Editorial
EASST maintains the Review as a means of maintaining EASST as an academic community between conferences. But there are limits to how well a modest journal can do that job. I can’t complain that the journal is hampered in this by a non-responsive readership. We get just enough contributions to fill the issues we’re scheduled to produce. And just the types of contributions we’re intended to accommodate – book reviews, academic event reviews, commentary about trends in the field, presentations of recent dissertations, and occasionally a research article. So far, I have hardly had to make any efforts to recruit these pieces. No, we don’t get many responses directed back through the Review. After all, with three or four issues a year, this is hardly the kind of fast-paced communications medium that can maintain a tennis match-paced discussion. But I don’t doubt that the Review gets read, and hopefully authors who are looking for responses from the readers hear back from them directly. In other words, the Review is probably doing its job as well as a quarterly journal can be expected to do. The question then is, “Do we have to remain merely a quarterly journal?”
I’d like to maintain the Review as a quarterly journal. For now, I’d also like it to remain a journal comprised of types of communications less likely to find a welcome home in journals focused on research articles. But why not, at the same time, add faster-paced discussions by adding some Internet functionality?
After months of thought, preparation, and de-bugging – yet still begging your patience with any bugs yet to be discovered – I am pleased to announce the official opening of EASST Review Forums. Paid up EASST members are welcome to sign on and join in at: http://www1.svt.ntnu.no/forum/easst/index.php.
Many of you will be familiar with discussion forums on other topics, but this one will have a few atypical characteristics. Others may not have participated in on-line forums before. So allow me to point out some of our new forums’ features:
EASST Review Forums will be limited to EASST members, at least for now. Others may read, but only EASST members may post. Consider active forum access a privilege of membership. With nearly 1000 members, we should nevertheless be able to achieve a lively level of discussions, at least as lively as I will be able to keep up with as (so far) sole moderator. One consequence of this decision is that there will be some time lag between signing up for forum membership and being confirmed as a member and allowed to post on the forum. When you sign up, and email is automatically sent to me. I check the membership list and then confirm your forum membership. Until I have clicked the confirm button, you will be able to read the forum but not post there.
As moderator, it will also be my duty to keep the forums on topic, tidily searchable, and civil. I request that, unlike most forums where members protect their anonymity behind an alias, members appear here as they do at annual meetings, wearing their full name on their tag. You may, however, keep your email address hidden. This helps protect against spreading your address to spammers, while forum members can still send you personal messages via the forum web site without using your email address. I also request that you maintain a civil tone. The friendliness of EASST conferences is one of our most appealing features as a community. Sure, we study fascinating topics. But new members stay with us in preference to other equally fascinating conferences because we are so welcoming and have such constructive discussions, lively and critical but not offensive or mean-minded. So let’s keep it that way.
Eventually, spammers and hecklers will probably find their way onto the forum. It is my job as moderator to delete such posts. Other on-line forums I know have an “alert button” on every post. If you find a post offensive (“spam” or “flaming” or otherwise inappropriate), you click on the button and a message is sent to the moderators. Unfortunately, the software we’re using as of now (free and open source software, by the way) does not have an alarm button feature. Instead, you will have to email me. Let’s hope that is not often necessary. I will also try to check the forums daily, skimming through new posts as part of that visit.
EASST Review Forums will consist of two main sections. The first section will have threads corresponding to the substantive pieces in EASST Review, issue by issue and article by article. Each such thread will have a “taster” paragraph from the published item and a URL link to the full text on the EASST web site. Similarly, readers of EASST Review on line on the EASST web site will be able to click their way to the corresponding discussion area at the forums. Come on over, explore, and add some comments. The second section is open for members to start whatever threads they wish. Want to recruit reviewers for your latest book? Or want to announce yourself as a willing book reviewer? I’ve started a thread for book and reviewer “match-making”. Want to develop a session topic for an upcoming meeting? You can send out a mass-emailed call for papers; you can contact colleagues you already know; and/or, you can start a thread on EASST Review Forums. Or how about a student section where members can raise issues about students’ working conditions and form cross-national student alliances? Maybe we could start a Game Room thread and put the cover illustration guessing game in there (This issue I’ve revealed the name of the object on last issue’s cover, but a challenge remains: What can “monodisperse particles” be used for?). “Thread drifts” that wander off topic and become simply sociable? They’re welcome too. Why not open up EASST Virtual Café as a place for just such communications? As long as posts stay civil, your friendly moderator will leave them undisturbed … and maybe join in.
In time, perhaps EASST Review Forums may develop into an on-line, open review journal. But let’s just take it one step at a time. Going fully reviewed would take a lot more planning and organizing, including negotiations with the fields’ existing journals to find ways of co-existing or even collaborating. And it would take more than one unpaid, overworked, volunteer moderator. So for now, let’s just see if EASST Review Forums can successfully supplement the existing Review format as our virtual meeting between meetings.
Want to discuss the forum plans? Go to: http://www1.svt.ntnu.no/forum/easst/viewtopic.php?t=34 Meanwhile … expect another issue of EASST Review before Summer. We should be able to indlude glimpses of the August meeting program, hopefully in good time to remind you all to register.
In the future, every word will have its 15 months of fame. This year I suspected that famous word would have something to do with the prefix trans-. A quick search through the abstracts from the 4S annual meeting in Montreal revealed 497 instances of trans*. Transfer, transnational, transform, translate, transdiciplinary, transgression, transmission, transition and last but not least: Transparency.
Especially this latter caught my attention. Though not the most frequent in the abstracts (24 instances in 15 abstracts), definitely one of wide usage and rather beautiful effect: Transparency is good. Transparency is democratic. But nobody really says what it is; it is taken for granted. Big mistake. Transparency is something entirely different from visibility, and I will argue that the concept of transparency, its etymological meanings, its epistemic meanings and its practice in itself may be a useful analysis of governmentality. This is in other words not a science article, it is merely a sound suggestion, playing with words, something I think might work. I think ‘transparency’ is a word that carries in it many of the anomalies, disturbances and misleadings of neoliberal arts of governing, and in the following I will try to share this idea.
My initial thought, after realizing there was something suspect about the legitimizing effect of this notion of transparency, is that transparency should be thought of as a peep hole. Through the peep hole in your entrance door, you seem to see the hall outside. As we all know, that is not entirely true, we see a severely deformed, circular vision of the hallway. What we actually see, is the optic in the peep hole. That vision, the peep hole, is dependent on and transformed by the hall outside, just as the peep hole is transformed and depending on the hallway in a mechanical way. The hall is what makes it a peep hole, and it’s only the peep hole we see.
The second thought was that if we do not know the other side of the door, the vision in the peep hole is all we know, which means that it becomes invisible. This is how H.G. Well’s invisible man did his trick:
“You make the glass invisible by putting it into a liquid of nearly the same refractive index; a transparent thing becomes invisible if it is put in any medium of almost the same refractive index. And if you will consider only a second, you will see also that the powder of glass might be made vanish in air, if its refractive index could be made the same as that of air, for then there would be no refraction or reflection as the light passed from glass to air.” “Yes, yes,” said Kemp. “But a man’s not powdered glass!” The invisible man, p. 65. H G Wells
From these two ways of visualising transparency, we get a glimpse of why this thing works out so brilliantly in rhetoric. A mechanism possibly hiding in clear view, and the more it is observed as the same as its object, the more it becomes invisible. Hopefully, some ideas start popping up now, but the more we dig into this word in itself, the more we find. So allow me to do a tour of etymology first.
Trans-, as a general prefix is loaded with vagueness and contradiction, which follows from its etymology: The Latin origin is translated as either “across”, “beyond” or “on the opposite side [of]”. It is probably more accurate to define the prefix as the opposite of cis, meaning “on the same side [of]”.
Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary provides the following four meanings in contemporary use: 1. Across, beyond, through, on the other side of. 2. Through and through, completely changing. 3. Surpassing, transcending, beyond 4. Transversely, being across
Meanings and things are lost and paraphrased in trans-lation, but in this case the ambiguity was there from before: The word does not have a direction, it is referring to the other side, but does not tell us whether it is about something on the other side (trans mare esse) or something lying on the boundary to the other side or something moving across to the other side (trans mare asportare).
-parency is probably even more fun. This is derived from the present participle of pareo which literally means displaying (for the eye). But this is loaded with double meanings: It means (a) serving, following (b) obeying (c) being subject to (d) taking into account, being guided by (e) being clear, impersonal, proved. Of course, this is the same word from which we trace parenting. As we see, there is a little insight in the multiple meanings: Making oneself visible, is to make oneself subject to and take into account, sometimes it is even to obey.
Now, if we turn to the word transparency in itself, things are somewhat simplified. If we look at Webster’s definition of transparency, it is simply the passing of light with clear view of objects beyond. It reflects simplicity, clearness. Figuratively: easy to understand, hence without guile. Frank. As opposed to something translucent, that allows the passage of light, but without clear view of shape and colour.
All of this brings back the thought of the peep hole. It gives a clear view of shape and colour, but it’s a matter of interpretation if what we find ourselves regarding is across, is beyond, is transverse, or is on the other side. In any case, it is reflective of something on the other side, and it is not misleading, in that the reflection is automatic, optical or mechanical. Still, we do not see the hallway. It is still on the other side. Still I’m of course only playing with words. I promised to look at the social meanings of this word, and I’ll do it the real easy way: For once I’ll look to Wikipedia for an overview of practical usages of this concept.
First, from philosophy: Transparency is a property of epistemic states defined as follows: An epistemic state E is weakly transparent to a subject S if and only if when S is in state E, S can know that S is in state E; An epistemic state E is strongly transparent to a subject S if and only if when S is in state E, S can know that S is in state E, AND when S is not in state E, S can know S is not in state E. Pain is usually considered to be strongly transparent: when someone is in pain, he knows immediately that he is in pain, and if he is not in pain, he will know he is not.
In economy: A market is transparent if much is known about (a) what products, services or capital assets are available, (b) what price and (c) where. This is regarded as important, as it is one of the theoretical conditions required for a free market to be efficient. This can also result in the removal of service chains and middlemen. This is seen as a branch of the usage in humanities: The implication of openness, communication and accountability. It is described as a metaphorical extension of the meaning used in the physical sciences: a “transparent” object is one that can be seen through. Transparency is introduced as a means of holding public officials accountable and fighting corruption.
The succession of these descriptions and usages is not coincidental, because there is a flow of meaning here. Moving from its etymology of uncertain direction and status, it turns in philosophy into an epistemic state in which you know or know not (however, you do not necessarily know whether the dichotomy is the proper one). In economy it is not only an epistemic state, it is a state with a value, it is a precondition for a free market. In what is broadly labelled humanities, it is described even as a normative feature. This is probably also the kind of use we often find again in STS abstracts. One small step for writers, a giant leap for a word.
So isn’t it okay to define it the way we want to? No, not if we trace our way back. A normative feature has been added to something that is merely a state. This state is defined through the ambiguous description of something on the other side or across making (itself) visible. Who makes visible? Who takes into account? Who is made subject, what makes subjects subject? We do not know.
Where I’m heading is that whenever there is a rhetoric of transparency, there might be sound reasons to look for governmentality. Usually, it seems to reflect processes of auditing, accounting and testing that provides clear and indubitable results for all to see. However, as with the peep hole, we can argue that it is only the accounting we see. We do not see the organization or phenomenon or whatever it is we wish to reveal. Hopefully, what is seen in the accounting is dependant on the reality of the organization in a more or less mechanical way, but is still on the other side. We see only the peep hole.
