1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Anthropology
  4. Volume 52, 2023
  5. Article

Annual Review of Anthropology

Volume 52, 2023

Steps to an Ecology of Algorithms

Abstract

Anthropological expeditions seeking out algorithms frequently return empty-handed. They are confronted with the challenge of the object: what to study when studying algorithms? In this article, I draw together a number of literatures to outline one possible answer to the question of how to study algorithms in social science. I argue that what we should study are algorithmic ecologies. I sketch five modalities of algorithmic ecologies and review concomitant literatures: () imaginaries, () infrastructures, () interfaces, () identities, and () investments and interests. The speculative propositions offered here are that algorithms are immanent to ecologies and that they are enacted across all the modalities of algorithmic ecologies.

Keyword(s): algorithms, ecology, infrastructure, interface, smart technology, social imaginaries
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-052721-041547
2023-10-23
2024-06-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/anthro/52/1/annurev-anthro-052721-041547.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-052721-041547&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Allwinkle S, Cruickshank P. 2011. Creating smart-er cities: an overview. J. Urban Technol. 18:21–16
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Altheide DL. 1994. An ecology of communication: toward a mapping of the effective environment. Sociol. Q. 35:4665–83
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Amoore L. 2013. The Politics of Possibility. Risk and Security Beyond Probability Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson R. 2022. The bioeconomy and the birth of a “new anthropology.”. Cult. Anthropol. 37:137–44
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Aporta C, Higgs E. 2005. Satellite culture: global positioning systems, Inuit wayfinding, and the need for a new account of technology. Curr. Anthropol. 46:5729–53
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Artz M. 2022. Design anthropology, algorithmic bias, behavioral capital, and the creator economy. Pract. Anthropol. 44:233–36
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Ash J, Anderson B, Gordon R, Langley P. 2018. Unit, vibration, tone: a post-phenomenological method for researching digital interfaces. Cult. Geogr. 25:1165–81
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bar F, Baer W, Ghandeharizadeh S, Ordonez F. 2008. Infrastructure: network neutrality and network futures. Networked Publics K Varnelis 109–43. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Barbrook R, Cameron A. 1996. The Californian ideology. Sci. Cult. 6:144–72
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bateson G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Batty M. 2007. Model cities. Town Plan. Rev. 78:2125–51
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Benjamin R 2019a. Captivating Technology. Race, Carceral Technoscience, and Liberatory Imagination in Everyday Life Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Benjamin R. 2019b. Race After Technology. Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code Cambridge, UK: Polity Press
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bier J, Schinkel W. 2016. Building better ecological machines: complexity theory and alternative economic models. Engag. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2:266–93
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Borgman CL. 2015. Big Data, Little Data, No Data. Scholarship in the Networked World Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Bourdieu P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Bowker GC. 2014. Emerging configurations of knowledge expression. See Gillespie et al. 2014 99–118
  18. Bratton BH. 2015. The Stack. On Software and Sovereignty Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Browne S. 2015. Dark Matters. On the Surveillance of Blackness Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Bruns A. 2019. After the ‘APIcalypse’: social media platforms and their fight against critical scholarly research. Inf. Commun. Soc. 22:111544–66
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Bucher T. 2017. The algorithmic imaginary: exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Inf. Commun. Soc. 20:130–44
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Burrell J. 2016. How the machine ‘thinks’: understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data Soc 3:1 https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Burrell J, Fourcade M. 2021. The society of algorithms. Annu. Rev. Soc. 47:213–37
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Cheney-Lippold J. 2011. A new algorithmic identity: soft biopolitics and the modulation of control. Theor. Cult. Soc. 28:6164–81
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Choy T. 2011. Ecologies of Comparison. An Ethnography of Endangerment in Hong Kong. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Chua C, Danyluk M, Cowen D, Khalili L. 2018. Introduction: Turbulent circulation: building a critical engagement with logistics. Environ. Plan. D 36:4617–29
