Reverse Experiments: Investigating Social Behaviour with Daily Technologies

Francesca Odella
Dep. Sociology and Social Research, University of Trento, Italy

Ladda ner artikelhttp://www.ep.liu.se/ecp_article/index.en.aspx?issue=025;article=050

Ingår i: Inter: A European Cultural Studies : Conference in Sweden 11-13 June 2007

Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 25:50, s. 463-470

Visa mer +

Publicerad: 2007-11-27


ISSN: 1650-3686 (tryckt), 1650-3740 (online)


The experience of living and interacting with new pervasive technologies is often described in terms of subjective accounts and frequently recalls ideas and myths that are attached to a specific domain of knowledge. It is therefore of interest for a sociologist to investigate the accounts that frame the interpretations of the scien¬tists and technologists.

The reactions of the scientific community to the increase of daily technology; in particular; can be synthesized in two approaches. On one side the spread of mobile and controlling technology encourages critics to foresee an Orwellian context; on the other side the availability of such information and the development of scientific tools for processing complex dataset offer an incredible opportunity to scientist and social analysts.

So to what extent are we witnessing the case for extensive and realistic social experiments? The paper investigates the role played by rules of the scientific community and institutional norms in assuring the privacy of individuals while testing in vivo the impact of pervasive technologies.


Inga nyckelord är tillgängliga


Andrejvich M. ”The work of watching one other: lateral surveillance; risk and governance”; Surveillance and Society; online journal; vol.2; no. 4; 2005.

Arvidsson A. “On the pre-history of the panoptic sort: mobility in market research”; Surveil-lance and Society; online journal; vol.1; no. 4; 2004.

Becker; H.S.; Tricks of the Trade: How to Think about Your Research While You’re Doing It; University of Chicago; 1998.

Brighenti A.; "Visibility". In: Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology; Blackwell; 2007.

Callaghan Vic; Clarke G.; Chin J. “Some Socio-technical Aspects of Intelligent Buildings and Pervasive Computing Research”; Intelligent Buildings International Journal Earthscan; vol.1; no.1; 2007.

Cate F.H.; Privacy in perspective; American enterprise institute for public policy research; Washington; D.C.; 2001.

Dearman D.; Kirstie H.; Kori M. I.; “Rendezvousing with location aware devices: enhancing social coordination”; Interacting with computers; vol. 17; 2005.

Floridi L. “Four challenges for a theory of information privacy”; Ethics and Information tech-nology; vol.8; 2006.

Gandy O.; H;. “Public opinion survey and the formation of privacy policy”; Journal of Social Issues; vol. 59; no.2; 2003.

Graham s. and Marvin S.; Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures; Technological Mobilities; and the Urban Condition; Routledge; 2006.

Hetcher S. Social Norms in a Wired World; Cambridge University Press; 2003.

Kostakos V. and Little L. “The social implications of emerging technologies”; Interacting with computers; vol. 17; 2005.

Lyon D. Everyday “Surveillance: personal data and social classifications”; Information; com-munication and society; vol.5; no.2; 2002.

Lyon D. The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society; Polity Press; 1994.

Lyon D.; Zureik Et; Computers; Surveillance; and Privacy; University of Minnesota Press Minneapolis; MN; 1996.

Majtenyj L. “Ensuring data protection in East-Central Europe”; Social Research; vol. 69; no.1; 2002.

Margulis S. “Privacy as a social issue and behavioural concept”; Journal of Social Issues; vol. 59; no.2; 2003a.

Margulis S. “On the status and contribution of Westin and Altman’s theories of privacy”; Journal of Social Issues; vol. 59; no.2; 2003b.

Markupoulos P.; IJsselsteijn W.; Huijen C. e De Ruyter B. “Sharing experiences through awareness systems in the home”; Interacting with computers; vol. 17; 2005.

Marx; G. T. ”A tack in the shoe: neutralizing and resisting the new surveillance”; Journal of Social Issues; vol. 59; no.2; 2003.

Marx; G.T. “Murky conceptual waters: the public and the private”; Ethics and Information technology; vol.3; 2001.

Milberg; J. H.; Milberg S. and Burke S. J.; “Information Privacy: measuring individual’s con-cerns about Organizational practices”; MIS quarterly; June; 1996.

Neill; E. Rites of privacy and the privacy trade : on the limits of protection for the self; McGill-Queen’s University press; Montreal; 2001.

Norris c.; Mc Cail M. and Wood D.; “The Growth of CCTV: a global perspective on the international diffusion of video surveillance in publicly accessible space”; Surveillance and Society; online journal; vol.2; no. 2/3; 2004.

Odella F.; "Conseguenze inattese e genesi dei processi economici: il ruolo delle esternalità nell’approccio sociologico"; Sociologia del lavoro; no. 92 2003.

OECD; Privacy online : OECD guidance on policy and practice; OCDE; 2003.

Regan P. M.; “Safe harbours or free frontiers? Privacy and Transborder Data Flow”; Journal of Social Issues; vol. 59; no.2; 2003.

Stalder F. Opinion. “Privacy is not the antidote to surveillance”; Surveillance and Society; online journal; vol.1; no. 1; 2002.

Taube W. and Joye D. “Determinants of internet use in Switzerland: Structural disparities and new technologies” in Glatzer W. (ed.) Rich and Poor: disparities; perceptions and con-comitants; Kluwer; 2002.

Turrow J. and Hennessy M. “Internet privacy and institutional trust: insights from a national survey”; New media and Society; vol. 9; no. 900; 2007.

Vargas Solar G. “lobal; pervasive and ubiquitous information societies: engineering chal-lenges and social impact; NSRC; France; 2005.

Westin A. F.; “Social and political dimensions of privacy”; Journal of Social Issues; vol. 59; no.2; 2003.

Citeringar i Crossref