Giving meaning to a RFID or cochlear implant: Technology ... (2013) Givin… · Giving meaning to a RFID or cochlear implant: Technology as tool, ... In the future, RFID implants

Giving meaning to a RFID or cochlear implant:

Technology as tool, the normal self, and the enhanced self

Sandra Wagemakers

[email protected]; 355628

Research Master Sociology of Culture, Media and the Arts; Erasmus School of History, Culture and

Communication; Erasmus University Rotterdam

Prof dr. Liesbet van Zoonen Dr. Marc Verboord

Supervisor Second Reader

20 June 2013

9.992 words

Abstract

RFID implants are controversial for their potential use in society. However, as the social shaping of

technology predicts, technology itself is not inherently good or bad; it is important how the technology is

used. Through an ongoing process of giving meaning to a technology, people incorporate a technology into

their lives and in this sense ‘domesticate’ it. Using semi-structured interviews with people with a cochlear

implant (CI) and do-it-yourselfers with a RFID implant, this study sheds light on the meaning individuals

give to their implants. Three repertoires were found among my respondents: technology as a tool, the

normal self, and the enhanced self. CI-users perceive the implant as a tool to be able to hear and

participate in society. This study shows that the CI-users desire a body that functions as it normally should

because they want to participate in society. The CI is a means to achieve this normalization and the fact

that it is implanted rather than attached to the body is generally of minor concern. The RFID tagged

persons can also perceive their implant as a tool, but attach different meanings to it. Whereas the CI-users

want to blend in society, some RFID implantees use their implant to stand out. Some RFID implantees

perceive themselves as upgraded and welcome a tighter integration of technology and their bodies.

Moreover, believing in an enhanced self corresponds with wanting to modify the human body to improve

the body’s capacity. This shows that desiring human enhancement is not only about the exact details of the

enhancement, but also about the mere fact of being enhanced.

Keywords

Implants, Radio-frequency identification, enhancement technology, Domestication, Social shaping of

technology

International peer-reviewed journals

The information society, Information, communication & society, Social science computer review, Social

studies of science

Wagemakers

1

Human implants are small electronic devices that are implanted under the skin. These

implants can have medical functions, enhancement capabilities, or identification

purposes. In this thesis, I focus on two types of implant: a Radio Frequency Identification

(RFID) identification implant and a cochlear implant for hearing improvement. RFID

implants are passive chips, identifiable by a reader from short distances, without the

ability to send out signals (Aubert, 2011). RFID implants can serve diverse purposes. In

the healthcare industry, RFID tags can be linked to medical records. The VeriChip is the

size of a grain and transmits a unique 16-digit code that links to a medical database.

Biomedical chips communicating physiological changes such as glucose levels are under

development (Masters & Michael, 2007). Furthermore, an implanted RFID chip could

identify a person more securely than current methods. In the future, RFID implants

could replace passports. RFID tags are already used for access control, including the

opening of doors and cars (Masters & Michael, 2007). Volunteers in the Baja Beach club

in Rotterdam and Barcelona and Bar Soba in Glasgow got a chip implanted. These

implanted customers obtained VIP access and could make transactions with these chips

(Martin, 2005; Michael & Michael, 2010). Other (future) uses mentioned in the literature

include chipping offenders to make sure they are not violating their parole, implanting

children so parents can monitor them, and chipping people so in case someone is

kidnapped or missing, he or she can be found more easily (Anderson & Labay, 2006;

Gadzheva, 2007). While GPS tracking is frequently associated with RFID implants, this is

currently impossible (Aubert, 2011).

A cochlear implant (CI) is a device for people with severe hearing problems. An

electrode array is surgically implanted in the cochlea. After several weeks of healing, an

external processor is connected to the internal part. Typically, people cannot

immediately identify what they are hearing but need several months of revalidation to

recognize different sounds and to understand speech. For deaf people, who do not

consider deafness as a disease, but rather as a common marker of identity, CI represents

a threat to their community. If all children receive a CI, the existence of this minority

culture ceases to exist (Sparrow, 2005).

The implantation of RFID tags has also caused controversy. Those opposing RFID

implants have ethical concerns, consider it the prelude to an Orwellian nightmare, or

perceive implantation as a ‘Mark of the Beast’, in other words a token of the devil (e.g.

Gadzheva, 2007; Glasser, Goodman, & Einspruch, 2007; Michael, McNamee, & Michael,

Giving meaning to a RFID or cochlear implant

2

2006). Rather than continuing this trend of negativity and opposition, this research will

investigate individuals who have decided to get a RFID or cochlear implant in order to

investigate how these implantees perceive their implants. Particularly because of the

controversy in society of RFID implants and the limited research on implantees,

research is needed to shed light on implantees’ views. Examining these early adopters

leads to a better understanding of why people get themselves implanted and how

individuals have incorporated their implant into their daily lives. This research will

contribute to a better understanding of what technologies mean to people; thereby it

contributes to an understanding on how technologies may develop in the future. To do

this I will look at two types of implantees and compare them: Do-it-yourself (DIY)

implantees who use a RFID implant for access control and people with a cochlear

implant. This research is conducted from a social shaping of technology approach,

focusing in particular on the domestication of technology. Hence, I will focus on the

meaning individuals have given to their implant. First, I will look at the existing

literature on RFID implants and elaborate on the domestication perspective. After

explaining the research design, I will discuss three particular repertoires present among

respondents: technology as a tool, the normalized self, and the enhanced self. After

elaborating on three mini-biographies to give these repertoires more depth, I will

discuss the implications of these findings.

Implants

Thus far, little research has been done on the acceptance of human chipping. In a study

examining the willingness to be implanted for different purposes, Smith (2007) and

Perakslis and Wolk (2006) show that people are more willing to use medical implants or

implants for personal security than implants used by the authorities to combat

terrorism. Such outcomes suggest that implants are not problematic in themselves;

rather the issue is for which purpose implants are used (Niemeijer & Hertogh, 2008). In

addition, research demonstrates national and generational differences in attitudes

towards implants: people from India are more likely than people from the UK, USA, or

Australia to perceive an implant as a more secure technology for employee

identification. The millennial generation is more likely to consider RFID implants as a

more secure method than Generation X, which is, in its turn, more open towards it than

Baby Boomers (Perakslis & Michael, 2012).

