Making Automation Explicable: A Challenge for Philosophy of Technology

This article argues for an expanded conception of automation's 'explicability'. When it comes to topics as topical and shot through with multifarious anxieties as automation, it is, I argue, insufficient to rely on a conception of explicability as 'explanation' or 'simp...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inNew formations Vol. 98; no. 98; pp. 68 - 84
Main Author Smith, Dominic
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published London Lawrence & Wishart 01.01.2019
Lawrence & Wishart Ltd
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
Abstract This article argues for an expanded conception of automation's 'explicability'. When it comes to topics as topical and shot through with multifarious anxieties as automation, it is, I argue, insufficient to rely on a conception of explicability as 'explanation' or 'simplification'. Instead, automation is the kind of topic that is challenging us to develop a more dynamic conception of explicability as explication. By this, I mean that automation is challenging us to develop epistemic strategies that are better capable of implicating people and their anxieties about automation in the topic, and, counterintuitively, of complicating how the topic is interfaced with. The article comprises an introduction followed by four main parts. While the introduction provides general context, each of the four subsequent parts seeks to demonstrate how diverse epistemic strategies might have a role to play in developing the process just described. Together, the parts are intended to build a cumulative case. This does not mean that the strategies they discuss are intended to be definitive, however - other strategies for making automation explicable may be possible and more desirable. Part one historicises automation as a concept. It does this through a focus on a famous passage from Descartes' Second Meditation, where he asks the reader to imagine automata glimpsed through a window. The aim here is to rehearse the presuppositions of a familiar 'modernist' epistemological model, and to outline how a contemporary understanding of automation as a wicked socio-economic problem challenges it. Parts two and three are then framed through concepts emerging from recent psychology: 'automation bias' and 'automation complacency'. The aim here is to consider recent developments in philosophy of technology in terms of these concepts, and to dramatically explicate key presuppositions at stake in the form of reasoning by analogy implied. While part two explicates an analogy between automation bias in philosophical engagements with technologies that involve a 'transcendental' tendency to reify automation, part three explicates an analogy between automation complacency and an opposed 'empirical turn' tendency in philosophy of technology to privilege nuanced description of case studies. Part four then conclude by arguing that anxieties concerning automation might usefully be redirected towards a different sense of the scope and purpose of philosophy of technology today: not as a movement to be 'turned' in one direction at the expense of others ('empirical' vs 'transcendental', for instance) but as a multidimensional 'problem space' to be explicated in many different directions at once. Through reference to Kierkegaard and Simondon, I show how different approaches to exemplification, indirection and indeterminacy can be consistent with this, and with the approach to explicability recommended above.
AbstractList This article argues for an expanded conception of automation's 'explicability'. When it comes to topics as topical and shot through with multifarious anxieties as automation, it is, I argue, insufficient to rely on a conception of explicability as 'explanation' or 'simplification'. Instead, automation is the kind of topic that is challenging us to develop a more dynamic conception of explicability as explication. By this, I mean that automation is challenging us to develop epistemic strategies that are better capable of implicating people and their anxieties about automation in the topic, and, counterintuitively, of complicating how the topic is interfaced with. The article comprises an introduction followed by four main parts. While the introduction provides general context, each of the four subsequent parts seeks to demonstrate how diverse epistemic strategies might have a role to play in developing the process just described. Together, the parts are intended to build a cumulative case. This does not mean that the strategies they discuss are intended to be definitive, however - other strategies for making automation explicable may be possible and more desirable. Part one historicises automation as a concept. It does this through a focus on a famous passage from Descartes' Second Meditation, where he asks the reader to imagine automata glimpsed through a window. The aim here is to rehearse the presuppositions of a familiar 'modernist' epistemological model, and to outline how a contemporary understanding of automation as a wicked socio-economic problem challenges it. Parts two and three are then framed through concepts emerging from recent psychology: 'automation bias' and 'automation complacency'. The aim here is to consider recent developments in philosophy of technology in terms of these concepts, and to dramatically explicate key presuppositions at stake in the form of reasoning by analogy implied. While part two explicates an analogy between automation bias in philosophical engagements with technologies that involve a 'transcendental' tendency to reify automation, part three explicates an analogy between automation complacency and an opposed 'empirical turn' tendency in philosophy of technology to privilege nuanced description of case studies. Part four then conclude by arguing that anxieties concerning automation might usefully be redirected towards a different sense of the scope and purpose of philosophy of technology today: not as a movement to be 'turned' in one direction at the expense of others ('empirical' vs 'transcendental', for instance) but as a multidimensional 'problem space' to be explicated in many different directions at once. Through reference to Kierkegaard and Simondon, I show how different approaches to exemplification, indirection and indeterminacy can be consistent with this, and with the approach to explicability recommended above.
