Guest editorial Science & Technology Studies 29(1)

Knowledge infrastructures: Part I

Helena Karasti
Department of People and Technology, Roskilde University, Denmark / [email protected]
Information Systems, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden / [email protected]
INTERACT, University of Oulu, Finland / [email protected]

Florence Millerand
Department of Public and Social Communication, University of Quebec at Montreal, Canada /
[email protected]

Christine M. Hine
Department of Sociology, University of Surrey, UK / [email protected]

Geoffrey C. Bowker
Department of Informatics, University of Irvine, CA, USA / [email protected]

The focus of this special issue is on Knowledge for instance, academia, industry, business, and
Infrastructures. We have witnessed important general public. The social, material, technical,
changes in research and knowledge production and political relations of research and knowledge
in recent decades associated with developments production appear to be changing through digi-
in information technologies and infrastructures. talization of data, communication and collabo-
In some circles these changes are promoted as ration, virtualization of research communities
a transformative force enabling new forms of and networks, and infrastructuring of underlying
investigation, but they may also be perceived systems, structures, and services. These emerging
as buttressing existing forms of research. These phenomena participate in ongoing transitions
developments aim to pull people together, in the scholarly arena, and in society in general:
supporting distributed collaboration or facili- traditional ways of doing research may be chal-
tating new joint activities and endeavors across lenged and knowledge production may become
domains, fields, institutions, and geographies. more distributed and broader in participation.
They potentially offer new opportunities for These phenomena have been cast under several
the sharing and connecting of information and labels such as big science, data-driven science,
resources–data, code, publications, computing networked science, open science, Digital Humani-
power, laboratories, instruments, and major ties, and science 2.0. Other terms used are:
equipment. They often bring together a diversity e-Science, e-Social Science, e-Research, e-Infra-
of actors, organizations, and perspectives from, structure, and cyberinfrastructure.

2
 Karasti et al.

The stimulus for this special issue was a taking stock, the scope defined in the initial call
common realization that the time has come to for papers was deliberately inclusive. As an inter-
draw together the current state of developments disciplinary research field, STS builds on a variety
in this topic area as viewed from the perspective of disciplines and disciplinary subfields. Within
of Science and Technology Studies (STS) and to the topic of knowledge infrastructures, several
evaluate the contribution of the distinctive set of research perspectives are brought together.
theoretical resources of STS to the understanding Interdisciplinary research integrations are often
of knowledge infrastructures. In doing so we build needed in order to engage with the complex
upon a considerable momentum of work in STS technical, epistemological, and institutional
and related fields focused on the study of new aspects of these projects, and the cross-fertili-
infrastructures for knowledge production. The zation is broadening beyond the founding STS
precursors of the current special issue include, for disciplinary field to include, for example, Social
instance special issues in the Journal of Computer- Informatics, Library Studies and Information
Mediated Communication (‘Exploring e-Science’, Sciences. Also, while most of the existing work has
Jankowski, 2007), Journal of the Association for focused on studying knowledge infrastructures
Information Systems (‘e-Infrastructure’, Edwards in the natural, medical, and engineering sciences,
et al., 2009; ‘Innovation in Information Infrastruc- studies of knowledge infrastructures in arts, social
tures’, Monteiro et al., 2014), Computer Supported sciences, and humanities are on the rise, thus
Collaborative Work: The Journal of Collaborative increasing the variety of domain-specific (sub)
Computing and Work Practices (‘Collaboration in disciplines. In the call for papers we therefore did
e-Research’, Jirotka et al., 2006; ‘Sociotechnical not restrict the domain of knowledge and, indeed,
Studies of Cyberinfrastructure and e-Research’, hoped to bring together papers that explored
Ribes & Lee, 2010) and the Cultural Anthropology the development of infrastructures across a wide
journal (‘The Infrastructure Toolbox ’, Appel et al., range of institutional settings and both within
2015).1 Several workshops, conference sessions and beyond academic science. The resulting crop
and theme-specific conferences have been held of papers has indeed realised this aspiration: in
since. Edited collections on the topic include, this issue we present papers relating to indus-
among others, Hine (2006), Olson et al. (2008), trial environmental monitoring, public health
Jankowski (2009), Dutton & Jeffreys (2010), surveillance, and Wikipedia’s portrayal of schizo-
Edwards et al. (2013), Wouters et al. (2013), and phrenia. Future issues will expand the institutional
Mongili & Pellegrino (2014). Knowledge infra- focus again and also explore scientific and social
structures have clearly piqued the interest of scientific knowledge production. The juxtaposi-
many scholars working in and around the STS tion will, we hope, enable an evaluation of cross-
tradition. The potential of knowledge infrastruc- cutting themes and fruitful cross-fertilization of
tures to unite a concern with the emergence ideas across domains of knowledge that might
of complex socio-technical systems with the otherwise be kept separate.
enduring Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK) Taking stock and charting new directions in
interest in the micro-level practices and contin- knowledge infrastructures research appears all
gent outcomes of knowledge production makes the more necessary as the complexity of the
them an attractive object for STS study. This phenomena calls for theoretical and methodolog-
interest is further stimulated by the emergence of ical developments, actively engaging STS scholars
knowledge infrastructures as a prominent topical to revisit existing approaches and contributions.
field invested with significant cultural expecta- The issues not only relate to how we can best
tions, the focus of high profile investment from study and understand knowledge infrastructures,
research funding bodies and government institu- but also how we could imagine them moving
tions. forward (Edwards et al., 2013) and to what extent
Our aim in presenting this special issue on the we expect STS scholars to be an active part of
topic of knowledge infrastructures is to take stock imagining these futures.
of existing research and chart new directions. For

