THE GEOGRAPHY OF TECHNOLOGY Guy Rintoul www.guyrintoul.com twitter.com/grintoul
Agenda Mapping space and place New ‘virtual’ space Interaction of virtual and real Software and space
Space and Place Traditionally fixed: Same or tightly linked Can be mapped Telephone or postal networks
Space and Place Technology makes them fluid: Not necessarily linked Can’t always be mapped Internet
Brief History 1969 – First two nodes connected 1970s –APRANET (US DoD) expands across continental US 1980s – National Science Foundation takes responsibility. Forms links to Europe and becomes Internet
Brief History 1989 – Tim Berners-Lee invents the Web 1991 – CERN publicizes this new project 1990s – Web grows at rate of 100% per year. Explosive growth in 1996 and 1997
Old Space Phone or postal system: Dedicated circuit or delivery routes Call or parcel travels only one route Space and place can be mapped
New Space Internet: Multiple delivery routes to destination Data split then reassembled (TCP/IP) Each packet can take a different route
New Space Mapping: Place is still fixed – start and end points But new, space is fluid, fluctuating Data follows constantly changing paths Historical bias to US hubs, but these are just ‘concentrations in the cloud’ Physical cables don’t affect space
New Space Perception: The cloud Place but no physical space in between One large virtual, fluctuating space Entire space of their own
Real-World Space Influence of virtual space: New space feeds back into old Old space being built on new (e.g. VoIP) Three interfaces between real and virtual What does this mean for the future?
Interaction with New Space Graham (1998),  writing just after the explosion in Internet use: Substitution and transcendence Co-evolution Recombination
1. Substitution & Transcendence Media, telecoms and communication converge until distance no longer matters Full Service Networks (FSNs) create an interactive virtual reality which replaces the non-virtual
1. Substitution & Transcendence Approximations include Second Life (money interchangeable) and World of Warcraft (gay rights protest) Discredited. Criticized as ‘technological Utopianism’ – still need to eat, sleep etc.
2. Co-Evolution Technology and space co-evolve together Doesn’t assume universal distribution or access to technology in a capitalist world Produce more material spaces rather the all-engulfing cyberspace of the first theory
2. Co-Evolution New technologies reflexively shape real-world space, with both influencing each other in their design and incorporation Includes capitalist power struggles (e.g. ‘smart’ vs. prepayment power meters)
3. Recombination Boundaries between humans and technology become less defined Actors and networks, both human and non-human, influence the development, use and interaction of the other
3. Recombination Does not suggest that technology absorbs the real world Players interact in complex ways, rather than in an absolute time-space arena ‘ Fuzziest’ of Graham’s three theories – somewhere in between the other two?
Most Likely? Possibly too early to tell,  as technology is in its comparative infancy Likely – flexible interaction between the theories of co-evolution and recombination
Most Likely? Valentine and Holloway (2002) study Internet use of 11-16 year olds: Incorporated online worlds into offline ones (e.g. friendships and social networks) Also with offline worlds into online ones (e.g. class and gender identities)
Software and Space Mentioned hardware but not software But cables are useless on their own Hardware may define the place, but how does software affect the space?
Software and Space Thrift and French (2002): Study how software changes society Software as a ‘new set of textualities’ Includes everything from the binary code to the information produced using it
Software in Context Historically: Software and hardware separate entities which performed separate tasks Increasingly engrained in real-world space Software was discrete – now ‘wideware’
Software in Context Software often unnoticed, while hardware that enables it is seen as ‘the technology’ For example, over 30% of an executive car’s value is in the software (EIU, 2000) Millennium bug highlighted this ‘software writing space’ (Thrift and French, 2002)
Software in Space Dodge and Kitchin (2005) propose three ways in which software (code) is found in geographical , real-world space: Code/space Coded space Background coded space
1. Code/space In this type of relationship, the problem cannot be solved without code For example, if the code is a stereo does not work properly, it won’t play CDs
2. Coded Space In this type of relationship, the code allows extra functions or features but the main system can still work without it For example, CCTV in a shop. If the cameras stop working, the shop can still function without them
3. Background Coded Space In this type of relationship, the code allows a solution to work, but only when purposely activated For example, mobile phone signals are always present as background coded space. When the phone is used,  a signal is required and so it becomes code/space
Software in Space Technology is all around us – not just hardware, but software as well The hardware is what’s noticed, but the software also plays a pivotal role
Summary Technology is changing space and place Increasingly,  fluid ‘virtual’ space and fixed real-world space interact But technology is all around us, not only in the form of ‘obvious’ hardware, but  as hidden software too
Questions? Guy Rintoul www.guyrintoul.com twitter.com/grintoul

The Geography of Technology: Space, Place and the Embedded Environment

  • 1.
    THE GEOGRAPHY OFTECHNOLOGY Guy Rintoul www.guyrintoul.com twitter.com/grintoul
  • 2.
    Agenda Mapping spaceand place New ‘virtual’ space Interaction of virtual and real Software and space
  • 3.