This article argues for an expanded conception of automation's 'explicability'. When it comes to topics as topical and shot through with multifarious anxieties as automation, it is, I argue, insufficient to rely on a conception of explicability as 'explanation' or 'simplification'. Instead, automation is the kind of topic that is challenging us to develop a more dynamic conception of explicability as explication. By this, I mean that automation is challenging us to develop epistemic strategies that are better capable of implicating people and their anxieties about automation in the topic, and, counterintuitively, of complicating how the topic is interfaced with. The article comprises an introduction followed by four main parts. While the introduction provides general context, each of the four subsequent parts seeks to demonstrate how diverse epistemic strategies might have a role to play in developing the process just described. Together, the parts are intended to build a cumulative case. This does not mean that the strategies they discuss are intended to be definitive, however - other strategies for making automation explicable may be possible and more desirable. Part one historicises automation as a concept. It does this through a focus on a famous passage from Descartes' Second Meditation, where he asks the reader to imagine automata glimpsed through a window. The aim here is to rehearse the presuppositions of a familiar 'modernist' epistemological model, and to outline how a contemporary understanding of automation as a wicked socio-economic problem challenges it. Parts two and three are then framed through concepts emerging from recent psychology: 'automation bias' and 'automation complacency'. The aim here is to consider recent developments in philosophy of technology in terms of these concepts, and to dramatically explicate key presuppositions at stake in the form of reasoning by analogy implied. While part two explicates an analogy between automation bias in philosophical engagements with technologies that involve a 'transcendental' tendency to reify automation, part three explicates an analogy between automation complacency and an opposed 'empirical turn' tendency in philosophy of technology to privilege nuanced description of case studies. Part four then conclude by arguing that anxieties concerning automation might usefully be redirected towards a different sense of the scope and purpose of philosophy of technology today: not as a movement to be 'turned' in one direction at the expense of others ('empirical' vs 'transcendental', for instance) but as a multidimensional 'problem space' to be explicated in many different directions at once. Through reference to Kierkegaard and Simondon, I show how different approaches to exemplification, indirection and indeterminacy can be consistent with this, and with the approach to explicability recommended above.
This article argues for an expanded conception of automation's 'explicability'. When it comes to topics as topical and shot through with multifarious anxieties as automation, it is, I argue, insufficient to rely on a conception of explicability as 'explanation' or 'simplification'. Instead, automation is the kind of topic that is challenging us to develop a more dynamic conception of explicability as explication. By this, I mean that automation is challenging us to develop epistemic strategies that are better capable of implicating people and their anxieties about automation in the topic, and, counterintuitively, of complicating how the topic is interfaced with. The article comprises an introduction followed by four main parts. While the introduction provides general context, each of the four subsequent parts seeks to demonstrate how diverse epistemic strategies might have a role to play in developing the process just described. Together, the parts are intended to build a cumulative case. This does not mean that the strategies they discuss are intended to be definitive, however--other strategies for making automation explicable may be possible and more desirable.