3
 Science & Technology Studies 29(1)

In STS the study of infrastructures has roots in invisible (Star, 1999), such as the ‘infrastructural
the history of Large Technical Systems: initially inversion’ suggested by Bowker (1994) to focus
focusing on electricity supply networks (Hughes, on all the activities that warrant the functioning
1983, 1989) subsequently exploring other large of infrastructure (e.g. formation, maintenance,
systems such as transportation, water supply, upgrade, breakdown, repair) rather than those
district heating, and waste management (Van that it invisibly supports. New ways to study
der Vleuten, 2004). The seminal work of Star and large or distributed phenomena – offline and
Ruhleder (1994, 1996), studying an early infra- online, as well as longitudinal, multi-sited, multi-
structure for scientific collaboration, provided scope, and ‘messy’ dimensions of infrastructures
a first conceptualization of infrastructure as a are suggested (Hine, 2000, 2008; Beaulieu, 2010;
contextualized ‘relation’ rather than a ‘thing’ Karasti et al., 2010; Jackson & Buyuktur, 2014). As
and emphasized the situated practical work of STS scholars have a history of ‘intervening’ while
developing and using infrastructures. During studying science and technology phenomena,
the following two decades, the early studies and approaches have been developed to not only
concepts became widely used to inform new analyse the outcomes of knowledge infrastruc-
infrastructure studies and developments in a ture work but also to engage actively with the
variety of contexts (Edwards et al., 2007). Theo- formation, enactment, and co-construction of
retical challenges for studying knowledge infra- infrastructures (Neumann & Star, 1996; Ribes &
structures include understanding of the complex Baker, 2007). As we issued the call for papers for
multi-scale relations and multiple scopes involved, this special issue, we were interested to examine
the local and situated dimension of infrastructure what kinds of innovative methodological devel-
together with its global and pervasive nature, and opments would emerge. How could existing
the complex work of alignment and coordination methods be improved? What roles are STS
of activities across different socio-material worlds scholars adopting in relation to the projects they
and technological arrangements. These dimen- study, and is an active or embedded STS emerging
sions have been and continue to be the focus of in this field? Again, this editorial introduction
many studies, providing interesting approaches, makes a first pass at identifying methodological
perspectives, and metaphors. Yet, important approaches that prove promising, but this will be
aspects and areas remain under-studied or under- revisited in future issues.
understood. What are the main theoretical contri-
butions of research on knowledge infrastructures
Articles in this first part
in past decades? How could STS and other
of the special issue
fields’ perspectives, concepts and metaphors be
revisited and advanced? Some tentative answers The three articles presented in this first part of
will be drawn out at the end of this editorial, but the special issue provide some elements to frame
this key set of questions will be revisited in future our initial evaluation of emerging themes. We
issues as the corpus of papers builds. briefly review and reflect on the articles, whilst
Methodological challenges related to the also pointing to the way they contribute to
study of knowledge infrastructures include furthering our understanding of infrastructures
their geographical distribution across multiple for knowledge production. The following section
locations and within online spaces, their evolution then draws together emerging theoretical and
over extended periods of time, their sociotech- methodological developments and evaluates
nical nature, the multiplicity and heterogeneity their contribution to the existing literature.
of participants and institutions involved as well The special issue opens with an article by Sally
as the ‘double challenge’ of having to understand Wyatt, Anna Harris, and Susan E. Kelly focusing
both information technologies and the domain on a knowledge infrastructure that sits outside
discipline(s) under investigation. Methodological of scholarly knowledge production, narrowly
developments so far have provided tools and defined. Wikipedia’s infrastructure allows a diverse
orientations for studying the mundane and the set of actors including scientists and lay people

