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...
Saved in:
Published in | New formations Vol. 98; no. 98; pp. 68 - 84 |
---|---|
Main Author | |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
London
Lawrence & Wishart
01.01.2019
Lawrence & Wishart Ltd |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get 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 |