I don’t know how this book was not on my “to read” list until now, but it is a fabously written book: Jo Guldi’s Roads to Power: Britain Invents the Infrastructure State.

Guldi does a first-rate STS analysis; this primarily historical work is peppered with sociological and political insights, none more important, to my mind, than the idea that large-scale infrastructural investments cause conflict (it seems no matter what) and have the potential to transform a nation (ironically, from within). As it happens, Britain was the first nation to be united by (albeit primitive) highways connecting nearly every town and village. For those of us in love with blueprint images, the book has a couple that I would like to have full-sized, framed, and mounted on my office wall. One of the take-aways from this historical analysis is a fresh look at the now old insight that we are growing increasingly isolated, and that one of the core causes is technological in nature. Instead of focusing on cellular phones or social networking media, the book draws our attention to roads, specifically, how roads bring us together on the roads but utlimately isolate us from the people we are now in contact with more often. Still, perhaps the author could have said something more about the role of signs and the innumeration of places. However, the section devoted to how Britain was even colonizing its own people, through the elaboration of roads at home, rings an appropriate bell for scholars that like a little humor in their science.

NOTE: Joanna Guldi is Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow in Digital History, University of Chicago, and a Junior Fellow at the Society of Fellows, Harvard University. She also runs the Landscape Studies Podcast.

For many of us, the “infra” in infrastructure denotes a relatively straightforward image of “something below,” in this case, a structure below, which is usually conceptualized as a supporting or facilitating structure that allows other practices, events, etc. to “happen” or “take place.” Hence, infra equates to below, if sensitized to issues of hiearchy (rather than, say, scale or functionality). I wrote about this here.

The problem is, many of us are, as Hendrik put it, “flat-earthers,” meaning that we have adopted a lateral perspective in our research, mainly, as a matter of principle. Latour is probably one of the most famous proponents of this “view” that challenges hierarchy at every turn, and this argument is made well enough in his 2005 book.Hence, “flat-earthers” reject issues of hierarchy as being in any way hierarchical.

I present these choices as binary, meaning if you elect one you cannot select the other. You must choose either a hiearchical or laternal perspective. To some extent, they are contradictory comments on reality (or perspectives) because “politics from the side” (i.e., assuming a lateral world) rejects any preordained notions of hierarchy, above as well as below (i.e., “politics from below” or assuming a hierarchical world). The only alternative, I posited, “would be a position where one argues that infrastructure is “made to be below” through lateral practices.”

This solution, which I posted moments ago on Hendrik’s post, was that we could turn “politics from below” into the research question for a scholar committed to “politics from the side” and turn hierarchy in to what has to be explained instead of what we assume a priori. This is one way to change the view of “politics from below” vs. the “politics from the side” into “politics from below” as the “politics from the side” in infrastructure studies

Happiness is trending downward, globally, according to a new study about Twitter using an “hedonometer” to assess tweets.

The paper is interesting material, although a challenge to fully appreciate in places (given that this study could have been book-length).

Here are their opening remarks:

One of the great modern scientific challenges we face lies in understanding macroscale sociotechnical phenomena–i.e., the behavior of decentralized, networked systems inextricably involving people, information, and machine algorithms–such as global economic crashes and the spreading of ideas and beliefs [1]. Accurate description through quantitative measurement is essential to the advancement of any scientific field, and the shift from being data scarce to data rich has revolutionized many areas [2]–[5] ranging from astronomy [6]–[8] to ecology and biology [9] to particle physics [10]. For the social sciences, the now widespread usage of the Internet has led to a collective, open recording of an enormous number of transactions, interactions, and expressions, marking a clear transition in our ability to quantitatively characterize, and thereby potentially understand, previously hidden as well as novel microscale mechanisms underlying sociotechnical systems [11].