4
 Karasti et al.

to participate in the production of a publicly et al. note that the production of the schizo-
available knowledge resource that aspires to be phrenia pages relies upon an active process of
neutral and evidence-based. Wyatt et al.’s explo- citation and curation that is at times contradictory
ration of the processes that lead to the produc- and not always apparently in compliance with
tion of this knowledge resource suggests that the overt rules of Wikipedia. Contrary to observa-
rather than simply reflecting existing knowledge, tions from previous STS studies of infrastructure
the Wikipedia infrastructure offers a site of active that the work that sustains an infrastructure is
knowledge production, through the work that often rendered invisible, the authors argue that
goes into curation of resources, which in turn Wikipedia provides an interesting case in which
involves ongoing interpretation of Wikipedia’s the infrastructure itself makes visible the work that
own rules for participation. goes into sustaining it. In particular, they suggest,
The article “Controversy goes online: schizo- Wikipedia and the internet more broadly offer STS
phrenia genetics on Wikipedia” utilises a specific a new array of sites to allow study of controversies
aspect of the Wikipedia infrastructure as a meth- in action.
odological tool. In order to explore the active The second article “A measure of ‘environ-
practices underpinning the production of two key, mental happiness’: Infrastructuring environmental
and often controversial, Wikipedia entries focused risk in offshore oil and gas operations” by Elena
on schizophrenia, the authors analyse the content Parmiggiani and Eric Monteiro reports on the
of the Talk pages that track the editing of the page development of a knowledge production process
and record discussions between editors about and knowledge infrastructure to introduce envi-
appropriate edits to make. By focusing on the Talk ronmental risk monitoring into an industrial
pages relating to schizophrenia genetics Wyatt et setting. The oil and gas company in question
al. are able to explore the interpretive work that wishes to establish a baseline for subsea environ-
lies behind decisions on what should be included mental monitoring in response to the Norwegian
in the page and on the weight to be given to the government’s promotion of knowledge-based
various positions within this highly controversial approaches for decision-making affecting the
field of research. Editorial work is carried on with environment. The company’s selected site for
reference to over-arching rules for participation performing real-time environmental monitoring
within Wikipedia, which require, for example, use is a sub-Arctic marine ecosystem off the coast of
of reliable published sources, prohibit original northern Norway. The area is estimated to be rich
research, and dictate use of a neutral point-of- in petroleum resources but currently banned for
view. The Talk pages demonstrate a strong prior- drilling. Establishing a knowledge infrastructure
itisation of published scientific literature and also for real-time environmental monitoring is seen
reliance upon published reviews to avoid having to position the company favourably in the case
to curate lists of single studies and thus risking of future opening of the High North for oil and
accusations of drawing original conclusions. gas operations. However, these inhospitable (to
However, the actual choice of points to include in human) sub-sea areas are also ecologically rich in
the entries on schizophrenia is shaped in practice flora and fauna, providing habitats, for example,
by a somewhat ad hoc interpretation of what for the world’s largest population of a species of
counts as a credible study or an appropriate high- cold-water coral and the world’s largest stocks
level review, by an embedded hierarchy among of fish, and the scenic coastline is attractive for
the editors and by differential expertise and tourism and recreation. Constant controversy
access to resources across those editors. prevails between environmental concerns, fishing
Taken at first sight the infrastructure of industries and oil and gas operations.
Wikipedia, including the rules for participation, Parmiggiani and Monteiro’s article investigates
appears to act to discourage the emergence of the integration of a new type of activity, environ-
controversy, but through the Talk pages Wikipedia mental monitoring, into the company’s existing
preserves traces of the work through which this safety and risk assessment infrastructure as “an
smoothing over of controversy is achieved. Wyatt effort of innovation and experimentation at the