This article argues for an expanded conception of automation's 'explicability'. When it comes to topics as topical and shot through with multifarious anxieties as automation, it is, I argue, insufficient to rely on a conception of explicability as 'explanation' or 'simplification'. Instead, automation is the kind of topic that is challenging us to develop a more dynamic conception of explicability as explication. By this, I mean that automation is challenging us to develop epistemic strategies that are better capable of implicating people and their anxieties about automation in the topic, and, counterintuitively, of complicating how the topic is interfaced with. The article comprises an introduction followed by four main parts. While the introduction provides general context, each of the four subsequent parts seeks to demonstrate how diverse epistemic strategies might have a role to play in developing the process just described. Together, the parts are intended to build a cumulative case. This does not mean that the strategies they discuss are intended to be definitive, however--other strategies for making automation explicable may be possible and more desirable. Part one historicises automation as a concept. It does this through a focus on a famous passage from Descartes' Second Meditation, where he asks the reader to imagine automata glimpsed through a window. The aim here is to rehearse the presuppositions of a familiar 'modernist' epistemological model, and to outline how a contemporary understanding of automation as a wicked socio-economic problem challenges it. Parts two and three are then framed through concepts emerging from recent psychology: 'automation bias' and 'automation complacency'. The aim here is to consider recent developments in philosophy of technology in terms of these concepts, and to dramatically explicate key presuppositions at stake in the form of reasoning by analogy implied. While part two explicates an analogy between automation bias in philosophical engagements with technologies that involve a 'transcendental' tendency to reify automation, part three explicates an analogy between automation complacency and an opposed 'empirical turn' tendency in philosophy of technology to privilege nuanced description of case studies. Part four then conclude by arguing that anxieties concerning automation might usefully be redirected towards a different sense of the scope and purpose of philosophy of technology today: not as a movement to be 'turned' in one direction at the expense of others ('empirical' vs 'transcendental', for instance) but as a multidimensional 'problem space' to be explicated in many different directions at once. Through reference to Kierkegaard and Simondon, I show how different approaches to exemplification, indirection and indeterminacy can be consistent with this, and with the approach to explicability recommended above. Keywords: automation, automation bias, automation complacency, explicability, margin of indeterminacy, Kierkegaard, Simondon
This article argues for an expanded conception of automation's 'explicability'. When it comes to topics as topical and shot through with multifarious anxieties as automation, it is, I argue, insufficient to rely on a conception of explicability as 'explanation' or 'simplification'. Instead, automation is the kind of topic that is challenging us to develop a more dynamic conception of explicability as explication . By this, I mean that automation is challenging us to develop epistemic strategies that are better capable of implicating people and their anxieties about automation in the topic, and, counterintuitively, of complicating how the topic is interfaced with. The article comprises an introduction followed by four main parts. While the introduction provides general context, each of the four subsequent parts seeks to demonstrate how diverse epistemic strategies might have a role to play in developing the process just described. Together, the parts are intended to build a cumulative case. This does not mean that the strategies they discuss are intended to be definitive, however – other strategies for making automation explicable may be possible and more desirable. Part one historicises automation as a concept. It does this through a focus on a famous passage from Descartes' Second Meditation, where he asks the reader to imagine automata glimpsed through a window. The aim here is to rehearse the presuppositions of a familiar 'modernist' epistemological model , and to outline how a contemporary understanding of automation as a wicked socio-economic problem challenges it. Parts two and three are then framed through concepts emerging from recent psychology: 'automation bias' and 'automation complacency'. The aim here is to consider recent developments in philosophy of technology in terms of these concepts, and to dramatically explicate key presuppositions at stake in the form of reasoning by analogy implied. While part two explicates an analogy between automation bias in philosophical engagements with technologies that involve a 'transcendental' tendency to reify automation, part three explicates an analogy between automation complacency and an opposed 'empirical turn' tendency in philosophy of technology to privilege nuanced description of case studies. Part four then conclude by arguing that anxieties concerning automation might usefully be redirected towards a different sense of the scope and purpose of philosophy of technology today: not as a movement to be 'turned' in one direction at the expense of others ('empirical' vs 'transcendental', for instance) but as a multidimensional 'problem space' to be explicated in many different directions at once. Through reference to Kierkegaard and Simondon, I show how different approaches to exemplification , indirection and indeterminacy can be consistent with this, and with the approach to explicability recommended above.
Audience Academic
Author Smith, Dominic
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Dominic
  surname: Smith
  fullname: Smith, Dominic
BookMark eNp1kcFv2yAUxq2pk5Z2O-84Szvt4PQBsYGeFkVJOynbeui0I8I2tukIZGB3zf764nhTFWkDoYfQ7_se8J0nZ9ZZlSRvEcwJ4-zyy_r75oqzOeRzDIi_SGaILlAGlPGzZAY8hwwTyl4l5yHcA2BKAc-SzWf5Q9s2XQ6928leO5uuH_dGV7I06ipdpqtOGqNsq9LG-fS208YFt-8OqWvSO1V11hnXHl4nLxtpgnrzp14k3zbru9VNtv16_Wm13GYVKRY840zSmnCpoFRVzhpa5oyWsoGaY1TWXJKS1woTDjWuS1hIKBhhcZGcKVoDuUjeT757734OKvTi3g3expYCk0VOGcoBRerdRLXSKGF81cohBLEscIGBEo6efY6Eto3rvax2OlSn1PwfVJy12ukqfn-j4_mJ4MOJIDK9euyn9ux6e8peTmzlXQheNWLv9U76g0AgxkTFmKiIFXIxJhoVt5MiBqZsL5_frithfunQiTHmMWXxwJmNUgwYAUNcIAyFqFUjB9OLXnrR_hYhj5Yf_2M5-dnm2FrAcYx3-buRvh93OXkCo4G_nw
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright COPYRIGHT 2019 Lawrence & Wishart Ltd.
