IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v40y2015icp4-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Situating technological and societal futures. Pragmatist engagements with computer simulations and social dynamics

Author

Listed:
  • Schubert, Cornelius

Abstract

This article employs pragmatist ideas to conceptualise the interdependencies of epistemic instruments and societal futures. Drawing on recent discussions in science and technology studies, it argues that the numerical predictions of computer simulations do not only create novel kinds of future knowledge (epistemic performativity), but also new practices and arrangements of prediction (social performativity). The conceptual framework centres on Dewey's logic of inquiry as the transformation of indeterminate into determinate situations and the role which epistemic instruments such as computer simulations play in this transformation. In order to trace the social performativity of numerical predictions, the paper will provide answers to three questions from a pragmatist perspective. The first question concerns the agency of computer simulations as transformative means in social relations. The second revolves around the impact of these simulations on specific ways of thinking about the future. And, third, the observation and analysis of these changes through empirical research will be addressed.

Suggested Citation

  • Schubert, Cornelius, 2015. "Situating technological and societal futures. Pragmatist engagements with computer simulations and social dynamics," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 4-13.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:40:y:2015:i:c:p:4-13
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.07.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X14000414
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.07.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donald Mackenzie & Fabian Muniesa & Lucia Siu, 2007. "Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics," Post-Print halshs-00149145, HAL.
    2. Mark Dodgson & David M. Gann & Ammon Salter, 2007. "“In Case of Fire, Please Use the Elevator”: Simulation Technology and Organization in Fire Engineering," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5), pages 849-864, October.
    3. Donald MacKenzie & Fabian Muniesa & Lucia Siu, 2007. "Introduction to Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics," Introductory Chapters, in: Donald MacKenzie & Fabian Muniesa & Lucia Siu (ed.),Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics, Princeton University Press.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Esmaelian, Majid & Tavana, Madjid & Di Caprio, Debora & Ansari, Reza, 2017. "A multiple correspondence analysis model for evaluating technology foresight methods," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 188-205.
    2. Costa Climent, Ricardo & Haftor, Darek M., 2021. "Business model theory-based prediction of digital technology use: An empirical assessment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lilian Muchimba & Alexis Stenfors, 2021. "Beyond LIBOR: Money Markets and the Illusion of Representativeness," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(2), pages 565-573, April.
    2. Leon Wansleben, 2013. "Dreaming with BRICs," Journal of Cultural Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(4), pages 453-471, November.
    3. Loconto, Allison & Rajão, Raoni, 2020. "Governing by models: Exploring the technopolitics of the (in)visilibities of land," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    4. Aleksandra Kuzior & Aleksy Kwilinski & Ihor Hroznyi, 2021. "The Factorial-Reflexive Approach to Diagnosing the Executors’ and Contractors’ Attitude to Achieving the Objectives by Energy Supplying Companies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-16, April.
    5. François-Xavier de Vaujany & Sabine Carton & Carine Dominguez-Perry & Emmanuelle Vaast, 2012. "Performativity and Information Technologies: An inter-organizational perspective," Post-Print halshs-00851315, HAL.
    6. Franck Cochoy & Martin Giraudeau & Liz McFall, 2010. "Performativity, Economics And Politics," Journal of Cultural Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 139-146, July.
    7. Heidi Østbø Haugen, 2018. "The unmaking of a commodity: Intermediation and the entanglement of power cables in Nigeria," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 50(6), pages 1295-1313, September.
    8. Benjamin Braun, 2016. "From performativity to political economy: index investing, ETFs and asset manager capitalism," New Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 257-273, May.
    9. Kristin Asdal & Béatrice Cointe, 2022. "Writing good economics: how texts 'on the move' perform the lab and discipline of experimental economics," Post-Print hal-03429169, HAL.
    10. Kristin Asdal & Béatrice Cointe, 2021. "Experiments in co-modification: a relational take on the becoming of commodities and the making of market value," Post-Print hal-03168937, HAL.
    11. Miguel Poiares Maduro & Giulio Pasi & Gianluca Misuraca, 2018. "Social Impact Investment in the EU. Financing strategies and outcome oriented approaches for social policy innovation: narratives, experiences, and recommendations," JRC Research Reports JRC111373, Joint Research Centre.
    12. Tommaso Pardi, 2019. "Fourth industrial revolution concepts in the automotive sector: performativity, work and employment," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 46(3), pages 379-389, September.
    13. Taylor C. Nelms, 2012. "The Zombie Bank And The Magic Of Finance," Journal of Cultural Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 231-246, May.
    14. Patrick J. L. Cockburn, 2014. "Street Papers, Work and Begging: 'Experimenting' at the Margins of Economic Legitimacy," Journal of Cultural Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 145-160, May.
    15. Sven Modell, 2014. "The societal relevance of management accounting: An introduction to the special issue," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(2), pages 83-103, April.
    16. Faulconbridge, James R. & Muzio, Daniel, 2021. "Valuation devices and the dynamic legitimacy-performativity nexus: The case of PEP in the English legal profession," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    17. Shaozeng Zhang, 2017. "From externality in economics to leakage in carbon markets: An anthropological approach to market making," Economic Anthropology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(1), pages 132-143, January.
    18. Katharine Tröger & Margareta Amy Lelea & Brigitte Kaufmann, 2018. "The Fine Line between Trusting and Cheating: Exploring Relationships between Actors in Ugandan Pineapple Value Chains," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 30(5), pages 823-841, December.
    19. Mélodie Cartel & Eva Boxenbaum & Franck Aggeri & Jean-Yves Caneill, 2017. "Policy making as collective bricolage: the role of the electricity sector in the making of the European carbon market," Post-Print hal-01615460, HAL.
    20. Johannes Lundberg, 2022. "Agency Theory’s “Truth Regime”: Reading Danish Pension Funds’ Decisions Regarding Shell from the Perspective of Agency Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-15, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:40:y:2015:i:c:p:4-13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.