CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,012Information Systems Theories and ImplementationCybernetics and Technology in SocietyCritical Realism in Sociology

Technologies, texts and affordances.

Hutchby, Ian·2001·Sociology
DOI 10.1177/s0038038501000219
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In contrast to recent sociological emphases on the social shaping of technology, this article proposes and illustrates a way of analysing the technological shaping of sociality. Drawing on the concept of affordances (Gibson 1979), the article argues for a recognition of the constraining, as well as enabling, materiality of artefacts. The argument is set in the theoretical context of one of the most recent and comprehensive statements of anti-essentialism (Grint and Woolgar 1997). The position is illustrated through a reinterpretation of some case studies used by proponents of the radical constructivist position.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/s0038038501000219

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The identification of six affordances (tokenization, self-enforcement and formalization of rules, autonomous automatization, decentralization of power over the infrastructure, increasing transparency, codification of trust) constitutes functional and relational aspects that frame the potentialities of self-organized collectives for agentic action with regards to blockchain-based tools for commons.

    “The result was the identification of six affordances6 (Hutchby, 2001), which constitute functional and relational aspects that frame the potentialities of self-organized collectives for agentic action, with regards to blockchain-based tools for commons governance (Rozas et al., 2021b, 8–20):”

    From Analysis of the Potentials of Blockchain for the Governance of Global Digital Commons (2021) · cites this paper as Hutchby, 2001

  • Twitter's interface elements contribute to the Black Twitter phenomenon.

    “I conducted a close reading of the affordances (Norman, 1988;Hutchby, 2001) and discourse conventions of Twitter-as-a-service as part of my argument that these interface elements contribute to the Black Twitter phenomenon.”

    From Distributed Blackness: African American Cybercultures (2020) · cites this paper as Hutchby, 2001

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hutchby, I.
Affiliations
Brunel University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Hutchby, Ian
ORCID
Hutchby, Ian
Venue
Sociology
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2001-05
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
441-456
ISSN
  • 0038-0385 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8684
DOI
10.1177/s0038038501000219
OpenAlex
W2151322535
Cited by
2,012
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 156 · 2025: 128 · 2024: 162 · 2023: 172 · 2022: 183 · 2021: 178 · 2020: 169 · 2019: 118 · 2018: 108 · 2017: 114 · 2016: 94 · 2015: 83 · 2014: 90 · 2013: 63 · 2012: 32
FWCI
27.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Sociology (publishedVersion)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Realism in Sociology
Keywords
affordances, anti-essentialism, radical constructivism, social shaping of technology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review