[Air-L] Call for Papers: Colloquium "Rethinking the digital virtual as a regime of action, experience and relationship"

[Francesca Musiani]

Dear colleagues,
With apologies on behalf of Céline Borelle, I am sending an addendum to
yesterday's message, containing the submission guidelines, as she had not
included them in the translation of the call:

Submission conditions
This colloquium, scheduled for 28 January 2025 at the EHESS, is organized
in the framework of the "Digital detox" project led by Céline Borelle and
Elsa Forner and funded by DREES. It aims to bring together empirically
grounded contributions in one or more of these areas.
Proposals for papers should be one page in length (i.e. about 4,000
characters excluding references), include a title, and state the topic,
research methods, and main findings. They should be submitted by September
6, 2024 to the following addresses:
celine.borelle at orange.com
elsa.forner at gmail.com
annesylvie.pharabod at orange.com
Authors will receive a response by the end of September.

Scientific and Organizing Committee
Céline Borelle (SENSE, Orange and CEMS, EHESS-CNRS-INSERM)
Elsa Forner (CEMS, EHESS-CNRS-INSERM)
Anne-Sylvie Pharabod (SENSE, Orange)



On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 3:21 PM Francesca Musiani <
francesca.musiani at gmail.com> wrote:

> On behalf of Céline Borelle:
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> As part of the DREES-funded project "Digital Detox", we are pleased to
> organize a one-day colloquium on "Rethinking the digital virtual as a
> regime of action, experience and relationship".
>
> The event will take place on January 28, 2025 at the EHESS (Paris). It
> will open with a lecture by Lisa Messeri, Professor of Anthropology at Yale
> University, on her recently published book *In the land of the unreal.
> Virtual and Other Realities in Los Angeles*.
>
> Paper proposals must be submitted by September 6, 2024.
>
> Please find below the full call and submission details.
>
> We are looking forward to hearing from you!
>
> Céline Borelle for the Scientific and Organizing Committee
>
>
> ----
>
>
>
> *Rethinking the digital virtual as a regime of experience, action, and
> relationship *
>
> Céline Borelle (SENSE, Orange et CEMS, EHESS-CNRS-INSERM)
>
> Elsa Forner (CEMS, EHESS-CNRS-INSERM)
>
> Anne-Sylvie Pharabod (SENSE, Orange)
>
>
> According to Gilles Deleuze (1995), the virtual can be defined as that
> which is entirely real but not actual, that which does not exist in a
> concrete, tangible way. A concept first developed in philosophy, it began
> to be used in the field of computer technology in the late 1980s, notably
> through the term “virtual reality”, coined by engineer Jaron Lanier to
> describe interaction with a simulated environment (Woolley, 1992). Since
> then, it has expanded to become a means of investigating digital
> applications in general (Woolgar, 2002). In particular, the virtualization
> made possible by digital technologies has been the subject of anxious
> questioning. Digital uses have been seen by some as symptomatic of an
> attraction to the virtual that would take precedence over the real
> (Jauréguiberry, 2000; Turkle, 2011) or at least be able to compete with it,
> including the risk of a pathological social withdrawal of the individual
> (Piotti, 2021).
>
>
> This call, on the contrary, invites us to free ourselves from any
> normative goal in order to question the process of virtualization, which is
> constantly fed by technological developments and oriented towards the
> extension of the “immersive web paradigm” in its perceptual, narrative and
> social dimensions (Boullier, 2008). More specifically, it proposes an
> empirically grounded study of forms of digital virtualization, i.e. the
> dematerialized situations produced by the use of digital technologies. The
> aim is to explore the ways in which these virtual situations engage people
> and contexts, opening up possibilities of simulation, anonymity and
> distance.
>
> Without adopting a technical determinist perspective, since “the virtual
> does not depend on a technical apparatus to exist” (Proulx and Latzko-Toth,
> 2000, p. 103)1, this call aims to take a fresh look at the forms of
> virtualization made possible by digital technologies: from the
> mediatization of interpersonal exchanges on the Internet to acting in
> environments that are at least partially simulated thanks to what are now
> called "immersive" technologies (virtual reality, augmented reality, mixed
> reality), not to mention interactions with technical devices equipped with
> artificial intelligence (social robots, chatbots, online avatars).
