IEA DSM Task 24 workshop Domestication of technologies in every day life

Domestication of technologies in every day lifeMargrethe Aune, Dep. of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, Center for Technology and Society, NTNU

07/22/13 2013 IEA workshop, NTNU, Trondheim

Outline of the talk

• Why domestication? Background• What is domestication?• Experiences and examples of

domestication • Why domestication? Some good reasons

07/22/13 2013 IEA workshop, NTNU, Trondheim

Why domestication? Innovation and the effects of technology

• Studies of innovation:– Innovation as a linear process from laboratory to

marked products diffuse into the market

• Studies of effects on technology in society– Technological optimism or pessimism determinism

07/22/13 2013 IEA workshop, NTNU, Trondheim

Innovation domestication• Problem:

– Deterministic approaches Technology has effects, technology causes social change

– Diffusion approaches Technology used as intended or rejected

• No focus on processes in the market. What happens when technology meets the user? – Processes of cultural integration?– Processes of “social innovation”?

07/22/13 2013 IEA workshop, NTNU, Trondheim

What is domestication? Cultural integration + social innovation• Domestication was tried out as a concept

to capture these processes– User focus, process focus, non-deterministic

• Allows a much more detailed analysis of the interaction between humans and technologies

07/22/13 2013 IEA workshop, NTNU, Trondheim

Main inspiration for ”STS-Trondheim” (1992): •Media studies

– Domestication in relation to the ”moral economy of the household” (Silverstone et al, Haddon)

•Science and Technology Studies– Script and program/anti-program, the consumption junction

(Akrich, Latour, Cowan)•Studies of consumption

– Consumption as active and creative behaviour/ symbolic focus (McCracken, Featherstone)

07/22/13 2013 IEA workshop, NTNU, Trondheim

• Domestication captures the processes of ”taming” of technologies in households integration of action and meaning

• Implies mutual shaping processes technology constructs everyday life and everyday life constructs technology

07/22/13 2013 IEA workshop, NTNU, Trondheim

The STS-Trondheim approach

• Domestication can be analysed through three dimensions (Lie and Sørensen 1996, Sørensen et al. 2000): – Practical; The construction of a set of practices related to an

artifact – Symbolic; The construction of meaning of the artifact– Cognitive; Practices related to learning of practice as well as

meaning

• Generic set of features – not only related to the household 07/22/13 2013 IEA workshop, NTNU, Trondheim

My Norweigan example I• 2001: Implementing Ebox - an energy controlling

technology• My focus:

• User pattern

• Motivation

• Design

• Learning

• Energy saving results

07/22/13 2013 IEA workshop, NTNU, Trondheim

Ebox

• “Domestication” strategies user categories– “the enthusiast”

– “the sceptic”– “the democratic participant”

• Flexible (i.e. non-standardized and varying) understanding of technologies

07/22/13 2013 IEA workshop, NTNU, Trondheim

Example II1998: Energy use and everyday life • An analysis of everyday life and energy use in

Norwegian households• Here domestication was used on a different level

– I did not analyze the domestication of specific technologies (tools), but used domestication as a perspective: a non-deterministic process analysis of practice and meaning

07/22/13 2013 IEA workshop, NTNU, Trondheim

Results

• On the basis of information about everyday life routines, discussion about energy and enviromental issues, technological equipment and use, and dwelling type, size and standard, I constructed categories of users which I called ”energy cultures”:

07/22/13 2013 IEA workshop, NTNU, Trondheim

Energy cultures• “the self-indulgent” (do not reflect on energy consumption at

all)

• “the soberly indulgent” (no specific awareness for energy but low consumption rates because of socio-economic position)

• “the hesitant environmentalists” (or “the shameful indulgent”, energy-aware but not consuming less energy than the self-indulgent)

• “the environmentalists” (who may not put energy very high on their green agenda)

07/22/13 2013 IEA workshop, NTNU, Trondheim

And:• Variations in home construction:

– The home as heaven– The home as project– The home as arena for activity

Why?• Provides a more complex picture of private energy use

(than ”households as economic units” or ”tecnological fixes”)

• Variation in policy instruments towards households…hopefully.

07/22/13 2013 IEA workshop, NTNU, Trondheim

Why domestication? Some good reasons: • Technology as part of the analysis and not only as a

frame of social action:– Focus on the practical as well as symbolic dimension of

technology possibilities of change – Technological design empirically ”tested” possibilities of

change– Process focus – user patterns ”in the making” possibilities

of change– Learning strategies possibilities of change

07/22/13 2013 IEA workshop, NTNU, Trondheim

Domestication and sustainability:

• Technological innovation will be part of the solution towards sustainable lifestyles, but there is no such thing as a technoloical fix – We need to involve users in the development of technologies –

they should be easy to operate, have a appealing design and if necessary carry a sustainable message

• Studies of domestication can provide useful knowledge into such processes

07/22/13 2013 IEA workshop, NTNU, Trondheim