Turning this around, many organizations will have a need for objective information about their own enterprise, searching out waste and corruption. This is very much comparable to walking around the inside door and having a look in the peep hole to see what is there. It can be quite useful. And then, to take the picture even further, the really cautious person wouldn’t be happy only knowing what is to be seen, but to find what is not seen: Are there any corners where bogeymen could hide from my peep hole? I’ll draw a conclusion before this imagi(ni)ng gets ut of hand. Transparency means more than fighting corruption. It also means making someone subject. Furthermore, the notion in itself is without agency, and so it hides agency, leaving it for us to find. Finally, and conveniently, the etymology of the word serves as a wonderful source of imaging, illustration and fabulation.
To discuss this article, go to http://www1.svt.ntnu.no/forum/easst/viewtopic.php?t=31
Report on the workshop at the Free University of Berlin, September 17-18, 2007.
Clubhaus of the Freie Universität Berlin, Goethestr. 49, 14163 Berlin-Dahlem.
Sponsored by the Volkswagen Foundation.
The concept of path dependency and the associated notion of path creation are attracting more and more researchers across different fields of study. This is particularly true regarding the analysis of developing complex technologies. Against this background, Jörg Sydow (Free University of Berlin) and Arnold Windeler (Berlin University of Technology) invited researchers to a workshop to look for a comparison of concepts that help us to understand processes of developing complex technology and to compare empirical results on these very processes across different industries. This workshop was planned together with Raghu Garud (Pennsylvania State University), Peter Karnoe (Copenhagen Business School) and Arie Rip (University of Twente), around the research project “Path Creating Networks: Innovating Next Generation Lithography in Germany and the U.S.” that is sponsored by the Volkswagen Foundation. The workshop was divided into three sessions and concluded with a discussion reflecting on the central conceptual issues and empirical questions of the workshop.
Arnold Windeler made his introductory statements on concepts of paths, the theory of path dependence, and the understanding of path creation, and outlined some general questions research on paths is facing. In particular, he stressed the necessity for clarity on the concept of path used in path research and on the understanding of how paths are constituted in time-space. Jörg Sydow then took over and presented a list of ten industry properties to focus on, including, for instance, actor constellations and value chains in the industry, the role of interorganizational networks as a form of innovation governance, emergent versus mature industries, the role of technological path dependencies, and emergent versus mindful path constitution.
The first session was chaired by Arie Rip and focused to a large extent on nanotechnology. All presenters stressed that nanotechnology is a domain that lacks coherence. Krsto Pandza (Leeds University) reported on an empirical study of three organizations in the context of nanotechnology and attempted to conceptualize the innovation dynamics in these firms through characteristic knowledge structures. After this, Arie Rip and Douglas Robinson (University of Twente) presented a paper about the multi-emergence and stabilisation of paths of nano¬tech¬nology in different industries/sectors. Conceptually, they conceived the emergence of paths as the outcomes of evolving socio-technical entanglements, which become aligned across levels. Furthermore, they stressed the need to enlarge the notion of industry structure and include different kinds of societal actors, since they play an important role in the shaping of paths. In addition, they specified several mechanisms of entanglement. In the discussion, the concept of entanglement caused some controversy regarding its usefulness and its relation to path creation. In the third presentation on nanotechnology, Tyler Wry (University of Alberta) examined the sources of intellectual property development in the carbon nanotube (CNT) field – one of the most developed areas of nanotechnology. He demonstrated that CNT patent creation is shaped importantly by patent categories and their position in the overall knowledge structure of the carbon nanotube field. However, the process by which patent categories are created and what they mean in consequence remained unclear and there were several suggestions to explore patent-related processes with qualitative research as well. Finally, Ulrich Dolata (University of Bremen) introduced an analytic framework for studying and explaining technology-driven sectoral change and applied this to the pharmaceutical and the automobile industry, among others. The concept was based on the two interrelated influencing factors of the transformative capacity of new technologies and their sectoral adaptability; their interplay leads to distinguishable modes of transformation. A low sectoral adaptability can lead to lock-ins and path dependence, as happened in the case of the German pharmaceutical industry, which refused to consider research in biotechnology for a long time. In the discussion, the concept of sectoral adaptability was questioned as being too passive, ignoring the creativity of actors. In addition, the integration of power into the framework was suggested.
