The formulation of computer algorithms requires the elimination of vagueness. This elimination of vagueness requires exactness in programming, and this exactness can be traced to meeting talk, where it intersects with the indexicality of expressions. This article is concerned with sequences in which a team of computer scientists discuss the functionality of prototypes that are already implemented or possibly to be implemented. The analysis focuses on self-repair because this is a practice where participants can be seen to orient to meanings of different expressions as alternatives. By using self-repair, the computer scientists show a concern with exact descriptions when they talk about existing functionality of their prototypes but not when they talk about potential future functionality. Instead, when participants talk about potential future functionality and attend to meanings during self-repair, they use vague expressions to indicate possibilities. Furthermore, when the computer scientists talk to external stakeholders, they indicate through hedges whenever their descriptions approximate already implemented technical functionality but do not describe it exactly. The article considers whether the code of working prototypes can be said to fix meanings of expressions and how we may account for human agency and non-human resistances during development.
AmannKKnorr-CetinaK (1998) Thinking through talk: An ethnographic study of a molecular biology laboratory. Knowledge and Society8: 3–26
2.
Becker-AsanoCKoppSPfeiffer-LeßmannN, et al. (2008) Virtual humans growing up: From primary toward secondary emotions. Künstliche Intelligenz1: 23–27.
3.
BensaudeVB (2014) The politics of buzzwords at the interface of technoscience, market and society: The case of ‘public engagement in science’. Public Understanding of Science23(3): 238–253.
4.
BrownB (2006) The next line: Understanding programmers’ work. TeamEthno2: 25–33.
5.
BucherT (2018) If…Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
ButtonGSharrockW (1995) The mundane work of writing and reading computer programs. In: HaveTPPsathasG (eds) Situated Order. Washington DC: University Press of America, 231–258.
8.
ChunWHK (2008) On ‘sourcery’, or code as fetish. Configurations16(3): 299–324.
9.
CollinsHM (1990) Artificial Experts: Social Knowledge and Intelligent Machines. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
DahmS (2017) ‘Just do it!’: Considerations on the acquisition of hackerspace field skills as an ethnomethodological research technique. Digital Culture and Society3(1): 109–124.
11.
DrewPWalkerTOgdenR (2013) Self-repair and action construction. In: HayashiMRaymondGSidnellJ (eds) Conversational Repair and Human Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 71–94.
12.
DreyfusHL (1992) What Computers Still Can’t Do. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
FinnE (2017) What Algorithms Want: Imagination in the Age of Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
GarfinkelH (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs.
15.
GarfinkelH (1996) Ethnomethodology’s program. Social Psychology Quarterly59(1): 5–20.
16.
GarfinkelHSacksH (1970) On formal structures of practical actions. In: McKinneyJCTiryakianEA (eds) Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 337–366.
17.
GillespieT (2016) Algorithm. In: PetersB (ed) Digital Keywords: A Vocabulary of Information Society and Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 18–30.
18.
GolumbiaD (2009) The Cultural Logic of Computation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
19.
HayashiMRaymondGSidnellJ (eds) (2013) Conversational Repair and Human Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
HaylesNK (2005) My Mother Was a Computer: Digital Subjects and Literary Texts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21.
HeintzB (1993) Die Herrschaft der Regel: Zur Grundlagengeschichte des Computers. Frankfurt: Campus.
22.
HerrmannAKnaussEWeißbachR (eds) (2013) Requirements Engineering und Projektmanagement. Berlin: Springer.
JeffersonG (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: LernerGH (ed), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, 13–32.
25.
KnuthDE (1996a) Computer science and its relation to mathematics. In: KnuthDE (ed) Selected Papers on Computer Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 5–29.
26.
KnuthDE (1996b) Algorithms. In: KnuthDE (ed) Selected Papers on Computer Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 59–86.
27.
LakoffG (1973) Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic2(4): 458–508.
LibermanK (2012) Semantic drift in conversations. Human Studies35(2): 263–277.
30.
LynchM (1993) Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
MackenzieA (2006) Cutting Code: Software and Sociality. New York: Peter Lang.
32.
MacKenzieD (1996) Computers, ‘bugs’, and mathematical proof. In: DuttonWH (ed), Information and Communication Technologies. New York: Oxford, 68–85.
33.
MahoneyMS (2008) What makes the history of software hard. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing30(3): 8–18.
34.
MahoneyMS (2011) What makes computer science a science? In: CarrierMNordmannA (eds) Science in the Context of Application. Dordrecht: Springer, 389–408.
35.
MarickB (2008) A manglish way of working. In: PickeringAGuzikK (eds) The Mangle in Practice. Durham: Duke University Press, 185–201.
36.
PickeringA (1995) The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency and Science. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.
37.
PohlK (2010) Requirements Engineering: Fundamentals, Principles, and Techniques. Heidelberg: Springer.
38.
PützO (2018) How strangers initiate conversations: Interactions on public trains in Germany. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography47(4): 426–453.
39.
PützO (2019a) Common understandings of and consensus about collective action: The transformation of specifically vague proposals as a collective achievement. Human Studies42(3): 483–512.
40.
PützO (2019b) Talking Collective Action: A Sequential Analysis of Strategic Planning in Anti-Nuclear Groups. Abingdon: Routledge.
41.
PützO (2021) Managing exactness and vagueness in computer science work: Complementary analysis. Deposit Once Repository. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-11435 (accessed 28 March 2021).
RusselJAMehrabianA (1977) Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions. Journal of Research in Personality11(3): 273–294.
44.
SchegloffEA (1984) On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In: AtkinsonJMHeritageJ (eds) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 28–52.
45.
SchegloffEA (2013) Ten operations in self-initiated, same-turn repair. In: HayashiMRaymondGSidnellJ (eds) Conversational Repair and Human Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 41–70.
46.
SchegloffEAJeffersonGSacksH (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language53(2): 361–382.
47.
SchegloffEASacksH (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica8(4): 289–327.
48.
SchmidtR (2008) Praktiken des programmierens: Zur morphologie von wissensarbeit in der software-entwicklung. Zeitschrift für Soziologie37(4): 282–300.
49.
Schulz-SchaefferIMeisterM (2017) Laboratory settings as built anticipations–prototype scenarios as negotiation arenas between the present and imagined futures. Journal of Responsible Innovation4(2): 197–216.
50.
StarSL (1995) The politics of formal representations: Wizards, gurus, and organizational complexity. In: StarSL (ed) Ecologies of Knowledge. Work and Politics in Science and Technology. New York: State University Press, 88–118.
51.
SuchmanL (2007) Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
SuchmanLTriggRBlombergJ (2002) Working artefacts: Ethnomethods of the prototype. The British Journal of Sociology53(2): 163–179.
53.
SunsteinCR (2017) #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
54.
WachsmuthHNaderiNHouY, et al. (2017) Computational argumentation quality assessment in natural language. In:Proceedings of the 15th conference of the European chapter of the association for computational linguistics. Valencia: Association for Computational Linguistics, 176–187.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