>
>
> Human-machine interaction is a distinct field of research at the
> intersection of engineering, cognitive science, psychology, and ergonomics.
> Several social science traditions can also be mobilized to think about the
> simulation of human interactions with artificial beings (Borelle, 2018).
> This call therefore proposes to focus more specifically on activities
> performed by humans in virtual environments, drawing attention to
> situations in which bodily involvement is not obvious and can be
> questioned. This choice stems from the desire to work on the notion of the
> virtual by taking seriously the specificities of the system of engagement
> it authorizes.
>
> While the “material turn” in the social sciences has enabled digital
> infrastructures to be brought to light, the thrust of this appeal is to
> argue that digital technologies have also opened up the possibility of
> engaging with dematerialized situations. The salutary questioning of the
> idea that the digital world proceeds from a suspension of physical and
> social constraints has led to the abandonment of the notion of the virtual
> in most social science research. Our hypothesis is that this abandonment
> has been too radical, and that this notion can usefully characterize
> registers of action, orders of experience, and relational dynamics
> specific to the digital context.
>
>
> Therefore, this call proposes to reopen this notion by unfolding it as a
> regime of experience, action, and relation.
>
> Based on the synthesis proposed by Marcus Doel and David Clarke (1999),
> Serge Proulx and Guillaume Latzko-Toth (2000) distinguish three approaches
> to the relationship between the real and the virtual. In the first two
> approaches, which are based on normative thinking, the virtual is opposed
> to the real. On the optimistic side, the virtual is seen as a way of
> "solving" the imperfections of the real. It allows a wealth of
> possibilities to be explored. On the pessimistic side, the virtual is
> subordinated to the real in a logic of 'representation'. It is seen as a
> degraded copy of reality. Putting these two normative approaches in
> historical perspective, it seems that we have moved, in the words of Serge
> Proulx, from the "sublime" to the "ersatz". The currently dominant
> narrative of the history of digitization is characterized by this dynamic
> of disenchantment, from a founding techno-enthusiasm to a resurgence of
> critique (Bellon, 2019; Alexandre et al., 2022).
>
>
> The sociology of uses has developed by abandoning the normative
> perspective in favor of a descriptive approach, which aims to understand
> the virtual in its hybridization with the actual. This is the third
> approach identified by Serge Proulx and Guillaume Latzko-Toth (2000).
> Numerous studies have sought to challenge the opposition between the
> virtual and the real, to emphasize that digital experiences are framed by
> the same social mechanisms as experiences of co-presence, and to show the
> interactions between the deployment of online and offline activities. The
> topic of “virtual communities”, for example, has generated a wealth of
> literature along these lines, from the work of Howard Rheingold (1995) to
> work on the revitalization of a leisure activity such as knitting through
> its online sharing (Zabban, 2016).
>
>
> Sociology and anthropology have taken an interest in forms of online
> sociability, particularly in comparing the rules of online and offline
> interaction. Several studies have examined interactions in simulated
> virtual reality environments (Schroeder, 2002), in online forums
> (Beaudouin, 2016), in persistent games (Bainbridge, 2010), or in relation
> to an “imagined audience” on social networks (boyd and Ellison, 2007).
> These studies highlight the reconfiguration of forms of collaboration and
> conventions, between netiquette (Hambridge, 1995) and playful
> experimentation (Pharabod, 2021). The sociology of use has also focused on
> investigating forms of “online visibility” (Cardon, 2008), the ways in
> which we present ourselves on personal pages (Licoppe and Beaudouin, 2002),
> blogs (Paldacci, 2006), social networks (Georges, 2009), and online games
> (Auray, 2004), in particular by looking at the issue of the digital double.
>
>
>
> This work has thus invested the digital world as a new medium for
> constructing the social, the collective and the self. In doing so, the
> focus on the entanglement between online and offline activities has led
> sociology to gradually abandon the notion of the virtual. The normative
> disqualification of the virtual was compounded by the deconstruction of its
> analytical scope. In the end, sociology has done little to study the
> digital virtual as such, not only as a new medium but also as a new
> territory, a perspective outlined by geographical approaches to the spatial
> dimension of online phenomena (Perrat, 2020). The few works that have set
> out to study “the virtual for its own sake” (Boellstorff, 2008, on Second
> Life) focus on persistent games, “modes of inhabiting virtual worlds”
> (Lucas, 2018), the experience of a “techno-trance” (Triclot, 2016), or the
> virtual funeral as a “lived spiritual event” in World of Warcraft (Servais,
> 2012).