Wagemakers

3

Michael and Michael (2010) describe the benefits the Baja Beach Club obtained

from implementing a system with RFID implants in an access control and epayment

setting. For their research, they interviewed the IT manager of the Baja beach club in

Barcelona and performed a content analysis on online documentation related to the

implants at the Baja Beach club. By using Rogers’ characteristics of an innovation that

affect the rate of diffusion of an innovation: relative advantage, compatibility,

complexity, trialability, and observability (cf. Rogers, 1962/2003), they show the

benefits the Baja Beach Club obtained from having these RFID implants.

In another article, Michael and Michael (2013) show how the voluntarily

implanted Gary Retherford, external consultant responsible for the implementation of

verichips at Citywatcher.com, contests concerns about implants. Retherford believes

that getting an implant should be based on rational choice; hence, he considers religion,

‘paranoia’, and other personal beliefs irrelevant. He argues that privacy can be partly

given up for increased security. Furthermore, he claims that other technologies (e.g.

biometrics and cell phones) have similar issues, but people concerned with implants

generally do not lobby against those technologies (Michael & Michael, 2013). Similarly,

implantee Graafstra contends that people should take their own responsibility and

research the advantages and disadvantages as well as the risks before inserting a chip

into one’s body. Privacy is irrelevant to DIY taggers because of the use on personal scale,

but medical safety is an important issue for DIY implantees (Graafstra, Michael, &

Michael, 2010).

According to Graafstra, who has contact with many (potential) implantees, most

DIY taggers have their implants for utilitarian reasons as it assist them in their daily

tasks such as unlocking doors. He is also approached occasionally by young (under-

aged) individuals who consider implants ‘cool’ and by body modders who want

something different (Graafstra, Michael, & Michael, 2010).

Concerns about RFID implants

Several concerns have been raised about RFID implants. While carcinogenic effects have

been associated with RFID implants, the exact medical risks of an implant are

indeterminate (Foster & Jaeger, 2008). Other medical issues include irritation under the

skin, migration of the implant, and the risk of getting the implant in non-medical settings

(Gadzheva, 2007). Some people fear for physical assault assuming that someone may

want to steal the chip (Trocchia & Ainscough, 2006).


4

Privacy and the security of the collected data also preoccupies people (Gadzheva,

2007; Glasser, Goodman, & Einspruch, 2007; Michael, McNamee, & Michael, 2006). Chips

used for identification purposes create privacy issues when people share their data and

thereby lose control of information (Perakslis & Wolk, 2006; Trocchia & Ainscough,

2006). Perakslis and Wolk (2006) state that half of their respondents “consider ‘privacy

concerns’ as the primary hesitation when considering biometrics and/or implanting a

chip” (p. 41).

Furthermore, it is argued that implants are dehumanizing; people will lose their

individuality and dignity because they are turned into numbers and are “branded like

cattle” (Gadzheva, 2007, p. 221). This dehumanizing critique is not exclusive to implants,

but relates to technology in general as technologies miss essential human characteristics

(Haslam, 2006). Some people worry that in the future people will be required to have an

implant, which these people see as a violation of human rights (Foster & Jaeger, 2008;

Gadzheva, 2007; Michael, McNamee, & Michael, 2006). Lastly, some Christians consider

the tag to be the ‘Mark of the Beast’ as described in the book of Revelation (Michael &

Michael, 2010).

Implants in this study

To date, most of the articles on RFID implants focus on ethical and privacy issues that

scholars raise themselves or find to be present among the public (e.g. Foster & Jaeger,

2008; Gadzheva, 2007; Glasser, Goodman, & Einspruch, 2007). Some quantitative

research examined the acceptance of different types of implants but remained largely

descriptive (e.g. Perakslis & Wolk, 2006; Smith, 2007). Qualitative case studies with a

sample of one examined the implementation of RFID implants (Graafstra, Michael, &

Michael, 2010; Michael & Michael, 2010; 2013).

Research on cochlear implants frequently focuses on the ‘effect’ the CI has on a

person’s life. Frequently, such studies focus on children. Scholars not only examine how

the CI improves people’s ability to hear speech, but also the difference a CI makes on

social life, for instance social participation (Punch & Hyde, 2011) and anxiety

(Theunissen et al., 2012). Additionally, scholars paid attention to the concern of Deaf

people losing their identity (e.g. Sparrow, 2005). Rarely has research focused on the

experience of the individuals and the incorporation of technology into one’s life.

Wheeler, Archbold, Gregory and Skipp (2007) form an exception to this by examining

how young individuals experience their CI. The young CI-users perceive their implant as

Wagemakers

5

essential and many do not perceive any disadvantages. The young individuals in this

study perceived themselves neither strongly hearing nor Deaf. They recognized their

internal deafness, as without CI, they would not be able to hear, but they were not

affiliated with Deaf culture (Wheeler et al, 2007). Since research is limited on the

incorporation of a technology, the case of CI represents a good case to compare with the

RFID tag.

It is important, noting society’s fears about RFID implants articulated above, to

understand how RFID implantees make sense of their implants. Therefore, to investigate

implantees in more detail, this research goes deeper into the meanings people assign to

the implants and how this technology becomes part of their everyday life and their

identity. A richer understanding is achieved by not merely looking at this technology in

isolation, but understanding its perspective within the larger scope of technologies.

Therefore, I will compare the case of RFID implants with the use of cochlear implant.

This comparison allows me to see the parallels with other technologies, but also to

understand in what ways RFID implantees differ.

Domestication of technology

When analyzing technologies, it is important to study them not just as objects, but also

to understand the meaning these artifacts generate. Technologies are not neutral

artifacts, but have interpretative flexibility. Consumers actively shape the technology

they use based on institutional, cultural, economical, and political factors. Both the social

and the technological are constantly interacting with each other resulting in some sort of

synergy (Williams & Edge, 1996).

Technology has no uniform meaning; users inscribe meaning onto these

products. Through an ongoing process of giving meaning to ICT, people incorporate a

technology into their lives and in this sense ‘domesticate’ it. This approach of the

domestication of technology literally refers to the ‘taming’ of a ‘wild’ technology into the

home. While a marketer may plan a product in a certain way, users give meaning and

significance to the technology (Haddon, 2006). The domestication approach uncovers

the process of becoming familiar with an object and understands what happens when

someone takes a technology ‘home’ and gives meaning to this particular object or

system (Berker, Hartmann, Punie, & Ward, 2006; Silverstone, Hirsch, & Morley, 1992).


