Andrei Korbut

Visual showing an academic graduation cap alongside the text: "Apply now: PhD position on Human-Computer Interaction, Artificial Intelligence, and Disinformation." The image highlights the application deadline: March 1, 2026

#PleaseShare PhD position on Human-Computer Interaction, AI, and Disinformation: Develop AI tools for fact-checking & media literacy, tackle disinformation & create open science resources
Start: April 1, 2026. Deadline March 1, 2026
👉 stellenangebote.cais-research.de/de?id=0bb246
@hheuer.bsky.social

Drivers change, traffic (as produced here and now) stays.

In "The Elementary Forms of Religious Life", Durkheim said: "...for although the group is not immortal in the absolute sense of the word, yet it is true that the group lasts above and beyond the individuals..." It nicely fits EM's idea of the cohort-independence of the phenomena of order.

I was always telling my students that the concept of "immortal ordinary society" is taken (misread) by Garfinkel from Emile Durkheim.

drive.google.com/file/d/1u04h...

On the Certain Blindness of the Excavators of Ethnomethodology’s “Heart” Kind of review of: Graham Button. Harvey Sacks and Ethnomethodology: The Prospect of an Alternate and Adequate Sociology. London: Routledge. 232 p. ISBN 9781041112877

There are proper book reviews, there are rogue book reviews, and there are hooligan preudo-book-reviews. I've done the last one for "Harvey Sacks and Ethnomethodology" by Graham Button. My verdict: don't read it. #EMCA

www.academia.edu/145024268/On...

Visual with the text: Apply now: Professorship “Digital Transformation in Work and Society” Open Rank W2 tenured or W1 with W2 tenure track And the note that the deadline ends on December 24, 2025

#OpenPosition #Professorship #DigitalTransformation
🚀 TU Dortmund & CAIS invite applications for a Professorship “Digital Transformation in Work & Society” (W2/W1 Tenure Track)
🔗 More information here: www.cais-research.de/en/stellenan...
📅 Apply by 24 Dec 2025

@tu-dortmund.de

The journalist is very optimistic and essentially buys into the computer guys' narratives, while the sociologist is deeply critical and focuses on the social consequences and social organisation of the computer guys' routines. Again, very much like nowadays.

Another striking thing is that the book is written by a journalist and a sociologist, and it is easy to tell which parts were written by whom.

Just replace "semiconductor chips" with "AI" and you will get the picture very similar to today's.

There is something oracular about the first ethnographies of Silicon Valley. Or, in academic slang, they show how strong is the institutional inertia. Take, for example, "Silicon Valley Fever: Growth of High-Technology Culture" (1984) by Everett M. Rogers and Judith K. Larsen.

Cover of "Silicon Valley Fever: Growth of High-Technology Culture" (1984) by Everett M. Rogers and Judith K. Larsen

“Imaginaries” is a strong competitor.

Can we call them ethnomethodologists? :)

“And so USDS did some really great discovery. A lot of conversations with vets, took some video of problems that vets were having. And that actually ended up spurring a real desire to improve the experience for veterans in the United States.”

“... it was discovered that the PDF didn’t even work with all versions of Acrobat. Like veterans would try to go to their library to fill out the form and the computer at the library couldn’t even render the form so they could fill it out.

“They had a lot of issues very early on with people trying to apply for benefits. For example, vets couldn’t get the services that they need and the benefits that they were owed because a lot of the forms that they had to fill out were PDF.

The example is the Veterans Administration. The Milo from USDS tells the story.

The Kate Green from USDS says: “[T]he work would start with something called a discovery sprint, which is when you send in a group of people to learn what the nature of the problem is, make recommendations for how to approach it, to really just get a sense.”

It’s interesting because the description of their work is sometimes reminiscent of what ethnomethodologists do.

In the latest episode of the podcast "Tech Won’t Save Us" (
@techwontsave.us), hosted by Paris Marx (@parismarx.com), there’s a very interesting discussion about the work of the US Digital Service, which was recently disbanded by Elon Musk’s DOGE.

Of course, A_STS, T_STS and S_STS are only ideal types, with many scholars mixing them in their published work, but they are quite easily distinguished in texts and presentations.

(3) And finally, the third: Scholastic STS (S_STS). This is the most common type of STS, and most figures in the field do it. It can be distinguished by references to "assemblages", "sociotechnical imaginaries", "technoscience", etc.

(2) The second is Technocratic STS (T_STS). They talk and write mostly about "governance frameworks", "public perception", "diffusion of innovations", etc. T_STSers often become advisors or members of various political institutions and movements.

(1) The first is Artistic STS (A_STS). Its main feature is the massive use of metaphors, like "leakage", "sensorvault subject", "speculative fabulation", etc. The most prominent subfield of Artistic STS is Feminist STS. A_STS is very open to non-academics (especially artists).

After attending a few STS events recently, I've come up with the theory of three types of STS, with different writing styles.