5
 Science & Technology Studies 29(1)

fringes between operation-based monitoring in the Norwegian context, has constructed its
and long-term environmental monitoring”. The infrastructural activities in the sub-Arctic as a
paper focuses on the data construction process public problem for specific audiences. The infra-
across a knowledge-infrastructure-in-the-making structuring mechanisms are complemented by
with a specific interest in how uncertainty about continuous application of strategies, such as
the marine environment is quantified into a social networking and openness with regard to
knowledge base. Three infrastructuring mecha- risk representations. These measures are directed
nisms are identified, i.e. sensoring, validating, at building trust (rather than consensus) because
and abstracting, to participate in the ‘cooking’ while the means of environmental monitoring
of the ‘raw’ data into a new “measure of environ- can be shared the ends are seen differently by
mental happiness”. The little knowledge available fishermen, research institutions, and the general
of a small sub-marine location is quantified into public.
representations of ecosystem behavior and The final article of this first part of the special
embedded into the operations of a global oil and issue, by Angie M. Boyce, reports on public
gas company. All this necessitates a knowledge health surveillance activities in the US and the
infrastructure, the analysis of which needs to be repurposing of materials and data in connecting
able to account for the networked and long-term heterogeneous infrastructures. Public health
dynamic relations between social, technical, and surveillance activities depend heavily on infra-
natural elements. structures built for other purposes to achieve their
Parmiggiani and Monteiro further our under- goals (they are ‘second-order systems’); materials,
standing of infrastructures for knowledge data and information from the health care and
production by discussing how the emerging food systems need to be connected to identify the
spatial, temporal, and socio-political tensions are ultimate cause of an outbreak. The paper presents
leveraged in practice in the process of infrastruc- an ethnographic analysis of a case of foodborne
turing the sub-marine ecosystem into a baseline outbreak detection to analyze the practical work
across the knowledge infrastructure. First, spatial of repurposing materials and data from other
tensions arise in the full range from data collec- sources and address the ‘frictions’ that arise
tion and interpretation to risk representations. A between the systems and infrastructures.
fishermen’s echo sounder is repurposed for envi- The article “Outbreaks and the manage-
ronmental monitoring, but as the sensor’s location ment of ‘second-order friction’” addresses two
and (im)mobility as well as spatial perspective are important aspects of infrastructural interdepend-
altered, the ‘same’ data acquired with the ‘same’ ency: the practical work of creating and main-
instrument are rendered quite different for inter- taining dependent systems and the broader
pretation. Through risk representations, such as sociopolitical and ethical consequences of inter-
the coral risk matrix, environmental value indi- connecting infrastructures. Public health surveil-
cators are made global but remain grounded lance implies piecing together and reworking
in the historical data collected at the local site. materials and data created by diverse actors in
Second, the real-time and long-term temporali- different contexts. The role of the health care
ties inherent to environmental monitoring pose system is to treat patients, and in order to do so to
new concerns. Environmental monitoring has collect information relevant to fulfilling its clinical
become fast, interconnected, and open to close function, while public health surveillance implies
scrutiny. The different conceptions of time are collecting, analyzing and interpreting health
frozen into different enactments of risk, such as data in a systematic way, as well as integrating
the company’s bonus/penalty contract and risk them into programs for prevention and control.
matrix, including understandings of compro- The paper shows how connecting these hetero-
mises and trade-offs between the temporalities geneous sociotechnical infrastructures goes on
of risk to different participants (nature, partners, through a daily work of ‘repurposing’ activities (for
and oil and gas industry). Last, NorthOil, having a instance when a database managed by a national
strong but contested political-economic position laboratory is being repurposed into a local