Copyright Lawrence & Wishart 2019
Copyright_xml – notice: COPYRIGHT 2019 Lawrence & Wishart Ltd.
– notice: Copyright Lawrence & Wishart 2019
DBID AAYXX
CITATION
8GL
ILR
4T-
4U-
8BJ
ABUWG
AFKRA
AIMQZ
BENPR
C18
CCPQU
CLO
EHMNL
FQK
JBE
LIQON
PAF
PPXUT
PQEST
PQLNA
PQQKQ
PQUKI
PRINS
PROLI
S0X
DOI 10.3898/NEWF:98.05.2019
DatabaseName CrossRef
Gale In Context: High School
Gale Literature Resource Center (Gale Reference Complete)
Docstoc
University Readers
International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)
ProQuest Central (Alumni)
ProQuest Central
ProQuest One Literature
ProQuest Central
Humanities Index
ProQuest One Community College
Literature Online Core (LION Core) (legacy)
UK & Ireland Database
International Bibliography of the Social Sciences
International Bibliography of the Social Sciences
ProQuest One Literature - U.S. Customers Only
ProQuest Learning: Literature
Literature Online Premium (LION Premium) (legacy)
ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)
Literature Online (LION) – US
ProQuest One Academic
ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
ProQuest Central China
Literature Online (LION)
SIRS Editorial
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
Literature Online Core (LION Core)
University Readers
ProQuest One Literature - U.S. Customers Only
Literature Online Premium (LION Premium)
ProQuest One Literature
SIRS Editorial
ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition
ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)
ProQuest One Community College
ProQuest Learning: Literature
ProQuest Central China
ProQuest Central
International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)
UK & Ireland Database
ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
Docstoc
British Humanities Index (BHI)
Literature Online Premium - US Customers Only
ProQuest One Academic
DatabaseTitleList Literature Online Core (LION Core)




CrossRef
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: BENPR
  name: ProQuest Central
  url: https://www.proquest.com/central
  sourceTypes: Aggregation Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline History & Archaeology
Psychology
Philosophy
EISSN 1741-0789
EndPage 84
ExternalDocumentID A626207391
10_3898_NEWF_98_05_2019
lwish/nf/2019/00000098/00000098/art00005
GroupedDBID .4H
123
29N
3V.
4.4
5VS
709
8GL
8R4
8R5
AAVNP
ABDBF
ABECW
ABONS
ABUWG
ABXYD
ACMKW
ACPFS
ADMHG
AECCQ
AEHYH
AERNI
AFKRA
AIMQZ
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
AMBIC
ANBFE
BENPR
BEVBV
BJKPG
BPHCQ
CCPQU
CLO
EBS
EHMNL
EJD
ESX
FOMLG
GICCO
H13
HEAUX
HMHOC
HQDSM
HVGLF
IAO
ICO
ILR
IPNFZ
ISE
ITC
LIQON
MLAFT
MSI
MSS
MUP
P2P
PAF
PLION
PQLOP
PQQKQ
PROAC
PROLI
PV9
Q2X
QF4
QN3
QN7
RC6
RIG
RZL
S0X
SJN
TN5
WU5
~8M
~XQ
AAYXX
CITATION
AFZIM
4T-
4U-
8BJ
C18
FQK
JBE
PPXUT
PQEST
PQUKI
PRINS
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c3649-98a7d39ae0bec58f7b587baf0d921bd9a3b9de2390d2db04a06838683358e7d03
IEDL.DBID BENPR
ISSN 0950-2378
IngestDate Thu Oct 10 17:22:50 EDT 2024
Tue Oct 15 22:56:28 EDT 2024