>
>
> The field left open has been taken over by other disciplines that have
> mobilized this notion of the virtual and taken on the task of studying it
> as such. Psychoanalysis has taken an interest in the metamorphoses of the
> ego in the virtual age (Godart, 2016; Alcon Andrades and Tordo, 2023).
> Experimental psychology has dealt with the assessment of cognitive skills,
> such as the ability to drive, using virtual simulation (Milleville-Pennel
> et al., 2010), or with the way people invest in their avatar, in particular
> by measuring the "Proteus effect", which refers to the fact that an
> individual's behavior in virtual worlds is modified by the characteristics
> of his or her avatar (Szolin et al., 2022). From a multidisciplinary
> perspective, a number of studies in the information and communication
> sciences extend this line of inquiry to the embodiment of avatars (Amato
> and Perény, 2013; Beaufils and Berland, 2022) and, more broadly, to the
> determinants of immersive experience in the use of digital devices (Bonfils
> and Durampart, 2013). Design has also taken an interest in the changes in
> perception under virtual conditions (Vial, 2013).
>
>
> The aim of this call is to take a sociological look at the digital virtual
> as a mode of action, experience, and relationship. The aim is to take a
> fresh look at the relationship between the real and the virtual, as well as
> other pairs of terms that are often embedded in the analysis of their
> articulation: real/false, simulated/authentic, fictitious/effective. The
> results of sociological studies that have documented and analyzed
> arrangements with reality through forms of fiction, trickery or even lies
> (see, for example, Hennion and Vidal-Naquet, 2012, on the ethics of care)
> could usefully be put to the test in an investigation of virtual
> situations. This call for papers aims to bring together contributions that
> investigate the design, engagement, and regulation of virtual situations.
> As other disciplines place great emphasis on the perceptual dimension of
> engagement, especially in immersive situations, we propose to explore other
> dimensions as well: spatiality, temporality issues, modulations of social
> sanctions, contextual plasticity, and reduction of material costs.
>
>
> This call for proposals is structured around three axes, organized around
> different modalities of articulation between the real and the virtual.
>
> 1. Virtual training
>
> This axis concerns situations in which people train to act, to make a
> gesture, to forge or perfect a way of doing things, in virtual
> environments. These situations are characterized by challenging the
> boundary between the real and the virtual by focusing on the transposition
> of the virtual to the non-virtual. Here, virtual simulation is set up as a
> means, with the horizon of action located outside the virtual. The
> challenge is to consider the specificities of “technical repetition” in the
> Goffmanian sense (Goffman, 1991) in a digital environment. Virtual training
> involves suspending the test of action in a physical environment, often a
> collective one. We can think of the design of virtual reality exposure
> therapy (TERV) to treat military post-traumatic stress syndrome (Brandt,
> 2013), and the uses of TERV to treat phobias (Klein and Borelle, 2019;
> Forner , 2020) and addictions (Borelle and Forner, 2024); the use of
> virtual reality to acquire soft skills in the context of training (the art
> of the pitch, for example, see Faustin Barbe's thesis in progress) or job
> search (see the interview training tool used by Pôle emploi); learning
> technical gestures in the medical context (the use of augmented reality in
> surgery), in the fields of design and architecture (modeling spaces in
> virtual reality), or even in the military (the use of simulators to train
> fighter pilots, Dubey and Moricot, 2016); raising awareness of personal
> attacks through experiences from different points of view, in the justice
> system (use of virtual reality in cases of domestic violence) and in the
> fight against gender discrimination, ordinary sexism and sexual harassment
> (see the start-up Reverto, specialized in VR tools dedicated to human
> rights).
>
> 2. Experimenting the virtual
>
> This axis brings together situations in which the virtual is the horizon
> for action. The virtual is invested for its own sake, as an end in itself.