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Cockburn A. 2015. Kill Chain. The Rise of the High-Tech Assassins New York: Henry Holt
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Cowen D. 2014. The Deadly Life of Logistics. Mapping Violence in Global Trade Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Crawford K. 2016. Can an algorithm be agonistic? Ten scenes from life in calculated publics. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 41:177–92
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Crawford K. 2021. Atlas of AI. Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Cubitt S. 2017. Finite Media. Environmental Implications of Digital Technologies Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Das V. 1998. Wittgenstein and anthropology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 27:171–95
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Daston L. 2022. Rules. A Short History of What We Live By Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Davidson D, Geiger G, Schot E, Hijink M, Adriaens S et al. 2022. The Algorithm addiction. Mass profiling system SyRI resurfaces in the Netherlands despite ban and landmark court ruling. Lighthouse Reports Dec. 20. https://www.lighthousereports.nl/investigation/the-algorithm-addiction/
    [Google Scholar]
  35. de la Cadena M, Blaser M, eds 2018. A World of Many Worlds Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  36. de Vries P, Schinkel W. 2019. Algorithmic anxiety: masks and camouflage in artistic imaginaries of facial recognition algorithms. Big Data Soc 6:1 https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719851532
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Dean J. 2018. The Communist Horizon London: Verso
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Deleuze G. 1966. Le bergonisme Paris: Press. Univ. Fr.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Deleuze G 1995. Negotiations: 1972–1990 transl. M Joughin New York: Columbia Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Dourish P. 2004. Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Dourish P. 2016. Algorithms and their others: algorithmic culture in context. Big Data Soc 3:2 https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716665128
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Dourish P. 2017. The Stuff of Bits. An Essay on the Materialities of Information Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Drucker S. 2011. Humanities approaches to interface theory. Cult. Mach. 12:1–20
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Dudhwala F, Björklund Larsen L 2019. Recalibration in counting and accounting practices: dealing with algorithmic output in public and private. Big Data Soc 6:2 https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719858751
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Dyer-Witheford N. 2015. Cyber-Proletariat. Global Labour in the Digital Vortex London: Pluto Press
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Easterling K. 2014. Extrastatecraft. The Power of Infrastructure Space London: Verso
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Edwards PN, Bowker GC, Jackson SJ, Williams R. 2009. Introduction: an agenda for infrastructure studies. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 10:5364–74
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Ensmenger N. 2012. Is chess the Drosophilia of artificial intelligence? A social history of an algorithm. Soc. Stud. Sci. 42:15–30
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Erickson P, Klein JL, Daston L, Lemov R, Sturn T, Gordin MD. 2013. How Reason Almost Lost Its Mind. The Strange Career of Cold War Rationality Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Finn E. 2017. What Algorithms Want. Imagination in the Age of Computing Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Fuller M. 2005. Media Ecologies. Materialist Energies in Art and Technoculture Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Gabrys J. 2011. Digital Rubbish. A Natural History of Electronics Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Gabrys J. 2016. Program Earth. Environmental Sensing Technology and the Making of a Computational Planet Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Galloway AR. 2004. Protocol. How Control Exists After Decentralization Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Galloway AR. 2012. The Interface Effect Cambridge, UK: Polity Press
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Gillespie T. 2014. The relevance of algorithms. See Gillespie et al. 2014 167–93
  57. Gillespie T, Boczkowski PJ, Foot KA, eds 2014. Media Technologies. Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Goode JP. 2021. Artificial intelligence and the future of nationalism. Nations Natl 27:2363–76
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Graham S. 2010. Cities Under Siege. The New Military Urbanism London: Verso