Thu Feb 22 23:48:11 EST 2024
Fri Feb 02 03:56:00 EST 2024
Thu Aug 01 19:37:44 EDT 2024
Thu Sep 12 16:34:24 EDT 2024
Thu Jan 27 13:03:49 EST 2022
Fri Nov 08 06:06:56 EST 2024
IsDoiOpenAccess false
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 98
Language English
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c3649-98a7d39ae0bec58f7b587baf0d921bd9a3b9de2390d2db04a06838683358e7d03
Notes (J) Political Science - General
0950-2378(20190701)98:98L.68;1-
OpenAccessLink https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/files/41475389/D_SMITH_AUTOMATIONASCHALLENGE.pdf
PQID 2345781501
PQPubID 39992
PageCount 17
ParticipantIDs ingenta_journals_ic_lwish_09502378_v98n98_20210819_1206_default_tar_gz_s5
gale_incontextgauss_8GL_A626207391
proquest_journals_2345781501
ingenta_journals_lwish_nf_2019_00000098_00000098_art00005
gale_infotracmisc_A626207391
gale_infotracacademiconefile_A626207391
crossref_primary_10_3898_NEWF_98_05_2019
gale_lrcgauss_A626207391
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 20190101
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2019-01-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 01
  year: 2019
  text: 20190101
  day: 01
PublicationDecade 2010
PublicationPlace London
PublicationPlace_xml – name: London
PublicationTitle New formations
PublicationYear 2019
Publisher Lawrence & Wishart
Lawrence & Wishart Ltd
Publisher_xml – name: Lawrence & Wishart
– name: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd
RelatedPersons Carr, Nicholas
Williams, Alex
Carr, Nicholas International economic relations
Williams, Alex International economic relations
RelatedPersons_xml – fullname: Carr, Nicholas
– fullname: Williams, Alex
– fullname: Carr, Nicholas International economic relations
– fullname: Williams, Alex International economic relations
SSID ssj0027702
Score 2.1015713
Snippet This article argues for an expanded conception of automation's 'explicability'. When it comes to topics as topical and shot through with multifarious anxieties...
SourceID proquest
gale
crossref
ingenta
SourceType Aggregation Database
Enrichment Source
Publisher
StartPage 68
SubjectTerms Analogical reasoning
Analogies
Analysis
Anxiety
Automation
Automation Bias
Automation Complacency
Bias
Bioethics
Carr, Nicholas
Case studies
Epistemology
Explicability
Kierkegaard
Margin Of Indeterminacy
Meditation
Modern American literature
Modernism
Philosophy
Prejudice
Presuppositions
Psychology
Reading
Reasoning
Robots
Simondon
Simplification
Social privilege
Socioeconomic factors
Technology
Topic and comment
Topics
Williams, Alex
Title Making Automation Explicable: A Challenge for Philosophy of Technology
URI https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/lwish/nf/2019/00000098/00000098/art00005
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2345781501
Volume 98
