Laboratoire CaCy – Capabilités & perspectives Cyborg

Événements passés

• Journal Club #003

  Paper discussed (08.09.26). Rauchberg, J. S. (2022). Imagining a Neuroqueer Technoscience. Studies in Social Justice, 16(2), 370–388. https://doi.org/10.26522/ssj.v16i2.3415 

  What we take away from this discussion. With neuroqueer technoscience, the author invites us to firmly engage against technoablelism, as other scholars proposed in crip technoscience or human-computer interaction research. A bolder proposal would be to view individuals as ecologically situated and interdependent. This would involve developing technologies that do not serve the individual's liberal concept of personal responsibility but rather enable us to collectively envision shared futures. In order to prevent a future where some live smooth, comfortable lives while others are left on the margins, we must share the burdens, friction and pressures that technology brings.
  That is what we understood from the idea of desiring disabled futures.

• RUNED26

  RUNED est un colloque international francophone sur les approches critiques du numérique en éducation et formation. L’édition 2026 organisée du 1er au 3  juin à Fribourg, qui a attiré  plus de 80 personnes de 7 pays différents, a donné la part belle à l’approche par les capabilités et les concepts voisins. Les informations et les livrables du colloque sont sur un site dédié : RUNED26.

• Walk in science #002

  TITLE. What Makes Me Feel Comfortable Using Technology?

  WALK. 16.06.26—From St. Michel Church to the Grande Lune

  Summary. It’s pretty clear how our relationship with technology has changed really quickly, especially when you look at how dependent people are on it. Hearing aids show how vulnerable people can be when the device breaks or goes missing. A glass wearer explains the need to have contact lenses “just in case”. So, how well these technologies work is a key thing to consider.

  At the same time, the conversation shifts to fitness trackers. One person said that controlling data was a must when choosing the device, while another described how, when it comes to type 2 diabetes and what the market wants, turning mobility into data has become a big obsession.
  The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) seems pretty solid, but the discussions during this “walk in science” make us remember that each person’s experience with technology is also part of a specific context. This shows that we need to support these choices.

• Journal Club #002

  Paper discussed (19.05.26). Zhang, L., Carter, R. A., Liu, Y., & Peng, P. (2026). Let’s CHAT About Artificial Intelligence for Students With Disabilities: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 96(1), 215–257. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543241293424

  What we take away from this discussion. With CHAT model, the analysis is centered upon activity in order to facilitate a more holistic understanding of the sociotechnical system. In education, it becomes easier to grasp the interrelationships among actors when introducing technologies or digital tools. In the context of teaching students, it is important to acknowledge the potential impact of technology on other elements of the learning environment, such as peer interactions, established rules, and the distribution of tasks.
  A limitation of the CHAT model is that it is applicable only to specific situations and is of limited use in analyzing the relationship that an individual or a group has with technical systems.

• Journal Club #001

  Paper discussed (14.04.26). Verbeek, P.-P. (2015). Beyond Interaction: A Short Introduction to Mediation Theory. Interactions, May-June, 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/2751314

  What we take away from this discussion. In the post-phenomenological paradigm, the analysis is oriented towards technology as a medium between the self and the world. The objective is to characterize and thereby facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the role assigned to digital technology. The role of digital tools can thus be examined in relation to two examples: “embodiment” (self + technology acting upon the world) and “hermeneutics” (self acting upon technology and the world). This theoretical framework enables us to adopt a more distanced perspective and contemplate the overarching concept of cyborgization.
  The model’s overarching nature is a limitation, as it is prone to generalizations. It certainly lacks the context or concrete situations needed to serve as a pedagogical instrument in the critique of technology with younger students.

• Walk in Science #001

  Summary. The discussions raised two separate issues about vulnerability. The first, and more obvious, one tells us that any new technology gives us access to opportunities that we should grab, but also opens up new vulnerabilities that we need to be aware of (as shown by https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-022-03810-5/index.html). Educational efforts must serve to highlight both the opportunities and the potential vulnerabilities.

  The second issue was a bit of a surprise. So, when we see vulnerability as basically what we choose to reveal to others in order to form a relationship, the analysis changes. Technology becomes a source of power (rather than weakness) because we’re intolerant of others or reject the relationship. It can be a way to take a break from your own life and get the machine to take the blame for your problems.
  So, the idea of vulnerability in human-machine interaction brings up a bunch of issues (obviously ;-). It gives us food for thought about how we do things in training, highlighting the individual responsibility side as well as how we deal with the challenges we face. Basically, technologies shouldn’t be used to encourage intolerance towards error, imperfection or difficulty, which are all good things in education and training.