IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Summer 2014 - 76

All CI-users were Dutch, while
the rFID implantees came from
a variety of countries: Australia
(1), Sweden (1), the u.S. (5), and
the u.K (1). The interviews with
rFID implantees were conducted
in English and the interviews with
CI-users were conducted in Dutch.
The data was analyzed in its original language but the first author
translated the quotes used in this
article from Dutch. All respondents
with an rFID tag were male.
As other researchers have advocated [25], [26], we let participants
choose the form of the interview
(e.g., face-to-face, Skype, email) in
order to empower them and make
them feel as comfortable as possible. In some cases, it was impossible to have face-to-face interviews
due to the distances involved; some
CI users are unable to have phone
or Skype conversations. In total

concerns with rFID implants, the
following topics were discussed:
getting familiar with implants;
reasons, advantages, and disadvantages; daily life; the body; surroundings; and identity. The topic
of human enhancements was not
originally included in the topic
list, but came out spontaneously
in the first interviews with rFID
implantees and one CI user. We
therefore included this topic in
all interviews.
After conducting and transcribing the interviews, the answers
were placed in a data matrix. relevant codes were assigned in the
transcript. The grouping of these
codes formed the basis of a thematic
analysis. We constantly compared
the answers within their group
and across the different groups.
The observed themes for rFID
users were: combatting common

"So, for me being able to
just put my hand up there,
and have it scanned reliably
every time, is key."
one phone interview, three Skype
interviews, seven email interviews,
one synchronous text-based interview, and nine face-to-face interviews were conducted.
rather than considering one
type of interview to be superior to
another, the different types have
their own merits. The asynchronous
email interview increased reflexivity for both the respondents and the
interviewer [27]. On the other hand,
synchronous communication gives
rise to more spontaneous answers.
Similar to James and Busher [27]
we conducted the email interviews
over a longer period, with each
email consisting of several questions; asking supplementary questions after receiving the answers
created an ongoing dialogue.
Based on the domestication literature and the literature focusing on
76

misunderstandings, convenience,
being upgraded/having a special
skill, and the body as modifiable.
For CI users, the themes included
belonging to society, technology as
a tool, and a focus on its use rather
than the technological details of
the implant. These themes came
up in specific combinations that we
analyzed as interpretative repertoires giving meaning to otherwise
discontinuous experiences. Those
are: the repertoire of technology as
a tool to facilitate everyday chores
and help with practical problems;
the repertoire of the normal self
in which technology is seen as
means to become a person like
anyone else; and the repertoire of
the enhanced self in which technology is used, in contrast, to become
someone special. In addition, we
will show how these repertories are

connected to the everyday contexts
of implantees by providing a mini
biography of a rFID implantee.

Technology as a Tool
Both CI and rFID users talk about
their implants as being merely a
helpful tool. Before implantation,
the CI users were either deaf or
had severe problems with hearing.
respondents chose a CI because
hearing aids were not sufficient anymore; the CI was their last chance
to hear again. They perceive the CI
as an aid, similar to hearing aids,
but technically more advanced,
although they don't know in detail
how the technology works. Some
respondents were anxious about
having a chip inserted inside their
head because of the risks of having
surgery. One respondent thought it
to have something in the body that
does not belong there, although
she was not thinking about this any
longer. The implant makes life, and
hearing in particular, less exhausting for our respondents. After
implantation, all of the CI implantees could discern sounds, but some
still depend on lip reading, while
others rely completely on their CIs.
Nevertheless, CIs do not work as
well as "normal ears," and all but
one of our users continue to identify themselves as hard of hearing.
The respondents emphasize that
their CI is an aid that helps them
overcome difficulty hearing. Edith
says, for instance:
I don't see it myself as something strange or something.
It's an aid what you...just
like you need shoes to walk
on, and a coat against the
cold, and this is to hear.
(Edith, CI)
The rFID respondents also
talked about the implant in their
hand as a tool that made life easier,
especially in terms of accessing
devices and spaces, including opening doors and opening and starting
cars. In contrast to the CI users, the

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

SuMMEr 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Summer 2014