Add AI & Society to 2025 goals?

[kallewesterling]

See CfP here: https://link.springer.com/journal/146/updates/27488056

We invite contributions to a Special Issue/Collection on Critical Code Studies, to be published by AI & Society – the Journal of Culture, Knowledge and Communication (Springer) https://www.springer.com/journal/146

Summary

We all begin with ‘Hello World!’. The command is the traditional first line of code written by programming students, and reveals a whole ontology of the discipline, demonstrating that “code exists not for machines but for humans who need to communicate with the machine and with other humans” [Mark C. Marino, Critical Code Studies (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2020)]. The code we write enables us to interface with the machine, sitting somewhere between human language and the calculations performed by the computer – common to both but natural to neither, code is always performing an act of translation.

We take up the idea of the conversation as a means of interrogating the performative, cultural, and functional nature of code. The discipline of critical code studies uses close readings of chunks of computer code to think through the broader phenomena at work behind them: the users, communities, engineers, teachers, critics, routers, servers, compilers, computers, chargers, and utility networks. Researchers may find insights in the functionality of the code itself, the documentation or comments, or datasets enabling usage; the framework is open to close readings and statistical analysis alike. Conversation places code into continuous mutual negotiation with these resources and phenomena; compiling is only the beginning of the process.

At the same time, critical code studies is frustrated by the increased preponderance of deep neural networks, which abstract code processes further from what is intelligible through language at the same time as they allow code itself to appear increasingly conversant. Human critique and understanding, however, hinges on our ability to read and speak back to code. How do these conversations falter when language is obstructed, and how can we develop methodologies to keep understanding obfuscated code?

Special issue themes

Code comments and collaborations between development teams and users
Close readings of code that adopt the critical vocabulary of e.g. literature, anthropology, cultural studies
Communication between different coding languages, compilers, and hardware
Translation and collaboration between different historic encoding systems (e.g. shorthand, cryptography, telegraph codes)
Incommensurabilities of language between code and critique
The status and stakes of ‘reading’ and ‘writing’ code as compared to static texts or purely notational writing (e.g. musical notation)
The social world of code/code as a social phenomenon
Code remediations and intermediations (e.g. code poetry, API work)
Relations of authorship and readership as they apply to code
Conversation and collaboration as tools for critiquing (as well as building) code
The position of the platform in code conversation
Ways that code is leveraged as political and environmental language
How the special issue relates to current research

Critical Code Studies (CCS) seeks to analyse both the functional operation of programs and the source code to interpret priorities and significance that may not be clear through either lens alone. CCS holds that the lines of code of a program are not value-neutral and can be analysed using the theoretical approaches applied to other semiotic systems, in addition to particular interpretive methods developed specifically for the discussions of programs.
CCS builds on longer explorations of software and new media studies, but formally began as a discipline when Mark Marino published his manifesto on the form in 2006 [Mark C. Marino, ‘Critical Code Studies’, Electronic Book Review, 4 December 2006, https://electronicbookreview.com/essay/critical-code-studies/]. The University of Southern California hosted the first CCS working group in 2010 and is now home to the Humanities and Critical Code Studies Lab (HaCCS) [‘About’, accessed 23 July 2024, https://haccslab.com/about/]. Both the group and HaCCS feature an international roster of associates and participants, which highlights the centrality of communication to the methodology. CCS as a discipline requires collaboration and cooperation across expertises; thus, many of the defining texts in the field are written collaboratively, just as code often is [Nick Montfort et al., 10 Print CHR#(205.5+RND(1)); : Goto 10, Illustrated edition (MIT Press, 2014); Jessica Pressman, Mark C. Marino, and Jeremy Douglass, Reading Project: A Collaborative Analysis of William Poundstone’s Project for Tachistoscope {Bottomless Pit}, Illustrated edition (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2015); Manovich, Lev and Arielli, Emanuele, Artificial Aesthetics: Generative AI, Art and Visual Media, accessed 27 March 2024, http://manovich.net/index.php/projects/artificial-aesthetics].
Code is not an exclusively technical domain. CCS leverages close reading as a methodology to explore the functional and textual significance of code and its interpretations, including to the humans that build and use it. Additionally, CCS is uniquely poised to explore the nuances of code-based literary works, such as poetic works developed in code or the world-building mechanics of interactive fiction [‘Travesty Generator’, accessed 4 October 2023, https://verse.press/playlist/travesty-generator-1975099943243226060]. CCS seeks to highlight complexity and the socialisation of code instead of flattening nuance, even when the code itself resists interpretation.
As Artificial Intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) grow in popularity and resource usage, the availability of legible code to explore them becomes more important than ever. However, the structures underpinning AI and LLMs are often considered black boxes, insofar as their data pipelines are not made visible to users and scholars. CCS includes practices of data reading, which can be an alternative, but this becomes functionally impossible in the immense datasets underpinning LLMs. Co-editor David Berry has written extensively on the ways that attempts at explainability on a tool and infrastructure level, which prioritises the social and technical practices informing development even when the code itself is obfuscated, can support critical engagement with massive models without undermining the core structures of CCS [David M. Berry, ‘The Explainability Turn’, Digital Humanities Quarterly 017, no. 2 (7 July 2023)]. There are ways forward for the discipline, and they involve social, digital, electrical, literary, economic, and political analyses. A host of expertises mandates a host of experts, which is why this call for papers highlights the centrality of conversation in the discipline.

References

‘About’. Accessed 23 July 2024. https://haccslab.com/about/.
Berry, David M. ‘The Explainability Turn’. Digital Humanities Quarterly 017, no. 2 (7 July 2023).
Manovich, Lev, and Arielli, Emanuele. Artificial Aesthetics: Generative AI, Art and Visual Media. Accessed 27 March 2024. http://manovich.net/index.php/projects/artificial-aesthetics.
Marino, Mark C. ‘Critical Code Studies’. Electronic Book Review, 4 December 2006. https://electronicbookreview.com/essay/critical-code-studies:
———. Critical Code Studies. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2020.
Montfort, Nick, Patsy Baudoin, John Bell, Ian Bogost, and Jeremy Douglass. 10 Print CHR#(205.5+RND(1)); : Goto 10. Illustrated edition. MIT Press, 2014.
Pressman, Jessica, Mark C. Marino, and Jeremy Douglass. Reading Project: A Collaborative Analysis of William Poundstone’s Project for Tachistoscope {Bottomless Pit}. Illustrated edition. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2015.
‘Travesty Generator’. Accessed 4 October 2023. https://verse.press/playlist/travesty-generator-1975099943243226060.

Guest Editors

Prof David Berry, University of Sussex, UK, [email protected]
Claire Carroll, University of Cambridge, UK, [email protected]
Orla Delaney - Correspondence, University of Cambridge, UK, [email protected]

Important dates

Abstract submission: 20th December 2024
Manuscript submission: 11th April 2025
Notification: 6th June 2025
Revised papers due: 5th September 2025

Contribution types

All submissions will be evaluated by our editorial team and double-blind peer reviewed. We welcome contributions in the following formats:
Original​ papers/Research (max 10k words): substantial papers underpinned by theoretical, methodological, conceptual, or philosophical foundations. A maximum of four co-authors.
Open Forum​ papers (max 8k words): research in progress, ideas paper. Papers may include strategic ideas, critical reviews, implications of current research, and works in progress. These papers target a broad audience i.e. academics, designers as well as the average reader. A maximum of four co-authors.
Book Review (1k words): a review of a contemporary text in the field.