What’s the upshot for infrastructure folks? Check out the first line above:

One of the great modern scientific challenges we face lies in understanding macroscale sociotechnical phenomena–i.e., the behavior of decentralized, networked systems inextricably involving people, information, and machine algorithms–such as global economic crashes and the spreading of ideas and beliefs…

This is something of our challenge in research too. However, even this huge, abstract portrayal of the problem — as being about people, info, and algorithms that bind them — happens somewhere. It is the sum of microscale sociotechnical phenomenoa, no doubt, but, of course, that does not make these trends “macro” out of hand (other than in the constructivist’s sense that we literally “make” them macro). So, there is a matter of scale (thanks again, Kathryn, for all your thoughts on scalar issues), and I wonder if the solution, a la Tom Gieryn, is to reduce our concerns over scale and instead focus on topographical depictions/conceptualizations (?).

In closing, and I have no real explanation ready-at-hand, what is are the “algorithms that bind” people and information (or resources) in infrastructure studies? This might unlock some new territory for case study experts and more quantitative types (like the authors cited above) to work together in future research…

In my first post, I said that I would take a look at issues of scale and the idea of infrastructure as “sunk cost” versus infrastructure as “base”. In this, my last post, I would like to explore how these issues might be related.  That is, on the one hand, how our conceptions of scale may to some extent predetermine our view of infrastructure as a “sunk cost”; and, on the other hand, what a view of infrastructure as “base” might imply for how we approach scale.

These are very much ideas in development, so please weigh in!

The concept of geographical scale generally focuses on delineations of territorial organization (e.g., local, national, global). Although seemingly durable, these are taken as constructed and thus transitory. This observation is meant to draw attention away from scale to the production of scale. Despite this critical approach to scale, certain seemingly self-imposed limits to analysis persist. As Marston (2000) points out, scale in geography overemphasizes processes of capitalist production while ‘ignoring social reproduction and consumption’.

The tendency then, when thinking of networked infrastructure, is to examine it at the scale at which investments and decisions about investments (or the lack thereof) are made. In most instances, this is the municipal scale. In a multi-scalar approach you would include higher scale actors that may regulate issues that influence investments, such as service quality. In the case of water, this would imply some level of senior government. When the focus is placed on these actors, to the neglect of consumers and households, it is easy to interpret infrastructure though the metaphor of the sunk cost. But what if a more relational perspective that would include “social reproduction and consumption” were applied?

In such a case, the metaphor of infrastructure as base, as opposed to sunk cost would (I argue) have more to offer. The concept of “base” comes from Stephen Gudeman’s work in economic anthropology.  Gudeman takes the concept of the base from rural subsistence farmers in Colombia. For the farmers and their families the base is “the wealth of the house” on which it can draw the necessary materials for work and subsistence and to generate some gain to expand the base. It is the safety net and the means of building and enhancing economic security and wealth over time. In a neoclassical model, the firm invests in infrastructure to create profit; in the household model, one invests in the base to build the base, which provides security and steady improvements in livelihoods. Whereas for the households that Gudeman studies, the base consist of land, tools, seed etc. If one were to apply the base concept to a community, its base should include various elements of public infrastructure.

What would it mean to understand infrastructure as base? And what does in mean for scale in relation to infrastructure? First, understanding infrastructure as base as opposed to a sunk cost, moves it from a firm model to a community model of analysis. Infrastructure in this sense is part of the community’s base, which is developed and sustained through collective community funds. On the other hand, this infrastructure enables individual households and users greater opportunity to build their own base at the household scale. This is because it is a fundamental element of what they need to engage in manifold forms of social and economic activity.

Second, in terms of scale, it would mean trying to work with Marston’s critique. Could scalar approaches in STS help to do this? In STS, scale is approached through the theory of Multi Level Transitions (MLT), which arranges scales around the development, deployment, uptake, and function of technology. The focus on deployment and uptake brings users into the analysis of how scale might be applied to infrastructure. But I wonder if the nested and hierarchical images that are inherent in scale can capture what would be a web of social relations in an extended base model for infrastructure. Should we scale across rather than up to understand how infrastructure might relate to dispersed users and not just those who build it ? This would seemingly bring us to a Latourian model, but with significant amounts of repetition in the network. Moreover, this repetition of households in the network is cumulative. That is, while they may relate to infrastructure individually, their collective relationship is significant and implies important influence on the municipal scale and its investments in the “base”.