6

The domestication approach tries to understand how people experience

technologies. It focuses on skills and practices that are learned and adopted, both the

construction of new practices and the compatibility of these technologies with practices,

skills and habits of the individual. Moreover, it analyzes the meaning that is generated

within this process, including its potential role in the creating of an identity for the

individual (Haddon, 2011; Sørensen, 2006). Thereby this approach exceeds motivations

or ‘use’ alone. It focuses on the context and the generated meanings; “what people are

trying to ‘do’ with their technology” (Haddon, 2011, p. 314). Rather than a linear process

or a one-off event, meaning making is an ongoing process. People can continually

reshape their produced meaning and their relationship with the technology (Hynes &

Rommes, 2006).

Method

In domestication research, it is important to understand data within its generated

context (Pichault, Durieux, & Silverstone, 2005). Qualitative data provides in-depth and

contextualized knowledge on the subjects. Before holding interviews, I asked Amal

Graafstra, a well-known implantee, to distribute an explorative questionnaire with

mainly open questions among RFID implantees. The questionnaire dealt with the use of

the implant, the implantation, and concerns about RFID implants. Ten respondents

completed and five respondents partly completed the questionnaire. Respondents

countered common concerns and misunderstandings about the RFID implant. The

survey showed not all respondents were only concerned with convenience; some

respondents indicated the reason to get a RFID implant was because it was ‘cool’ or the

person was on a ‘life mission of cybernetic transformation’.

After this explorative questionnaire, I conducted semi-structured interviews with

eight people with a RFID implant and thirteen people with a CI. I approached the

respondents from the survey who indicated they were interested in a follow-up

interview and people who indicated somewhere on the Internet they have a RFID

implant. I posted a message on a CI-forum and sent a message to a user who forwarded

it to other CI-users. Some of them forwarded it to more CI-users in their turn.

Consequently, I got responses from interested people with whom I conducted

interviews. Because of this sampling method, the CI respondents were generally positive

about their implant and happy to elaborate on it; their views may not be representative

Wagemakers

7

for CI-users who are less satisfied about their implant. All respondents with a RFID tag

were male. While my conversations with RFID implantees showed more males than

females were engaged in DIY-implantation, women are also involved. As women relate

differently to technology and their bodies (e.g. Throsby & Hodges, 2009), differences in

gender would be interesting to explore in future research.

Similar to what other researchers did or advocated (e.g. Hanna, 2012; Hine,

2008), participants chose the way the interview would be conducted (e.g. face-to-face, e-

mail). This empowered respondents and made them feel as comfortable as possible. In

some cases, it was practically impossible to have face-to-face interviews due to the

distance and some CI-users are unable to have phone or Skype conversations. In total

one phone interview, three Skype interviews, seven e-mail interviews, one synchronous

Table 1. Interviewees

Type Year implanted Country Interview

1 RFID Feb 2010 Sweden Synchronous text-based

1 RFID 2005 – ±2010 Australian Skype

1 RFID 2009/2010 USA Skype

1 RFID 2011 US citizen living in Poland Skype

2 RFID 2005 USA Phone

2 RFID 2010 USA e-mail

1 RFID 2012 USA e-mail

1 RFID 2010 UK e-mail

1 CI 2001 Netherlands e-mail




1 CI 2001 Netherlands Face-to-face







2 CI 2004 & 2008 Netherlands Face-to-face

2 CI 2010 & 2012 Netherlands Face-to-face


8

text-based interview, and nine face-to-face interviews were conducted, see table 1. All

CI-users were Dutch while the RFID implantees came from a variety of countries:

Australia, Sweden, USA, and UK. These diverse cultural backgrounds may contribute to

differences found, but I think the results are general enough to be applicable to different

cultural backgrounds. A comparison of the literature on enhancement technologies in

different countries shows that, in general, people are quite negative towards

enhancement technologies; this does not depend on the gender or country of the

respondents (Schuijff & Munnichs, 2012). The interviews with RFID implantees were

conducted in English and the interviews with CI-users were conducted in Dutch. I

translated the quotes from the Dutch interviews used in this article.

Rather than considering one type of interview to be superior to another, the

different types have their own merits. The e-mail interview, which is by nature

asynchronous, allowed the respondents, but also the interviewer, to be reflexive (James

& Busher, 2009). Whereas a researcher should always be reflexive during an interview,

having more time increased reflexivity. On the other hand, synchronous communication

gives rise to more spontaneous answers. Similar to James and Busher, I conducted the e-

mail interviews over a longer period. Every e-mail consisted of several questions. Asking

supplementary questions after receiving the answers created an ongoing dialogue.

Based on the domestication literature and the literature about concerns on RFID

implants, the following topics were elaborated upon in the interviews: getting familiar

with implants; reasons, advantages, and disadvantages; daily life; the body;

surroundings; and identity. The topic of human enhancements was originally not

included in the topic list, but naturally arose in all interviews with RFID implantees and

one CI-user. I therefore included this topic in the interviews despite its absence in the

initial interviews.

After conducting and transcribing the interviews, the answers were placed in a

data matrix. Relevant codes were assigned in the transcript using ATLAS.ti. The

grouping of these codes formed the basis of a thematic analysis. I constantly compared

the answers within their group and between the different groups. The observed themes

were for RFID users: combating common misunderstanding, convenience, being

upgraded/having a special skill, and the body as modifiable. For CI-users, the themes

included belonging to society, technology as a tool, and focus on its use rather than the

technological details of the implant. Based on this, I will elaborate on three repertoires

Wagemakers

9

in the next section: technology as a tool, the normal self, and the enhanced self. After

these reflections, I will provide three mini-biographies of two RFID implantees and one

CI-user to get a richer understanding of this everyday context.

Technology as a Tool

Both CI and RFID users talk about their implants as an instrumental tool. Before

implantation, the CI-users were either deaf or had severe problems with hearing. After

the activation of the internal elements with the external elements, some respondents

were able to distinguish sounds immediately. For others the revalidation process took

longer. The CI does not work as well as ‘normal ears’ and users continue to identify

themselves as hard of hearing. The respondents emphasize it is and remains an aid.

Moreover, results differ significantly between CI-users. While some still depend on lip-

reading, others completely rely on their CIs. Only one respondent, who had two CIs,

identified himself as hearing, while all other respondents still considered themselves

hard of hearing. However, even the ‘hearing’ respondent mentioned situations in which

he felt hearing-impaired.