    Space and PlaceTraditionally fixed: Same or tightly linked Can be mapped Telephone or postal networks
  • 4.
    Space and PlaceTechnology makes them fluid: Not necessarily linked Can’t always be mapped Internet
  • 5.
    Brief History 1969– First two nodes connected 1970s –APRANET (US DoD) expands across continental US 1980s – National Science Foundation takes responsibility. Forms links to Europe and becomes Internet
  • 6.
    Brief History 1989– Tim Berners-Lee invents the Web 1991 – CERN publicizes this new project 1990s – Web grows at rate of 100% per year. Explosive growth in 1996 and 1997
  • 7.
    Old Space Phoneor postal system: Dedicated circuit or delivery routes Call or parcel travels only one route Space and place can be mapped
  • 8.
    New Space Internet:Multiple delivery routes to destination Data split then reassembled (TCP/IP) Each packet can take a different route
  • 9.
    New Space Mapping:Place is still fixed – start and end points But new, space is fluid, fluctuating Data follows constantly changing paths Historical bias to US hubs, but these are just ‘concentrations in the cloud’ Physical cables don’t affect space
  • 10.
    New Space Perception:The cloud Place but no physical space in between One large virtual, fluctuating space Entire space of their own
  • 11.
    Real-World Space Influenceof virtual space: New space feeds back into old Old space being built on new (e.g. VoIP) Three interfaces between real and virtual What does this mean for the future?
  • 12.
    Interaction with NewSpace Graham (1998), writing just after the explosion in Internet use: Substitution and transcendence Co-evolution Recombination
  • 13.
    1. Substitution &Transcendence Media, telecoms and communication converge until distance no longer matters Full Service Networks (FSNs) create an interactive virtual reality which replaces the non-virtual
  • 14.
    1. Substitution &Transcendence Approximations include Second Life (money interchangeable) and World of Warcraft (gay rights protest) Discredited. Criticized as ‘technological Utopianism’ – still need to eat, sleep etc.
  • 15.
    2. Co-Evolution Technologyand space co-evolve together Doesn’t assume universal distribution or access to technology in a capitalist world Produce more material spaces rather the all-engulfing cyberspace of the first theory
  • 16.
    2. Co-Evolution Newtechnologies reflexively shape real-world space, with both influencing each other in their design and incorporation Includes capitalist power struggles (e.g. ‘smart’ vs. prepayment power meters)
  • 17.
    3. Recombination Boundariesbetween humans and technology become less defined Actors and networks, both human and non-human, influence the development, use and interaction of the other
  • 18.
    3. Recombination Doesnot suggest that technology absorbs the real world Players interact in complex ways, rather than in an absolute time-space arena ‘ Fuzziest’ of Graham’s three theories – somewhere in between the other two?
  • 19.
    Most Likely? Possiblytoo early to tell, as technology is in its comparative infancy Likely – flexible interaction between the theories of co-evolution and recombination
  • 20.
    Most Likely? Valentineand Holloway (2002) study Internet use of 11-16 year olds: Incorporated online worlds into offline ones (e.g. friendships and social networks) Also with offline worlds into online ones (e.g. class and gender identities)
  • 21.
    Software and SpaceMentioned hardware but not software But cables are useless on their own Hardware may define the place, but how does software affect the space?
  • 22.
    Software and SpaceThrift and French (2002): Study how software changes society Software as a ‘new set of textualities’ Includes everything from the binary code to the information produced using it
  • 23.
    Software in ContextHistorically: Software and hardware separate entities which performed separate tasks Increasingly engrained in real-world space Software was discrete – now ‘wideware’
  • 24.
    Software in ContextSoftware often unnoticed, while hardware that enables it is seen as ‘the technology’ For example, over 30% of an executive car’s value is in the software (EIU, 2000) Millennium bug highlighted this ‘software writing space’ (Thrift and French, 2002)
  • 25.
    Software in SpaceDodge and Kitchin (2005) propose three ways in which software (code) is found in geographical , real-world space: Code/space Coded space Background coded space
  • 26.
    1. Code/space Inthis type of relationship, the problem cannot be solved without code For example, if the code is a stereo does not work properly, it won’t play CDs
  • 27.
    2. Coded SpaceIn this type of relationship, the code allows extra functions or features but the main system can still work without it For example, CCTV in a shop. If the cameras stop working, the shop can still function without them
  • 28.
    3. Background CodedSpace In this type of relationship, the code allows a solution to work, but only when purposely activated For example, mobile phone signals are always present as background coded space. When the phone is used, a signal is required and so it becomes code/space
  • 29.
    Software in SpaceTechnology is all around us – not just hardware, but software as well The hardware is what’s noticed, but the software also plays a pivotal role
  • 30.
    Summary Technology ischanging space and place Increasingly, fluid ‘virtual’ space and fixed real-world space interact But technology is all around us, not only in the form of ‘obvious’ hardware, but as hidden software too
  • 31.
    Questions? Guy Rintoulwww.guyrintoul.com twitter.com/grintoul