6
 Karasti et al.

laboratory-epidemiology communication tool). Reflections on emerging

The paper also shows that collegiality matters knowledge infrastructure themes
immensely for smoothing the frictions arising in
The three articles presented in this special issue
such critical contexts, in which important infor-
investigate knowledge infrastructures as diverse
mation is generated at different times by different
as Wikipedia, an environmental monitoring
players. If databases serve as key tools, the human
system in industrial settings, and public health
dimension of infrastructure (Lee et al., 2006) is also
surveillance infrastructures. They all present
of particular importance.
new ways of creating, generating, sharing, and
Boyce introduces analytic language for under-
disputing knowledge and explore the altered
standing multi-infrastructural dynamics, by making
mechanics of knowledge production and circula-
use of notions such as ‘repurposing’ and ‘friction’ to
tion. The studies contribute to our understanding
surface the ‘invisible work’ (Star, 1999) of making
of infrastructures for knowledge production in
infrastructures built for other purposes to serve
different ways, each of them shedding new light
public health needs. If these notions have proved
on certain dimensions of knowledge and of infra-
to be helpful tools to study understudied dimen-
structure and contributing new threads to the
sions such as infrastructure maintenance and
STS interest in this field. In this section we draw
repair (Jackson, 2014), her study shows in great
out a preliminary set of cross-cutting theoretical
details how they also help in understanding the
themes and significant methodological issues.
nature of the dependent relationship between
With the notion of infrastructure comes the
‘first-order’ and ‘second-order’ infrastructures,
crucial question of scale: an issue rendered even
together with the challenges entailed. The notion
more complex in this field as by their nature
of ‘second-order frictions’ is suggested to talk
knowledge infrastructures are often accrued/
about how the actors “enact and experience”
layered and dispersed rather than discrete identi-
the dynamic relationships between the different
fiable objects (both to those studying them and
infrastructures involved in repurposing activities.
to those involved in their development and use).
They encounter frictions of many forms, such as
Knowledge infrastructures are seldom built de
‘moral’ frictions associated with using shopper
novo (Star & Ruhleder, 1994, 1996), they gather
card data to assist in outbreak investigations (as a
and accrete incrementally and slowly, over time
mean to address limitations of ‘food histories’ data
(Anand, 2015). They are brought into being on
collected through interviews with affected individ-
top of existing infrastructures that both constrain
uals), or concerns over data interoperability (when
and enable their form (Star, 1999). Knowledge
culture-independent rapid tests are preferred over
infrastructures are ecologies consisting of
culture-based methods in the health care system).
numerous systems, each with unique origins
The interconnection of multiple and heteroge-
and goals, which are made to interoperate by
neous infrastructures often implies broader soci-
means of standards, socket layers, social practices,
opolitical and ethical consequences, and public
norms, and individual behaviors that smooth
health surveillance infrastructures provide good
out the connections among them. The adaptive
illustrations in this respect. Public health surveil-
process is continuous, as elements change and
lance infrastructures become visible only when an
new ones are introduced–but it is not neces-
outbreak occurs–connections between the public
sarily always successful (Edwards et al., 2013: 5).
health and the food systems are made only in
While knowledge infrastructures may connect
the context of outbreaks, on an ad-hoc basis. The
and coincide, they seldom fully cohere (Anand,
invisibility of these infrastructures may definitively
2015). Given the accrued/layered nature of infra-
contribute to their neglect and potentially thus
structure, navigating among different scales–
influence the health of the population.
whether of time and space, of human collectives,
or of data–represents a critical challenge for both
the design, use and maintenance of knowledge
infrastructures (Edwards et al., 2013: 8) as well
as for their investigation. The knowledge infra-

7
 Science & Technology Studies 29(1)

structures under study in the three papers here in the making, in case of breakdown (Bowker et
are large-scale infrastructures. They share typical al., 2010) or observed as they are being formed,
infrastructural qualities, e.g. involving numerous used, maintained, or repaired (Star & Bowker,
entities, reaching beyond one-site practice, and 2002; Karasti et al., 2010; Jackson, 2014) since
implicating copious stakeholders. They span these moments make visible parts and aspects
multiple information environments, technologies, otherwise hard to uncover.
organizations, regulatory frameworks, and so on. While invisibility is thus a recurrent theme in
It is important, then, to note how the researchers STS-influenced studies of infrastructure, experi-
have carved out the knowledge infrastructure for ence has shown that some knowledge infrastruc-
their investigation as this entails decisions as to tures are more amenable than others to study
which aspects of the infrastructure are included and that they do not all share the same degree of
and which parts are ignored. It is important invisibility. This differentiation is seen across the
to recognize that “infrastructures operate on three articles presented here. In Parmiggiani and
differing levels simultaneously, generating Monteiro’s study, the researchers realised that the
multiple forms of address and that any particular workers involved in developing the new environ-
set of intellectual questions will have to select mental monitoring knowledge infrastructure for
which of these levels to examine” (Larkin, 2013: the company, in fact, sought to answer the same
330). Study of knowledge infrastructures is often questions as the researchers; they were engaged
a process of identifying possible connections and in making visible many hidden infrastruc-
potentially relevant contextualizing factors in tural issues, both existing and new, relating for
tentative fashion, pursuing those connections that instance to data, the sub-sea environment, and
enable particular practices and decisions to make the instruments. The public health surveillance
sense. The three papers presented here exemplify infrastructures studied by Boyce, in turn, may be
a careful approach to the emergent boundaries envisioned as typical invisible infrastructures; they
of the study but ultimately make contingent and take shape at specific moments in time (in case of
potentially consequential choices on the specific an outbreak) and even then, they do not present
focus of attention, shaped partly by the agency themselves as well delimited and easy to grasp
of the field in rendering some connections more entities but rather as complex and messy assem-
possible to follow up than others. blage of systems, organisations, and people. An
Invisibility is a fundamental notion in infra- infrastructure like Wikipedia as studied by Wyatt et
structure studies (Star & Ruhleder, 1996; Neumann al. provides a set of online spaces that enable the
& Star, 1996; Star, 1999, 2002; Bowker & Star, practices behind curation work to become visible
1999; Bowker et al., 2010). The issue of invisibility (the ‘talk pages’), thus allowing the observation of
resonates through the articles as an important the controversies in action. In this particular case,
analytical key to understand knowledge infra- it is a specific property of the Wikipedia infra-
structures. In this context, invisibility may refer to structure that becomes a methodological tool
the invisible nature of the infrastructures them- for studying some otherwise less visible activi-
selves (Star & Ruhleder, 1996), the invisible work ties of knowledge production. Looking across
performed by actors (Shapin, 1989), and the these three cases, then, the classic concern of STS
processes of making visible–or invisible–activi- infrastructure studies with invisibility appears,
ties and related challenges (Bowker et al., 1995). but this invisibility plays quite different roles
If the latter two have been much to the fore in in the narrative of the articles and in the trajec-
studies on infrastructures, the invisible nature of tory of the projects they study. In studying new
infrastructures themselves has rarely been put infrastructures for knowledge production in quite
into question. Indeed, we often consider infra- different fields of deployment it is clear that we
structures as invisible entities almost by definition, need to be sensitive to the varying orientations of
disappearing into the background along with the the actors involved and those studying their work
work and the workers that create or maintain to the various degrees of silence and openness
them. Thus, infrastructures are often analysed that this work entails.

