Summary: *Digital infrapuncture* is a speculative term that can help reframe the perception of the stress points that an infrastructure could have. [perhaps give some examples of stress points, now it is really abstract]
Summary: *Digital infrapuncture* is a speculative term that draws attention to stress points in infrastructures and stimulates thinking about how to intervene. As infrastructures enable privacy breaches through user data extraction, or determine the agency of the user, or may perpetuate systemic inequalities through their very design, paying attention to the harms they produce is paramount.
*Digital infrapuncture* is a speculative term that can help reframe the perception [<-Idon'tunderstandthisideaofreframingtheperception,bemoreconcretee.g.itdrawsattentiontostresspointsininfrastructureandstimulatesthinkingabouthowtointervene]ofthestresspointsthataninfrastructurecouldhave.Inatalkshepresentedin2016called*Identifying the point of it all: Towards a Model of "Digital Infrapuncture"*[^DigitalInfrapuncture],[addDeb]Verhoeven[addCanada150ResearchChairinGenderandCulturalInformaticsattheUniversityofAlberta]developsthisconceptinrelationtothefieldofdigitalhumanities.
Informed by the work of scholar [add Bethany] Nowviskie[^Nowviskie], Verhoeven asks for a rethinking of digital infrastructures in terms of capacity and care, by *"developing an appreciation for where it hurts, where the sense of pain is in the worlds that we inhabit and study"* and creating small scale interventions which can enkindle transformation on a larger scale.
*Digital infrapuncture* is a speculative term that draws attention to stress points in infrastructures and stimulates thinking about how to intervene. In a talk she presented in 2016 called *Identifying the point of it all: Towards a Model of "Digital Infrapuncture"*[^DigitalInfrapuncture], Deb Verhoeven, who is the Canada 150 Research Chair in Gender and Cultural Informatics at the University of Alberta, develops this concept in relation to the field of digital humanities.
Informed by the work of scholar Bethany Nowviskie[^Nowviskie], Verhoeven asks for a rethinking of digital infrastructures in terms of capacity and care, by *"developing an appreciation for where it hurts, where the sense of pain is in the worlds that we inhabit and study"* and creating small scale interventions which can enkindle transformation on a larger scale.
In her presentation, she describes digital infrastructures according to their:
@ -15,15 +16,13 @@ In her presentation, she describes digital infrastructures according to their:
If we understand an infrastructure as a relational structure - or in other words - as a technology that brings things (back) together, we can start to critically enquire where infrastructures fails to do so.
What are examples of infrastructures that do *not* bring things together anymore [delete? it seems to be the same question as on line 24]?
If we understand an infrastructure as a relational structure - or in other words - as a technology that brings things (back) together, we can start to critically enquire where infrastructures fail to do so.
How does an infrastructure connect? And how are these connections constructed and formatted? [it seems this should be the first question]
How does an infrastructure connect? And how are these connections constructed and formatted?
Who is an infrastructure bringing together? And who *not*? What are the conditions and possibilities for connection they provide? Where do they *not* connect and concequently exclude people?
Who is an infrastructure bringing together? And who *not*? What are the conditions and possibilities for connection they provide? Where do they *not* connect and consequently exclude people?
And, most importantly, *who*can [perhaps rephrase as 'who has the access and agency to'] actually intervene in the design of infrastructures? And *how*?
And, most importantly, *who* has the access and agency to actually intervene in the design of infrastructures? And *how*?