A big thanks to Nicholas for introducing me to Installing (social) Order and for inviting me to participate. I’ve gotten a lot of food for thought from your comments and posts and look forward to continuing to follow the blog. Kathyn

After reading this news article, which suggests that Jakarta needs an “infrastructure upgrade,” I am convinced that law-based infrastructure studies would be quite interesting to read.

The article states:

“The law will smooth the development of public infrastructure,” said lawmaker Daryatmo Mardiyanto, who chaired the special committee that drafted the bill. “It will provide legal certainty and fairness for the people.”

While Indonesia, Southeast Asia’s largest economy, could be the next Asian economy to take off, analysts say it has to address its overburdened infrastructure if it wants double-digit growth. Gross domestic product is projected to grow about 6.5% this year,

The interaction between law, economics, and state development seems like an obviously good vantage point for future scholarship. In fact, this might be a good way to get at the “infrastructure sector” that Hendrik mentioned a while back, and maybe a way to rethink the role of venture capitalists in infrastructure.

Check it out on orgtheory.net — thought provoking stuff.

Review of: Gopakumar, Govind. 2012. Transforming Urban Water Supply in India The Role of Reform and Partnerships in Globalization (Routledge Contemporary South Asia Series). London/New York: Routledge; $140.00/£85.00 hrdbk.

Here are the introduction and conclusion:

                This is a book about infrastructure. Author of Water Resources (Raju et a. 2004), Govind Gopakumar’s new book Transforming Urban Water Supplies in India is a welcome title from the Routledge Contemporary South Asia Series, especially for science and technology studies because of its empirical and analytical emphasis on what I will call here the ‘state-infrastructure’ relationship. In introducing the core topic of the book, infrastructure, Gopakumar (2012: p, 1) invites nearly every discipline to the table, from ‘engineers and technologists’, ‘historians, geographers, sociologists, and anthropologists’ to ‘urban technological historians’, ‘sociologists of utility networks’, urban geographers’ and ‘technology studies scholars.’ And rightly so; infrastructures studies are complex and complicated precisely because they defy straightforward explanation by any disciplinary jurisdiction; in infrastructure, geographic issues are political, social issues are technical, and so on. And yet, infrastructure often drifts from our conscious view as citizens. Building on Graham and Marvin’s (2001:181) works, Gopakumar shows us that infrastructures might be ‘banal constructions’ that fade into taken-for-grantedness, but they tell us a lot about the formation and consequence of their governance, especially regarding public and private partnerships to enhance or expand infrastructure and the relationship between infrastructural development and states (as well as subnational states, in India’s case). In all, the book takes an historical-comparative approach with the unit of analysis being the city. Gopakumar expertly selects three cities to compare, and the selection process appears to be based on differing relationship between the subnational state, within which the city is embedded, and the broader Indian (federal) state and variations in how each city, responding to global and federal pressures, establishes public-private partnerships thus forming urban water supply regimes.

                <….>

                Where does this book land on the shelf? Certainly, it is a great fit with the Routledge Contemporary South Asia Series. The book is also a more cohesive statement replete with future directions for research, which is missing in Gopakumar’s (2011, 2010a, 2010b) individual research articles on water infrastructure. Patrick Carroll’s (2011) recent work on water infrastructure in California pairs nicely with where Gopakumar (2011) is going in his recent and future research wherein he more explicitly conceptualizes states, stateness, and governmentality, unsurprisingly, using some of Carroll’s (2006) previous research as a touch point and some of my work regarding an actor-network model of states (Passoth and Rowland 2010). In closing, Govind’s book is somewhat bigger than it appears; literally, as the book is only 176 pages long, but also theoretically and empirically because the long-term potential of studying state-infrastructure relations seems so promising.

Lawrence Busch’s new book Standards has just been added to the list competing for the Merton book award!

