Prathamesh Antarkar
Image Credits: Prathamesh Antarkar
This article is part of a special series titled “Productive Disruptions.” The series features contributions from Graduate Students and Early Career Researchers in Science and Technology Studies (STS), who reflect on how they enter and engage with the field through theory, methodology, and ethnographic practice while being “formally” enrolled in or affiliated with other disciplines such as Sociology, International Relations, and more. Serving as an introduction to the upcoming roundtable “Productive Disruptions,” this series leads into the session scheduled for 16 December 2025 at the STS-IN Conference, hosted at O.P. Jindal University, Delhi NCR.
I am trained in the field of Electrical Engineering. During and after my Master’s, I had opportunities to work in the domain of ‘electricity for irrigation,’ where I interacted with farmers about the different pumps they use. My fieldwork during the Master’s program included measurements of voltage and current at the pumps of the farmers and at the distribution transformers, followed by modelling the electricity network to suggest improvements. During the interactions, some of the farmers expressed their frustrations with low voltage in Marathi, saying, “Light warunch kami aste,” (light (electricity) is low from the upper end). The farmers were hinting at the low voltage at the distribution transformer that resulted in low voltage across all the connected pumps.
I was at the intersection, where, on one side, I was examining the agricultural electricity supply distribution system from a technical perspective. For me, the system includes high-tension lines, distribution transformers, low-tension lines, and agricultural pumps. However, on the other side, for the farmer, anything beyond the pump was somewhere “upper.” While listening to concerns about low voltage but finding, meter in hand, that the numbers didn’t support those claims, I felt as if I were standing between two different worlds: the “objective” one revealed by measurement, and the constructed one described by the farmers. Their perspectives shaped how they used electricity and operated their pumps, and that couldn’t be overlooked.
The experiences in the field led me to believe that discussions about electricity for irrigation cannot be limited to the description of its technical components. I experienced that the electricity distribution system is equally social as it is technical, and cannot be analysed completely just by considering only the technical aspects of the system. The perspectives of farmers, their choices regarding technologies, and their practices are deeply embedded in their social contexts. The social context of the various social groups also needs to be taken into consideration.
With a motivation to explore the domain further, I joined a PhD program. With the growing inclination towards clean and green energy, solar pumps are the new and emerging technology in the domain. I am entering the field of STS with a broad research question to understand how the perspectives of different relevant social groups influence the use of solar pumps in India. I explore the relationship between electricity for irrigation, agriculture, and development based on the concept of ‘interpretative flexibility,’ considering the perspectives and experiences of various social groups associated with it, such as farmers, experts, engineers, government officers, and local traders.
My transition was not only about the method of data collection but also about the type of research. My domain, being ‘electricity for irrigation’, is the same; I am still interacting with farmers and electrical engineers, but I am looking at the entire field of inquiry through a completely different perspective. I am unlearning the reliance on objective technical details and learning to accommodate the fluid and constructed realities of the field. In this transition, as I explore what STS is and is not, in my experience, it offers me an opportunity to consider the complexity of the world by acknowledging the simultaneous existence of multiple perspectives. In this process, I gradually acknowledge that my research is and will be about “understanding people using technology as a tool.”
With the meters in my hand, it was impulsive for me to “educate” the farmers about the voltage not being low. However, through STS, I am learning to consider the agencies of different social groups symmetrically, recognising them as equally important. I observe that, regardless of the measured value, the perspective of the farmer holds equal significance when discussing voltages and currents. It allowed me to question the claimed supremacy of technical experts’ knowledge through the lived experiences of users.
Through my PhD fieldwork, as I attempt to understand the reasons farmers use solar pumps, I observe that their adoption is a socio-technical process that impacts both the social and technical spheres, with a new set of interactions within and among social groups. As I observe the changing irrigation practices of farmers with the introduction of solar pumps, I note how the perspectives of the farmers about solar pumps co-produce both solar pumps and irrigation practices. The concepts in STS help me to study the perspectives of users, the farmers, and to account for the fact that they are not passive recipients of the technology but actively shape the technology. STS reveals that these practices are deeply embedded in their social context. As I observe the various practices of farmers regarding solar pumps, I notice that these practices also shape the solar pump, making it a distinct object within its corresponding contexts, which hints at its ontological multiplicities. [1]
With this early and limited exposure to STS, I believe that STS has broadened my understanding of the relationship between “the technical” and “the social.” The transition into STS, the productive disruption as it can be called, is transforming me as a person, making me aware of the multiple dimensions, perspectives, social groups and thus the co-existence of multiple worlds. I am learning how the task of STS is to uncover the seemingly obvious stories of the people and explore them through the lens of technology.
[1] Ontological multiplicity refers to the interplay between different understandings of what things exist and how those things interact with each other.
Prathamesh Antarkar is a doctoral candidate at the Centre for Technology Alternatives for Rural Areas (C-TARA) at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay, India. He is trained in Electrical Engineering. During and after his post-graduation, he worked for three years in the field of electricity for irrigation, engaging directly with farmers and discussing the technologies used in that context. His time in the field revealed that the electricity distribution system is as social as it is technical, and cannot be understood through technical analysis alone. Motivated to explore this complexity, he joined a PhD program and is now entering STS with a broad research question: how solar pumps are reshaping irrigation practices among farmers in Maharashtra.