> The challenge is to analyze the way in which people play with the
> boundaries between the virtual and the real, maintaining the vagueness in
> order to experience its richness. In the field of beliefs, we can think of
> digital religious practices (Campbell and Evolvi, 2019) or the reception of
> online clairvoyance (Gilliotte and Guittet, 2023). In terms of affective
> and sexual relationships, we can think of the consumption of online
> pornography (Pailler and Vöros, 2017) or camsex (Béliard et al., 2021)
> and pairing with avatars (Giard, 2021). In the realm of cultural and
> leisure practices, we can think of online museum visits (Bernon, 2023),
> virtual tourism, the experience of a symphony concert in augmented reality
> (Laurent, 2023), and the use of the Pokemon Go application (Berry and
> Vansyngel, 2021). In the world of consumption, we can think of visiting an
> apartment in virtual reality (Ivanov and Rejeb, 2017) or the shopping
> experience in virtual reality (Bettaieb, 2018). In terms of the
> relationships that the living have with the dead, we can think of online
> spiritualism (Georges, 2013), practices that consist of keeping the
> deceased virtually alive (Julliard and Quemener, 2018), and the digital
> experience of mourning one's child through "mamanges" and "papanges"
> (Ruchon, 2015). In the field of mental health, we can think of therapy
> experiments with avatars or online chatbots (the first ELIZA chatbot,
> created by Joseph Weizenbaum in 1966, was designed to simulate a Rogerian
> psychotherapist).
>
> 3. Framing the virtual
>
> This axis covers the activities involved in framing the virtual, from its
> design to its institutional regulation. We can look at how designers think
> about virtual situations, how their practices have changed with
> technological developments (see, for example, the history of virtual
> reality headsets outlined by Michaud, 2017), how they envisage the
> transposition of the real to the virtual and vice versa, how they
> concretely deal with issues such as imitation2, realism and
> verisimilitude (Suchman, 2016), or immersion, incarnation and digital
> doubling (Messeri, 2024), and how these practices give rise to debates. We
> can also interrogate the activities involved in regulating the boundaries
> between the virtual and the real, and in framing engagement in virtual
> activities and relationships, especially in situations where the
> consequences of the virtual on the real are the subject of both a
> problematization and a construction of modes of reparation. We might think
> of the pathologization of cyber-addiction (see Valentin Rio's dissertation
> in progress), the proliferation of devices to control the amount of time
> spent on screens, or the emergence of expertise on the damage done to
> children by screens. We could also think of the treatment of virtual
> attacks, the judicialization of cases of virtual rape and the development
> of psychological expertise to support this process, the characterization of
> "grazing" (Adou, 2022), the police, judicial and therapeutic management of
> cyberbullying (Blaya, 2011), or the regulation of online hate speech
> (Castex et al., 2021).
>
>
> *References *
>
> Adou Ettien Franck-Stéphane, 2022, « Les *brouteurs *d’Abidjan », *RESET *[En
> ligne], vol. 11. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/reset/4038
>
> Alcon Andrades Barbara et Tordo Frédéric, 2023, « Jeu de rôle en ligne :
> un espace de narrativité inscrit dans la mise en scène de soi et de la
> famille », *L'Évolution Psychiatrique, *vol. 88, n°3, p. 443-457.
>
> Amato Etienne Armand et Perény Etienne, 2013, *Les avatars jouables des
> mondes numériques. Théories, terrains et témoignages de pratiques
> interactives*, Paris, Hermès Science Publishing.
>
> Alexandre Olivier, Jean-Samuel Beuscart et Sébastien Broca, 2022, « Une
> sociohistoire des critiques numériques », *Réseaux*, vol. 231, n°1, p.
> 9-37.
>
> Auray Nicolas, 2004, « Sosie et avatars dans les jeux électroniques »,
> Colloque Icône-Image « L’image sosie : l’original et son double ».
>
> Bainbridge Williams S., 2010, *Online Worlds: Convergence of the Real and
> the Virtual*, Springer.
>
> Beaudouin Valérie, 2016, « Forums en ligne : des espaces de co-production
> de la connaissance et du lien social », In Martin O. (dir.), *L'ordinaire
> d'internet. Le web dans nos pratiques et relations sociales*, Paris,
> Armand Colin, p. 203-225.
