No abstract

a b s t r a c tAgainst the backdrop of the transformation of the German energy system, a new dynamic is emerging between the previously separate economic fields of renewable energy systems, transportation, and information and communication technologies (ICT). The trend towards digitalization and interconnectivity is prompting the formation of new corporate alliances and business ideas. We argue that the increasing interactions between actors in these sectors are evidence of the emergence of a new intersectoral field. Building on concepts from neoinstitutionalism, particularly, the framework of strategic action fields (SAF), we examine the overlaps and dynamics that are arising in an exemplar of what policy makers and planners often refer to as "living labs." With help of this case study we observe the cross-field innovation activities taking place at a particular local site. Our empirical examination draws upon a four-year-long ethnography of an innovation campus in Berlin, the German capital. This case reveals the development of interdependent interests and collaborations between both different industries and between companies and academic institutions. These interconnections are built, in part, by socially skilled actors, who act as border crossers between established fields.

The electrification of transportation in Germany has failed so far, but the disappointment has given way to more radical visions and new coalitions. Utilities, grid operators, and ICT companies have started to challenge the traditional image of the car. In their future scenarios, transportation, energy, and communication infrastructures must be aligned in order to achieve a sustainable society. This paper explores the co-production and enactment of this technological vision using the analytical framework of sociotechnical imaginaries. First, I describe how the idea of the electric vehicle as energy infrastructure was able to take hold within the German expert community. To understand how this approach might transform the existing mobility and energy practices, I examine two of the first R&D experiments that have enacted this vision in two radically different ways. Both reflect unarticulated assumptions about social life, including implicit cultural notions of selfdetermination, ownership, living arrangements, privacy, and control.

Today, social engineering techniques are the most common way of committing cybercrimes through the intrusion and infection of computer systems. Cybersecurity experts use the term “social engineering” to highlight the “human factor” in digitized systems, as social engineering attacks aim at manipulating people to reveal sensitive information. In this paper, we explore how discursive framings of individual versus collective security by cybersecurity experts redefine roles and responsibilities at the digitalized workplace. We will first show how the rhetorical figure of the deficient user is constructed vis-à-vis notions of (in)security in social engineering discourses. Second, we will investigate the normative tensions that these practices create. To do so, we link work in science and technology studies on the politics of deficit construction to recent work in critical security studies on securitization and resilience. Empirically, our analysis builds on a multi-sited conference ethnography during three cybersecurity conferences as well as an extensive document analysis. Our findings suggest a redistribution of institutional responsibility to the individual user through three distinct social engineering story lines—“the oblivious employee,” “speaking code and social,” and “fixing human flaws.” Finally, we propose to open up the discourse on social engineering and its inscribed politics of deficit construction and securitization and advocate for companies and policy makers to establish and foster a culture of collective cyber in/security and corporate responsibility.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract