理论化启示:从请求到拒绝

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Jenny L. Davis, J. Chouinard
{"title":"理论化启示:从请求到拒绝","authors":"Jenny L. Davis, J. Chouinard","doi":"10.1177/0270467617714944","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As a concept, affordance is integral to scholarly analysis across multiple fields—including media studies, science and technology studies, communication studies, ecological psychology, and design studies among others. Critics, however, rightly point to the following shortcomings: definitional confusion, a false binary in which artifacts either afford or do not, and failure to account for diverse subject-artifact relations. Addressing these critiques, this article demarcates the mechanisms of affordance—as artifacts request, demand, allow, encourage, discourage, and refuse—which take shape through interrelated conditions: perception, dexterity, and cultural and institutional legitimacy. Together, the mechanisms and conditions constitute a dynamic and structurally situated model that addresses how artifacts afford, for whom and under what circumstances.","PeriodicalId":38848,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society","volume":"36 1","pages":"241 - 248"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0270467617714944","citationCount":"222","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Theorizing Affordances: From Request to Refuse\",\"authors\":\"Jenny L. Davis, J. Chouinard\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0270467617714944\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"As a concept, affordance is integral to scholarly analysis across multiple fields—including media studies, science and technology studies, communication studies, ecological psychology, and design studies among others. Critics, however, rightly point to the following shortcomings: definitional confusion, a false binary in which artifacts either afford or do not, and failure to account for diverse subject-artifact relations. Addressing these critiques, this article demarcates the mechanisms of affordance—as artifacts request, demand, allow, encourage, discourage, and refuse—which take shape through interrelated conditions: perception, dexterity, and cultural and institutional legitimacy. Together, the mechanisms and conditions constitute a dynamic and structurally situated model that addresses how artifacts afford, for whom and under what circumstances.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38848,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"241 - 248\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0270467617714944\",\"citationCount\":\"222\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467617714944\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467617714944","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 222

摘要

作为一个概念,可视性是跨多个领域的学术分析不可或缺的一部分,包括媒体研究、科学技术研究、传播研究、生态心理学和设计研究等。然而,批评者正确地指出了以下缺点:定义混乱,人工制品提供或不提供的虚假二元,以及未能解释不同的主体-人工制品关系。针对这些批评,本文界定了可提供性的机制——作为工件的请求、要求、允许、鼓励、劝阻和拒绝——这些机制通过相互关联的条件形成:感知、灵活性、文化和制度合法性。总之,这些机制和条件构成了一个动态的和结构定位的模型,该模型解决了工件如何提供、为谁提供以及在什么情况下提供的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Theorizing Affordances: From Request to Refuse
As a concept, affordance is integral to scholarly analysis across multiple fields—including media studies, science and technology studies, communication studies, ecological psychology, and design studies among others. Critics, however, rightly point to the following shortcomings: definitional confusion, a false binary in which artifacts either afford or do not, and failure to account for diverse subject-artifact relations. Addressing these critiques, this article demarcates the mechanisms of affordance—as artifacts request, demand, allow, encourage, discourage, and refuse—which take shape through interrelated conditions: perception, dexterity, and cultural and institutional legitimacy. Together, the mechanisms and conditions constitute a dynamic and structurally situated model that addresses how artifacts afford, for whom and under what circumstances.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society
Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society Arts and Humanities-History and Philosophy of Science
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信