>
> Beaufils Kevin et Berland Alexis, 2022, « L’incarnation avatariale : de la
> représentation cognitive de soi à l’appropriation corporelle numérique », *Hybrid
> *[En ligne], vol. 9. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/hybrid/2643
>
> Becker Joffrey, 2020, « Concevoir des machines anthropomorphes :
> Ethnographie des pratiques de conception en robotique sociale », *Réseaux,
> *vol. 220-221, n°2-3, p. 223-251
>
> Bernon Marie-Laure, 2023, « Les publics de musées sur internet : une
> typologie de visiteurs par leurs profils et usages des expositions en ligne
> », *Revue française des sciences de l’information et de la communication *[En
> ligne], vol. 27. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rfsic/1477
>
> Bettaieb Ghada, 2018, « Importance des facteurs d'accès dans l'expérience
> d'immersion et de présence dans un nouvel environnement commercial en ligne
> », Thèse en sciences de gestion, Université de Lille.
>
> Blaya Catherine, 2011, « Cyberviolence et cyberharcèlement : approches
> sociologiques », *La nouvelle revue de l'adaptation et de la
> scolarisation*, vol. 53, n°1, p. 47-65.
>
> Bonfils Philippe et Durampart Michel, 2013, « Environnements immersifs et
> dispositifs numériques : études expérimentales et approches distanciées », *ESSACHESS
> *[En ligne], vol. 6. URL : https://ssrn.com/abstract=2314925
>
> Bellon Anne, 2019, « Qu’est devenue l’utopie d’Internet ? », *Revue
> Projet*, vol. 371, n°4, p. 6-11.
>
> Béliard Anne-Sophie, Brasseur Pierre et Finez Jean, 2021, « Découvrir,
> s’investir, s’arrêter - Trajectoires de spectateurs sur les plateformes de
> sexcamming », Colloque « Classes sociales et sexualité », Lyon.
>
> Berry Vincent et Vansyngel Samuel, « Ce que le numérique fait aux
> promenades : publics, usages et pratiques ordinaires de Pokémon Go », In
> Martin O. (dir.), *Les liens sociaux numériques*, Paris, Armand Colin, p.
> 121-141.
>
> Boellstorff Tom, 2008, *Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist
> Explores the Virtually Human*, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
>
> Boullier Dominique, 2008, « Le Web immersif », *Quaderni*, n°66, p. 67-80.
>
>
> Borelle Céline, 2018, « Sortir du débat ontologique. Éléments pour une
> sociologie pragmatique des interactions entre humains et agents artificiels
> intelligents », *Réseaux*, vol. 36, n°212, p. 206-231.
>
> Borelle Céline et Forner Elsa, 2024, “Reality check. The issue of social
> plausibility in virtual reality therapy with addiction patients”, *Social
> Science & Medicine*, vol. 344.
>
> boyd danah et Ellison Nicole B., 2007, “Social network sites: Definition,
> history, and scholarship”, *Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication*,
> vol. 13, n°1, p. 210–230.
>
> Brandt Marisa R., 2013, *War, Trauma, and Technologies of the Self: The
> Making of Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy*, PHD Thesis in Philosophy, UC
> San Diego.
>
> Campbell Heidi et Evolvi Guilia, 2019, “Contextualizing current digital
> religion research on emerging technologies”, *Human Behavior and Emerging
> Technologies*, vol. 2, n°1, p. 5–17.
>
> Cardon Dominique, 2008, « Le design de la visibilité. Un essai de
> cartographie du web 2.0 », *Réseaux*, vol. 152, n°6, p. 93-137.
>
> Castex Lucien, Favro Karine et Zolynski Célia, 2021, « La lutte contre la
> haine en ligne : de l'appel du 18 juin au discours de la méthode ». *Recueil
> Dalloz*, vol. 5, p. 246.
>
> Deleuze Gilles, 1995, « L’actuel et le virtuel », *Dialogues*, Paris,
> Flammarion.
>
> Doel Marcus A. et David B. Clarke (1999), « Virtual Worlds. Simulation,
> Suppletion, S(ed)uction and
>
> Simulacra», In Crang M. (dir.), *Virtual Geographies. Bodies, Space and
> Relations*, Londres, Routledge, p. 261-283.
>
> Forner-Ordioni Elsa, 2023, “Virtual Reality Therapy in France: A
> Therapeutic Innovation Between Technology and Care”, *Culture, Medicine
> and Psychiatry*, vol. 47.
>
> Georges Fanny, 2009, « Représentation de soi et identité numérique. Une
> approche sémiotique et quantitative de l'emprise culturelle du web 2.0 »,
> Réseaux, vol. 154, n°2, p. 165-193.