Respondents chose a CI because hearing aids were not sufficient anymore. The CI

was their last possibility to hear again. The implantees perceive the CI as an aid, similar

to hearing aids, but technically more advanced. Respondents mention that sound is an

important aspect of life and when you are unable to hear, you have to pay a lot of

attention to your surroundings. This implant makes life, and hearing in particular, less

exhausting. While there are large differences in the extent to which it was easier, most of

the respondents expressed how their CI was a tool used to improve their hearing.

I don’t see myself a something strange or something. It’s an aid what you…just like you

need shoes to walk on, and a coat against the cold, and this is to hear. (Edith, CI)

While for most respondents speech was an important part of this tool, speech was

irrelevant for Evy to get a CI. Evy turned deaf when she was eight years and saw the CI

as a tool to hear sounds. In contrast to the others, at the time, Evy believed that lip

reading alone was sufficient to understand speech.

I wasn’t thinking of speech at all. (…) It [the CI] was for me about hearing sounds, to not

live in silence. So it would be less dangerous to walk on the street for instance, that I

could hear a car coming, those kind of things. (Evy, CI)


10

The RFID respondents also talked about their implant in their hand as a tool that made

life easier, but in this case, the tool is for access control. In contrast to the CI-users, the

RFID implantees were well versed in technology, had experimented with the tag before

the implantation, and continued to tinker with the tag after the implantation. The tag

was sometimes also used as an outreach tool to tell about their geeky lifestyle. The tag

was usually used for access control, including opening doors and opening and starting

cars. Implantees talked about the convenience of always having their keys with them

without the possibility to lose or forget them. Some implantees mention the objective of

replacing all keys with RFID technology. The technology adds convenience to their daily

life as it is a reliable gadget.

So, for me being able to just put my hand up there, and have it scanned, you know,

reliably every time, very quickly and not a lot of inconvenience uh– that’s that’s key. So,

that’s what I’ve been enjoying about the technology uh since the first day. (Randall, RFID)

Implantees were indifferent to the fact that this tool was in the body. Although the tag

was operating in an unusual environment, it remains similar to holding a RFID card in

one’s hands.

I really see as what I’ve done as simply moving the uh– you know the RFID access card

from your pants pocket to your skin pocket. (Randall, RFID)

The CI-users had equivalent thoughts about crossing the skin-boundary. In contrast to

the RFID-users, the CI-users were unaware of the exact technological operation. Some

respondents were anxious to have technology inside their head because of the risks of

having surgery. One respondent thought it was weird to have something in the body that

does not belong there, though she was not thinking about this any longer. The CI-users

saw the CI as similar to other aids, electronic or not. However, because the tool was

placed inside of the body, both RFID and CI users considered the implant to be a part of

themselves in a similar vein as other body parts with their specific functions are part of

someone. Respondents who regarded the implant as a tool were impassive on the

location; what matters is that the tool makes life easier, either in terms of convenience

and reliability or in being able to hear.

The normal self

While both groups talk about the implant as a tool, they tell different stories about the

meaning of the implant for their self-understanding. For the CI-users, the implant is a

Wagemakers

11

tool to become “normal”. Most of the respondents’ hearing had diminished over time

which caused communication problems. Consequently, these hearing-impaired persons

increasingly detached themselves from everyday society. With a CI, the world of the

respondents became larger again. CI-users cannot only hear better, but their social skills

also improve because of their improved ability to communicate.

I didn’t really talk with people I didn’t know well. The CI changed this considerably. I can

remember the amazement of [my husband] when, on the first holiday after the

connection, I started to talk to a fellow camper about the weather. I never would have

done that before. (Ingrid, CI)

However, the CI is not a magical solution for the deaf to belong to society. Not the tool

itself, but how CI-users apply the tool connects CI-users with society. One of the

respondents, who had been born deaf, still struggled with integrating within hearing

society. The ability to hear gives respondents the opportunity to integrate in society, but

people still have to come out of their isolation themselves.

The respondents clearly indicated that they are depended on their CIs. Most of

the time respondents wear their CIs, though many also took the outer part out when

they wanted to have some peace and quiet. They indicated that if the technology

suddenly stopped working, they would be in more trouble than before their

implantation. Because their CI is constantly used, the CI-users cannot live without the CI

and the CI becomes part of their identity.

It are my ears, I can’t take them off… well I can take them off but it’s not convenient

(Edith, CI)

All respondents got their implants at an adult age and none of them had a clear affinity

with Deaf culture. Most respondents were hearing impaired or turned deaf in their later

years. One respondent who was born deaf went to a deaf school, but she believed there

was more to life than Deaf culture. She believes that everyone, including hearing people,

should mingle with all kinds of people, including hearing, hearing-impaired,

handicapped, etc. Another respondent who had been sudden deaf since childhood did

not belong in any group, neither with hearing-impaired, nor with Deaf people. When

confronted with the concerns of Deaf people on CI, some respondents understood the

concern but disagreed with it, while others did not understand why someone would

deny a CI. The responses of the CI-users illustrate their choice for a CI. The CI is a tool to


12

hear better and to function within a society in which the majority is hearing. Without CI,

my respondents indicated that they probably would be caught between two worlds,

rather than be part of Deaf culture.

While most respondents expressed a desire to belong to society, one woman did

not get the CI to improve her communication skills. At the time, Evy believed she could

communicate fine despite her inability to hear. When she just got her CI, she felt

uncomfortable when people commented on the ease of communication because it gave

her the feeling she was not a full person while being deaf. Additionally, Evy is scared of

where society is heading.

It is also the idea that nowadays people are in charge. That is not good; change that! That

is not good; change that! I think that is a very scary idea and a really dangerous

development. (Evy, CI)

Her problem with enhancement technologies, including CIs, is that it contributes to the

idea that in contemporary society everyone should be perfect, including having a normal

body. Evy recognizes her contradictions and struggles with her own position within this

development. However, despite these objections, she still chose to have a CI and become

more normal because of the utility of having a CI.

Even though CI-users do not hear as well as hearing persons, they are now closer

to being hearing and thereby being normal. CI-users also embrace other possible

enhancement technologies that allow handicapped people to overcome problems. Most

respondents with a CI are negative towards enhancement technologies that go beyond

repairing but try to enhance the human body above its normal functioning. Some

respondents think the aim of the technology is important; enhancement technologies are

justifiable for particular situations and aims. A neurosurgeon may benefit from a bionic

eye and an astronaut may benefit from another enhancement technology. In general, CI-

users were reserved about the idea of enhancing the body. This was contrary to what

was found among the RFID respondents where enhancing the body was part of what the

RFID tag enabled.