8
 Karasti et al.

The three articles share an STS perspective tions are constructed to quantify risks for the envi-
that does not expect sociotechnical work to ronment.
proceed smoothly and is not only interested in If scale, invisibility, tensions, uncertainty,
the ultimate ‘winners’ but pays careful attention and accountability are among the interesting
to the emergence of tensions, frictions, and features of knowledge infrastructures, then how
controversies when studying these infrastruc- does this imply that we should study knowledge
tures and understands that the particular sets infrastructures? While infrastructures are often
of relations that emerge through the develop- conceived of as large-scale entities, a common
ment of an infrastructure could always have been entry point for studying them is a level of analysis
otherwise. Where the infrastructure in question is at a smaller scale. The methods used in two of the
a repository of knowledge, the way in which these three articles (Boyce; Parmiggiani & Monteiro)
tensions, frictions and controversies are identified are ethnographically inspired, whereas Wyatt et
(or ignored) and handled by participants is poten- al. employ thematic analysis on the corpus of
tially highly consequential in shaping the resulting data collected from Wikipedia. Wyatt et al. neatly
knowledge. The papers presented here exemplify bound their empirical research object by collating
the STS-inflected concern with questioning how a all material related to two English-language schiz-
knowledge infrastructure emerges, who contrib- ophrenia genetics Wikipedia articles. They analyse
utes to its fabrication, how it is made sustainable, the citation and curation of ambiguous scientific
and what are the wider political challenges associ- knowledge by examining ‘infrastructural details’
ated with its development. of internet technology, i.e. text, images, hyper-
Because knowledge infrastructures always links, and ‘talk pages’ that make visible the social
embody some kind of political agenda, because actions of negotiating, producing, and circulating
they ‘grow’ on a pre-existing installed base– new forms of knowledge that is potentially global
‘piggybacking’ on other infrastructures–they pose in its distribution.
multiple sources of friction, conflict, or resistance The two ethnographically inspired articles
activities. Aligned with the issues of tensions, engage in the ‘infrastructural inversion’, that allows
frictions, and controversies, the articles presented researchers to scrutinize infrastructural “technolo-
here identify and discuss infrastructural activities gies and arrangements that, by design and habit,
that also speak to the dynamic, evolving nature of tend to fade into the woodwork” (Bowker & Star,
the knowledge infrastructure: enacting; infrastruc- 1999: 34). Their operationalisations of infrastruc-
turing through diverse forms of work including tural inversion are, however, quite different. Boyce
technology development, data generation, tacked “back and forth between the practical
processing, and circulation, building trust with work of maintaining second-order systems, and
participants and potential users, and operating the socio-political and ethical consequences of
effectively on the socio-political level; and repur- that work as a form of ‘infrastructural inversion’”
posing. Inherent in much of this work is the in order to better appreciate the “depths of inter-
management of ambiguity and uncertainty and dependence of technical networks and standards
the development of specific relations of account- on the one hand and the real work of politics and
ability to decide who makes determinations of knowledge production on the other” (Bowker
whether a particular knowledge infrastructure or & Star, 1999: 34). She looked at the ‘frictions’
dataset is “good enough” for purpose. Of particular created by the interconnection of disparate infra-
importance for the study of the knowledge infra- structures, finding that these frictions take many
structures presented here are the processes by forms and are of different orders, ranging from
which pieces of knowledge are produced, circu- technical incompatibility to moral concerns (e.g.
lated, repurposed, boxed, contested, or validated. repurposing shopper card information into data
This may imply looking at, among other things, for food outbreak investigation). Parmiggiani
how ‘raw’ data become ‘cooked’ to produce infor- and Monteiro, after realizing that the company
mation, how a standard is enacted, in what ways a employees were engaged in activities of infra-
system gets repurposed, or how new representa- structural inversion as part of their work of devel-