Standards are the means by which we construct realities. There are established standards for professional accreditation, the environment, consumer products, animal welfare, the acceptable stress for highway bridges, healthcare, education–for almost everything. We are surrounded by a vast array of standards, many of which we take for granted but each of which has been and continues to be the subject of intense negotiation. In this book, Lawrence Busch investigates standards as “recipes for reality.” Standards, he argues, shape not only the physical world around us but also our social lives and even our selves.  

Busch shows how standards are intimately connected to power–that they often serve to empower some and disempower others. He outlines the history of formal standards and describes how modern science came to be associated with the moral-technical project of standardization of both people and things. He examines the use of standards to differentiate and how this affects our perceptions; he discusses the creation of a global system of audits, certifications, and accreditations; and he considers issues of trust, honesty, and risk. After exploring the troubled coexistence of standards and democracy, Busch suggests guidelines for developing fair, equitable, and effective standards. Taking a uniquely integrated and comprehensive view of the subject, Busch shows how standards for people and things are inextricably linked, how standards are always layered (even if often addressed serially), and how standards are simultaneously technical, social, moral, legal, and ontological devices.

On friday and saturday I participated at a small, well organised STS-workshop on „(In)Stabilities – Processuality in STS“ in Darmstadt/Germany. Participants came from cultural anthropology and ethnology, sociology, English and American Studies. The papers presented were all really interesting, but in my opinion most of them shared one crucial problem: a lack of theory or, at least, they lacked a connection of empirical research with theory. One of the papers even addressed the question, if it is even helpful to ‘superimpose’ theoretical terms and concepts on empirical research/findings. And that really made me think: What relevance has theory in/for STS? What function does theory have in STS? Is STS more about „thick descriptions“ than on theorizing about empirical phenomena? And how do you get a description of empirical findings that is more than just renarration, without using theoretical terms and concepts? What is the additional benefit of renarrating? So, once again: A naive newcomer to STS ‘lost in translation’…Please help.

We are still accepting nominations   for the Merton book award of the Science, Knowledge and Technology section of the ASA.

What book(s) do you think might have a chance at the Merton award?

Write the Merton book award committee with your nomination, or just write me and I’ll pass it along to the committee.

So far, we have two strong nominations, which are:

1. Gil Eyal, Brendan Hart, Emine Onculer, Neta Oren and Natasha Rossi, The Autism Matrix: The Social Origins of the Autism Epidemic. (Cambridge: Polity, 2010).
   
2. Cyrus C. M. Mody, Instrumental Community: Probe Microscopy and the Path to Nanotechnology. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011).
   

As the British government is getting ready to announce a commitment of £5bn of public funding to a massive investment plan in infrastructures over the next couple of days, I am wondering how infrastructures sometimes are respecified in the redistribution of collective resources. The British government has been cutting back on public sector expenditures in almost all areas, including many types of support that would, I think, be included in sociological notions of infrastructure (like subsidies in transport, communication, education etc.). Now the rationale appears to be that some of that spending has to be redirected in order to attract private investment in infrastructures – while most of the cuts of course have remain as they were (and one immediately suspects more cuts will be forthcoming in order to support the “infrastructure boost”).

This is obviously another demonstration of how the scope of what is deemed a collectively indispensable infrastructure is subject of political spin and generally, I suspect, in any case much narrower than an exploration of instructures in terms of hybrid assemblages (or more broadly in STS terms) would have it. In this case, roads and energy are apparently deemed more essential than the “soft” human infrastructures within the collective, even in a service econony like the UK. Still, there is some discretion taken by policy-makers apparent here in defining the scope of the collectively indispensable more or less broadly. It may be worthwhile in exploring states’ contribution to the maintenance of infrastructures to look specifically at the fringes or gray areas where infrastructure policies are regularly accommodated. Political respecifications are also visible in attempts by interested private actors (investors, entrepreneurs, lobbyists etc.) to accommodate this scope, e.g. in the areas of housing and water mentioned in recent postings, particularly in Kathryn’s Medellín reports.

Conversely, there is also the question of how infrastructures are respecified economically in creating something like an infrastructure sector (as mentioned in the article from the Guardian linked above), i.e. as a type of aggregate market.