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Green KE. 2016. Architectural Robotics. Ecosystems of Bits, Bytes, and Biology Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Grewal I 2017. Drone imaginaries. The technopolitics of visuality in postcolony and empire. Life in the Age of Drone Warfare L Parks, C Kaplan 343–65. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Grommé F. 2015. Turning aggression into an object of intervention: tinkering in a crime control pilot study. Sci. Cult. 24:2227–47
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Hallinan B, Striphas T 2016. Recommended for you: The Netflix Prize and the production of algorithmic culture italicNew Media Soc 181117–37
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Halpern O. 2014. Beautiful Data. A History of Vision and Reason since 1945 Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Halpern O. 2015. The trauma machine: demos, immersive technologies and the politics of simulation. Alleys of Your Mind: Augmented Intelligence and Its Traumas M Pasquinelli 53–67. Lüneburg, Ger: Meson Press
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Halpern O, LeCavalier J, Calvillo N, Pietsch W 2013. Test-bed urbanism. Public Cult. 25:2272–306
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Harney S, Moten F. 2021. All Incomplete Colchester, UK: Minor Compos.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Hayles NK. 1999. How We Became Posthuman. Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Hodson M, Marvin S, eds 2016. Retrofitting Cities: Priorities, Governance and Experimentation New York: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Hollands RG. 2015. Critical interventions into the corporate smart city. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. 3:61–77
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Hookway B. 2014. Interface Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Hu T-H. 2015. A Prehistory of the Cloud Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Huws U. 2014. Labor in the Global Digital Economy. The Cybertariat Comes of Age New York: Mon. Rev. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Hyysalo S, Elgaard Jensen T, Oudshoorn N, eds 2016. The New Production of Users. Changing Innovation Collectives and Involvement Strategies New York: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Illouz E. 2013. Why Love Hurts. A Sociological Explanation Cambridge, UK: Polity Press
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Ingold T. 2011. Being Alive. Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description London: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Ingold T. 2022. Evolution without inheritance. Steps to an ecology of learning. Curr. Anthropol. 63:25S32–55
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Introna LD. 2016. Algorithms, governance, and governmentality: on governing academic writing. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 41:117–49
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Introna LD, Nissenbaum H. 2000. Shaping the Web: why the politics of search engines matters. Inf. Soc. 16:3169–85
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Introna L, Wood DM. 2004. Picturing algorithmic surveillance. The politics of facial recognition systems. Surveill. Soc. 2:2/3177–98
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Jackson SJ, Pompe A, Krieshok G. 2012. Repair worlds: maintenance, repair, and ICT for development in rural Namibia. CSCW ’12: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Seattle, WA, Feb. 11–15, pp. 107–16. New York: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  82. James W. 2003. Essays in Radical Empiricism New York: Dover
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Jasanoff S 2015. Future imperfect: science, technology, and the imaginations of modernity. Dreamscapes of Modernity. Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power S Jasanoff, S-H Kim 1–33. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Jefferson BJ. 2022. Programming colonial racial capitalism: encoding human value in smart cities. See Koshy et al. 2022 232–54
  85. Jiménez AC. 2014. The right to infrastructure: a prototype for open source urbanism. Environ. Plan. D 32:342–62
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Jiménez AC. 2018. Spiderweb anthropologies: ecologies, infrastructures, entanglements. See de la Cadena & Blaser 2018 53–82
  87. Kanngieser A. 2013. Tracking and tracing: geographies of logistical governance and labouring bodies. Environ. Plan. D 31:594–610
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Kaplan C. 2006. Precision targets. GPS and the militarization of US consumer identity. Am. Q. 58:3693–714
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Kirschenbaum MG. 2008. Mechanisms: New Media and the Forensic Imagination Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Kitchin R. 2017. Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Inf. Commun. Soc. 20:114–29
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Kitchin R, Dodge M. 2011. Code/Space. Software and Everyday Life Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Kittler F. 2010. Optical Media. Berlin Lectures 1999 transl. A Enns Cambridge, UK: Polity Press