The enhanced self

While some RFID users got their implants for convenience reasons alone, it would be too

simple to assume this is the only reason. Some respondent thought the precise function

of the tag was less important than having the tag. The RFID tag can still have a practical

Wagemakers

13

function, but also represent an upgrade of the self. Some respondent do not even

mention the function of the tag when explaining their motivation. They focus on the

novelty of RFID implants or articulate that they want to merge with technology. By

getting an implant, one upgrades one’s body and thereby gains a secret skill that others

do not have.

I have always been interested in things like transhumanism, cyborgs, augmentation, and

integration of computers and humans so when I heard people were doing implants that

let them communicate directly with the computers it seemed natural that I would do it

too. (Gale, RFID)

Some implantees who saw themselves as upgraded also showed a love for the implant

beyond its functionality. The implant was not only part of their body and thus part of

their self, respondents articulated love for the tag outside of its functionality. Steven

expressed this affection when he talks about the moment he took out his implant.

When I first took it [the implant] out, I missed it immensely actually, I missed having it…

even in and of itself. If that makes any– even outside of its functionality, I still felt that I

was taking a part of myself away. Uh that I was somehow… less able, afterwards. (Steven,

RFID)

Moreover, within this repertoire of the enhanced self, not only the first time the

respondents used the implant was exciting, using the tag remained exciting. The

respondents believed that the implant gave the individuals a sense of uniqueness. While

the reason to get the implant may not have been to be unique, and being unique is not

only manifested by this implant, some people associate uniqueness with the implant.

Moreover, respondents talk about their bodies as something that can be

enhanced. Respondents do not have spiritual views on the body; rather they believe that

their bodies are their own and while they have personal responsibility over it, they can

customize it to their wishes. Some respondents show interest in transhumanism, but

even implantees who did not mention this specific term talk about how they see their

body as something that can be modified.

A mindset of "Hey, I can play with and hack my body, just like anything else!" and

suddenly it [the body] doesn't quite seem so sacred and impermeable. (John, RFID)

Besides the RFID implant that they already have, respondents talk about possible future

implants they would like to have. All respondents with a RFID tag are favorable towards


14

human enhancements, but those who see themselves as upgraded, talk about integrating

these enhancements in their own bodies. In fact, these respondents are looking forward

to these new developments. One of the implantees mentions that he would like to be a

cyborg in the future. When Kevin Warwick implanted a tag in his arm, he called this

Project Cyborg. A cyborg is short for cybernetic organism, which means that cybernetic

parts and organic parts are interacting with each other. A RFID implant is not interacting

with but hosted in the body; therefore, implantees usually do not consider themselves

full cyborg. Some do not consider themselves cyborgs and other implantees see

themselves as extremely basic cyborgs. However, while they do not consider themselves

full cyborgs yet, respondents expressed interest in the possibility of technology and

body integrating further. The tag was a small step towards more integration between

technology and the human body.

Thus, both implants are tools, but the RFID tag can be used to enhance the self

whereas the CI is used to normalize the self. To get a fuller understanding of the

everyday life context, three mini-biographies of three people who differed substantially

in their views on their implant are presented.

Lars: simplify my everyday life

Living in Sweden, but with a job for which he travels a lot, the RFID implant in Lars’ hand

allows him to leave without taking a key with him. As a tech nerd, who “lives and

breathes technology”, he is extremely familiar with the technological details of how a

RFID tag works. This is crucial because having this knowledge means Lars knows what

he is doing. Consequently, the RFID tag can be easily integrated into his habits and

everyday life.

Before the implantation in February 2010, Lars had four different key fobs that

used RFID technology. Not only did he dislike his big key chain as it gave him the feeling

of being a janitor, Lars also disliked that he always had to carry his keys at work to

prevent being locked out. When trying to find an improvement, he stumbled on RFID

implants. He “gave it a week of thought back and forth” before a doctor friend inserted

the tag. Within this week Lars, for instance, considered whether there were equally

convenient but less intrusive ways and whether there were limiting factors. As he did

not foresee any problems, he had the tag implanted.

Wagemakers

15

While the first time Lars used his implant, he thought it was “awesome”, it

stopped being special within a week. As he got used to the implant, he stopped thinking

about it but simply used the tag to open doors. This resembles not thinking about using

keys to open a door or using a knife to cut food: people simply do it. Lars incorporated

the use of the implant into his habit; instead of getting his keys out of his pocket, he was

simply waving his hand in front of the reader.

Lars had not considered other body modifications, as they do not fulfill a purpose

in his view. This illustrates how for Lars the functionality of the tag was crucial.

Moreover, in Lars’ view, his body was not upgraded; rather the tag was simply in an

unusual environment.

Well, I have mentioned that I verified that it [the RFID tag] would have no interactions

with my body (to a high degree of certainty) so it's just operating in an unusual

environment perhaps, but it's not interacting with my body.

In a similar vein, Lars did not see himself as a cyborg because the RFID tag is not

interacting with his body. He did not perceive himself as upgraded and disliked the term

of cyborg for RFID implantees.

I would say: that's people talking out of their ass, because "cyborg" by a common

definition is when organics interact with the cybernetic parts.

For Lars not only is the RFID tag a tool to open a door, but the body in general is a tool

for him to implement the ideas his mind creates. The utility factor appears to be the only

important aspect for this respondent. When asked about enhancement technologies,

Lars noted that enhancement technologies are awesome as they can enhance people’s

everyday life, but he did not directly relate this to his own body. In support of this view,

Lars mentioned that we take many existing technologies for granted, e.g. a car. While

these artifacts are not permanently attached to the body, in his view, they still represent

enhancement technologies as they enhance our everyday lives. In this sense, for Lars the

RFID tag is just another technology – just another tool – that enhances his everyday life.

Jeff: expanding the horizon of human capability

Jeff is a 31-year old atheist living in the rural south of the United States. With many

religious people in his surroundings, Jeff is the odd one out. Jeff familiarized himself with

RFID implants in 2005 when he started to examine what was inside his company’s

keycard. Before implanting the tag in 2009/2010, Jeff researched and tested how RFID


16

tags work. When he first got the implant, Jeff was mostly experimenting with writing

codes on his computer and testing whether the implant would react on it. The RFID

implant fits with his identity and his geeky lifestyle:

A lot of the people that are close to me, that know me, were not surprised that I would do

something like that.