What are we to make of such political or economic respecifications (or re-assemblings) of infrastructures? Is it a reasonable strategy of sociological exploration confronting such respecifications be to go for the broadest possible understanding of infrastructures in order to effectively re-frame these more specific remediations? At the moment I feel tempted to say yes – but such a strategy would really beg for at least some kind of respecification that is genuinely sociological – if that can (or should?) indeed be re-assembled.

Jan and I, and student of mine, Alexander B. Kinney, wrote a book review of Latour’s “introduction that is not an introduction” to ANT, Reassembling the Social, for Spontaneous Generations.

I was reminded of this earlier today, about reassembling more than just the social, and so I reread this passage:

Even with these newly crafted tools fresh from the ANT workshop, Latour
has still not gone far enough. If we have to Reassemble the Social, then why
not Politics or Economics too? Why not the Law or the State or other modes of
existence Latour simply allows to stand un-reassembled? As an analytical strategy,
dropping the Social as a category of things is a good idea. But if we decide to take
Latour seriously, then we must be equally suspicious of the “political arena” or
“economic climate” too, and it surely does not mean that we empirically ignore
the onto-politics of Law, Politics, Economics, etc., if these are all just ways to
“arrange the collective.” What is missing is an idea of how to draw distinctions
between them analytically without reifying them in the process. The way that
“modes of existences” and “arrange the collective” are introduced in this book
leaves an aftertaste of bitter reification. How are we to distinguish between ways
of juridical, economic or scientific assembling? We are left without an answer,
just with the hint that this would need another book to reassemble each (Latour,
forthcoming). It is a good thing that the book ends trying to be constructive
and not merely de(con)structive; however, if we buy the ticket (the book) and
take the ride (read it), then we deserve more—we must either deconstruct more
in order to rebuild everything as a mere matter of associations or we must
say that anything made of “invisible” “matter” like markets, lawsuits, incentives,
management techniques, etc. is just as guilty as “the social” created by sociologists.

If sociology is now about tracing association, which I consider quite fun, then what is, for example, Political Science about, if properly reassembled?

I am really racking my brain about this and am not sure that reassembling gets us very far outside of sociology. Still, I refuse to say that Geography, for example, is not in need of some reassembling. The key might be “the social” versus sociology in general, hence, “the political” is what is in need of reassembling, or perhaps “the geographic” … hmmm, this is quite messy.

A couple of days ago a video made by RIM (the manufacturer of blackberry) cropped up on youtube. It shows RIM’s vision of the future of work and, of course, of its own role in it. The two videos which you can see here and here were supposedly leaked from within RIM. Surprisingly though, they are still on youtube for anybody to see, so RIM does probably not feel shamed by them (to say the least). Some of the blogosphere has already been reacting, calling the video, for example, “depressing as hell”.
The insight the videos provide into imaginations of future infrastructures probably informing the setting of corporate strategies in the development of communication devices is interesting – and transcends the character of this particular video as a somewhat desperate life sign of a company currently under some pressure to make a show of itself. About time for the role of fantasies in the development of infrastructure to move up a bit on our list of research topics?

How is it that Steve Jobs can die and people mourn the man as if he were a family member, and Dennis Ritchie dies and there is hardly a blip on mainstream media?

I realize that many people spend more time with their iPhone than any family member or friend, but try living in our digital age without C programming, windows, or linux.

Thoughts?

The father of C programming language and co-developer of the Unix operating system passed away on October 8 at the age of 70, leaving a legacy that casts a very long shadow.

A fellow named “Peter” recently commented on Endre’s first post; turns out, he’s the long-time maintainer of content at ANTHEM, which is a blog originally formed to be:

… the public face of ANTHEM, the “Actor-Network Theory — Heidegger Meeting,” a gathering of human and nonhuman actors that are interested in both actor-network theory and the work of Martin Heidegger, as well as the relationship and controversies between the two. Our primary focus is the question of technology. We are interested not only in the philosophy of technology but also in the empirical issues pertaining to the social study of technology.

However, those meetings appear to be over, but the blog lives on … still nutured by Peter and readers.