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Kockelman P. 2013. The anthropology of an equation. Sieves, spam filters, agentive algorithms, and ontologies of transformation. HAU J. Ethnogr. Theory 3:333–61
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Koopman C. 2021. The political theory of data: institutions, algorithms & formats in racial redlining. Political Theory 50:2337–61
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Koshy S, Cacho LM, Byrd JA, Jefferson BJ, eds 2022. Colonial Racial Capitalism Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Kurunmäki L, Miller P. 2013. Calculating failure: the making of a calculative infrastructure for forgiving and forecasting failure. Bus. Hist. 55:71100–18
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Larkin B. 2013. The politics and poetics of infrastructure. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 42:327–43
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Lazzarato M. 2011. La fabrique de l'homme endetté: essai sur la condition néolibérale Paris: Éd. Amst.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Ledford H. 2019. Millions of black people affected by racial bias in health-care algorithm. Nature 574:608–9
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Lee F, Bier J, Christensen J, Engelmann L, Helgesson C-F, Williams R. 2019. Algorithms as folding: reframing the analytical focus. Big Data Soc 6:2 https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719863819
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Lee F, Björklund Larsen L 2019. How should we theorize algorithms? Five ideal types in analysing algorithmic normativities. Big Data Soc 6:2 https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719867349
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Light B, Burgess J, Duguay S. 2016. The walkthrough method: an approach to the study of apps. New Media Soc 20:3881–900
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Lowrie I. 2018. Algorithms and automation: an introduction. Cult. Anthropol. 33:3349–59
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Luque-Ayala A, Marvin S. 2016. The maintenance of urban circulation: an operational logic of infrastructural control. Environ. Plan. D 34:2191–208
     [Google Scholar]
  105. MacKenzie D. 2006. An Engine, Not a Camera. How Financial Models Shape Markets Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Marston SA. 2000. The social construction of scale. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 24:2219–42
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Marx K. 1981. Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Ökonomische Manuskripte 1857/58, Teil 2. MEGA 2.1 Berlin: Dietz
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Mattern S. 2015a. Deep Mapping the Media City Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Mattern S. 2015b. Mission control: a history of the urban dashboard. Places J https://doi.org/10.22269/150309
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Maurer B. 2012. Mobile money: communication, consumption and change in the payments space. J. Dev. Stud. 48:5589–604
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Medina E. 2011. Cybernetic Revolutionaries. Technology and Politics in Allende's Chili Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Mihelj S, Jiménez-Martínez C. 2021. Digital nationalism: understanding the role of digital media in the rise of ‘new’ nationalism. Nations Natl. 27:2331–46
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Neyland D, Möllers N. 2017. Algorithmic IF … THEN rules and the conditions and consequences of power. Inf. Commun. Soc. 20:145–62
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Nourbakhsh IR. 2013. Robot Futures Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Parikka J. 2012. What Is Media Archaeology? London: Polity Press
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Parks L, Starosielski N, eds 2015. Signal Traffic. Critical Studies of Media Infrastructures Urbana: Univ. Ill. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Pasquale F. 2015. The Black Box Society. The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Peters JD. 2015. The Marvelous Clouds. Toward a Philosophy of Elemental Media Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Pomerantz J. 2015. Metadata Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Rahmawan-Huizenga S, Ivanova D. 2022. The urban lab: imaginative work in the city. Int. J. Urb. Reg. Res. 46:4542–57
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Richardson L. 2018. Feminist geographies of digital work. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 42:2244–63
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Ruppert E. 2012. The governmental topologies of database devices. Theor. Cult. Soc. 29:4/5116–36
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Scannell RJ. 2019. This is not Minority Report. Predictive policing and population racism. See Benjamin 2019a 107–29
  124. Seaver N. 2017. Algorithms as culture: some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data Soc 4:2 https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717738104
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Seaver N. 2018. What should an anthropology of algorithms do?. Cult. Anthropol. 33:3375–85