The reason for Jeff to get the implant was to have access control over among other

things his household server on which files are stored; however, his responses also show

that Jeff, in contrast to Lars, sees the implant as more than simply access control. Even

though Jeff uses his implant every day and he forgets most of the time it is there, he is

still excited about it.

I still think it’s [the RFID implant] really cool ((laughs)) I love it. it’s my… some of the

people that I worked with started calling me cyborg… And I can’t say I didn’t like that. It

was pretty cool ((laughs).

While Jeff does not consider himself a cyborg, in contrast to Lars, Jeff is happy to be

called a cyborg as it shows his special status. Although he acknowledges that as time

passes, implantation is becoming more normal, Jeff perceives the implant not only as

cool, but also unique because there are only few others who can be called cyborg. Having

something that most others do not have gives Jeff an increased sense of individuality.

While Jeff already uses the implant multiple times a day, he is also looking forward to

integrate his tag further in his life; for instance, by using it for every door in his house.

His girlfriend could use a swipe card or wristwatch enabled with RFID technology. Jeff is

also looking forward to other technologies that can be implanted in his body. When I

asked him whether he wanted to get other body modifications, he answered positively

enthusiastic and elaborated on this by talking about specific enhancement technologies

such as an internal flash drive and a brain implant. That these enhancements alter his

body is not a problem for Jeff. While Lars sees the RFID tag as operating in an unusual

environment, Jeff sees it as a body enhancer and expresses the desire to improve his

body.

My friends know me as the guy who is kinda like I don’t really care what it’s meant to do

I care what it can do, talking about all of my tools or computer, everything is great, but it

can be modified to be better. Cars, computers, I really don’t care, it can always be

Wagemakers

17

modified to be better. Same thing with the human body. The human body is, you know, a

stock part. It’s (I see it) this way, it can be enhanced. It can be better.

Jeff also sees the implant as a part of who he is. Because it is now in the body and it

cannot be put down like other devices, the implant has become part of Jeff’s identity.

Similar to how we do not consciously think about using our hands, Jeff forgets that the

implant is there most of the time and uses it naturally. However, having a RFID implant

remains special. Overall, for Jeff the implant is a tool that not only helps him to secure

his files, but that also enhances him as a human being. The function of the implant is for

Jeff important, but it is even more so that he alters his body in something that is better

than what it originally was.

Judith: An aid to continue to live

When I met Judith, her long hair was covering her CI; however, Judith noted that she has

no problems with the visibility of a CI and is happy to wear a ponytail as well. During the

eight years she has had the implant, she has been active in providing others with

information about and her experiences with CIs. Usually she is wearing her CI, but at

times, Judith takes the processor off to live in silence. As long as this is a conscious

choice, rather than that it happens because of malfunctioning of the processor, Judith

can easily live without the CI for a short period.

Judith was born with one deaf ear and one hearing-impaired ear. While her

hearing was decreasing, Judith had never felt handicapped. When she was 37 years,

Judith’s working ear stopped working all of a sudden. She had to stop working and after

many hospital visits, Judith thought she would have to learn to deal with her deafness.

However, the doctor suggested getting a CI. While astonished at first that technology

could bring her hearing back, she looked into CIs and chose to be implanted.

After the activation of the internal part with the processor, Judith could not make

anything out of the noise. Only after the ninth or tenth visit to the audiologist who re-

programmed the settings, Judith was able to understand some speech. This was an

emotional moment for Judith and her husband. The first few months, Judith was doing

exercises for hearing words every day with her husband. Unfortunately, not everything

went according to plan. Judith got an infection on her head that eventually led to the

removal of her implant. The doctors were happy to retry getting the implant in her ear,

but Judith was not ready for a new implantation right away. Having been sick from the


18

implant for a long period, spending time in the hospital away from her children and

husband, she considered the risks of getting yet another surgery. The period she had

worn the first CI had made her nonetheless realize how good it was to be able to hear.

The people surrounding Judith also remarked on how easy communication with Judith

had become while she had the CI.

You could hear so well with it, it all went so nicely and this and that. And I thought well,

that’s true in some ways.

Without the implant, Judith noticed that her world was turning smaller again. Similar to

when she had suddenly become deaf, Judith experienced severe difficulties

communicating. Constant lip reading was tiresome and she did not know sign language

at the time. In the end, Judith decided to try another time. Deciding to get the CI for the

second time was directly connected with participation in society and to communication

with others. Without the ability to hear, it was hard for her to take part in normal social

life.

Judith considers the CI to be a tool to belong to society and to enlarge her world.

The CI makes the world more similar to how it is for a hearing person. Now that she has

the implant, it enriches her life every day by simply being able to hear. While she still has

difficulties with communicating with others (e.g. on the phone), the CI facilitates

communication in a hearing-oriented society. Nonetheless, Judith does not think the CI

changes her identity; but rather looks at it as a tool to assist her with hearing.

You remain the same person only you hear a bit better… It [the CI] is a bit of support

with hearing.

While Judith considers this tool to be part of herself, she does not view herself in a

cyborg-type way. When I asked her if she considered herself a cyborg, she answered

with a resolute no:

No absolutely not. No, no, no, I am not the bionic woman or something, totally not. No,

no, no, no, no. No. It’s just a part of me. No. I see it like glasses really, only now it has

something to do with electronics. No. no.

This last quote also shows how the CI, although having been inserted in the body, is not

that different from other tools. It is a simply an instrument that helps her to participate

in society.

Wagemakers

19

Conclusion

These three mini-biographies illustrate how these implantees have incorporated their

implant into their lives in different ways. For Lars, for whom the tag is merely a tool, the

tag becomes part of his body, but not of his identity. Using the tag becomes a habit and

works just as naturally as using his arm. Judith perceives her CI as a tool to participate in

society. While Judith is trying to blend in society, Jeff wants to stand out. Jeff has given

meaning to the implant that exceeds the tag’s functionality by considering himself

upgraded. These three biographies show the differences and similarities of having an

electronic implant.

