This module is written by Cristina Cochior and Manetta Berends in the proximity of [Varia](https://varia.zone/en/): a member-based organisation in the South of Rotterdam that works on/with everyday technology.
This module is written by Cristina Cochior and Manetta Berends in the proximity of [Varia](https://varia.zone/en/), a member-based organisation in the South of Rotterdam that works on/with everyday technology. The research behind this work was started in 2016 by Cristina Cochior and it was further developed and consolidated in 2020 together with Manetta Berends for the purpose of a workshop they organise together and this online module.
The module is produced in the context of the course *Data-driven research and digital tools* at the Department of Media & Culture, Utrecht University in collaboration with [Dr. Karin van Es](https://www.karinvanes.net) and [Creative Coding Utrecht](https://creativecodingutrecht.nl/).
The module is produced in the context of the course *Data-driven research and digital tools* at the Department of Media & Culture, Utrecht University in collaboration with [Dr. Karin van Es](https://www.karinvanes.net) and [Creative Coding Utrecht](https://creativecodingutrecht.nl/).
@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ Welcome to the online module *Bots as Digital Infrapunctures*.
Inspired by the potential of *digital infrapuncture*, a term coined by researcher Deb Verhoeven, this module brings bots and infrastructure together as *infrapunctures*. *Infrapuncture* is a portmanteau word which conflates *infrastructure* and *acupuncture*, referring to small-scale interventions that have a catalytic effect on the whole. The term emerges from the need to reconsider our digital infrastructures, study their underlying systems of inequality and exploitation, and acknowledge their limits in terms of capacity and care. This module explores what role bots can have as infrastructural stress relievers, by actively engaging with the norms and values inscribed into computational tools and infrastructures.
Inspired by the potential of *digital infrapuncture*, a term coined by researcher Deb Verhoeven, this module brings bots and infrastructure together as *infrapunctures*. *Infrapuncture* is a portmanteau word which conflates *infrastructure* and *acupuncture*, referring to small-scale interventions that have a catalytic effect on the whole. The term emerges from the need to reconsider our digital infrastructures, study their underlying systems of inequality and exploitation, and acknowledge their limits in terms of capacity and care. This module explores what role bots can have as infrastructural stress relievers, by actively engaging with the norms and values inscribed into computational tools and infrastructures.
This module combines theoretical and practical work—bringing the fields of digital humanities, design and media art together—and proposes to use the format of the *prototype* (and the activity of *prototyping*) as performative theoretical tool that feeds different practices into each other. We understand the prototype both as a research methodology (to critically engage with digital infrastructures in a hands-on way) and as a prefigurative practice (to imagine possible transformations and interventions, bridging between past, present and future), following Alan Galey's and Stan Ruecker's work on framing how prototypes could argue as arguments. In their work *How Prototypes Argue*[^prototype] Galey and Ruecker formulate how "digital artifacts have meaning, not just utility, and may constitute original contributions to knowledge in their own right" (3).
This module combines theoretical and practical work, bringing the fields of digital humanities, design and media art together, and proposes to use the format of the *prototype* (and the activity of *prototyping*) as performative theoretical tool that feeds different practices into each other. We understand the prototype both as a research methodology (to critically engage with digital infrastructures in a hands-on way) and as a prefigurative practice (to imagine possible transformations and interventions, bridging between past, present and future), following Alan Galey's and Stan Ruecker's work on framing how prototypes could act as arguments. In their work *How Prototypes Argue*[^prototype] Galey and Ruecker formulate how "digital artifacts have meaning, not just utility, and may constitute original contributions to knowledge in their own right".
<!-- > We suggest that prototyping as a critical process demands that we move beyond the binary in which written project reports become stand-ins for digital objects themselves, in all their complexity and media-specificity. This perspective requires us to learn to read digital objects critically, respecting their intellectual potential in the same way that a peer-reviewer recognizes the potential of an article, book, or grant application—keeping in mind that recognition and approval are not the same thing. -->
<!-- > We suggest that prototyping as a critical process demands that we move beyond the binary in which written project reports become stand-ins for digital objects themselves, in all their complexity and media-specificity. This perspective requires us to learn to read digital objects critically, respecting their intellectual potential in the same way that a peer-reviewer recognizes the potential of an article, book, or grant application—keeping in mind that recognition and approval are not the same thing. -->
