Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
From the Editor-in-Chief
Published: 2022-06-30

The value of superdiverse human-technology entanglements

South-Eastern Finland University of Applied Sciences (XAMK), Finland
Lodz University of Technology, Poland


Human-technology relations are time and place related processes. Today, it is very common to describe human-technology interaction by stating that technology is ubiquitous and permeating all aspects of our everyday lives. This is often compounded by the fact that technological development has been rapid, and it seems to be accelerating. This speed makes the understanding the effects that technology has on us and our lives challenging or even difficult to realise. These kinds of notions have been repeated for decades already. The point here is not to criticize other scholars, but to argue that to reveal the value of quotidian human-technology entanglements we need to focus on the most mundane parts of our lives, scrutinizing something we do not necessary recall nor take notice of. This has been labelled as the “secret world of doing nothing” by ethnologists Billy Ehn and Orvar Löfgeren (2010) to describe the most mundane activities of our everyday lives.


Metrics Loading ...


  1. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway. Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press. DOI:
  2. Blommaert, J. (2013). Ethnography, Superdiversity and Linguistic Landscapes: Chronicles of Complexity. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. DOI:
  3. Boellstorff, T. (2008). Coming of Age in Second Life. An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human. Princeton University Press.
  4. van den Boomen, M., Lammes, S., Lehmann, A-S., & Raessens, J. (Eds.), (2009). Digital Material. Tracing New Media in Everyday life and Technology. Amsterdam University Press.
  5. Caliandro, A. (2018). Digital Methods for Ethnography: Analytical Concepts for Ethnographers Exploring Social Media Environments. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 47 (5), 551–578. doi:10.1177/0891241617702960 DOI:
  6. van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208. doi:10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776 DOI:
  7. Ehn, B., & Löfgren, O. (2010). The Secret World of Doing Nothing. University of California Press. DOI:
  8. Escobar, A. (1994). Welcome to Cyberia. Notes on the Anthropology of Cybercultre. Current Anthropology 35, (3), 211–231. DOI:
  9. Halse, J. (2013). Ethnographies of the possible. In: W. Gunn, T. Otto, R.C. Smith (Eds.), Design Anthropology: Theory and Practice (pp. 180–196). Bloomsbury Academic. DOI:
  10. Helsper, E.J. (2021). The Digital Disconnect. The Social Causes and Consequences of Digital Inequalities. SAGE. DOI:
  11. Hine, C. (2015). Ethnography for the Internet. Embedded, embodied and everyday. Routledge.
  12. Korjonen-Kuusipuro, K., Hujala, M., Pätäri, S., Bergman, JP, & Olkkonen, L. (2017). The emergence and diffusion of grassroots energy innovations: Building an interdisciplinary approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140(3), 1156–1164. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.047 DOI:
  13. Lehtiniemi, T. & Ruckenstein, M. (2019). The social imaginaries of data activism. Big Data & Society 6(1), 1–12. DOI:
  14. Lugosi, P. & Quinton, S. (2018). More-than-human netnography. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(3–4), 287–313. DOI:
  15. Miller, D., (2011). Tales from Facebook. Polity.
  16. Penley, C., & Ross, A. (Eds.) (1991). Technoculture. University of Minnesota Press.
  17. Pink, S. (2009). Doing Sensory Ethnography. SAGE. DOI:
  18. Pink, S. (2012). Situating Everyday Life: Practices and Places. SAGE. DOI:
  19. Richardson, K. (2015). An Anthropology of Robots and AI: Annihilation Anxiety and Machines. Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315736426 DOI:
  20. Ruckenstein, M. (2015). Uncovering Everyday Rhythms and Patterns: Food tracking and new forms of visibility and temporality in health care. Techno-Anthropology in Health Informatics: Methodologies for Improving Human-Technology Relations, 215, 28–40. doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-560-9-28
  21. Suopajärvi, T. (2017). Knowledge-making on ‘ageing in a smart city’ as socio-material power dynamics of participatory action research. Action Research, 15(4), 386–401. doi: 10.1177/1476750316655385 DOI:
  22. Varis, P. & Wang, X. (2011). Superdiversity on the Internet: A Case from China. Diversities, 13(2), 71–83.
  23. Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054. doi: 10.1080/01419870701599465 DOI:

How to Cite

Korjonen‐Kuusipuro, K., & Wojciechowski, A. (2022). The value of superdiverse human-technology entanglements. Human Technology, 18(1), 1–5.