Within this article, I examined the meaning people give to their technological

implant. While the literature was mainly negative towards RFID implants, particularly

keeping the risks in mind, the implantees themselves debunked these arguments with

logic. Previous research already focused on the implementation of a RFID system in an

access control and epayment setting (Michael & Michael, 2010), on how an implantee

considers the risks and rewards involved (Michael & Michael, 2013), and on the socio-

technical issues from an implantee’s perspective (Graafstra, Michael, & Michael, 2010).

This article enriches the literature by looking at multiple RFID taggers within a broader

perspective. While the literature implied that implants are used for convenience, this

research suggests that for some users the meanings implantees give to their tags goes

beyond mere utility.

By contrasting RFID users with CI-users, a better understanding is generated on

what RFID implantees distinguish from others. The analysis indicates that for both types

of implantees the incorporation of this technology into their daily lives was relatively

easy. For the RFID implantees, the tags fit within their techie lifestyles; they are

interested in technology and know what they are doing. Using the implant quickly turns

into a habit. As acknowledged in the domestication theory, particularly because it fits

with existing habits, implantees are able to adapt to their implants quickly. Despite

turning into a habit, some RFID implantees indicate that having the tag remains exciting.

CI-users undergo a longer revalidation process in which they learn to use their new

skills. Also for them, even though it sounds mechanical, using the CI has become a

natural way of hearing. They cannot live without their CI. All respondents perceive their

implant to be part of their selves, simply because it is located in the body and they use it

as natural as other body parts.


20

While all respondents perceive the implant as part of themselves, they perceive it

as part of their identity in different ways. While the RFID implant is hosted in the body,

the CI interacts with the body. However, although the CI users are blending technology

with their bodies, they do not perceive it this way. The CI-users see the CI as a tool, like

any other aid, that helps them in their everyday life. While the cochlear implant remains

an aid, implanted by doctors, aimed to make people normal, the RFID implant can be

considered an upgrade and fulfills the desire to have a tighter incorporation of

technology and the human body.

Some RFID tagged persons mention that CI-users are (basic) cyborgs because

cybernetic parts are interacting with human parts. However, the CI respondents with

whom I have discussed this do not consider themselves cyborgs at all. Most do not

understand why someone would consider them a cyborg as they consider the CI to be a

natural part of themselves. Rather than having the exact definition in mind, CI-users

think of cyborgs as people with electronically enhanced bodies that have functions

normal bodies do not have. This shows that the mindset of CI-users differs from RFID

implantees. The RFID implant is for some people about enhancing the human body,

hence the notion of cyborg comes up, whereas the cochlear implant is about normalizing

the human body, hence the notion of cyborg does not come up. It is therefore not strange

that the CI-users were generally more reserved about enhancement technologies; having

similar views as the general population in Dutch society (cf. Schuijff & Munnichs, 2012).

RFID users are more positive about enhancement technologies and look forward to have

these technologies. As shown in this article, this difference in the aim of the technology

(normalize vs. enhance) is essential in explaining the meaning of the implant and the

justification for having enhancement technologies.

Furthermore, the literature suggested chipping people leads to dehumanization

because people are turned into numbers and technology and humans blend (e.g.

Gadzheva, 2007). While respondents may agree that technology is turning people into

numbers, RFID tags are not the only technologies doing this and certainly not the first.

When perceiving RFID tags as a tool, people do not consider the implantation to differ

significantly from external devices with similar functions. Yet when seeing the RFID as

an upgrade to one’s body, the tag makes the users feel special. These implantees

perceive this blending of technology with the human body as expanding the range of

human capacity rather than diminishing humanity. Unlike RFID implantees, CI-users do

Wagemakers

21

not pay much attention to the fact that technology and humans are blending. On the

contrary, their implants are part of their bodies just as organs are. That the tool is

electronic and is implanted is of minor importance, it is the fact that the tool helps them

that matters to them.

Discussion

This research illustrates that a simple RFID implant is not solely about adding

convenience to one’s life, but also about upgrading the self. This state of affairs gives us

an insight into the significance future human enhancement may acquire. While

obviously the functionality of an enhancement is important, this research shows that

enhancement technologies could also be appreciated for the mere fact of being an

enhancement. The debate of human enhancement technology should not only be about

what the technology can do, but also what the enhancement means to the individual.

Within this research, I have talked to responsible RFID DIY taggers. They did their

research and chose to implant the tag in what is considered a safe place: between the

index finger and thumb. While I have not spoken to them, there are also people who put

the tag in body parts that are less suitable for this type of implantation. Indeed, not all

DIY implantees consider (medical) safety. It is important in such cases to distinguish

between personal responsibility and the degree to which the artifact itself is to be held

accountable for the possible damage it produces. Some people practice water sports in a

reckless fashion and face the risk of drowning. Do we blame the water or the person?

Implanted people have personal responsibility. As the Social Shaping of Technology

illustrates, technology in itself is not ‘good’ or ‘bad’, what people do with it is what

matters.

Furthermore, this research contributes to the domestication theory by showing

that even when individuals have incorporated the technology into their lives to the

extent that it becomes a natural part of their self, people in their surrounding can still

perceive it as strange. In this research, other people called the individuals cyborgs,

talked about them, and gave negative comments on the RFID tag. The outside world is

constantly reminding implantees of their special status and thereby has contributed to

the feeling of being special among the implantees. Precisely because implantees are

‘othered’ by their surroundings, they perceive themselves as having a special skill. It has

been suggested that the invisibility of technology could make it more difficult to


22

domesticate a technology (Berker, Hartmann, Punie, & Ward, 2006), but this research

shows that even when the technology is physically invisible, its presence is still visible to

the outside world even beyond its psychological presence. In fact, this presence can even

create or strengthen the meaning of the technology.

This research sheds light on how implantees incorporate their implants into their

life. Unfortunately, no female RFID implantees were interviewed. As mentioned earlier,

women have both a different relationship with technology and with their bodies. It will

therefore be interesting to explore the differences between men and women on RFID

implants in future research.

Furthermore, regarding the acceptance of RFID implants, there is a difference

between accepting technology in general and wanting the technology for oneself. My

respondents mentioned that some of their friends or family members thought the RFID

implant was cool, but did not want to be implanted themselves. Future research could

take this into account when looking at the acceptance of (RFID) technology.

Finally, future research that focuses on the acceptance of technology among users

and non-users, and (DIY) RFID implants in particular, could focus on the technological

expertise people have and their perspective on the body. One has to be open to cross the

skin boundary in medical and/or non-medical settings. Additionally, RFID implantees

perceived the body to be their own and some RFID implantees considered it modifiable.

