Siinviidatu leidis oma koha peamiselt kahel põhjusel. Esiteks on tegemist tekstiga, mis võimaldab organisatsioonihuvilistel teha tutvust postfenomenoloogiaga. Teiseks põhjuseks on nähtamatuse ja relatsioonilisuse aspektid, mis on visad igapäevamõttekäikudesse jõudma.
Postfenomenoloogia kohta leiab huviline palju infot internetist, kuid siin raamatus on üks hea kontsentraat erialakirjanduses tuntud tegijatelt. Aga, mis on agentsus? Agentsus on inimese võime ühiskonnas toime tulla (vt nt siit).
Artikkel võiks pretendeerida paljude kursuste seminaritekstiks ning huvi pakkuda väga avarale lugejaskonnale, sest on varustatud paljude igapäevaeluliste näidetega.
How humans live and want to live with technology has been subject to much recent discussion within philosophy (Campbell, 2011; Hörl, 2015; Scharff & Dusek, 2014), sociology (Shaw, 2018; Zuboff, 2019) and organization studies (Beyes, 2017; Curchod, Patriotta, Cohen, & Neysen, 2020; Fleming, 2019; Flyverbom, Deibert, & Matten, 2017).
Agentsusest ja postfenomenoloogiast:
For example, Harcourt (2015, p. 18) describes the spectre of humans living under an expository society; a regime that humans actively desire and to which we ‘give ourselves up in a made frenzy of disclosure’. […] Drawing from the theoretical approach known as postphenomenology (Ihde, 1990; Verbeek, 2011), we argue that human agency is neither destroyed nor radically compromised by technology. […] Based on this assumption, we distinguish and develop postphenomenology as a perspective that can inform organization studies, arguing that it has significant implications for analysis of moral agency.
Autorid annavad tähenduse:
In sum, we take the postphenomenological position that humans are technologically mediated and this mediation is ontologically inherent in our moral agency. Rather than assume symmetry, we hold that the human is the key site of agency but that human agency is also, necessarily, mediated by technology (Verbeek, 2011).
How is moral agency mediated through everyday technologies?
Relative to both sociomateriality and postphenomenology, technology holds a more distinct ontological status within critical realism. Whereas postphenomenology gives specific attention to technological mediations rather than to technologies as ontological entities, and there is no distinction between social and material relations and actions under sociomateriality (Orlikowski & Scott, 2014); the material becomes entwined or imbricated with social relations over time under critical realism (see Leonardi, 2012; cf. Mutch, 2013).
Agentsus on … tingimuslik:
Under postphenomenology, humans do have agency, although this agency is conditional upon our social world: we live in relation to technological mediations but are not subsumed by them (Verbeek, 2012; cf. Harcourt, 2015).
In particular, and relevant to our research question, postphenomenology is overtly concerned with moral agency, which it positions as both technologically mediated and co-constructed by users. The mediated subject is the key site not only for moral self-practices and the shaping of humans’ moral choices (Verbeek, 2006, 2008b, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016) but also for ways in which humans appropriate and give meaning to mediations.
The context of academic knowledge production comprises multiple mediations that we explore via four sites: the journal; the article; the author; and the editor and editorial process. […] For instance, it is clear that journal lists play a well-rehearsed role in mediating the moral agency of academic authors by producing and containing their interests, intentions and values (Adler & Harzing, 2009; Macdonald & Kam, 2007).
Tehnoloogia vahendab akadeemilise teadmise loomist:
In sum, technologies mediate academic knowledge production in a number of ways: as promises of objectivity and openness; as barriers to entry (e.g. you cannot submit to this journal without using this software) or other mandatory requirements (e.g. all Elsevier journals are signed to COPE); by being tied to interests and identity work of researchers (referred to as ‘soft impacts’ by Pieters, 2013); by being seamlessly integrated or invisible (Pieters, 2013) (e.g. through autogenerated decision letters personalized by editors and interchangeable with their human counterparts); and by the inscribing of values that affect actors across the domain (e.g. the ubiquitous use, inscription and promotion of journal ‘quality’ lists in academic processes).
Importantly, invisibility is not merely an antonym of visibility as it is more than an absence. Invisibility can be understood as a presence, that which appears not-there-while-it-is-there (Van Den Eede, 2011) or, in words inspired by Merleau-Ponty, ‘the invisible is what is here without being an object’ (Brighenti, 2007, p. 328, his emphasis). […] we propose also that moral agency is shaped by the visibility and invisibility of the means-ends connection of a technological mediation. In sum, the source composition of the mediation (i.e. the interchangeability between humans and technology) and the directedness of the mediation (i.e. the interconnectedness of means-ends) vary with visibilities, and this variation produces different experiences of moral agency.
Moraalsed praktikad kui koostöövili:
Thus, moral practices are coproductions of humans and technologies and moral agency is formed, rather than diminished, in interaction with the influences of technology. Indeed, human ethics proceed from human-technology relations that are by their nature opaque and unknowable (Amoore, 2020).
Our postphenomenological approach shows how technologies can mediate our moral subjectification, and how this mediation changes with visibilities associated with positionality and temporality, as we act each day. As indicated by Parker (2013, p. 473, citing Berger, 1966), for example, as an ‘edited editor’ we have the ‘the possibility of stopping in our movements, looking up and perceiving the machinery by which we have been moved.
Greenwood, M., & Wolfram Cox, J. (2022). Seduced by Technology? How moral agency is mediated by the invisibility of everyday technologies. Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406221107455