>
> Georges, Fanny, 2013, « Le spiritisme en ligne. *La communication
> numérique avec l'au-delà *», *Les Cahiers du numérique*, vol. 9, n°3-4,
> p. 211-240.
>
> Giard Agnès, 2021, « Peut-on s’éprendre de tout ? », *Terrain *[En
> ligne], vol. 75. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/terrain/21985
>
> Gilliotte Quentin et Guittet Emmanuelle, 2023, « La production
> individuelle et collective des bonnes pratiques dans une activité non
> encadrée. Étude de cas d’un conflit entre praticien·nes de la cartomancie
> en ligne », Sociologies pratiques, vol. 46, n°1, p. 31-41.
>
> Godart Elsa, 2016, *Je selfie donc je suis*, Paris, Albin Michel.
>
> Goffman Erving, 1991, *Les cadres de l’expérience*, Paris, Editions de
> Minuit.
>
> Hambridge Sally, *Netiquette guidelines*,
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1855
>
> Hennion Antoine et Vidal-Naquet Pierre (dir.), 2012, *Une ethnographie de
> la relation d’aide : de la ruse à la fiction, ou comment concilier
> protection et autonomie*, Rapport pour la MiRe (DREES).
>
> Ivanov Ivan et Rejeb Hanene, 2017, « Des dispositifs mobiles à la réalité
> virtuelle : le projet immersif Immo3D au service du réseau d’agences
> immobilières MLS », *Communication et organisation*, vol. 52, p. 165-180.
>
> Jauréguiberry Francis, 2000, « Le moi, le soi et Internet », *Sociologie
> et sociétés*, vol. 32, n°2, p. 136–152.
>
> Julliard Virginie et Quemener Nelly, 2018, « Garder les morts vivants.
> Dispositifs, pratiques, hommages », *Réseaux*, vol. 210, n°4, p. 9-20.
>
> Klein Nicolas et Borelle Céline, 2019, « Réalité virtuelle et santé
> mentale. La fin d’un art de faire ? », *Revue d'anthropologie des
> connaissances*, vol. 13, n°2, p. 613-639.
>
> Laurent Emma, 2023, « Étude comparée des expériences de concerts
> symphoniques traditionnels et d’un concert symphonique en réalité augmentée
> : une question de différenciations sociales ? », *Colloque *« Culture en
> régime numérique : questionner les pratiques, catégories et méthodes »,
> Paris/Aubervilliers.
>
> Licoppe Christian et Beaudouin Valérie, 2002, « La construction
> électronique du social : les sites personnels. L'exemple de la musique »,
> *Réseaux*, vol. 116, no6, p. 53-96.
>
> Lucas Jean-François, 2018, « Les figures de l’habitant dans les mondes
> virtuels », *Sciences du jeu *[En ligne], n°10. URL :
> http://journals.openedition.org/sdj/1353
>
> Messeri Lisa, 2024, *In the land of the unreal. Virtual and other
> realities in Los Angeles*, Duke University Press.
>
> Michaud Thomas, 2017, « De la science-fiction à l’innovation
> technoscientifique : le cas des casques de réalité virtuelle »,
> *Innovations*, vol. 52, n°1, p. 43-61.
>
> Milleville-Pennel Isabelle et al., 2010, “Consequences of cognitive
> impairments following traumatic brain injury: Pilot study on visual
> exploration while driving”, *Brain Injury*, vol. 24, n°4, p. 678–691.
>
> Dubey Gérard et Moricot Caroline, 2016, *Dans la peau d'un pilote de
> chasse. Le spleen de l'homme-machine, *Paris, PUF.
>
> Pailler Fred et Vörös Florian, 2017, « Des effets aux affects :
> médiations, pouvoir et navigation sexuelle en ligne », *Revue française
> des sciences de l’information et de la communication *[En ligne], vol.
> 11. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rfsic/2873
>
> Paldacci Matthieu, 2006, « Le blogueur à l'épreuve de son blog »,
> *Réseaux*, vol. 138, n°4, p. 73-107.
>
> Perrat Jean-François, 2020, « Notions en débat. Le virtuel et le réel dans
> la géographie du numérique », *Géoconfluences *[En ligne]. URL:
> https://geoconfluences.ens-lyon.fr/informations-scientifiques/a-la-une/notion-a-la-une/virtuel-reel
>
>
> Pharabod Anne-Sylvie, 2021, « Sortir avec des inconnus grâce à internet :
> une manière de se faire des amis ? », In Martin O. (dir.), *Les liens
> sociaux numériques*, Paris, Armand Colin, p. 143-158.
