Skip to content

Documents, issues and publics (STS/method)

Basis

This page builds only on the source cards in the cluster. All seven sources have cards. Disagreements between sources have been checked against the source texts.

What the cluster is about

The cluster brings together texts on how documents, inscriptions and issues take part in shaping what they are about [T]. Asdal 2015 argues that documents do not simply describe a reality but work upon and transform it (Asdal 2015, p. 74) [U]. Latour and Woolgar describe how facts are constructed through inscriptions until they appear unconstructed by anyone (Latour & Woolgar 1986, pp. 240, 245) [U].

The second thread is about issues and publics. Marres reads Lippmann and Dewey and argues that publics are called into being by issues that existing institutions cannot handle (Marres 2005, pp. 3, 7; Marres 2007, pp. 767, 772) [U]. Asdal builds on this concept but shows that becoming an issue may also mean being closed down (Asdal 2015, p. 87) [U].

Three texts apply the perspective to the state and the economy. Asdal et al. 2023 and Bear & Mathur 2015 examine which versions of ‘the good’ policy documents and bureaucracies claim to serve (Asdal et al. 2023, pp. 1–2; Bear & Mathur 2015, pp. 18, 21) [U]. Marres 2025 is the only text in the cluster directly about data: how trials of AI in society make technology invisible and hard to hold accountable (Marres 2025, pp. 1, 3) [U].

Sources in the cluster

Source Main claim in one sentence Role in the cluster (central/peripheral)
Asdal 2015 Documents modify and transform issues; becoming an issue may mean being closed down (pp. 74, 87) [U] Central [T]
Asdal et al. 2023 The bioeconomy is enacted as an expert issue in which ‘the bio’ is taken for granted as good (p. 1) [U] Central as a methods example [T]
Bear & Mathur 2015 Bureaucracies' legitimacy rests on claims to exist for the public good; the concept must be recaptured from economics (p. 18) [U] Peripheral [T]
Latour & Woolgar 1986 Reality is the consequence of the settlement of a dispute, not its cause (p. 236) [U] Background for Asdal [T]
Marres 2005 Publics are called into being by issues (p. 3) [U] Central for the issue concept [T]
Marres 2007 Issue formation is a crucial dimension of democratic politics; articulations can publicize or de-publicize (pp. 759, 772) [U] Central for the issue concept [T]
Marres 2025 Tech trials turn society into a testing ground and weaken accountability (pp. 1, 3) [U] Bridge to the governance and surveillance cluster [T]

Shared questions and assumptions

  • Documents and inscriptions are not neutral representations but take part in creating what they describe (Asdal 2015, p. 74; Latour & Woolgar 1986, p. 245) [U].
  • How something is articulated has consequences for who gets involved (Asdal 2015, pp. 75, 88; Marres 2007, p. 772) [U].
  • Several sources ask who is given the role of expert and who is kept out (Asdal 2015, p. 83; Asdal et al. 2023, p. 18; Marres 2025, pp. 11, 15) [U].
  • Asdal 2015 and Asdal et al. 2023 both use a practice-oriented approach to documents and the verb enact (Asdal 2015, pp. 77, 87; Asdal et al. 2023, p. 4) [U].
  • Shared assumption: what looks self-evident or technical is the result of work that can be described [T].

Disagreements and tensions

  • Does an issue open or close?
    • Asdal: the STS literature has linked issue to something being opened up, and her analysis suggests ‘close to the opposite interpretation’, namely that something is closed down (Asdal 2015, p. 87; see also p. 75) [U].
    • Marres 2007 already distinguishes between articulations that open an issue to outside scrutiny and articulations that close it down (Marres 2007, p. 772) [U]. She also writes that attempts to publicize an issue can fail (p. 776) [U].
    • The disagreement may therefore be smaller than Asdal suggests. Asdal criticises a broad STS understanding rather than Marres' distinction [T]. Both sides have been checked against the source texts.
  • What is ‘the good’? Bear & Mathur argue against the economic definition of the public good (Bear & Mathur 2015, p. 20) [U]. Asdal et al. criticise market studies for being so focused on the economic that they leave little room for the relationship between economy and society (Asdal et al. 2023, pp. 5–6) [U]. This is not a disagreement between them but a shared critique from different starting points (ethnography and document analysis) [T].
  • Visibility: Latour & Woolgar describe how a fact comes to appear unconstructed (p. 240). Marres 2025 describes how trials make technology invisible, as ‘trials of implicitness’ (p. 13) [U]. Whether the two can be read together is an open question [T].

Use of concepts

  • Issue: Marres (2005, 2007) and Asdal 2015 use the word with different emphases. For Marres, an issue gathers a public (Marres 2005, p. 3) [U]. For Asdal, the issue can be turned into an expert matter, a non-issue (Asdal 2015, p. 75) [U]. Asdal et al. 2023 use expert issue for the bioeconomy (p. 1) [U].
  • Enact: used by Asdal 2015 and Asdal et al. 2023 for what documents do (Asdal 2015, pp. 77, 87; Asdal et al. 2023, pp. 2–4) [U]. Marres 2007 uses the word in passing about how actors express concern (p. 775) [U]. The research question uses the same verb [T].
  • Inscription: Latour & Woolgar (p. 245); Asdal treats expert reports as inscription devices (Asdal 2015, pp. 75, 88) [U].
  • Public good: Bear & Mathur use the term for ideals bureaucracies claim to serve (p. 21) [U]. This differs from the economic meaning in the privacy cluster (see personvern-rett) [T].
  • No separate concept pages have been made yet (docs/begreper/).

Connections to other clusters

  • Governance and surveillance: Gros et al. 2017 use Marres' concept of material publics to analyse the European Parliament's hearings after Snowden (Gros et al. 2017, pp. 73, 75) [U]. See styring-overvaking.
  • Privacy and law: the public good concept in Bear & Mathur contrasts with Fairfield & Engel (Bear & Mathur 2015, p. 20; Fairfield & Engel 2015, p. 423) [T].
  • State and politics: Asdal links the genre of expert reports to today's NOUs (Asdal 2015, p. 82) [U], which makes the cluster relevant for reading NOU 2022:11 [T]. Asdal et al. 2023 and Mazzucato 2018 both concern the state's role in the economy [T].

Possible use in the thesis [T]

  • The cluster can provide the thesis's method and theoretical frame: how to read a public document as something that does something [T].
  • Asdal's reading tools (placement, style, chapter order, who gets the leading roles, which concepts are used, who is defined as having interests) can be tried on the primary documents [T].
  • Marres' distinction between publicizing and de-publicizing articulations, and Asdal's point about closure, can be used to ask whether privacy is opened as a public issue or handled by experts [T].
  • Marres 2025 is the source in the cluster closest to the research question's topic (public sector use of data) [T].

Open questions for Rebekka

  • Should Asdal or Marres carry the issue concept in the thesis, or both?
  • How do you use enact: as in Asdal, or from elsewhere?
  • Are Latour & Woolgar and Bear & Mathur sources in their own right, or mainly background for Asdal and the public good concept?
  • Should Marres 2025 belong to this cluster or to governance and surveillance?