issues of concern
Do people understand themselves as 'collectivities', or is it our analytical construct?

'Politics of inviting'

Responsibility in exploring tech in relation to various groups, publics, orientations, conditions etc. - Is this responsibility larger for university-employed anthropologists? Consultants are in a somewhat different position in terms of deciding the focus...

No 'raw' data

Should we be more vary of anthropologists' normativity and political orientation?

# data[].attributes.body
Methodological challenges:
how to build relationship to people
children. and where to Technologies fit in.  Ethical concern
and data protection, how do we and especially children navigate in this landscape..

# data[].attributes.body
- Do we ourselves get caught by the hype?
-Are we critical by our funding source?
- "what is the added value?"  Do we remember to ask this question?
- The consumer also being the "product"
- Compared to gender studies. We can't escape it, so we work with it and within it.
- Presence. Virtual presence,
- Multistability; it is several things at once
- Capitalization of recycling
- Look at the rest of the "tech life"

The network is useful for:
- Getting ideas
-Posing different questions
- Critical potential
-

# data[].attributes.body
- working with communities created by social media or via social media: 1. in the same way as with off line communities, 2. investigating the limits and limitations of 'potential' communities created in this way 3. making explicit the politics and values embedded in the 'original' algorithms and the social status/background of designers and testers (i.e. specific technologies of the self that pertain to this group of 'producers').
-  ethnography of the big tech - secrecy and non-disclosure agreements on lots practices (anti - democratic? non - transparency issues) - what can we do: engaging with media more?  public participation? but the Gov. is indifferent or on the 'other/opposite' side. What forms of organisation (political) we rely upon?
- raising awareness/ making partnerships with XX- how do we get into these partnerships that may be not alined with political agenda of the Gov.
- can anthropologists handle a conflict produced by/inbuilt into/ technological developments?
- assuming the 'traditional' role of making ethnography/analysis of what is there to start with - and how to give it back to the 'community'  - there is nothing new in this ethical question per se.

# data[].attributes.body
Tensions:
1. be aware of how the network is cut - what other entities are involved beyond the relationship between devices and citizens
2. tech has always changed how we see ourselves and what opportunities we have. Tech ca work for us.
3. how about an historical perspective: how has tech changed our subjectivities? Fx. Electricity?
4. We need to be aware of how the notion of private life changes over time and among diverse communities.
5. Studying the effect of technology requires that we not only look at the social-user perspective but requires technical know-how.
6. If we talk about tech the way we spoke about anthropology and the marginalisation of minorities in the 90s then we have not moved on.
7. How do social borders for what is private change over time?
8. Why is there a morality about tech that is not necessarily demanded of more "exotic" fields?
9. Extreme cases are intersting topics for anthropologists because we push our perceptions of what is possible for human life. These can also be interesting for marketing.
10. Is the anthropological project one that per definition must be critical? Or may we simply describe?
11. Critical approaches do not need to entail conspiracy theories - engineers and anthropologists create new stuff, but there is an idea that if something can be developed, it should be developed.
12. Hope that this group can embrace diverse interpretations and approaches to doing techno-anthropology, including detached curiosity, exploratory stance as well as a political and moral engagement when relevant.
13. Are we a moral community?
14. Do we exclude potential industrial members?

# data[].attributes.body
Challenges:
- When should we tell organizations NOT to involve their users?
- We try to recognize non-human actors, but always end up talking about humans anyway.
- We are methodologically challenged by short term field visits. But if these are the condition for all who work for clients, are we then not still the best ones for the task? Because we can see new tech-human relations that no one else would, and put them into words. STILL, when we know the local context better, we see how much more insight that gives us - and it makes us more critical.
- There can be exaggerated expectations to what we can do for an organization.
- Clients increasingly demand some insight into our own analytical process. How do all those data get boiled down to three insights?
-

# data[].attributes.body
Using new ICTs as research tools - from informant diaries to youtube clips:
-new forms of data collection, resulting in new e-data sets, SMS, snapchat, youtube - how to analyze, store, GDPR
-how to study software technologies under development, studying computer programmers, learning new languages, coding, algorithms
-participatory design
-office ethnography! meetings, computer work,
-discrepancies between what body knowledge and medical technologies in diabetes among young - routines,  routinized - embodied knowledge - bio-monitors, bio-feedback
-how to take technologies as actors themselves - how to do that methodologically? technology perspectives
-how can an app find a place in the world? An app's  perspective
-gamification, how do young people learn how to use technologies, young and children's- kid's logics
- if it is the technology that is the object of study - what is the analytical cut to take? Archival/historicizing, lab/clinic ethnography, everyday ethnography - or all three?!
-informant feedback on writing

Why network?
Exchange of experiences, fieldwork challenges, inspiration
What's new in the field
Ethics - we are conservative, to share experiences
Technology definitions, understandings

# data[].attributes.body
Difference in the way we define “technology” as applied/academics

Challenge: hard to establish shared language with "techies" - we're saying the same, but mean different things.

The tech/digital people – don’t even know their own language

We should develop a new way of talking about technologies which is more network based.

Can we study technologies, when they are part of us?
And how to study the digitalists as the "people of technology"
Where is data, digital, ...?

Are we talking about digital technologies?

What is non-technology?
How do we define technology in our age?
What kind of distinctions exist between what we call technology/non-technology in different places at different times.

Is it useful to have a distinction between analytical and empirical definition?

Anthropologists are part of "performing" the field presenting ourselves as different depending on the contexts

Insist that anthropologists have a role in the later part of the design phases

# data[].attributes.body
Jennifer: Denmark seems to be unique; corporations collaborating with and hiring anthropologists.

Key notes today have questioned our assumptions about what technological is.

Challenging to study the technology as such - we tend to study how social relations are formed around technologies at work; or the political economies affecting emerging technologies. We look at the world-making with or enabled through technologies - and isn't that good enough? Or do we need new to develop a new language to articulate the the social life of or with technologies.

Ethnographic aesthetics: Can our particular ways of constructing ethnographies of technology hinder technologies at work - or perhaps hinder our ways of truly understanding the technologies we set to study.

# data[].attributes.body
- "Maintaining" anthropology in an interdisciplinary work environment.
- As fieldworkers we do not always fully understand what the technologies we investigate do. This can challenges us as we might not know which questions to ask, when we do not fully understand what we investigate.
- Learning from the field - learning the languages of the field, and thereby how to formulate the right questions
- what is technology? We shall dare to pose the basic questions
- users are navigating/adjusting to technology

# data[].attributes.body
-  getting into understanding the field of technology is not substantially different from other fields in anthropology
-  in interdisciplinary work anthropology facilitates different kinds of questions in such collaborations - others may not be ready for the more meta-theoretical questions
- anthropologists however often not taught in teams - the individualization may be a challenge in the training we give
- 'where is the field' is a recurrent question - flexibility to develop methodology
-

# data[].attributes.body
-  understanding technology to start with /to know how to apply technology in question /to understand what it does for different target groups
- understanding how technology changes practices
-  to be able to sort out/differentiate the diverse interests embedded in technology from technology itself / including ethics regarding data
- to be a part of technological development itself (as opposed to providing ethnographic descriptions of technology)
-  researcher's limitations and challenges regarding forms of access mediated by particular technologies /including the issue of 'big money at stake'  in a technology driven projects and/or technology driven deliveries
- 'quick and dirty' ('bad', general superficial) vs. 'quick and proper' ('good', particular insights, tangible technological forms)