>
> Piotti Antonio, 2021, « Corps imaginaire et corps réel : le virtuel et le
> retrait social », In Vellut N. (dir.), *Hikikomori. Une expérience de *confinement,
> Rennes, Presses de l’EHESP, p. 63-71.
>
> Proulx Serge et Latzko-Toth Guillaume, 2000, « La virtualité comme
> catégorie pour penser le social : l’usage de la notion de communauté
> virtuelle », *Sociologie et sociétés*, vol. 32, n°2, p. 99-122.
>
> Rheingold Howard, 1995, *Les communautés virtuelles *(trad. Lionel
> Lumbroso), Paris, Addison-Wesley.
>
> Ruchon Catherine, 2015, « Les maternités douloureuses dans les discours
> numériques », *Communication & langages*, vol. 186, n°4, p. 117-132.
>
> Schroeder Ralph, 2002, “Social Interaction in Virtual Environments: Key
> Issues, Common Themes, and a Framework for Research”, In Schroeder R.
> (ed.), *The Social Life of Avatars. Computer Supported Cooperative Work*,
> Londres, Springer.
>
> Servais Olivier, 2012, « Autour des funérailles dans World of Warcraft.
> Ethnographie entre religion et mondes virtuels », In Delville J.P. (dir.), *Mutations
> des religions et identités religieuses*, Mame-Desclée, p. 231-252.
>
> Suchman Lucy, 2016, “Confinguring the Other: Sensing war through immersive
> simulation”, *Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience*, vol. *2*, n° 1,
> p. 1-36.
>
> Szolin Kim et al., 2023, “Exploring the user-avatar relationship in
> videogames: A systematic review of the Proteus effect”, *Human–Computer
> Interaction*, vol. 38, n°5-6, p. 374–399.
>
> Triclot Mathieu, 2016, « Les jeux vidéo comme instruments de techno-transe
> », *Social Compass*, vol. 63, n°3, p. 335–353.
>
> Turkle Sherry, 2011, *Alone Together*, New York, Basic Books.
>
> Vial Stéphane, 2013, *L’être et l’écran. Comment le numérique change la
> perception*, Paris, PUF.
>
> Woolley Benjamin, 1992, *Virtual Worlds. A Journey in Hype and
> Hyperreality*, Oxford, Blackwell.
>
> Woolgar Steve, 2002, *Virtual Society? Technology, Cyberbole, Reality*,
> Oxford, Oxford University Press.
>
> Zabban Vinciane, 2016, « Tricoter en public. Internet et le « *coming out
> *» de la tricoteuse », In Martin Olivier (dir.), *L'ordinaire d'internet.
> Le web dans nos pratiques et relations *sociales, Paris, Armand Colin, p.
> 37-57.
>
>
>
>

-- 
Francesca Musiani, Ph.D.

Chargée de recherche HDR | Associate Research Professor, CNRS
<http://www.cnrs.fr>
Directrice adjointe | Deputy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
<https://cis.cnrs.fr> (UPR 2000 & GDR 2091 CNRS)
Chercheuse associée | Associate Researcher, i3-CSI
<http://www.csi.ensmp.fr/>, MINES ParisTech
Global Fellow, Internet Governance Lab <https://internetgovernancelab.org>,
American University

I'm involved in projects: IAction
<https://prairie-institute.fr/lia-au-service-de-laction-publique-imaginaires-sociotechniques-et-dispositifs-de-la-decision-algorithmique/>
|
SoBigData++ <http://www.sobigdata.eu> | TIGre
<https://netgouv.hypotheses.org/projet-technologie-internet-et-gouvernance-tigre-dim-stcn>
I help co-editing: Internet Policy Review <https://policyreview.info> |
RESET <https://journals.openedition.org/reset/>
I'm an advisor for: ISOC France <https://www.isoc.fr> | ANSSI
<https://www.ssi.gouv.fr/agence/rayonnement-scientifique/conseil-scientifique-des-liens-resserres-avec-le-monde-academique/>

I'm here on the Web <https://cis.cnrs.fr/francesca-musiani/>, including my
publications.