If individuals do not posses technological knowledge, they could rely on a local expert

(cf. Stewart, 2007). If someone helps implement the system, RFID implantation is still an

option. Implanted wives of my respondents with less technological expertise illustrate

this possibility.

References

Anderson, A. M., & Labay, V. (2006). Ethical considerations and proposed guidelines for

the use of radio frequency identification: Especially concerning its use for

promoting public safety and national security. Science & Engineering Ethics, 12(2),

265-272.

Aubert, H. (2011). RFID technology for human implant devices. Comptes Rendus

Physique, 12(7), 675-683.

Wagemakers

23

Berker, T., Hartmann, M., Punie, Y., & Ward, K. J. (Eds.). (2006). Domestication of media

and technology. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.

Foster, K. R., & Jaeger, J. (2008). Ethical implications of implantable radiofrequency

identification (RFID) tags in humans. American Journal of Bioethics, 8(8), 44-48.

Gadzheva, M. (2007). Getting chipped: To ban or not to ban. Information &

Communications Technology Law, 16(3), 217-231.

Glasser, D. J., Goodman, K. W., & Einspruch, N. G. (2007). Chips, tags and scanners: Ethical

challenges for radio frequency identification. Ethics and Information Technology, 9,

101-109.

Graafstra, A., Michael, K., & Michael, M. G. (2010). Social-technical issues facing the

humancentric RFID implantee sub-culture through the eyes of Amal Graafstra. IEEE

International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS), pp. 498-516.

Haddon, L. (2006). The contribution of domestication research to in-home computing

and media consumption. The Information Society, 22(4), 195-203.

Haddon, L. (2011). Domestication analysis, objects of study, and the centrality of

technologies in everyday life. Canadian Journal of Communication, 36(2)

Hanna, P. (2012). Using internet technologies (such as Skype) as a research medium: A

research note. Qualitative Research, 12(2), 239-242.

Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality & Social

Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 10(3), 252-264.

Hine, C. (2008). The internet and research methods. In N. Gilbert (Ed.), Researching

social life (3rd ed., pp. 304-320) SAGE publication.

Hynes, D., & Rommes, E. (2006). 'Fitting the internet into our lives': IT courses for

disadvantaged users. In T. Berker, M. Hartmann, Y. Punie & K. J. Ward (Eds.),

Domestication of media and technology (pp. 125-144). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill

Education.


24

James, N., & Busher, H. (2009). Online interviewing. London: Sage.

Martin, L. (2005, This chip makes sure you always buy your round. The Guardian,

Retrieved from http://gu.com/p/x6hk/tw

Masters, A., & Michael, K. (2007). Lend me your arms: The use and implications of

humancentric RFID. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 6(1), 29-39.

Michael, K., McNamee, A., & Michael, M. G. (2006). The emerging ethics of humancentric

GPS tracking and monitoring. Mobile Business, 2006. ICMB '06. International

Conference on Mobile Business, pp. 34.

Michael, K., & Michael, M. G. (2010). The diffusion of RFID implants for access control

and epayments: A case study on Baja beach club in Barcelona. Technology and

Society (ISTAS), 2010 IEEE International Symposium On, pp. 242-252.

Michael, K., & Michael, M. G. (2013). The future prospects of embedded microchips in

humans as unique identifiers: The risks versus the rewards. Media, Culture &

Society, 35(1), 78-86.

Niemeijer, A., & Hertogh, C. (2008). Implantable tags: Don't close the door for aunt

Millie! The American Journal of Bioethics, 8(8), 50-52.

Perakslis, C., & Michael, K. (2012). Indian millennials: Are microchip implants a more

secure technology for identification and access control? IEEE International

Symposium on Technology and Society,

Perakslis, C., & Wolk, R. (2006). Social acceptance of RFID as a biometric security

method. Technology and Society Magazine, IEEE, 25(3), 34-42.

Pichault, F., Durieux, D., & Silverstone, R. (2005). The information society in europe:

Methods and methodologies. In R. Silverstone (Ed.), Media, technology and everyday

life in Europe: From information to communication (pp. 181-193). Aldershot:

Ashgate.

http://gu.com/p/x6hk/tw

Wagemakers

25

Punch, R., & Hyde, M. (2011). Social participation of children and adolescents with

cochlear implants: A qualitative analysis of parent, teacher, and child interviews.

Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(4), 474-493.

Rogers, E. M. (1962/2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Schuijff, M., & Munnichs, G. (2012). Goed, beter, betwist. Publieksonderzoek naar

mensverbetering. The Hague: Rathenau Instituut.

Silverstone, R., Hirsch, E., & Morley, D. (1992). Information and communication

technology and the moral economy of the household. In R. Silverstone, & E. Hirsch

(Eds.), Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces (pp. 15-

31). London and New York: Routledge.

Smith, A. D. (2007). Evolution and acceptability of medical applications of RFID implants

among early users of technology. Health Marketing Quarterly, 24(1-2), 121-155.

Sørensen, K. H. (2006). Domestication: The enactment of technology. In T. Berker, M.

Hartmann, Y. Punie & K. J. Ward (Eds.), Domestication of media and technology (pp.

40-61). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.

Sparrow, R. (2005). Defending deaf culture: The case of cochlear implants*. Journal of

Political Philosophy, 13(2), 135-152.

Stewart, J. (2007). Local experts in the domestication of information and communication

technologies. Information, Communication & Society, 10(4), 547-569.

Theunissen, S. C. P. M., Rieffe, C., Kouwenberg, M., De Raeve, L., Soede, W., Briaire, J. J., et

al. (2012). Anxiety in children with hearing aids or cochlear implants compared to

normally hearing controls. The Laryngoscope, 122(3), 654-659.

Throsby, K., & Hodges, S. (2009). Introduction: Situating technology. Women's Studies

Quarterly, 37(1/2, Technologies), 11-18.


26

Trocchia, P. J., & Ainscough, T. L. (2006). Characterizing consumer concerns about

identification technology. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,

34(8), 609-620.

Wheeler, A., Archbold, S., Gregory, S., & Skipp, A. (2007). Cochlear implants: The young

people's perspective. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(3), 303-316.

Williams, R., & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research Policy, 25(6),

865-899.

Documents

Giving meaning to a RFID or cochlear implant: Technology ... (2013) Givin… · Giving meaning to a RFID or cochlear implant: Technology as tool, ... In the future, RFID implants