The second session was chaired by Knut Lange (Free University of Berlin) and included two presentations. Andrew Nelson (Stanford University) analyzed the diffusion of university- versus firm-origin innovations for biotechnology and digital-audio. He came to the conclusion that a technology’s organizational origin alone offers little insight into institutionally-conditioned diffusion processes. He argued that interpersonal networks are the critical structures that enable the diffusion of knowledge and that personal connections shape how individual researchers in each organizational context respond to the competing demands of public science and private science. In the discussion, several participants, though acknowledging the decreasing importance of the distinction between public and private research, questioned the assumption that the organizational background does not matter per se, since the prestige of a university is most likely to influence the access to interpersonal networks, for example. Subsequently, Peter Karnoe demonstrated for wind energy and the Danish energy system how different types of non-coordinated action led to the unlocking of a locked-in techno-economic regime and its associated market architectures from a path creation perspective. A key issue in the discussion was which mechanisms connect initially non-coordinated actors. Furthermore, the point was raised that a combination of external and internal attacks on a locked-in techno-economic regime could have the best chances of success.
The third session was chaired by Guido Möllering (Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne) and focused on the semiconductor industry. First, Dimitris Assimakopoulos (Grenoble Ecole de Management and LINC Lab) used social network analysis for the study of inter-personal networked innovation in new product development in a large multi-national semiconductor company. Workshop participants suggested complementing the data with qualitative interviews and a longitudinal analysis in order to explore path dependencies. Second, Cornelius Schubert (Berlin University of Technology), Arnold Windeler and Jörg Sydow analysed the product specifics and industry particularities in the field of semiconductor manufacturing technology, their effect on managing technological paths and how the management of this process in turn influences the development of the products and the industry. Key issues in the discussion were how to capture and measure momentum and irreversibility as well as the difference between path constitution and institutionalisation. Finally, Markus Türtscher (University of St. Gallen) and Raghu Garud explored the processes associated with the emergence of an architecture for an extremely complex technological system and thereby focused on the early phase of design. They showed the emergence of technological and organizational paths as different groups and technologies involved in the process interacted with one another.
The workshop ended with a general discussion on technological innovation in different industries, with Raghu Garud as a discussant. He started the session with the following questions: What is a path? Is there any value in using the term path? What is the relationship between path dependence and path creation? What do we do with all these idiosyncratic cases? How should we generalize? Answers to the questions were that by contrast to the notion of network, for example, which is static, the notion of a path has the advantage that it has a temporal dimension and implications of agency. Since networks bring individuals and collectives together, which is almost always a precondition of any path creation, an integration of path and network was suggested. One proposed conception of a path was a specific kind of order producing processes. Furthermore, two concepts of paths were juxtaposed: a ‘realistic’ view and a social-constructio¬nist view. A further comment was that path creation is an oxymoron, because it generates contradiction: how can there be a path if it is being created? What is more, the question was raised whether path creation is only useful in hindsight, in real time, or if it is a concept for future projections and anticipative coordination. In addition, several concepts that are useful in relation to paths were debated, including time, entanglements and the process by which things become intertwined, reflexivity and mindfulness, anticipatory coordination, technological communities or structuration, as well as useful approaches such as narratives, social networks and actor-network theory, and structuration theory. Finally, workshop participants agreed on the necessity to highlight the ambivalence of technological paths, pointing to threats as well as opportunities, and raised further points for future research such as which different kinds of paths exist, what kinds of implications they have, and how to create “better” paths.
For more information on research on path dependency and path creation please visit http://www.pfadkolleg.de and http://www.network-research.net.
To discuss this article go to http://www1.svt.ntnu.no/forum/easst/viewtopic.php?t=33