Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Livia Garofalo
(Data Society Research Institute)
Joan Mukogosi (Data Society Research Institute)
Send message to Convenors
- Discussant:
-
Alexa Hagerty
(University of Cambridge)
- Format:
- Traditional Open Panel
Short Abstract:
Digital technologies are transforming expertise, challenging traditional models of knowledge generation, altering how expertise is attributed. We invite scholars to reflect on how expertise is being mediated, transformed, and reimagined by digital technologies and configurations.
Long Abstract:
Expertise has long been a topic of scholarship and reflection as a form of mastery formally institutionalized in education systems (Abbott 1988) that carries social capital and regulatory power (Bourdieu 1975; Irwin et. al 1997). Expertise, as enactment (Carr 2010), is both embodied in practice and distributed through collaborative performance (Collins & Evans 2007; Dreyfus & Dreyfus 2005). More recently, scholars have reflected on the decline and transformation of professions and their authority, which has been called a “crisis of expertise.” (Eyal 2019). Digital technologies and social media have in many ways democratized access to knowledge and the bypassing of some professional expertise (Milan 2016). “Professional experts” themselves, in turn, participate in the dissemination of their knowledge on platforms where their expertise is contested as is embraced. At the same time, there has been a delegation and attribution of expertise to non-human agents (medical devices, generative AI, algorithmic management, etc) that often obscures the human labor and expertise invested in their creation.
Building upon recent formulations examining the manifestations and impacts of digital transformations of expertise (Burrell & Forcade 2021; Hafezieh and Pollock 2018; Lember and Brandsen 2019) we invite papers that reflect on how expertise is being mediated, transformed, and reimagined by digital technologies and configurations (i.e. wearables, platforms, care portals, personal data). We ask scholars to consider questions such as: How is expertise transformed through platformization? What can distributed or cultural notions of expertise contribute to frameworks of trust online? We are particularly interested in papers that center Black, Indigenous, queer, disabled, and majority world perspectives to understand how expertise is being rethought and reimagined and how digital technologies are contributing to this transformation.
Accepted papers:
Session 1Justien Dingelstad (Erasmus University Rotterdam) Francisca Grommé (Erasmus University Rotterdam) Iris Wallenburg (Erasmus University Rotterdam)
Long abstract:
This study focuses on a deep-learning algorithm to diagnose brain tumors. It was developed by an ambitious radiologist in a Dutch academic hospital, who imbued it with the promise of more accurate diagnosis, potentially establishing a new diagnostic ‘golden standard’ (Timmermans & Berg, 2003), a claim traditionally ascribed to pathologists. In collaboration with this radiologist, we conducted participatory ethnographic research for one year. One of the authors embodied the algorithm by vocalizing its predictive outcomes during neuro-oncology interdisciplinary team meetings. Still at about the same accuracy as the radiologist itself, for them the algorithm’s demonstration served as a means of showcasing its potential, and finding out how it would be received by other specialists.
We found that the algorithm challenged the existing hierarchy of expertise (Carr, 2010), stirring up reflections among specialists on their own claims to expertise, both during the meetings and in interviews. Following STS scholarship on AI and expert systems in medicine (Berg, 1997; Collins, 2021) and demonstrations of automata (e.g, Jones-Imhotep, 2020) we explain how both the discursive and material practices around the diagnosis of tumors were reconsidered under the promise of the ‘new AI expert’. Our embodiment of the algorithm allowed us to study this not just from the perspective of an observant of the interactions, but also as being intrinsically part of this changing expert dynamic.
Celia Chen (University of Maryland College Park)
Short abstract:
The paper investigates how Twitter shapes medical doctors' strategic communication of expertise online by identifying choices used to project credibility through thematic analysis, and provides transferable frameworks for mapping evolving knowledge exchange dynamics across virtual communities.
Long abstract:
This paper investigates the online identity construction of Twitter users displaying "MD" credentials in their display name, with a focus on individuals presenting themselves as medical doctors on the platform. Set against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, the study utilizes thematic analysis to explore how Twitter's technical constraints shape the projection of expertise. The findings reveal five prominent themes in tweets over a 4-month period, providing insights into strategic communication choices used on the platform. The literature review situates the study within social media scholarship while underscoring gaps in platform-specific analyses of online identity presentation among medical professionals. Drawing parallels between traditional expert-to-non-expert interactions and Twitter-based communication, the research advances understanding of public trust, scientific interpretation, and construction of medical expertise online. Quantitative assessment of credibility indicators by follower count contributes practical implications for the design of robust moderation tools on social platforms. Ultimately, this exploration of medical identity discourse via Twitter's unique affordances and visibility offers transferrable frameworks for mapping evolving dynamics of knowledge exchange across virtual communities.
Kristin Collett Caolo (University of Cambridge) Aisha Sobey (University of Cambridge)
Short abstract:
We argue that Femtech, which uses medical expertise to stigmatise weight and non-normative bodies in connection with problematised reproductive health, can compound medical discrimination, highlighting the insidiousness of platform expertise, which is based on normative and idealised existences.