9
 Science & Technology Studies 29(1)

oping the environmental monitoring knowledge solicited studies of knowledge infrastructures not
infrastructure, followed the key actors in the field limited to scholarly knowledge production, but
in order to learn with them. Based on this they addressing also, for instance citizen/civil science,
were able to bring to the forefront also wider as well as studies that address emerging forms of
socio-political issues associated with knowledge knowledge production, such as open data/science,
infrastructures, focusing on, for instance, the ways or studies that explore knowledge infrastructures
in which a ‘private’ infrastructure of an enterprise in commercial or public services domains. This
became constructed as a public concern. In both request was generously responded to, as the
of these studies the operation of infrastructures articles in this first part of the special issue testify.
at multiple levels simultaneously, as outlined The following parts will continue portraying the
by Larkin (2013), becomes a live issue for the diversity of knowledge infrastructures both within
researcher to handle as they decide which aspects and outside the academy, featuring also some
to examine and how, practically speaking, to more geographical breadth by including articles
bound their object of analysis. also from researchers outside Europe and the US.
In future editorial introductions we will develop
the analysis of emergent theoretical and meth-
Ensuing parts of the special issue
odological themes, in particular discussing further
The initial call for papers on knowledge infra- significant knowledge infrastructure themes, such
structures received a good response, and has as temporality and accountability, as they arise in
produced more papers than will fit in a single the articles. In the editorial for the last part of the
issue of the journal. Thus, the special issue will special issue we will focus particularly on charting
consist of several parts that will all appear in the new directions for the study of knowledge infra-
course of year 2016 as papers complete the review structures.
process. In the special issue call for papers we

10
 Karasti et al.

Notes
1 Closely related to the topic and concept of infrastructure, mainly concerned with social studies of energy,
two recent sets of special issues of the Science & Technology Studies journal have also developed similar
themes, see Silvast et al. (2013) and Williams et al. (2014).

References

Anand N (2015) Accretion. In: Fieldsights–Theorizing the Contemporary, Cultural Anthropology Online, 24
September. Available at: http://www.culanth.org/fieldsights/715-accretion (accessed 16.12.2015).
Appel H, Anand NA & Gupta A (2015) Introduction: The Infrastructure Toolbox. In: Fieldsights – Theorizing
the Contemporary, Cultural Anthropology Online, 24 September. Available at: http://www.culanth.org/
fieldsights/714-introduction-the-infrastructure-toolbox (accessed 16.12.2015).
Beaulieu A (2010) From co-location to co-presence: shifts in the use of ethnography for the study of
knowledge. Social Studies of Science 40(3): 453–470.
Bowker GC (1994) Science on the run: Information management and industrial geophysics at Schlumberger,
1920–1940. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bowker GC & Star SL (1999) Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bowker GC, Baker KS, Millerand F & Ribes D (2010). Towards Information Infrastructure Studies: Ways of
Knowing in a Networked Environment. In: Hunsinger J, Allen J M & Klastrup L (eds) International Handbook
of Internet Research. Springer, 97–117.
Bowker GC, Timmermans S & Star SL (1995) Infrastructure and organizational transformation: Classifying
nurses’ work. In: Orlikowski W, Walsham G, Jones M R & DeGross J I (eds), Information technology and
changes in organizational work. London: Chapman and Hall, 344–370.
Edwards PN, Jackson SJ, Bowker GC & Knobel CP (2007) Understanding infrastructure: Dynamics, tensions, and
design. Final report of the workshop History and Theory of Infrastructure: Lessons for New Scientific Cyberinfra-
structures. NSF, Office of Cyberinfrastructure.
Edwards PN, Bowker GC, Jackson SJ & Williams R (2009) Introduction: An agenda for infrastructure studies.
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10(5): 364–374.
Edwards PN, Jackson SJ, Chalmers MK, Bowker GC, Borgman CL, Ribes D, Burton M & Calvert S (2013)
Knowledge Infrastructures: Intellectual Frameworks and Research Challenges. Ann Arbor: Deep Blue. http://
knowledgeinfrastructures.org/
Dutton WH & Jeffreys PW (2010) World Wide Research: Reshaping the Sciences and Humanities. MIT Press.
Hine C (2000) Virtual ethnography. London, England, Thousand Oaks, California, and New Delhi, India: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Hine C (ed) (2006) New infrastructures for knowledge production: Understanding e-science. Hershey: Informa-
tion Science Pub.
Hine C (2008) Systematics as cyberscience: Computers, change, and continuity in science. Boston: MIT.
Hughes TP (1983) Networks of power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Hughes TP (1989) The Evolution of Large Technological Systems. In: Bijker WE, Hughes TP & Pinch TJ (eds)
The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology.
Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press, 51–82.
Jackson SJ (2014) Rethinking Repair. In: Gillespie T, Boczkowski PJ & Foot KA (eds) Media Technologies: Essays
on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 221–240.

