Ankle-brachial index measurement: Skill cannot be taken for granted Comment on Chaudru et al, p. 37 - 41 and Monti et al, p. 43 - 48

Sharing economy as an anti-concept

“…Far from clarifying the boundaries among these categories, the text instead makes explicit the classificatory, descriptive, and acritically enthusiastic approach of the prophets of the sharing economy who, behind phrases such as "sharing is cool" rarely mention the problems associated with the model of neoliberal development of which the socalled sharing economy is an expression. There is, however, an ideological endeavour to present the phenomenon in light of its positive economic and social implications, rather than a merely technological view of platforms as "economictechnological coordination providers" [11] that enable the online interaction of communities engaged in the search for and supply of goods and services. The sharing economy thus functions as a positive version of "moral panic" because, by overturning the definition of the latter [12], it gives rise to a process of arousing social enthusiasm over the issue.…”

“…In this regard there are more drastic categorisations -such as that by Hamari, et al (2016) Although the classificatory and descriptive approaches contain criticisms of the vagueness of the notion of sharing economy, they do not fully address the main issue: the inconsistency of this label, and the consequent need to renounce its use, through a break with common sense and escape from the cultural consequences that the use of the label entails for academic reflection.…”

Infrastructuring AI: The stabilization of 'artificial intelligence' in and beyond national AI strategies

“…Acknowledging the material power of discursive practices in shaping socio-technical developments builds on existing theories of socio-technical imaginaries (Jasanoff and Kim, 2009) and promissory work (Pollock and Williams, 2010). However, instead of examining how discourse creates a performative 'expectation' or 'imaginary' which leads to the construction of a particular material reality, the concept of discursive infrastructuring foregrounds the role of discourse as a constitutive element of sociotechnical infrastructures -discourses can function as "operationalizations of sociotechnical imaginaries" [12]. Centring the processual elements of infrastructuring, furthermore, offers an opportunity to elucidate the specific discursive practices which work to stabilise socio-technical assemblages.…”

“…Although socio-technical infrastructures are typically transparent -i.e., they invisibly support other tasks -"a number of significant political, ethical and social choices have without doubt been folded into [their] development" [2]. This embedding of political, ethical, and social choices cannot only be observed in places where infrastructure is physically built or used, as has typically been the STS approach to studying infrastructure (e.g., Pipek and Wulf, 2009;Ribes and Finholt, 2009;Karasti and Blomberg, 2018;Edwards, 2019), but also through the textual, or discursive, production of infrastructure (Aspria, et al, 2016). Examining the discursive strategies through which AI is infrastructured thus generates opportunities to consider how specific sociotechnical assemblages are constructed, and how they might be deconstructed and reshaped to support alternative ideological ends (Aspria, et al, 2016).…”

“…This embedding of political, ethical, and social choices cannot only be observed in places where infrastructure is physically built or used, as has typically been the STS approach to studying infrastructure (e.g., Pipek and Wulf, 2009;Ribes and Finholt, 2009;Karasti and Blomberg, 2018;Edwards, 2019), but also through the textual, or discursive, production of infrastructure (Aspria, et al, 2016). Examining the discursive strategies through which AI is infrastructured thus generates opportunities to consider how specific sociotechnical assemblages are constructed, and how they might be deconstructed and reshaped to support alternative ideological ends (Aspria, et al, 2016). This paper begins by discussing prior research relating to AI policy, explaining how the approach outlined in this paper differs from previous work on the topic (Section 2).…”