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Seaver N. 2019. Captivating algorithms: recommender systems as traps. J. Mater. Cult. 24:4421–36
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Seaver N. 2022. Computing Taste: Algorithms and the Makers of Music Recommendation Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Singleton V, Law J. 2013. Devices as rituals. Notes on enacting resistance. J. Cult. Econ. 6:3259–77
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Söderström O, Paasche T, Klauser F. 2014. Smart cities as corporate storytelling. City 18:3307–20
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Stäheli U. 2021. Soziologie der Entnetzung Berlin: Suhrkamp
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Star SL 1995. Ecologies of Knowledge. Work and Politics in Science and Technology Albany: SUNY Press
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Star SL. 1999. The ethnography of infrastructure. Am. Behav. Sci. 43:3377–91
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Star SL, Ruhleder K. 1996. Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: design and access for large information spaces. Inf. Syst. Res. 7:1111–34
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Starosielski N. 2015. The Undersea Network Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Stengers I. 2018. The challenge of ontological politics. See de la Cadena & Blaser 2018 83–111
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Strathern M. 2004. Partial Connections Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Striphas T. 2015. Algorithmic culture. Eur. J. Cult. Stud. 18:4–5395–412
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Suchman L. 2007. Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. , 2nd ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  139. Suchman L. 2015. Situational awareness: deadly bioconvergence at the boundaries of bodies and machines. MediaTropes 5:11–24
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Suchman L. 2016. Configuring the other: sensing war through immersive simulation. Catalyst: Fem. Theory Technosc. 2:11–36
     [Google Scholar]
  141. Suchman L. 2020. Algorithmic warfare and the reinvention of accuracy. Crit. Stud. Secur. 8:175–87
     [Google Scholar]
  142. Suchman L, Trigg R, Blomberg J. 2002. Working artefacts: ethnomethods of the prototype. Br. J. Sociol. 53:2163–79
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Taylor C. 2004. Modern Social Imaginaries Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Thomas SL, Nafus D, Sherman J. 2018. Algorithms as fetish: faith and possibility in algorithmic work. Big Data Soc 5:1 https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717751552
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Totaro P, Ninno D. 2014. The concept of algorithm as an interpretative key of modern rationality. Theor. Cult. Soc. 31:429–49
     [Google Scholar]
  146. Tsing AL. 2004. Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  147. Tufekci Z. 2015. Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google: emergent challenges of computational agency. Colo. Tech. L. J. 13:203–18
     [Google Scholar]
  148. Uricchio WC. 2015. Recommended for you. Prediction, creation, and the cultural work of algorithms. Berlin J 28:6–9
     [Google Scholar]
  149. van Es K, de Lange M. 2020. Data with its boots on the ground: datawalking as research method. Eur. J. Commun. 35:3278–89
     [Google Scholar]
  150. Varnelis K 2009. The Infrastructural City. Networked Ecologies in Los Angeles Barcelona, Spain: Actar
     [Google Scholar]
  151. Verran H. 2001. Science and an African Logic. Chicago: Univ Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  152. Vertesi J. 2014. Seamful spaces: heterogeneous infrastructures in interaction. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 39:2264–84
     [Google Scholar]
  153. Virno P. 2004. A Grammar of the Multitude. For an Analysis of Contemporary Forms of Life transl. I Bertoletti, J Cascaito, A Casson Los Angeles: Semiotext(e)
     [Google Scholar]
  154. Wark M. 2019. Capital Is Dead: Is This Something Worse? London: Verso
     [Google Scholar]
  155. Wilf E. 2013. Toward an anthropology of computer-mediated, algorithmic forms of sociality. Curr. Anthropol. 54:6716–39
     [Google Scholar]
  156. Woolgar S. 1990. Configuring the user: the case of usability trials. Sociol. Rev. 38:S158–99
     [Google Scholar]
  157. Wynter S, McKittrick K 2015. Unparalleled catastrophe for our species? Or, to give humannness a different future: conversations. In On Being Human As Praxis K McKittrick 9–89 Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  158. Yates S. 2022. Yes, the world's first AI supermodel is a Black woman—but is a white creator reaping the benefits?. AfroTech Dec. 8. https://afrotech.com/the-world-first-digital-supermodel-is-a-black-woman
    [Google Scholar]
  159. Ziewitz M. 2016. Governing algorithms: myth, mess, and symbols. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 41:13–16
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-052721-041547
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error