11
 Science & Technology Studies 29(1)

Jackson SJ & Buyuktur A (2014) Who Killed WATERS? Mess, Method, and Forensic Explanation in the Making
and Unmaking of Large-scale Science Networks. Science Technology Human Values 39(2): 285–308.
Jankowski NW (2007) Exploring e-Science: An introduction. Special theme: E-science. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication 12(2): 549–562.
Jankowski NW (ed) (2009) E-Research: Transformation in scholarly practice. New York: Routledge.
Jirotka M, Procter R, Rodden T & Bowker GC (2006) Special issue: Collaboration in e-Research. Computer
Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal 15(4): 251–255.
Karasti H , Baker KS & Millerand F (2010) Infrastructure Time: Long-Term Matters in Collaborative Develop-
ment. Computer Supported Cooperative Work – An International Journal 19(3–4): 377–415.
Larkin B (2013) The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure. Annual Review of Anthropology 42: 327–343.
Lee CP, Dourish P & Mark G (2006) The Human infrastructure of cyberinfrastructure. Paper presented at the
Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 4–8 November, Banff, Alberta, Canada.
Mongili A & Pellegrino G (eds) (2014) Information Infrastructure(s): Boundaries, Ecologies, Multiplicity.
Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Monteiro E, Pollock N & Williams R (eds) (2014) Innovation in Information Infrastructures: Introduction to the
Special Issue. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 15(4–5): i–x.
Neumann L & Star SL (1996) Making Infrastructure: The Dream of a Common Language. Proceedings of the
participatory design conference 231–240.
Olson GM, Zimmerman A & Bos N (eds) (2008). Scientific collaboration on the internet. Cambridge: MIT.
Ribes D & Baker KS (2007) Modes of Social Science Engagement in Community Infrastructure Design. In:
Steinfield C, Pentland B, Ackerman MS & Contractor N (eds) Proceedings of the Third Communities and Tech-
nologies Conference. London: Springer, 107–130.
Ribes D & Lee CP (2010) Sociotechnical Studies of Cyberinfrastructure and e-Research: Current Themes and
Future Trajectories. Computer Supported Cooperative Work – An International Journal 19(3–4): 231–244.
Shapin AP (1989) The Invisible Technician. American Scientist 77: 554–563.
Silvast A, Hänninen H & Hyysalo S (2013) Energy in Society: Energy Systems and Infrastructures in Society.
Science & Technology Studies 26(3): 3–13.
Star SL (1999) The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist 43(3): 377–391.
Star SL (2002) Infrastructure and Ethnographic Practice. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 14(2):
107–122.
Star SL & Bowker GC (2002) How to infrastructure? In: Lievrouw L A & Livingstone S L (eds) The handbook of
new media. Social shaping and consequences of ICTs. .London: Sage Publications, 151–162.
Star SL & Ruhleder K (1994) Steps Towards an Ecology of Infrastructure: Complex Problems in Design and
Access for Large-Scale Collaborative Systems. Proceedings of Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)
Conference, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA, October 22–26, 253–264.
Star SL & Ruhleder K (1996) Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Borderlands of design and access for
large information spaces. Information Systems Research 7(1): 111–134.
Van der Vleuten E (2004) Infrastructures and societal change: A view from the large technical systems field.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 16(3): 395–414.
Williams R, Liff S, Winskel M & Steward F (2014) The Politics of Innovation for Environmental Sustainability:
Celebrating the Contribution of Steward Russell (1955–2011). Science & Technology Studies 27(3): 3–14.
Wouters P, Beaulieu A, Scharnhorst A & Wyatt S (eds) (2013) Virtual Knowledge: Experimenting in the Humani-
ties and the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

12