Check it out — I am and now I’m getting turned-onto Princes, Wolves, and quadruple objects … oh yeah, Peter, what about quadruple “things”!?

I’m just starting to get turned-onto this line of research on “hollow states,” which is about the decreasing duties associated with state enterprise and how to manage the relations between states and non-state entities as they adopt a greater number of previously-state, now-outsourced duties related to governance.

This paper on infrastructure caught my attention. It is written by Georgia’s O’Toole.

Citation:

Laurence J. O’Toole, Jr.

Hollowing the Infrastructure: Revolving Loan Programs and Network Dynamics in the American States

J Public Adm Res Theory (1996) 6(2): 225–242

Abstract:

Trends toward more complex intergovernmental programs and greater use of public-private arrangements carry implications for public management, since these developments signify challenges for administrators called upon to manage within hollowed institutional settings: interorganizational networks for effectuating policy. The implications of such shifts are explored by examining one important program change of the last decade: the move away from federal grant support for municipal wastewater treatment infrastructure and toward the creation of separate state revolving-loan funds (SRFs). National regulatory standards remain, but the central place of the EPA in the infrastructure effort has shifted largely into other hands, with consequences for the implementation of policy. Altered policy instruments stimulate the formation of more complex network patterns involving new actors who offer needed technologies. These changes carry implications for program operations and results. Evidence from the operations of SRFs suggests that these developments are significant and also that public management has become, if anything, even more consequential in such networked contexts.

Do infrastructure studies suffer from a before-and-under bias?

The term infrastucture, per my understandings of the term, but also reflected in the wiki site, takes on two basic meanings.

First, infrastructure gets one of its meanings, which also double as conceptualizations, by being what precedes whatever system it supports, hence, infrastructure comes before the system it facilitates. This might be called “infrastructure as antecedent” (or pre-structure).

Second, infrastructure, perhaps this time in a more etymological sense, is also meant to denote the undergird that holds a system in place, for example, the layers of earth, sand, and rocks which create the bed under which roadways can be built and, hence, the interlinking arteries of transit can be laid. This might be called “infrastructure as support” (like a craddle, or sub-structure).

Of course, the notion of “sub-structure” is not foreign territory for sociologists. In fact, in numerous lines of scholarship far outside of sociology, there is a belief that something “real” or “raw” maybe even primordial can be discovered in the depths or beneath. Likewise, there is precedent in nearly any historical analysis, some being executed better than others on this measure, that that which occurs before a given event in need of explanation is often seen as powerfully influencing its later form. In this sense, infrastructrure almost becomes akin to “pre-structure.”

These are sometimes used in infrastructure studies to justify their reason for being done in the first place; some version of “it came before and powerfully shaped X” or “it is beneath and powerfully supports X”. Sometimes these claims are explicit, but often they are more implicit such that were the author, one would imagine, to get a review who writes “why study this at all?” the author would be almost dumbfounded as if to say “duh.”

Now, infrastructure that comes before the system/material it supports, I suspect, operates according to different dynamics as compared to (a) infrastructure that comes after the system/material it supports (i.e., a system that is imposed on pre-existing materials such as security infrastructure developed in response to and not before serial crimes) or (b) infrastructure that support from above rather than below (i.e., a system that is not under us, but on us, although an obvious infrastructureal equivalent of this illudes me now — imagine the infrastructural equivalent of glasses on a human face, which does not support from below, and instead supports on top of or above the person).

Do infrastructure studies suffer from a before-and-under bias? This might be a nice empirical question.

This morning’s New York Times on-line features an article titled “New State Laws Are Limiting Access for Voters” and it presents or conceptualizes the infrastructural entitiy of “the state” in a couple of interesting ways.

On the one hand, states are presented in the journalist protrayal as active agents, in this case, passing laws.

Five states passed laws this year scaling back programs allowing voters to cast their ballots before Election Day, the Brennan Center found.

On the other hand, this hard work was the networked outcome of competing representatives with diverse interests.