Long abstract:
The prevalence of digital health technologies, supported by quantified-self discourses but targeted specifically at women, is rising. Yet, as authors such as Hendl and Jansky (2022) have found, health apps and the discourse surrounding them are based on exclusionary ontologies, normative femininity, and epistemic injustice, under the guise of promoting self-discovery and autonomy. Many such technologies position themselves as the trusted advisor whose expertise is new and superior to manipulate users to rely on their technology for health advice. We draw on fat studies (Gibson, 2021), disability and queer studies (Slater & Liddiard, 2018), and STS and Feminist Technoscience scholars (Lupton, 2016; Wajcman, 2010; Benjamin, 2019), to expand the criticism of femtech to explicitly include non-normative bodies which are intersectionally targeted by idealised framing and encoded bias.
Through a content analysis of the Femtech “Evie Ring”, we highlight the idealised normative user that is encoded into the technologies. As such, we show how technologies that use medical expertise to stigmatise weight and non-normative bodies in connection with problematised reproductive health can compound medical discrimination faced by women who do not present with normative bodies, encoding non-normative body bias into technology. In doing so, we challenge the offered self-expertise as a form of exploitation framed as medical advice and highlight the insidiousness of platform expertise, which is based on normative and idealised existences. This adds to STS literature by amalgamating theories of non-normative bodies into a holistic critique of Femtech and the mechanisms through which medical expertise repeatedly marginalises difference.
Marius Liedtke (University of Salzburg)
Short abstract:
This contribution investigates negotiations of health expertise and authority in the context of social media and the various actors invested, by exploring the controversy surrounding the admission of German YouTube channel “Liebscher & Bracht” into the designated “Health”-program of the platform.
Long abstract:
This contribution investigates negotiations of health expertise and authority in the context of social media and the various actors invested in them, by exploring the public controversy surrounding the admission of German YouTube channel “Liebscher & Bracht” into the designated "Health"-program of the platform.
According to YouTube, its “Health”-program was launched in an effort to counteract misinformation and improve users access to “health-related” contents from reliable resources. Channels deemed “authoritative health sources” can recaive a visible seal and preferential algorithmic treatment on the site. Adherence to a set of standards defined by the National Academy of Medicine in the US and ratified by the World Health Organization („science-based“, „objective“, „transparent and accountable“) was determined as decisive for this. However, when “Liebscher & Bracht” as Germanys largest “health-related” channel was admitted, legacy media outlets highlighted its medically unsound advice and exaggerated therapeutic promises. This raises concerns over YouTube’s commitment to its self-set standards, especially since watchdog organizations as well as other content creators on the platform have long warned against “Liebscher & Bracht” for their unsubstantiated claims.
This article examines the constructions and contestations of expertise and authority that the many actors involved in the issue participate in, using an integrated mix of interpretative and digital methods. Furthermore, it also takes the perspective of the audience into account by analyzing and mapping discussions in the comment sections of YouTube videos and news articles, where often very positive personal experiences with “Liebscher & Bracht’s” content are weighted against the presented critique.
Deanna Holroyd (The Ohio State University)
Long abstract:
According to social media users’ comments, the recent increase in social media content detailing the symptoms and experiences of living with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) has led to many users self-diagnosing with the disorder. This paper interrogates how content creators have become credible experts about ADHD, and how TikTok has become a voice of authority in the self-diagnosis of ADHD. Conducting a digital ethnography, I analyze ADHD TikToks and the technological infrastructures/assemblages surrounding the TikTok app, to delineate how expertise about the neurodivergent mind is created on TikTok. I demonstrate how content creators create videos that cultivate sentiments of trust, intimacy, and relatability, while also adopting visual and discursive norms from other trending TikTok content, and from more traditional visual media content. In doing so, ADHD content creators generate authority by conforming and contributing to a set of coproduced content standards that ensure their videos are deemed viewable and relevant by viewers and the algorithm. Contrary to traditional understandings of authority, I find that medical expertise on TikTok is not produced by individuals or institutions, but rather by content creators’ collective performativity of everyday lived experiences, and their engagement with the supporting technologies of the TikTok app. To account for this shift in how expertise are mediated in our digital mediascape, I build on theories of social, cultural, and algorithmic authority, to offer a theoretical framework of ‘techno-cultural authority’. I ultimately argue that the techno-cultural authority of ADHD TikTok challenges traditional authority figures and disrupts conventions of Western medical expertise.
