เปรียบเทียบวิธี

	Technography	Controversy Mapping
สาขาวิชา	Science Technology Studies	Science Technology Studies
ตระกูล	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
ปีกำเนิด	2011	2010
ผู้ริเริ่ม	Kees Jansen & Sietze Vellema (Wageningen); algorithmic strand by Taina Bucher	Bruno Latour (Sciences Po médialab); codified by Tommaso Venturini
ประเภท	Ethnographic field method	Qualitative descriptive method and pedagogy
แหล่งต้นตำรับ	Jansen, K., & Vellema, S. (2011). What is technography? NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 57(3-4), 169-177.	Venturini, T. (2010). Diving in magma: how to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258-273.
ชื่อเรียกอื่น	Ethnography of technology-in-use, Technographic analysis, Algorithmic technography	Cartography of controversies, Mapping scientific controversies, Controversy analysis
ที่เกี่ยวข้อง	4	4
สรุป	Technography is the ethnographic description of technology-in-use: how tools, machines, and systems are actually handled, skilled, and enacted in the course of real tasks. Articulated as a method by Kees Jansen and Sietze Vellema in the Wageningen tradition of agrarian and development studies, it places the technical at the centre of ethnographic attention, asking how people and artefacts together accomplish work. A digital strand, exemplified by Taina Bucher's study of algorithmic power, extends technography to software and platforms, examining how algorithms are encountered, felt, and acted upon. Across both, the method treats technology not as a finished object but as something performed in practice within particular social and material settings.	Controversy mapping is a descriptive method for exploring and representing socio-technical disputes while they are still open and unsettled, before they harden into accepted facts or stable technologies. Developed as a teaching practice by Bruno Latour and codified by Tommaso Venturini at the Sciences Po médialab, it asks the analyst to dive into the heat of a debate, follow the actors and their arguments without prematurely taking sides, and render the resulting complexity legible through maps and visualisations. It treats controversy not as a pathology to be resolved but as the privileged moment in which the social and the technical are visibly being assembled.