Republicans, who have passed almost all of the new election laws, say they are necessary to prevent voter fraud, and question why photo identification should be routinely required at airports but not at polling sites. Democrats counter that the new laws are a solution in search of a problem, since voter fraud is rare. They worry that the laws will discourage, or even block, eligible voters — especially poor voters, young voters and African-American voters, who tend to vote for Democrats.

More in the middle, we see “the state” as both an actor, capable of passing laws, but also an effect of networked practices and representations, as evidenced by the now law-enforced presentation of government-issued identification cards at voting booths (the state being more like the effect, rather than the cause).

The biggest impact, the Brennan Center said, will be from laws requiring people to show government-issued photo identification to vote. This year, 34 states introduced legislation to require it — a flurry of activity that Jennie Bowser, a senior fellow at the National Conference of State Legislatures, called “pretty unusual.”

In reflecting on these issues, I am reminded of a dichotomy in the literature about states and statehood. Sometimes the state is presented as an empty signifier capable of action, as evidenced in their ability “pass laws this year.” In contrast, sometimes states are defined by their effect, as evidenced by the now law-enforced presentation of government-issued identification cards at voting booths. In our final example, we see one of two things: either an actor-network (where the state is conceptualized as an actor because it is a network) or a register-shift, meaning that the state registers as an actor during certain actions as a shortcut in presenting ideas, but also as an networked entity composed of competing actors incapable of concerted effort that might otherwise be called “state action.”

Check out this recent video from the FuturICT group in which Paul Lukowicz presents his take on the project from the perspective of a computer scientist.
A lot of the issues we have been discussing come up very explicitly in this bit. Particularly interesting, I think, is how emergent structures on the one hand and purposefully built infrastructure on the other are being renegotiated conceptually, and how both are finally associated with the use of a platform by an potentially infinite and yet unkown set of users: “there will be an infrastructure” which all kinds of people may contribute to, may use to run their own projects on, built their own apps, and so on. This particular aspect of infrastructure as platform may be worth exploring further, as it has all kinds of conceptual implications, and an interesting political undertone.

A couple of more videos are linked at the site, for example a ten-minute promo of the project.

Many thanks to my mentor, Alice Robbin of Indiana University’s School of Library Sciences, for turning me onto this interesting new paper by Nancy C. Roberts.

Beyond Smokestacks and Silos: Open-Source, Web-Enabled Coordination in Organizations and Networks

What accounts for coordination problems? Many mechanisms of coordination exist in both organizations and networks, yet despite their widespread use, coordination challenges persist. Some believe the challenges are growing even more serious. One answer lies in understanding that coordination is not a free good; it is expensive in terms of time, effort, and attention, or what economists call transaction and administrative costs. An alternative to improving coordination is to reduce its costs, yet there is little guidance in the literature
to help managers and researchers calculate coordination costs or make design decisions based on cost reductions. Th is article explores two cases—the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Offi ce’s Peer-to-Patent pilot program and the online relief eff ort in Haiti following the devastating earthquake there in 2010—to illustrate the advantages and constraints of using Web 2.0 technology as a mechanism of coordination and a tool for cost reduction. The lessons learned from these cases may offer practitioners and researchers a way out of our “silos” and “smokestacks.”

Now, I’m not totally convinced that the author is suggesting that infrastructure is the answer to reducing transaction costs associated with coordination efforts. However, the claim, which seems well substantiated to me, that the challenges facing those attempting to coordinate are growing “even more serious” amid ever complex webs of people, places and things seems like a valuable position to take for those of us writing on infrastructure.

The position can be used to justify infrastructure research. Why is this needed? All too often, I see papers on infrastructure that must justify their raison d’être and their justification is little better than “duh, its infrastructure”, “its the reason other stuff can work,” or “its the stuff that civilization is made of.” However, I am dissatisfied with all of these reasons, even though I share the personal sentiment, esp. “duh, its infrastructure.”

Of course, there are a variety of reasons that we might want to invetigate/examine infrastructure, especially for theoretical purposes. However, scholars tend to fail to justify their research on a more general or social level, and this position on transaction costs associated with coordination is probably a decent position to start from.