Yana Boeva (University of Stuttgart)
Long abstract:
As knowledge-based work, architecture and civil engineering have been slowly adopting digital technologies into work processes and routines. Application and use of digital technologies have continuously been associated with knowledge production and forms of boundary work underpinning different expertise in this sector (see Cardoso Llach, 2015; Loukissas, 2012). Recently, computational methods such as coding, algorithms, and machine learning have further transformed expertise (Boeva & Kropp, 2024). While many accounts of the sector’s digital transformation suggest a uniform depiction of how digital technology and expertise relate, the actuality is somewhat nuanced. As early social studies on expert systems development and questions of skill and expertise (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986, 2005; Forsythe, 1993) have emphasized, expertise also entails situational response and experience. This paper argues that expertise in this domain is continuously and individually (re-)constructed through internal and external boundary work in the practices and relations with digital technologies and other ‘experts,’ sometimes represented through digital technologies. Drawing upon an ethnography and interview-based study on conditions for implementing computational methods to design for climate neutrality, the paper presents a situated perspective on expertise in this knowledge-based domain. It shows that multiple forms of expertise and knowledge practices co-exist with or emerge from digital technologies depending on actors’ education, background, experience, work projects, and organizational structures. However, given the codification of design and construction knowledge through generative AIs pursued by software companies and start-ups (Boeva et al., 2023), this varied and situational expertise may become diminished for the sake of calculative rationality.
Mounika Neerukonda (International Institute of Information Technology Bangalore) Janaki Srinivasan Raktima Kalita (International Institute of Information Technology, Bangalore) Balaji Parthasarathy Meghashree Balaraj (International Institute of Information Technology) Bilahari M (International Institute of Information Technology, Bangalore)
Long abstract:
This paper argues that while the growth of digital gig-work platforms , and the ‘flexible’ nature of the work they provide (Cano et al., 2021; Hickson, 2023) enables workers to multi-app, i.e., work for and switch between different platforms to maximise their earnings (Popan, 2023), it simultaneously transforms understandings of expertise in those fields of work (Rani et al., 2023; Sutherland et al., 2020). Drivers, home service professionals (beauticians, plumbers, electricians) and others multi-app to make ends meet in platform-based gig work. They even jump between sectors (multi-apping between ride hailing and food delivery sectors, for instance) in a single day, thereby rendering their core ‘expertise’ beside the point. Instead of skilled practitioners, they act as precarious workers who shift between sectors to make a decent living (Graham et al., 2017; Wood et al., 2018). Where expertise was inferred based on factors such as qualifications, skills and years of experience traditionally, here, perceptions of expertise (workers’ own, the customers’ and the platform’s) are equally influenced by the results of algorithmic work allocation and customer ratings (both of which can limit workers’ probability of getting jobs, growing their income or moving up the economic ladder (De Souza, 2022)). This paper uses interviews conducted by Fairwork India, which has been rating the working conditions of platform-based gig workers annually since 2019, to examine how these new logics of work allocation have transformed definitions of expertise and with what consequences of the shift in expertise for the varied fields of work in question.
Ignacio Perez (University of Glasgow)
Long abstract:
This paper delves into the transformative effects of big data on the expertise of transport engineers in Santiago de Chile, underscoring the reconfiguration of professional boundaries and power within urban transport management. The advent of big data in the city's public transit system has challenged transport engineers to revisit and refine their approach to boundary work (Gieryn, 1983), leveraging their unique position to mediate between traditional engineering practices and the emerging demands of big data. Such involvement not only demonstrates their versatility but also underscores their pivotal role in facilitating the adoption of big data, thereby consolidating their established authority within Santiago’s public transport infrastructure.
The analysis reveals that by acting as boundary spanners (Levina and Vaast, 2005), transport engineers navigate the complex interface between technological advances and operational needs, consequently redefining their domain of expertise. Their efforts to connect different areas of knowledge among various stakeholders show a deliberate use of expertise to maintain and enhance their authority, indicating wider shifts in the power dynamics, the role of expertise, and the use of technology in managing urban infrastructure.
This research, grounded in the sociotechnical context of Santiago, illuminates how expertise contributes to incorporating data-intensive technologies into public transport. It highlights the importance of established disciplines and the distribution of power. This case study offers a perspective on how technical expertise and power are reconfigured with the development of data-intensive technologies, marking a significant shift in how urban infrastructure is managed and operated.
Benedict Olgado (University of the Philippines)
Long abstract:
Databases emerged as a central infrastructure in the human rights field. The web of technical, formal, and social practices that surround these databases render violations as calculable metrics, turn actors into datafied bodies, and manage evidence as digital objects (Bowsher). Various actors—from lawyers to victims/survivors, documentalists to software engineers—with their respective claims to expertise entrust and layer things and meaning on to and through this complex assemblage. This datafication bring novel avenues for pursuing justice. It also has the potential to exacerbate epistemic violence in/of the field already entangled in the geopolitics of expertise.
This paper draws from my two-year ethnographic work at an international NGO building databases for human rights groups. I study these databases as boundary objects (Star) and contact zones (Pratt) where various experts and expertise present, encounter, compete, negotiate, and translate memory practices (Bowker). In this often-contentious processes of what I call “datafied mnemopolitics,” expertise persist, emerge, adapt, and are displaced as they engage in actions ranging from vernacularization to masquerade. I specifically highlight databasing activities from the Global South that seek to rethink mechanisms of justice, as they go against established templates anchored to ahistorical liberal Western practice. These geopolitical encounters illustrate how techno expertise shape and are mediated by the databases they engender. Attending to datafied mnemopolitics enables a reimagining of the human rights field and its contentious ecology of expertise.