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV3Nb9MwFLegu-yCYAyt0CELIeASzU2cxN4FdVXaDKVpBZsoJ8uxkzGpSremBZW_nmcnUVshcYicyI7jPD-_D3_8HkLvQafk1KOZI0HXOlQp6mSqCBzlZQQunyuLpTdJg_iWfpn782bCrWq2VbYy0QpqvVRmjvzC9SgwF5gv_c8Pj46JGmVWV5sQGk_RkQueAumgo6sonX3duVyh3XUIdgRxXC9kNbgPKGl2kUbfR5ecGdxO1wLt7OmlRjofnm_ak9NW-Yyeo2eN1YgHdTe_QE_y8gSd1hAfW_wBG_xYaWP0bk_Q8awNT2AfWgm3fYlGkwF462MMTDmd2MkpHM1n5jDxVRJd4gEexoMkidJxhME5xLP4Opl-m87iH3g6wjfRME7tstMpuh1FN8PYaQIpAMkDyh3OZKg9LnMCPeazIsx8FmayIJq7_Uxz6WVc567HiXZ1RqgkAfNYYM5jsTzUxHuFOuWyzM8QDqnyXU2CIqQBzT0FFRMdMkUoSHAQrF30qSWjeKjxMgT4GYbiwlBcQEp8YSjeRe8MmYVBoSjNNpc7uakqwcaJGAQGJz_0eL-LPjaFiuV6JZVsTg1Aawxw1UHJ3kFJGCbqIPvMZi9Wqv7OftZ109GiGcCVuFdi8fu--ikM6xjOEb84K6HxrnGSwYwSfZcEQueF3CzWYi1X4u6PqPwu4v_UVVdUFvavhXXLiCFDewMywtzBu72WzXYv7_j-9f-z36BjU389PdRDnfVqk5-DwbTO3jajAtIonqTJX6s7CaU
link.rule.ids 315,783,787,21400,27936,27937,33756,43817,74636
linkProvider ProQuest
linkToHtml http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV3Nb9MwFLdgO7ALgjG0QgELIeASzU2cxN4FZVXaFNK0gk50J8txkjGpSkfTgspfz7OTqK2QOERJZMd2np_fhz9-D6F3oFNy6tDUkqBrLaoUtVJVeJZyUgKXy5XB0hsnXnRNP8_deTPhVjXbKluZaAR1tlR6jvzCdigwF5gvvU_3Py0dNUqvrjYhNB6iYw1VBc7X8VWYTL_uXC7f7DoEO4JYtuOzGtwHlDS7SMLvg0vONG6nbYB29vRSI50PzzftyWmjfAZP0OPGasRB3c1P0YO8PEVnNcTHFr_HGj9Wmhi921N0Mm3DE5iXVsJtn6HBOABvfYiBKSdjMzmFw_lUHya-isNLHOB-FMRxmAxDDM4hnkajePJtMo1u8GSAZ2E_Ssyy0xm6HoSzfmQ1gRSA5B7lFmfSzxwucwI95rLCT13mp7IgGbd7acalk_Istx1OMjtLCZXEYw7z9HkslvsZcZ6jo3JZ5ucI-1S5dka8wqcezR0FBZPMZ4pQkOAgWDvoY0tGcV_jZQjwMzTFhaa4gDtxhaZ4B73VZBYahaLU21xu5aaqBBvGIvA0Tr7v8F4HfWgyFcv1SirZnBqA1mjgqoOc3YOcMEzUQfK5SV6sVF3PftKo6WjRDOBK3Cmx-H1X_RCadTTniF-cldB4WzvJYEaJnk08keWF3CzWYi1X4vaPqNwO4v-UVRdUFuavhXHLiCZD-wAyQj_Bt92WzXYf7_j-xf-T36BH0Wwci3iUfHmJTnRd9VRRFx2tV5v8FRhP6_R1M0L-AhhVCwg
linkToPdf http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV3Nb9MwFLegk9AuCMbQCgUshIBLNDef9i6oK0lTSNMINlFOluMkY1LVjqYFlb-eZ8dRWyFxiJLIjp08v0_H_j2E3oBNKV3HzS0BttZypXStXFa-JZ2cwOExqbH0JqkfX7ufZt7MrH-qzbLKVidqRV0spZojP7cdF5gL3Jf-eWWWRWQfow93Py2VQUr9aTXpNO6jo0ChYHXQ0WWYZl924VegVyCCT0Es2wloA_QDBpuep-G36IJRheFpa9CdPRtlNPXhXqc9na0NUfQIPTQeJB40Q_4Y3SsXJ-i0gfvY4rdYYckKna93e4KOszZVgb5ptd32CYomA4jcRxgYdDrRE1U4nGVqY_FlEl7gAR7GgyQJ01GIIVDEWTxOpl-nWfwdTyN8FQ7jVP-COkXXUXg1jC2TVAHI77vMYlQEhcNESWD0PFoFuUeDXFSkYHY_L5hwclaUtsNIYRc5cQXxqUN9tTeLlkFBnKeos1guyjOEA1d6dkH8Cujtlo6EhkkRUElc0OagZLvofUtGftdgZ3CIORTFuaI4hzPxuKJ4F71WZOYKkWKhxvZGbOqa01HCB77CzA8c1u-id6ZStVyvhBRmBwG8jQKxOqjZO6gJIiMPis908Xwlm372i8ZmoLkR5prfSj7_fVv_4Ip1FOfwX4wu4OVtFTCDS8X7NvF5UVZiM1_ztVjxmz-89rqI_dNW09Ci0l_NdYhGFBnaC9AX6gqe7bVstnt4JwPP_l_8Cj0A4eDJOP38HB2rrppZox7qrFeb8gX4Uev8pRGQv1hgDzw
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=MAKING+AUTOMATION+EXPLICABLE%3A+A+CHALLENGE+FOR+PHILOSOPHY+OF+TECHNOLOGY&rft.jtitle=New+formations&rft.au=Smith%2C+Dominic&rft.date=2019-01-01&rft.pub=Lawrence+%26+Wishart&rft.issn=0950-2378&rft.eissn=1741-0789&rft.issue=98&rft.spage=68&rft.epage=84&rft_id=info:doi/10.3898%2FNEWF%3A98.05.2019&rft.externalDBID=HAS_PDF_LINK
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0950-2378&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0950-2378&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0950-2378&client=summon