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